House of Commons Hansard #305 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was budget.
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-74, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 2018 and other measures, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
Mr. Speaker, could you tell me how much time I have left?
The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan
I apologize. I should have done that already. The hon. member for Calgary Shepard has five minutes remaining.
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be restarting the debate with the time I have left. After the interesting and lively question period we had, I want to return to a few points I made yesterday on a different bill, because it speaks to the substance of the budget in the end.
A mantra the government has used repeatedly in the House, and it used it again in question period, is that “the environment and the economy go together.” Those were the exact words used by the Minister of Environment.
In the budget book, my hope would have been to have actually seen an attempt to get a balance between the environment and the economy, but the Liberals failed to do so. We can see that in the repeated deficits they have created year after year. They are structural and they are occurring at a time when we are seeing growth in the economy.
It is not stellar growth. In fact, we are not the leading economy in the G7. We are a middling country in the G7. There is a lot of growth the government has hurt. The PBO reported that we are losing up to 0.4%, perhaps 0.5% in GDP growth. This is a penalty on Canadians. It is a penalty on middle-class families.
I asked the Parliamentary Budget Office staff at a committee if they had ever seen the Government of Canada impose a policy decision that resulted in the loss of a half a percentage of GDP growth. For a moment they were stunned and silent, and actually said “no”. They have not gotten back to the committee since then with an example of the Canadian government purposely reducing economic growth through its own policy decision.
I talked earlier about how the first quarter of the year is being reported as one of the slowest in two years in terms of growth, partly because of the mortgage decisions. Nineteen to 20 mortgage decisions have been taken by the Government of Canada over the past two years that have hurt the ability of middle-class Canadians, and in fact all Canadians, to purchase their first homes, move down or move up the housing ladder, and invest in themselves for the future. There was the stress test. We know the B20 rule, introduced January 1, has hurt Canadians.
I tried to raise this matter at the finance committee yesterday as material to the budget, because indeed the budget outlook is dependent on ensuring strong economic growth. Yesterday, when I raised the matter, it was voted down by every single Liberal member on the committee, without a single word spoken as to an explanation. The members simply voted it down. They did not want to hear it, and why would they want to when the news is all bad?
I used the Yiddish proverb before that “money is round and it rolls away from you”. It is rolling away from the Government of Canada. These runaway deficits are ensuring that future generations of Canadians will have to pay for this uncontrolled spending that the Government of Canada has pursued, and for very little purpose. There is no actual end goal to any of this. There is no end purpose to these three budget bills that they have provided to us so far, and the implementation of them. We do not know when the budget will be balanced. We know when they talk about the environment and the economy going hand in hand what they actually mean is one hand is in the pocket of the taxpayer fishing out carbon taxes and the other hand is in the pocket of Canadians fishing out higher small business taxes and higher payroll taxes.
I will mention that the Liberals did abandon a great deal of the disastrous small business tax they were going to try to impose back in the fall, but I still have constituents today who will be severely and deeply affected by these new small business tax plans.
These are not rich Canadians. These are people who in their line of business are not earning anywhere near the highest marginal effective tax rate. They are simply in a business that is proving to be profitable, and each spouse wants to take a little out of the business to pay themselves. The taxes being proposed in the budget and the changes to the small business taxation being proposed to dividend schemes and passive income in this budget will hurt those small business owners in my riding. It is a new set of people who are going to be hurt by them, not the same individuals who stood up and vociferously opposed the government in the fall for the tax changes it proposed.
I will be opposing the budget bill. It is another failure. We have three consecutive failed budget bills that will not achieve any of the goals of balancing the environment and the economy.
Filomena Tassi Liberal Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON
Mr. Speaker, I would like to focus my question on economic growth. That was a large part of my colleague's speech this afternoon.
We made a clear decision. We believed that Canadians were very hard-working and we knew that investing in Canadians was going to lead to economic growth. Over the past two and a half years, that has proven to be true. With our investments and the hard work of Canadians, the result has been that more than 600,000 jobs have been created since November 2015.
Also, Canada has the best balance sheet in the G7, with the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio. Our debt as a function of our economy is shrinking steadily, and it is projected to soon be at the lowest point in almost 40 years.
Does the hon. member accept these facts?
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
Mr. Speaker, first, the finance committee has observed repeatedly that the debt-to-GDP ratio is not a fiscal anchor upon which one can build a public budget.
Second, the member knows, of course, that most of the jobs being created are in the public sector. We need private sector job creation to pay for those public sector jobs.
