Debates of June 14th, 2018

Concurrence in Vote 1—Northern Pipeline Agency

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Mr. Speaker, God forbid I delve into hyperbole, because I have only done that for 14 years. I will leave that aside for now.

I am on the procedure and House affairs committee, and we have talked about this quite a bit, about the commitment toward this type of debating and the commission for that. The reflection of the spending is obviously hard to peg when one does not know exactly how this will be set up down the road. A lot of the heavy lifting is going to be done, whether by the private sector or whomever, based on what the commission recommends.

However, I will go back to the ruling from earlier. What the member is talking about may relate to Standing Order 83(4) and Speaker Jerome's ruling. What we are talking about here is the notion of assuming that they are identical in their current form. That is what I think the Speaker was getting at earlier, and I would agree with his ruling on what Speaker Jerome said previously.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have had a spirited debate in the House and in multiple committees on this year's main estimates. We have also had a spirited debate about the important reforms that our government has introduced as a two-year pilot to improve the transparency and accountability of government spending.

Today, I would like to spend my time highlighting why we are pursuing these important reforms, and what we have achieved thus far.

The main estimates are a fundamental document, outlining the government's spending plans for the fiscal year. This year's main estimates include $113 billion of voted expenditures and another $163 billion of statutory expenditures. These expenditures will ensure our government can continue to deliver on its commitment to Canadians to grow the middle class, protect the environment, and invest in Canadians' priorities.

Allow me to highlight some of those initiatives.

The 2018-19 main estimates propose $2.2 billion for the Department of Health. Our government will continue to help Canadians lead healthier lives and strengthen our universal health care system to quickly adapt to new challenges. The $2.2 billion in the main estimates will help the department deal with the opioid crisis, provide cannabis use education, and renew the federal tobacco control strategy. Part of that funding will also make home care and mental health services more accessible to Canadians.

The main estimates also include $20.4 billion for the Department of National Defence. This funding will support the implementation of Canada's new defence policy, “Strong, Secure, Engaged”; action to prevent and address gender-based violence, harassment, and discrimination; the integration of GBA+ considerations in all of its operations; and major capital projects.

I mentioned that the main estimates are a fundamental document outlining the government's spending plans. Naturally, the other fundamental document that outlines the government's spending plans is the budget. The budget sets out the priorities on which the government commits to spending its resources. It is the best guide to what the government is planning to do over the coming year, which explains why budget day is always so important in this town.

However, in years past, there was a major disconnect between these two fundamental documents. The budget was tabled after the main estimates, which meant that the main estimates provided a detailed breakdown of spending plans only superseded and in many ways rendered irrelevant by the budget.

Imagine if a company put out a detailed statement of its plans for the year and then a few weeks later put out another statement laying out the new investments to be made that year, and the two statements had nothing to do with one another. Shareholders would cry foul. They would not accept that the company's detailed breakdown of spending plans for the year had literally nothing in it about the key new investments the company was going to make that same year.

Clearly, most organizations do not operate this way, but up until this year, that is exactly how the federal government operated. It is no surprise that The Globe and Mail called the system “bad to the point of absurdity” and “a discredited practice that has only served to keep MPs in the dark about how tax dollars are being spent.” As somebody who has been in Parliament for over 20 years—I am obviously not talking about me—and as somebody who has spent the majority of that time on the opposition benches, the President of the Treasury Board understands very well the important role that parliamentarians play in holding government to account and he understood the frustration in being provided with a document in the main estimates that was incomplete, not reconciled to that year's budget, and essentially rendered obsolete when the budget was tabled.

Parliamentary committees devote many meetings to studying the main estimates, as they should, so the government decided that they should be studying a document that is more complete, more relevant, and more up to date. That is one of the reasons we introduced provisional changes to the Standing Orders for this year and next year. These changes allow the budget to be tabled before the main estimates, which means that the two documents can have the appropriate connections to one another. It means that they can be reconciled with one another. It means that the parliamentary study of the main estimates is far more relevant to the current spending priorities of the government.

