House of Commons Hansard #348 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was disabilities.
The House resumed from November 1 consideration of the motion that Bill C-86, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 2018 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.
Linda Lapointe Liberal Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
Madam Speaker, I should tell you that I will be splitting my time with my colleague from Scarborough—Guildwood.
I am delighted to rise in the House today to discuss an important element of Bill C-86, the budget implementation act.
The element I want to talk about is intended to strengthen a measure that we have already discussed, one that is especially important for low-income workers. I am referring to the Canada workers benefit.
With this bill, the government will make it easier for this benefit to reach workers who are entitled to it. Thanks to this bill, everyone who is entitled to the Canada workers benefit will receive it when they file their tax return.
Our government knows that Canadians are working hard to build a better life for themselves and their families. Some low-income Canadians are working two or three jobs. They work really hard. Like all Canadians, these workers deserve to be rewarded for their hard work with a fair chance to succeed.
With budget 2018, our government took a step in that direction. This is one more step towards growing our economy in a way that benefits the middle class and those working hard to join it.
In its most recent budget, our government introduced the new Canada workers benefit, which will come into force in 2019. It is an enhanced version of the working income tax benefit.
This new benefit will put more money in the pockets of low-income workers. It will not only increase benefits for those who received it for their employment income, but also expand the income range to make more workers eligible. For example, with this new benefit, a low-income worker who earns $15,000 per year will collect up to $500 more in benefits in 2019 than in 2018.
That is the kind of real help that will benefit over two million Canadians. Most importantly, we believe this measure will lift about 74,000 Canadians out of poverty by 2020. That is not all. In budget 2018, our government also increased the maximum benefit provided through the Canada workers benefit disability supplement by an additional $160 to offer greater support to Canadians with disabilities who face financial barriers to entering the workforce.
This benefit will also be issued automatically, which is good news.
However, it is possible to do even better. The bill that we are discussing today will make it easier for workers to access the benefits they are entitled to, as our government promised in the last budget.
Accordingly, the bill proposes to make changes that will allow the Canada Revenue Agency to calculate the benefit for any taxpayers who did not apply for it on their income tax return.
It is not a problem if people forget or fail to complete the benefit schedule of their income tax return. The Canada Revenue Agency will still do the calculation. If the person is entitled to the Canada workers benefit, he or she will receive it. Thanks to the CRA's new automatic enrolment system, as of 2019, all those who are entitled to the Canada workers benefit will receive it, whether they applied for it or not. That is very good news for Canadians.
In closing, I would like to point out that this is not the only good news. The Canada workers benefit is just one of many measures to help those who need it most.
There is also the Canada child benefit, a key initiative for strengthening the middle class. Thanks to this measure, nine in 10 families now have more money in their pockets. Over three million Canadian families are entitled to over $23 billion in annual payments.
This money will help them give their children a good start in life by providing them a safe environment, healthy food, and the opportunity to participate in recreational activities such as music and sports.
The Canada child benefit has helped lift more than half a million people in Canada, including more than 300,000 children, out of poverty. In addition, this benefit has been indexed to cost-of-living increases since July, two years sooner than initially planned.
Another measure is the increase in the guaranteed income supplement for seniors living alone. This increase improves the financial security of nearly 900,000 Canadian seniors, 70% of whom are women. This measure is very much appreciated in my riding, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles.
These are excellent examples of smart, responsible investments made by the Government of Canada in the interest of families, communities and the economy. These investments leave more money in the hands of those who need it most, which helps increase Canadians' confidence in what the future has in store for us.
As the economy keeps growing and high-paying jobs are created, our government will continue to ensure that all Canadians share in the success and benefit from it.
This budget implementation bill will help more Canadians who could use a hand up by ensuring that everyone who is entitled to the Canada workers benefit receives this additional assistance.
I want to add that, for my constituents in Rivière-des-Mille-Îles and Canadians across the country, our government has created more than 500,000 full-time jobs since we came to power.
The unemployment rate is at an historic 40-year low. Our plan is working.
In the 2015 election, Canadians had a choice between a plan offering austerity and cuts and our government's plan to invest in the middle class and build an economy that works for everyone. The outcome speaks for itself.