If we look at Greece before it went into its economic death spiral, it had the same type of trend. It had a reducing debt-to-GDP ratio, and then it suddenly skyrocketed. When we hit the debt wall, that figure instantly begins to change, something the Alberta government experienced in the 1990s when it hit the debt wall. When it did so, and the banks and international institutions refused to lend to it, successive governments had to pay the price. The price was then paid by the taxpayers of Alberta through higher taxes at the pumps, higher taxes on income, and deep cuts to public services. That will be the end result of this Liberal budget.
John Barlow Conservative Foothills, AB
Mr. Speaker, one of the things my Alberta colleague also talked about in his intervention was the fact that 200 pages of this budget deal with a carbon tax, a carbon tax on which we have not had any answers from the Liberal government in terms of what the costs will be. For example, we had the Minister of Agriculture at committee on Monday, and I asked him several times if he could tell us what the costs of the carbon tax would be for the average farm or agribusiness. He refused to answer that question. In fact, he said many times that farmers are appreciative of the carbon tax and that it is what they voted for. I have letters from literally dozens of farmers that say it is exactly what they did not vote for.
Can my colleague tell me what he feels the impact of a carbon tax will be on the average Canadian family?
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
Mr. Speaker, I was remiss not to mention that, indeed, 200 pages of the budget bill, because it is an omnibus budget bill, contain within them the mechanisms by which the carbon tax will be administered. The Liberals initially said the carbon tax would be very simple. It is nothing of the sort. There is a litany of exemptions and exceptions being applied to the carbon tax.
The question of who will pay and how much they will pay is an interesting one. At committee, the Government of Canada claimed that it could not calculate it. I then raised the fact that the Alberta government was able to calculate the average cost to the average family in Alberta. It is interesting that a provincial government could calculate it, but the Canadian government could not.
The Conservative members moved eight amendments at committee to try to extract that information for the report to Parliament that was tabled. Eight times every single Liberal member voted against greater transparency on the carbon tax. When we talk about the carbon tax cover-up, we mean examples like this. Eight times members of Parliament on the Conservative side offered up distinct, legitimate, reasonable amendments to provide a more succinct report to Parliament that would provide exactly that type of information so that Canadians would know the cost to them and how much GHG emissions would be reduced in return for this carbon tax being levied upon them, and eight times, every single Liberal MP voted against them.
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
Mr. Speaker, I regret to bring to your attention a possible breach of privilege. The matter came to my attention in an article by The Globe and Mail reporter Bill Curry. Mr. Curry indicates that a ministerial staff member allegedly intimidated an important would-be witness to the Standing Committee on Finance. The Canadian Association of Mutual Insurance Companies planned to raise concerns about the budget implementation act's amendments to the Banking Act.
The article stated:
An insurance lobby group says it was the subject of two "angry" phone calls from Finance Minister Bill Morneau's office aimed at blocking it from raising privacy concerns over new measures in the budget bill related to how banks use customer data. In an interview with The Globe and Mail, Normand Lafrenière, president of the Canadian Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, said the first call came on April 12 from the Finance Minister's senior policy adviser, Ian Foucher.
“I was asked not to meet with MPs and senators,” said Mr. Lafrenière, who has led the organization for 25 years after a public-service career that included senior positions at the Finance Department.
Furthermore, the article indicates that a member of the minister's office said this to the group:
Are you going to play ball with us or not? You better not appear in front of committees, and stop talking to senators and stop talking to MPs. Everything will be taken care of through regulations that will be published down the road.
These threatening comments may have prevented members from hearing testimony on an important bill. This group indicated in the same article that it was trying to raise objections to amendments to the Bank Act that had an effect on the privacy rights of Canadians.
The Minister of Finance has enormous legislative and regulatory powers over the industry that the would-be witnesses represent. That is why such a call from his office demanding their silence would have had great power to intimidate.
The group never testified before the House of Commons finance committee. Members of the government may point out that none of the opposition MPs on the committee put the group forward to serve as witnesses. However, and this may be true, but I do not know for sure, that might have been because the group was hesitant to lobby opposition MPs to be put on the witness list in the first place.
In chapter 3 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, authors Bosc and Gagnon indicate:
A Member may also be obstructed or interfered with in the performance of his or her parliamentary functions by non-physical means. In ruling on such matters, the Speaker examines the effect the incident or event had on the Member’s ability to fulfill his or her parliamentary responsibilities.
