Debates of April 11th, 2019

Oral Questions

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I did not hear it, but I think the hon. member is seeking unanimous consent. I see her nodding that she is.

Does the hon. member for Vancouver East have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order. Today during question period, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food misled the House by insinuating that today was the first time I became interested in the canola issue because I was asking a question about it today.

This will be my eighth time asking for the unanimous consent of the House to discuss this, so for the eighth time, I hereby seek the unanimous consent of the House to hold an emergency debate on canola this evening.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order that is very similar to my colleague's.

Since the Minister of Agriculture said she was now seized with the canola matter and fully aware of it, I hope that finally our colleagues on the Liberal benches will agree to have an emergency debate.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I think we already know the answer to that and we are getting into debate.

It is now time for the usual Thursday question.

The hon. member for Chilliwack—Hope.

Business of the House

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the official opposition, we certainly want to send our best wishes to the member for Oakville North—Burlington and also thank everyone who came to her aid at the time. It was good to see her walk out of the House under her own strength.

I want to take this opportunity to wish everyone a Happy Easter during our time away.

I would like to ask the Government House Leader if she could give to the House the projected order of business for the remainder of this week and then for the week following the two weeks in our constituencies.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will resume debate at second reading of Bill C-97, the budget implementation act, 2019. Tomorrow we will continue with debate on the BIA.

The Monday following our return from the two weeks in our ridings will be an opposition day.

Tuesday we will resume debate at second reading of the budget bill.

I also want to reiterate the comments of the Conservative whip on behalf of the Prime Minister as well as the Government of Canada to all members and to all Canadians who are celebrating. Happy Easter.

Statements by Minister of National Revenue

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to respond to the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Chilliwack—Hope on April 10, 2019 with respect to statements made by the Minister of National Revenue.

My hon. colleague argued that by stating on numerous occasions that 1,300 new auditors were hired, the minister wilfully misled the House.

The hon. opposition member quoted an article from Le Journal de Montréal published on April 5, 2019, and argued that since the total number of auditors has grown from 6,265 to 6,457 since January 1, 2016, then the 1,300 number is erroneous and consequentially the minister misled the House.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states at page 516:

In most instances, when a point of order or a question of privilege has been raised in regard to a response to an oral question, the Speaker has ruled that the matter is a disagreement among Members over the facts surrounding the issue, and as such, is a matter of debate and not a breach of the rules or of privilege.

The facts are clear. Looking at the numbers, we see that in 2016, 440 new auditors were hired. In 2017, it was 394. Finally, in 2018, there were 555 hired. This brings us to 1,389 new auditors between January 1, 2016 and January 1, 2019, which is consistent with what the minister has been saying inside and outside the House.

As such, I believe this is a dispute as to the facts, and it does not constitute a prima facie question of privilege.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for his arguments. I will come back to the House in due course.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-97, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2019 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Budget Implementation Act, 2019, No. 1

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance has 11 minutes left to finish his speech.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to pick up where I left off on the budget implementation bill.

I was talking about the importance of having a skilled workforce and giving Canadians the opportunity to find and acquire skills to adapt to the fast-changing employment market.

Technology changes the nature of work and it is evolving rapidly. That represents a new challenge for Canadian workers, who must get the necessary training to keep their existing jobs or prepare to meet new challenges. The jobs of tomorrow will require more skills, and workers will need to be more flexible throughout their careers.

Budget 2019 will help workers find the time and money they need to improve their skills by introducing such measures as the Canada training benefit. This benefit will help Canadians cover the cost of training.

We are working with the provinces and territories on establishing new labour provisions to protect jobs when workers leave on training.

Our government also wants to make sure that Canada's seniors have more money in their pockets when they retire. After a lifetime of raising children, supporting their families, building strong communities and growing the economy, we want our seniors to know they are not forgotten. Canadian seniors deserve a secure and dignified retirement, free of financial worries. With budget 2019, our government is making new investments to help make retirement more financially secure for more Canadians. For instance, many older Canadians want to stay active and involved in their communities through work, but they face significant reductions in their guaranteed income supplement, the GIS, or allowance benefits for each dollar of income above the current $3,500 earnings exemption. Those who are self-employed do not have access to the current exemption. Therefore, with Bill C-97, our government proposes to enhance the GIS earnings exemption by providing a full or partial exemption on up to $15,000 and extending it to self-employment income. That means more money in the pockets of eligible working seniors.

