Debates of April 30th, 2019

Budget Implementation Act, 2019, No. 1

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the government was proud to put forward its budget on March 19, but what Canadians got was another budget absolutely filled with another huge deficit.

As noted by Ian MacDonald, editor of Policy Magazine:

For [the] finance minister..., the budget was an opportunity to move on from a legacy of broken promises—he pledged $10 billion a year of deficits over four years to balance the books by 2019. Four years later, the projected cumulative deficit from 2016 to 2022 is more than $100 billion, with balance nowhere in sight....

Today I am going to focus my remarks on the current economic climate in Canada, specifically in relation to the housing markets and the government's drive to continue to spend, spend, spend.

Across Canada, there are many thoughts about when to run a deficit and when to increase the national debt load. In my riding of Elgin—Middlesex—London, I recently did a survey. In it, over 90% of my constituents said they would like to see a balanced budget in the near future.

I recognize that there is a time for deficits and there is a time to ensure that our economy is strong, but we have a Prime Minister and a finance minister who do not seem to use the same philosophy as many economists.

There is a big question here, and it comes down to the word “affordability”. I checked the Cambridge Dictionary for its definition, because affordability is going raise big questions as we move into the 2019 election. According to the Cambridge Dictionary, affordability is defined as “the state of being cheap enough for people to be able to buy”.

In its budget, the government brought forward two specific programs focused on first-time homebuyers, trying to find something to make sure that housing was more affordable. First the government increased the RRSP withdrawal amount for homes. Previously, people could remove $25,000, and that has been increased to $35,000. Second, the government introduced the first-time homebuyers incentive.

With respect to the first measure, I have had the opportunity to speak to many real estate agents from LSTAR and the Canadian Real Estate Association. For several years, they have been asking the government to increase the RRSP amount to $35,000. Although I totally agree with that, we have to recognize that right now Canadians are being nickel-and-dimed. They do not have extra money to put into RRSPs so that they can take out more money when buying a home.

This is a huge concern for me. We are talking about affordability here, but people are going home with less money from their paycheques. Canadians are paying more into the Canadian pension plan. They are also now paying the newly introduced carbon tax, especially in the province of Ontario. When I was driving last week, I noticed that Canadians are now spending up to $1.60 a litre on gasoline.

Canadians cannot afford what the government has to offer. Saving money in an RRSP is truly not an option for Canadians.

The government also put forward the first-time homebuyers incentive. Earlier today, a PBO report came out, and I want to read its findings into the record. It noted:

Estimation and projection method:

The cost of the program reflects the cost of borrowing $1.25 billion over three years. CMHC would borrow $250 million in 2019-20, and $500 million in both 2020-21 and 2021-22.

The estimate was calculated using PBO marginal effective interest rate projections on Government of Canada borrowing.

The uncertainty assessment is the key here, and this is what the PBO reported in that respect:

The estimate has high uncertainty. Many of the details relating to the program have yet to be determined or published, therefore many assumptions are used. We assume no credit losses on debt; no gains or losses in the equity holding; 100% of the loans are administered at the beginning of the fiscal year, except in 2019-20 (September 1); the portfolio is fully dispersed at all times, that is, any principal repayments are immediately redistributed to other eligible buyers.... The estimate is sensitive to changes in interest rates, which can vary over time. There is insufficient information on the program to quantify a behavioral response.

This is similar to what my colleague said earlier. It is as if Liberals come up with some of these plans on the back of a napkin. When coming forward with plans, they should be asking how things are actually going to pan out and what we will get in the long run.

Douglas Porter, who members may know is from BMO, has indicated:

The program will only apply to those with household income below $120,000, and with a maximum mortgage and incentive amount of 4-times income. As such, the impact will be contained to the lower end of the market below roughly $500,000 and, arguably, that’s the level where affordability challenges only really begin.

He provides an example here. He notes that the first-time homebuyers incentive looks great on paper, but we have to understand the reality of the markets in both the greater Vancouver area and the greater Toronto area.

One cannot find an average home of $500,000 in those locations. When we are talking about this, although the Liberal government has come out with this great plan, the biggest areas with affordability issues will not even come close to what the buyers are looking for. One will not be able to buy a house in Toronto or Vancouver because that amount is lower. I am not saying it is a good or a bad program. However, as I said, it looks like it was done on the back of a napkin, because the affordability issue has not been addressed through this new program.

