House of Commons Hansard #347 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was economy.

Topics

Budget Implementation Act, 2018 No. 2Government Orders

11:30 a.m.

Conservative

Alupa Clarke Conservative Beauport—Limoilou, QC

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Louis-Hébert for his speech.

At the beginning of his speech he talked about historic investments in infrastructure. Sadly, it is historic in theory only, since we have seen just $9.3 billion of the $187 billion announced a few years ago.

Between 2010 and 2015, the Conservative government not only released the $80 billion from our economic action plan, but we also spent it in real time. Many observers even talked about how effective the plan was, since the money was getting out. I just wanted to set the record straight.

I would also like to ask my hon. colleague when the government plans to balance the budget. He did not mention that in his speech. One of the Liberal government's key promises in 2015 was to balance the budget by 2020. Promises must be kept if we want to reduce cynicism among Canadians instead of fuelling it. This is important to our democracy, and yet, it is clear that the government has shelved this promise and that it has absolutely no intention of keeping it.

When will the government balance the budget?

Budget Implementation Act, 2018 No. 2Government Orders

11:35 a.m.

Liberal

Joël Lightbound Liberal Louis-Hébert, QC

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou, whose riding is next to mine.

When it comes to the previous government's plan to stimulate the economy, the opposition parties had to really press the government for that plan because the economy was in need of a kick-start.

Since the hon. member brought up the past, I am pleased to remind him that Canada weathered the 2008 economic crisis so well in large part because, a bit further back in time, Paul Martin, the then finance minister, refused to deregulate our financial industry, which is what he was being asked to do by the opposition leader at the time, Stephen Harper, who was prime minister in 2015. Mr. Harper was quite adamant that we follow the Americans and deregulate our financial industry. That is why Canada was successful in weathering this economic crisis that hit every country in the world in 2008.

As far as the infrastructure plan is concerned, it is true that it is historic. It is a $180-billion investment over 12 years. To give my colleague an idea of the numbers, it includes $5.2 billion just for public transit in Quebec. He knows that, in his region, which is mine as well, there is a fantastic keystone project under way to build a tramway in Quebec City. This project was made possible through the federal government's ambitious plan for infrastructure and public transit.

The federal government is helping Quebec City get top-notch public transit because it is one of our government's top priorities and we took the necessary measures to get it done. I can say that there are many people in Quebec City and in my colleague's riding who are quite pleased with this.

Budget Implementation Act, 2018 No. 2Government Orders

11:35 a.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC

Madam Speaker, I simply do not share the hon. member's rose-coloured point of view, when Canadians are going through a profound family-debt crisis, the worst in the OCD among all industrialized countries. Canadians have more family debt than any other industrialized country in the world. At the same time, in various parts of the country, we are experiencing the worst housing crisis we have ever seen. I can tell colleagues, coming from the Lower Mainland of British Columbia, how profound it is that the federal government is refusing to take any action in any meaningful way in terms of building new housing. The government will, perhaps, if the Liberals are re-elected, they say, but they are not willing to take any action now.

My question is related to this monstrosity. This is the largest omnibus legislation in Canadian history, despite the fact that the Liberals always decried this prior to coming to power. I have been asking all week a very simple question. It is very germane, of course. I have been asking departmental officials how many clauses and subclauses exist in this massive omnibus bill. It is very germane, because if we have 5,000 clauses, with the Liberals bulldozing through this legislation, we may be looking at nine seconds per consideration of each subclause, and nine seconds at committee as well.

My simple question is this, and I have asked it repeatedly. How many clauses and subclauses are in this massive omnibus legislation?

Budget Implementation Act, 2018 No. 2Government Orders

11:35 a.m.

Liberal

Joël Lightbound Liberal Louis-Hébert, QC

Madam Speaker, I will start by addressing the first part of my colleague's question, which had to do with household debt. I would encourage him to read the study the OECD published this summer, which shows that families in Canada are taxed less than in any other G7 country and that, by this time next year, they will have $2,000 more in their pockets than they had under the previous government. That is because of steps our government has taken, some of which are in this bill. Our government cut taxes for the middle class. We made the Canada child benefit more generous and more progressive. That is having a major impact on Canadian families because it means they have more money left at the end of the month to buy the things families need.