As I said earlier, wages are going up, consumer and business confidence is strong, and Canada's economy is among the highest-performing in the G7. That is no small feat.
Middle-class Canadians see first-hand that our plan is working. By this time next year, a typical family of four will have over $2,000 more in their pockets. Two thousand dollars is a lot of money to spend in our economy.
Budget 2018 is the next step in our plan. It supports our government's people-oriented approach and will ensure that every Canadian has a real and fair chance at success.
As part of budget 2018, our government continues to work on building an equal, competitive, sustainable and fair Canada. In light of such positive results, I urge all members of the House to vote in favour of this bill.
Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
Madam Speaker, I listened to the member speak about all the expenses and so-called investments the government is making. Certainly the Liberals are good at spending. We have seen that through the last number of budgets. What they are not so good at is balancing the budget.
The member said that Canadians chose the Liberals' plan over our plan. What they did not choose is to continue deficit spending into 2045, with no plan to balance the budget. In fact, the interest costs alone to Canadians are currently $30 billion. Just think of what we could do with those dollars that are going out the window for interest in terms of investments in infrastructure and health care. We could be investing that money in many other things.
I am concerned about the future. I am concerned about the future for my children and my nine grandchildren and what kind of debt we are leaving them. I am wondering if my colleague has no concern at all about the unbelievable costs we are simply kicking down the road to the next generation, forcing them to pay for the things we should not be spending money on right now.
We should be balancing the budget. We are in a time of economic growth. There is no reason to have deficit spending. Is my colleague not concerned about these things?
Linda Lapointe Liberal Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
You mentioned your grandchildren as you are a grandfather. I would like to inform members that I have been a grandmother since—
The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes
Order. I would like to remind the member that she must address the Chair and not the other members.
Linda Lapointe Liberal Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
Madam Speaker, given that the member mentioned his grandchildren, I would like to inform the House that I became a grandmother on Wednesday.
To answer my colleague's question, yes, it is important to think about our grandchildren and to ensure that our economy will be very strong and that things will go well.
Since 2015, we have created 500,000 jobs, the unemployment rate is the lowest it has ever been and the debt-to-GDP ratio is the lowest of the G7 countries.
Brigitte Sansoucy NDP Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Madam Speaker, I listened carefully as my colleague talked about poverty, families and children, yet there are still 1.2 million children living in poverty in Canada, and 38% of aboriginal children live in poverty. Those statistics have not changed in 10 years. Once again this year, statistics show that, despite the Canada child benefit, there are still 1.2 million children living in poverty. We know everything that has been announced, but we need more than just half-measures to give families the help they need.
As a member from Quebec, my colleague knows very well that a universal, affordable child care program is the solution to help families. We can give them $2,000, but if they have to pay $60 a day for child care, what is the point? In this 851-page bill, there is nothing about child care and nothing about agriculture. There are a lot of things missing from these 851 pages, actually.
Perhaps the member could explain this to me.
Linda Lapointe Liberal Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
Madam Speaker, my colleague asked a question about children.
Beginning in 2019, the Canada child benefit is going to be indexed annually to the cost of living. That is two years earlier than planned.
Some three million families are receiving $23 billion in annual benefit payments. This is already helping Canadian families immensely. Our economy is doing well. We have created 500,000 jobs in the last three years. Unemployment has never been so low. The economy is doing well.
I am sympathetic to what my colleague is saying. We are fortunate in Quebec to have more affordable child care, but the Canada child benefit is a measure that is having an impact on all Canadian families.
Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB
Madam Speaker, I want to pick up where the member for Kitchener—Conestoga left off about expenditures verses being able to actually balance the budget.
Among all the new expenditures that have been discussed, is the member aware that the budget this budget implementation act is attached to predicted that the differential on Alberta crude would shrink to below $15 a barrel? This has a significant impact on future revenue for the government, and with the failure on pipelines, this has gone up to over $50 per barrel, not below $15.
Linda Lapointe Liberal Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
Madam Speaker, my colleague referred to Alberta.
I am going to talk about the price on pollution, which goes hand in hand with economic development. Members on the other side have not talked about this.
