Debates of May 31st, 2018

Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 1

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

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I could not agree less with the member's comments, specifically with respect to the government always taking a reactionary approach to things. As a matter of fact, our signature policies are the exact opposite. They are policies that are taking a proactive approach to things, such as what we are doing with our environment and how we are going to protect the environment for future generations. We have made sure that the Canada child benefit is indexed moving forward. We have made sure that the worker credit is available to those who are on social assistance and want to get back into the workforce.

When it comes to things like that, would the member not agree that there are at least a couple of things in this budget that are progressive and forward-looking?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is quite funny. The hon. member spoke about the Canada child benefit and the income tax for workers. The CBC report I spoke about previously said that at the round tables, Canadians said they do not know how much that helped them, and they do not even know that this is going on right now.

People I meet in my riding, Beauport—Limoilou, say they are aware that the Canada child benefit is a way to buy votes, and that is it. That is the basic thing the Liberals are doing with that. It is hard for people to make the choice. Of course, it is a lot of money, but they know that it is a lot of money that their kids will have to pay in 30 years, so it is a poison gift. That is all it is about.

Most of the Liberals' measures are not in action but in reaction, and when they are in action, as some surely are, it is a poison gift for the future. How can the government be proud of those kinds of measures, when that is the case?

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Québec debout, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague to speak about his reaction to the budget implementation bill, as it concerns the demands of Quebeckers.

The forestry industry needs help, for example, with the spruce budworm. The budget and this bill mention around $75 million to fight this pest. However, when we take a close look at this document, we see that most of this money is going to the Maritimes. Is this a gift to the Irving family from the Liberals? We have to wonder. There is not one cent for Quebec even though the infestation has affected an area in Quebec that is larger than all of New Brunswick. That says a lot.

One thing Quebec has been calling for for a long time is to increase transfers for health care, social services, and education. That is what Quebeckers want, and that is what the provincial government and all the members of Quebec's National Assembly want. However, once again, no money was set aside for that in the last budget. I am also reminded of Davie shipyard, which employs hundreds of workers near my colleague's riding. The announcements about Davie are still vague. It may get a few crumbs later, but we are talking about a multi-billion-dollar project to renew the Canadian fleet over the next few years. That work is again mostly concentrated in Nova Scotia, in the Maritimes, even though there are 40 or so Liberal MPs from Quebec. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on this subject.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his questions. Questions like these are why I have been urging him to join the Conservatives for three years, along with the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, though I am not too sure about him, since his socialism is a little too intense. I think he may be too deeply entrenched in socialism.

About Davie, it takes political leadership. In 2015, one month before the election, we awarded the contract for the Asterix. It was the crowning achievement of Canada's largest shipyard, which is located in Lévis. Social transfers are also very important. The Conservative government provided health and education transfers with no strings attached. We fixed the fiscal imbalance by giving $800 million to Quebec. Charest acknowledged that in no uncertain terms.

First and foremost, as we have been proving since 1867, and as the history books will surely show, we are a Conservative political government when we form government. We support decentralization and respect the spirit and the letter of the Constitution, the British North America Act, our greatest constitutional document. We respect provincial and federal areas of jurisdiction. That is what is so great about the Conservatives.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we resume debate, it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Foreign Affairs.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to talk about the budget implementation bill.

What I have to say might come as a surprise to my colleagues opposite. I want to talk about something I like in this bill. That might come as a surprise because it is something I rarely do, but this is an issue that is important to me. This bill allocates a significant and much-appreciated amount of money to scientific research, which was a priority for many people in my riding and the greater Montreal area. I am pleased to see that a portion of the money to be invested in research centres, in university centres, will be going to basic research. That is something important that we, the NDP, along with other political parties, have advocated for for years. This is an investment in the future that will help us better understand our world; that is something worth talking about.

Okay, I am done with the praise. Now for the criticism. I have been generous. Although there are investments in scientific research, there is unfortunately very little for the university sector. There are a few crumbs for student debt and tuition fees. I want to talk about universities because, unfortunately, very few people do. So many students finish school with huge debts of $20,000, $30,000, $40,000, even $50,000. Consider a young couple trying to start a new life with a burden like this. Our bold young heroes go to the Caisse populaire hoping to be able to buy a house or a condo. It seems odd that they would ask for a mortgage when they already have such a huge debt. Once again, it would have been nice if the Liberals had kept their election promise and looked at the issue of student debt. Unfortunately, they did not, and our students will continue to suffer. We find that deplorable.