In that respect, I think anyone who compares our record of the past three years to that of the previous government, which sent cheques to millionaires and increased inequality in this country, will see that the Conservative Party has precious little to teach us. I think the NDP should be applauding these indisputably progressive measures.

With respect to the size of the bill, I would note that a substantial portion of it is the proactive pay equity act, which is informed by best practices in the area of pay equity, such as those in Quebec. The NDP—

Budget Implementation Act, 2018 No. 2Government Orders

11:40 a.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

I have to let other members ask questions.

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

Budget Implementation Act, 2018 No. 2Government Orders

11:40 a.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the parliamentary secretary for engaging in this very important debate and highlighting how important this particular budget is. It addresses a number of key issues, such as pay equity.

Equally important is what the parliamentary secretary brought up toward the end, and that is putting a price on pollution. He talked about how important this is. Climate change is the issue of our day. We have a chance to fix this, and we are the only generation that will be able to fix it.

I wonder if the parliamentary secretary can comment on how significant he sees this part of the bill and what it means if we do not do this and if we do not implement this price on pollution today.

Budget Implementation Act, 2018 No. 2Government Orders

11:40 a.m.

Liberal

Joël Lightbound Liberal Louis-Hébert, QC

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his question. I believe that scientists around the world agree on the importance of taking action on climate change. I think that is where the difference in vision lies. We are working to reduce inequality, while the previous Conservative government was working to increase it.

If we fail to address the climate challenges our country is facing, it will increase intergenerational inequality. Future generations will be the ones that pay the price. I find it irresponsible that the official opposition does not have a plan to deal with climate change. What is more, it is resorting to obstruction tactics. The Conservatives criticize without ever making any suggestions after they failed to take action for 10 years. It is truly astounding. I think that Canadians will judge them for their irresponsible attitude toward climate change.

Budget Implementation Act, 2018 No. 2Government Orders

11:40 a.m.

Conservative

Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC

Madam Speaker, I find it humorous when we stand in this House and have big city MPs telling us that Canadians are doing far better under their administration than under previous governments and that the carbon tax is not going to punish those living in rural communities.

I challenge that. I have said this time and time again. I challenge our colleagues from big cities to come to my riding, or to go to any rural Canadian riding, to see how the government's policies are failing rural Canadians.

It was Justin Trudeau who promised to have the most open and transparent government. He also promised to be able to—

Budget Implementation Act, 2018 No. 2Government Orders

11:40 a.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

I have to remind the member that he cannot refer to anyone by name in the House, whether it is the Prime Minister or other members. I would ask him to ask the question because time is of the essence.

Budget Implementation Act, 2018 No. 2Government Orders

11:40 a.m.

Conservative

Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC

Madam Speaker, their very own finance department is telling Canadians that the budget will not be balanced until the year 2045. We know the carbon tax is going to punish everyday Canadians, and yet—

Madam Speaker, I am getting to the point.

Budget Implementation Act, 2018 No. 2Government Orders

11:40 a.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

You have to ask the question.

Budget Implementation Act, 2018 No. 2Government Orders

11:40 a.m.

Conservative

Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC

Madam Speaker, why does our hon. colleague feel that it is okay to punish everyday Canadians, yet let the worst emitters off the hook?

Budget Implementation Act, 2018 No. 2Government Orders

11:40 a.m.

Liberal

Joël Lightbound Liberal Louis-Hébert, QC

Madam Speaker, Quebec is a beautiful city. I am not sure it is a big city by your standards. I am not sure I am a big-city MP. It is a beautiful city. However, I will tell you that we have had a price on pollution in Quebec for five years through a cap-and-trade system. My cousins who are dairy farmers in rural Quebec all agree with its importance, because they see the impacts of climate change. To refuse to see it is irresponsible.

Budget Implementation Act, 2018 No. 2Government Orders

11:40 a.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

I want to remind the parliamentary secretary that he is to address comments to the Chair and not to the individual members.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Carleton.

Budget Implementation Act, 2018 No. 2Government Orders

11:40 a.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON

Madam Speaker, today I will address the three inevitable stages of every Liberal tax increase.

