Debates of Nov. 6th, 2018

Second Reading

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Guelph talked about the measures in the budget which deal with making sure that there are no tax avoidance strategies, especially ones which would take money out of Canadian corporations and take it overseas. This is an important issue.

Could the member please speak to that part of the budget implementation act?

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the budget implementation act that we are discussing today would close loopholes. It clarifies some items that were in gray areas that needed clarification, so that tax planners understand what is legal and what is not. We are clarifying the issues around how tax must be paid on money that is generated in Canada.

It is really a matter of clarification so that going forward, people do not use aggressive tax planning techniques that are counter to the spirit of the bill.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I wish to inform the hon. members that there have been more than five hours of debate on this motion since the first round of speeches. Consequently, all subsequent interventions shall be limited to ten minutes for speeches and five minutes for questions and comments.

The hon. member for Calgary Rocky Ridge.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is an honour and a privilege to rise in this place, and today, in some ways, perhaps more than others, because I will be only one of a handful of members who will have the opportunity to debate this bill at second reading.

We have heard already today, as we debated the time allocation motion, about how this is an 800-page omnibus bill that will now be debated under the guillotine of time allocation. This is not a scenario where debate had become stale or an opposition filibuster was looming that the government had to move time allocation. This is an example of a government that is simply trying to ram through an 800-page bill without proper debate. There really is no other explanation for what is happening right now.

This bill is an omnibus bill. As was mentioned by the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo during the debate on time allocation, it is a bill that contains within it three bills on indigenous policy. We understand it contains two transportation bills and changes to some 20-plus statutes, and that the government has allocated a truncated day today plus last Friday for debate on it. It is a shame.

It is shameful in particular because the Liberal government campaigned heavily on the issue of omnibus legislation. The Liberals promised they would never table omnibus bills. They promised they would change the Standing Orders to prevent any government from tabling omnibus bills, yet amid the debacle in the spring of 2017 over changes to the Standing Orders, the result was a change to the standing order that did give the Speaker some power to split a bill. Indeed, that is what is before us now.

We are debating this bill in the limited time that we have without knowing yet if the bill will be divided. With every minute that passes, we are closer to having to vote on this bill without clarity as to what we will actually be voting on. The NDP has requested to have this bill split and we do not know yet what the Speaker's ruling is going to be. It is difficult enough to digest an 800-page bill and here we are debating it without even knowing how the final vote will be put to the House later today. It is a shame that we are so hopelessly rushed on this bill.

This bill is a culmination of several Liberal broken promises. In my riding it came up fairly often during the campaign. People talked about omnibus legislation, and the Liberals promised never to table an omnibus bill. They promised never to invoke closure. They also promised that they would balance the budget by 2019. They actually went out of their way in their campaign to differentiate themselves from both the Conservatives and the New Democrats, who had in our own ways promised balanced budgets.

A key point of differentiation which the Liberals took to the doors was that they would run a modest $10-billion deficit for a maximum of three years and return to a balanced budget by 2019. They were elected on a promise to run a modest deficit solely for the purpose of funding an infrastructure program. This was not to be a structural deficit. This was not to be a deficit through which to fund ongoing program expenditure. This was a capital deficit that the Liberals were going to run in order to fund infrastructure and infrastructure only. This was what they took to the doors and this is the primary premise upon which the Liberal government was elected.

The Liberals have broken their promise on omnibus bills. They have broken their promise on closure. They are hopelessly and helplessly breaking their promise over and over again on the debt and deficit.

If we look at this bill, at 800 pages, combined with the 400-odd pages each in the spring BIA and in the budget itself, we are up to 1,600 pages of budget bills tabled in this House without mention of any kind of a plan to return to a balanced budget. This was a promise. This was not something that the Conservatives would just fixate on because this is what we promised in the election as to what we think the Liberals should do. They actually took it to their own voters. The people who voted for the Liberal Party voted for a party with an expectation of a balanced budget by 2019, and it has not happened and it is not going to happen.

We see now that the Liberals government has been lucky. The Liberals walked into a stronger than expected world economy. They have been lucky on interest rates. They have been lucky on real estate inflation. They have been lucky to receive another $20 billion in unbudgeted revenue that they have blown through as well without being able to balance the budget. We know that the finance department's own numbers say that the government will not balance the budget until 2045. How can the government and the governing party members possibly take this to the doors in 2019? The Liberals did not promise their talking points on maintaining a low level of debt-to-GDP. That is not what they promised.

