Debates of Nov. 26th, 2018

Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 2

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have to ask my hon. colleague from the Conservative ranks to challenge this claim that Canadians from coast to coast do not want a carbon tax. It is very clear that Gordon Campbell's government in British Columbia would never have been re-elected had he not brought in the carbon tax. In fact, the NDP at the time ran a campaign against it, called “axe the tax”, which was a mistake the New Democrats now acknowledge. However, the approximate reason that the Gordon Campbell Liberals were returned to government was that he had put in place a sensible carbon tax, which led to British Columbia having some of the highest growth rates, economic performance, and employment in the country.

Looking at Ontario, does the hon. member honestly think that if Patrick Brown had remained leader of the Progressive Conservative Party in Ontario, supporting a carbon price as he did, that somehow that would have turned the election against the Progressive Conservatives? The reality is that Ontario was going Conservative no matter what the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party at the time said about a carbon tax.

This is sensible economic policy and we need much more of it, not less.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the truth of the matter is that I had the privilege of being in British Columbia on the island dealing with veterans affairs issues. Being shadow minister for veterans affairs, I have had the opportunity to talk to veterans across the country.

From the conversations I had while there, I would say that a new realization is developing there as well. The truth of the matter is that there is a good possibility, as with the other governments, that there might be a change of thinking, at least on the federal level. Again, it is not governments that are complaining about this; it is people, and the people on that island understand how valuable their environment is. At the same time, they are totally aware that this tax has not in any way impacted the amount of emissions from Canada, and it is impacting small businesses.

Business of the House

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it I think you would find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, during the debate tonight pursuant to Standing Order 52, no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-86, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 2018 and other measures, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 2

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, before I go to my prepared remarks on the budget implementation act, I cannot resist making a few comments about the federal government's approach to poverty. There is a story I found in the Globe and Mail and, despite the prospect of hundreds of millions of dollars of government money going to the media, kudos to the Globe and Mail for writing the straight story. It talked about the government's spending $500,000 on the name, logo and branding for a new anti-poverty association. This is quite striking, because I wonder how many Canadians and people abroad who are living in poverty could have benefited from some of that exorbitant sums spent on a logo, which, frankly, is not even very good.

I had the pleasure of having my kids in Ottawa with me last week. My daughter Gianna spent some time in the office with my son Judah and daughter Lilly. Gianna was very keen on helping with the things we were doing in the office. She spent some time shredding paper. If only I had known I could have had her drawing logos. She is very entrepreneurial. She would have been happy to draw a much better logo than it for much less than $500,000, and maybe could have gotten a head start on her university fund.

It really is disappointing to see the government talking a good game on poverty but then frittering away dollars that could have been spent helping those who need it most. Certainly, whenever we look at the government's response to issues like poverty or international development, we will hold it accountable, not primarily on the basis of the dollars that are spent but on the results achieved, because we often see how far away its expenditures are from things that would achieve results.

I will now begin my general remarks on the budget.

The Liberal government claims that the Canadian economy is strong, that the middle class is doing well under this government, that running deficits is good policy, and that a tax on carbon will not have any adverse effect.

Every one of those claims is false. In last week's economic update, the Liberal government painted a nice image of the economy, but it is not an image that exists in real life.

Less than a week after the government's economic update, we learn that GM has decided to cease operations in Oshawa, which will result in the loss of more than 2,000 jobs. The government cannot say that the economy is as strong as it claims when companies like GM close their doors and we lose thousands of jobs in Canada.

The Prime Minister loves saying that he is helping the middle class and those working hard to join it. However, every time he adopts a new policy, it seems to have a negative impact on the middle class and those working hard to join it.

For example, the Prime Minister is still trying to bring in a carbon tax that will mostly affect the middle class and those working hard to join it.

As a result of this tax, every time someone drives to work, to their child's hockey or piano lessons, or to the grocery store, that person will have to pay more for gas. They will also have to pay more for groceries, clothing and almost everything else. That is because the Liberals want to find money to pay for their spending spree.

