Debates of June 5th, 2018

Supporting New Parents Act

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Speaker, the member for Louis-Hébert stated that Bill C-394 would not help mothers or fathers who had a small business. I assume he believes this because they may not pay into EI. However, to clarify, while the government is extending parental leave, those same parents who may own small businesses will not have the opportunity to use that benefit because they do not pay into EI.

I am happy to support Bill C-394, the supporting new parents act. I am always proud to stand and support families. They are the cornerstone of our society. When that foundation is strong, it is to everybody's benefit. Unfortunately, under the Liberal government, times right now are really tough for families.

It has been reported that on average middle-class Canadian families are paying more than $800 in additional taxes due to the Liberal government's policies. These are the very people the government claims it is still helping. For my constituents in Saskatchewan, there is a reality that the carbon tax will add significantly to the tax bill, which will be on top of the $800 more they are already paying under the Liberal government.

The Liberals are imposing a carbon tax on the provinces, and it will come at a significant cost to each and every person. In fact, Finance Canada has stated that the Liberals' carbon tax will cost an extra 11¢ per litre just in gasoline alone. When people live in rural Saskatchewan, they have long distances to drive to get just about anywhere, such as the grocery store, the midnight run to Walmart to get diapers, formula, or whatever the case may be. This carbon tax will add up very quickly.

While the government is raising the cost of living for Canadians, it is encouraging to consider the proposed legislation before us, legislation that would actually help new parents keep more of their hard-earned money. The supporting new parents act would deliver real support to families at a time when they need it the most.

The arrival of a child is a happy and exciting occasion for new parents. As a mother, I know this first-hand. My children are my greatest joys. I also know that this milestone comes with many additional costs. New parents will need everything from diapers to wipes to bottles to car seats to strollers to cribs, and that is just the beginning of the list. There is so much more. I have only named a few of the basics. A full list would almost be endless.

By removing the federal income tax from EI maternity and EI parental programs, the supporting new parents act would help alleviate the financial pressures of these additional costs. Certainly, the proposed legislation would be a welcomed relief. When parents can keep more of their take-home benefit, it gives them more choice in deciding whether to stay home with their baby.

Currently, EI maternity benefits are available to a birth mother for up to 15 weeks. Parental benefits are available for up to an additional 35 weeks. Now the parental benefits can be extended up to 61 weeks at a reduced wage replacement.

The opportunity to bond and care for a child in its infancy is so very valuable to mother, baby, and father. I cherished the time I had with both of my children. The existence of the El maternity and El parental programs makes that a possibility for so many Canadians.

When we consider this legislation and the price tag that comes with becoming a new parent, it is important for us all to remember that El benefits are not equal to a person's regular pay. The basic benefit rate is 55% of his or her average weekly pay. That is only a little more than half of a person's regular pay. For parents who choose to extend their parental benefits to the maximum of 61 weeks under the new regulations, their benefit rate is reduced to 33% from 55%.

This means that while new parents are incurring new and additional costs, they are taking home less pay. Then, of the benefits that they do receive, they do not get to keep all of it. As it stands, every Canadian who collects benefits through these programs pays federal taxes on them. Their take-home benefit is being taxed. Some parents are also slapped with a tax bill when they file their taxes.

The parental EI program has some new flexibility, in that parents can choose to extend the length of their parental leave. For many parents this is positive, and the option to stay at home with their child in these early years is preferred. However, this new flexibility has not provided more income to parents. Extended leave means that parents have even less income over an extended period of time. It is great that there is a desire to make these programs more flexible. What we cannot forget is that there are expenses at home regardless. For many parents, this choice may be unaffordable. If that is the case, then it really is not a choice that is available to them.

Rather than just making the parental leave longer, let us also remove the federal tax from these benefits. Let us take a real step to put more money back into the pockets of hard-working Canadians. Let us help offset the cost of a parent who decides to take leave from work to be with their infant. Let us not tax the dollars of taxpayers twice. That is not fair.

With the support of this House, this legislation could deliver significant support to Canadian parents of a newborn or an adopted child. To give an example of the support this legislation would deliver, a Canadian parent with an annual salary of $50,000 would be eligible for a tax credit of $4,000, and $4,000 can go a long way. Depending on where they shop, a box of 128 diapers will cost them, give or take, over $35. With $4,000 more in their pocket, they can buy a lot of diapers.