As for this budget implementation act, which contains no plan for a balanced budget, the Liberals neglect to address an important issue in the budget itself. On page 290, the budget comments on the $20 price differential on Alberta crude. The budget addressed this as a concern. It said that a price differential of $20 a barrel on Canadian crude was a concern and a threat for revenue projections going forward. The budget claims that the differential would shrink in the year ahead from $20 to $15 and that this would be good. Their forward revenue projections assumed a reduction in the differential because new pipelines would be built and the Trans Mountain expansion would go ahead and would get Alberta crude to Vancouver. Then it could be taken to refineries in California, where the heavier oil would get a much better price than if taken by rail to Oklahoma or if it did not go anywhere for lack of any transportation capacity.

We all know that has not happened. Here we are today with a $50 differential. What is that going to do to the revenue projections? The Liberals are already expecting it to shrink. It has ballooned out to $50 per barrel. There is no plan for a balanced budget. We know that their revenue is threatened by the differential on oil. It is substantial. Billions of dollars in tax revenue are at stake in the differential. We have an 800-page bill on which we have a few hours to debate. I understand it has 300 complicated pages in its pay equity section. There are complicated labour code changes. There is an intellectual property component. There are new CRA components to this as well. All of that has to be dealt with somehow in a short period of time, yet this BIA gives us more spending, more deficits, likely more red tape and more difficulties for small business. There is no plan for a balanced budget. There is no plan to fix the Alberta discount and the threat it represents to Canadian governments, provincial and federal.

Therefore, I cannot support this bill and the current government because of its broken promises and shameful use of time allocation and omnibus legislation.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's intervention today. However, I take note of his repeated attempts to say that this particular government, and the Liberal Party, perhaps, has been lucky. It was not luck that led to Paul Martin making sure that the right restrictions were in place when he was finance minister so that we did not lead into the same housing crisis the States got itself into. It is not by luck that a country has the fastest-growing GDP among the G7 nations. It is fiscal, prudent responsibility.

It is not luck when a decision is made to invest in real investments in infrastructure that will pay off down the road. Rather than buying gazebos, for example, we would invest in roads and bridges, putting people to work and changing the environment we have so that people can continue to succeed. Therefore, I take great exception to that.

I imagine that the member has a great retort for me, but I thought I would provide that comment.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in invoking the previous Liberal prime minister, Paul Martin, the member seems to have forgotten that there was another prime minister in between for nine and a half years. The good luck I refer to is indeed that the Liberals inherited the nine and half year legacy of the previous government. The country's fiscal foundation is entirely the track record of the Stephen Harper government. Indeed, the Liberal government could maybe learn a thing or two from the Paul Martin government, while we are at it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member across the way that we are still trying to forget about those Harper days.

Conservatives stand up time and again on the budget, and what they like to talk about is the issue of deficits. When we look at Canada as a nation, with its history of 151 years, I believe that the Conservatives have been in government for just less than 40% of that time and the Liberals the other 60%. However, when we look at the total amount of debt that has been created, 75% has been as a result of Conservatives. If we look at Stephen Harper, he inherited a multi-billion dollar surplus. Even before the recession, he turned it into a billion-plus dollar deficit.

Why would this government want to take any advice from the Stephen Harper Conservatives, when they did so poorly on the issue of deficit management?

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the history of politics and the change of governments has been one of Liberals creating a financial mess that a Conservative government has had to come in and clean up. We will be there for Canadians in 2019.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Calgary Rocky Ridge talked a lot about the accumulating debt and how there is no plan to even return to a balanced budget for the foreseeable future. I am wondering if the member could tell us what impact that is going to have on our children and grandchildren in years to come.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the impact will potentially be severe if we cannot get past this and reverse the track the current government is on. I want to add that every provincial and territorial finance minister in Canada has at least some kind of documented plan to return to a balanced budget. The only finance minister in Canada who simply buries his head in the sand and refuses to answer questions at committee and in this place as to when he will balance the budget is this finance minister. He is the only one in Canada who cannot even say the words.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, while we are on the topic of getting advice from Stephen Harper, we might want to consider taking the advice of his former director of policy, who is currently out there defending a price on pollution. I would argue that yes, there are some folks from that previous government who have at least wised up when it comes to certain issues.