We also want to make sure that our seniors do not live in isolation, especially when faced with ageism or poor health. To combat this, budget 2019 will further its support to the new horizons for seniors program. The program supports projects that improve the quality of life for Canada's vulnerable seniors, creating more opportunities for seniors to be active in their communities. Specifically, budget 2019 is proposing additional funding of $100 million over five years, with $20 million per year ongoing for the program.

Furthermore, as announced in budget 2019 and in this bill, our government has proposed measures to ensure that seniors keep more money in their pockets and receive Canada pension plan benefits. These changes will proactively enrol contributors who are age 70 or older in 2020 but have not yet applied to receive their retirement benefit.

The Canada Pension Plan is a pillar of Canada's retirement system. It gives workers a secure, predictable benefit in retirement. Workers have to apply for CPP benefits, but some eligible seniors apply late or not at all. This change will ensure that they get it no matter what.

Finally, we believe that everyone deserves to have peace of mind when it comes to their retirement, especially people who have worked for their whole lives to help a company try to stay afloat. However, in recent years, the security of some workplace pensions has been challenged due to company bankruptcies, leaving pensioners out in the cold. That is why, following consultations with Canadians, budget 2019 proposes to introduce new measures to enhance the security of workplace pensions in the event of corporate insolvency. These measures, which are part of Bill C-97, would make insolvency proceedings fairer, set higher expectations for corporate behaviour and protect the hard-earned benefits of Canadians.

I am thankful for the opportunity to talk about Bill C-97 and how our government continues to work to strengthen Canada's middle class and those people working hard to join it. The measures I have highlighted today reflect the priorities of hard-working Canadians, regardless of the stage of life they are in. By voting in favour of this BIA, we are voting yes to affordable and accessible housing, a cleaner and safer environment, and a dignified retirement for those who have worked so diligently to deserve it.

It is worth reiterating that this BIA is entirely consistent with our government's agenda, an agenda that differs significantly from the former government's.

We are steering Canada in a direction that will truly reduce inequality. The previous government had very little interest in this important societal objective, namely reducing inequality in this country. On the contrary, during the Harper decade, inequality in Canada actually increased.

The gap between the wealthy and the rest of the population widened. When we were elected in 2015, our goal was to undo the damage caused to Canadian society. I think we have been very successful. Notably, poverty has been reduced by 20% over the past three years, which is huge. That is not easily done. This has been a lengthy process undertaken in concert with my colleagues, the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development, the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister, among others. The government tackled it with bold measures that are now paying off.

What were those measures? First, we had to cancel some of the tax breaks the previous government had implemented, tax breaks that invariably benefited only the rich. One example is the tax-free savings account, or TFSA. The Conservatives increased the contribution limit on these accounts to $11,000 during their last year in power.

According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer and almost all the economists who were consulted at the time of the change, the TFSA was putting the government in a difficult fiscal position. The government would ultimately lose out of a large amount of revenue needed to fulfill its essential duties. The measure also very clearly benefited the highest-earning Canadians. A simple calculation shows that very few Canadians have $11,000 a year to invest in a TFSA after paying their taxes.

The man who invented this investment vehicle said at the time that this would eventually put Canada in a fiscal straitjacket. Stephen Harper's government simply did not care—not that reducing inequality was one of its priorities. This was the first measure we reviewed.

We also reviewed certain boutique tax credits, which the Parliamentary Budget Officer analyzed and found to also benefit the 10% or 15% wealthiest Canadians.

Furthermore, we completely reformed the family benefits system by creating the Canada child benefit, which, unlike the previous benefit system, gives more to those who need it most. We stopped sending cheques to millionaire families and made the benefit tax free, which was not the case under the former government.

We now know that this has had a direct impact on the lives of hundreds of thousands of Canadians. It has reduced child poverty in Canada by 40%. Indeed, 300,000 children have been lifted out of poverty. I want to reiterate that that is something that all Canadians should be proud of.

Contrary to the direction in which it was going before the Liberal government took office, over the past three years, Canada has been clearly and firmly on the path toward reducing inequality and creating much more inclusive prosperity. Speaking of prosperity, I have to say that these measures also created growth. Although Canada was in a recession in 2015, it had the highest growth in the G7 in 2017. Canada was among the best in 2018 and, according to projections, we are still in a very good position since 900,000 jobs have been created over the past three years and the unemployment rate is the lowest it has been in nearly 40 years. That is what comes of having a vision and ambitions for the country, things that were sorely lacking for a decade.