Now I will address health care. No one will be surprised, because I mentioned it yesterday. I also asked my colleague from London about this earlier, and I will reiterate that I do not understand why the Liberal government decided to tax medical cannabis. Medical marijuana helps people, and it used to be exempt from tax. For reasons neither I or anyone else can understand, the Liberal government decided to put a tax on it. This will have a major impact on these people. Often, it is the only medication that helps them control their pain. Some of them have had serious operations and others are cancer survivors. Earlier, my colleague pointed out that, in some cases, marijuana can help our veterans get through certain illnesses or post-traumatic shock. Now, people may have to choose between taking their medication and buying their groceries because they may not be able to pay the additional cost due to the Liberal government’s tax. I would like some answers.

While we are on the topic of medication, there is something missing in the budget. I want to talk for a few minutes about what is missing in the budget. A government has to make choices. We can talk about what is in the budget, but often what is missing in the budget is more important and has a greater impact on people’s lives. Take pharmacare, for example. I was talking about medical marijuana just now, but pharmacare would make a major change in the quality of life and purchasing power of Canadians across the country. Prescription drugs are too expensive, and that places a considerable burden on our elderly, who are often low earners. How is it that we are not covered for dental or vision care? How is it that we do not have a universal public drug insurance plan?

As my colleague mentioned earlier, Tommy Douglas, former premier of Saskatchewan, was clear. According to him, the first step is to ensure that everyone has access to medicare with hospitals, doctors, and nurses. The second step is to make sure that people have access to home care and are able to afford their medications. We have not yet accomplished the second step, but we hope that we will soon because it has a major impact on people's quality of life and their ability to take care of themselves. We are the only country in the world with a public health care system that does not also have a public pharmacare program. The two must go hand in hand.

It is really the combination of the two that is truly effective. We want a universal public pharmacare program in co-operation with the provinces. It is true that the Government of Quebec already offers such a program, but it is flawed, and some people still have to pay for drug coverage in group insurance plans, which is extremely expensive. With regard to the labour market, this is always an issue that comes up in collective bargaining because increased drug costs is what puts the biggest strain on the health care system. If our health care spending seems out of control, it is mainly because we do not have a good universal public pharmacare program.

My colleague from Joliette referred to the fact that the Liberal government keeps making cuts to health care transfers, a trend that began under the previous government. Absolutely nothing has changed in that regard.

According to our estimates, over a 10-year period, the federal government cut health care transfers by $31 billion compared to what the provinces were previously getting under the federal-provincial agreement that was negotiated. Reducing the annual growth of federal health transfers has had a major impact on our hospitals, on our ability to take care of people, and on emergency room wait times, which can reach up to 20 hours or even 24 hours. We think that could have been changed, but there is nothing about it in the most recent Liberal budget.

There are certain things missing from the bill that could make a huge difference in people's lives.

One example is a public child care program. We have one in Quebec. It used to be even better, but it is still pretty good. More spaces would be nice. If there were a federal Canada-wide program, that would help the Quebec program as well as Canadians in the other provinces, who currently have nothing. Those people receive a cheque, which, granted, is a little better than before, but it covers only two or three days' worth of private child care. Children usually need to go to day care 20 days per month. When child care costs between $40 and $60 a day, people start to wonder whether they should go to work for minimum wage or stay at home. This leads to lost productivity. This is also unfair to women, given that, still today, they are often the ones who have the responsibility—I almost said the burden, but it is not a burden to look after one's children, it is fun—of caring for their families.

According to one study by an economist by the name of Mr. Fortin, when Quebec created its child care program, roughly 70,000 women returned to the workforce. This social measure has a very positive impact on women and on productivity, since it means more people in the workforce. It makes a difference.

Let us now talk about social housing. Housing is the biggest expense for every family. People in Toronto, Vancouver, or Montreal spend 40% to 50% of their income on housing. That plunges them into poverty.

The Liberals made fine promises on that and then announced billions of dollars. Sadly, those billions of dollars will not be available until after the next federal election, and in some cases they are allocated for after the 2023 federal election. The housing crisis is real. Families have real needs. While some parents skip meals because their housing is too expensive and they do not have enough money to put food on the table, the Liberal government is putting things off until later.