First, there is the insult. Second, there is the tax increase itself. Third, there is the high-tax hypocrisy. I will give numerous examples of where this exact same cycle has played out every time the Liberals have targeted modest and middle-income Canadians with higher taxes.

Let us start with the issue of income tax. The Prime Minister started his campaign to raise taxes by calling people “too rich” and therefore claiming they needed to pay more. We did not find out until after the election who he was talking about. We thought he was talking about himself, a multi-millionaire who inherited a trust fund, or maybe the finance minister, whose family business was worth $1 billion.

It turned out he was not talking about those people. It turns out the people he thought were too rich and needed to pay more income tax were moms and dads who have kids in soccer and hockey, students who are spending money on textbooks and tuition, and passengers on public transit. They are the ones who saw their taxes go up. They paid more for kids' sports, because they lost the children's fitness tax credit. They paid more to ride public transit, because the transit tax credit was eliminated. Students paid more for the cost of their education, because they could no longer claim their expensive textbooks as an education expense and the education tax credit itself was eliminated.

Those were the people that the Prime Minister was talking about when he said that the rich needed to pay more. He said that if people could put their kids in hockey, they are rich and get to pay higher taxes. If people go to university or college, they are rich, too rich and should pay higher taxes as well. If people take the bus and do not take a limousine like the Prime Minister, they are rich, too, and therefore they should pay higher taxes as well.

All of this is a little rich coming from the recipient of a multi-million dollar trust fund account from his family. It is also rich coming from somebody who spent most of his life living in publicly funded mansions, and driving around in government-funded limousines. However, according to the Prime Minister that is beside the point. It is also a little rich to say that moms and dads have too much money when the Prime Minister forces those same moms and dads to pay higher taxes so that they can fund his $30,000 of free nanny services every year that he uses in his household, while Canadians have to pay for their own child care with their own money.

That is the final stage. He started with insulting moms and dads, calling them rich. Second, he raised their taxes, forcing them to pay more for transit, textbooks, kids' sports and more. Third, of course, is the hypocrisy where the Prime Minister ensures that he gets taxpayer-funded child care services that no one else in the country would receive as part of their employment package.

Again, we have insults, tax increases, then high-tax hypocrisy.

Now we move on to small businesses. Remember when the Prime Minister said, in the last election, that small businesses, according to him, are merely vehicles for rich people to avoid paying taxes. We know that he was referring to plumbers, pizza shop owners, landscapers, shopkeepers and other middle-class people who mortgage their houses to start businesses and employ people in our community. He said that those people are all just tax cheats, and they needed to pay vastly more in order to keep their businesses up and running.

He brought in new penalties. That was the insult. Then came the tax increase. The Prime Minister decided to penalize family businesses for sharing the earnings and work of their business with family members. He then brought in new penalties for small business owners who save for the future within their company. If people keep some money in their company for a rainy day, sick leave, maternity leave, retirement or for a future investment, they would be penalized for any interest earned on that money in the meantime.

The most recent iteration of that penalty is that a small business can lose its small business tax deduction if it has more than $50,000 in investment income within the company. It is a massive tax increase targeted again at the middle class. There is the second step in the cycle. The Prime Minister starts by insulting the small business owners, then he moves to raising their taxes.

Finally, the last stage is high-tax hypocrisy. Who was not taxed more under the Liberal plan? The Prime Minister was not, to start with. There were no new taxes for his multi-million dollar trust fund inherited from his grandfather's petroleum empire, and no new taxes on the speaking fees he collected from charities while he was a member of Parliament and ought to have been giving those speeches for free like other members of Parliament do. There were no new taxes on those speaking fees, which he earned by the way while having the third worst attendance record of any member of Parliament. He is skipping out on his publicly paid duties to be here in order to give paid speaking engagements that most members of Parliament do on their own time and without charge, and there are no new taxes on any of that.

There we have it again. The Prime Minister started with insulting small business people, then he moved to raising their taxes, then he engaged in high-tax hypocrisy by protecting his own interests from any new costs. He extends that hypocrisy to his finance minister, whose $1-billion family business saw no tax increase whatsoever under the proposed changes to small business tax rates. His company is big enough to be on the stock market, and all stock market trading companies were excluded from the tax increase altogether.