I personally believe that we have to provide for future generations. Our government has implemented some measures to ensure that every environmental consideration is taken into account.
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to participate in the debate. At times we do not recognize our blessings in our country for the way things are unfolding. I would like to attribute it all to the government's wisdom, knowledge and political acumen. That is, of course, a critical point. Nevertheless, as a nation, we do have many blessings and many things to be thankful for, and we do not recognize some of the things for which we should be thankful.
For the first part of my speech, I will focus on the issues of trade. The government has signed three trade deals in the past while, the most recent being the CPTPP, an acronym that is challenging at the best of times. It includes 16 countries, six of which are Asian countries. We only had one previous trade deal with an Asian country, so it is like getting six new trade deals simultaneously. It reduces our dependence on one market. We have seen what our dependence on one market can create for us, which is an unhealthy dependency. The last Conservative questioner talked about the gap between Alberta crude and other oils, and we do sell it at a significant discount because we are dependent entirely on one market for that product.
This is a good deal, and I am glad to see that we ratified it and moved it forward. Ironically, the U.S. is on the outside looking in. We have 16 nations that are now prepared to trade with each other on a fair trade basis, and it is a better situation for us all. In fact, if we are to pursue a trade deal with China, it is probably better that we pursue a trade deal with this collective rather than on an individual basis. There is significance to this trade deal, which has yet to play out.
The second deal was the CETA, which was the European deal. I will give credit where credit is due. The previous government did a lot of the heavy lifting with respect to that deal. Our Minister of Foreign Affairs completed the deal, and it is now in place. Access is something in the order of about 300 million to 400 million people in 20 plus countries. This is, again, a tremendous opportunity for us to diversify our market.
The third deal is the one that got all of the ink, namely, the USMCA. The USMCA deal is always going to be a critical deal for us because of our relationship with the Americans on the North American continent.
If there is a lesson to be learned out of all of these trade deals, it is that we need to lessen our dependence on one market and get into other markets. Hopefully, the combination of these deals will get us into other markets, at least a billion people, possibly as many as two billion people, and in the order of 40 plus countries.
One plus one plus one actually makes more than three, because the collective of being able to ship into and out of North America to Europe and the Pacific nations is of enormous benefit to those businesses that operate out of Canada.
Let me turn now to the state of the economy. As I indicated earlier, we are blessed. There have been some very prescient moves made by the Government of Canada, which have paid off. We have just signed the largest private deal in the history of Canada, the $40-billion LNG deal. That was done in a way that recognized a lot of the claims by indigenous nations along the length of the pipeline and at the terminus. That is, ultimately, a really good opportunity for western Canada.
On the monetary side of things, inflation is largely under control. That is entirely due to the stewardship of the Bank of Canada. Interest rates are creeping up, which creates some situations where debt, particularly private debt, is at risk, but by and large, the monetary side of things is quite good.
On the fiscal side of things, we have a fairly robust economy, the top-performing economy in the G7. We have, as I said, the largest private deal ever in Canada in the history of private business. We have historically low unemployment rates. At this point, the economy has created something in the order of 500,000 new jobs in the last three years.
The debt-to-GDP ratio is in a steady state. I, like others, would be keen to see debt reduction, but at the same time, I am concerned about the major issue of growing income inequality. In some respects, the government has rightly attempted to address the issue of growing inequality among Canadians. I think we can all agree that monetary or economic gaps among citizens are to be reduced in as many instances as possible. We started off with the middle-class tax cut, which was a significant reduction in income tax for middle-class Canadians, and in a very courageous political move, we increased the rate for the top 1% of tax filers.
Small business rates have been reduced from 11% down to 9%.
One of the most significant social initiatives ever taken by any government was the Canada child benefit, where nine out of 10 families with children will benefit. Those who need it most get the most. For my riding of Scarborough—Guildwood, which I have the honour to represent, that means $100 million a year. A lot of kids are growing up in Scarborough—Guildwood and there are also a lot of poor families in Scarborough—Guildwood. The combination of the two means that benefit is of real significance to those families.