Take, for example, investments in science. My riding is privileged to be home to Laval University, which is a leader in the field of research in the Quebec City area, Quebec and Canada. One just has to wander the hallways of Laval University and talk to the researchers there to see just how lean the years from 2006 to 2015 were for them. There was not enough funding for research. When researchers and the scientific community are deprived of the funding they need to do their work, it closes the door on innovation in the long term.

There are all kinds of Laval University spin-offs in my region and across the country. Those companies are economic superstars that hire thousands of Quebeckers and Canadians to do high-value-added jobs. That was made possible because past governments have had the courage, vision, intelligence and wisdom to invest in the sciences. That was on hold for 10 years under Stephen Harper, but has been reinvigorated thanks to government measures of the past three years. Budget 2018 contained the biggest investment in science and research in this country's history. I find it so hard to believe—well, maybe not that hard—that opposition parties, especially the Conservatives, would vote against measures like this that lay the groundwork for long-term prosperity, for innovation in this country, for a thriving knowledge economy and for a more just and responsible society where inequality is on a steady decline. That is what the government has been working toward for the past three years. Our plan is working, and it is working very well.

I think budget 2019 and Bill C-97, the budget implementation bill, are fully consistent with those goals. Our budget supports seniors and youth, and we continue to invest strategically to protect the environment and foster innovation.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, former parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Health and hon. member for Louis-Hébert, with whom I will very likely have the great pleasure and good fortune of debating over the coming months, in September and October, during the election campaign.

I have a lot to say, but I will take things one step at a time. He said something I want to come back to. I took notes. I may be misquoting, but he said something about sending money where it is needed.

Let us talk about that. Let us talk about sending money where it is needed. A few days ago, his government decided to take $12 million of taxpayers' money and give it in the form of a subsidy to a company that raked in more than $3 billion in gross profits last year. It is good to want to buy new refrigerators, but it makes no sense for a company that has more than $3 billion in the bank to get $12 million from Canadian workers in a taxpayer-funded subsidy.

Does the hon. member stand by what he said about sending money where it is needed? Sending $12 million of workers' money to a company with $3 billion in gross profits, is that what he means by sending money where it is needed?

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think that my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, gave a very good explanation that answers the member's question.

First of all, it is not surprising to see the Conservatives oppose any measure that would protect the environment and combat climate change. That is what they did for 10 years, and they are still doing it. They oppose putting a price on pollution. I was surprised to see the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent so enthusiastically applauding his colleagues who want to make pollution free in Canada. If I am not mistaken, he was in the National Assembly when Quebec adopted the carbon exchange. He is fighting against a tax on pollution, against an idea that he himself championed, or at least I assume he did, when he was in the National Assembly.

If it is good for Quebec, why would it be bad for the rest of the country? How is Quebec's taking responsibility for the environment bad for the rest of the country? I have a really hard time understanding that. However, my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change, explained it very well.

As for the $12 million, the decision was made after careful consideration. The company will invest $36 million in the project, the impact of which will be equivalent to removing 50,000 vehicles from the roads.

Since we are talking about investing money where people need it the most, and where it is required, let's talk about the Canada child benefit, which sends $68 million to 12,500 families in his riding. It provides an average tax-free amount of $5,000 a year to these families and he voted against it. Why?

For the past three years, I have watched him get all worked up over the public transit tax credit. How much did the public transit tax credit yield? It provided between $13 and $25 a month to those who had a Quebec City transit pass. That is his plan to fight poverty, whereas our plan gives $5,000 to every family in his riding.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his passion. I believe that he truly wants to reduce inequality.

I heard him speak about seniors, among other things. Less than two weeks ago, I held a round table for the people from the Table de concertation des aînés de Beauharnois-Salaberry. They told me that, sadly, seniors today are very vulnerable. In spite of what was announced in the budget, they did not seem to think that there was more assistance or resources, especially with respect to home care. Given that the health transfer increase was cut from 6% to 3% by the previous Conservative government and that the Liberals did not increase it in the past or in this budget, there is a shortage of funds, and yet, our population is still aging.

On top of that, still on the topic of health care, no additional resources, whether material or financial, are being offered to community organizations that help seniors stay in their homes. Seniors often have to choose between paying for all of their drugs every month or buying groceries. This is a real problem. In my region, people who work for meals on wheels programs tell us they cannot raise the price of a meal by even 50¢, because seniors would be forced to cut the number of meals they get, since they simply cannot afford to pay any more.