Two former senior public servants at the Department of Finance, Scott Clark and Peter DeVries, who are well respected for their commitment to fiscal responsibility, have praise for the changes. They call the new system a more comprehensive reconciliation between the budget spending proposals and the estimates, and they said that parliamentarians are now provided with more information than in the past.

We are proud of important improvements to transparency and accountability and it is important to remember that we have demonstrated our respect for Parliament by making these changes provisional. After a two-year pilot, Parliament will have an opportunity to decide whether it wants to continue with these changes. I certainly believe and hope that it will, since returning to a system that was called “bad to the point of absurdity” would be a clear step backward.

The alignment of the budget and main estimates is not the only important reform we introduced. We also put in place a pilot project for purpose-based votes that give parliamentarians even more precise control over the review and approval of government spending.

The existing system is built around categories of spending, for example, operating expenditures, capital expenditures, and grants and contributions. Parliament approves a total amount for each department for each of these categories. However, Parliament's discretion is limited to category-level spending. It has been like this for years, but to provide greater control to Parliament, we have piloted a purpose-based vote system at Transport Canada. This means that parliamentary control extends beyond the category of spending and down to the level of what purpose the money will go toward. We think this is another step in the right direction.

I sit on the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. It is continuing to study how to better improve transparency and accountability to Parliament and I know we will come back with a report in short form.

I am proud of what our government has done thus far and we will continue to do this in the future to improve the transparency and accountability of government spending.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about transparency. In the budget document, there were 456 mentions of investment spending. The member talked about the Canadian Armed Forces' plan of “Strong, Secure, Engaged”. For the largest department of the federal government, DND, the Canadian Forces, do members want to know how many times it was mentioned in the budget? It was zero.

The member talked about transparency. The Minister of National Defence, a few weeks ago, said the government is not lapsing funds for DND. That was proven not to be the case. We are debating main estimates today and when the public accounts come in, we will see how much they match. For a government that talks so much about transparency, why is it continually reprofiling spending for our Canadian Armed Forces, why did they not even merit a mention in the budget, and why is the Minister of National Defence not being clear with Canadians on how much funding the government is lapsing each year?

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do recall, in 2004, the first time the fixed wing search and rescue program was announced, and re-announced in 2008, to be later delayed, and to finally get a procurement going by 2015. Finally, our search and rescue technicians will have planes. This is coming from a government that delayed and delayed defence procurement. The Conservative record on defence procurement is shameful.

I have to remember, tonight, we will be voting for a long time. I recall March 21 was the date that the member for Durham voted against national defence, voted against veterans, and voted against anything that had to do with the Canadian Forces. That is the Conservative record.

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

Mr. Speaker, I hope things will calm down a bit here because it is going to be a long night.

As the transportation electrification critic for my party, I attended the electric vehicle show more than a year ago. The Minister of Transport was there to announce a transportation electrification strategy for Canada. Naturally, the entire community is trying to promote this to both consumers and manufacturers. In particular, we could support the people in Windsor who build the Pacifica Hybrid, a technologically advanced plug-in vehicle manufactured in Canada.

All these people would like to see policies that promote the electrification of transportation. Despite the minister's commitment, there is nothing for this in the budget or the supplementary estimates. It made a lot of sense, so this is very disappointing. I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about that.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell. Many members from Quebec stop in Casselman. I know that the hon. member for Châteauguay—Lacolle likes to charge her electric car in Casselman.

I know that the hon. member comes from the Montreal area. I invite him to charge his car in Casselman, where there is a nice station for electric cars. He can even buy a coffee there.

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

Mr. Speaker, would the member opposite be able to tell us, with these estimates, whether or not we are going to see any actual deliveries materialize from them? Will we see any ships? The last ship that was delivered was the Asterix, something that we started, despite their efforts to crash that project.

