Debates of March 19th, 2018

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

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

Madam Speaker, the member just keeps making stuff up. That is sad because we are talking about an extremely important issue. I addressed the $1.6 billion paid by the B.C. NDP. Therefore, what we have is more investment coming from one provincial NDP government than the Liberals have done since they were elected. That is the difference.

The member has just admitted, and this is very important for Canadians, that he is talking about three years from now. He is talking about after 2019. Unfortunately he is a little mathematically challenged. He throws these figures out without really understanding what the impacts are. He is talking about after the next election. Canadians who are homeless need support now. They need housing now, not three, five, or 10 years from now. Case closed.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, today, on my way into Ottawa, I was stopped at the airport. A young single mom told me that her life was not getting any better, that she kept hearing these promises about how they were going to help her and my children, but their lives were no better, that she was constantly scrambling for money. She could not even afford to go to the dentist.

The hon. member has talked about the fact that the gap between those who have and those who have not is growing every day, and we know that. As a result, people are desperate. They are going to payday lenders. These are users. These are predators. People are being forced into that kind of economy. I am curious to hear what he has to say about that.

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

Madam Speaker, the question from the member for London—Fanshawe has been the best question asked so far this afternoon. It really touches the core of what the budget debate should be all about. She has touched on real people. It is not Liberal spin or Conservative spin. It is really about the impacts on real people.

Having no pharmacare, having no access to dental care, and having no access to housing in our country hurts real people. It is all well and good for the Liberals to spin it and say that eventually they will get around to it. In three years, as the parliamentary secretary has said, they will do something about it. People are suffering now. Canadian families are suffering now. The government needs to act now, not in three years.

[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 tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Edmonton West, Public Services and Procurement; the hon. member for Chilliwack—Hope, Ethics; the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith, Indigenous Affairs.

[Bernadette Jordan, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my colleague from Mississauga—Lakeshore.

I rise today to talk about budget 2018. In particular, I want to talk about the great things I found in this budget for my riding of South Shore—St. Margarets in Nova Scotia.

However, before I do, I want to commend the Minister of Finance for bringing forward a budget that recognizes the importance of giving women the tools they need to succeed in the economy. It is clear that when we add women to the economy, the economy does better.

Just like when we add women to politics, politics changes. It gets better. I think we can all agree that it needs to get better. I am one of only nine women who have been elected to represent Nova Scotia in the House of Commons in the last 100 years. Just let that sink in. That is why I am happy today to be speaking to a budget that would put women in the driver's seat, and acknowledges the importance of having women represented in our economy and in our communities.

For communities across my riding, there are a lot of great things to be found in the budget, which I would like to address, things like $250 million for small craft harbours. This is a huge investment in our coastal communities, especially because the state of small craft harbours in my riding is, an issue about which I have heard so much.

During the election, as I travelled across the riding, constituents raised a lot of concerns with me. One of the issues I heard about the most was that our small craft harbours really needed to be repaired.

Since the election, constituents have sent me videos of wharves crumbling and flooding, messaging me on Facebook and Twitter, sending me emails, writing letters, and calling my office to share their concerns about the state of our harbour infrastructure. I have toured a lot of these harbours and my constituents are right. These wharves need serious repairs.

Small craft harbours are a major economic driver in my coastal communities. I am sure some of my colleagues, like the members for West Nova, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, St. Catharines, Avalon, and many other members across the country would agree that this infrastructure is heavily relied upon. Forty per cent of lobster exports in Canada comes from southwest Nova Scotia.

Fishers rely on safe small craft harbours for their livelihood. The fishing industry is the backbone of my riding's economy and it relies on access to these harbours. Communities and families up and down the South Shore rely on this infrastructure as well. Having safe and accessible small craft harbours means that fishers in my riding can sell their catch and provide for their families.

By investing in our small craft harbours, we are investing in our fishing industry, allowing it to grow, develop, expand, and attract future investment. This historic $250 million investment will ensure the sustainability and preservation of a vital industry for generations to come.

It is much like the commitment to protect our forestry industry in Atlantic Canada. By investing almost $75 million in the forestry sector, we are supporting and protecting important forestry jobs and the communities that rely on them, not only in my riding but across Atlantic Canada.

As I am sure my New Brunswick colleagues can attest that the threat and damage of the spruce budworm is catastrophic and can destroy our valuable forests and natural resources. This funding is great news for our forest-dependent communities. It means they can be protected from the devastation of spruce budworm and ensures the survival of our forests. To be honest, there are communities in my riding that rely entirely on the forestry sector. This industry is the economic backbone of these communities. Therefore, if they experience a spruce budworm outbreak, the impact would be devastating.

The economy and the environment go hand in hand, and it is important to ensure we make the necessary investments to protect our natural resources and the benefits they provide to our country.

That is why our government is committing over $1.3 billion to support Canada's biodiversity, protect our species at risk, and increase our capacity to manage protected areas, including our national parks, like Kejimkujik National Park in my riding.

This new funding, along with the existing $1.5 billion oceans protection plan, demonstrates that Canadians can be confident that their government takes environmental protection seriously.