What can the government do to fund a good social housing program? It can tackle tax havens, tax evasion, and tax loopholes for CEOs who earn tens of millions of dollars annually. Again, this budget is truly a dismal failure.

The Liberal government signs new agreements with tax havens and does absolutely nothing but tell us how much it is spending, which in the end is inaccurate. We lose $8 billion to $15 billion a year to tax evasion and our agreements with tax havens. We do not need to wait for the United Nations, the OECD, or the G7 to take action. We can take this on ourselves because we have bilateral tax agreements with some tax havens and certain countries. Bilateral means that there are only two players, namely Canada and another country.

Why are we unable to sit down and renegotiate these agreements? Losing billions of dollars in taxes makes no sense. We need that money for our universities, our hospitals, and social housing. It would make a difference in people's lives.

I hope that the Liberals will eventually understand this.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his passionate speech, because he really hits on some of the important things that are not in this budget.

I would like to commend the Prime Minister, though. Let us talk about his successes. Because people on the other side say this is a progressive budget, let us talk about what he is doing progressively.

He is progressively killing our traditional job markets. Let us look at our energy sector. We know that the Prime Minister says that he wants to phase out the energy sector, and he is doing that quite successfully. He says he wants to transition away from manufacturing. Today, we heard about the tariffs from Mr. Trump, which are going to affect a lot of manufacturing, specifically in Ontario and Quebec. There is no deal on softwood lumber. He is successfully killing that industry. In our mining industry, because of his red tape and environmental changes, he is successfully killing those jobs and investments. Our fishing industry, because of the oceans protection plan, is being killed.

Could the member point out in the budget where there is anything to improve the ability of Canadian sectors to compete?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I would first like to clarify something. The NDP believes that the energy sector includes more than just the oil industry. There are others. This industry is indeed important, but there are other things we could invest in, such as renewable energies. There is almost nothing in the budget for this.

All of a sudden, the government seems to have $12 billion to $15 billion to buy a 65-year-old pipeline that is leaking everywhere. We do not understand why. Furthermore, it seems prepared to take on all of the risks associated with this project, which the private sector deemed too risky. The government bought just the pipeline for $4.5 billion, but Kinder Morgan said that it would cost $7.4 billion to complete the expansion. We are already at more than $12 billion.

The government could have done some amazing things, like invest in renewable energies and create exciting, green jobs for the future. Unfortunately, the Liberals are still living in the past.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I completely agree with him about medications and cannabis. I proposed amendments in committee to eliminate taxes on essential medications, but they were unfortunately rejected.

I want to add something about the major campaign to combat climate change, since there are some things missing from the budget, especially with respect to energy efficiency. For example, there is no program like the eco-energy innovation initiative.

I used to be such a fan of what was put forward by previous governments. The 2005 budget, which came forward when the current Minister of Public Safety was the minister of finance, was full of great climate action pieces that are completely missing now. I wonder if my colleague has any thoughts about why those are missing in action.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her attempt to make amendments to help people who need medical marijuana. Once again, she came up against the Liberal government. My colleague is quite right in pointing out the lack of investments and tax credits for energy efficiency, particularly regarding homes.

I recently attended the summit for a just energy transition, which was held in Montreal and hosted by some environmental groups and unions. The Conseil du patronat du Québec and some major investors were also in attendance. One sector that can really make a difference and change things is the building and construction industry. We often hear about transportation, but other things can be done too, including in agriculture and in building and construction.

We used to have a good tax credit for energy efficient retrofits that worked really well and helped Canadians save money. It was also helping to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and lower people's electricity bills. It was a win-win-win situation. Unfortunately, it disappeared, and we do not understand why the Liberal government is not bringing it back. It was not a very expensive measure, but it helped reduce our energy use considerably and it improved people's lives because it helped them save a little money. It would have been nice to see that in the budget.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here to speak to this budget implementation bill. My speech today will be called “promises, priorities and plans”. When we put a budget together, we should consider the amount of money we will need to keep all the promises we have made. Of course, there is not an endless amount of money in the world so there is a need to prioritize those promises we have made to ensure we hit the important ones and put those first.