The Liberal government has also announced that the biggest emitters will not have to pay the carbon tax. It is therefore quite clear that the government is not putting this policy in place to protect the environment.

The carbon tax is not an environmental plan, it is a tax plan.

It is clear that the Liberal government is not helping the middle class and those who are working hard to join it. Taxes for a middle-class family have increased by an average of $800. By contrast, the richest 1% of Canadians paid $4.5 billion less the year after the government's tax changes.

Last week, we moved a motion calling on the government to tell Canadians when it would address its reckless spending and balance the budget. We moved this motion because the Prime Minister told Canadians during the 2015 election campaign that the country would have small deficits until 2019, when the budget would be balanced, as it was under the previous government. However, not all the deficits are small, as the Prime Minister suggested. In fact, the deficits are much higher, three times higher, than the $10 billion he promised. Furthermore, the deficits will not end in 2019, but will continue for several years.

In fact, Randall Bartlett, chief economist at the Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy at the University of Ottawa, believes that the deficits will be even higher. Even the Department of Finance now admits that if we continue down the same path the Liberal Party has started on, the budget will not be balanced until 2045. However, when we gave the Prime Minister the opportunity to clarify this situation and tell Canadians when he plans to balance the budget, he did not take it.

In fact, every member of his caucus voted against our motion. They voted to hide the truth from Canadians. They voted against telling Canadians when the budget will be balanced.

I would like to point out that this bill is over 800 pages long, double the size of the previous government's bill. Many Liberal members were opposed to the Conservatives' bills because they were too long, yet they are in favour of this bill. I find that very interesting.

It is quite obvious that the Liberal government is not serious when it says that it supports the middle class and those working hard to join it. Every time the Liberals announce a new policy, it has a negative impact on the middle class. These policies not only affect today's middle class, but tomorrow's as well, our children's generation. When the Liberals continue spending money and racking up deficits, they are creating a situation in which future generations will have to pay for today's irresponsible spending. They are stealing from future generations.

I do not think it is fair to tell my children, Gianna, Judah and Lilly, that they have to work harder to pay for things that I had in my life. Future generations will have to pay for advantages that they will not have, and that is not fair.

In the final time I have, I want to highlight the challenges we are facing in my province. While we are struggling economically in so many different ways, and while the government is putting in place measures to prevent the development of future pipelines, we are paying for pipelines overseas through the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. We are putting hundreds of millions of Canadian taxpayers' dollars into a Chinese-controlled bank that acts as an agent of Chinese foreign policy. It is building a pipeline in Azerbaijan while we are not proceeding with vital energy infrastructure projects here in Canada. It is these kinds of approaches that make Canadians feel the government is so offside with their own situation and interests. This budget bill must be defeated.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member opposite and share his concern about the expenditures on the logo that clearly, which we heard in question period today, offended the minister and the parliamentary secretary. Hopefully, the arm's-length organization can take better stewardship of public dollars. I share his concern that the scarce dollars we can commit to fighting poverty should be spent on those who need a solution to that dilemma rather than simply on graphic arts. I am as perplexed as the member is as to why those dollars were misdirected.

The member talked about the situation confronting his home province and some of the support it had seen. Would he agree that a substantial investment in housing not only provides relief for those who have low incomes, but also creates jobs for trades people? While the energy sector goes through challenges, the largest single group of employees in the energy sector is construction workers. In other words, a national housing strategy not only solves social problems, but also provides immediate relief for workers in the construction sector who are losing work because of the slowdown in the oil patch. Would the member agree that the national housing strategy is, in fact, a very good investment and one that should have been made years ago?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is part of the discourse of the Liberals in general that they really wanted to find a discourse around a national strategy branded in such-and-such a way. I am very proud of the investments that were made in housing by the previous Conservative government, significant investments in the area of helping the vulnerable and the homeless and addressing the housing issue.

The member talks about the logo issue. This is endemic of the government. Its focus is on the branding, what is put in the window and what one calls it, instead of the substance and the reality. We agree that there was a role for government to be engaged in the area of housing and to help the vulnerable, yet we see that in so many different areas the government puts the emphasis on logos and renaming. It is not just an isolated incident. It is a problem with the way it values style over substance. However, on this side of the House, we value substance over style, whether that is in the area of housing or poverty.