While it is important to invest in the environment, it is also important to invest in the workers themselves. That is why I was thrilled about the introduction of the new and enhanced Canada workers' benefit. The working income tax benefit is a refundable tax credit that would supplement the earnings of low-income workers. It would put more money in the pockets of hard-working people across the country.

The government already committed to enhancing WITB to a combined $750 million in the 2017 fall economic statement. Now budget 2018 wants to strengthen that commitment by introducing the Canada workers benefit. This new strengthened benefit is more generous and, more important, more accessible. Currently, too many Canadians are unaware of their eligibility for the working income tax benefit, so they are not applying. Our plan would allow the Canada Revenue Agency to automatically apply the Canada workers' benefit, which would ensure Canadians would get the money to which they would be entitled.

We need to be clear about what this means and why it is so important. We are talking just shy of $1 billion in new funding for hard-working people across the country. We are talking about impacting the lives of almost two million working Canadians. We are talking about lifting approximately 70,000 Canadians out of poverty.

I also want to highlight what it means to individual Canadians. This benefit means that a single mom from Queens County, who is living paycheque to paycheque, can buy her children new boots, or young couples living in Lunenburg, who are just breaking even, can afford to pay their power bills and their phone bills at the same time. It means that we are investing in the hard-working people in my riding and in the hard-working people right across the country.

This budget will do that. It invests in Canadians. It recognizes potential. It will help us grow. It invests in low-income earners and gives them more money for necessities like groceries and utilities. Not only that, it sees their potential and invests in their future. It invests in rural Canadians like fishers and foresters in my riding. It understands the importance of our harbours and our forests and recognizes that these industries are a way of life. It invests in women and girls. It recognizes the challenges we face every day and gives solutions to those challenges. We know that getting a seat at the table is not the only problem. We know we cannot get a seat at the table if we cannot make it there to begin with.

That is why I am proud to stand in the House today on behalf of my riding of South Shore—St. Margarets and speak in support of this budget. This budget is an investment in all of us. It is an investment in Canada. I encourage all members of the House to support it.

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

Madam Speaker, when I reflect on this budget, I cannot help but think about how it continues with what this government started just two and a half years ago. We made a commitment to Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it to work hard for them. We are seeing the results of that effort. We have had budgets that have invested money into things such as tax cuts for the middle class. We have seen larger amounts of money go to guaranteed income supplements, the Canada child benefit, all the money that goes into the disposable income of Canadians from coast to coast to coast. In turn, they are spending that money and we have a healthier economy.

Could my colleague and friend provide her thoughts on the importance of recognizing that this budget is continuing from previous budgets, that it is continuing to help, with Canadians, build our economy?

[Bernadette Jordan, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague is right. We have made a commitment to invest in Canadians. We have done it through the Canada child benefit and now with the increase in WITB. We have done it through increases in the GIS for our seniors and our most vulnerable population. I am very committed to that.

I am very excited to see that it is not just about investing in the infrastructure we desperately need, but it is investing in those families and in the people who need the disposable income. With the tax cuts and the programs we have been able to offer through our past two budgets and now this one, I see great changes for people in South Shore—St. Margarets.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to make one point of correction. I keep hearing government members say that Canada has the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio, and it is repeated on page 26 of the budget. Actually, the numbers that go into that are federal debt to GDP. One of the things that makes us different compared to many of the other countries we are being compared to is that, relative to other countries, far more services in Canada are delivered at provincial and municipal levels relative to the federal level. If we look at net government debt to GDP, we are certainly much higher relative to some of those other countries. We are much closer to the average.

The member talked about some of the gender issues in the budget and the laudable efforts to improve the situation of women and of women in the workforce. In particular, one of the things proposed in the budget is a grant for women who go into non-traditional occupations. Obviously, we want to ensure this money goes to the intended recipients. What measures does the government intend to associate with that provision to verify the gender of the applicant, so it is not a man applying and asking for that money? Could the member comment on that? It seems like a important process question.

[Bernadette Jordan, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Madam Speaker, when my colleague mentioned provincial versus federal, we have made historic transfer payments to the provinces, so that has to be taken into consideration when we look at the debt-to-GDP ratio.

With regard to women in non-traditional female roles, this is something that I am extremely passionate about because it has affected me directly. I have a daughter who studied heritage carpentry and actually left the trade because of the sexism she faced in the workplace. It is important that when we are looking to make sure that women have access to these programs, we do everything we can to support them and to make sure that they not only get the training they need, but they get the respect they deserve in the workplace.

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

Madam Speaker, in terms of how we clarify this messaging, there is some confusion, so I would like the member to pick one of those to clarify. It sounds like she is very interested in pay equity. Why is there no funding allocated for implementation? Is that a concern to her?

What about the issue of pharmacare? That is a broken promise right off the bat. We heard a day later from the finance minister that there is a very specific type of pharmacare being envisioned.

I wonder if the member could clarify either of those for us.