Also, according to a Bloomberg report, we have to look at household debt. The report states:

Household debt in Canada, a nation generally known for moderation, has reached levels that could be qualified as excessive. Canadians owe C$2.16 trillion—which, as a share of gross domestic product, is the highest debt load in the Group of Seven economies.

It continues:

Until recently, Canada had been lauded as a bastion of sound financial management. The country of 37 million emerged relatively unscathed from the global financial crisis, thanks in large part to the strength of its banks. But the extended run of low interest rates that followed sparked a boom in borrowing, with the ratio of debt to disposable income rising to a record 174 percent in the fourth quarter, from 148 percent a decade earlier.

It further says:

Households are feeling the strain. The debt service ratio—a measure of how much disposable income goes to principal and interest payments—climbed to 14.9 percent in the fourth quarter, almost matching the 2007 record high. A total of 31,900 Canadians filed for insolvency in the three months through December, the most since 2010. Credit growth is running at its slowest annual pace since 1983.

That takes us back to the deficit. That is why I wanted to talk about where Canadians are at: what they actually have, what their own credits and debits are, what they have as a bankroll and what they have for savings. We have a Canadian Prime Minister who is now spending more per person, inflation-adjusted, and has accumulated more debt per person than any other prime minister outside of a world war or recession. We are talking about good fiscal times and extraordinary spending.

Why should this concern us? With increased debt load, there are fewer resources available to provide the programs Canadians need. The final result are financial burdens on future generations, generations that are having increased debt loads due to things like housing, education and, actually, the carbon tax. People need to go to the grocery store and put gas in their tanks, although everything costs more.

This is a generation that has less money to save and less money to invest in the future. Why? We now have a government that is going to continue to spend, spend, spend, so the debt load at home continues to get larger, and the debt load here at the Government of Canada continues to get larger. This brings me back to my original quote indicating that, under the current government, the deficit is projected to increase to over $100 billion.

It also brings me to the data that I have been looking at in different magazines, looking at the growth of the total industry and the goods industry. At the beginning of the government's mandate, we continued to see increased growth in the GDP, growth that started under the former Conservative government. According to data received and published, we have seen an ever-growing decline in the goods industry. By looking at those charts, we can see that we were going up and in the last year and a half to two years, we are beginning to go down, climbing down to lower rates.

As Kevin Page states:

Output in the goods sector has declined over the past year due to weakness in mining and manufacturing. Business investment is falling. Both the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund recently raised alarm over rising uncertainty due to trade tensions, the potential for financial market corrections and geopolitical issues. Projected growth rates in the Budget for 2019 (GDP up 1.8 per cent) look strong given the weakness in the latest GDP estimates. Projections for future sales in the Bank of Canada business outlook survey have flatlined.

This is the part where we must be concerned. We are talking about debt loads at home continuing to increase and the government continuing to have increased debt loads as well. How can people prepare themselves for the future?

I always state when I am in this House that I am a proud mother of five. I am very concerned about their future, as I know that the government has no problem just continuing to throw the debt load on top of that. That is why I want to finish off with a quote that I found from Kevin Page, who quotes the writer Stephen King: “There is no harm in hoping for the best as long as you're prepared for the worst.” I feel that the government has not prepared Canada's economy and it has not prepared our future generations for what it has left behind.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would disagree with the member's closing remarks. The government has done exceptionally well in preparing, going forward. The numbers speak for themselves, with well over 900,000 new jobs in the last three and a half years by working with Canadians from every region of the country. We have seen exceptional growth in many different areas.

What I find interesting is how the Conservatives try to give the impression that they know how to manage deficits. They are very critical of the current government's deficit. Could the member explain to Canadians why it is that Stephen Harper, when he was the prime minister, actually accumulated $150 billion-plus in debt? That is to keep in mind that when he as prime minister inherited the books of Canada, he actually inherited a multi-billion dollar surplus. The so-called fictitious balance that the Conservatives say they ended his 10 years with was really non-existent.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was really proud last week. I joined a group from LSTAR and from CREA, and we went down to Toledo, Ohio, where we saw the impact of the global economic downturn in the number of houses that were lost in those areas of Toledo, Ohio and in the Detroit area.