What this legislation is really offering Canadians is the ability to better meet their family's needs. It takes off some of the financial pressures of becoming a new parent and allows for more flexibility to spend precious bonding time with their children.

I am happy to stand up and support of this legislation. Conservatives are committed to delivering meaningful support to Canadian families. On this side of the House, we understand that the cost of raising a family can really add up and that for many Canadians it is not easy to make ends meet. We know that is particularly true for new parents who are facing new experiences and new expenses with less income.

The legislation we are considering today is an opportunity to support these new parents. It is a chance to strengthen families by giving them financial support when they need it most. When we put more of their hard-earned money back into their pockets, it means they have more money to spend on their priorities. They do not need the government to spend it on their behalf.

We have seen the Liberal government's reckless spending. It only ends up costing Canadian taxpayers more and more. This money is better in the pockets of Canadians. Moms and dads work hard to make ends meet, and they know what their family's needs are. They deserve to keep more of their hard-earned money.

The supporting new parents bill would help a lot of Canadian families. I hope that it will find support on all sides of the House.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House to speak tonight on behalf of my wonderful riding of Saint John—Rothesay.

The riding is a wonderful riding, but is a story of two situations. It is a story of tremendous business wealth and success, and there is a lot of entrepreneurship. It is also a riding that unfortunately leads the country in child poverty and has a very high poverty rate, way above the national average.

In the past election in 2015, I wanted to be a champion, a voice, an advocate for those who needed help but did not have a loud voice, especially here in Ottawa. When I started going door to door in 2015, people told me that the Conservative Party had boutique tax credits, credits that were targeted to a very select segment of the population. The boutique tax credits were there to help someone take ballet lessons or help a family send their kids to piano lessons or play hockey.

The reality is that Bill C-394 is another feeble attempt at a Harper-era tax credit. The credit does not target working families. The credit is not skewed toward reality, and it leaves hundreds of thousands of our children in poverty. The party opposite, with its boutique tax credits, likes to talk about being there for families and being there to give back. For some reason, the party is not there to represent the working-class families that are living in poverty.

The universal child care benefit was for everyone. Whether people made $200,000 or $15,000, they received the same amount. How was that fair? To add to that, it was taxed. Conservatives were taking money back from families that needed it the most; we want to bring children and families out of poverty.

When I went door to door, people were amazed at the audacity of the universal child care benefit. It did not help families that needed it the most. It was a boutique tax credit. We remember during the election the member for Carleton going around in his Conservative golf shirt to communities to hand out tax credits. It was called “Christmas in July”. That did not resonate with Canadians. It did not resonate with people in my riding of Saint John—Rothesay.

The first week that I started campaigning for the honour of being a member of Parliament, I went door to door in our priority neighbourhoods, such as Crescent Valley, family by family. People talked about not being able to afford to live. They could not afford to heat their houses or buy groceries. They could not afford books for their children to go to school. It is great to have a boutique tax credit to take kids to ballet or to piano lessons, but people across this country were forgotten by the party opposite for 10 years. People were trying to survive week in and week out with the necessities of life.

Yes, I am a proud Liberal. Yes, I believe that the Liberal Party and federal governments have a duty, an obligation, to provide good national transitional programs, especially for those in need. The Canada child benefit is that program. It is changing lives. It is lifting hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty from coast to coast to coast. When I go door to door now, people are so appreciative that our government came forth with a program that is actually having an impact on their lives. With the Canada child benefit, nine out of 10 families have the extra help they need, month in and month out, to pay for things like healthy food, summer camps, back-to-school clothes, and the necessities of life. That is one of the biggest differences between our party and the party opposite. We believe that we can do good things for Canadians.

I know the members of the party opposite like to wrap themselves up in “We are there for everybody—we are there for the middle class and we are there for people who live in poverty”, but let us talk about the tax-free savings account as an example.

The tax-free savings account was a program that was maxed out by 3% of Canadians, yet the party opposite wanted to double that tax-free savings account for Canadians, for the masses. However, it was not for the masses; it was for a select few. If we have hear it once, we hear 10 times a week that this party is mortgaging the future. Even before I ran in politics, I remember listening to Power and Politics one night when the finance minister of the party opposite was interviewed. He was asked how the Conservatives were going to pay for doubling the tax-free savings account. He replied, “Don't worry about it. It's okay. The Prime Minister's grandchildren or great-grandchildren can pay for that. We'll pass that down the road.”