[Bernadette Jordan, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Madam Speaker, my colleague is right. Pay equity is extremely important. This is 2018. Women should be paid at the same scale as men no matter what, and I am really proud of the fact that our government has taken the initiative to make sure this happens.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise to talk about what budget 2018 means for constituents in my riding of Mississauga—Lakeshore and for Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

Let me start by saying that we are seeing clear signs that our government's plan is working. Nearly 600,000 jobs have been created by Canadians and the unemployment rate is down to near 40-year lows. Middle-class Canadians feel more optimistic about their future, whether their plan is to pay down debts, to save for a first home, or to go back to school to train for a new job. The Government of Canada has been supporting this confidence by investing in Canadians and the things that are important to them.

We raised taxes on the top 1% so that we could lower them for the middle class. Through the Canada child benefit we also increased support for nine out of 10 families, lifting 300,000 children out of poverty in the process. At the end of 2017, child poverty was reduced by 40% from what it was in 2013.

These are important achievements for Canadians, but we also know that some of our greatest challenges present the greatest opportunities.

By creating these opportunities, the government is taking action with budget 2018 to ensure that the advantages of a growing economy are enjoyed by more and more people.

By making an effort to support women and girls, reducing the gender wage gap, and increasing women's participation in the workforce, we are encouraging more economic growth for the benefit of all Canadians.

Here are some important facts to support those statements. The McKinsey Global Institute estimates that by taking steps to advance women's equality, such as employing more women in technology and boosting women's participation in the workforce, Canada could add $150 billion to its economy by 2025. Furthermore, RBC Economics estimates that if Canada had a completely equal representation of women and men in our workforce today, we could increase the size of Canada's economy by $85 billion, or 4%.

Giving women equal opportunities to succeed will not just ensure strong economic growth. It will also encourage a more inclusive dialogue on the questions that will shape our future, in addition to improving the quality of life for our families and communities. That is why the government's 2018 budget seeks to help new parents care for their children during the early months of life, which are so critical to a child's development.

To support young families and gender equality at work and at home, the government is introducing a new employment insurance parental sharing benefit that will support the equal distribution of home and professional responsibilities. The benefit will provide an additional five weeks of EI benefits when both parents agree to share their parental leave or an additional eight weeks when parents opt for extended parental leave.

This “use it or lose it” incentive encourages both parents in two-parent families to share equally in the work of raising their children, which will allow greater flexibility for new mothers to return to work sooner.

More equitable parental leave will also help lead to more equitable hiring practices, reducing conscious and unconscious discrimination against women by employers.

In addition to this new employment insurance parental sharing benefit, budget 2018 helps those in my riding in a number of other respects.

Last November I met with constituent Ruby Alvi and her two sons, Aadam Ahmed and Yusuf Ahmed, both of whom were falsely flagged through the passenger protect program or no-fly list. Their concerns and dissatisfaction were echoed by many in my community, which is why I am proud that budget 2018 proposes to invest $81.4 million over five years to improve the passenger protect program by establishing a centralized screening model and a redress mechanism for travellers affected by the program. For those families and children who have been falsely and unfairly named on the no-fly list, this investment is an important step forward to address and fix this problem.

We know that Canadians are working hard to build a better life for themselves and their families, and they deserve to have their hard work rewarded with greater opportunities and a fair chance at success. That is why budget 2018 introduces the new Canada workers benefit, which is a stronger even more accessible version of the working income tax benefit, WITB, as it will allow low-income families to take home more of their hard-earned money. This means that an employee earning $15,000 could receive up to almost $500 more in 2019 than she or he would have received under the WITB in 2018. Overall, nearly two million Canadians will receive benefits through this new program and 70,000 Canadians will be lifted out of poverty.

Like the Canada workers benefit, the Canada child benefit, CCB, is a cornerstone in the government's plan to strengthen the middle class and to help people working hard to join it. In my riding of Mississauga—Lakeshore, the Canada child benefit has helped families give their children a better start in life. Between July 2016 and June 2017, there were 17,130 children in my constituency who benefited from the CCB. With the extra help provided through this program each month, families in my community are better able to afford things like nutritious food, sports programs, music lessons, and school supplies. To ensure that families can keep up with the rising cost of living, the government is proposing to strengthen the Canada child benefit starting this July. For a single parent with $35,000 of income and two children, the increase in the CCB will contribute an extra $560 toward the increasing cost of raising children by the 2019-20 benefit year.

However, it is also important to make sure that everyone who qualifies for the CCB receives it. In particular, indigenous communities in remote and northern regions face distinct barriers to accessing federal benefits such as the CCB. To address this problem, budget 2018 proposes to expand outreach efforts to indigenous communities and to conduct pilot outreach activities for urban indigenous communities. These efforts will ensure that indigenous peoples are better able to access the full range of federal social benefits, including the CCB.

Through budget 2018, the government wants to give young people a head start by investing in the youth employment strategy and doubling the work placements for youth through the Canada summer jobs program.