For a minister's office to silence a group over which the minister has regulatory power deprives parliamentary committees of valuable witness testimony and prevents members from doing their jobs. I am such a member. I am on the finance committee as a vice-chair, but other committee members would have benefited from having this testimony, which may have been effectively blocked by a threat emanating from the minister's office. If this had been a phone call from just a random person on the street telling a potential witness not to testify, I am sure that potential witness could simply ignore the call. However, when the call comes from the office of the minister that regulates one's industry, and language like, “Are you going to play ball? You better not testify. Don't talk to MPs”, is used, people are obviously tempted to stay silent to protect their interests or to avoid regulatory or legislative harm. That is why I believe that my privileges and those of other members on the committee may have been breached by our inability to hear the witnesses and question them.
Therefore, I ask that you rule on whether it is appropriate for ministerial staff members to tell groups not to testify. I also ask that you determine if this case represents a prima facie case of a breach in privilege.
The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton
I thank the hon. member for Carleton for bringing this to the attention of the House. We will take it under advisement and get back to the House in due course.
I see the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader rising. Is it on the question of privilege?
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I have had the opportunity to hear the concerns raised by the member. We will take it, as always, and look into the matter. We will want to report back to the House at some point in time.
The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton
That is duly noted. In the short time ahead, perhaps when he is able to, we will hear from the parliamentary secretary on the question as well.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-74, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 2018 and other measures, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to have the opportunity today to speak to the budget implementation act. Ronald Reagan once said, “Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” That quote is often interpreted as tongue in cheek, but it is a fairly good description of the current government's economic policy: “If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.”
With this budget bill, we have an opportunity to discuss a whole range of problems in terms of the government's economic plan, problems that are well summed up in that quotation. I am going to address as many of them today as time allows, the first being the carbon tax and the carbon tax cover-up.
We have a government that is imposing new taxes on Canadians at a feverish pace. In particular, through the carbon tax, the Liberals are requiring every province to impose a carbon tax. If a province will not, the Liberals will themselves impose a carbon tax on that province. This carbon tax is not revenue neutral to the federal government, because we know that the government will collect GST on the carbon tax, and the Liberals have consistently refused calls from the opposition not to collect GST on the carbon tax.
The Liberals believe that this is the right approach, but they also believe that Canadians should not have access to the information they used to make their determination. We have an ongoing carbon tax cover-up in which the government refuses to give Canadians basic information about how much the federal carbon tax will cost. The provinces that have imposed carbon taxes have been, in fact, much more forthright with the data.
I would say that if the government has an opinion on the carbon tax one way or another, it should be willing to present the information and the analysis that led it to that decision so that Canadians can see it, agree with it or disagree with it, and have that discussion. Instead, it is a government that, on the one hand, claims to be confident in the rightness of its position, but, on the other hand, refuses to give this information.
We have in this budget bill the government moving forward with its federal carbon tax and continuing to refuse to give information about how much it will cost the average Canadian family. We know this will impose significant costs on the economy as a whole. Canadians have a right to know, the middle class and those working hard to join it have a right to know, how much the carbon tax will cost them.
There is a discussion on how we support economic development, which is always part of the budget and certainly is quite in discussion today. Our approach, on this side of the House, is to say that the best way to encourage economic development is to think about existing businesses and also to think about businesses that do not yet exist and could exist. It is to create the conditions for economic growth, for investment, and for new, innovative ideas, not to prejudge where those ideas are going to come from or what they are going to look like.
Government is inevitably poorly disposed to fully know where the next big economic opportunity is going to be. Economic growth does not happen because the government decides it is going to spend a whole bunch of money on this supercluster fetish we have. Instead, economic growth happens when individual entrepreneurs have new ideas, and they make sacrifices to make investments in themselves and their communities and their own businesses that then allow for growth and job creation. The approach we take is to favour simplification of regulations and tax reductions for individuals and businesses, especially small businesses, that create opportunities.
Under the previous government, we lowered the business tax rate, which actually led to an increase in business tax revenues. Business tax revenues went up as the rate of business taxation went down, and that shows that giving opportunity and resources and mechanisms to the private sector is how to create jobs and opportunity. Even the government was better off from lowering business taxes. We lowered the small-business tax rate. We had it booked in as being lowered to 9%. The current government broke that promise, and then un-broke that promise, at least for now, as a justification for some of the draconian regulatory changes it wanted to make for small business. The Liberals have an on-again, off-again relationship with supporting small-business tax reductions, but Canadian small-business owners know they can go steady with the opposition.
The way Liberals have approached small business to try to make these regulatory changes that increase costs and reduce certainty for small business is not the way to create confidence in our economy or to attract investment. Our approach was to lower personal income taxes, lower business taxes, and, by the way, always to target those tax reductions to those Canadians who needed them the most.
