Debates of Nov. 6th, 2018

Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 2

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

Mr. Speaker, there is the expression that Conservatives times are tough times. Why is that? We always have to clean up the Liberals' mess every single time. They were in power more often than us because they do not have principles. All they want is power. We stand up for the people and principles.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Before resuming debate, I want to remind hon. members that shouting across the floor is not parliamentary behaviour.

Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development.

[David Lametti, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to talk about the changes the bill makes to the Copyright Board.

When we listen to music, it is rare that we fully appreciate all the people who contribute to our favourite songs. We certainly do not reflect fully on the legal and marketplace frameworks that make this listening possible, whether we are tuning into a radio station or streaming from one of our devices.

The Copyright Board is a very important part of this behind the scenes framework. It is a specialized, independent and quasi-judicial decision-making body that establishes royalty rates to be paid for certain uses of content, allowing rights holders to band together to allow for efficient access and payment. In doing so, the board facilitates the development and growth of markets that rely on copyright in Canada while safeguarding the public interest.

Copyright Board business is in a sense big business. The royalties it sets are estimated to be worth half a billion dollars annually. When one thinks of the many ways in which we experience content, the board has an impact on the lives of nearly every citizen.

However, over the years, as new technology has increased the use of collectively managed copyrights and made rights management even more complex, decision-making at the Copyright Board was hindered by significant delays, so much so that royalty rates are regularly being set years after copyright-protected content is used. Retroactive decisions by the board are a distinctive feature of doing business in Canada. This results in Canadians having less access to and creators less revenues from innovative services, including digital content services. This also delays payments to creators, creates challenges for royalty collection and freezes capital that could otherwise be put to more productive use.

When, at Parliament's urging, the government looked into this issue and consulted stakeholders, we found that significant and structural challenges in the the board's decades old decision-making framework prevented it from operating efficiently.

The government is now taking comprehensive action to address these issues initially in a budget 2018 initiative which saw a 30% increase in financial resources for the board, and now accompanied by legislative proposals. Along with several new appointments to the Copyright Board's core staff posts, these measures will set a new course and ensure that the board can once again issue the timely, forward-looking decisions that copyright-based markets need to thrive.

The proposed amendments fall into three broad categories: ensuring more predictability and clarity in board proceedings, improving timelines and reducing the board's workload. We are ensuring more predictability by codifying the board's mandate and setting clear criteria for decision-making. This will help parties streamline their argumentation and the board to structure its decisions.

We are improving timelines by making tariff filings earlier and making those tariffs last longer. We are also introducing case management to move proceedings more expeditiously, as well as a regulatory mechanism that will allow the government to set deadlines by which decisions will have to be rendered.

We are also reducing the board's workload by allowing more collectives and users to enter into direct agreements among and between themselves. This will ensure that the board's resources are focused where they are most needed and not in areas where there is agreement between the parties.

These reforms will have positive results for rights holders and users alike by reducing legal costs for all participants in board proceedings. They will better position our creators and cultural entrepreneurs to make, produce and reinvest in high-quality Canadian content and will support strong, vibrant and healthy creative industries for the benefit of all Canadians.

I believe these steps are important in making our copyright more efficient and effective and to enable our businesses to innovate to create good middle-class jobs and contribute to Canada's prosperity. There is widespread agreement across the swath of copyright stakeholders about making changes that improve the functioning of the Copyright Board.

These are not the only provisions going on in copyright policy in Canada. As some will know, the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, INDU, as well as the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, CHPC, are currently conducting a statutory review of the Copyright Act. Such a review is required every five years, according to the law, to take stock of the overall effectiveness of the act in light of fast evolving technologies and to make recommendations to government regarding potential improvements when warranted.

During our consultations on the Copyright Board, some stakeholders recommended that the government clarify when board-set rates must be paid and that it provide collective management organizations with tools for their enforcement. They argued that there is uncertainty around the enforceability of board-set rates. Obviously, this argument touches on fair dealing.

Fair dealing has been part of Canadian copyright since 1921. A series of landmark Canadian Supreme Court decisions, in particular in 2004 and in 2012, have outlined the nature and parameters of fair dealing in Canada, in particular in a 2012 decision that applied to works in the educational context. This was coupled with changes to the Copyright Act brought in 2012, which allowed for education to be a unique heading in fair dealing, where previously the Supreme Court's decision earlier in 2012 had based the same kinds of rights under the heading “research or private study”.

