Debates of Nov. 27th, 2018

Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 2

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am going to start where the Liberals just left off. The Liberals said, unbelievably, that somehow Canadians who are in the immense turmoil that exists currently with the housing crisis in so many parts of this country are happy with the government. I can say first-hand, from living in New Westminster—Burnaby, which is, in a sense, in the epicentre of the housing crisis, that tonight there are women, men and families wondering whether they can keep a roof over their heads. As rents rise, and they have limited pensions or are working at minimum wage, they do not believe they can keep up. There are women, men and families worried about whether they will ever have housing again. That is why so many shelters are filled to the brim. It is a national tragedy, yet what we have heard today from the Liberals is that everything is just fine. It clearly is not.

We need a federal government that understands the principle of a roof over every single Canadian's head and that will make the required investments so that housing becomes a priority again in this country. That is certainly something Jagmeet Singh has been speaking to right across this country as he talks with Canadians. There is no doubt in his mind that the housing crisis is critical and that we have to respond with the kind of effort we did after the Second World War.

I have mentioned this before in the House. We built 300,000 housing units in the space of 30 months. Governments at that time understood that the men and women in service overseas were coming back to Canada and deserved to have a roof over their heads. That is why in places like New Westminster, like 109 Glover, which is my address, those houses were built in 1947, 1948 and 1949. We built hundreds of thousands of units. Today the government pretends that it has done something. It has manufactured, in a bizarre way, some cooked-up figures, as if it is actually addressing the housing crisis. It is a tragedy that the government does not understand the importance of this. There is nothing in this budget implementation bill that addresses the housing crisis.

There is nothing in the budget implementation bill that addresses the crisis in pharmacare, either. The lack of pharmacare is something so many Canadians feel acutely. One in every five Canadians, as my colleague, the member for Vancouver Kingsway, has mentioned numerous times in the House, has no access to medications. They simply cannot afford to pay for them. Businesses have to pay billions of dollars a year for drug plans. The good businesses, of course, provide drug plans to their employees. Businesses that care less choose not to do that, but then those employees become part of the one in every five Canadians who cannot afford medications.

These are the big, glaring errors in this budget implementation bill. When the government could have chosen to take action, it chose, instead, to do nothing. It aggravated it, appallingly to me and to so many Canadians, with a massive $14-billion corporate tax writeoff scheme. That is $14 billion of taxpayers' money. Stunningly, when I talked to the finance officials and asked if it was true what I was reading on page 58 that plush corporate jets and stretch limousines were included as part of these massive corporate tax writeoffs that could go to Bay Street companies, they said yes, it was very true; stretch limousines, absolutely; plush private jets, absolutely.

The government is not prioritizing the needs of Canadians by putting in place single-payer universal pharmacare, putting in place housing in this country at a time when it is in crisis or responding to the needs of indigenous children. They are profoundly underfunded and disadvantaged for life because of the up to $10,000 funding gap per pupil per year in indigenous schools because of the chronic underfunding by the federal government.

Instead of responding to all of this, we have what is before us. What is before us had some good intentions. Pay equity was a very good intention. The federal government slapped itself on the back and said it did a good job. It was then referred to committee, which heard from witnesses. It heard from the Coalition for Pay Equity, CUPE, the Public Service Alliance of Canada and the Canadian Labour Congress. It heard from a wide variety of activists who have been fighting for pay equity and making sure that women are paid equally for work of equal value for years. Each one of them said that there were major flaws and that this bill had holes that must be addressed.

The pay equity coalition was particularly eloquent in this regard. It said that unless these flaws were fixed, women would have to go back to court so they could actually get equal pay for work of equal value. That is a compelling argument. Parliamentarians from the Liberal Party were at the committee and heard from the Coalition for Pay Equity, the teamsters, CUPE, PSAC and of course, the CLC, all of them saying the same thing, to fix the flaws. Every single one of them said that if these flaws were not fixed, women would have to return to court. Therefore, the Liberals cannot brag about bringing pay equity. All they can brag about is bringing a flawed bill to the floor of the House of Commons.