That means there is money ending up where we want it to end up, mainly in the hands of people who need it. That money will immediately be returned to the economy in the form of food and clothing purchases, transportation, etc. It gets circulated back as opposed to giving tax breaks to those who possibly do not need them. Those monies generally go into savings. While not exclusively dead money, it is money that is “languid” as opposed to money going into the CCB benefit, which is active. This is all to reduce income inequality in Canada.
Those who want to live the American dream should move to Canada, because the reality is that people move out of the lower quartile of wherever they were born at twice the rate than if they were American. That is significant because it shrinks income inequality among Canadians and when we shrink income inequality among Canadians, we all benefit.
Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB
Madam Speaker, we are certainly very blessed to be in Canada, but I take a little exception to the member talking about how great things are in this country, how the inflation rates are positive and all of these things. My riding and many ridings in Alberta have recently seen food bank usage go up. It is up 50% in the Edmonton area. I am being told by banks that this month people are making the choice between paying their utility bills or paying their car payments. It is a terrible situation right now and it is largely because of the failure to get access to foreign markets for our energy products.
I would ask the member if he has any comment on how we can bring this great economy back to Alberta.
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member asked a legitimate question. Alberta is a resource-based economy and lives and dies on its resources. Ten years ago, Alberta was king of the hill and doing very well, because its resources were in demand. Regrettably, we have not been able to diversify the market, hence the TMX purchase and the attempt to bring some other market into play for the resources that Alberta wishes to sell.
I agree with the member that we should not be selling at a discount. As long as Alberta is selling at a discount and does not have access to other markets, I think that times will more difficult, unnecessarily, for Albertans.
Irene Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
Madam Speaker, talking about the opportunities for Canadians and the security of Canadians is very important. Part of that security, I believe, is pay equity.
The current federal government and its predecessors fought pay equity in terms of women in the public service for decades, and now it is postponed for another three years. Where is the legal support centre for non-union women as recommended in the 2004 Pay Equity Task Force?
In 2004, there was a landmark task force. That was 14 years ago, and as I said, decades before that, there was pushing back against pay equity. I want to know when we will see proper pay equity for all women in this society.
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
Madam Speaker, the hon. member asked a question in the context of a government that has done more on the feminist concerns than pretty well any government in history, and that includes pay equity. It also includes moving status of women to a department.
These are issues that have been historical injustices. The government has moved massively in redressing these historical injustices, and I hope that in a very short period of time, the hon. member will not need to ask a question such as that.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Madam Speaker, although we have been debating this omnibus budget bill, many of my colleague's comments related to a false narrative, which has been spread so widely that I am quite certain my hon. colleague does not know it is false, and it is that there is a massive differential that costs Canadians money, because Alberta bitumen does not get the same price on the world market as crude. Of course, the reason it is not worth as much is because it is a solid. It has to be upgraded before it can be sold.
In fact, the Scotiabank report, which is the source of this false claim, ignored the reality. I will point out quickly that 40% of what we export, according to Suncor, is its upgraded synthetic crude. According to Steve Williams, the CEO of Suncor, “We have virtually no exposure to the light/heavy differential.” It is because it is actually getting a premium, because it is selling synthetic crude.
I ask my hon. colleague, would it not be appropriate, before the federal government puts $4.5 billion into buying a 65-year-old pipeline and promises $10 billion more to expand it, that we get an independent assessment of the costs and benefits of embarking on this project? There is not one yet.
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
Madam Speaker, I always appreciate the comments of my hon. colleague, but it seems to be settled at this point that Alberta crude sells at a discount. It does cost more to upgrade it. I agree with that. It does cost more to ship it. I agree with that. However, we are dependent on one market. That is where we sell 98%, 99% of the crude. When we are dependent on one market, we know we are going to be in a vulnerable position when it comes to sale.
Earl Dreeshen Conservative Red Deer—Mountain View, AB
Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Edmonton West.
I have had the honour over the last 10 years to speak to at least some aspect of every budget that has been presented in the House. Therefore, standing here this morning to once again present the views of my amazing constituents in my riding of Red Deer—Mountain View is truly a highlight of this fall session. It is especially memorable because it will be the last time that this type of debate will take place in this chamber for the next decade or more.
I would like to start by reflecting on some of the most important points of the last 10 years.