There was an impact from that. We have heard diverse and sometimes conflicting accounts in that regard. Authors and publishers feel that they would like to be fairly remunerated for educational uses, while the educational community maintains that the current framework has begun to work well and that librarians, professors and teachers need the flexibility to thrive in a digital context, with new sources of digital materials coming online.

I would also point out that a Supreme Court decision in 2014 maintained that tariffs could not be mandatorily applied to users, as it went around the basic law of contracts and undermined fair dealing rights.

We have asked for clarity and more opinions on both sides of this debate. Consequently, the Minister of Canadian Heritage as well as the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development have written to the two parliamentary committees conducting the review and have asked them to provide specific insight on educational copying, including with regard to the applicability and enforcement of board-set rates.

The government's vision is to have a creative middle class, where authors and publishers are paid fairly and where educational institutions and students continue to have access to quality Canadian works. Educational institutions of provincial and territorial governments rely on the availability and affordability of quality materials to give our students a world-class education rich in Canadian content.

Although we may not always see the inner workings of the copyright framework behind the creation and dissemination of the content that surrounds us, the proper functioning of the Copyright Act and the proper functioning of the Copyright Board is of vital importance. That is what ensures that our enjoyment is sufficiently translated into fair remuneration for creators, and ultimately, returning to the beginning of my remarks, the making of our next favourite songs. With Copyright Board reform, we strengthen the virtuous circle for the benefit of all Canadians.

Finally, on another note on the copyright file, we also, in the bill, strengthen our notice and notice regime to make sure that it is not abused by people pretending or claiming that there is a copyright infringement and that they should be paid a certain amount of money as a settlement offer.

We heard, in the context of notice and notice consultations through INDU, good things about the notice and notice regime, as an initial response, to prevent abuse. It is the case that under notice and take-down regimes, copyright is asserted to take down content, even when the claim has nothing to do with copyright or the copyright is, in fact, legitimate. Our notice and notice regime will provide for a more standard form to prevent abuse in this context.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's speech brings back some fond memories of when I was working as a parliamentary secretary and assistant on the industry file and we were involved in some extensive consultations on copyright. Certainly, we never would have dreamed of rolling those consultations into an 800-page budget bill, as opposed to moving forward with stand-alone consultations, discussions, review and legislation.

Since we are talking about music, does the member think the government got a good deal from Netflix?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for the hard work he did as parliamentary secretary. I can certainly speak from the same position and can appreciate the amount of work that has been done.

The question raised is part of an ongoing review. It is not just the Copyright Act that is being reviewed but also the Broadcasting Act and the telecommunications sector generally. That is where that question would be better placed.

As has been said a number of times in the House, the government subscribes to the principle that people who take a benefit from the system have to make a contribution at some point. As a government, we have tried to move forward on the Netflix file by ensuring that it contributes to Canadian and Quebec content, and we are continuing to monitor that situation.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague said, “to make a contribution at some point”. Is “some point” in six years?

What a meaningless answer. The Liberals are just putting things off. Honestly, I completely understand my colleague from Quebec. I am not sure if that is the name of his riding, but everyone knows who I am talking about. He was getting very worked up listening to the government's petty answers. The government is clearly under the impression that the blue bloods, the members of royalty, know what to do. It is appalling.

There is something that really sticks in my craw. I have been a member of the House and vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage for seven years. This year, we did not agree with the Conservatives, but at least they were doing things properly. When we began the copyright review, we knew it was a big deal. There was an ad hoc committee for all the parties participating. There were special clerks, analysts and advisors.

In order to get its own way, the government decided to revamp the Copyright Board of Canada without knowing what changes would be made to the legislation. It is like trying to build a Japanese car with American tools. The government knew it was not a good idea, but it did it anyway.

The government asked the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage and the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology to examine certain provisions of the act here and there. Members did not have the slightest idea of the scope of the task they were being asked to do.

Did the government do that to be able to get its own way? Do the Liberals think it is right that universities and colleges pay for electricity and insurance but do not pay royalties to authors?

[David Lametti, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, as I just said, two House of Commons committees are holding consultations. Both committees have very rich histories and include very effective members of all parties. The committees are currently studying the impact of changes brought by the Supreme Court and the Copyright Act in 2012 that affected the education sector.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Order. It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni, The Environment; the hon. member for Vancouver East, Natural Resources; and the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, Housing.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Humber River—Black Creek.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the discussion today on Bill C-86, the budget implementation act.