Budget 2018 introduces a new apprenticeship incentive for women, a five-year pilot project to encourage more women to enter male-dominated, well-paying trades. Under-represented groups, including women, indigenous peoples, persons with disabilities, members of visible minorities and newcomers, would also benefit from a new pre-apprenticeship program that would help them explore the trades, gain work experience, make informed career choices and develop the skills needed to succeed.

This is part of our long-term plan to identify the list of skills our economy needs, review the programs and services offered by the government, and help people match their skills with the right opportunities and stay current.

Canadians have always understood it is possible to do better, and time after time we have harnessed our curiosity, courage, creativity, and collaboration to create positive change in Canada and around the world.

Through budget 2018, the government is acting on this understanding to create new opportunities for Canadian innovators, from junior researchers to scientists to corporate leaders. With $6.6 billion committed to science in budget 2018, I am proud that our government is making the single largest investment in fundamental research in Canadian history. The government will invest $3 billion in the next generation of Canadian research and researchers, the people behind the ideas. This means more support and training opportunities for the work of about 21,000 researchers, students, and high-quality personnel every year by 2021-22.

Budget 2018 also proposes over $1.3 billion over five years to provide researchers with access to the state-of-the-art tools and facilities they need to carry out their work at Canadian universities, polytechnics, colleges, and research hospitals. With all these investments in budget 2018, our government recognizes that new opportunities and equality are at the heart of Canada's future economic success.

Canadian women and men work hard every day. They take care of their families, run businesses, teach in schools and universities, invent new technologies, protect communities, grow food, take care of each other when they are sick, and create the music, books, plays, and art that shape culture and remind everyone of what it means to be Canadian. This is as true for my constituency of Mississauga—Lakeshore as it is for those in every other riding across our great country.

By promoting equality, this budget and government will help to create long-term prosperity and growth for all Canadians.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened to my colleague's very thorough speech and have a question about financial literacy. We try to teach our kids that we have to live within our means. We all know that when the Conservatives were in government we faced the worst economic crisis ever. Now that the world economy has picked up, typically people take that time to start paying down debt and becoming financially literate.

I have heard the Liberal government's economy called a credit card economy because it is borrowing and borrowing to stimulate. Has my colleague ever heard of a movement called Generation Screwed? It is a group of young people who are trying to raise awareness about the debt, because ultimately we, as a generation, are leaving them huge amounts of money they are going to have to pay back.

I was wondering if my colleague has any concerns about not being able to balance the budget within the time frame his government and the Prime Minister promised? Could he tell us if there is any plan to balance the budget so that we are not leaving a huge financial debt for generations to come?

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Madam Speaker, the question of fiscal discipline is indeed important, and it is raised frequently by constituents. Equally important is the conclusion Canadians reached in 2018, which is that the Canadian economy, in 2018 in a globally very competitive environment, requires investment. Canadians will always do well without that investment, but we will do better if we invest in our infrastructure, including our digital infrastructure and human resources, all those things that make us globally competitive.

Left to our own devices economically over the Harper decade, we did not see the success Canadians believed we could reach. We are starting to see, with the investments we made in 2015, that those results and improvements are possible. We are at the top of the list of the G7, or near the top of the list of the G7, with respect to economic growth.

Investment is required for an economy like Canada's, but equally important is the question of fiscal discipline. The term “spending” is not the right term. The right term is “investment”. One constituent I spoke to just a couple of weeks ago likened it to a home improvement loan. She said that as long as we invest in Canada and increase the value of our assets as a nation, we will do better.

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

Madam Speaker, I wanted to ask my hon. colleague about the pressing issues we experienced in the past year with regard to irregular border crossings. The issue of immigration, and indeed of multiculturalism and of accepting refugees, had been a theme we were very vocal about last year. I am extremely perplexed and disappointed in this budget. I wonder if the member has any insights with regard to that?

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member raises the question of immigration, including the question of refugees.

Immigration, of course, is a cornerstone, not just of Canada's social success but our economic success. It will remain a cornerstone for generations to come. Canada was and is being built on immigration. We just celebrated our 150th anniversary. The next 150 years will be equally profoundly marked by immigration, by people joining us from all corners of the globe.

Specifically with respect to refugees, to correct some of the misperceptions that might be out there in terms of refugees receiving unfair handouts, in my own view and in the view shared by many Canadians, nobody is more motivated, socially or economically, than a person who has lost everything to natural disaster or a war-torn social setting in their country of origin. The economic contributions we are starting to see from our community of refugees are nothing short of extraordinary.

We need to continue to make sure that we integrate refugees speedily and successfully into the Canadian experience. I am very optimistic that immigration, including refugee influence over the decades to come, will contribute very strongly to our success as a nation.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

I am honoured to represent the people of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke. I participate in this debate to share their concern about the deteriorating state of the finances of the Canadian government and what that means to average middle-class Canadian families who bear the brunt of bad spending.

Everyone knows that today's deficit budgets are tomorrow's tax increases. Borrowing money to pay for borrowed time only works for so long, as the disgraced Premier of Ontario is about to find out when she faces the Ford nation.