In the budget, in terms of poverty, the government is legislating goals. That is okay, but there is nothing binding about achieving those goals. The fact is that the previous government did far more to fight poverty by lowering the taxes that lower-income Canadians paid. We lowered the lowest marginal tax rate, we raised the basic personal exemption and we lowered the GST. These were elements of targeted tax relief for those who needed the tax relief the most, completely different from what the Liberal government is doing in trying to give advantages to the most well off.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate working with the member on the procedure and House affairs committee. He is very bright.

I want to ensure people know that the Conservatives asked hundreds of questions. They said that they asked hundreds of questions and said that MPs should know when budgets were going to be balanced. They already lost that argument a long time ago. When they were asked before, none of them could tell us that they would run nine deficits and one surplus.

My question is related to transit. I have heard members of the Conservative Party suggest that greenhouse gases will not be cut with programs and that infrastructure would not create jobs. I will ask the member, and I am sure I will get a more intellectual answer. I assume the member would agree that the number of major transit projects we have funded in the west will cut greenhouse gases and create jobs because someone has to build them.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member is frustrated because no Conservative would tell him when we we would run nine deficits and one surplus. I guess the answer to that is because we did not run nine deficits and one surplus. Maybe he needs to go back and check the record on that.

With respect to investments in transit, I know in various areas, and, in particular, there has been some discussion in the House about the Green Line in Calgary, the Liberals are keen to talk about projects that were put in place and started under the previous Conservative government. I am very proud of the Conservative record in making substantial investments in transit and other areas. Because we did those things in the context of a balanced budget, Canadians could have confidence in those commitments.

When governments make all kinds of unbudgeted commitments in a deficit situation, like we saw in the Province of Ontario under the Kathleen Wynne Liberals, which the government is keen to salute, a situation is created where, inevitably, it is impossible to realize those promises that have been made to people. I am proud of the investments the Conservatives made, whether it was in the area of housing or transit, that were in the context of a balanced budget so Canadians could have confidence that the money was in the bank to deliver on the commitments.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-86 today on behalf of the people of Sherbrooke, who elected me to represent them here in the House.

Today, I have to say that this is a big disappointment. I am also speaking in my capacity as deputy finance critic for my party, the NDP. As deputy critic, I am very disappointed in the Liberal government for picking up the Conservative government's nasty habit of introducing unprecedentedly long budget implementation bills. With every bill, it seems the government hopes to beat the record set by the previous budget implementation bill. The Liberals seem to be competing with the Conservatives to see who can draft the longest bill. This 850-page bill breaks the records for both number of pages and number of clauses in a budget implementation bill.

I feel like I am repeating myself, because last Friday, I spoke about Canada Post and the fact that I was surprised by the Liberals' actions in view of what they said when they sat in this corner of the House. I am also surprised to see the Liberals introducing omnibus bills. When they were the third party, they openly criticized the length of omnibus bills at every opportunity, both here in the House and in committee when we were called on to do an in-depth study of bills.

Today, I am surprised to see the Liberals once again doing the exact opposite of what they said when they sat in this corner of the House and introducing an 850-page omnibus bill. Liberal members who were here at that time and who are still here today seem to have completely forgotten about their displeasure with this type of government action. Today, they seem quite at ease with a process that allows a bill like Bill C-86 to be rushed through. When the bill was introduced in the House, the Standing Committee on Finance was asked to begin studying it even before it passed second reading. When the committee is asked to study the 850-page Bill C-86 in advance, the result of a vote in the House is a foregone conclusion. We were asked to complete our study in two or three weeks.

First we had to read the bill, to see what was in it. How can we do our jobs properly as parliamentarians if we do not have time to read the content of the bill? Then we had to call witnesses to also come and give their input on the bill. They faced the same challenge. I know from experience that many witnesses are caught off guard by such massive bills, and they were called to appear with just a few days of notice, perhaps a week or a week and a half, when they were being asked to comment on a bill as huge as this one. On that note, I have to say how surprised I am to see the Liberals using the same tactics to expedite the process in the House, not giving parliamentarians enough time to study bills properly.