It is well known by everyone inside and outside this House that we are going into an election year. I often think back to the last election in preparation for my plans for what is going to become the 2019 election for Canada. Of course, I look forward to being the nominated candidate, which I am, for the election in October 2019. Congratulations to you, Mr. Speaker. I see that you received your nomination last week.

In the last election, Canadians chose to elect the government with a plan to invest in the middle class and a government that planned to truly build an economy that would work for everyone, not just a select few. The results over the last four years speak for themselves. There are more Canadians employed today than in years and years. We have the lowest unemployment rate we have had the good fortune to have in well over 40 years, and that is a result of investments and the infrastructure and so on that our government has done.

Since November 2015, the Canadian economy has created nearly 600,000 jobs, most of which are full-time jobs. The unemployment rate, as I mentioned, is near historic lows, and that is something I know everyone in this House is pleased about. Canada has had the fastest-growing economy among G7 countries.

Wages are increasing. People are being paid a better wage, and then they are taking that wage and reinvesting it by purchasing things for their families. They are able to upscale to new homes or better cars. Consumer and business confidence is clearly stronger than ever. Middle-class Canadians, as I said, are seeing first-hand that our plan is continuing to work. By this time next year, a typical family of four will be better off, with more money in their pockets. If it is a family of four, we are talking about $2,000 more. If it is a family of eight, it will be reflected in the child tax benefit.

More money in their pockets is something that will be tremendously important to the families in my riding of Humber River—Black Creek. I have a particularly interesting riding. It is mixed, very multicultural, with a lot of new immigrants and a lot of people who are struggling to get ahead, find jobs, get decent housing and achieve the Canadian dream. What our government is doing is clearly going to help them achieve that dream. More money in their pockets means that the constituents in my riding can afford to buy additional things they need for their children. They can purchase school supplies and maybe even have the opportunity for a nice evening out with a loved one. They can have the ability to offer music classes to their children or enrol them in hockey or soccer or many activities that are quite expensive.

That all being said, for these things I have mentioned to happen, we must see Bill C-86 pass. Bill C-86 needs to pass to support our government's people-centred approach and ensure that every Canadian, from coast to coast to coast, has a fair chance for success.

Our government is taking the next step toward building an equal, competitive, sustainable and fair Canada. By making substantial investments and real progress for the middle class, our government is demonstrating its commitment to all Canadians, and especially to those who need it the most in our communities. My riding of Humber River—Black Creek is no different. There are a number of key measures contained in Bill C-86 that would have a positive impact for Canadians, but I would like to take this opportunity to highlight the measures that will impact the lives of the people of Humber River—Black Creek in a positive way.

Our government is taking the next step to help grow the economy in a way that would strengthen and grow the middle class by introducing the new Canada workers benefit. The Canada workers benefit will put more money in the pockets of low-income workers and deliver real help to more than two million Canadians who are working hard to join the middle class.

Canadians who qualify for the Canada workers benefit will be automatically enrolled, thereby ensuring that no worker will be left behind. We often hear that when the government initiates programs people are not aware that they have opportunities for support in various ways. Automatically enrolling people will ensure that people get whatever benefit they are entitled to. The Canada workers benefit will raise approximately 70,000 Canadians out of poverty by 2020.

Our government's poverty reduction strategy is a really important issue for communities like mine that have a lot of new immigrants, a lot of people who are struggling to find jobs and settling in with their families. The first three or four years after moving into a new community are very much a struggle for them. The government's poverty reduction strategy will help many newcomers.

Since taking office in 2015, our government has been growing the middle class by helping those working hard to join it. There has been an increase in the numbers when we talk about the middle class today.

Housing is a very big issue in my riding. I know of three or four homeless people in my riding who are looking for housing. They are women and at the moment they share a room with a friend. They have their names on a list that contains the names of about 18,000 other people who are also trying to find safe housing.

The enhanced seniors benefit is important. Our government has done a lot on the seniors file. We now have a new Minister of Seniors whom we are thrilled with. She and our government will do a lot of work to deliver assistance to our seniors.

Thanks to programs like the Canada child benefit, the national housing strategy and others, by 2019, our investments will have lifted over 650,000 Canadians, including more than 300,000 children, out of poverty. All of us should be thrilled with that.

Guided by opportunity for all, Canada's first national poverty reduction strategy, we are establishing an official poverty line for the first time ever, and setting firm targets for reducing poverty to the lowest level in Canada's history. Opportunity for all represents a bold vision for poverty reduction that will build a Canada where every Canadian from coast to coast to coast has a real and fair chance at success.