Are we going to see any planes delivered? We delivered the C-17s and C-130s. All the Liberals have done is play political football with the fighter jet replacement, looking in the garbage pail in Australia for something to pull out for this made-in-Canada, made-in-cabinet capability gap with our fighter jets.

The Minister of National Defence was not the architect of Operation Medusa, but he was the architect of the capability gap with the fighter jets.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for her question on defence procurement, because the Conservative record is terrible.

I remember a time when Conservatives cancelled defence procurement for MSVS, not three weeks before, not two weeks before, not one week before, but less than 24 hours to go and they pulled the plug.

How is that instilling confidence in the defence industry in Canada, to pull the plug less than 12 hours before the procurement ended? That is the shameful record of the Conservative Party of Canada when it comes to defence procurement.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan.

As the federal member of Parliament for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, I welcome this opportunity to inform Canadians about the estimates, and particularly vote 40. My speech is going to focus on the cover-up and how the carbon tax has given rise to the need for a $7-billion slush fund. Canadians want to know if the $7-billion slush fund is part of the carbon tax cover-up, so I will begin by summarizing the carbon tax.

I am going to start with the carbon tax cover-up that had been going on for years in Ontario and what it has meant to everyday, average Canadians. I am pleased to confirm that once the taxpayers in the province of Ontario became aware of what is known as the “green hustle”, they not only removed Kathleen Wynne from office, the red rump that remains is not even recognized as an official party in the legislature.

For the benefit of taxpayers listening to this debate and hearing the term “green hustle" for the first time, here is an explanation of the term. An example of the green hustle is when the Conservative shadow minister of finance, the hon. member for Carleton, asks the finance minister when the government will share with Canadians how much the proposed federal carbon tax of $50 a tonne would cost a median Canadian family and the finance minister is prevented from answering the question by the Prime Minister's principal adviser Gerald Butts.

Instead, the environment minister assumes the role of finance minister and invokes the green hustle by claiming some unsubstantiated benefit to the environment, where none exists. In fact, the evidence shows that adopting carbon taxes in Canada raises global carbon emissions by offshoring economic activity from relatively environmentally friendly places like Canada to places with lax environmental laws.

Data from the World Bank reveals that China and other developing countries produce far more carbon per dollar of economic output, at purchasing power parity, than do western nations. China shows no signs of decreasing its emissions any time soon. China is currently building hundreds of new coal-fired plants, which will ensure carbon dioxide emissions continue to rise for decades to come. Taken together, these facts mean that for every factory pushed out of Canada because of a carbon tax, global emissions will actually increase dramatically, and this will be the case for decades to come.

As a Conservative, I recognize there are many things we can do to improve the environment. A made-in-Canada environmental policy by Canadians for Canadians would be an honest start for the government. Carbon taxes are wrong for the Canadian experience. We live in a cold country which, by its very nature, is energy intensive. Carbon taxes are not neutral. No money will be returned to taxpayers. Carbon taxes are not going to save the planet.

The same tactic of using the environment to cover up the greed was used in Ontario, a tactic that resulted in ratepayers of Ontario paying the highest price for electricity in North America, a tactic that resulted in the Liberal Party of Toronto being reduced to a red rump. Green is the new red.

A failed policy led to energy poverty among seniors and others on fixed incomes who have been forced to choose between heating and eating during the coldest months. With the term “energy poverty” a new expression in Ontario, the Ontario Association of Food Banks put a photo of a light bulb on its 2016 hunger report. For Ontario's rural residents in places like Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, there was no environmental benefit.

Industrial-scale wind turbines were forced onto unwilling Ontario municipalities and never demonstrated a benefit in cutting carbon dioxide emissions. In fact, according to a journal in the renewables green hustle racket, the way wind power and the carbon tax cover-up were done in Ontario, by covering up the carbon tax on electricity and calling it a “global adjustment”, is now a textbook example, a black eye so to speak, on how not to do greed energy.