I welcome the opportunity to speak to this very important piece of legislation. I will be focusing my remarks today on part 1 of the second budget implementation act that is before us today, but before I do that, I would like to read out a few jurisdictions: Alberta, Argentina, Australia, British Columbia, Beijing, California, Chile, Denmark, the European Union, Estonia, Finland, France, Iceland, Ireland, Japan, Kazakhstan, Korea, Latvia, Massachusetts, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Quebec, Rio de Janeiro, Shanghai, Singapore, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Tokyo, Turkey, the United Kingdom, Ukraine and Washington state.

What do those jurisdictions have in common? I will tell everyone what they have in common. They currently have, or will have in the very near future, a price on pollution.

That is one of the things I am so incredibly proud of when it comes to this particular bill. We are taking the matter of our changing climate and how the world is going to respond to it seriously. The next time a Conservative member asks what Canada can do or what Canada's contribution to this is because we are responsible for so little in terms of pollution in the world, I will refer that member to the work Kazakhstan is currently doing. I can only imagine what its impact is, yet it still sees this as a very important matter to pursue.

We talk about why this legislation is important. Let me start with some of the impacts as they relate to health and how people in the world will be affected. These statistics are according to the World Health Organization. It has estimated that almost 12% of global deaths in 2012 came as a result of air pollution. The WHO also estimates that seven million people die every year from exposure to fine particles in polluted air, 4.2 million deaths as a result of exposure to outdoor air pollution and 3.8 million deaths as a result of exposure to various household pollutants. Ninety-one per cent of the world's population lives in places where poor air quality exceeds the WHO guideline limits. These are just the health reasons why this piece of legislation and doing something about pollution is so important.

Let us put that aside for a second and talk about the recent study the United Nations put out on climate change and what it means to the world. It means that in a very short time, we are talking about decades, we will change our environment throughout the world in a way that will significantly impact people. We might think, as Canadians, as I have said before in the House, that we live in a relatively safe climate and environment and ask what a difference of 1°C or 2°C will really make to us. That is fair enough, if we buy into that.

Perhaps we should consider for a second the migration impacts from climate change. When the world starts to make decisions, and people start to move around the world, those migration patterns will cause world disorder and lead to an environment that makes it a lot riskier for Canada to continue to participate on the world stage, as it relates to our economy and social issues, in the way we have come to know Canada can be great.

The way the budget implementation act proposes to deal with the price on pollution for those provinces and territories that have chosen not to participate, that have decided that they want to hold out, despite the huge list of jurisdictions I have listed that are participating, is by instituting a price on pollution. This would be a federal price on pollution that we would be collecting and immediately rebating back, sometimes in advance of collecting it, to individuals and households throughout the province in which it was collected. For example, in my home province of Ontario, 90% of the funds that would be collected through the price on pollution would be delivered right back to those households. The remaining 10% would be used to help schools, hospitals, indigenous peoples, universities, colleges, and small and medium-sized businesses deal with matters that pertain to becoming more efficient in terms of the impacts they are having on our climate.

We have had a lot of debate in this House about why a price on pollution is good and why some might think it would be bad. I stand by the well-documented economic theory that when we put certain prices on different mechanisms in the economy and the marketplace, we see the players in those marketplaces reacting differently. Therefore, when we put a price on pollution, those who are polluting will start to find ways to become more efficient. They will invest, they will create, and they will discover new ways of doing things that do not pollute as much so that they can increase their bottom lines. It is a basic economic principle. The fact that the Conservatives do not buy into this is astounding to me, quite honestly, speaking of which, I think it is an appropriate time to mention some of those who do support a price on pollution.

Let us talk about Doug Ford, the new Premier of Ontario, who our leader of the opposition is spending a lot of time with and becoming very close with. His chief budget adviser was quoted in an article, which reads:

Ontario's anti-carbon tax premier once told Canadian senators that putting a price on greenhouse gas emissions is “the single most important thing that any government can do to transition to a low-carbon economy.”

That was from the chief budget adviser for Doug Ford. I have already mentioned Stephen Harper's former director of policy, who is defending a price on pollution.

Let us get out of partisan politics and talk about the Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Romer, who said that a carbon tax is the only way to genuinely and effectively solve climate change, which is exactly what we have been talking about. As reported by CBC,

Americans William Nordhaus and Paul Romer won this year's Nobel Memorial Prize in economic sciences for their work in adapting economic theory to take better account of environmental issues and technological progress.