Pay equity is another very important goal that we finally managed to see achieved. We have talked about it for well over 25 years and it is nice to see that it is finally going to come to fruition. We have been having discussions about pay equity for the full 19 years or so that I have been here.

I have appreciated the opportunity to say a few words today and I welcome questions.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague has been here a long time. She was here and was outraged when the previous government invoked closure. Granted it was a different time. There was an economic emergency and we had to get things moving forward.

As my colleague quite rightly said, our economy is doing very well, not because of the Liberal government but because we are right next door to the United States and its economy is churning like crazy.

The present Liberal government is the first government to have ever gone into so much debt in a time that was not a time of war or during a recession.

I have been here as long as you have, Mr. Speaker. We were first elected in 2004. I have always had the opportunity to do a speech for my constituents, but unfortunately, I am not going to get a chance to do that on this bill.

I am wondering if the member could comment on the fact that the Liberal government was supposed to be a government that was going to do things differently and here it is the same old same old.

This bill has 850 pages. It is an omnibus bill the size of which I think is unprecedented. Why does she support the government's action to invoke closure on this bill and not give us the ability to speak for our constituents here in the House?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always nice to get a question from my hon. colleague. In many ways, we share similar points of view on a variety of things.

One of the issues that I have been working on for the last almost four years, which started when I was one of the members in opposition, is the issue of paying our bills promptly. One of the things that I find most aggravating here is the fact that it takes forever to get anything done. It takes years to get legislation through. It takes years to make changes. If the government has an omnibus bill and it is including a lot of things in that bill, sometimes that is a way of helping move certain agendas along.

Let us talk about the issue of protecting our marine environment. There are a variety of things in this bill that are important and need to get done, yet there were more delays as we progressed and moved along. There are complaints all the time that governments take far too long to get things done and, as the previous government did, sometimes the decision is to take a different avenue to get things done. At the end of the day, government is responsible to move legislation along and to move bills like Bill C-86 along as well.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her presentation.

One thing she said was quite striking, to say the least. Apparently omnibus bills are now the way to help move certain agendas along. I have serious doubts about that, but supposing I agreed with that statement, why does this massive omnibus bill not include a clause about what happens to workers' pensions when their employer goes bankrupt? This is a file the NDP has been working on for years, and it certainly serves as an example of how things can take time. What will the government do to make sure that workers who have invested in company pension plans, some of them for their whole lives, will get the priority consideration they deserve and not be left high and dry when the company goes bankrupt?

If omnibus bills really are the way to move agendas along, then why is this legislation not in the omnibus bill? The NDP is not the only party talking about this. A growing number of bills on the subject have been introduced in both the House of Commons and the Senate.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, we have been doing a lot of work on this whole issue of what we can do when it comes to bankruptcy and insolvency. Sears is an example and Nortel is another example before that. There have been many debates and discussions in this House as to how we work forward to protect pensions. I think our government is looking at that and I know several other parties in the House are also looking at trying to find a solution to a difficult issue.

People's pensions have to be protected. People have to know they can count on the money that has been put in for their retirement. We all need to work forward to try to ensure that very much happens.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are drowning Canadian job creators in red tape and tax hikes. Whether it is the carbon tax, small business tax hikes or the many cancelled tax credits and deductions, the Liberals are driving businesses out of Canada and killing Canadian jobs, hurting workers and middle-class families across the country.

Every other day major oil and gas companies cancel future projects, stop expansions or completely sell their Canadian businesses and take their money to other countries. It is a crisis, and it is not a result of external factors beyond the government's control. In fact, it is a direct consequence of the Liberals' message to Canadians and the world that Canada is closed for business because of the Liberals' added red tape and imposed cost increases.

Context is important. The energy sector is the biggest private sector investor and accounts for over 11% of the value of Canada's economy. To put this in perspective, it contributes twice as much as agriculture and fisheries combined, sectors in which farmers and fishermen also often have jobs in oil and gas. It contributes more than the banking and finance sector and more than the auto sector. The benefits are shared across Canada. Every one job in the oil sands creates seven manufacturing jobs in Ontario. Every one upstream oil and gas job in Alberta creates five jobs in other sectors, in other provinces.

However, spending in Canada's oil and gas sector declined 56% over three years, from $81 billion in 2014 to $45 billion in 2017. More money has left Canada's oil and gas sector since the 2015 election than at any other comparable time period in more than 70 years. The equivalent value would be losing 75% of auto manufacturing in Canada, or almost the entirety of the aerospace sector in Canada, something no one rightfully would accept.