There we have it: insult the taxpayer, raise the taxes and then engage in high-tax hypocrisy to protect himself and all his friends. That is the three-step approach this Prime Minister takes to every single tax hike.

Now we see it one more time with the carbon tax. The Prime Minister starts off with the insult, which is to call people polluters. Be careful, the polluters are not who we think they are. In the eyes of this Prime Minister, the polluters are grandmothers trying to heat their homes in -40° weather, soccer moms trying to take their kids to soccer practice and single moms trying to take care of their kids or drive to work. Generally, suburban commuters, anybody who has to purchase gas to move themselves around or to heat their home is, in this Prime Minister's view, a polluter. There we start again with the insults by calling everyday suburban Canadians “polluters” in order to justify raising their taxes.

The second step in every Liberal tax increase is to raise the tax itself, and so the Prime Minister has increased taxes on gas, home heating and other basic energy people require in our modern way of life to survive. These costs will roll out throughout every aspect of human life. If we want to heat our homes, drive to work or buy products transported by truck, train or ship, we will pay for more for all those products. If someone is a small business person who has to heat or energize their factory, they will pay more for that tax as well.

We have the insult, then we have the tax increase, and the last step is the hypocrisy, the high-tax hypocrisy. Who is not going to pay this tax? Large industrial emitters, the big corporations with the smokestacks on the top of their factories. Those enterprises would be exempt from the Liberal carbon tax. Just this week, we learned that coal-fired plants would be exempt from the Liberal carbon tax. In New Brunswick, the Belledune coal-fired plant would be allowed to emit 800 tonnes of greenhouse gases for every gigawatt of electricity absolutely tax-free.

Now, the government admits those coal-fired plants will be in operation for at least another 12 years, and that is if we would believe its promise that one day after it is long out of office that it will be able to shut down those coal-fired plants over a decade from now. In the meantime and in between time, those factories would operate without any carbon tax.

The same is true for large cement plants and other large industrial emitters. They will be exempt from the tax increase.

It is all well and good to exempt those corporations that have powerful lobbyists that influence government, but we have asked why the Liberals have not provided the same exemption to small businesses, to families and to others. We still do not have an answer to that question. Of course, that is the high-tax hypocrisy. We have again the three steps of every single tax increase: insult, tax hike and then high-tax hypocrisy. Those are the three steps that we can count on the Liberal government engaging in every single time it wants more of Canadians' money.

What motivates this three-step approach to increase taxes? The answer is it is to fund out-of-control Liberal spending.

Spending has grown at 7% a year since the Liberals took office. That is about three times the combined rate of inflation and population growth, depending on the year. In other words, spending is vastly outpacing the need. Those 7% a year spending increases have to come from somewhere. The government has to source that revenue. It started to do so by borrowing. The government's deficit is three times what the Prime Minister promised. Instead of balancing the budget next year, as the Prime Minister promised while putting his hand on heart during the election campaign and saying it would be gone, now Finance Canada says the deficit will continue until the year 2045, under which plan, the debt will grow by nearly half a trillion dollars until then.

This is all happening in a time when the government's own documents admit it has been the beneficiary of enormous short-term good luck. In the government's annual report, which came out about two weeks ago, the government admits that its revenue is higher by about $20 billion because of factors outside of the government's control: record low interest rates, higher than usual oil prices, a booming U.S. economy, a stronger than normal world economy, a housing bubble, which is slowly coming to an end in Toronto and Vancouver, all of which generate more revenue for the government. In other words, good fortune has fallen out of the sky onto the government's lap. The Liberals admit that in their own financial documents.

If they have an out-of-control deficit that is three times the size they promised in times of good fortune, how big will the deficit become when the luck runs out? The Liberals have not answered that question. I have asked the finance minister, at times painfully, 14, 15, 16 times in one committee session, when the budget will be balanced. He utterly refuses to answer. The Liberals have not told us under what conditions would a government ever balance a budget.