We were fortunate enough to have great leadership, and great policies when it came to our banks, to move forward. Part of that was called “stimulus spending”. The stimulus spending was put forward through recreation and through the building Canada fund and a variety of things and partnerships with the provinces. We were able to get things done. We were able to keep people employed. I was fortunate to be in an office working with those people who had become unemployed, looking at opportunities for us. We put together sound policies. We put forward sound programs that would help Canadians through this crisis. We were doing it the right way, yet these people are just spending, spending and spending.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank my friend and colleague from Elgin—Middlesex—London. I always appreciate her comments in the House of Commons. Regardless of whether I agree with the positions of the Conservative Party, I really appreciate her enthusiasm.

I have been talking a lot about salmon and the impact that the closures of the chinook salmon are having on British Columbians. This should not be a partisan issue. All parties should be making this a priority, that we invest in enhancement, restoration and habitat protection and that we invest in bringing back our salmon to abundance.

We know that question period is a very important place for parties to identify their priorities, especially the official opposition. It is April 30, 2019. This Parliament has been sitting for over three and a half years and the Conservative Party has not asked one question on Pacific salmon, not one question. This is despite having nine MPs from British Columbia, and 97 MPs. The Conservatives have not prioritized this.

I ask my colleague to urge her party to join the NDP in making salmon a priority and putting it as a priority in question period for her party as soon as possible, because this is an urgent situation. I know that the Conservatives have different concerns. They do not support the carbon tax. They have had 700 questions on the carbon tax and over 350 questions on SNC-Lavalin and the scandal that is taking place there. We understand that each party has its priorities, but I am urging the member and her party to make salmon a priority, rise in the House of Commons in question period and take on the government to release resources immediately to the fishers who are impacted, and support our salmon.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am a proud resident on the Great Lakes, so I understand the importance of restoration and I understand the importance of keeping our environment clean. I take the member's great concern into consideration. I will be sure to share that when we speak in caucus.

We are very fortunate because I am part of a caucus where we actually talk, where we actually sit up in caucus and talk about what we are thinking. We do not have to always agree. At the end of the day, when our leader is speaking, he is speaking for all of us because it is where we are all beginning to agree on different things. It is really interesting. I am part of a caucus that I am very proud of. I will be sure to bring that forward.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Order. It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Essex, Automotive Industry; the hon. member for Windsor West, Statistics Canada; the hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona, The Environment.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to lend my support to budget 2019 as a road map to a more prosperous and equitable future for our communities. Three years ago, I stood in the House and spoke about the potential in budget 2016, that it would provide Canadians the tools they need to innovate and to build a stronger, healthier and greener Canada.

Since 2016, Canadians have used tools such as tax cuts for the middle class, infrastructure spending and the Canada child benefit to stimulate growth, helping to create over 950,000 jobs. In fact, Guelph now has the lowest unemployment in Canada, at 1.9%. In 2018, we reduced our projected emissions for 2030 by an additional 21 million tonnes since last year, while still growing the Canadian economy and lifting 800,000 people out of poverty, including many seniors, three years ahead of schedule.

These are the results Canadians voted for in 2015, but for the people of Guelph and me, we know that better is always possible. Despite job growth and increased opportunity for young people, home ownership for many residents still remains out of reach. As well, there is a large body of politicians who still cast doubt on climate change while the majority of Canadians are demanding action.

Budget 2019 is our plan to move forward and build on the gains made over the last three years. Infrastructure is the backbone of any successful nation and that is why, beginning with our first budget, we began investing in infrastructure. Currently, the government has a plan in place that is investing more than $180 billion over 12 years to build infrastructure in our communities, approving more than 33,000 infrastructure projects from coast to coast to coast.

We have heard from Canadians. They agree overwhelmingly that they want their municipalities to continue to build their communities. Because many municipalities across Canada continue to face serious infrastructure deficits, budget 2019 will provide municipalities with a one-time transfer of $2.2 billion through the federal gas tax fund to address priorities in municipalities and in first nation communities. These investments in our communities will help to build community centres, roads, schools, play structures and more, but also spur the creation of jobs, in fact thousands of jobs in construction. We are hoping the Province of Ontario will return to collaborating as a key partner in investing in our community.