According to the World Bank, international carbon pricing took off with the introduction of the flexibility mechanisms under the Kyoto protocol of 1997. I bring that up, because I think it is extremely relevant. It was a Liberal government at the time that signed onto Kyoto. However, shortly after, the Conservatives pulled out of it, despite the fact that we were on our way. We heard a little earlier about how the Conservatives fix the mistakes of the Liberals, but I think the exact opposite is happening right now.

In conclusion, I am extremely proud of this proposed legislation. I am extremely proud to see our government moving forward on this.

I started off by listing a number of jurisdictions and what they have done in their attempts to put a price on pollution. What I can also say is that a lot of those jurisdictions are reporting huge successes. For example, Sweden enacted its price on pollution in 1991. It was one of the first governments to do so. Sweden currently has GDP growth that is 60% higher than what it was in 1990 and at the same time has reduced its emissions by 25%. It grew its economy by 58%, which shows that growing the economy and decreasing emissions is possible.

As members can hear, my passion lies with the price on pollution. I am very proud to be part of a government that is bringing it forward.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's thoughts on one area of the bill, a bill that is 850-plus pages. When parliamentarians stand to vote on the legislation, with the very minimal debate time we have had, people will be very unfamiliar with many parts of the bill because they have not been given proper scrutiny.

I asked one of the member's colleagues about division 19 of part 4 on additions to reserves. I would like to ask the member about divisions 11 and 12 of part 4 on the changes to both the First Nations Land Management Act and First Nations Fiscal Management Act. Could the member describe what those changes are and why they have been put in place?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member started off by talking about how large the bill was. That has been mentioned a number of times by the other side of the House. I do not disagree with that. When we have a budget bill, it will be a comprehensive bill that includes a number of different parts, including the parts she mentioned.

Let us talk about some of the other parts in the bill, such as pay equity, improving access to Canada workers benefit and modernizing the federal labour standards. If the the Conservatives are against any of those, rather than just complain about this being a large bill, why do they not talk about what they are against? Are they against pay equity? If they are, they should just stand and say it.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in this very limited debate, the government has invoked closure yet again on a vital bill of 800 pages. We are all still digging into the details of it.

I heard and appreciated my Liberal colleague's comments about the polluter-pay principle. I note one of the pieces that is amended in this 800-page budget implementation bill is the ship-source oil pollution fund. There are a number of measures. This is meant to be an industry-funded provision in the event of pollution in marine waters. My colleague across the way represents a maritime-reliant riding, as I do. Its jobs and the environment are dependent on a clean environment.

I am concerned that one of the measures proposed in the bill to amend the ship-source oil pollution fund allows the government to top up the fund in the event that it becomes depleted. My information is that industry has not contributed to this fund since 1976. If the member is so committed to the polluter-pay principle, why did his government not make that amendment to the bill?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are on the right path. The only thing the Conservative and the NDP members can really do is criticize the fact that they do not have enough time to debate the bill.

However, the reality of the situation is that the budget implementation bills are implementing measures that were already released in the budget. Therefore, members would have known about a lot of this before. Not only that, even with respect to this bill specifically, it is only at second reading. It still has to go to committee. Then it comes back to the House again for debate. It then goes to the Senate and goes through the same process at the Senate. There is a lot of time to be discussing this.

I look forward to seeing the member at the finance committee so she can be part of the debate on this.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to come back to an earlier question by my colleague, the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, about the impacts this legislation would have on first nations.

It talks about the changes to the financial management system. Section 50 says, “On the request of any of the following entities, the Board may review the entity’s financial management system”, be that a band, a tribal council, an aboriginal group or a not-for-profit organization.

One of the things I have heard from people in my riding is that there has been some concern about the way the finances have been handled on reserve. Individuals have wanted to look at some of these things. There has not been any way for the federal government to allow individuals to have a look at some of these things. I would like to note that at the indigenous and northern affairs committee, our being allowed to tackle this was voted down by the Liberals.

Would the member not consider the fact that we would need a little more time just to study this and to get stakeholder feedback from our first nations communities as to whether this is legitimate legislation?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely, we need to do that work. However, we cannot bring members of the public before the House. We do it in committee. What happens when we pass this at this stage? It goes to committee and then at committee the various different stakeholders can come forward.

One of the committees that studies legislation in the greatest detail is the finance committee. When the bill comes before the finance committee, which is where it will go when we vote on it, the member will have the opportunity, and I am sure he will be there with the member from the NDP, to ensure these concerns are raised on behalf of the constituents.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak in support of Bill C-86, the second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 2018 and other measures.