We cut the GST, which is the tax everybody pays. We lowered the lowest marginal tax rate. By any standard of progressivity, the tax reductions that the Conservative government made were more progressive than any the Liberal government has even talked about. In fact, we know from various analysis that have been done that the Liberal government is increasing taxes through the carbon tax and other changes, including the elimination of tax credits and so forth, that hit those in the middle class and those working hard to join it very hard. It also hits small businesses, the engines of economic growth. These businesses are not looking for a government subsidy. They are not looking for a supercluster. They are looking for the regulatory and taxation environment that allows them to succeed.
The Liberal government's approach is totally different. It thinks that the Prime Minister, in his wisdom, knows best where the next big opportunities will come. The Liberals then pick these areas of government spending to create economic growth, allegedly, while increasing the burden on those small individual operators who do not ask for government subsidies, but simply want to be left alone to create opportunity. It is asking successful small businesses to pay more so that other big, well-connected insiders will pay less.
We do not think that is the right approach, spending hard-earned Canadian tax dollars subsidizing business. We do not think that is fair to other businesses that do not receive those subsidies. We do not feel those policies are fair to ordinary Canadians, who have to pay taxes, that then go to already wealthy companies. That is the Liberal approach, which is subsidizing friends and insiders through corporate welfare instead of creating conditions that allow for long-term economic growth and success through innovation.
The approach of the government, on the one hand, trying to constrain the private sector and, on the other hand, wanting to then subsidize things is most evident in the case of its approach to pipelines. All the government had to do, if it wanted pipelines to succeed, was to continue with the successful policies under the previous government, which got four pipelines built and led to a fifth one being approved. The Liberal government will tell us that the Conservatives did not get any pipelines to tidewater except, except.
It was under the Conservative government that every pipeline project that was proposed was approved. It stretches the imagination to think how it expects pipelines that were not proposed to have been built. We approved pipelines through a strong, fair but clear and accessible process to be built. Under the Liberal government, it immediately acted to kill the northern gateway pipeline.
Canadians are probably wondering why the government is buying out and subsidizing one pipeline to the west coast, while it intentionally and then further through legislation is killing another pipeline to the west coast. If it just got out of the way, perhaps we would have two pipelines proceeding to the west coast. Certainly we would have one.
There is the energy east pipeline, which, by piling additional burdens and challenges on, the government stopped. Then, after killing pipelines, intentionally, directly through government policy, it decided that there was actually one in which it wanted to look more interested. We still do not know if the strategy is going to bear fruit. It is spending $4.5 billion buying the existing pipeline, not building a new pipeline or even expanding one. It is spending $4.5 billion buying existing pipeline infrastructure. Then the government says that it will spend a whole bunch more, billions of dollars more, on a project that when the previous government was in place, the private sector was quite ready and keen to build. Now the Liberal government says that it is going to spend all this money to build it.
What happens if it does not work out at some point along the way? It is very likely the government will just be pouring more and more money into something that could have and should have been done by the private sector.
The government's approach to the economy is a failed approach. It is to tax and regulate success, while piling on money in subsidy to everything else. We in the opposition present a strong alternative that will actually lead to economic success in the long term for Canada.
Filomena Tassi Liberal Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON
Mr. Speaker, we are proud of the tax cuts we have implemented as a government.
We reduced taxes on the middle class. How did we do that? By increasing taxes on the top 1%. We also reduced taxes on small businesses, and we are proud of that. We know the importance of small business in this economy.
With respect to the child benefit, we increased it, so nine out of 10 families benefit from the increase. Millionaires do not get cheques anymore, but that is because millionaires do not need the cheques from the child benefit. However, nine out 10 families benefit, and it has lifted over 300,000 children out of poverty.
We are so proud of these accomplishments that we have attained through this budget and previous budgets. Also, in this budget, as the member knows, we will be indexing that child benefit, which will start in July.
However, the member's speech today focused a lot on the pipeline question. I have two specific questions for the member with respect to his focus. Is climate change real? If it is, what is his plan?
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Mr. Speaker, yes, climate change is real. Yes, our party accepts absolutely the science of that. In fact, we were the first government in Canadian history to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. They went up under the previous Liberal government that signed Kyoto. They went down under the Conservative government. They went down despite overall economic growth. When emissions were rising in the rest of the world, they went down in Canada, despite the fact that we were less hard hit by the recession than many other countries.
The member asks what our plan is. We did it. What is her plan?
All the Liberals talk about is raising taxes, yet they have no success when it comes to actually delivering on the things about which they talk. They tell us that the environment and the economy go hand in hand. Well, under the current government, they go hand in hand in the wrong direction.
The member talked about cheques to millionaires. They are sending clusters of cheques to millionaires in these supercluster billionaire bailouts for which they are using taxpayer money.