Then it is important to have plans. We all know that without plans, we may spend a lot of money and not really accomplish anything, which we have seen an incredible amount of from the Liberal government.

With respect to promises, one of the early promises made by the government, which we hear repeatedly, was that it would run very small deficits, a small deficit of $10 billion in the first year, coming to balance in the fourth year. However, we have seen double that deficit in the first year, double the deficit in the second year, and triple that deficit in this budget. There is no end in sight with respect to balancing the budget. It is certainly not going to be in the fourth year of the mandate. Now it looks like it may not be until 2045. This is promise was broken into about 1.5 trillion pieces.

The other thing is that a lot of promises were made that were extremely important to rural communities across Canada. The first one was the restoration of home mail delivery, which for people who are living in very rural places, especially those who are elderly, is a very important service.

Even more important than that was the promise about infrastructure money. Members can remember that we were going to spend infrastructure money to create jobs and get the economy going, and that money was going to be spent on roads and bridges in municipalities. This is a critical thing in ridings like Sarnia—Lambton, where we have a lot of roads and bridges that need to be fixed, and the municipality certainly does not have the money to fix them. I was disappointed with the last budget when the government took $15 billion from those municipalities and put it into the infrastructure bank. Of course we have seen nothing come out of that whole situation.

Then there was the Asian Infrastructure Bank to which the government gave another half a billion of taxpayer dollars to build roads and bridges in Asia, which is not helping the rural community at all. Thus was another broken promise.

One of the most disturbing promises broken by the government was that of openness, transparency, and a higher ethical standard. Every time we ask questions about what is in this budget, such as the carbon tax that is outlined heavily in the budget, the government refuses to say how much it will cost the average Canadian taxpayer. The average Canadian taxpayer wants to know. If it is not a bad number, then why is it afraid to say it? Obviously, if it does not want to tell Canadians, it is because it is bad news.

Beyond not telling them how much it will cost, it will not even tell us what it will accomplish. The environment minister has been asked multiple times at committee, and here in the House, what kind of a greenhouse gas reduction she expects from this, and she has no answer. There is a huge amount of money being spent in the budget in this area. There is a huge amount of tax that will be paid by Canadians, yet there is no openness and transparency from the government with respect to those issues.

The government promised not to use omnibus bills, and here we are again with this huge budget bill. So many things have been snuck into this bill that if we did not really read all the pages, we might not be aware of them. My colleagues to the left have already talked about the medicinal marijuana issue and the taxes associated with that. However, more so, there is language in the budget bill that suggests that if people had a drug information number, they would be exempt. The fact remains that there is no drug exemption number for any medicinal marijuana because of the variability of all the components. Therefore, that is just another misrepresentation in the budget bill.

With respect to the taxes on cigarettes' portion of the bill, there is an escalating tax that continues to go up in perpetuity, without any parliamentary vote and without Canadians being able to talk about that. This is the same kind of deceptive tax that was put on beer and wine. It is fine for the government to put a sin tax on something when it wants to, but when it wants to hide a tax in there that continues to go up and generates revenue for the government, and it sneaks it onto page 324, Canadians may never get to that.

Therefore, there is no openness and no transparency in omnibus bills.

As members know, I am a passionate advocate for palliative care, so I was very excited when the government said it would spend $3 billion on home and palliative care in the 2016 budget. Then the government updated the 2017 budget and said that it would spend $6 billion over 10 years. It was a little more paced out, but at least it was something. I was really disappointed to see the word “palliative” removed from the 2018 budget. It was taken out altogether, even though the government supported my private member's bill, Bill C-277, on consistent access for palliative care for all Canadians. Surely, if we want there to be consistent access, we know we will have to plan something to back up that promise and put money in the budget. I was very disappointed there was nothing in the budget on that.

I will go to priorities.

One would think that in a country with one person out of six being a senior, maybe seniors would be a priority, but no. The Liberal government took position of minister for seniors away, and there is relatively nothing in budget 2018 that will help seniors, many of whom really struggle to afford to live and pay for many of the things they need, such as cataract surgery, perhaps hearing aids or dentures. I certainly heard this when I went door to door. A priority has been missed.