Why, then, does the budget not increase health transfers? Why does it not create a pharmacare system? All studies show that Canada would save between $3 billion and $11 billion a year in every budget if we had a single body to negotiate drug prices. Clearly, a number of measures are missing from this budget, measures that could have helped reduce inequality, especially for seniors.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

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

I agree with her completely that there is still work to do to reduce inequality. However, it is important to be fair in assessing our government's record over the past three years. We are not the ones saying so. According to Statistics Canada, poverty in this country has been reduced by 20% over the past three years. Some 800,000 people have been lifted out of poverty.

As for seniors, one of the first things we did when we took office was boost the guaranteed income supplement by 10%, which specifically aimed to help the most vulnerable seniors. This means almost $1,000 more every year for nearly one million seniors who are among the most vulnerable in the country.

I am particularly pleased about one measure in this latest budget that will help low-income seniors by increasing the guaranteed income supplement earnings exemption for employed or self-employed seniors who choose to work part-time. Right now, the full exemption is $3,500. We raised it to $5,000 and introduced a partial exemption for income above that amount up to a total of $15,000. This means more money at the end of the month for many seniors in Quebec and Canada because less of their benefit will be clawed back than was the case with the $3,500 exemption. FADOQ supports this part of the bill, and I encourage the NDP to support it too.

I would like to remind the House that, although we will keep health transfer increases to 3%, back when I was parliamentary secretary to the minister of health, we committed to transferring $11 billion over 10 years for mental health and home care. Factoring in that investment, which will be transferred to the provinces, including Quebec, the transfer payment increase is much higher than 3%.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance for finally getting us speaking about the budget after all the diversions we have had over the last few weeks.

The previous government added $153 billion to the national debt and there was little help for climate change initiatives, social housing, mental health or, in fact, the economy, which grew slower than it did under R.B. Bennett. When we look at the changing world around us, we need to address these issues.

I am very interested to hear comments from the parliamentary secretary relating to the way that jobs are changing, the nature of work and what we are doing to support work-integrated learning, support tuition for students and support parental leave for researchers at universities, things that get us into future prosperity and the jobs of the future. Could the parliamentary secretary talk about the vision of the future that this budget presents us?

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Guelph for his question. I truly appreciate it.

Budget 2019 reflects what we have been hearing everywhere in the country, whether it be from unions, employers or management, regarding the need for skilled workers and the need to offer workers opportunities to get the training and skills required to adapt to the changing job market. Budget 2019 allows workers to accumulate weeks that can be used for this training, and we will help pay them through the Canada workers benefit, so that they can adapt to a changing job market. This meets a need that we see in the Canadian economy of today. It will lay the foundation for sustainable economic prosperity in Canada, where we still do not have enough skilled workers to meet the job market's needs.

This is an ambitious measure that has been lauded by universities and training institutes. They support it and want to adapt their programs by offering training that will help Canadian workers who are seeking these kinds of skills and training.

I am very pleased to see that the government is aware of this reality and that it wants to give Canadians every opportunity to learn the skills they need to succeed in the modern economy.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to be sharing my time with the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes.

Due to the precedents that have been set in this budget debate, I am going to ask whether I have a 20-minute time slot to share or a four-day time slot. It's 20-minutes. Okay, thank you.

I am proud to represent the fine people of central Alberta. My colleague from Red Deer—Mountain View is beside me. We have unfortunately seen over the last three a half years, since the last election, probably some of the hardest times for all of Alberta since Pierre Elliott Trudeau was the prime minister of Canada. If anyone in central Alberta is asked what the issue is, it is the lack or loss of confidence in the investment climate surrounding the energy sector.

I want to take Canadians back to what happened. One of the very first things the government did after it was elected was to change the goalposts on the two pipeline projects, the energy east project at the time, and, of course, the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain expansion. There was the absolutely devastating notion of cancelling the already approved pipeline. We had over 30 of the 40 indigenous groups along the route, and the National Energy Board had already approved the pipeline. Enbridge was seeking to fulfill all of its 206 obligations under the agreement.

The northern gateway pipeline was the only pipeline going to the west coast that would diversify Canada's market when it comes to its oil products. The Trans Mountain expansion pipeline, should it ever get built, and we will discuss that in my speech further, will add capacity, but it will not diversify the markets. All of the tankers that currently come into the port of Vancouver to pick up the oil that is moved from the current Trans Mountain pipeline end up along the American west coast to be processed at the crude refineries there.

Anyone from the Liberal Party or the NDP provincially who suggests to Albertans and to Canadians that this pipeline is going to close the gap on the market price between the North American price of crude oil and the international price of crude oil is not being honest with Canadians.