In the fall of 2008, the global economy as we knew it was collapsing. Global economists were clamouring about how countries were going to need to stimulate their economies by at least 2% GDP, no matter what, and that the consequences of the greatest economic meltdown since the Great Depression could last for years.
What did our government do? Having foreseen tough times ahead, it had reduced the GST from 7% to 5%, which along with other tax-cutting measures nearly covered the prescribed 2% GDP stimulus. Why was that important? Because it put dollars back into the hands of everyday Canadians for them to spend on their priorities.
The second phase of stimulus was related to infrastructure spending, which, amazingly, got out to the municipalities in record time so that it had the effect of keeping contractors employed and even resulted, because of the local economic downturn, in getting many projects done under budget. This is one of the most celebrated stimulus projects ever implemented. Not only that, the temporary home renovation tax credit was a godsend to local businesses.
I remember speaking to a gentleman from the U.S. who was amazed at how such a simple concept had created so much economic activity. It came at a high price, one which did add to the deficit as part of the economic reality of the time, but it also helped us move out of the economic malaise quicker than any other country.
I always like to bring this up when my friends from the Liberal Party crank up their rhetoric about nearly 10 years of our Harper government. I also like to point out that over that 10 years, we only had a majority for four years. Perhaps the Liberals, in a reflective moment, could imagine how much of their agenda would be carried out if they were in a minority. They might also find they would need to have other voices in their heads other than Butts'.
Alas, what transpired was that the member for Papineau, with his family name and his foul-mouth antics, rose to power as the Liberals' messiah. They chose a leader who did not know the difference between a decimal point and a decibel reading, who spent his time as a backbencher charging charities for speaking fees when he was supposed to be speaking in this chamber and who orchestrated, with an NDP member, fake outrage where he called our then environment minister a name, which I will not repeat, and ran out the door to the press to tell it that the devil made him do it.
It was at that moment that my impression of the member was forged. Therefore, when the Liberal leadership race was on, I would always say that the member for Papineau would not even have made the now transport minister's cabinet. However, no one on that side was a match for the 20-plus page coronation from Maclean's magazine. That adulation, so terribly misplaced, unfortunately continues to this day.
Therefore, here we are, dealing with a budget implementation act that shows just how far the government will go to force its will on the people.
My constituents are concerned about the tax that is being charged on medical marijuana. We are talking the non-THC variety, not the good stuff the PM brags about using. This is an issue that has people rightfully concerned.
The next issue that is so important to Canadians is trade. I have heard it said that our Conservative government had already hit the walk-off home run with both CETA and TPP and that all the PM had to do was to sign the ball, which was proudly presented to him on behalf of an amazing negotiating team. However, he and his cabinet team botched that so badly that our trading partners looked at Canada as being both bizarre and illogical. Thank God we have business people who were, and are, there to carry the day, because this government's political counterparts around the world had no idea what to expect from the government.
My next issue with the bill is the massive debt the Liberals are downloading to my children and grandchildren. We know that the words of the Prime Minister are never to be taken seriously. The path that the government has chosen could not be any more socialist than if the NDP had been victorious in the last election.
The most significant concern I have with the bill, beyond my normal lament as a former hospital board chair that these Liberals have shortchanged our health care system, is what they are doing to our global competitiveness through their insistence on a carbon tax.
Most Canadians see this as something in the future, but there are Canadians who are well on their way to the government's initial goal of a $50 carbon tax. The one I am most familiar with is my province of Alberta.
As the real climate leaders in our country, we have been reducing our carbon footprint for years. Long before the present NDP government signed onto the Liberal carbon tax plan, we Albertans were reducing our per unit emissions not just by legislation, but because we felt it was the right thing to do. After all, would having a technology fund that encouraged greenhouse gas reduction with the possibility of selling that technology to places in the world that need the help not be a logical business decision? The federal government said it did not care, that it was its way or the highway, which is what it is now telling those provinces that have chosen to stand up to its tyranny.
What are these numbers? I am going to compare the average Alberta crop land farm, which in the next few months will be paying a $30 carbon tax, to the average PEI crop land farm, where my good friend, the hon. Minister of Agriculture, is from, and I will use the same figures, recognizing Alberta's reality in our bid for this allusive social license will be P.E.I.'s reality in a few years.