The biggest beneficiary is the U.S. where spending in oil and gas increased 38% to $120 billion in 2017. Today, U.S. investment in Canada is down by more than half. Canadian investment in the U.S. is up by two-thirds. The consequences of these losses are hundreds of thousands of Canadians out of work and less revenue for core social programs and services at every level of government in every single province.

Over 115,000 Albertans are out of work and not receiving any employment insurance assistance right now and tens of thousands more have lost their jobs. The Liberals' anti-energy agenda is clearly both hindering the private sector from being able to provide well-paying jobs, but it is also risking the life savings of many Canadians.

Oil and gas companies are a big part of most people's pension plans, and whether through employer provided defined contribution plans or personal investments in mutual funds, chances are that most Canadians are invested in oil and gas. When oil and gas companies leave Canada, the value of those investments in Canada drops, reducing the value of everyone's retirement savings. Now CPP and the Ontario teachers' pension plan are also investing in the United States.

I want to highlight an aspect of this legislation that will compound uncertainty and challenges for Canadian oil and gas proponents. On page 589, in the very last chapter of this 840-page omnibus bill, clause 692 implements sweeping new powers for the federal cabinet to impose regulations on marine transport. Included in these powers is the ability to pass regulations:

(j) respecting compulsory routes and recommended routes;

(k) regulating or prohibiting the operation, navigation, anchoring, mooring or berthing of vessels or classes of vessels; and

(l) regulating or prohibiting the loading or unloading of a vessel or a class of vessels.

This means the Liberal cabinet can block any class of tanker from any route leaving Canada or from docking at any port the Liberals choose. In Bill C-48, oil tankers of a certain size will be prevented from travelling and from the loading and off-loading of crude at ports only off the northern coast of B.C.

This legislation, Bill C-86, would be a dramatic expansion, giving the Liberal cabinet the power to block oil exports from any port anywhere in Canada or to block oil tankers in general from entering Canadian waters. Places like the Arctic could lose access to the fuel tankers that keep power on during the winter. Offshore oil and gas development in Atlantic Canada could be blocked overnight. That is alarming in itself, and it gets worse.

This legislation authorizes a single minister to be able to make legally binding changes to these regulations for a year at a time and even up to three years, regarding “compulsory routes” and “prohibiting the operation, navigation, anchoring, mooring or berthing of vessels or classes of vessels”. One minister with one stroke of a pen can shut down an entire industry with wide-ranging impacts.

This is a pattern. The Liberals repeatedly demonstrate their hostility to the oil and gas sector in Canada. The Prime Minister of course said that he wants to phase out the oil sands, and Canadians should believe him. He defended the use of tax dollars for summer jobs to stop the Trans Mountain expansion. The Liberals removed the tax credit for new exploration oil drilling at the very worst time.

Also, many Liberal MPs ran in the last election opposing the export of Canada's oil to the world. Since they formed government, the Liberals have used every tool at their disposal to kill energy sector jobs.

Canada is the only top 10 oil-producing country in the world, let alone in North America, to impose a carbon tax on itself. While there are significant exemptions for major industrial emitters, it will hike costs for operations across the value chain, and certainly for the 80% of Canadian service and supply companies that are small businesses. Moreover, individual contractors will still have to pay it.

The proposed clean fuel standards—which would be unprecedented globally because they would be applied to buildings and facilities, not just to transportation fuel—will cost integrated oil and gas companies as well as refining and petrochemical development in Canada hundreds of millions of dollars. Canada is literally the most environmentally and socially responsible producer of oil and gas in the world, oil and gas that the world will continue to demand for decades. We are falling dramatically behind the United States and other countries for regulatory efficiency and clarity.

The Liberals imposed the tanker ban, with no substantial economic, safety, or environmental assessments and no real consultation, and a ban on offshore drilling in the north against the wishes of the premier of the Northwest Territories.

The Prime Minister vetoed outright the northern gateway pipeline and then intervened to kill energy east with delays, rule changes and a last-minute double standard. Now, the Liberals' failures have driven Kinder Morgan out of Canada. Construction of the Trans Mountain expansion has never started in the two years since the Liberals approved it, and they have repeatedly kicked the can down the road for months. The consequence is that crude oil is now being shipped by rail and truck at record levels, negatively impacting other sectors like agriculture, manufacturing and retail.

The Liberals would add uncertainty and great expense for any resource project that has even a ditch on its property, by subjecting all water to the navigable waters regulatory regime in Bill C-68. Moreover, their “no more pipelines” Bill C-69 would block any future pipelines and therefore stop major oil and gas projects from being built in Canada.