Then there is the agriculture sector. Agriculture is hugely important in Canada. Everyone can agree that we need to eat. This is one of our largest industries. What is the government doing? First, it is loading all kinds of bureaucracy on the Canadian agriculture industry that does not apply to other people. It has taken away pesticides without any replacement. Those very pesticides are used by countries that then import their food to Canada, putting us at a competitive disadvantage. Most recently, it decided it would not allow the sale of premixed feed that contains antibiotic. This product has been sold safely for quite a number of years. Again, it is a burden on our industry that is not on other industries outside of the country that ship products into Canada.

There is very little support for research in agriculture, very little support for the industry overall, and total betrayal when it comes to the agreement that was made with respect to the TPP, that farmers would be compensated for the quota they had to give up. That is gone. They still have to give up the quota, but they do not get the compensation. It is another broken promise for the agriculture industry.

Regarding health care, the government's priorities are really screwed up. The government putting $80 million in a budget to get people to stop smoking tobacco is a wonderful thing. However, to then put $800 million in the budget to get people to start smoking marijuana just does not seem like the right message from a health point of view, especially when we consider the danger to children.

Then there is the $7-billion slush fund. I am not sure what kind of priority that is backing up in an election year, but I can only guess. That is a disappointment as well.

Then there are plans. We do not see any plans. We have talked about how there is no climate change plan and no answers on the carbon tax. What about NAFTA? The Liberals have known for over a year that tariffs could be put on the steel industry. There is no plan and no money in the budget to address that whatsoever.

What about this $4.5-billion pipeline? Members can hear that my voice is a bit hoarse from having a $4.5-billion pipeline that is 65 years old being shoved down my throat. Where was the plan for that in the budget? It is missing.

Overall, when we look at this budget, we can see that when it comes to promises, priorities, and plans, the Liberals have broken their promises, their priorities are definitely screwed up, and they have no plan to achieve anything. That is a super disappointment.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Sarnia—Lambton touched on many things in this budget. She has experience in the workforce in corporate Canada. Can members imagine any company or business preparing a budget, with a substantial piece of it going toward, say, a carbon tax, which is 200 pages of this omnibus bill, having done zero analysis on what the impact a carbon tax would have Canadian businesses, Canadian farmers, Canadian agribusinesses, and Canadian families? Can anyone imagine a business having a huge part of that budget with no financial implications of what the impact of that would be?

Could my colleague talk about what she is hearing from her constituents about their concerns with the carbon tax and having no idea what the impact this carbon tax is going to have on them moving forward?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what I am hearing from the small businesses in Sarnia—Lambton is that they are being pushed right to the brink. Many of them are going under. The Liberal government has done nothing but load burden onto them, with extra CPP and carbon taxes, with the Ontario Liberals under the Wynne government helping them out with a $15 minimum wage, etc. They are pushed to the max.

However, I am right on the border between Canada and the U.S. People can move their business across the states where there is no carbon tax. They can move their business across to the states where Trump is busy getting rid of the bureaucratic regulations that are so arduous for small business.

Definitely, anybody who wants to stay in business has to stay competitive. The Liberal government does not seem to understand that and it has not helped any Canadian businesses accomplish that.

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I had the pleasure of working with my colleague from Sarnia—Lambton at the pay equity committee on one of the very first initiatives of this Parliament. I loved her theme of promises, priorities, and plans. With respect to her initiative on palliative care, we did the work, the committee made a recommendation, and the government promised to follow up on it. However, now we continue to get promises with no implementation, just a repeat of an announcement and no money in the budget.

Does she want to comment on the fact that people are starting to become cynical? To be quite honest, they have a reason to be cynical.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that excellent question gives me another opportunity to talk about the promises, the priorities, and the plans with respect to gender equality.

My colleague and I sat on the committee that looked at pay equity. Recommendations were made and the government promised to bring forward legislation. As well, the government made 365 references to doing something for gender in the budget bill, and zero dollars for pay equity. This is not good.

Obviously, as the first female engineer in the House, I am a strong advocate for women and for equality for women. It has just been a total smoke and mirror show on the part of the government. It talks a good story on gender and gender-based violence elimination, and all these things. At the end of the day, very little effort is being spent.

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

Mr. Speaker, if people heard a laugh on CPAC, that was me laughing out loud at my friend from Sarnia—Lambton's sore throat from having the pipeline shoved down it.