The NDP, because we are the worker bees in this House, went to work. We worked night and day. We came up with dozens of amendments to fix all the flaws. The Liberals put forward a flawed bill. However, our job, as parliamentarians, is to fix the flaws. When I went to committee last week, my full expectation, despite the fact that the Liberals were bulldozing the bill through committee, was that the Liberals would accept the amendments and fix the flaws in the bill, even though we did all the work. Unbelievably, the Liberal MPs who sat at committee and heard about the massive flaws that would lead to women having to go back to court to achieve pay equity refused to entertain any amendments whatsoever.

Now we are left at report stage with a deeply flawed piece of legislation. Not a single Liberal can get up and say that the government has fixed pay equity, because it has not. The Liberals had a chance. We did the work for them. We were willing to let them take the credit, because the only thing that seems to concern them is who gets credit. We do not care. We just want this fixed. We want pay equity to be a reality. We do not want women to have to go back to court. The Liberals said no. Therefore, we are left with a bill with all the massive flaws identified by witness after witness. Not a single Liberal MP was willing to stand up for pay equity at committee. Not a single MP was willing to fix the flaws.

That is just one issue in a very sad narrative. I only have 10 minutes. I could speak for hours on this, because there are flaws identified in other parts of this massive omnibus piece of legislation. It is the biggest in our history, at 850 pages. It was thrown at the House of Commons with all kinds of flaws and mistakes written in, yet the Liberals were unwilling, even when other parties did the work for them, to entertain any fixes to the flaws.

Unfortunately, what that means is that this will be exactly like what we saw with the Harper government. Half a dozen times, a court threw out the legislation, because the Conservatives steamrolled it through the House of Commons rather than listening to elected representatives and experts so they could fix the flaws. Tragically, we are going to see women being forced to go back to court to throw out a piece of legislation on pay equity that could have been fixed. We did the work for them.

The most frustrating thing is that the current Liberal government does not have the character to understand that it is not who gets the credit; it is that the work is done right. We have always believed that the work needs to be done right. That is our role in Parliament, as Canadians chose in the last election. Up until the next election, we will continue to do that work.

I must oppose the bill at report stage. There are huge errors in this bill, and the Liberals rejected dozens of amendments that we proposed. They refused to improve the bill, and this is why I will vote against it.

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

Madam Speaker, I am going to focus my question on the member's housing analysis for a very simple reason. Not one single fact was presented in the argument he made to the House.

The NDP will complain that if we spend money this year, we should have spent it last year. If we spent money last year, why are we not spending it this year? If we spend it over 10 years, why are we not spending it all right now? If we are spending it all right now, what are we going to do for the next 10 years? It has an argument against any action any government takes ever.

When we take a look at what the NDP promised, if it had been elected to government this time, it would have spent zero dollars on affordable housing in the year we are currently in. It is in the platform. Actually, it would have been three years in a row of zero dollars on affordable housing, not a single penny on new housing.

On homelessness, the issue the member spoke to specifically, which he thinks is suddenly a crisis, quite clearly, the drafting of the platform last time did not see it that way, because there was $10 million a year. Liberals are spending $10 million in Vancouver and Toronto alone in new dollars and $100 million across the country. We doubled those funds. The only thing worse than the argument just presented was the NDP platform presented to Canadian people in the last election.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member needs to understand that despite the influence of Donald Trump and Trumpism, repeating something that is false over and over again does not make it true. That is very simple and very straightforward.

Heather has a daughter and a mother. The three of them live together in a one-bedroom apartment, and the fact is that she is wondering whether next month she will still have a roof over her head, because she works for minimum wage.

The fact is that when John's pension could not keep up, he ended up sleeping on the sofa of a friend, and eventually, a senior who had worked all his life, on the Liberals' watch, ended up at a parkade in downtown Westminster sleeping in his last possession, which was a car.

The fact is that Ed tries every night to find an affordable apartment, because he wants to move out of the shelter. However, he finds that within minutes of anything going online, it is already impossible to get that particular apartment, because it is taken so quickly.

Those are the facts. I wish Liberals would listen to real Canadians for a change.

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

Madam Speaker, this kind of debate is devastating for me. There are parts of what the Liberal government is saying that are quite correct. There is much I agree with from the New Democrats. We could just have a conversation saying that we need pay equity, we need universal child care and we need housing and ask how we get there from here because we know it is not in this budget. More than anything, we need a climate program that actually ensures that we have a world that will allow human beings to live on it. We need a habitable planet. We do not have that from the government. We have promises of it from many of the parties in this place.