It does not matter what one's economic philosophy is, everyone agrees that there should be some point in the business cycle when the budget is balanced. I believe we should ascribe to have a balanced budget all the time, but even if one is a Keynesian economist, one ought to believe that at least when the world economy is roaring and commodity prices are high and interest rates are low, at that point in an economic cycle, for God's sake, the government ought to have a surplus to squirrel away for when times turn bad. However, even under that Keynesian thinking, the government is not living up to the obligation to balance the budget when times are good.

What are the consequences of having these massive deficits? The answer is that, in the short run, we start to pay higher interest costs. The Parliamentary Budget Officer estimates that by the year 2023, our expenditure on debt interest will go from about $24 billion to $40 billion, a two-thirds increase in about half a decade. This means we will be spending more on debt interest than we currently spend on health care transfers. That means more money for bankers and less money for doctors and nurses. Canadians will pay taxes to get nothing in return except to pay off the wealthy and privileged bond holders and bankers that lent us the money and therefore own our future tax receipts.

When I ask residents of my riding what they want their tax dollars spent on, they say roads, hospitals and other essential services that allow them to live their lives. They never tell me that they want to spend it on enriching bankers and bond holders. That is exactly the consequence of government decisions to pile up new and unnecessary debt on the current generation and on generations yet unborn.

That is the immediate consequence of higher spending, but there is the medium-term consequence which of course is higher taxes. Those consequences are already starting to become known. Middle-class Canadians are already paying $800 more in income tax than they were when the Prime Minister took office.

As I said earlier, small businesses are paying higher taxes to support the government's spending habit with new penalties for saving within their companies or for sharing income and work with family members. Those tax increases are in addition to the new ones that take effect on January 1, that is, higher payroll taxes for workers and small businesses and of course the carbon tax itself. Deficits today mean higher taxes tomorrow. That is exactly what the government is delivering, both higher taxes and deficits at the same time.

That is the underlying motivation for the three-step Liberal process for raising taxes. We will see it again and it will not be long. Soon there will be another billing which the Liberals will actually give a name to. They call moms and grandmothers polluters. They call small business people tax cheats. They call people who put their children in sports or who take the bus wealthy. Then they proceed, after having demonized those patriotic Canadians, to raise their taxes.

The last step is always to look at the fine print and how much the Prime Minister will have to pay for this tax increase. Oh, he will pay nothing. How convenient. Of course, we could not possibly allow a multi-millionaire trust fund recipient to have to bear any extra burden at all. Life is already too tough living in a government-funded mansion with government-funded nanny services. He and his friends and those who have influence on him are always protected from the costs that they impose on middle-class Canadians.

I propose a different three-step plan: first, control spending; second, balance the budget; and third, lower taxes for all Canadians. That sounds like a three-step plan we can all get behind.

On that optimistic and exciting note, I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following: “the House decline to give second reading to Bill C-86, a second act to implement certain provisions in the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 2018, and other measures, since the Bill fails to address the fact that deficits are three times what the Prime Minister promised, that the Department of Finance admits that the budget will not be balanced until 2045, and that the average income tax bill for middle-class families has increased by $800, not including new carbon taxes and payroll tax hikes.

Budget Implementation Act, 2018 No. 2Government Orders

Noon

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

The amendment is in order.

Questions and comments, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance.

Budget Implementation Act, 2018 No. 2Government Orders

12:05 p.m.

Louis-Hébert Québec

Liberal

Joël Lightbound LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance

Madam Speaker, before I get into my question on the member's three-step approach, lowering taxes, a balanced budget and controlled spending, I think the Conservatives failed for 10 years on those three fronts. They did not lower taxes. They did not balance the budget. They added $150 billion to the national debt. Therefore, I would argue that the member has very little credibility. With all of that, they had the worst record on growth and job creation since the Great Depression, so I think that is to be taken with a grain of salt.

The member likes to quote the CBC. Let me quote an analysis that was made public a little over a year ago:

The public transit tax credit did little to increase the use of public transportation. The children's fitness tax credit did little to increase participation and tended to disproportionately benefit wealthier families. Income-splitting similarly resulted in high-income households receiving more than low-income families.

I do not know if the member has been through that, but I have. I was raised by a single mother who had little use for the fitness tax credit because her revenues were so low that she did not have the luxury of having an accountant look at all of those credits, whereas the Canada child benefit, which is not taxed, is much more useful.