Alberta has been devastated by the job losses in the energy environment. It has been over 130,000 jobs directly. These are jobs where there were people with payroll taxes. They were counted amongst the people who were laid off from a business. This does not include the numerous people who have not found work, who are self-employed contractors in the energy sector. I am not sure that anyone across the row here understands what that means.

These people would never show up on an unemployment list, because they are self-employed. They are contractors. They are the folks who would be employed at the very high end of the energy sector to be out on site and doing all the consultations. These are consultants who are out on the drilling pads, out doing all of the work. These are the ones with the most expertise in the energy sector. They too have had to dig deep into their savings, and many of them have exhausted those savings a long time ago. It is also anyone with a small business. There are only a few service companies left, the long-standing service companies, that have been able to withstand the economic pressures. Numerous small business have all but closed up their shops and gone in a different direction. A lot of them are leaving Alberta.

With regard to those Albertans who remain and are trying to find work, about one in three have managed to keep their jobs and the others are finding employment in places like Texas. When I was first elected as a member of Parliament to this House, there were two flights a day to both Edmonton and Calgary direct from Ottawa. Those flights would source out of Halifax or Montreal, and they would stop in Ottawa and continue on to Edmonton and/or Calgary. Those airports would serve me and my colleague equally well, because they are equidistance from Red Deer, which is in the heart of central Alberta.

Those planes used to be full of workers. They would all be wearing their firebag project jackets or their Kearl project jackets, and they would be coming from Atlantic Canada or from Quebec. Many, many workers were coming from Quebec, starting in Montreal. They were getting on Air Canada flight 104 on its way back to Alberta. I remember that number, as I took that flight for over a decade. Those people are not on those planes anymore, and the reason is that there is no expansion of the energy sector in Alberta. There are continuing operations for those projects that were already completed, but the reality is that the pipeline capacity is already there.

The other projects that were on the books, and there is over $100 billion worth of these projects, have been cancelled or shelved. That money has been taken elsewhere to invest in other countries, basically to compete against our current energy sector here in Canada. Those employees are no longer coming and that investment is no longer there. The pipeline capacity is at max, and the current price of oil makes railing oil uneconomical, especially when we saw the devastating oil prices at around $11 a barrel just a few months ago. This is for a sector of our economy that traditionally provides Canada with billions of dollars in revenue, which is shared among all the provinces through social transfers, the education transfer and likely even a good portion of it in equalization payments to other provinces.

I am proud to say that under the tenure when I was here, until the change of government in the last election, my province had not had to receive an equalization payment for the better part of 40 years. We had been a have-province. As a matter of fact, there have been times, because of the energy sector, that Alberta has been the only have-province in this confederation. However, it did not take very long for Premier Rachel Notley and the current government in Ottawa to put Alberta in a position where we had to beg for an emergency assistance transfer under the equalization program. I think it was a couple of hundred thousand dollars. I do not think it really amounted to a whole lot of difference other than a kind gesture.

Here is a sector of our economy that is typically producing billions of dollars of revenue, and not only corporate revenue, but also from employees, tens of thousands of workers. There were over 130,000 direct jobs lost, and probably another 30,000 or 40,000 of those consultants I talked about, people who are self-employed in the sector. Those jobs are all gone. On April 8, a few days ago, the industry came out with another forecast that is expecting another 12,500 jobs lost in the sector, most likely in Alberta.

Alberta is taking it on the chin, so much so that before Christmas, the government announced $1.6 billion for the energy sector. Imagine that happening in three short years when the energy sector has rebounded everywhere else. Albertans are now going to Texas or other places on the planet to work in the energy sector. Energy is booming. The United States used to be a net importer of Canadian energy; now the United States, because of its domestic policies, is in a position to export to Canada of all things. Here we are in this situation. We know that it cannot be the international price of energy anymore. We know it cannot be, because the energy sector is booming in other parts of the world, notably right next door to us in the United States. Therefore, it can only be government policy here in Canada that is causing this problem.

These job losses are catastrophic. If we take a look in the budget document today, we will see that there are millions of dollars allocated for consultation. The Prime Minister got up on his high horse and said that the previous government had it all wrong with the CETA 2012 and everything else, and that the government was going to create a process that guaranteed that pipeline projects would go ahead. What do we have? We have a project to the east coast that is dead in the water because of the regulatory burden and the quagmire that nobody in their right mind would ever subject stakeholder investment to. We have a cancelled northern gateway project that is likely never going to be reinstated by Enbridge. We have a group of indigenous people who are putting together the Eagle Spirit pipeline, which would follow a similar path as northern gateway.