I would just ask my friend from New Westminster—Burnaby if there is any way we can see a way out of this constant hyperpartisan wrangling. If we can put our political stripes aside and find ways to agree with each other on some things, we can move to agree with each other on the big things.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to start off by congratulating the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands on her engagement. She will be married very soon, and I think all members of the House join in congratulating her and wishing her and her husband-to-be the very best in the years to come.

Second, the reason we worked night and day to get those amendments in to fix the pay equity bill was that we do not care who gets the credit. What we do care about is that pay equity becomes a reality in this country and that women are not forced to go back to court to obtain the rights they had to go to court to acquire in the first place. That is the starting point.

The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands raises an important point. We have to make sure that we are getting the work done. It is not a series of talking points that makes difference. It is developing and producing results. That is why we worked so hard at report stage at committee to fix all the flaws identified in the bill by witnesses. We listened to witnesses and provided those amendments. I share her incredible disappointment that the Liberals did not accept a single opposition amendment. They became partisan. If they had accepted the amendments, we would have a much better piece of legislation.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, International Development; the hon. member for North Island—Powell River, Housing; and the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, Employment Insurance.

[Andy Fillmore, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Multiculturalism, Lib.]

Madam Speaker, it is a great privilege to speak to this House about Bill C-86, which represents our government's next steps to advance the mandate given to us by Canadians.

In 2015, Canadians sent us to Ottawa on a promise to grow the economy, support Canada's middle class and most vulnerable, and build a more inclusive and prosperous nation for all Canadians. Over the last three years, our government has made great progress on this promise.

Across the country, a strong and growing middle class is driving economic growth, and creating new jobs and more opportunities for people to succeed. While there is still more work to be done to ensure that every Canadian has a fair chance at success, real progress has been made. More Canadians are working, wages are growing, and Canadians and business are confident in their future.

The Canada child benefit, CCB, is helping families with the high cost of raising children by putting more money in the pockets of nine out of 10 families, helping to lift 521,000 people, including nearly 300,000 children, out of poverty. It is a measure that is making a real difference in Halifax.

This summer, I was at Mulgrave Park in our city's north end. It is a vibrant public housing community where many families benefit from the CCB. In a conversation with the executive director of Mulgrave Park Caring and Learning Centre, Crystal John, I asked her what she had been hearing from families about how the CCB is helping them. She told me that one important way to help is by giving families the funds to purchase nutritious meals for children. We know that food is expensive and that healthy food is even more expensive. Therefore, ensuring children are well fed, receiving the nutrients they need from healthy food, with fresh fruits and vegetables, is critically important. This is the positive impact of the CCB on the ground in Halifax and across the country.

Of course, more than nine million Canadians are also benefiting from the government's middle-class tax cut. By this time next year, a typical middle-class family of four will receive on average $2,000 more each year as a result of these two measures to help with the cost of raising their children and saving for their future. This will help grow the economy for the benefit of everyone. We have also enhanced the Canada pension plan, which will provide more Canadians with a secure retirement.

We have made historic investments in infrastructure, including the national housing strategy, which is helping Canadians with a secure, safe and affordable place to call home. I will say that, as a former city planner, this is a point of great pride for me. Secure and affordable housing is fundamental to a citizen's well-being. We have taken important steps to create a strategy that is smart, focused on the vulnerable and rights-based. Now, Canada's strong fiscal position, which includes the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7, allows the government to continue investing in the middle class and to lay a solid foundation for future generations.

In November, the Minister of Finance presented the federal government's 2018 fall economic statement, and here are some of the measures that it included.

First, the government is taking action to help Canadian businesses to compete, succeed and create good, well-paying jobs. We are introducing new tax incentives that will support business investment in Canada, including allowing businesses to immediately write off the full cost of machinery and equipment used for the manufacturing or processing of goods. We are also cutting red tape to make it easier to do business in Canada while protecting Canadians' health, safety and the environment.