I remember sitting there in amazement that a finance minister of the party opposite could actually say that he was mortgaging our children's and our children's children's future to double the tax-free savings account, which targeted a very narrow scope of Canadians.

Bill C-394 does the very same thing. It targets a very narrow sector of Canadians. That is why, as a government, we believe in national programs like a national poverty reduction strategy, historic investments in affordable housing, historic investments in child care and early learning, and especially the Canada child benefit.

As I alluded to earlier, my riding leads the country in child poverty. I take great pride in knowing that in my riding, that needle is starting to move to the left because of wonderful programs like the Canada child benefit.

Members of the party opposite have said that they are listening to Canadians and Quebeckers. I know the Leader of the Opposition has a website called “Listening to Quebecers” and that they are in favour of Quebec jurisdictional rights. Well, we are here to listen to Canadians. We believe our programs are the right programs. We will stand behind our programs and do that day in and day out for the betterment of all Canadians.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am proud to support the bill to help new parents introduced by my colleague, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, who is also the leader of our party and, hopefully, the next Prime Minister of Canada.

Our leaders' proposal is very appealing because it is a reflection of the reality we are faced with. In their last budget, the Liberals boasted that they lowered taxes for Canadian families. It is even written in a document put out by the Government of Canada. Well, that is not true, and I am not the only one saying so. The people watching sometimes wonder who is telling the truth. I would refer them to the Fraser Institute, an independent Canadian organization that assesses economic policies.

With the Liberals in power, Canadian families are paying $840 more in taxes because the government eliminated income splitting and tax credits for sports, educational activities, and public transit. The Liberals are also introducing a carbon tax, but they cannot tell us to what extent this will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We had a useful tool to reward people who take the bus, but that tax credit was eliminated by the Liberals.

The Liberals also got rid of tax credits for textbooks and education. That really stings. My mother is a teacher, and I am sure she is disappointed in the Liberals for cutting measures that encouraged parents to buy educational materials for their kids. That is the truth of it.

This government goes on and on about giving more to families and cutting taxes, but that is not actually true. No wonder then that it is opposed to a bill that would give more money back to families. It is their own money, after all, not money that grew on trees, not money they borrowed. We know how much the Liberals love borrowing money. They have hit $17 billion and they are not stopping. They promised modest deficits, but that is now out the window. They got us into such a fix that Canada will not likely see a balanced budget again for decades. That is regrettable because we are a wealthy, resource-rich nation.

As we saw again this week, the Liberals cannot seem to attract private investment. They scare off anyone wanting to invest in our energy resources sector. The only way they could think of to develop the energy sector was to borrow money to buy a company and send all that money to Texas with nary a foot of pipeline built. I am talking about the infamous Trans Mountain project. That is where we stand today.

Our leader is proposing concrete measures. Getting families to stop paying tax on tax is what is at the heart of this private member's bill. I am sure that my colleagues will agree on this. The government is not only taxing families, but it is also taxing the benefits it is giving those families. Our leader says that it is time to fix this situation and give families a break. That is exactly what this private member's bill before us seeks to do. It addresses a very special time in many peoples' lives, including my own, when they become parents. It represents a new life and a child, but also a great deal of responsibility.

Madam Speaker, I imagine that you experienced this and you know that everything happens all at once. You have to buy a stroller, paint the bedroom, and buy furniture and a high chair. My children are all grown up now and I am closer in age to being a grandfather than a new parent.

It is a wonderful time, but it is often young people who are just entering the workforce, who are struggling to make ends meet, and who are sleep deprived. It is a critical time in peoples' lives and we want parents to be able to devote their time to taking care of their children and taking care of themselves during these precious moments.

They need a break. They do not need to be squeezed by the government for even more money.

At the federal level, maternity and parental benefits are provided through employment insurance, but in Quebec, they are provided by the Quebec parental insurance plan. The bill proposes that, in both cases, the government not tax the benefits parents receive while they take care of their families.

It is very simple. I am surprised that my colleagues are opposing this measure. We want to leave money in parents' pockets. They earned it and were already taxed, so why tax the benefit income they receive?

The Conservatives believe that people should come before government. This is how we managed to lower taxes on families before the current government came in. We also managed to do so while balancing the budget and lowering greenhouse gas emissions. That is what you call sustainable development.

The measure our leader is proposing would help parents keep their money and avoid being taxed a second time when they want to spend time with their families. This bill was introduced on February 1 and would represent a tax break for young families.