We have Bill C-48, the northern coast tanker ban, which is only a tanker ban if that tanker happens to have Alberta oil on it. It is not a tanker ban for anybody else. LNG Canada is building a wonderful facility in Kitimat right now for liquefied natural gas, and we wish it the best of luck. We think that is a fantastic opportunity for the people there as well.

However, we are left with the Trans Mountain expansion from Kinder Morgan. The government has botched that so much and so badly that it had to take $4.5 billion of Canadian taxpayers' money to buy a 65-year-old existing pipeline and the rights to continue to develop the Trans Mountain expansion itself. We know from the documents, which Kinder Morgan has publicly announced, that the Government of Canada likely paid $1 billion more for that pipeline project than it should have paid. All we have in the budget out of the $1.6 billion that was promised before Christmas are a few million dollars to continue on with consultations.

In the budget document that I have been able to look at and examine, not one dollar is allocated to putting a shovel in the ground to build the Kinder Morgan Trans-Mountain expansion. Until we can change the mind of the current government on how it is approaching the energy sector, the only hope we have in Alberta is a change in the government.

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

Mr. Speaker, as someone who has had the opportunity to serve in the Canadian Forces, having been posted in Edmonton at the old Lancaster Park, having a family, including my mother and siblings who have lived in the province of Alberta, and as someone who was raised in the Prairies, there is an immense sense of prairie pride there. I like to think that the people who are living in the Prairies appreciate living in a wonderful country like Canada. I am often discouraged by some of the comments I hear from the Conservatives about the province of Alberta. It is as if they want to see more division. That discourages me. I would suggest to the member opposite that there is value in being able to say “I am Canadian”, and that applies throughout the Prairies.

When the member said that the federal government has not invested, I would suggest that this government has invested far more energy and resources in Alberta than Stephen Harper ever did. I would suggest that the member take a look at one example in this budget. Hundreds of millions of dollars are being put into municipal infrastructure from gas, which in Winnipeg is something like $37 million. That also applies to every municipality in the province of Alberta. Is he going to be voting against that initiative?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Speaker, you have been a member of Parliament here for as long as I have. You were here from 2006 to 2015, as was I. There were never many conversations in this place about national unity. I did not bring up anything about national unity in my speech. I do not know why the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader is bringing it up. He is perhaps hearing it from other people, maybe even in Manitoba.

We did not have those issues, because we had a government that governed from 2006 to 2015 on behalf of all Canadians. We had a prime minister who took seriously all of the responsibilities across all of the sectors and regions of this country. So far, we have lost over 150,000 jobs in the energy sector. We know that can only be government policy. The farmers I represent have lost wheat access to Saudi Arabia. They have lost lentil access into India. Now they have lost canola access into China because of the fumbling of international affairs by the current Prime Minister and the government.

There is not a single mention in the budget to deal with the rise in the rates of crime, particularly rural crime and the crime that is happening in the city of Red Deer right now.

I am looking forward to the report from the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security to see just how seriously the current government is taking the issues that are important to Albertans.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Mr. Speaker, having glanced over the budget implementation act in trying to find something for agriculture, the one thing I did find were the effects of bankruptcy. That was the only thing that pertained to agriculture, as it looks at specific farming and fishing income and tries to somehow work that into the tax bills. Unfortunately, that is what it is coming to with the way in which the current government is looking at our agricultural community. I wonder if the member could talk about some of the concerns, especially the concerns that the canola producers have with what has been happening in these last couple of months.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Red Deer—Mountain View. He is a staunch advocate for farmers and producers. I grew up on a farm in central Alberta. We grew canola, wheat, barley and oats, all of the crops that are typically grown there today. What we are seeing now is that the lack of market access for energy is happening in the agricultural sector because the current government has bungled that.

Spring seeding is almost upon us and farmers are worried. At night, they are staying up, looking out the window, wondering if anybody is going to come on to their property and steal from them. This is because of the unprecedented socio-economic problems that the bungling of the energy sector has caused in central Alberta. Now they are going to be worried all day long about whether they are going to be able to sell their products, if they happen to get them off the field in the fall. This is not a situation that any of these people have asked for. They are hard-working Canadians. They play by the rules. They work hard, day in and day out. They pay their taxes. All they want is a government that acts maturely, responsibly and delivers results for them.

In response to the parliamentary secretary's question, I will be voting against this budget, not because everything in the budget might be good or bad, but because the constituents I represent and I have zero confidence in the current government.