Kinder Morgan is now going to take all of that $4.5 billion in Canadian tax dollars the Liberals spent on the existing pipeline and will use it to build pipelines in the United States, Canada's biggest energy competitor and customer. The consequences are that large companies are pulling out of Canada and investing in the U.S. or elsewhere.

Encana, a made in Canada success story, is selling Canadian assets to buy into projects in the United States. Gwyn Morgan, its founder, did not mince words. He said:

I’m deeply saddened that, as a result of the disastrous policies of the [Liberal] government, what was once the largest Canadian-headquartered energy producer now sees both its CEO and the core of its asset base located in the U.S.

It is estimated that the Liberal failure to get pipelines built is forcing Canadian oil to sell for $100 million dollars less a day than what it should be worth. That is $100 million dollars a day that is not providing for middle-class families, that is not fuelling small businesses, and not generating taxes to pay off the out-of-control Liberal deficit.

RBC recently reported that in 2008, taxes generated by oil and gas were worth $35 billion a year for provincial and federal governments. That is now down to almost $10 billion a year in 2016. That is more than $20 billion a year that could have gone to health care and education or to cover old age security costs, or be invested in building bridges and roads. Of course, the Liberals promised a deficit of only $10 billion a year and that the budget would be balanced by 2019, but none of that is anywhere in sight. They choose to spend recklessly: millions of dollars on perks like renovations for ministers' offices, a $5 million hockey rink on Parliament Hill that operated for a couple of months, or $26 million for vehicles. Never mind the billions of dollars spent outside Canada, building oil and gas pipelines in Asia with Canadian tax dollars or funding groups linked to anti-Semitism and terrorism.

Never has a government spent so much and achieved so little. The end result is Canada is trapped in a debt spiral. The ones who are going to pay for these deficits are millennials and their children, and it makes life less affordable today while federal government debt increases interest rates across the board. That poses significant risks to Canada and leaves us utterly unprepared for a global economic recession or worldwide factors that the government cannot control, unlike the Liberals' damaging policies. Future generations will find that their governments cannot afford services or programs they are counting on, and their governments will be in a trap of borrowing and hiking taxes. That is why Conservatives advocate balanced budgets, because it is the only responsible thing to do for Canada's children and grandchildren.

The out-sized contributions of the energy sector to the whole country's economy and to government revenue is also why the future of energy development in Canada is one of the most important domestic economic questions facing all of us. That is what makes the Liberal layering of red tape and costs on Canadian energy so unconscionable, and the consequences so devastating for all of Canada.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member opposite whether she nevertheless agrees that the policies put in place by our government, particularly the infrastructure investments, were worthwhile. The IMF recommended this type of approach. When the economy is slowing down and interest rates are low, it is worthwhile making smart investments in our infrastructure to stimulate growth.

When we came to power in 2015, people wondered whether we were headed for a recession. Today, we are no longer in that situation. The economy is booming, in part thanks to the investments we made.

If the member cannot agree that these investments in infrastructure that communities across the country really need were worthwhile, she should look at the results in her province.

There have been tax cuts and the more progressive approach that we have adopted will provide more money to families. Consequently, in the spring of 2019, Canadian families will on average have $2,000 more in their pockets than under the former government.

Will this approach not yield very concrete results for the people she represents?

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have a lot to answer for in regard to their infrastructure commitments. Municipalities and rural and remote communities across Canada, as well as provinces and territories, deserve those answers because only 6% of the $180 billion the Liberals committed for infrastructure across Canada has flowed and 95% of it has not even made it out the door, just as it is with almost every single thing the Liberals talk about in budgets or when making promises to Canadians.

As the leader of my party said to me a couple of weeks ago, the Liberals are really good at “announcerology” and not so good at “deliverology”. That is certainly the case with infrastructure.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the very disturbing fictions that is being perpetuated by the Liberals every time they stand to speak, specifically about this bill, is how incredible the child tax benefit is, how many children are being helped and brought out of poverty by this government.

I do not know what it is like in my hon. colleague's riding, but I deal almost daily with single mothers who are suffering a staggering level of harassment from CRA. They have had their benefits cut off at Christmastime. We have had to get food baskets for children in my region because their right to the child tax benefit has been denied by the CRA. The minister sits here day after day defending the indefensible, the $1 billion clawed back from ordinary working class people, while Liberals ignore friends like the Bronfmans and friends of the Prime Minister, who keep their money in offshore havens.