The fall economic statement also makes important investments in a new social finance fund. The government recognizes that innovative approaches are needed to tackle persistent and complex social challenges that make it difficult for some Canadians to succeed and reach their full potential. To encourage and realize innovative ideas, the Government of Canada is creating a new social finance fund to allow potential investors to partner with charities, non-profit and social purpose organizations to work together to solve our country's biggest social challenges. We are also providing support to social purpose organizations to improve their ability to successfully participate in the social finance market. All told, the social finance fund is expected to help create thousands of jobs, foster economic growth and help us build a more equal and fair Canada.

In Halifax, we are so lucky to have a vibrant community of passionate people working in the social innovation field. Just last week, I had the opportunity to invite the Minister of Innovation to Halifax for a reception at Common Good Solutions, an incubator and consulting agency that helps social enterprises start and grow. Its fearless leader, David Upton, has been a strong voice for government support for social enterprises, and I have been proud to stand along with him. In speaking with him since last week, he is thrilled with what the new social finance fund will mean for this growing industry.

One more important update in the fall economic statement is support for Canadian journalism. A strong and independent news media is crucial to a well-functioning democracy. The government recognizes the vital role that journalism plays in communities across Canada and is making key investments to ensure that Canadians in underserved communities continue to have access to informed and reliable news coverage.

New measures include allowing non-profit news organizations to receive charitable donations and issue official donation receipts; introducing a new refundable tax credit that supports original news content creation, including local news; and introducing a new temporary, non-refundable tax credit for subscriptions to Canadian digital news media.

There is still more work to do but the progress we have made to date is extraordinary and we are not slowing down. We will continue to fight for Canada's middle class and vulnerable Canadians. The budget elements included in Bill C-86 will go a long way to help us realize this goal. I encourage all members to support it.

I am going to share a few more excellent points about the budget bill and I am sure that everyone in the House will be interested in hearing them.

Members have heard me say before that Nova Scotia is home to some of the brightest scientists and researchers in the world at leading research institutions like Dalhousie University, St. Mary's University, the Bedford Institution of Oceanography and the IWK, the Izaak Walton Killam Children's Hospital and more. For the last year, they have rallied around the recommendations of the Fundamental Science Review, also known as the Naylor report, which was commissioned by this government under the leadership of our Minister of Science and Sport. This report called for significant investment in investigator-led research.

Our government agreed with those calls for action, because research expands our understanding of how the world works, allowing us to address existing and emerging challenges in our region in new and effective ways.

Equally important, basic research also serves as the foundation for the knowledge-based economy. That is why budget 2018 includes the single largest investment in investigator-led fundamental research ever. That is $4 billion for fundamental science and research infrastructure and it includes a 25% increase to funding of the tri-council of NSERC, CIHR and SSHRC.

We have said it before, science is back, but more than that, with budget 2018 it is unstoppable.

The final measure I want to highlight is conservation, and this is a topic that many of my constituents in Halifax care deeply about. A whopping $1.3 billion to protect Canada's landscapes and biodiversity, including species at risk, is included in the budget. It also includes funding to protect endangered marine life such as the right whale.

These measures are joined by several others that are geared toward protecting our environment for generations to come, including funding for the implementation of Canada's pricing of pollution system.

There is $56 million to expand an existing home energy retrofit partnership with efficiency in Nova Scotia.

One of my favourite measures is making entry to Canada's national parks free for kids forever.

These are the kinds of investments that will keep Canada on a path to prosperity along with others that I mentioned in my speech today and countless additional initiatives from budget 2018 that I did not have time to address.

I hope that my colleagues from all corners of this place will agree that this plan is working for Canadians and that they will vote for this budget implementation measure to keep this spectacular momentum going.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is a bit unfortunate to notice that the parliamentary secretary cannot spontaneously speak without any notes about their supposedly great budget engagement.

I went out for a few seconds and I am sure I missed the point where the member said when his government would balance the budget. I am sure I missed that. The Liberals seem to want to be a responsible government, so I am sure I missed that point.

Could the member just repeat to me in which year the government will balance the budget?

[Andy Fillmore]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for creating a wonderful opportunity to talk about the importance of the economy in Canada and how well it is doing.