Therefore, it is a bit rich for the member to talk about not sending cheques to the rich when that is precisely the Liberals' industry policy: give money to already established companies with no consideration for the entrepreneurs or the companies that could have been built but cannot now because of the new regulations and new taxes imposed by the government.
Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB
Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to members opposite talk about the pipeline, about how the Conservatives built different pipelines, and that they had all the answers and could get pipelines built. The Leader of the Opposition was in my riding of Saint John—Rothesay three weeks ago, talking about the pipeline, saying he could build it.
However, one thing I am very curious about is an article on the Leader of the Opposition's website in which it says he “is listening to Quebecers”. He talks about giving Quebec added jurisdiction and responsibilities over its territory, that it will have the right to decide what happens in its territory on all issues.
How does the member opposite square that? On one side, the Leader of the Opposition says that he would build energy east. On the other side, he stands in Quebec and talks about how he is there to protect their jurisdictional rights.
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Mr. Speaker, I know the member loves it when Conservatives visit his riding. I can assure him that is going to happen. St. John is a beautiful place, and our leader and I, and other members of our caucus, will be making regular visits over the next year to continue to talk about our positive economic message.
When it comes to energy east, I am sure his constituents are asking him this question. Why did the government set up a regulatory system designed to kill the energy east pipeline, while it then put a whole bunch of public money into the west?
Unlike Liberal ministers, I am going to answer the question. I know that is something the minister does not normally hear happen in this place. I miscalled him the “minister”, and I am sorry about that error. After being removed from a committee for voting based on his conscience, it is unlikely he is going to be heading there.
However, the member asked about respecting jurisdiction in Quebec. Let us be clear. This party believes in respecting provincial jurisdiction and not having provinces make decisions in federal jurisdiction. That is not a difficult distinction. On matters of jurisdiction in Quebec, Alberta, or B.C., the federal government should not interfere. The provinces should be able to make those decisions. On areas that are clearly within federal jurisdiction, they are within federal jurisdiction. That has clearly been our practice and our position.
I can also say it in French, if they want.
The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton
I see other members who want to ask questions, but the member's time has expired. Perhaps they can ask another time, during another period for questions and comments.
Irene Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals had an opportunity with this implementation act to build an economy that would lift everyone up, people who counted on them, instead of just the wealthy few at a top with their tax havens. Unfortunately, the Liberals decided instead to defend the interests of their corporate and privileged, consigning the rest of Canada to the back seat.
Budget 2018 and Bill C-74 reveal once again the Liberals' true nature.
I remember in 2004 the damage done to our country after 13 years of Liberal rule, most of those years in majority governments that accomplished little to nothing in the way of fairness and equity for working Canadians. Those Liberals made the most drastic cuts to our public broadcaster, did little to nothing in the way of implementing a universal child care program, nothing to reverse the devastating effects of colonialism on indigenous peoples, except as a last ditch effort to stay in power, and undermined the health care system with cuts to transfer payments to the provinces.
We hoped for more progress than setting the bar at red book promises unfulfilled. For close to three years now, the NDP caucus has been calling on the Liberals to actually be the progressive, positive government they promised us in 2015.
This bill betrays all women who believed the so-called “gender budget” would include much anticipated pay equity legislation, because it does not. The Liberals promised pay equity 40 years ago, again in 2016, and again a month ago in the budget speech. Canadians want to know when the Liberals will finally deliver pay equity.
Despite the smearing of its image by right-wing ideologues, the fact is that the public service has done more than the private sector in achieving gender equity in Canada. While there is still work to do on the equity front, women and men from historically disadvantaged groups, such as disabled persons, indigenous peoples, single parents, seniors, young people, and people of colour, are all represented in the public service workforce in greater percentages than they occur in Canada's population. They are employed at all levels of management and labour in the workforce more proportionately than in the private sector.
Labour researchers and academics have pointed out that this advantage is at least in part the result of the fact workers in the Canadian public service have union representation guaranteed under our Constitution. However, recent reports indicate that the equity and fairness established in the public service is eroding as a result of austerity measures, privatization, and contracting out. The effect of this offloading, besides being inefficient, is that public sector workers are beginning to experience greater levels of workplace precarity. We know too that this precarity impacts diverse members of the workforce who can least afford it.
We need to consider the legacy we are leaving to future generations, those who leave post-secondary and graduate schools with a burden of debt that is insurmountable only to face a world where jobs are scarce. When work can be found, it is more often than not part-time, underpaid, without benefits, and short-term. We need to give future generations more than the finance minister's statement, telling them to suck it up and get used to a lifetime of precarious work.