We have clearly seen this in some situations in the past. Some bills have contained errors that had to be corrected later on. Those errors could have been avoided if the proper process had been followed in the first place. In the case of Bill C-86, I feel compelled to point out the Liberals' inconsistency, since they used to criticize omnibus bills, but they are doing exactly the same thing today.

Fortunately, there is some good news for Canadians in this bill. We have to acknowledge that and give credit where credit is due. There are a few good measures in this bill, but sadly, they do not go far enough. That is what we heard from witnesses during the committee's study. Take pay equity, for example. That is something we have been calling for for years, and the Liberals have been promising it for years, if not decades. For once, they seem inclined to actually do something in response to many questions and plenty of pressure from the opposition. Unfortunately, the witnesses said that the implementation would be too slow and that the bill still has some shortcomings. I call it a bill because it should be a stand-alone bill on pay equity, but it was embedded in an 850-page bill.

The experts pointed out some flaws that needed to be fixed, but the Liberals, obviously, flat out rejected their suggestions. It is our job, as members of the committee, to propose amendments when experts come share their views and make recommendations. In this case, our amendments reflected exactly what they asked for. However, as usual, the Liberals think they are always right and will not accept any criticism. They rejected all of the amendments and did not think it was necessary to listen to experts. They left the bill as is, unfortunately.

I want to talk about some of the important measures that are missing from this bill. The government failed to meet a number of our expectations. Our party sent letters to the Minister of Finance to share our observations on the economy and on what could be done to help the majority of Canadians, not just company executives.

The government did not include a single measure related to tax fairness or pension theft, a topic I have heard a lot about in Sherbrooke. I held a town hall on this very issue. People were unanimous in their outrage for companies that run off with their workers' savings, like Sears, which stole its employees' pensions.

Not only are the Liberals not doing anything about pension theft in this bill, they are actually making the problem worse by listening to some of the companies' suggestions and further protecting companies that declare bankruptcy. Not only do they not want to fix this problem in this budget implementation bill, but they are going to make it worse.

The Liberal government is clearly disconnected from reality, or at least from reality in Sherbrooke. The recent budget statement, which follows on the budget implementation bill, makes that all too clear, since it reflects almost every demand that corporate lobbyists have made to the Liberal government. The government came through for them, including by offering tax breaks.

For example, it decided to give businesses $14 billion over the next few years through an accelerated capital cost allowance. This measure was not even properly targeted, since companies will not be able to use it to create jobs or buy the equipment they need for everyday operations. For example, for a plant, purchasing a machine is a good investment. Unfortunately, the bulk of the accelerated allowance deduction will instead help buy things like planes and limousines. Companies will be able to write off that type of purchase.

The government should have seen this coming and ensured that this measure targeted things that companies really need for their daily operations, instead of luxury items that CEOs need to get from Toronto to Dubai. The government is clearly disconnected from Canadians.

What is more, the government is proposing to lower the marginal effective tax rate from 17% to 13.8%, even though corporate profit margins have increased over the past few years and individual tax rates keep going up year after year. In other words, as corporate tax rates go down, individual tax rates go up. This shows yet again that the Liberal government is disconnected from reality.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Madam Speaker, I believe I heard my colleague from Sherbrooke say a few good things about the economic update.

He said that providing an accelerated capital cost allowance for the purchase of machinery, including equipment for producing renewable energy, also affects manufacturers and exporters.

Manufacturiers et Exportateurs du Québec, or MEQ, also complimented the Government of Canada on that initiative. As the member said, new equipment creates jobs, and job creation helps the unemployed get jobs.

Does the member see this as a positive, or is he focusing solely on the things he disagrees with?

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the Minister of Transport, for his question.

In general, as an opposition member, I focus more on the negative aspects of what the government proposes. I know that the minister understands that reality because he was sitting on this side of the House just a few years ago. However, I am able to see positive aspects too, and I often point them out in committee.