The member would know that Canada has the lowest GDP-to-debt ratio in the G7. We have the lowest rate of unemployment in 40 years. In fact, in Canada right now we have a labour shortage, not an unemployment problem. We have the highest productivity in the G7. This is an economy that is doing extremely well.

Someone who works in the finance world in Ontario told me that he does not right now see any room for expansion in the economy the way that it is right now. Everything is working at full capacity and it is a remarkable thing to behold. This has been made possible by key budget measures that this government has made, which have allowed Canadians to expand their companies and to create new employment opportunities.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I know that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage is not the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance. However, if he is following this file within his own department, he knows full well that failing to require that companies like Netflix or Google collect GST on their services is an injustice to all competitors that are Canadian and hire Canadians.

I am not even talking about corporate taxes, because I know that the Minister of Finance will say that it is complicated. The Liberals do not have much initiative, but I can understand that corporate taxes are complicated. That said, applying a transaction tax on transactions made in Canada is pretty basic.

Are the minister's rose-coloured finance glasses so big that he does not even see a need to collect taxes from service providers? Pathetic. Does my colleague have nothing to say on this? He knows very well that the cultural sector is unanimous on this issue.

Our service providers and creators at least want local broadcasters and over-the-top television services, which are comparable to Netflix, to be on an equal footing with the others.

[Andy Fillmore]

Madam Speaker, right now, the industry committee and the heritage committee are undergoing parallel studies that in the end will have the result of proposing measures to the House that we can all debate and vote on, that will help to level the playing field in this point of transition from an analog to a digital economy.

I think the member would be very happy to realize that in fact Netflix has announced the production of its first Quebec-based film, which is going to be very wonderful in Canada. This is an evolving media landscape, and we are, all together, going to be finding solutions to address the realities of a new world of media.

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

Madam Speaker, this is the problem as I see it. I watched the budget cuts in 2012. Environment Canada and Parks Canada lost 10% of their budgets. That money has not been replaced. Yes, it is wonderful to see investments in new protected areas, but as the Auditor General's report pointed out, our heritage buildings are not even being properly tracked. They are under Parks Canada's jurisdiction. Our lighthouses are not being protected. Meanwhile, on the species at risk side, the Canadian Wildlife Service does not have the people to prepare the recovery strategies. That is why it took 14 years to get a recovery strategy for southern resident killer whales, and it is still not being enacted.

I am frustrated. I see the nice words, and I know there are a lot of iconic measures in press releases, but we are not seeing restoration of Environment Canada to what it was before the cuts.

[Andy Fillmore]

Madam Speaker, I would like to add my voice of congratulations to the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for her wonderful news. We are all elated. It is a beautiful bit of news for all of us to hear at this time.

Like many federal departments, Parks Canada had to labour under terrible and debilitating budget cuts for nearly a decade under the previous Conservative government. It is now working valiantly to come out from under those dark days and produce work plans, business plans and strategic plans to restore the system of Canada's parks and the environment it administers back to what they have been and should be. Unfortunately, we never have enough resources. We are going to continue to work hard to give them what they need to succeed.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to respond to something the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands said. She said the government always has iconic and historical engagement announcements. I have come to think that it is all the government is about. It is always historical, amazing, so great, but we have never in Canadian history seen a government spend so much money to do so little.

I am very happy to speak today in the House of Commons on behalf of the citizens of Beauport—Limoilou.

Centre Block will soon be closing for complete renovations for 10 or 15 years. I wanted to mention that. There is no cause for concern, however, because we will be moving to West Block. I will therefore be able to continue to speak on behalf of my constituents.

Today I am discussing Bill C-86, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 2018 and other measures.

I will focus on the fact that the members of the Conservative Party are extremely disappointed with the bill. We have witnessed a string of broken promises over the past three years. It is a little ironic that the hon. member for Papineau, the current head of the Liberal government, said during the election campaign that he wanted to do something to make people less cynical of politics, to help them have more confidence in politicians, in the ability of the executive branch, the legislative branch and members of Parliament to do things that are good for Canadians and especially to respect the major promises formally made during the campaign.

A group of researchers at Laval University have created what they call the Vote Compass. It shows the number of promises kept and broken by the provincial and federal governments.