I take this time before I continue to thank the members of the Conservative Party of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke for their overwhelming vote of confidence in once again confirming that I will be our party's candidate in the next federal election, an election that cannot come soon enough for the overburdened taxpayers of our country.

The democratic nomination process in my riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, which coincided with the delivery of the disastrous federal budget, attracted individuals who previously had been identified as supporting the Liberal Party. This is a reflection of how badly they want to see the government defeated. It speaks volumes that former prominent Liberals publicly supported my nomination as the Conservative Party candidate for the next election.

That anti-Liberal sentiment includes the Liberal candidate, a veteran, who ran against me in the 2015 election. He condemns the Liberal Party on social media for using him as a party prop in a picture during the election, with no intention of honouring any promises made to veterans for their votes. It looks like the Prime Minister's party will be looking for a new candidate. Here is what the former candidate had to say. “Three years ago, I decided to seek the nomination for the federal Liberal candidacy in Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke. My only goal was to play a role in assuring that no other brave Canadian would be penalized at home due to their service. I was inspired by promises to fix things. I was inspired by the presence of other veterans lining up to win nominations for the Liberals. I legitimately felt hopeful for the first time in a long time. I believed them. I now realize that I was wrong. The Prime Minister recently stated that Canadian veterans want more than Canada can give. I stood on a stage behind the Prime Minister in August of 2015 when he made a promise to veterans, a promise which was obviously, in retrospect, a political bargaining chip. I have first-hand experience as a service member, stakeholder, and party member with respect to the way our military is regarded and treated. At some of the highest levels, I have personally witnessed the way in which our injured and ill are regarded with skepticism, suspicion, and cynicism by members of the governing party. It needs to end now.”

The budget is a huge disappointment, not only to veterans but to currently serving members of Canada's armed forces and their families. Canada has returned to the days known as the “decade of darkness” that passed for Canadian defence policy. The policy decision by the last Liberal government to interfere in the equipment procurement process, with the decision to cancel the EH-101 helicopter contract, cost the lives of Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan. This marked the beginning of the decade of darkness for serving members of the Canadian Armed Forces. A similar political decision to buy used junk from the Australians is one that most reasonable Canadians know can only end as badly. That decision marks the return of darkness for our military members.

To get an idea of how poorly the budgetary policy of the government treats men and women in uniform, I draw attention to a new tax measure that targets military families. On average, about 15,500 members of the Canadian Armed Forces and 2,200 members of the RCMP, along with their families, have been authorized each year to receive relocation services. To quote the government's own propaganda, it says, military families are “the strength behind the uniform”. Family members of Canadian Armed Forces personnel share in the stresses and strains resulting in the deployment of their loved ones into dangerous operational duty, and the prolonged separations that they entail. They also make important sacrifices and face challenges associated with frequent relocation, such as finding new family health care providers, re-establishing day care, moving children between schools and education systems, professional licensing, and dealing with inconveniences such as changing driver's licences and vehicle licences when moving between provinces. They must also deal with the financial instability resulting from frequent moves, whether it be the loss of employment, different tax systems, or changes to the post living differential.

Members in uniform are only now finding out, or they will get a rude surprise in the mail come tax time, that effective December 1, 2017, the posting allowance will now be taxable. Members will no longer be able to roll the posting allowance into RRSPs or buy down their mortgage. This announcement is the Minister of Finance's and the Minister of Defence's idea of a comprehensive military family plan.

The posting allowance was incorporated into the integrated relocation program, or IRP, as a non-taxable posting benefit, as a result of a recommendation from the standing committee on national defence and veterans affairs, which was made in their report, “Moving Forward: a strategic plan for quality of life improvements”. I remember when this change was made and came into effect. I was a newly elected member of Parliament and a new member of the defence committee. At that time, there was all-party agreement for this change. I was pleased to support replacing the posting allowance that existed at that time with a non-taxable posting benefit to adequately compensate all personnel for the disruption caused by new postings.

As the member of Parliament whose riding includes Garrison Petawawa, the largest army base in Canada, I am too familiar with the financial stress on military families when a soldier is posted. When members of the Canadian Armed Forces have found out about this new liberal policy to tax posting allowances, the reaction goes from disbelief to outrage.

The Auditor General has clearly outlined the growing gap between the total number of regular force members who are needed, including the under-representation of women, and the inability of this government to recruit, train, and keep Canadians in uniform to fill that gap. Why is the Prime Minister so insensitive to military families? Why has the Prime Minister refused to consider this anti-family policy as a barrier to recruitment, retention, and gender equality? Most importantly, why has the Minister of Defence done nothing to protect those he has served alongside?

It is hard to believe that the Minister of Defence would support taxing soldiers this way. However, for this Liberal spending government, taxing Canadians is a higher priority than protecting Canadians. Only in a Liberal spending government is the revenue minister more powerful than the defence minister .