Future generations will need a robust economy because they will incur the burden of supporting us in our dotage with their tax dollars. We need to seriously consider the legacy we leave. However, we also know it is bigger than that.
We need to take care of each other for everyone to thrive. We need to create a Canada where no one experiences the isolation and degrading health consequences of homelessness, poverty, or mental illness, a Canada with free and equal access to education, health care, child care, pharmacare, housing, clean air, and clean water.
We know what works and what does not. If what we want is to create a healthy sustainable equitable economy where every citizen has equal access to opportunity and is able to thrive and prosper, the Canada we know is possible, the Canada that can be, the work begins now, with federal budgets. Sadly, the Liberals' budget implementation act is even more timid than the budget. It offers no real plan to reduce inequities or build an economy that would benefit all Canadians.
I would like to take this opportunity today to speak about the ways in which Bill C-74 could have addressed inequalities and build an economy that would benefit all Canadians.
This legislation could have contained provisions to assist rural communities. It does not. The Liberals had an opportunity in their 2018 budget to help rural communities, but instead chose to focus on the interests of their rich friends and their own ridings. In the meantime, they tell people in rural communities to wait for improved employment insurance, cellular infrastructure, and broadband Internet access.
In just the past few days, we have seen announcements from big banks about closing branches in Burford, Blyth, and Clifford in Ontario, and Kipling and Preeceville in Saskatchewan. These closures will leave Blyth and Kipling with no local banking options. In Saskatchewan, the nearest TD branch to Preeceville is an hour to an hour and 45 minutes away.
All of these communities have post offices. A postal banking system would allow members of this community access to banking services that are affordable and competitive, not to mention profitable for Canada Post. In the U.K., corporate banks have actually reversed their opposition to postal banking, because they know it absolves them from the community ire they would experience when they close branches in rural and remote communities, which these banks say do not reap enough profit.
When will the government see the postal banking light? We will have an opportunity in that regard later this session when my motion M-166 comes to the floor of the House for a vote. I urge every member here to support it. We have the opportunity to make effective and progressive change, even if the government avoids it in budget implementation acts. We will have that opportunity very shortly.
A postal banking system would address inequality in this country, something Bill C-74 does not do, even though that should be the goal of government in a social democracy such as ours. Instead we see Canadians who live in rural and remote communities, Canadians with low income, and first nations peoples living on reserve forced to use predatory lenders or to rely on the whim of a local business person or local variety store to access their own money.
A universal pharmacare program would create equal access to life-saving and life-enhancing medications for all Canadians as well. I see nothing in this legislation that addresses that need. In fact, we continue with a patchwork system of access to abortion and birth control that creates inequality and forces Canadians who require those services to either pay exorbitant out-of-pocket costs or travel unreasonable hours to access these services. Monday was International Birth Control Day. It is the federal government's responsibility to ensure equal access for all Canadians needing birth control, but the government has failed. Access is neither universal, equal, nor affordable across this country.
I give the the following by way of example: the NuvaRing is available on public formularies in five provinces and one territory, but not the others; IUDs are available in 3 provinces, but not everywhere; emergency contraceptives are covered only in Alberta; and Quebec covers the patch, but no other province or territory does.
Canada has a human rights obligation to ensure that everyone in every province or territory has the same access to the highest quality medications. Why then does a woman in Manitoba and Quebec have access to more birth control methods than a woman in Saskatchewan? Making all birth control and all sexual and reproductive medications free for all of us is about fairness and gender equality. That is the reason I introduced M-65 to continue the push for equal access to birth control for all Canadians.
My constituents in London-Fanshawe do not believe the economy is working for them. What they see instead is an uneven playing field, where only the few at the top can benefit, at the expense of everyone else. They struggle to pay their bills and care for their parents and children in a community gutted by the loss of well-paid jobs moving offshore as a result of globalization, with no protection from either Liberal or Conservative governments.
Finally, this 556 page-long bill amends 44 pieces of legislation. During the last election campaign, the Liberals promised to abolish omnibus bills because they are undemocratic, yet they chose to restrict the length of debate on this substantial bill at the finance committee. This is not democracy and it is a far cry from the sunny ways promised to Canadians in 2015.
We can do better. We are here to do better. Canadians demand better. Do not let the Liberals tell us it cannot be done.