The hon. member is really a very congenial member of this place, so I hope she will forgive this one tiny correction. She may want to comment on it. Some parts of the United States do have carbon taxes. There is a big tariff put on every barrel of oil sent to the state of Hawaii, for example. Of course California is part of the shared carbon market with Ontario and Quebec.

However, I know we will not agree on this issue, and I hope she will forgive my adding in a little correction.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I always want to get the facts straight. I stand corrected by the member, although I would point out that there is not a lot of competition of business directly in Sarnia—Lambton with California, because that is a very long drive. Over Michigan state and the surrounding states, there is an opportunity to really see businesses leaving Canada and taking up residency in the U.S. because of the better conditions for business there.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-74, the budget implementation act.

The Prime Minister has introduced this omnibus budget bill that spends money we do not have on things we do not need and piles debt upon debt and taxes us to pay for it. The Liberal government continues to spend and spend while Canadian taxpayers foot the bill and Canadian businesses flee to the United States.

The government has increased spending by 20%, or $60 billion, in its first three years, and there is no evidence that it created any growth in the Canadian economy. Despite this record spending, Canada is headed for a slowdown. Private sector forecasts show growth of 2% in 2018 and 1.6% in 2019.

Budget 2016 promised that spending would raise the level of GDP by 0.5% in 2016-17 and by 1.0% in 2017-18. However, the Parliamentary Budget Officer has estimated that infrastructure spending actually contributed a tiny 0.1% to GDP growth in both years.

At a time when the government has to buy a pipeline no one wanted to sell and no one wanted to buy in order to cover its own failed energy policy; at a time when we cannot seem to get agreements with our largest trading partner on softwood lumber, steel, and aluminum on the North American Free Trade Agreement; at a time when investor confidence in Canada has hit rock bottom; at a time when our country has one trillion dollars of market debt, a debt upon which the Government of Canada pays interest—the Liberal government plans on installing a job-killing carbon tax. Nearly 200 pages of Bill C-74 are dedicated to this complicated and costly new carbon tax. If Canadians have not had enough already, this new tax will raise the cost of heat, groceries, and pretty much everything.

Finance officials have said that the Liberals' carbon tax will raise the price of gasoline by 11¢ per litre, or about $8 on an average fill-up. It will cost Canadians families an extra $264 in natural gas home heating per year. Oil heating costs will rise even more.

We know this carbon tax is going to cost Canadians much more and we know the Liberals know it, but they refuse to come clean, and that is the issue we have on this side of the House. They refuse to tell us exactly how much the carbon tax will cost the average Canadian family.

Mr. Trevor Tombe, at the University of Calgary, estimates $1,100 for a family per year. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation estimates that the carbon tax will cost as much as $2,500 per family per year.

Environment Canada has told the minister that a price on carbon would have to go as high as $100 per tonne in 2020 and $300 per tonne in 2050 to meet its 2030 GHG targets. Carbon taxes are not effective in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. According to the Conference Board and the Canadian Academy of Engineering, even if carbon taxes were to reach $200 per tonne by 2025, it would only result in a 1.5% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

After direct questioning by the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, the environment minister at committee refused to give a number when asked. The government knows if and how much the carbon tax will reduce greenhouse gas emissions; however, it just will not make that number public. Perhaps the government has learned its lesson after so many failed promises in its 2015 platform: I am guessing it is better to say nothing than to continue to break promises. Unfortunately, we cannot run a government that way, and Canadians are demanding answers.

The government, through Natural Resources Canada, wants to spend $280,000 to try to find out why investor confidence in Canada is so low. Before Canadians from coast to coast to coast pick up the phone to call the minister in hopes of landing that $280,000 contract, the closing date was April 19.

It does not really take many people to figure out why Canadian competitiveness is so weak, why investor confidence is so low, and why Canadian businesses are fleeing south. Canadian competitiveness is weak because of rising costs as Canadian businesses face these increases. We are seeing new carbon taxes and increased CPP and EI premiums. Personal income taxes for entrepreneurs are now over 53% at the top marginal rate. Thousands of local businesses will no longer qualify for the small business tax rate or will see it reduced. Tough new rules will raise taxes on compensation paid in the family business.

According to Jack Mintz, Canadian businesses are facing a competitive tsunami that could wallop jobs and investment, as U.S. tax reform and the reduction in the corporate rate from 35% to 21% will make Canada less competitive and increase the appeal of moving to the United States.