There is a direct connection between the failed greed energy policies, the carbon tax cover-up of the Toronto Liberal Party, and the federal Liberal Party in Ottawa. Gerald Butts, who is the most powerful unelected technocrat in Ottawa today, held the same as an unelected technocrat in Toronto. The greed energy act that was so thoroughly rejected by voters in Ontario was his creation. The failure of the greed energy act has been well documented. What has not been well reported is how rich it made a select group of Liberal Party insiders. They are people like the $6-million man, Hydro One CEO Mayo Schmidt; and people like Mike Crawley, the former president of the Liberal Party of Ontario, who received a contract for $66,000 a day for 20 years, $478 million, to put up industrial wind turbines. The Liberal Party of Ontario was continually shaking down energy companies for political contributions to keep the money flowing if they wanted to keep their FIT contracts that were making a few select people obscenely wealthy at the expense of Ontario residents struggling with their electricity bills.

Because the wind blows when power is not needed, Ontario ratepayers have paid American border states billions of dollars to take the unusable electricity. The Liberal Party talks about threatening a trade war against our largest trading partner, yet Liberal policy was providing the energy to run American industries in the U.S. border states that compete with Canadian manufacturers. Some of these American industries had been in Ontario, but were forced to leave because of the greed energy act and the high electricity prices it created.

I use the past tense because the new premier of Ontario, Doug Ford, has promised to govern with respect for the taxpayer dollars, something that needs to happen in deficit-obsessed Ottawa and the reason we are debating vote 40 this evening. It is too bad the finance minister is prevented by the Prime Minister and Gerald Butts from being accountable directly to Canadians about the carbon tax cover-up and why the Liberals need a $7-billion slush fund. Canadians want to know if the $7-billion slush fund is part of the carbon tax cover-up.

The motion from the official opposition earlier today was asking for a clear explanation of the costs of the Liberal Party's carbon policy, just like we want to know what the costs of the estimates are for. We know they have the numbers because our finance critic has seen the redacted pages and there will be costs and indirect costs that will escalate throughout the Canadian economy. For example, the Prime Minister needs to understand that his failure to effectively manage trade relations with our largest trading partner and his clumsy attempt to respond to his failures by announcing a trade war can only end badly for Canadians.

In my riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, tourism is a large employer. As Jeff Wilcox, general manager of Pride Marine Group in Eganville and Ottawa has made me aware, the decision by the Liberal government to target boats as the only recreational product listed for retaliatory tariff will result in millions of dollars in lost wages and taxes. It will have a negative effect on what has been an affordable outdoor activity for middle-class Canadians. Will the $7-billion slush fund help them? Jeff says a single-family house in Toronto has become an unaffordable luxury for middle-class Canadians; so too will being able to afford a boat to enjoy the Canadian outdoors become an unaffordable luxury, thanks to Liberal policy and their failure to secure the North American Free Trade Agreement, and that is just one tariff.

On behalf of all Canadians, I ask, what is the carbon tax cover-up really costing Canadians? By using a carbon tax to rapidly escalate the price of fuel, tourism in my riding, which will be hit by the trade war, will be hit even harder. At $2 a litre for gasoline, the most recent target price from the Liberal government, American and Canadian tourists will be staying home.

The carbon tax cover-up will affect workers' pensions. For too many Canadians, unfortunately, retirement income consists of only the old age security and CPP. The decision by the Liberal Party to push the CPP pension managers to buy into the carbon tax cover-up by purchasing, with workers' pension savings, industrial wind turbines that are being dumped by their foreign owners, jeopardizes the CPP. Already, 77% of Canadians believe the CPP will not be there for them when they are ready to retire.

[Kyle Peterson, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, does the member think we are still on the opposition day motion or does she think the speech was supposed to be directed toward the main estimates?