The member keeps quoting a study by the Fraser Institute that fails take into account the Canada child benefit and whose authors describe the Canada—

Budget Implementation Act, 2018 No. 2Government Orders

12:05 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

I am sorry, but I do have to allow for other questions. I will let the member for Carleton respond.

Budget Implementation Act, 2018 No. 2Government Orders

12:05 p.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON

Madam Speaker, I will respond, one by one.

Under the previous Conservative government, we had the best economic record of any country in the G7. We were the last to go into the great global recession and the first to come out of it. We had the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio and lowest deficit-to-GDP ratio, despite those catastrophic global circumstances that we were forced to manage.

This situation is precisely the opposite. Far from having a global economic crisis, the world economy is now booming and other countries are now surpassing Canada in growth. They have balanced budgets and are paying off their debt, while our country under the Liberals' leadership actually adds to the debt and the tax burden.

As for the tax credits, the Liberals are once again attacking moms and dads as being too rich and, according to the Liberal government, they deserve to pay higher taxes.

His concluding point is that his mother never used the children's fitness tax credit. It only came into effect in the year 2007. The member is a very young man, and I will give him that. I am not sure if he was still playing midget hockey at that time, but if he was, I encourage him to go back and have his mother retroactively claim that tax credit, because she deserves it.

Budget Implementation Act, 2018 No. 2Government Orders

12:05 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's work on the finance committee. I am a little surprised by the amendment he just put forward, because what we heard repeatedly in the pre-budget hearings across the country is the issue—

Budget Implementation Act, 2018 No. 2Government Orders

12:05 p.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON

Because his dad destroyed our economy.

Budget Implementation Act, 2018 No. 2Government Orders

12:05 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

I remind the member for Carleton that somebody else has the floor and he is going to have a chance to answer that person, so he may want to listen to the question.

The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

Budget Implementation Act, 2018 No. 2Government Orders

12:05 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC

Madam Speaker, it is an important question, so I thank you for setting the member for Carleton right on this.

The member's amendment does not address two of the main considerations that came from the pre-budget hearings. The web giants are getting off scot-free and basically not paying taxes in Canada. As a result, it creates unfair competition and an unlevel playing field for Canadian businesses. We heard that repeatedly in the pre-budget hearings. We also heard about the impacts of overseas tax havens, which for companies that pay their taxes and do the right thing in Canada also creates unfair competition.

Why are those two key elements not part of the amendment he has just offered?

Budget Implementation Act, 2018 No. 2Government Orders

12:05 p.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON

Madam Speaker, we would welcome friendly amendments if the member from the NDP has suggestions on how we can bring more tax fairness.

We agree that the Liberal government has meticulously planned its tax changes to ensure that the wealthiest and those most connected do not pay a penny more. Those Liberal insiders who have accounts in tax havens in the Caribbean get off scot-free under this Liberal plan. Of course, the Prime Minister's trust fund inheritance does not face any new taxes and the finance minister's billion-dollar family business has been protected. There are a whole series of well-connected Liberal interests who are extremely wealthy and have been able to use their wealth to generate more influence around the cabinet table. They have all been protected from the Liberals' tax increases.

The tax burden has fallen on modest-income people. Those with the least always pay the most when government gets big, and that is exactly what is happening right now.

Budget Implementation Act, 2018 No. 2Government Orders

12:10 p.m.

Conservative

Kevin Sorenson Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his defence of the former Conservative government's record during the global recession. He went through the facts of what happened during that global recession very succinctly and properly. When the Conservatives presented budgets, it was very obvious by every one of those budgets that we were making life more affordable for families and seniors. We were making life more affordable for businesses, as we lowered taxes and created a level playing field, corporate tax against corporate tax in the United States. We wanted an advantage for Canada so jobs would stay here.

My question is specific to seniors. Seniors have called me saying that they are very disappointed there is nothing in this budget for seniors. They rightfully said that when Conservatives were in power, we brought forward pension income splitting, the tax-free savings account and a number of other measures, such as with the guaranteed income supplement to make life more affordable for seniors.

Why is the member disappointed with the lack of measures for Canadian seniors in this budget?