Using calculations from the agriculture census 2016 and the National Inventory Report 2017, an average Alberta farm of 855 acres at $25 per tonne equals $6,631, while in P.E.I., on an average size farm of 323 acres, the cost would be $5,403. Adding the on-farm energy and transport emissions cost, again from the same reports, there is an additional $2,030 for Alberta and $820 for P.E.I. The total for this is $8,661 for the average Alberta farm and $6,223 for the average P.E.I. farm.
As I have said, Alberta will soon be paying $30 per tonne. The reality is that when we hit $50 per tonne, as is the Liberal government's initial figure, which is of course much lower than what its environmental guru activists envision for any country so inclined, the costs would amount to $17,332 for Alberta and $12,446 for P.E.I.
The occupants of the government front bench may not know this, certainly the PM and the finance minister do not know this, but these “tax cheating farmers” do not have the means to pass this cost on to the consumer. It is kind of the situation that exists in agriculture when one buys retail and sells wholesale.
Since I know this will come up, I am looking forward to hearing from the Minister of Agriculture just how much the carbon tax exemption for marked fuel will reduce the costs for farmers. I will be seeking those answers in the weeks ahead.
I was honoured to scrutinize budgets in the past from a prime minister who, as an economist, understood not only Canada's financial realities inside and out, but also how Canada fit into the interrelated financial global markets. I also admire our Conservative team that respectfully and responsibly pursued trade deals where Canada's economic future was always considered first.
I stand with Canada's farmers who are going to be greatly impacted by the governments blindness to the role our men and women of agricultural play in the preservation and conservation of the land that produces the safest high-quality food on the planet.
I am thankful for the privilege of being allowed to speak in the final days of this chamber on a subject about which I and my constituents of Red Deer—Mountain View are so passionate.
Adam Vaughan LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families
Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the claim that the previous government took steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and was proud of its record. If we look at what happened, there was a global recession and the economy effectively shut down. We can see that as soon as the recession kicks in, Canada's greenhouse gas emissions start to go down and then as soon as the economy starts to come back into gear, the greenhouse gas emissions start to go up again.
The second thing that happened was that Ontario got rid of coal plants, which also made a significant contribution. The Conservatives oppose that. In fact, they want to keep burning coal well into 2060, which is just not good for the planet.
However, the thing that really has struck me is that the Conservatives love this idea that recessions are good for the planet. In fact, they liked it so much they tried it twice when they tried to create a second recession as they were leaving office. Is that really the Conservatives' plan, a rotating set of recessions that unemploy Canadians as a way of getting rid of greenhouse gases? Is that the only plan they have for saving the planet?
Earl Dreeshen Conservative Red Deer—Mountain View, AB
Madam Speaker, the comment that Canada created the recession of 2008 is the most irresponsible comment I have ever heard. Perhaps the member was not out there wondering how businesses were able to continue, because banks would not even lend to themselves. This was the scenario that had taken place. Maybe in the bubble that the member was in, he did not see any issues. However, the issues that had taken place back in 2008 were serious, and this was global.
For the member to suggest that this was caused by a Conservative government, perhaps he was not listening to the way people around the world were talking about Canada, as being the only one that was able to get to that 2% reduction just on tax and putting money back into people's pockets, then dealing with the situation where infrastructure funding got out, probably to his city as well, as fast as it possibly could.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Madam Speaker, the member was virtually dictating what was no doubt some “hot off the press” Stephen Harper speaking notes.
It is absolutely amazing the degree to which there were so many falsehoods in the statement. We can talk about trading. He tried to give the impression that the government was not proactive on trade. Who is he trying to kid? We have CETA, TPP, agreements that Stephen Harper did not get over the finish line. If it were not for a progressive government being aggressive on the trade file, it never would have gotten across the goal line. That is not even mentioning the trade agreement with our greatest trading partner, the United States.
Could the hon. member explain why, under Conservative rule, which was 38% of the 150 years Canada has been a Confederation, 75% of the total debt was created by incompetent Conservative governments?