It is clear that the Minister of Defence cannot defend the women and men who defend Canada from being the Prime Minister's next tax target. We need a Minister of Defence who will fight for the Canadian Forces. That is why I will be inviting all Canadians to go to cherylgallant.com/postingtax. From that web page, they will be able to send a letter to the Minister of Defence and their local MPs to express opposition to the posting allowance tax. If members on the opposite side of this House hear from enough of their own constituents, they may find the courage to fight the posting allowance tax. That is my hope, that Liberal MPs will start listening to what is going on out there.

There is a rising level of anger and frustration with a federal government that is out of touch with regular Canadians. The pre-budget decision to target people of faith for their personal beliefs has angered people of all religions. Many small business owners and doctors have told me that they will never vote for the Liberal party. Canadian veterans feel particularly betrayed by an aloof Prime Minister when he tells veterans that he does not recognize their sacrifices. There are millions of dollars to give to a convicted terrorist. However, there is no money for the victims of roadside bombs.

The posting allowance tax is the latest example of how the Liberals will continue to sneak in new taxes on regular Canadians. All of this anger, and the Liberal spendthrift government only offers more of the same. The 2018 borrowing binge budget is filled with bad spending and higher taxes.

Canadians deserve a balanced budget, smarter spending, and lower taxes. Canadians deserve a Conservative government.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend, the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke for her excellent speech, for standing up for our brave men and women in the Canadian Armed Forces, and for pointing out the folly of the government in taxing our troops and taking away special benefits and allowances from those who are injured in the line of service and are unable to return to duty within six months.

I know my colleague, with her long service on the national defence committee, is well aware that this budget was mute on the entire Department of National Defence. There is less than a paragraph dedicated to national defence. There is no plan for how taxpayers' money will be used to fund procurement and activities of our Canadian Armed Forces.

Could the member comment on what that represents and the shameful nature of the Liberals in not standing up for our troops? The Liberals are failing Canadians on transparency, failing in providing the strategy and the plan for how we are actually going to implement “Strong, Secure, Engaged”, the Liberals' defence policy.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, the promise of transparency we received during the last election certainly has not materialized. The government does not know the difference between transparency and being invisible.

That there is barely a word in the budget on national defence reflects the low regard the government has for our Canadian Armed Forces. There has to be a plan somewhere. Somebody has to have the fiscal framework. There has be a budget somewhere.

What we are looking for is an actual document showing what the spending is for the military, and we have not yet seen that. That is an insult to all Canadians.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement]

Madam Speaker, we do not need lessons from the Conservatives on defence and defence procurement and respect for our troops. They had a former minister chased down the hall by a veteran's widow.

Now, today, there a defence white paper, “Strong, Secure, Engaged: Canada's Defence Policy”, with a fully costed $62-billion plan to put planes in the sky, to put boats in the water, and to equip our men and women in uniform with the materiel, the very equipment that was denied to them for 10 long, lonely, dark years of the Harper administration.

It is ironic to watch members over there twist themselves in knots, saying that we are spending too much, and then waking up and suggesting that we should spend the billions of dollars that they did not spend on defence procurement during their 10 long, sad years in office.

What we have now is a plan to put planes in the air, a plan to christen and send boats out to sea, and a plan to maintain and upgrade the equipment of our men and women in uniform. How could the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke have missed that this is the biggest-spending defence budget in the history of Canada?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member opposite has plans, plans, plans to buy this and buy that, but we actually bought a fleet of C-130s. We bought the C-17s, which are so used now it is difficult to keep enough pilots in the program to keep them flying.

We bought new LAVs, new Coyotes, and just a couple of weeks ago we launched a new supply ship, one that was uniquely procured through a combination of civilian and military participants working together. It was a unique situation. We needed that supply ship and we have it in the water now. It will be on its way shortly to continue with exercises in the Pacific.

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

Madam Speaker, I am going to focus my remarks today on responding to the budget's main rhetorical thrust: issues around gender equality and the participation of women in the workforce.

For context, it is important to begin by defining what the objectives are when we talk about gender equality. I do not think that many, if any, of the leading advocates of women's empowerment and gender equality undertook their efforts principally in pursuit of a higher gross domestic product. GDP growth and government revenue growth may be nice ancillary benefits, but they ought not to be the principal objective. This is for three main reasons.

First, GDP is not a measure of well-being: it is a measure of the economic value of the final goods and services produced in a society. To point this is out is not to undercut the importance of measuring GDP or seeking GDP growth, since higher GDP means greater capacity at the individual and collective level to invest in things that do contribute to well-being, but GDP is not a direct measure of well-being, and the pursuit of a higher GDP may run at odds with the advancement of well-being in certain cases. The advancement of gender equality seems to me to be about well-being, not GDP—that is, it is about making the lives of women better, not about making society richer.

Parenthetically, this is why it is important for societies to consider alternative measures of well-being instead of using GDP growth as a proxy for well-being. Many proposed alternative measures are problematic for their own reasons, because they weigh different aspects of life in ways that reflect the relative priorities of those designing the indices instead of the relative priorities of those whose well-being is aimed at. As such, I personally favour the greater use of a simplified metric that asks individuals to self-assess their well-being on a scale. Such a metric has limitations, but it provides a much better basis for assessing well-being than either arbitrarily constructed well-being indices or metrics like GDP.