I remember that, to their chagrin, a few months before the 2015 election, the research institute had to acknowledge that 97% of all promises made by Mr. Harper during the 2011 election campaign had been kept.

The Liberal government elected in 2015 broke three major promises and is continuing to break them in the 2018 budget. These were not trifling promises. They were major promises that were to set the guidelines for how the government was to behave and for the results Canadians would see.

The Canadians we talk to are familiar with the three major promises, since I often repeat them. I have to, because this is serious.

The Liberals promised to limit themselves to minor $10-billion deficits in the first two years and a $6-billion deficit in the third year.

What did they do? The first year, they posted a deficit of $30 billion. The second year, they posted a deficit of $20 billion. This year, the deficit is $18 billion, or three times what was announced.

That is the first broken promise, and it was not just some promise that was jotted down on the back of a napkin. In any case, I hope not. In fact, I remember quite well that the promise was made from a crane in the midst of the election campaign. The member for Papineau was in Toronto, standing on a crane when he said that he would run deficits to pay for infrastructure. That is the second broken promise. He said that the $10 billion a year in deficits would be used to inject more money into infrastructure. However, of the $60 billion in deficits this government has racked up to date, only $9 billion has gone to infrastructure. That is another problem, another broken promise.

That is why I was saying earlier that we have rarely seen, in the history of Canada, a government spend so much money for so few results. This is probably the first time we have seen this sort of thing.

I will give an example. He said that he would invest $10 billion in infrastructure in 2017, but he invested only $3 billion and yet racked up a deficit of $20 billion. Where did the other $17 billion go? It was used for all sorts of different things in order to satisfy very specific interest groups who take great pleasure in and boast ad nauseam about the Liberal ideology.

The third broken promise is an extremely important and strategic one. In fact, it was so obvious that we did not even really think of it as a promise before.

All Canadian governments, in a totally responsible manner and without questioning it, traditionally endorsed this practice. If there was a deficit, the document would indicate the date by which the budget would be balanced. There was a repayment date, just as there is for anyone in Canada. When the families of Beauport—Limoilou, many of whom are watching today, want to buy a car or appliance, such as a washer or dryer, not only does the seller ask them to get a bank loan, but he also asks them to sign a paper that indicates when the debt will be repaid in full.

Thus, it is quite normal to indicate when the budget will be balanced. We have been asking that question for three years, but what is even more interesting is that the Liberals had promised that the budget would be balanced in 2019, and now there are 45 days remaining in 2018. Telling us when the budget will be balanced is the least the Liberals could do.

There are consequences to running up large deficits, however. The Liberal government has been accumulating gigantic deficits at a time when the global economy is doing rather well, although forecasts indicate that we will enter a recession in the next 12 months. Although times are tough in Alberta and Ontario, where General Motors just closed a plant, the situation is positive. There are regions in Canada that are suffering tremendously, but the global economic context is nevertheless healthy. Knock on wood, which is everywhere in the House of Commons.

The first serious mistake is to run up deficits when times are good. When the global economy is doing well and our financial institutions are making money, we have to put money aside for an emergency fund and an assistance fund, especially for the employees of General Motors who lost their jobs and for all families in the riding of my Alberta colleague who have lost their jobs in the oil sector.

We have to have an emergency fund for the next economic crisis because that is how our capitalist system works. There are ups and downs. That is human nature. It is random. Agreements are signed, things are done, progress is made, and there are ups and downs. The current positive situation has been going on for five or six years now, so we need to be prepared. That is why growing the deficit during good economic times can have very serious consequences.

I would like to talk about another serious consequence, and I am sure this will strike a chord with the people of Beauport—Limoilou who are listening to us now. Does anyone know how many billions of dollars the government spends on federal health transfers? It is $33 billion per year. To service the debt, to pay back people around the world who lend us money, we spent $37 billion last year. We spent $4 billion more on servicing our debt than on health transfers.

[An hon. member]

That is shameful.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Yes, Madam Speaker, it is shameful. It sure looks like bad management of public affairs. It makes no sense, and I am sure Canadians agree. I am sure they are sick and tired of hearing us talk about $10-billion, $20-billion, $30-billion deficits and so on.