Canadians who work hard and contribute to the Canadian society deserve to retire in dignity. Since 2015, we have improved the old age security benefit, the guaranteed income supplement, as well as the Canada pension plan. Enhancing the Canada pension plan, starting in 2019, will provide more money for Canadians when they retire. This translates into an increase in the current maximum retirement benefit of more than $7,000 per year, from $13,610 to almost $21,000 per year.

However, seniors are still struggling with the rising costs of prescription medication. Canadians pay some of the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs. Brand-name medicines cost on average 20% more in Canada than they do in other advanced economies. Seniors living on a fixed income are some of the most vulnerable when these costs rise.

The first step we will take is to provide Health Canada with $35 million over four years, starting in 2019-20, to establish a Canadian drug agency transition office to support the development of this vision. In order to address rare diseases, budget 2019 proposes to invest up to $1 billion over two years, starting in 2022-23, with up to $500 million per year ongoing, to help Canadians with rare diseases get the drugs they need.

I am surprised that I have to say this, but climate change is real. When we look at the Ottawa River tonight, we see the banks overflowing with water. We see climate change happening across the Prairies with droughts. We see extreme weather in different parts of Canada, showing that things are changing. Denying this will only make it harder and harder to address. Thankfully, we have taken action. In budget 2018, we reduced our projected emissions for 2030 by an additional 21 million tonnes, and we are just starting to get going.

Last week I participated in a student-run town hall on climate change. The message was clear. Canadian youth want their leaders to act swiftly to curb the effects of climate change. Almost every student in the gymnasium who I spoke with said that we were not doing enough and we were not doing it fast enough.

Budget 2019 will help advance our climate change objectives by investing in energy efficient retrofits. We are investing $1.01 billion to increase energy efficiency in residential, commercial and multi-unit buildings. This program was just announced, with links, this afternoon. Applications are being accepted up until May 13. Of this $1 billion, $300 million will go to support home energy retrofits to help replace furnaces and install renewable energy technology through the community eco-efficiency acceleration initiative. That is available now.

We will set aside another $300 million to provide financing for affordable housing developments to improve their energy efficiency in new and existing housing. That will help to support not only onsite energy generation, but reduce the cost of energy that is used in the housing units.

A further investment of $350 million will provide municipalities and non-profit community organizations with financing and grants to retrofit and improve the energy efficiency of large community buildings in Canadian municipalities, both large and small.

Since Ontario has opted out of the climate change incentives, these funds will be directly available to our communities via the Canadian Federation of Municipalities. The money collected will be returned to municipalities and businesses.

Emissions from vehicles are also a principal source of pollution in our air. As co-chair of the auto caucus, we are looking at this with respect to the car of the future.

To encourage more Canadians to buy zero-emission vehicles, budget 2019 proposes $300 million over three years to introduce a new federal purchase incentive of up to $5,000 for electric battery or hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, with a manufacturer's suggested retail price of less than $45,000. That will impact 27 models that are currently available, but it also gives a signal to manufacturers that this is the threshold that our programs operate under so they can look at ways to get their vehicles under that cost.

As well, businesses purchasing EV or hybrid vehicles will be able to fully write-off the cost in the first year. The goal is to achieve 10% EV or hybrid purchases in the next two years. The proposed growth under the former incentive program the Ontario government was to go from 1% EV vehicles to 4%. As soon as that incentive was removed, we went down to 1% again. We want to recover and grow that up to 10% of EV purchases over the next two years.

Electric vehicles face a major obstacle though. Recharging stations are difficult to find sometimes when away from home. I have heard this in my community and from other EV owners. To correct this and expand the network of zero-emission vehicle charging stations, budget 2019 proposes to build on previous investments by providing Natural Resources Canada with $130 million over five years. This investment will help deploy new recharging stations in workplaces, public parking spots, commercial and multi-unit residential buildings as well as in remote locations.

This year we have brought to an end the days of free pollution. For provinces that do not have a plan in place, we have implemented a plan across the country that will balance not only reducing the cost to families through incentives going back, but also putting a price on pollution.

While I wish I could speak to every initiative in budget 2019, such as skills training, advancing reconciliation and having lifted 850,000 people out of poverty, I can see my time is just about at an end.