As members know, we currently have a labour shortage in Canada. My colleague from the Thetford Mines region surely has an experience similar to mine. In Chaudière-Appalaches, there is full employment. Everyone is hiring. We want to attract immigrants, people from all over, and young families who will be able to meet these challenges. This is a good time to have children, because there are some great job opportunities in our country. There will be a deficit, but with the help of Canadians, we will be able to eliminate it, since our leader does not want the government to become insolvent.

Let us go back to the bill that is before us. Its goal is to support new parents and prevent double taxation. It will give a break to families who are on parental leave by giving them a tax break on all income earned under federal EI maternity and parental benefits or under the Quebec parental insurance plan.

Simply put, we want to leave more money in young parents' pockets when they need it the most, that is, when they start a family.

The sums of money are actually quite substantial. For example, for a family income of $50,000, which is not a lot, the potential tax break amounts to $4,000. This significant measure will help families in Quebec and everywhere else.

Basically, we have two opposing views. On one side, the government thinks that budgets balance themselves or that money grows on trees, and throws money around willy-nilly without thinking of the future. On the other side, we are saying that we need to find ways for parents to keep more of their hard-earned money when they need it the most so that they can devote it to their families.

I therefore have no problem supporting the bill sponsored by our leader, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle. I hope the Liberals will experience a surge of good will towards young families and see that this makes sense. It is true that they did not think of it themselves, but perhaps they could support the bill instead of taking money away from these young families and sending it to Texas to buy a pipeline.

In closing, I want to point out that this pipeline was worth $550 million dollars in 2007 and was worth $2.5 billion at the time of purchase, according to the company's books, and yet the government has announced that it is going to pay $4.5 billion for it. That is a lot of money to be tossing out the window that could have been used to buy strollers and decorate nurseries. I deplore this Liberal incompetence.

I support this bill, which will put more money in the pockets of Canadian families.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Before I recognize the next speaker, I just want to indicate that, unfortunately, I will have to cut the debate short at 6:30. I will now recognize the member for Calgary Rocky Ridge.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, I had prepared a number of remarks on this bill. I believe very strongly in the bill and think it is excellent. It should be supported by the House.

Family is dear to the heart of the leader of the opposition, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle. From his own experience, he knows the challenges of raising a young family. It was really disappointing to hear the debate on this bill, and hear what sounded more like excuses than reasons not to support the bill. We heard the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance talk about all kinds of things that had nothing to do with the substance of the bill, and that is disappointing.

This bill is a private member's bill, and it is subject to the limitations of private members' business. It is not able to address every challenge of raising a family. This bill seeks to reduce the tax burden on people who are working and who have to make a decision about how best to spend time with their baby. It enables the parents of newborns to at least reduce their tax burden by eliminating the income tax from their maternity or paternity benefit. What is wrong with that?

This is private members' business; it is unable to solve every problem. We heard excuses about people who do not pay income tax or people who are self-employed. Indeed, these other people have enormous challenges. We cannot fix everyone's issue and we cannot solve everything through a single private member's bill. It is disappointing to hear the excuses that came up in the debate on this bill and the unwillingness to support it.

This bill help reduce taxes on young families, who are confronted with a multitude of costs and expenses at a vulnerable time of life. We are talking about a number of young people who are, in many cases, at the beginning of their careers, young people who have an enormous amount of expenses related to everything from diapers to high chairs to car seats. Those are along with all of the other things that make life expensive, like the cost of housing.

Of course, the most expensive part about life for many Canadians is taxes. This reduces taxes to help young parents be with their children after a baby is born.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It being 6:30 p.m., the time provided for debate has expired.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to an order made on Tuesday, May 29, 2018, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, June 6, 2018, at the expiry of the time provided for oral questions.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill S-228, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (prohibiting food and beverage marketing directed at children), as reported from the committee.

Child Health Protection Act

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

It being 6:31 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30(7), the House will now proceed to the consideration of Bill S-228 under private members' business.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

There being no motions at report stage, the House will now proceed without debate to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to an order made on Tuesday, May 29, 2018, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, June 6, 2018, at the expiry of the time provided for oral questions.

[For continuation of proceedings see Part B]

[Continuation of proceedings from Part A]

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-74, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 2018 and other measures, be read the third time and passed, and of the amendment.

Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 1

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to resume debate on Bill C-74.