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

Mr. Speaker, had the member been listening to the beginning of the speech, he would have known that I explained the reason why we are talking about the carbon tax is because Canadians are concerned that it is directly linked to the carbon tax cover-up. They are not showing us, or being transparent in any way, shape, or form, how the $7 billion will be spent, just like they will not tell us how much that carbon tax is going to cost Canadians. Reference was made to the earlier supply day motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, my timing is a bit off. The government is telling the others to stay on topic, but what I am interested in is precisely what is off topic.

Does my colleague acknowledge that the climate is changing drastically? What does she propose that we do about it? As long as we are off topic, let us go there.

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

Mr. Speaker, a carbon tax, a $7-billion slush fund, is not going to affect the climate, it is not going to affect the carbon dioxide levels. Carbon dioxide makes up only 4% of earth's atmosphere. Of that 4%, 3.4% is attributed to anthropological activity. In any case, it is the never-ending goose with the golden egg for carbon tax because no matter how much we increase carbon taxes and cut CO₂ emissions, it is never going to have an impact on CO₂ levels in the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is not a toxic gas. Plants breathe it in and exhale oxygen, so the time to stop talking about carbon dioxide being a poisonous gas has long since ended.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what we do know about the carbon tax is according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, it is going to take $10 billion out of the Canadian economy in 2022. That is a huge hit to the economy. As my colleague has pointed out, it does nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Even at committee, the Minister of Environment was asked how much reduction of greenhouse gas emissions we can expect from this carbon tax. That question was not answered. Now we also know that the Liberals are not answering the question about how much it will cost the average Canadian family. It has been blocked out. Even though the party on the other side knows full well what it will cost, we do not have that information.

In my colleague's riding I am sure there are a number of farmers, and I wonder if she has had the opportunity to connect with farmers as to their view of what the carbon tax will do to their livelihood.

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

Mr. Speaker, farmers among other people in my riding understand the difference between climate and weather. One thing farmers do is grow plants and vegetation. Those plants and vegetation actually take carbon dioxide, the dreaded gas the Liberals are so afraid of, out of the air and produce food with it. However, with the extra taxes on fuel and the taxes on transporting their livestock from point A to point B, and all the other costs that are going to ensue because of the carbon tax, it is going to make life unaffordable for them. Their prices will have to be raised and it is going to make food more expensive. When food becomes more expensive, the people with the lowest incomes in society are the ones who suffer the most.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in tonight's debate on the main estimates. Most Canadians who follow parliamentary procedure understand that the main estimates are all about granting spending authority to the government. Therefore, for the next few minutes I want to talk a bit about spending, not so much in the context of the main estimates, but more in the context of the out-of-control spending that is being exhibited by the current government.

To get a fulsome view of what I mean, I want to go back a few years to 2015. During the 2015 election campaign, the Liberal Party at the time made many campaign promises, most of which of course it has broken. However, I want to focus in on only one of those broken promises, and that is the promise that the Liberals made that, if elected, they would run modest deficits of no more than $10 billion, and that they would be temporary. The Liberals also promised that these temporary $10-billion deficits would be eliminated by the end of their first term; in other words, they were saying that they would be back to balanced by 2019. That is not just a broken promise, that is a shattered promise, because we are nowhere near balancing the federal budget by next year. In fact, we have found from documents provided by the government's own finance department that even if there is no new spending, the earliest the government could see a balanced budget would be the year 2045. To put it another way, if a 16-year old young man or young woman today wanted to see a balanced budget in this country, he or she would be 44 years old by the time that happened. It is shameful what the government is doing to the finances of this country.

We should not be surprised because, after all, excessive spending is in the Liberal DNA. We have seen this time and again over successive Liberal governments. In fact, the current Prime Minister's own father, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, when he was in power for 16 years, was considered the most profligate spender probably in parliamentary history. To prove my point, I would offer this observation.