Also parenthetically, it is striking how women's self-reported well-being in the industrialized world has actually declined in recent decades. According to an article published by the econometrics laboratory at Berkeley:

By many objective measures the lives of women in the United States have improved over the past 35 years, yet we show that measures of subjective well-being indicate that women's happiness has declined both absolutely and relative to men. The paradox of women's declining relative well-being is found across various datasets, measures of subjective well-being, and is pervasive across demographic groups and industrialized countries. Relative declines in female happiness have eroded a gender gap in happiness in which women in the 1970s typically reported higher subjective well-being than did men.

Therefore, clearly there is still much work to do.

I will go back to the main point: GDP growth should not be considered the objective of gender equality not just because GDP is not a measure of well-being but also because it is paternalistic to assign an objective to gender equality other than the empowerment of women to pursue their own chosen projects and objectives. It is not for us as parliamentarians to decide whether women ought to use greater empowerment to pursue increased paid work, to pursue more leisure time, or to involve themselves in other worthwhile projects that do not involve the economic production of goods and services, such as community involvement, personal enrichment, or family-related activities. Surely a commitment to women's empowerment should leave us to be enthusiastic about whatever choices a person makes, provided those choices represent authentic self-expression and due consideration for the common good.

Third and most importantly, we ought to regard the affirmation of equal dignity and value of all people as an end in itself, not merely as a means to achieve some other end. To justify the advancement of equality purely or primarily in economic terms is to imply that economic growth is the thing of primary importance. I would prefer that we justify economic growth in terms of its implications for human dignity, rather than justifying the affirmation of equal and universal human human dignity on the basis of its impact on economic growth.

How we frame the basis of gender equality has practical policy implications in terms of the kinds of policy that we will pursue to advance it. If we believe that gender equality is an end, not merely a means, and that it is best understood in terms of empowerment and well-being, then we will seek policies that empower women and we will be generally agnostic as to how they use their increased agency. If empowered women make different choices, on average, than men in terms of their time and resources, that is not a problem for the state to solve; it is, rather, the result of free and empowered people making free decisions in a free society. Seeking equality is not the same as seeking sameness.

If, however, we believe that the objective of gender equality is GDP growth, then we will pursue policies that push certain kinds of choices over others—in particular, choices that involve more paid work.

It is clear that budget 2018 delivers a GDP-centric vision of equality as opposed to a well-being-, choice-, or simply equality-centric vision. The introduction to the budget tells us that “In January 2018, only 61 per cent of women were participating in the economy, compared to 70 per cent of men.” Again, we might wonder if the principal thing of value in life is “participating in the economy”. Why is this the metric of equality? Many women and men who are not in the paid workforce are choosing to undertake activities that they consider, and which could objectively be, more important.

Further, the assignment of certain tasks to be part of the economy or not part of the economy can be quite arbitrary. If I am the caregiver for my children and my neighbour mows his own lawn, neither of those activities is considered part of the economy, but if I hire him to watch my children and he hires me to mow his lawn, then all of a sudden those activities are both part of the economy and contribute to GDP. That is in spite of the fact that nothing actually separates the former situation from the latter, other than that the government is better off in the latter situation since it can now collect taxes on this new “economic activity”.

The budget bemoans “uneven sharing of caregiver responsibilities”. Every marriage is characterized by uneven sharing of certain responsibilities based on the desires, priorities, and aptitudes of each partner. In my family, I do most of the gross jobs, like cleaning bathrooms. If we are both at home, I am more likely to change diapers. My wife, on the other hand, does most of the cooking. If we each did the opposite, then she would lose her appetite twice.

It is unlikely that we will find any marriage in this country in which both partners do exactly 50% of each activity. Each partnership should involve recognition of the equal value and dignity of each individual, which is not incompatible with mutually agreeable complementarity in which different people agree to do different things.

I am not naive enough to think that there are not troubled situations in which the division of activities does not arise from mutual agreement, cases in which tasks are taken on because one partner is unwilling to participate or one person is pressured into doing things he or she would rather not do, but in those cases, surely it would make more sense to attend to a lack of agency and empowerment, as opposed to introducing a blanket policy that would seek to reorder how all couples divide their responsibilities.

This budget bemoans the “unequal sharing of caregiver responsibilities”. Page 45 of the budget notes that 92% of EI parental leave is paid to women, while 8% is paid to men. Parenthetically, the graphs do presume a gender binary, but we will leave that for another day.

This is quite a historic gap, 92% to 8%, but it is not at all obvious that all or even most of that gap is the result of sexism or disempowerment. Most women claiming EI parental leave benefits tend to be relatively young, between 25 and 34 years old. These women grew up in a relatively different world from that in which many members of the House grew up, especially in terms of opportunities for women.

They also have an experience that is not yet fully reflected in overall pay equity numbers. About 34% of these young women have a university degree, for example, as compared to 26% of men the same age. Young women, the ones most likely to have children today, have a dramatic educational advantage over men, yet they are also much more likely to take parental leave.