Of course, there are good reasons to improve the capital cost allowance for the purchase of equipment. I hear the same thing from businesses I visit in Sherbrooke. Business owners want more support so that they can invest in their companies. The problem I have with this measure is that it is basically a general gift from the government that leads to a much more advantageous accelerated capital cost allowance, especially for items that qualify for accelerated depreciation. Unfortunately, it would have been better if the government had taken a more targeted approach that focuses on job creation.

That is what our leader Jagmeet Singh and I say all the time. The government really needs to ensure that incentives to invest are more targeted and better focused on job creation and more tangible things that would help it meet its objectives. It is not enough to give a general benefit and hope that it works.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I have a question for him about tax rates.

The NDP speaks often about corporate or business tax rates. In my mind there are two issues: the question of business tax rates and the question of the tax rates we charge to higher-income individuals. Those two issues are often conflated by the discourse we hear from the NDP.

There is certainly logic on the personal income tax side, focusing our tax reductions on lower-income individuals, and that is what we did while were in government. We raised the base personal exemption, we lowered the lowest marginal rate and we lowered the GST, which is the one tax that all Canadians pay. At the same time, we lowered the business tax. We saw when we lowered business taxes that it made it easier to do business in Canada and that it led to an increased amount of tax revenue coming in through business taxes. It also led to job creation here in Canada, which benefited those who were unemployed.

Would my colleague reconsider his approach a little in recognizing that if we want to raise taxes on those who are well off, there are maybe arguments for what we do on the income tax side? Certainly on the business tax side, we have seen that lowering business taxes actually increases tax revenue for government and it also helps the unemployed get into the workforce.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for giving me an opportunity to comment briefly on the issue of corporate taxes compared to personal income taxes.

Unfortunately, the trend we have seen that drives government spending up over time, which is what the Liberal government is proposing, is that, year after year, taxes are not collected in a manner that is fair.

There is a pattern that has been emerging for many years now. It started under the Conservatives and continues under the Liberals. It is that personal income taxes are constantly going up. For instance, personal income tax revenues are expected to increase next year from $161 billion to $170 billion. During the same period, between 2017-18 and 2018-19, corporate tax revenues will decrease from $49.5 billion to $45 billion.

Who is left paying for Canada's social programs these days? The financial burden falls less and less on corporations and more and more on individual taxpayers. We must ask ourselves why that is.

Bill C-86—Notice of time allocation motion

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the report stage and third reading stage of Bill C-86, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 2018, and other measures.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at those stages.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-86, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 2018 and other measures, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 2

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to join in on the debate so soon after the bringing in of closure again.

I am pleased to speak on budget implementation act, no. 2, an omnibus bill that is a sequel to Budget Implementation Act, No. 1, which is also an omnibus bill. This is a sequel omnibus bill to an omnibus bill.

Who cares, some might ask, that this is another omnibus bill? Apparently not our government Liberals. I wonder if they forgot their pledge from the last election regarding the practice of omnibus bills. If they forgot, I will remind them. This is from their website: “We will...bring an end to this undemocratic practice.”

Maybe the Liberals say it does not count because they had their fingers crossed behind their backs when they made that pledge. Maybe they say it does not count because at the time they did not put their hands over their hearts when they made that pledge, so it is okay to break that promise. That is fine. We just ask them not to be hypocrites and to just own it. They should come out and say they are going to do omnibus bills. Unfortunately, what we have right here is another omnibus bill.

The Liberals said they were going to end this practice of bringing forward omnibus bills, and it is actually on the Liberal mandate tracker. In the mandate tracker, it says, under the words “Completed—fully met”, that “[m]easures are in place to end the improper use of omnibus bills”. The Liberals have said in a mandate tracker that they have ended the practice, yet here we have another omnibus bill. Maybe they are hinging this on the word “improper”. It is improper for perhaps Conservatives to use omnibus bills, but it is okay if they do it, because they are Liberals.