In 1984, when former Prime Minister Trudeau finally left office, Canadians and the Canadian government were spending $1.03 for every dollar that it took in in revenue. We should think about that for just a moment. How can Canadians who try and run an efficient household balance their own budgets if they continuously borrow and go further into debt? It cannot be done. Eventually, the rope runs out, the borrowing has to end, and the debt has to be repaid. Unfortunately, the current government does not seem to recognize that, because it continues to borrow and rack up massive deficits and incur more debt. Referring back to former Prime Minister Trudeau, Canadians are still trying to pay off the debt that he incurred during his 16 years in office.

We have also seen that the apple does not fall far from the tree, because the current Prime Minister has taken the same Keynesian approach to fiscal management, or in his case mismanagement, that we have seen from his father. We have seen the current Prime Minister rack up deficit upon deficit with no idea how to balance his own budget or the budget of his government.

That attitude has actually prevailed upon the current finance minister. I point out that only a few short weeks ago, the finance minister appeared himself before the finance committee. During that testimony, he was asked on multiple occasions by the Conservative finance critic, the hon. member for Carleton, when the federal budget would be balanced. On multiple occasions he was asked that very simple question, and the finance minister could not respond, and did not respond. The reason he could not and did not respond is quite simple. It is because the finance minister does not know when the budget will be balanced.

I think that is absolutely shameful, that the chief financial officer of our country does not even know when his own budget can be balanced or will be balanced. No Canadian taxpayer should have to put up with that ineptness. We see it time and time again by the government, in everything it does, in every public document it puts forward.

It is not just this massive deficit that the government is racking up that is of concern. To exacerbate the problem of the runaway deficits, the government continues to raise taxes on Canadians. One of the other broken promises by the Liberal government during the 2015 campaign is that it would lower taxes for the middle class, but it has done just the opposite. In fact, a recent study published by the Fraser Institute indicates that over 80% of Canadians today are paying more taxes than they did in 2015. They are paying higher income taxes and payroll taxes.

Now, on top of all of that, the Liberal government wants to introduce a job-killing carbon tax. We heard earlier today, from several of my colleagues, the problems with this so-called revenue-neutral carbon tax. Let us be clear, there is nothing revenue-neutral about the proposed carbon tax, nothing even remotely close to it.

The simplest way to try to explain how a carbon tax is supposed to work, according to the Liberal government, is that for every dollar taxed Canadians, to disincentivize them from perhaps using oil or gas or any other non-renewable resource, the government would refund that money back to that individual. It is simply not true. If it was, if every time I was taxed $100, I knew I was getting $100 back, why would the government bother taxing me to begin with? It makes absolutely no sense.

According to the government, its rationale is this, if we disincentivize all Canadians by raising prices on everything, on home heating, on gas, on oil, they will stop using those products, they will change their consumer habits, and they will stop using things that the government thinks are pollutants.

That does not work. All we need to do is take a look at what is happening today in British Columbia, where the gas prices for a litre of gas is on the north side of $1.60 a litre. Has that changed consumer habits? No. Why has it not? Quite simply, Canadians still need to get to work, soccer moms need to take their kids to the soccer pitch on Saturday morning, and $1.60 a litre does not stop them from doing it. All it does is it takes more money out of their pockets, and it makes them and all Canadians far worse off and far less affluent.

This is the record of the Liberal Party: higher deficits, higher taxes, and now a threat to impose a job-killing carbon tax. A year from now, in 2019, Canadians will be given a clear choice. Do they want to re-elect a government that has raised taxes, that has increased deficits and debt, and that has imposed a carbon tax, or do they want to elect a Conservative government that will lower taxes and balance budgets?

I can assure the House that I have the utmost respect for the intelligence of the Canadian taxpayer, and because of that I know, come 2019, we will be seeing a new Conservative majority government here in Ottawa.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me talk about the records. These are the same Conservatives who got taken to court, because the Parliamentary Budget Officer could not get information.