In light of this level of scrutiny and the hoops the Liberals force single mothers and young working class families to go through so that the government can claw back money and show a surplus from benefit reviews at the end of the year, does she not think that is a really unconscionable way of raising money and taxes when the Liberals are leaving the super rich protected in these offshore tax havens?

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly hear the same thing from my constituents, especially families who have been decimated by the job losses and loss of investment in the energy sector, and indigenous communities and families throughout Lakeland who are also involved in oil and gas development and have suffered job losses in the same way as others across the riding.

I heard similar things from families in my riding about their dealings with the CRA, particularly around the disability tax credit that they, and sometimes their children, are dependent on. It is the Liberal way, is it not, to say one thing and do the complete opposite? The fact is that under the Liberals, the wealthiest 1% in Canada are paying fewer taxes, and the average middle-class family is paying more.

We are proud of our record as Conservatives, for having left a surplus to the current government while lowering taxes to their lowest level in 50 years. Also, child poverty in Canada dropped to its lowest level since records have been kept. All the while, we managed to increase transfers to the provinces for health and social services so that those governments could provide the programs their citizens value.

Yes, I would agree with the premise of the member opposite that the Liberals raise funds in unconscionable ways for their out-of-control spending.

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

Mr. Speaker, what we will do now is talk about the realities of what has actually been happening over the last three years. Conservatives and the NDP want to come together at times. I have heard them saying that their enemy is their friend type of thing, and often I see them come together as they try to portray something far from reality. Let me explain to my friends across the way what that is.

Let me backtrack to the days when our Prime Minister was the leader of the Liberal Party on the opposition benches, when there were about 30 or so Liberal members of Parliament way on the other side in the back corner, as someone pointed out. Even back then, the leader of the Liberal Party stated very clearly that Canada's middle class was priority one. After being elected, from day one this government has been focused on Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it.

Day after day, we see opposition members consistently trying to change the track. I believe they realize there are a lot of good things happening in Canada under this regime. As opposed to discussing good solid policy ideas, they tend to make personal attacks.

I would like to set the record straight and go back to day one. What were some of the very first initiatives of this government? Members will recall that it was the tax break for Canada's middle class, something that the Conservatives and NDP voted against.

Another piece we brought forward was a special tax on Canada's wealthiest 1%. Again, the Conservatives and the NDP joined hands and voted against it. Then we brought in the increase to the Canada child benefit program, and within this budget, we have proposed annual increases to that program.

We acted so that individuals making a lot of money would not receive as much and people who needed the money and support the most received the most. In fact, from the Canada child benefit program, Winnipeg North, the community I have the distinct pleasure of representing, receives over $9 million every month. Imagine what that does for the macro amount of disposable income, if I can put it that way, the amount of consumer spending that takes place as a direct result of that one initiative.

However, we did not stop there. We also increased the GIS for our seniors. Some of the poorest seniors in the country happen to live in Winnipeg North. In Winnipeg North, many of those seniors received a top up of over $900 a year. We literally saw tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of children and seniors being lifted out of poverty. Again, it was the NDP and the Conservatives who joined together to vote against that, as they have done time and time again.

It is interesting listening to their arguments. For several days, I have now listened to New Democrats and Conservatives try to come up with the best arguments against this budget. For the Conservatives, it is all about the deficit. They like to cry about how bad the deficit is. I would like to remind those who are following the debate about a couple of very interesting facts. Number one, Canada is 151 years old, and the Conservatives have been in government just under 40% of that time. During that time of theirs, they accumulated about 75% of Canada's national debt. When we point that fact out to them, in a twisted sort of way, they try to blame the Liberals. The reality is that nothing is further from the truth.

All they have to do is look at Stephen Harper. They all know Stephen Harper. We would think Stephen Harper is still sitting in those benches; the Conservatives are still operating on Harper's policies. When Stephen Harper became the Prime Minister of Canada, he inherited a multi-billion dollar surplus. Within two years, even before the recession, he took that multi-billion dollar surplus and converted it into a multi-billion dollar deficit. For almost 10 years, Canadians had to put up with Stephen Harper. The Conservatives try to say that in their last year they had a balanced budget. They sold off those GM shares and brought in a billion dollars here and a few million more here and there, and they try to say that they have—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Order. The hon. parliamentary secretary is speaking. He has a good tone and it is very loud and very good, but even with that talent I am having a hard time hearing because there are some comments. It is nice, because he engages everyone, and it is nice to see but I do not think it is quite the way we want to see it here in Parliament. I am going to ask the hon. members to let him speak. I am sure he will tone it down if everyone lets him talk, and he can continue.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have heard the saying, “the truth hurts", and that is what is happening. I am trying to explain for my friends across the way the reality of the Stephen Harper era, which was not all that good for Canada when we stop and look at it. In the last three years, with the support of small businesses in every region of our country, and good government, we have seen over 500,000 full-time jobs and tens of thousands of other part-time jobs. Even in the best years, Harper could not even come close to that.