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
Mr. Speaker, my colleague from London—Fanshawe came up with a number of really important points. The bill we are debating is putting in place a brand new carbon tax, which has been deemed to be one of the biggest taxes ever put on Canadian businesses and job creators. Like her riding, my riding has a lot of manufacturers, and today we heard the horrible news about tariffs being put on Canadian steel and aluminum. Companies want certainty. They want to know how much it is going to cost them to do business in Canada, yet the Liberals are putting in this tax without letting Canadians how much it is going to cost. They know, but they will not release the information.
I had a motion on the table to allow the carbon tax to be transparent so that Canadians and job creators would know how much it is going to cost them. Could the member comment on whether she supports having this new carbon tax and information on how much it would cost Canadian job creators and Canadians in their day-to-day activities? Moreover, does she support its being transparent before it is implemented on the Canadian public?
Irene Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
Mr. Speaker, I absolutely agree that all taxation and all of the work of the government should be transparent. Unfortunately, we have not seen that. I would like transparency with regard to tax shelters. There is $199 billion that goes out the door because corporations do not pay their fair share of taxes.
We are in the middle of a trade war. We have a government that does not fully support small business as it should. Things are extremely difficult.
A little transparency would go a long way, the kind of transparency proposed by my colleague from Victoria in the last session and in a bill he plans to introduce very shortly that would compel the Government of Canada to eliminate the loopholes available to those with huge incomes and the sham of businesses using tax havens to undercut what they owe, not just to the government but to all of the people of Canada in terms of support for the services and things we need as a democratic, safe, secure, and beneficial community.
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague and congratulate her on her comments, which are very relevant, as usual, and in the interest of workers, as well as families in her region in Ontario and across the country.
There is something in the budget implementation bill that I cannot understand. The Liberal government will be taxing medical marijuana. In some cases, marijuana is the only medication that can ease regular, permanent, and intense pain. Other drugs do not work. These people are very worried, because they have just learned that they will probably have to pay much more for their medical marijuana.
I do not understand the Liberal government’s decision. I would like to hear my colleague's opinion on the subject and his comments on how this decision could have an impact on people who, because of the tax, may have to think twice before using medication.
Irene Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
Mr. Speaker, that is an important question. The reality is that there are many Canadians who rely on medical marijuana, and I am thinking of our veterans first and foremost and the service they gave to this country. The injuries they returned home with need to be addressed, and their service needs to be respected. Therefore, they deserve the very best with respect to medical support, and that includes medical marijuana.
One of the things we are very concerned about is the fact that indigenous people who require medical marijuana are being taxed, and those taxes very often put that medication out of reach.
More to the point, we need to look at pharmacare and how it could alleviate financial pressures, not just on those who need medical marijuana but on all Canadians. There are people across this country who cannot afford life-saving and life-improving medications. That should never happen in a country like this. When Tommy Douglas spoke of universal health care, he said the first step would be to support hospitals and doctors, and the next step to make sure that people have access to medications and support services in their homes. I ask the government to take the next step: let us have pharmacare, let us fulfill Douglas's dream, and let us make this a truly fair and supportive country.
Alupa Clarke Conservative Beauport—Limoilou, QC
Mr. Speaker, thank you for recognizing me. First of all, I would like to say hello to all the people of Beauport—Limoilou, many of whom are listening today, and to thank them for all their work. They are definitely listening. When I go door to door, many of them tell me that they watch CPAC.
I would like to say something about what the hon. Liberal member for Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas said in response to the speech of my colleague from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan. She engaged in the usual Liberal demagoguery. She asked if we believed in climate change. I really would like my constituents to listen closely, because I want to make this clear to them and to all Canadians: we, the Conservatives, believe so strongly in climate change that, in 2007, Mr. Harper held a joint press conference with Mr. Charest to announce the implementation of the new Canada ecotrust program, supported by a total investment of $1.5 billion. The aim of the program was to give each province hundreds of millions of dollars to help with their respective climate change plans. It is easy to look this up on Google by entering “ecoTrust,” “2007,” “Harper,” “Charest.” Not only did Mr. Charest commend the Conservative government’s initiative, but even Steven Guilbeault from Greenpeace at the time—and I am certain that my colleague from Mégantic—L’Érable will find this hard to believe—saluted the initiative as something unheard of.
There is a reason why greenhouse gas emissions decreased by 2% under the decade-long Conservative reign. We had a plan, a plan with bold targets that the Liberals made their own.
Now let us talk a bit about the 2018-19 budget, which continues in the same vein as the other two budgets presented so far by the hon. member for Papineau's Liberal government. I would like to begin by saying that the government has been in reaction mode for the past three years and almost never in action mode.
It is in reaction mode when it comes to the softwood lumber crisis, although we do not hear much about it because the softwood lumber rates are still pretty attractive. However, the fact remains that this is a crisis and that, right now, industrial producers in the U.S. are collecting billions of dollars that they will eventually recover, as they do in every softwood lumber crisis.