These are the same Conservatives who referred to the former Parliamentary Budget Officer as “unbelievable, unreliable, incredible”.

These are the same Conservatives who took millions from the border infrastructure fund to build gazebos and fake lakes.

These are the same Conservatives who formed the first government in the history of the British Commonwealth to be found in contempt.

What does the member opposite have to say about those records?

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, number one, I welcome the question. I appreciate the question from my hon. colleague, my friend from our shared committee of OGGO.

The only suggestion I would have to my colleague is that perhaps the next time, rather than reading a question written by Gerald Butts, he could actually speak from his heart and his head. That would be far more effective, and I think Canadians would appreciate that far more than his reading someone else's words.

The record of the Liberal government does not change things. It has been the most egregious spender of government and taxpayer money in history. I told the story of the former prime minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau, and it is true, for every dollar his government took in in taxes, it spent $1.03. It is impossible to balance budgets under that scenario. That is why we are in debt. That is why we need a change of government.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is in the craziness of what the government is doing, when expectation is so high, that the government wants Canadians to sign a blank cheque for them with respect to a carbon tax grab without telling them the cost and how much the emissions will be reduced.

Who is crazy enough to give the government a blank cheque? I would like my colleague to comment on that, please.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my esteemed colleague is right about one thing: Who in their right mind would want to give the government a blank cheque for anything? We know what number it would fill in. Frankly, it would be a figure that the Canadian taxpayer could not afford.

Specifically to his question about the carbon tax, I note we have asked on numerous occasions in this place a simple question to the government: What will the carbon tax cost the average Canadian household. We have yet to get an answer. Although the government knows the answer and has those documents, it is not providing anything. For a party that said it was running on transparency and openness, it is doing anything but. The government has the answer to the very simple question of how much the carbon tax will cost the average Canadian household, but any documents it has provided have been so heavily redacted that there is no information.

The government is hiding basic facts and financial information from the Canadian taxpayer, and for that, it should be sorely ashamed.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, this is about the 18th or 19th time I have heard about this mythical document, which was commissioned by the Harper government and delivered as a public report before the Prime Minister was even sworn in, and it is somehow being related to what this government has done. It is a Harper document that the Harper cabinet forgot to take with it when it left.

What does the policy we put in place have anything to do with anything Stephen Harper did? What report did Stephen Harper commission? I do not even know what members are talking about when they refer to this report. This report was put in place and tabled before the Liberals were sworn in. Why do the members opposite want it so much? If they want it so much, why do they not ask one of Harper's former cabinet ministers for it?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it really does not surprise me when I hear a Liberal member say, “I do not know what you are talking about”. That is par for the course. I wish the Liberals would understand what we are talking about, because perhaps then they would take some of our sage advice such as reducing deficits, lowering taxes, and not imposing a carbon tax.

Try as we might, the helpfulness we are exhibiting today, and what I am saying to my friend opposite to help him understand basic facts, do not seem to be working. It is unfortunate but true. I wish the Liberals would listen more intently.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I just want to remind the hon. members that if they want to cross the floor to speak with someone on the other side, that is allowed. Chirping back and forth while someone is trying to answer or ask a question makes it difficult for the Speaker. We do not want to upset the Speaker now, do we?

The hon. member for Mississauga—Erin Mills.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. and very dynamic member for Newmarket—Aurora.

Canadians may not hear about the over 24 hours of voting on the estimates that will start tonight, but they will definitely feel the impact of our government's plan to put people first and ensure that equality and fairness is there for all Canadians. On this side of the House, we know that providing Canadians with the opportunity to realize their full potential is not just the right thing to do, it is the smart thing to do for our economy. By investing to create opportunities for women and men, in all their diversity, the government is instilling confidence and reinforcing the foundation for a stronger middle class and for growing the economy that benefits all of us.

I am a big believer in empowering women to change the way we do politics; to change the way we do business, STEM, and community building; and to change the way we do everything.