We have demonstrated very clearly that the biggest benefactor under these policies and under the budgets that this government has introduced is Canada's middle class. That is something in which we take, collectively, a great sense of pride because that was the number one commitment that we made to Canadians in the last election. Because we recognize the importance of the middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it, we recognized it was time that government gave them the attention that they deserve. We saw that budget after budget after budget. We will take that to the next election because of the many different initiatives that we have brought forward.

I do not want to leave my friends, the New Democrats, out. I listen to my New Democratic friends, and what do they have to say? They could never spend enough money. It is almost as though they live in some sort of a fairyland where they say we should have a national child care plan, even though, when they had the opportunity to vote in favour of it, they voted against it and caused the government to fall, along with other issues. They have wild, crazy dreams of spending billions of dollars, yet they cannot fool Canadians. We remember in the last election when Thomas Mulcair was their leader. Mr. Mulcair said that he would balance budgets at all costs. That is what the NDP said back then. They know full well that many of the things they say when they criticize this budget, they would never do themselves. That is the reality even with my New Democratic friends who try to give an impression, which I would suggest is a false impression.

In this budget, on some of those social programs that are so important to Canadians, such as health care, we see a commitment to look at how we can develop a pharmacare program that Canadians could be proud of. For generations, we have seen virtually nothing done on that file. Under this Prime Minister, in this government, we are addressing the high cost of medications. We are looking at ways we could take a national pharmacare working with different provincial entities, territorial entities and other stakeholders. We recognize how close to the heart Canadians hold our health care system.

I am so proud that one of the things we have been able to accomplish that Harper could not accomplish was getting agreements with all the different provinces and territories on a health care accord. This is a government that truly cares about Canadians. It understands that a healthy economy ensures that we have a healthier middle class. We strive day in and day out to work with Canadians to create the opportunities for our middle class and all Canadians.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the member for Winnipeg North. He talked about fooling Canadians.

I remember, back in 2015, Liberals boasted about real change coming to Parliament. I remember, in my first term here in Parliament, when that member was part of the third party at that time, sitting in the wee corners of this wonderful House of Commons, how he railed against omnibus bills and how undemocratic they were.

The 2015 Liberal platform talked about real change. This is what it says:

Stephen Harper has also used omnibus bills to prevent Parliament from properly reviewing and debating his proposals. We will change the House of Commons Standing Orders to bring an end to this undemocratic practice.

An 850-page omnibus budget implementation bill is unheard of. Is that the real change Liberals were talking about?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, let me tell the House what real change means.

It means a tax increase on Canada's wealthiest 1%, a tax decrease for Canada's middle class, tax fairness, a small business tax cut from 12% to 9%, over $400 million invested to try to recover billions from tax evaders, guaranteed income supplement increases, Canada child benefit program increases, historic investments in infrastructure, a health care accord, a Canada pension plan agreement, an agreement on carbon pricing or a price on pollution that is something completely foreign to the other side, a public inquiry into murdered and missing indigenous girls and women, a gender-balanced cabinet, assisted dying legislation, labour legislation, access to information modernization from over 34 years, admitting Syrian refugees, restoring eligibility of old age security from 67 to 65, and so many things. The list goes on and on.

That is real change that we have witnessed. At the end of the day, the average Canadian is going to receive more money from the government than under Stephen Harper. We have seen incredible job opportunities that have come available, as I have indicated. Over 500,000, over a half million jobs in the last three years, and those are full-time jobs, plus tens of thousands of part-time jobs.

This government has put in real change, and we look forward to the challenges ahead in 2019.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his enthusiastic speech. It was truly amazing.

The member has announced many times how the Liberals are helping middle-class Canadians. One of the things that the Liberals ran on in 2015 was that they were going to help people and when it came to bankruptcies, people's pensions would be protected. The Liberals also said it at the Liberal convention, and made it a priority.

However, what we see here is nothing. Three years and there is nothing on it. You are going to open things up to help wealthy companies, but you are denying people's pensions being protected. People are tired of having their pensions stolen.

What are you going to do about it?