In the first part of my speech, I presented some interesting arguments to show how the government had no qualms about using time allocation motions last week to prevent members on this side of the House from debating the budget bill longer. However, it is a most important bill for all our constituents.

The mandate letters of the various ministers were made public, and now there is a document entitled, “Mandate Letter Tracker: Delivering results for Canadians”, which is a government report card. With regard to the government's promise to balance the budget in 2019-20, the anticipated result was to balance the budget over the long-term and continue to reduce the debt-to-GDP ratio. The government says that results are “underway - with challenges” and it gives itself a good mark, even though the Parliamentary Budget Officer and the Department of Finance are saying that, the way things are going, the government will not balance the budget until 2045. It is absolutely unbelievable. I hope that someone will change that report card to read, “underway with no hope of success” or even “in jeopardy” if we are talking about the current government's economy. I think that “in jeopardy” would be the most appropriate term, not with regard to the Liberals' promise but with regard to the way they are managing our country and government.

They made another big promise. I remember being very impressed, because it was the first Speech from the Throne I had ever attended as a new MP. We filed into the Senate to hear the Governor General deliver the throne speech. One sentence from that speech stayed with me, “...that 2015 will be the last federal election conducted under the first-past-the-post voting system.” I remember quite well that this was going to be the last election to use that voting method.

This bill is so long and covers so many different subjects that we already did not have enough time to talk about them all. The government decided to include so many things in its budget that, unfortunately, many of us will not have the chance to share our constituents' points of view. However, that is typical of what we have been seeing from this government since it took office in 2015. It makes a lot of promises, but it hardly ever keeps any of them. Case in point, they should not be resorting to omnibus bills that include everything but the kitchen sink. That was one of the promises the Liberals made. Unfortunately, since 2015, the Liberals have imposed 38 time allocation motions to silence opposition members, but it is not just opposition members they are silencing.

The important thing to understand is that cutting off the opposition MPs does not mean the government MPs get more speaking time on these bills. The Liberals outnumber us, so when they pass such a motion, they are depriving more Canadians of their right to have their representative speak in the House. This is completely consistent with the way the government has been running this country since taking office in 2015.

There are many other promises that the government has not kept, such as the promise to post modest deficits. The Liberals practically got elected on that promise. They promised to kick-start the economy by posting very modest deficits, not for very long, just a year or two. They promised to reduce the deficits after that and to balance the budget in 2019-20. These are not my words, they are the government's own words.

What happened next? The Liberals realized that reforming the system would lose them votes. Some Canadians would not vote for them. The reform they had in mind would not have benefited them, so they scrapped the idea.

That's another promise they waved away as though it were something off-putting. The worst part is that they made a committee do a lot of work on it. They made a lot of people work on it. They even set up a website to find out what Canadians were thinking. All of that money was spent for nothing. Once they settled into the government benches, the Liberals' plan for change vanished. They were well aware that the changes Canadians wanted would not work in their favour.

We can forget about greater transparency, as well. In a few minutes, I will talk about the secret they are keeping about the carbon tax and what it will really cost every Canadian family and every Canadian farm. They do not want Canadians to know.

How much will the carbon tax cost Canadian farms? We have asked that question in the House more times than I can count, but we never get an answer. We know the numbers exist. We saw a very nice document that explains how the carbon tax will affect average families. Unfortunately, those are the only legible words in the report. The rest was all redacted and hidden. They are keeping that secret. It seems the promise of greater transparency has gone out the window.

The Liberals also promised not to resort to muzzling the opposition. I am going to skip over that, since I talked about it earlier. I think it is pretty clear.

They promised they would not negotiate away one litre of milk, one egg, or one chicken to the Americans. They promised to protect supply management in all negotiations. What happened? Unfortunately, the Prime Minister does not pay attention to what is said here. He is not interested in what is said here. He is not interested in what the Minister of Finance thinks. He is not interested in what the Minister of International Development and La Francophonie told us here today. When the Prime Minister is speaking to Americans rather than Canadians, he tells the truth, he says what he really thinks. What he said is that he is willing to be more flexible in terms of allowing Americans access to the Canadian dairy market. That is the reality.

On this side of the House, we continue to insist that we need to maintain and protect supply management. Yes, the Liberals are protecting the current system, but there will be nothing left to protect once they are through with it. How much will they trade away to the Americans? Will it be 2%, 4%, or 10%, to save face for the Prime Minister, because he could not reach a deal on NAFTA with them? That is the real question.