Canada's total debt is now $670 billion. My fellow Canadians, that means that, at this point in time, your family owes $47,000. That is a debt you will have to pay.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage was very proud to announce that the government was giving nearly $6,000 a year per child, through the Canada child benefit, to people earning less than $45,000 a year. They are not giving money away, however; they are buying votes, which is unfortunate, since the very children this money is helping will end up having to pay it back. This is completely unacceptable on the part of the government.

I am proud to be part of a former Conservative government that was responsible, that granted benefits without running deficits and that also managed to balance the budget.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am sure that the hon. member will be able to elaborate during questions and comments.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, I know the member from Quebec has a lot more to say so I am going to let him say it because my comment has nothing to do with his speech. Therefore, he can finish his speech when I finish.

I do have to put something on the record, which has come up a lot in this debate, about omnibus bills. Some people do not understand how it works. Since 1888, there have been omnibus bills and they have not been able to be split, except politically, maybe, with the great bell ringing in 1982.

There are two types of omnibus bills. One is on regular bill time, when a bill is on more than one topic. The other is with the budget. There was a problem that the use of omnibus bills was being abused, especially the example of the budget with a whole bunch about the environment that was not in the budget. Therefore, we promised to change that, and we did.

In section 69.1 of the Standing Orders, we changed that and it had those two categories of bills. Therefore, that promise was kept. That section has been used three times. It was used on October 31, 2017, on a corrections bill, which turned out not to be split; on June 11, 2018, on the national security bill, which was actually split, showing that it worked; and then on November 3, 2017, on a budget bill that was split five ways. Not only did we put in a mechanism, but it works.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will respond to that, because the Conservatives do not hide and we are not afraid of the truth.

The fact is that the MP for Papineau, the Liberals' leader, the Prime Minister presently, said during the last campaign that never in the world would he present an omnibus bill. There was no nuance. It was, “no omnibus bill, ever”. The fact is that it is the biggest omnibus bill we have ever seen in this Parliament. It is bigger than an elephant. Seriously, it is huge. It is over 800 pages.

The blunt fact is that we were not ashamed of putting forward omnibus bills, because Canadians wanted the House to be efficient. Canadians wanted the House to go forward to make changes when necessary. Sometimes, when we had to debate every article, it did not go fast enough for the quickly changing pace of the world and all the needs of the Canadian people.

Right now the member is trying to engage with people to try to hide the fact that the Liberals are doing omnibus bills. They are ashamed of it.

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Madam Speaker, I heard my hon. colleague's speech. I am very intrigued by some of the aspects that he believes are a disgrace.

Just on that, I want to talk a bit about some of the amendments in this budget implementation bill that are about bankruptcies and about commercial licence holders in corporations being protected from bankruptcy. However, we do not have any amendments that allude to workers' pension protection in bankruptcy. This is a moral failure of this budget implementation act. I wonder what the hon. member thinks about protecting pensions when we are talking about bankruptcy legislation.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I personally believe we should ensure that workers pensions are protected when a company files for bankruptcy.

As a society, we cannot tell workers who have worked for 30 or 40 years and who were counting on a pension that, all of a sudden, for purely capitalist reasons, their pension will be slashed.

There are people in my riding who suffered a great deal when White Birch Paper almost went under. There were unbelievable cuts to employees’ pensions. The only comfort I could find when I met with the people on the board of White Birch Paper, which employed 400 people, was when they told me that their pensions had been cut as well.

The NDP is working hard on this. Good for them, because it is an important issue.

Message from the Senate

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bills, to which the concurrence of the House is desired: Bill S-243, An Act to amend the Canada Revenue Agency Act (reporting on unpaid income tax) and Bill S-248, An Act respecting National Physicians’ Day.

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 amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 2

[Gary Anandasangaree, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Multiculturalism (Multiculturalism), Lib.]

Madam Speaker, I am very glad to speak on Bill C-86, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 2018 and other measures.

At the outset, I will take stock of where we are as a country today. Economically, this is one of the best economic times we have had in our history, with a 40-year low in our unemployment rate. Our growth in GDP is one of the top in the G7. We have an unprecedented amount of growth taking place in various sectors, particularly the high-tech sector. A complaint I often hear from employers is their inability to hire people. There is a labour shortage, as we have heard in the House a number of times, in different parts of the country, but also in the area I represent in the greater Toronto area.