Earl Dreeshen Conservative Red Deer—Mountain View, AB
Madam Speaker, cleaning up Liberal messes is what we have to do. That is exactly what happened in the old Trudeau era, as that massive debt continued on for years and years. That is how it had to be done.
Let us hope that we get a different government in here in 2019, so we do not have to worry about the rest of that. The member needs to look at the situation. Even the finance department is saying that the trajectory we have with the Liberals could take us to $1 trillion debt by 2050. Had we continued with the Conservatives' plan, by the same date, we would have been debt free.
Erin O'Toole Conservative Durham, ON
Madam Speaker, some members come to the House of Commons and bring tremendous experience. Some do not bring experience, but bring a lot of levity. That is why I love the comments from my friend, the member from the Toronto Island airport, who spoke earlier today about coal-fired plants.
I would like my colleague from Alberta to actually talk about the irony of his comments on coal-fired plants. Not only did Dalton McGuinty not meet his intended targets on coal-fired plants, this bill would exempt coal-fired plants from the carbon tax.
Residents in my area of the Durham region, commuters, single seniors, will be paying the carbon tax, and the Liberals are exempting coal-fired plants.
Earl Dreeshen Conservative Red Deer—Mountain View, AB
Madam Speaker, the hypocrisy under this situation is amazing. I go out to Sheerness, which is close to my hometown in central Alberta, and that coal-fired plant is running full bore. People do not even know it is on. That is the technology we should be selling around the world, instead of shutting it down because of some plans the former Ontario Liberal government thought were important.
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
Madam Speaker, I rise on Bill C-86, the budget implementation act, 2018, no. 2. The first one was a disaster, with its out of control spending, massive deficits, and the transparency and accountability killing vote 40 that is famous for being the $7 billion Liberal slush fund.
Like a sequel to a bad Hollywood movie, it makes us wonder if the first one was so bad, why would we bother with a second? Unfortunately, the government has bothered with a second, and Canadians are going to pay the price.
I want to call the bill the “Demosthenes bill”, after an Athenian scholar who said, “why nothing is easier than self-deceit. For what each man wishes, that he also believes to be true.” That sums up the Liberals' belief in their actions so well. They sit and claim they have made record investments across the country, that there is employment growth here and there, that they have this and that national strategy to fix everything. Let us look beyond the hyperbole. Let us look beyond the self-deceit and see what is really going on.
Part 1 of the bill is an omnibus bill with four different parts and 23 different divisions—yes, 23 different divisions. Five different divisions of these 23 amend multiple acts, so even the omnibus bill has omnibuses inside the omnibus.
What does liberal.ca, the website say about omnibus bills? It says:
Stephen Harper has also used omnibus bills to prevent Parliament from properly reviewing and debating proposals. We will...bring an end to this undemocratic practice.
Did it happen? Of course not. It is quite remarkable that the Liberal Party is so obsessed with the previous prime minister. If in every sentence of theirs they do not mention the middle class or feminism, they will mention Harper. It makes me wonder if Liberals go to bed at night and check under the bed for the Harper bogeyman.
We all know omnibus bills are bad, so I want to quote a few members from across the way. Here is one:
This omnibus budget bill is yet another example of Conservatives steam-rolling democracy to force unpopular, non-budgetary measures through Parliament at record speed without the necessary scrutiny.
Who was that? It was the current President of the Treasury Board, the very man behind the vote 40 Liberal slush fund, the largest assault on parliamentary accountability and oversight in history. This again is from the man who puts his hand over his heart and complains about accountability, yet the $7 billion will not show up in the Public Accounts.
The Public Accounts came out just last week and are detailed to the point of listing a $4 coffee purchased by a bureaucrat while overseas with the Prime Minister on his trip to Israel. How much of that seven billion dollars is going to be detailed as such? Not one penny. One-third of one billion dollars is set aside for Phoenix, supposedly to fix it. The government is negotiating behind closed doors for a payout of public servants affected by Phoenix, which I will probably support. Is the money going to be used for that? The Liberals will not say and Canadians will never know. All it shows is a lump sum line in the Public Accounts.