We know that this government has a spending problem. When something is not working, it tends to take taxpayers' money to try to fix its own mistakes. We saw this with Kinder Morgan. The government is spending $4.5 billion. It could have done something 18 months ago, when the pipeline was approved, but it did nothing. It could have done something 11 months ago, when the B.C. government clearly expressed its opposition to the pipeline, but it did nothing.

Suddenly he wakes up, realizes there is a problem and that the project will not move forward, and he wonders what to do next.

Instead of taking action, the Liberals decided to pick taxpayers' pockets. It is money that we do not have because the money does not exist. We are already in debt and running a deficit. We are sending this money to the U.S. to let this company build pipelines that will compete with the future pipeline owned by all Canadians, here in Canada. Furthermore, we are buying an aging 60-year-old pipeline. There is no talk of expansion yet, even though the bill that was approved was for the expansion of Kinder Morgan. The $4.5 billion will not expand anything, it will only buy old tubes. In order for this to function, we are going to have to invest another $7 billion, according to the company's estimates.

Thanks to my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent, we learned today that the book value of this 60-year-old pipeline is not $4.5 billion but $2.5 billion. That is the company's evaluation. However, the government decided to pay $4.5 billion. This is completely consistent with the government's way of thinking: it spends without counting taxpayers' money and says that it is all right to spend more because it already has a deficit. That is not right. It will make all the difference to the services that our children will be able to access in 10, 20, or 30 years. They will not be able to access services because all we will have are deficits and debts to pay. That is how this government operates.

The Liberals can oppose the excellent bill introduced by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, which would give more money to young families. They can oppose it and say that they are doing this and that for our young people, and that it is a very targeted tax credit.

Of course, the Liberals cannot support the opposition on a good bill like that. However, they can fork out $4.5 billion for a pipeline that already exists. That does not even include the expansion. The budget was a reflection of this government's management style.

I am the agriculture and agri-food shadow minister, so I would be remiss if I did not take a little time to talk about what budget 2018 has in terms of agriculture. Nothing. There is absolutely nothing in budget 2018 in terms of agriculture. This clearly shows that agriculture is not a priority for the Liberal government.

I figured that I had surely missed something in a budget with so many pages. I rose and asked the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food about what agricultural measures were in budget 2018. The minister rose and started talking about measures adopted in budget 2017, saying that budget 2018 was a good budget for farmers. This shows that the Liberals are completely disconnected from the reality facing farmers.

There are a few local issues we would have liked to see addressed in Bill C-74. In Thetford Mines, for example, we have the Fonds Christian Paradis, which seeks to diversify our regional economy.

The government decided to ban the use of asbestos in Canada. However, there is still a pile of mine tailings in Thetford Mines. The city is surrounded by it. Asbestos is prohibited, but the mine tailings are left there as though nothing happened.

Millions of dollars are available to clean up mining land in uninhabited areas, but when it comes to cleaning up mining land in urban areas where people live, there is nothing. The government needs to assume responsibility for these decisions and make sure that when it decides to shut down an industry that it helps the town return to normal and repair years of mining development. Many governments benefited greatly over all those years from the royalties from asbestos mining.

I wanted to talk about broadband Internet. Despite the programs in place, we still have a lot of problems in our regions. I would have liked a firm decision stating that the Internet is an essential service in every region of Canada. We cannot get far without the Internet these days. Imagine someone who is thinking about buying a house in Piopolis or in Woburn. He is so pleased to have found his dream home. He grabs his cellphone to talk to his wife, to tell her to come see it, but there is no cell signal. The house will stay where it is and he will not buy it.

In closing, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Provencher:

That the amendment be amended by adding the following: “and that the Committee report back to the House no later than June 15, 2018.”

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The motion is in order.

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

Madam Speaker, before we went into private members' hour, my colleague across the way was talking about the issue of time allocation and so forth. Yesterday we spent four or five hours on a reference to a standing committee being able to travel. The other day we had a concurrence motion on one of many different reports.

The opposition has quite a few tools it can use to prevent government from passing legislation. The Conservatives do not want us to pass any legislation, so they move subamendments and amendments to everything. They have even adjourned debate on bills. Conservative members will do whatever it takes to prevent the government from getting its legislation passed. That is why, when I was in opposition, I said that we need time allocation at times.

I wonder if my colleague could provide his thoughts on some of the Conservative tactics to do everything but allow things to come to a vote.