Middle-class Canadians are seeing first-hand that this plan is working. They are getting $2,000 more a year compared with what they got before. Budget 2018 is a step in that plan, supporting our government's people-centred approach to ensuring that every Canadian has a real and fair chance at success.

This has been a difficult week for some of us, especially those close to the GM plant in Oshawa, and our hearts go out to all of the hard-working men and women and their families in the Oshawa region. I have constituents in my riding who depend on the plant, and all of us across all parties hurt along with the families in Durham and the general region.

The fall economic statement presented by the Minister of Finance set out some very specific targets that allow more competitiveness in the Canadian economy. This past Saturday, all of us got back to our ridings very late in the morning, but I had the pleasure of opening a new company in my riding. It is located on Thornmount Drive in Scarborough—Rouge Park. It is called Sakara Wood Inc. It manufactures wood panels. It invested in very expensive manufacturing equipment and did not know about the accelerated deduction. I was able to inform the owner of the deduction that is available. This individual, who has worked for a very long time, is going to be hiring people. I am very proud that he chose to establish his business in my riding. When these types of businesses are opening, it shows the confidence that people have in the economy right now.

It is fair to say that since we took office three years ago, we have worked on a number of important initiatives, but particularly to ensure there is gender equality in this country. That has been a cornerstone of our Prime Minister and of the mandates of many ministers. Our budgetary process goes through a gender-based lens, which oftentimes was not the case in the past. This allows the full participation of all women in the economy, which will help grow our economy in the long term.

I want to highlight some of the specific things that budget 2018 offers in this respect. Something I have heard throughout my adult life over and over again is pay equity and the challenges and failures of successive governments to fully implement it. The statistics are startling. Men and women do not make the same amount of money for work of equal value. Over time that has really limited many women from progressing in the workforce and being able to attain the same level of economic security that men have been able to attains. It affects pensions and a whole host of benefits, because oftentimes our benefits are based on earnings.

I believe that the pay equity component of this budget essentially sets us on the right path. It does recognize equal pay for work of equal value. It is a very smart thing to do. We are also very proud to move forward with this proactive legislation. It is a key way in which our government is delivering on its commitment to gender equality.

Our government will introduce proactive pay equity legislation for workers in federally regulated sectors in 2018. This is on top of a number of other initiatives, most notably the establishment of a full status of women department. This is long overdue. I recall that a number of very progressive initiatives have been undertaken by the current minister to challenge many of the barriers to women's full participation and to ensure there is a safe and secure place for women and girls, as well as for boys, as equality takes shape in the years to come.

We recognize that it does require a lot of work. The stand-alone department speaks to the importance that our government assigns this issue. This bill will allow for additional resources for the department. It will give additional funding opportunities and resources, so that the minister will be able to target very specific issues and gaps within Status of Women currently.

As I go across the country, undertaking anti-racism engagements in several cities, the issue of racialization has come up, as well as discrimination against women and intersectionalities. This points to the fact that we are going in the right direction. Certainly, there is a lot more to do, and as a government we will do it.

Another important aspect is the poverty reduction strategy. It is part of an overall strategy to allow many Canadians to get out of poverty. Poverty in 2018 should not be a reality for Canadians. As we look at different parts of the world that are impoverished and have limited economic resources and opportunities, it is a shame that in a country like Canada, which has one of the highest GDPs and best economies in the world, we have people living in poverty. However, we do.

As a government, we were successful in lifting 650,000 Canadians out of poverty, including 300,000 children. That is a very significant improvement, but, again, this is an ongoing process. It includes support for infrastructure and support for housing. As members know, for the first time in a generation, we have a national housing strategy. That, too, will assist people living under the poverty line to be able to get out of poverty altogether.

Poverty limits individual success, limits the ability of young people to attain their maximum potential, whether at school, in the workforce, or other areas of life. It is very important that as a government we are doing this, and I am very proud of it.

Once again, time appears to be running out. I look forward to questions.

Business of the House

[Filomena Tassi, Minister of Seniors, Lib.]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 66(2), I would like to designate Wednesday, November 28, 2018, for the conclusion of the debate on the 18th report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.