Why is that? Maybe it is because they want to. Maybe that was their personal choice, and that is all there is to it. Maybe in the privacy of the discussions that happen between couples, women are statistically more likely to express a preference for having that extra time with an infant child. Some ideologues might see this as a problem, that it is the result of patriarchal social programming and a false consciousness, but I would argue that as long as women are freely making this choice, there is no problem.

I would note as well that parental leave is for those caring for newborns. It may be that the division of caregiving responsibilities is somewhat different for older children. Perhaps women are more likely to take on caregiving responsibilities for infants because some women choose to breastfeed. Reliable statistics show that 100% of breastfeeding done in this country is done by women. Perhaps the finance minister aspires to change that in the next budget.

At a very practical level, if a mother wishes to breastfeed, it is difficult for her to forgo parental leave. I am sure that there is more that we and those in private sector workplaces could do to make it easier for women to breastfeed on the go, but that will not change the fact that it is not always practical for the non-breastfeeding partner to provide the ongoing care and then also to cart the baby back and forth to an external workplace every time the child needs to eat. It is in these practical details that most families live their lives and make decisions about the division of caregiving responsibilities.

On the issue of men taking parental leave, I hope that if the Prime Minister's family is blessed with another child, he will consider leading by example and take parental leave himself. Many of my constituents would appreciate having the Prime Minister thus occupied.

In pursuit of higher GDP, this budget limits women's choices by setting aside a portion of parental leave for each partner. It prefers a system of more limited choice to one in which parents have full freedom to divide up their leave as they see fit. Our approach is to seek more choice, not less, because we believe that the objective of equality is well-being, empowerment, and equality itself, not ideology and not GDP. Our leader has proposed a private member's bill to eliminate the tax on El parental leave, regardless of who takes it, when, or why.

In addition to tax reductions, many parents I have talked to are looking for policies that will give them more choice and flexibility. Many want to spend more time with their children through flexible work arrangements that allow them to set their own hours, work from home, and receive some parental leave benefits along the way.

If a woman wants to breastfeed while working from home, which is often more practical than bringing a baby to work, policy approaches such as simplifying the work-from-home tax deductions and reducing the clawbacks for those who work while on parental leave would go a long way. Incidentally, that would likely also lead to more women doing paid work, the finance minister's apparent principal objective, though it would not lead to a reduction in the proportion of leave claimed by women. Most critically, it would increase the empowerment and range of choice for women, not constrain them. In our view, that is both the right approach and the truly feminist approach.

I do want to note that I agree with the budget's desire to collect disaggregated data to help us understand the experience of visible-minority Canadians. A first step to addressing inequality is gathering data.

Further, I recently had a constituent highlight to me how efforts by the government to get cheaper prices on drugs can inadvertently lead to delayed drug approval. I do hope that this issue is considered in the context of the upcoming pharmacare discussion.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his intervention today. He was moving a little quickly, but I think I got the gist of it.

The problem with the member's argument about males versus females choosing who is going to be in the workplace, and that it seems that more men are choosing it, is the fact that it is systemic, in the sense that the system favours the man going to work. The fact that males make more than women do statistically is part of the decision-making process.

My wife is pregnant right now. If we had to make the decision as to who is going to return to the workforce, we would probably include in the assessment who is likely to make more money. That is the problem, and that is what this budget is about. It is about setting the stage so that men and women have equal opportunity by being paid for the same work they do.

Does the member opposite not think there is value in making sure that those equal opportunities exist for both parents, regardless of which one wants to enter the labour force?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question, but I think we disagree less than maybe he thinks we disagree.

My speech was about a very specific aspect of the budget's approach on this. It was that the budget takes a GDP-centred view and holds up GDP as the objective. It specifically tries to engineer the choices people make with respect to parental leave.

Do I agree that there is a problem of sexism women face? Absolutely. It continues to be a problem women face in certain situations in this country, and it is a problem we need to address. However, I do not think that limiting their choices, limiting their flexibility, is the answer. I said quite specifically that I think we can attend to issues of disempowerment, where they exist, to see greater empowerment and greater opportunity for women, without the kinds of policies, like the parental leave policy the government brought in, that are designed to constrain the choices people make.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a curious debate. We are talking about parental leave and opportunities for women and men in the current economic context. A Liberal points out that they need to bring in this program to allow women to stay at work, and perhaps the father could take paternity leave, because of pay equity realities and the lack of pay equity in this country. The Conservatives argue against that philosophy, and the Liberals argue that philosophy.

One would maybe look to the budget to see what the Liberals have done about pay equity, if that is the problem, which they admit and identify. There is nothing in the budget to address pay equity in Canada, where women do not receive equal pay for equal work. There is not even money to study the issue, which was the most basic request from the Canadian Labour Congress.

The Liberals identify the problem but do not want to do anything about it. The Conservatives do not identify the problem at all and say it is all about choice. Canadian women are wondering where they are actually going to get someone to put legislation forward to make it illegal to pay women less than they pay men for equal work of equal value.