Budget 2018 offered nothing to Canadian businesses. The U.K., the U.S, and France have all embarked on major tax reforms, simplifying the tax code and lowering overall tax rates. Canada is moving in the complete opposite direction, with more taxes and more regulation. Investor confidence has fallen by 5%, or $12.7 billion, since 2015.

During the same period, business investments in the United States increased by 9%, amounting to an additional $198 billion of investment spending. Foreign direct investment into Canada plummeted by 42% in 2016 and then a further 27% in 2017. The natural resources sector is being hit particularly hard, as regulation is discouraging investment. The pipeline shortage means that Canada's oil and gas companies receive lower prices for oil, approximately $24 less per barrel, because they are forced to ship to a part of the United States glutted with oil and gas. This is costing the Canadian economy approximately $50 million per day. In the last two years, $84 billion of investment in the energy sector has been cancelled.

Economist Germain Belzile, a senior researcher at the Montreal Economic Institute, stated:

People are giving up on Canada as a safe place to invest in natural resources.

It's seen as a very hostile environment now.

Doug Porter, chief economist and managing director of BMO Financial Group, stated:

I think Canada has a very weak competitive position. I think we're going to get crushed in the next recession....

The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, a leading industry association in the oil and gas sector, advises that the sector is seeing companies, including Canadian firms, looking at allocating more capital dollars in the U.S., while investment in Canada is decreasing.

RBC president and CEO Dave McKay, the head of one of Canada's largest banks, is urging the federal government to stem the flow of investment capital from this country to the United States because, he warns, it is already leaving in real time. Canadian businesses are fleeing south because the entrepreneurial climate in Canada has soured.

Canadians have lost faith in their government. In his first three years in power, the Prime Minister added $60 billion to the national debt. Last year, Canada's national debt reached an all-time high of $670 billion, or $47,612 per Canadian family, and the budget will not return to balance until 2045, when my son will be 33 years of age and quite possibly raising my grandchildren.

The finance minister's attack on small business last fall demonstrated just how out of touch the government is with what is going on in the economy, although the finance minister did climb down significantly on taxing passive investment income. Instead of the proposed 73% tax rate, the government will gradually withdraw eligibility for the small business tax rate for those companies with investment income greater than $50,000.

I could go on and on and I am sure members would enjoy that a lot, but I understand my time is running out, so I will wrap it up before I am cut off. I look forward to questions and to speaking more about how this Liberal budget is failing Canadian families.

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I live in British Columbia and I have for many years. Of course, we have had a carbon tax in place for well over a decade. When I was mayor of Cranbrook, we used to be able to take the money we would have had to pay for carbon taxes and reinvest it in improvements in the city to reduce heat loss or put in charging stations for electric vehicles. At worst, I guess it was a balance. At best, we were reinvesting in a better future.

Over the last year and a half, I held three sessions with local business people in three different communities. I invited the mayor and the MLA, and then I invited small businesses to come and meet with all three levels of government at the same time to try to maximize the use of their time. Not once did a carbon tax come up as an issue from any of the small businesses we met with.

Putting carbon taxes aside, what would the member have liked to have seen in this budget to help small businesses?

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. I get it at the door all the time. Anywhere I go, I represent a rural community. Rural people use oil to heat their homes, or they use propane or other sources that will be impacted because of this carbon tax. It seems every direction they look, life is becoming more and more unaffordable.

That is really causing a problem all across the country, but I will specifically look at Ontario, where we have some of the highest electricity rates anywhere in North America. That is again because of bad government decisions that are forcing people into poverty. People are making decisions on whether they pay the rent or their electricity bill, or whether they eat this month or get their prescription drugs, and the list goes on. This is because people are being left with less and less in their pockets because their cheques just are not going far enough, and that is because of taxes.

As taxes are implemented throughout the marketplace, businesses start to increase their prices throughout the marketplace, so everything starts to get more expensive. If people are not getting an increase to offset the rising prices—because it is a government increase, not an organic increase—that hurts people. That is what I am seeing in rural Canada. I think small businesses would like the government to just get the heck out of the way.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Québec debout, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague if he agrees with me about one of the major shortcomings in this bill, with its many hundreds of pages, and in the previous one. I am talking about strengthening tools to better combat the use of tax havens.