I want to mention some other comments on omnibus bills by the other side. The current Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board said:
It is difficult, really, in the time available to do justice to a bill like this, because once again we have a bill that has a huge variety of measures. Some of them are new policy measures and some of them are not even in the budget speech. To actually do justice is very difficult.
Our colleague across the way from Winnipeg North, whom I am sure is going to ask questions about this, said:
When we take a look at this massive budget bill, as I said earlier, the government is making changes to dozens of pieces of legislation through the back door by passing it through a budget implementation bill, when in fact it should be stand-alone legislation.
Omnibus bills are bad, unless one is a Liberal, in which case omnibus bills are good, because they are the good guys.
I want to look at the Liberals' self-deceit about how good the economy is. The Parliamentary Budget Officer recently released his economic and fiscal outlook. I want to talk about the Liberals' self-deceit about their transparency. The PBO has asked repeatedly for access to the request for proposal for the combat ship program that Irving is doing.
Yesterday, we asked the President of the Treasury Board, who oddly is under a dark cloud for his interference on behalf of the Irvings with respect to the shipbuilding program, if he would release the RFP. The PBO has not asked for anything special. His office is allowed to access that information under an act of Parliament. When asked if his department would release it, the President of the Treasury Board said he would have to check with someone else.
In committee, we asked the Minister of Public Services and Procurement and Accessibility if she would release it. She did not know.
We asked the Minister of National Defence in the committee of the whole if he would release it, and with hand over heart, he replied he did not know.
The PBO says this is going to cost taxpayers $60 billion. Other insiders say it could cost as much as $100 billion. Yet the government will not release what is required.
I am going to go back to the economic and fiscal outlook, which notes that the GDP growth rate is actually dropping. Next year it will be 1.8% and the years after that it will drop to 1.5%. That is half of the global GDP growth rate, so we are lagging behind the rest of the world by half. We are behind the U.S. We are behind our allies. We are behind the advanced economies, as noted by the IMF.
The PBO also notes that residential investment is driving our economy, but also expects a significant correction to residential investments in the coming years.
With respect to the labour market report, the PBO notes that workplace participation rate, the number of people who are working, has dropped in percentage terms since the Liberals came to power. Workforce participation by both men and women has dropped under the Liberal government.
Our unemployment rate is at a record low, but we our underperforming our allies. We are underperforming big bad Trump. The Liberal government is doing worse than him. We are underperforming our G7 allies and the other advanced economies. We are below the OECD average. The OECD covers a bunch of basket case countries as well, and we are below the average in terms of unemployment. Well over half of the jobs created in this country this year were in the public service. Public sector employees perform valuable work, but it is not a sustainable path. Canada's unemployment rate is 49% higher than the U.S. rate right now. We are 29% above the G7 unemployment rate.
From the government, we hear middle class this and middle class that. The PBO notes that when we look at wage gains, wages for in the bottom 10% have actually risen, which is great, and those of the top 10% have risen too, but for those in the middle class, the middle 50%, wage growth in percentage terms has stagnated. Therefore, in regard to everything the Liberals have said about things being great for the middle class, the fact is government has actually done nothing for them. This is more self-deceit.
The government talks a lot about its national housing strategy. I am going to quote from the Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy run by the former PBO Kevin Page. This again goes to the self-deceit. The government says it will provide $40 billion for a national housing strategy. It says it is going to do so much. This is the quote:
There is one concerning tidbit around the National Housing Co-Investment Fund, specifically regarding the back-end-loaded nature of the federal funding. The full 10-year plan outlines $15.9 billion for the National Housing Co-Investment Fund, yet only $1.3 billion is budgeted for the first 5 years. And by the end of the 10 years, only $5.1 billion has been budgeted....
This all begs the question: Where is the proposed $40 billion National Housing Strategy funding? By following the funding throughout the years and tracking what is “new” money, we have painted a picture of what the NHS looks like apart from the glossy document that accompanied its announcement.
This is what we see again, this self-deceit of the government, which repeats its mantra again and again, but it is only fooling itself.
The budget implementation act no. 2 is a mess and disgrace and will not serve Canadians, just like its forefather, budget implementation act no. 1, did not.