Let me start by acknowledging that I am speaking on the traditional land of the Algonquin peoples.

On this very auspicious day, I would like to wish all those who are celebrating Diwali a very happy Diwali. I hope all my constituents and all those in Canada who celebrate this very special occasion are able to see the light and overcome darkness.

Speaking of the light, the last three years the Liberal government has shone quite a bit of light on our country. A number of remarkable achievements are worthy of note, in particular on trade. We have set Canada on a course that will enable Canada to be one of the freest and most open trade markets anywhere in the world. These trade agreements include: the Comprehensive and Economic Trade Agreement between Canada and the EU, also known as CETA; the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership between Canada and countries in Pacific Asia; and of course most recently, the United States-Mexico-Canada agreement with our North American allies. This means millions of new markets, billions of new dollars in trade and countless opportunities for Canadians today and for the future.

This unprecedented access to new and emerging markets will create unimaginable global opportunities for all of us. I know my constituents were quite worried earlier in the year about getting a good deal under the USMCA. They were worried about Canada giving in too much or Canada being shut out altogether. That is no longer the case. For close to 18 months, our negotiators have worked day and night to get not any deal, but a good deal for Canada. I want to thank and acknowledge our Minister of Foreign Affairs and her entire team for their tireless work. She has indeed made us all very proud.

There is more good news. Every time I meet employers, one of the issues they bring to my attention is the difficulty finding the people to fill good jobs in Canada. They complain that they are unable to hire people and retain them, regardless of the money they pay, and oftentimes these are high-paying jobs.

Right now, we have historically low rates of unemployment. In fact, it is the lowest it has been for the last 40 years. Our government has helped propel our economy forward, making it the fastest growing economy among G7 countries and one of the fastest in the world. This has led to the creation of over a half a million jobs since we were elected in 2015. Of course there is more good news for small business, as our tax rate will go from 11% to 9% as of this January.

There are many important initiatives in the budget, and I could talk about all of them. In particular, the establishment of the status of women as a full ministry, the implementation of pay equity legislation, along with legislating gender budgeting, are critical parts of our government's agenda. I know many of my colleagues have spoken about it extensively.

Today, I want to highlight two very important things and focus on them. First is the issue of poverty reduction. The second is the price on pollution.

Let me start with poverty reduction. Poverty is linked to a number of different socio-economic outcomes in our society. Whether the longevity of our life, or success in education or success in the workplace, poverty is one of the central determinants of success or limitations in our society. Our government believes that everyone deserves a real and fair chance of success. That is what drives us to grow the middle class and support people who are working hard to join it.

Canada's first-ever national poverty reduction strategy sets new poverty reduction targets and establishes the federal government as a full partner in the fight against poverty. It also builds on the progress we have made together so far. These include the introduction of the Canada child benefit in 2015 and, most recently, the indexing of the CCB. This has lifted over 300,000 children out of poverty. My riding of Scarborough—Rouge Park alone has been given $76 million in just the last year.

The second is the reversion of the previous government's changes to the guaranteed income supplement and old age security, which basically restores the age of retirement from 67 to 65 years old and makes benefits for seniors more generous, lifting 100,000 seniors out of poverty each year.

The launch of Canada's first-ever national housing strategy last year will not only create 100,000 new housing units and renew and renovate more than 300,000 existing units, it will also remove more than half a million Canadians from critical housing need.

Since 2015, our government has been working hard to lift Canadians out of poverty with the help of programs like the CCB, the top up to the GIS and the Canada workers benefit. By 2019, the government's investments are expected to help lift over 650,000 Canadians out of poverty. The poverty reduction strategy, called “Opportunity for All: Canada's First Poverty Reduction Strategy”, is a bold vision that will build a Canada where every Canadian has a realistic chance to succeed.

“Opportunity for All” is a long-term strategy that builds up significant investments that the government has made since 2015 to reduce poverty altogether. There are three pillars to this strategy: first, dignity, lifting Canadians out of poverty by ensuring everyone's basic needs are met; second, opportunity and inclusion, helping Canadians join the middle class by promoting equality of opportunity and full participation in every aspect of our society; and third, resilience and security, supporting the middle class by protecting Canadians from falling into poverty by supporting income security and resilience.