Fraudsters are doing things that are against the law, and not enough investigations are being carried out or charges being laid. The big problem is the legal use of tax havens. Because of two regulations in section 5907 of the Income Tax Regulations, multinationals and big corporations can transfer their money to tax havens to dodge their tax obligations and pay no tax in Canada.

My colleague talks about the cost of living going up because of rising taxes. Meanwhile, those who have the means to contribute more use tax havens to avoid doing so. There is nothing about this in the last budget or the budget implementation bill.

Shouldn't the Liberal government be doing something about it?

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that everyone needs to pay their fair share in taxes. When the United States lowered its tax rate, companies brought money back into the country. As I said, I agree that people need to pay their fair share, but off the top of my head, I believe that when the tax rate was reduced, Apple brought $300 million back that was offshore. It brought it into the economy to spend on wages, research and development, expansion, and bonuses. That was brought in because taxes were lowered, giving businesses an advantage and allowing them to contribute to the economy at home.

That is one way it can be done. I am sure the government has its ideas as well. However, if we want to use one example, that is one we could use.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we resume debate, I must inform the hon. member for Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix that she has about seven minutes to go before private members' business. As usual, I will let her know when her time is up.

The hon. member for Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to take part in this discussion today.

I do not know whether to laugh or cry, but yesterday or the day before, I unwillingly became a millionaire, since we are all now owners of Kinder Morgan's infamous Trans Mountain pipeline. Everyone is pleased. I see all my colleagues smiling. I did not expect that. We are used to a government that claims to be extremely transparent, but it is anything but. This government is about as transparent as a bottle of Pepsi.

That being said, I would like to talk more generally about the Liberals' supposed transparency when it comes to the budget or to any bill, for that matter. They promised in their 2015 election platform that they would do things differently from Mr. Harper and the NDP member for Outremont. That is the first thing they said. People may not like Mr. Harper, but one must admit that he had one good quality, and that is that he always did what he said he would. That was his trademark.

The Liberal platform, which I have here, sets out a number of promises. I will quote from it because spoken words fly away, but written words remain. It reads, and I quote:

We will run modest deficits for three years so that we can invest in growth for the middle class and credibly offer a plan to balance the budget in 2019.

Excuse me for telling the truth, but that is what is written here in black and white. I feel as though I am acting in some sort of comedy. Not only are those words untrue, but the deficit is three times higher than the Liberals promised it would be. Again in the Liberals' election platform—not in ours since we do not make promises that we cannot keep—it reads, and I quote:

The foundation of the fiscal plan over our mandate is a planning framework that is realistic, sustainable, prudent, and transparent.

I have a hard time believing that, since the Liberals are using taxpayers' money to buy pipelines without asking permission here in the House and they are promising to make changes to the EI system.

By the way, the Liberals recently threw $10 million at the EI spring gap and provided some training. In my riding, many people are affected by this gap, but only 26 of them were eligible for the training. However, what bothers me the most is that, when the Liberals announced the $10-million investment, it was really appreciated, but then they held so many consultations that I think they forgot to consult the regions.

When you live in a remote area, an English or a computer course is not what you need the most, especially since very little English is spoken in Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix. We mainly speak French. Manual labour is what rural regions need the most. This $10 million should have been used to fix the spring gap by providing training adapted to the actual needs of the people in the regions who were requesting it, rather than providing the training that public servants, who do not know anything about our regions, thought they needed. In my mind, that was the greatest loss.

I studied the budget from cover to cover and found very little for rural areas, whether for the Gaspé or my region of Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix. It focused a lot on the Maritimes, which have many MPs. However, there are just as many MPs in rural areas who received nothing, because they are not Liberals.

The rural regions just want to be heard. It is not a partisan issue. When the government spends taxpayer money to consult people over and over again, it should take what they say into consideration. I recently consulted my constituents and wrote a report on the spring gap in my riding. I met with the unemployed, business people, mayors, and municipal councillors, and we all came to the same conclusion: today's employment insurance system does not reflect what we would expect to see in 2018. It is outdated. It needs to be modernized.

The Liberal government has claimed to be transparent from the start. However, every time we hold the government to account, it never responds. The Liberals are as transparent as a bottle of Pepsi: dark and impossible to see through.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix will have three and a half minutes for her speech and five minutes for questions and comments when the House resumes debate on this motion.

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.