What else does it say on this wonderful Liberal mandate tracker? There are 23 items labelled “progress made, facing challenges”, including balancing the budget in 2019-20. With respect to running a $20-billion deficit next year, instead of balancing the budget as Liberals promised, progress is being made and there are challenges.

The world has not seen this level of denial since perhaps the Black Knight in the movie Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Like the Black Knight refusing to see the truth with his limbs cut off, I can see the finance minister, in response to the $20-billion deficit, bouncing about the finance ministry saying, “'Tis but a scratch. It is under way with challenges.”

What other lies can we find on the Liberal mandate tracker with respect to progress made? “Make sure the Infrastructure Bank supports the construction of new, affordable rental housing.” Keep in mind, Liberals say this is “progress made”, yet their fabled infrastructure bank has not put a single penny into housing. In fact, the only thing Liberals have done so far, which was politically motivated, is invest in a Quebec transit project that is actually going to deliver below-market returns for taxpayers.

One of their other promises is to “Ensure that the [CRA] is a client-focused agency.” Liberals have said they made progress in ensuring that CRA is delivering services to Canada, the same CRA that the Auditor General called out for doctoring its performance standards. CRA was basically hanging up on Canadians or stopping its calls from coming through to show a higher response rate than actually reported. The same Auditor General just recently talked about how the CRA would give special extensions for large companies and offshore tax cheats, but not give those same extensions to small individual businesses or Canadians. However, to the Liberals, this is progress made.

One of my favourite items labelled “progress made” in the Liberal mandate tracker is “Ensure that the Canadian Armed Forces have the equipment they need.” We have the fighter jet issue. The Liberals promised they were not going to buy the F-35, and then, as the Auditor General stated, they manufactured a capability gap. It used to be NORAD first and then NATO. Then Liberals said they needed a reason not to buy the F-35s and get Super Hornets, and said that NORAD and NATO were on the same level so they would need more jets. Then they decided to buy sole-source Boeing Super Hornets, but Boeing got into a fight with Bombardier, and since the Liberals did not want Bombardier to be picked on, Boeing was punted out. They decided they were not going to buy jets from Boeing, so what did they do? They decided to buy used Boeing Hornets from Australia.

They launched what they say was an open and fair competitive process to replace the fighter jets over about a five- or six-year period, even though the mandate letter actually said to have it done by 2019.

Our allies, Israel, Germany, Denmark and South Korea, have all managed to do an open and honest competition in two years or less. South Korea actually started its open competition, suspended it while it reviewed whether it wanted to go to a new plane or stick with the F-16, restarted its open competition and managed to finish it within a two-year period, but we are going to take five years or six years.

Regarding ships, we know the President of the Treasury Board is embroiled in the scandal with Admiral Mark Norman for his political interference with buying the Asterix. Of course, he says that it his job to interfere with contracts as Treasury Board president. We asked him why he did not interfere with the Phoenix pay system, the same system he paid to have the Gartner report done on. The Gartner report very clearly said not to go ahead and that there were too many problems with Phoenix. However, he looked at the report and threw it out because it was not his job to look at it, but it was his job to interfere with the ship contract at Davie.

With sleeping bags, the government is asking our soldiers to return their sleeping bags. We need to use them for other troops because there are not enough sleeping bags, but progress is being made on the mandate letter of course. Our soldiers have to buy their own boots and seek reimbursement from the government, but again, under the mandate letter, progress is being made.

What is the point of all this about the mandate letter? It is to point out the truth and expose the Liberal talking points for what they are, which is simply empty rhetoric. Do people want more empty rhetoric? Just go to any speech made by the Liberals on how they are helping my home province of Alberta. Listen to anything from the mouth of the natural resources minister, who is allegedly representing Edmonton Mill Woods in Alberta.

Here is what the natural resources minister says on Bill C-69, the famous “no pipeline ever“ bill. He says, “It gives a pathway to proponents...You engage early, you get good results.” For seven years, Kinder Morgan engaged and consulted, and was side-swiped by the government. Northern gateway was years in consulting and engaging, and it was killed by the government. It is the same story with energy east. Even the Black Knight from Monty Python and the Holy Grail would look at Bill C-69 and say that this is a disaster which is going to kill the energy industry in Alberta.