The Liberal government is in reaction mode when it comes to NAFTA. They will say that they are not the ones who put Mr. Trump in office, but this is yet another major issue that has been taking up their time in the past year, and they are still in reaction mode. They are also in reaction mode when it comes to the imminent tariffs on aluminum and steel.
The Liberals are in reaction mode when it comes to almost every major issue in Canada. They are in reaction mode when it comes to natural resources development, for example with regard to Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline. Once again they were in reaction mode, because Kinder Morgan said that it would walk if the government could not assume responsibility and tell British Columbia in no uncertain terms that this was a matter of federal jurisdiction.
All of this shows that the Prime Minister is not the great diplomat he pretends to be across the globe, and in celebrity news and other media. He is such a poor diplomat that he was unable to avoid the softwood lumber crisis with Obama. He is such a poor diplomat that he has supposedly had a wonderful relationship with Mr. Trump for the past year and a half. He speaks to him on the telephone I do not know how many times a month, but that did not prevent Mr. Trump from taking deliberate action against Canada, as we saw today with the tariffs on steel and aluminum.
I would like to make a comparison. We, the Conservatives, were a government of action. We negotiated 46 free-trade agreements. We sent Canadian troops to Kandahar to demonstrate our willingness to co-operate with NATO and the G7 and to make a show of military force. We invested hugely in national defence, increasing our investments from 0.8% to almost 1.2% of the GDP following the dark days of Jean Chrétien’s Liberal government. We settled the softwood lumber issue in 2007, during the last crisis. We implemented the national shipbuilding strategy, investing more than $30 billion to renew our military fleet, to renew the Canadian Coast Guard’s exploration fleet in the Canadian Arctic, and to renew the fleet of icebreakers. The first of these icebreakers, the majestic Diefenbaker, will soon be under construction.
Let us not forget that we also told Mr. Putin to get out of Ukraine. There is no doubt that we were a government of action.
When the budget was tabled, several journalists said that it was more of a political platform than a budget. I find that interesting. In their opinion, the political platform contained no concrete fiscal measures to prepare Canada for tomorrow, for the next 10 years, or for the next century, as our founding fathers intended in 1867. Rather, it contained proposals, in particular concerning social housing. The NDP must be very happy. The Liberals promised billions of dollars if the provinces gave their assent. That was a promise.
The Liberals also made proposals concerning pharmacare. Once again, they were conditional on studies demonstrating the usefulness of such a plan. That, too, was a promise. The promises go on page after page in the budget, and it is obvious that it is a political platform. That is why the Liberals used the word “woman” more than 400 times, 30 times on each page. That is just demagoguery and totally abusive.
I would like to quote a very interesting CBC journalist, Chris Hall. Since he works at the CBC, the Liberals will surely believe him. He said that the government recently spent $233,000 to organize round table discussions to find out whether Canadians understood the message, and not the content, of their budget. I will quote Mr. Hall:
In particular, the report said the findings suggest middle-class Canadians—the very demographic the Liberals have been courting since their election with both policy initiatives and political messaging—don't feel their lives are getting better.
They are correct in thinking that their lives are not getting better. Even Chris Hall concluded, in light of these studies, that the 2018-19 budget is not a document that provides guidelines, includes concrete measures, or outlines actual achievements in progress. It is a political document that proposes ideologies.
The budget also contains a number of disappointments and shortcomings, precisely because it does not contain any actions. It does not respond to the fiscal reforms enacted by U.S. President Trump that give American companies an undue competitive advantage.
The 2018-19 federal budget does not address the tariffs on aluminum and steel either, although we all saw them coming. It does not specify what measures will be taken to implement carbon pricing. Most of all, it does not say how much it will cost every single Canadian. You would think it would at least do that. Some analysts say that it will cost approximately $2,500 per Canadian per year.
This budget is full of proposals but has no concrete measures, and it perpetuates broken promises. Instead of $10-billion deficits for two consecutive years, we have $19-billion deficits accumulating year over year until 2045. This year, we were supposed to have a deficit of $6 billion, but it has reached almost $20 billion. The Liberals also broke their promise to balance the budget. This is the first time that the federal government has not had a concrete plan to balance the budget.
We were supposed to run up deficits in order to invest in the largest infrastructure program in history, because with the Liberals everything is historic. Only $7 billion of the $180 billion of this program has been injected into the Canadian economy.
This is a very disappointing budget and, unfortunately, dear people of Beauport—Limoilou, taxes keep going up and the Liberal carbon tax is just the start.