I want to note one aspect of our government's agenda is the anti-black racism aspect, and I would be remiss if I did not address it. It is part of the work I do as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

Our government understands that any plan for reducing poverty must also address systemic barriers, such as racism and discrimination, that hold some Canadians back. By removing barriers and levelling the playing field, all Canadians will be able to reach their full potential. To help address systemic barriers of racism, our government is launching, and is currently in the process, consultations across the country, which will establish a national framework for anti-racism. We will bring together experts, community organizations, citizens, interfaith leaders and others to work out a national strategy. A first step toward this is the recognition that anti-black racism is at the core of the discussions among other forms of racism and discrimination.

The second aspect I want to highlight is the price on pollution. There is no question that we have a problem with our environment. The disasters we have seen for the last number of decades seem to be getting worse every year. Whether it is the floods in Toronto or the wildfires out west, we see the challenges of climate change first hand.

Last year for Canada's 150th birthday, I had the opportunity to visit St. Anthony, Newfoundland, a beautiful part of our country where icebergs are prevalent. One thing the local folks told me was that the number of icebergs really spoke to the reality of climate change. We know the temperature is rising and it is hurting the environment and limiting our way of life, particularly for indigenous people. That is why it is important that this government address the issue of climate change by pricing pollution and ensuring that those who pollute pay a fair share to ensure pollution no longer is free. This is not a free commodity that Canadians or industry can take for granted. If people pollute, they must pay. That is the principle behind our pollution pricing plan.

With that, I would like to once again reiterate my support for Bill C-86.

[Alex Nuttall, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, further to the member's speech, specifically regarding poverty and some of the barriers that exist, I think it is important to remember that poverty knows no skin colour. It reaches into all aspects of our society and is something that we all probably face in every single one of our ridings across the country.

Having said that, some demographics are more stricken by poverty than others. When we are talking about poverty, we are also talking about the cost of living. We are talking about which costs are increasing for those who have the least in society and how that affects them the most. In his speech, the member pushed for a carbon tax, which has also been called a price on carbon or a mechanism, or any of seven different terms, while at the same time speaking about poverty.

This tax is having the greatest effect on those with the least means to be able to live, so my question for the member is this. How can the government be proposing this tax at the same time it is trying to defeat poverty? This tax is going to further increase poverty in this country.

[Gary Anandasangaree]

Mr. Speaker, poverty is absolutely an important issue. My friend opposite is correct that it affects all of us in all of our ridings. Particular communities are affected much more deeply than others, such as those in northern and rural areas across the country. That is an important issue we need to address.

I know that in the past decades, we have failed to address the root causes of poverty. That is what we are really getting into here, particularly the shortage of housing, the lack of investments in public infrastructure and in transportation. It is those very important investments that are critical to uplifting people out of poverty.

At the same time, we cannot ignore the environment. It is critical and the way that our pricing on pollution has been undertaken, 90% of the money will go back to those families in communities who need it the most. That is our fundamental—

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Peace River—Westlock.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member used to sit with me at the northern and aboriginal affairs committee, and I know he was passionate about his work there. One thing we did was to try to pass a motion calling on the indigenous and northern affairs committee to study divisions 11, 12 and 19 of this BIA bill.

Seeing that the Liberal members voted that down at committee, could this member just elaborate on what the thinking was behind putting these particular divisions into this bill and how they are going to impact first nations communities?

[Gary Anandasangaree]

Mr. Speaker, of course, each and every committee operates on its own and its membership decides what to do and what kind of study to undertake. Therefore, I cannot speak to the particular point my friend opposite brought up.

Certainly, there will be ample opportunity, once Bill C-86 goes to the finance committee for study. If the finance committee requires additional support from other committees, they may well ask for that.

However, at this point, it is important that the bill goes to committee and a full and comprehensive study takes place before it comes back here.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in the hon. member's speech he talked about the Canada child benefit. Can the member please explain how the Canada child benefit is making an impact in his community and what he is hearing from families about how it is helping them in their day-to-day lives?

[Gary Anandasangaree]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague and I work closely together, as we represent ridings covering a geographically close area.

Of course, the topic of the Canada child benefit keeps coming up over and over again. Overwhelmingly, people talk about how it impacts them in a very personal way. In my riding the impact is worth $76 million. It has been put toward to buy food and pay for soccer and other things, such as extracurricular activities at school. It is a game changer in our communities and I am sure it is as well across the country.