I would like to spend a few minutes outlining the key elements of budget 2018's support for Canada's women and girls, which are included in the supply bill before us today. I would like to spend some time discussing the data behind budget 2018's focus on women and girls.

Even though Canadian women are among the best educated in the world, they are less likely to participate in the labour market than men and more likely to work part time. On average, women in Canada earn 69¢ for every dollar earned by men, on an annual basis. Canadian women are under-represented in positions of leadership, and businesses in Canada are overwhelmingly owned by men. The number of women in economically transformative STEM remains low. Women who graduate from STEM fields typically earn an average of $9,000 a year less than their male peers. The demands of unpaid work are too often preventing women from pursuing opportunities to reach their full potential. This is holding back half of all Canadians from reaching their full potential and the full potential of what our country is able to accomplish. It is holding our economy back.

RBC Economic Research estimates that adding more women to the workforce could boost the level of Canada's GDP by as much as 4%. McKinsey Global Institute estimates that by taking steps to advance equality for women, such as employing more women in technology and boosting women's participation in the workforce, Canada could add $150 billion to its economy by 2026.

Empowering women and girls will help close the gender gap that holds back growth and increases poverty. Simply put, equality between Canadian women and men will lead to greater prosperity, not just for women and their families but for all Canadians. With equality of opportunity as a guiding principle, budget 2018 takes us further toward this stronger Canada than ever before.

Let me give some examples, some of which, I might add, are included in the supply bill before us today. To support young families and gender equality in both the workplace and the home, our government is introducing a new employment insurance parental sharing benefit that will help support an equal distribution of home and work responsibilities. This will provide an additional five weeks of El parental benefits when both parents agree to share parental leave or an additional eight weeks for those who choose the extended parental benefit option.

With budget 2018, we are looking at federal institutions and providing a leadership role in addressing the systemic undervaluation of women. That is because we know that equal pay for work of equal value is a human right. Through budget 2018, we are addressing the gender wage gap by announcing that we will introduce historic proactive pay equity legislation in the federally regulated sector, which would apply to about 1.2 million employed Canadians.

We are also looking at how we can better support women entrepreneurs in starting and growing their businesses and taking them global. Our government is committed to helping women-owned businesses grow, find new customers, and hire more Canadians. To help make this a reality, the Business Development Bank of Canada and Export Development Canada are making $1.65 billion in new financing over three years available to women entrepreneurs.

Empowering women to build their businesses and create jobs just makes good economic sense. Here at home, it is also important that we continue to break down barriers to gender equality in education and in employment.

In my riding of Mississauga—Erin Mills, I have established the Women's Council, dynamic women tasked with empowering more women at the grassroots level. The breaking of barriers is key to reducing poverty and building an economy that works for everyone.

Budget 2018 proposes to help women enter and succeed in the trades by creating a new apprenticeship incentive grant for women. The grant will encourage women to enter the trades and fill positions that offer high-quality, well-paying, middle-class jobs.

On this side of the House, we know that equality is at the heart of Canada's future economic success. Fairness demands equality, and prosperity and growth for all Canadians depends on it. Canadians work hard every day. They take care of their families, run businesses and public institutions, protect communities, and create the art that shapes our culture and reminds us of what it means to be Canadian. For all they do, all Canadian women and men deserve to be equal partners in society and equal participants in the economy. Through budget 2018 and the measures listed in the supply bill we are debating today, we want to help make this goal a reality.

When women have equal opportunities to succeed, they can be powerful agents of change and economic growth, improving the quality of life for families and communities. I have seen that first-hand in my riding of Mississauga—Erin Mills through my Women's Council and through the many women who take part in the economy in business and in not-for-profit organizations. I have seen their contributions to our country and the way we function as a whole. I know that, through budget 2018, we will continue to empower more women to take ownership, take leadership, and own the country that is Canada.