What else do we get? A five-year extension of unfair equalization of Alberta shifting money to other provinces. There was no consultation, just a tiny line hidden in a 700-page omnibus bill. In Alberta, we have been in a financial crisis for three years now and a human crisis. Donations to charities are low, access to food banks is at a high, unemployment is at a high, families are falling apart, suicide is rising and the government does nothing. This is how bad it gets, because I am actually going to quote the NDP. Joe Ceci, the Alberta finance minister, said that if it was Bombardier, all hands would be on deck.

The Prime Minister was recently in Calgary and said, “...things...are beyond our control here...we are constrained and have been for a long time...” Out of their control. I have to ask, how is killing northern gateway out of his control? How is hitting energy east with rules and regulations he would not dare put on Saudi Arabia oil out of his control? How is banning oil tankers from the B.C. north coast beyond his control? How is Bill C-69, the “no more pipelines ever" bill out of his control? Basically, I think telling the truth to Albertans is out of his control. The only truth we have heard from the PM was when he said that he wanted to phase out the oil sands business.

With this bill, we have $19 billion of debt this year, another $20 billion next year. Bombardier is laying off people, and obviously GM is laying off people in Oshawa today. What tools are we going to have when the recession hits? Almost nothing. The government is spending now in good times when it should be putting money aside for when the recession hits. Budget implementation act, no. 2 is as bad as Budget Implementation Act, No. 1. It pushes us further into debt and leaves nothing for Canada and Canadians when we do need it.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, I want to make sure the record is straight about omnibus bills, because this has come up a number of times, and to make sure people know the facts.

The facts are that the reason it was in the platform is that the Conservatives dramatically abused budget implementation bills by making large corrections to another act that had nothing to do with it. I think it was the environment act.

The member mentioned that the promise was kept, and that is true. If we look at Standing Order 69.1, there are two subsections to it. One prevents omnibus bills being improperly used for a bill that is not a budget bill, and another prevents them from being used for a budget bill. That mechanism has been used in the House already to prevent the abuse of omnibus bills.

I wanted to make sure that people knew that. We cannot do unrelated bills in one big bill and that provision is now in place in the Standing Orders, and that promise has been kept.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I do not think anyone in Canada would look at a 900-page budget bill with legislative changes inside of sections. Recently, Bill C-75 lightened the penalties for many serious crimes. It had 23 sections where legislative changes were hidden inside of sections making other legislative changes. I have to say that if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck. It is the same with these omnibus bills that the Liberal government campaigned against, and yet it sits here day after day and introduces them in the House.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, to correct my Liberal friend, it was the Speaker ruling on this and some other Liberal omnibus bills, chastising the government for cramming things into them that had nothing to do with the budget. The government then had to break up the omnibus budget bill. This was something the Liberals criticized very strongly, as New Democrats did too. There are some bills that have to be more extensive in dealing with the budget, but governments tend to fall for the temptation of sneaking things in. The Harper government did it before. The Liberals have now been chastised twice within this session alone.

I have a specific question about General Motors, because it is very much in all of our hearts and minds. Thousands of jobs were affected today by the decision by GM. I think it is a cowardly decision and showed very little respect for the community in Oshawa and the people of Ontario in its timing and the way it was done.

In 2009, the Canadian and Ontario governments loaned GM $9.5 billion and acquired some of its shares. Then it ended up losing almost $3 billion in reselling those shares. In 2014, the Auditor General of Canada found out that GM could not account for how than more than half a billion dollars of that money was used. The whole point of the public bailout was to save jobs.

In October, Export Development Canada showed a one billion dollar outstanding loan to General Motors that now apparently is going to be written off.

With all of these billions and billions of dollars going to sometimes profitable, sometimes not profitable, companies which then decide to pull up their stakes, Canadians are wondering what accountability there is. What responsibility is there back to the taxpayers who only loaned or gave this money with the intent and the knowledge that it would somehow be protecting jobs, particularly when a company like GM decided today to pull out and leave two and a half thousand families without work or income?