This budget is going to continue the work we began in 2015 by creating a more inclusive, a more sustainable and a prosperous country for all Canadians.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in 2015, the Liberals made a campaign commitment and expressed distress over what they called large omnibus budget legislation.

On the subject of immigration and the division of the Department of Indigenous and Northern Affairs, which will not give us an opportunity to talk to affected stakeholders because of how the Liberals have presented this bill, did my colleague commit to that platform and the omnibus legislation? How will he explain this to his constituents now that he has clearly broken a promise?

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the budget bill in front of us is about numbers. It is about the business plan for Canada. It looks at all aspects of operating the country, including the increase we have seen in asylum seekers, which requires more funding from us to support provinces and municipalities with respect to immigration. When we look at what we are doing in the budget, it all comes down to the dollars needed to run effective programs to support the changing needs of Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague opposite said that climate change is real, and the flooding that is occurring across the country right now is a concrete example of that.

For weeks and even months now, young people have been taking to the streets of Montreal every Friday to send a clear message to the federal and provincial governments. Scientists have clearly stated that the federal government still does not have a comprehensive plan for meeting the greenhouse gas reduction targets.

Recent reports from Environment and Climate Change Canada have confirmed that our additional production has reached 66 megatonnes. Rather than reducing our greenhouse gas emissions, we are producing more greenhouse gases. We will not meet the Paris targets until 2230. We will be 200 years late in meeting the target that we set to limit climate warming to 1.5°C. We do not have a comprehensive plan. The Liberals claim to be champions of the environment, but there is no legislation.

On February 10, people in my riding worked on proposals. For example, they proposed that the government stop subsidizing the fossil fuel industry. In the most recent budget, the government allocated $3.3 billion for subsidies for the fossil fuel and oil industries. It is written in black and white in the budget tabled on March 19.

My constituents asked for product labels to indicate their environmental impact and to make recycling easier. They called on the government to set a goal to transition to a fully circular economy by 2050 and to create a national mandatory system for assessing building energy efficiency. I have many more examples the government could use if it is in need of inspiration. My constituents made a number of proposals that could help reduce GHGs.

The government is dragging its feet. I hope it will respond to this and give hope to young Canadians.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member's detailed question almost bordered on a speech. She has touched on points that are important for the youth across Canada. We are seeing protests. We know there is anxiety. People want change and they want it now.

As we build our pan-Canadian network of climate change programs, we have been able to reduce our emissions, during a time of economic growth, by about 21 million tonnes at the same time. We are also looking at the subsidies and we have a plan to phase them out. In fact, it is in the budget. Five out of seven subsidies will be removed and two out of seven are currently being reviewed by CRA.

We know we have to get off coal, we have to get off subsidy and we have to move ahead with the plan. We have a 50-point plan and it is working.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-97, the first budget implementation act for 2019.

First, this was a phenomenal budget for my constituents in Brampton North and for all Canadians. It would take far more than 10 minutes to talk about all of its strengths, but I will highlight some of its biggest wins for Brampton in the time I have been given.

In a city as fast growing as Brampton, infrastructure spending is especially critical. More Bramptonians make use of our roads and public transit system every day. Brampton Transit saw its ridership grow by 14% last year, with over 30 million total rides, making it the fastest-growing transit system in Canada. Budget 2019 embraces and invests in that growth.

A one-time transfer directly to municipalities will see the City of Brampton receive over $16.6 million in additional infrastructure spending. The region of Peel, which Brampton is in, is receiving a further $41 million through this transfer. This is money that can go toward improvements to our roads and highways. It can buy new buses, in addition to the 22 buses our government has already funded, or renovate transit hubs. It can make critical repairs to our water and waste water system. It can go toward new sports or cultural centres as well.

This funding is a big deal for Brampton, and I am thrilled it was in our budget.

However, let us not forget why this money is so important. Our government has billions of dollars on the table for the Province of Ontario through our investing in Canada infrastructure program, and $8.3 billion are available for public transit alone. Can my city apply directly to the federal government for funding? No, it cannot. For that funding to be available, the provincial government needs to come to the table. It is Premier Ford's responsibility to open up funding streams to be a full partner and get these projects going.

I have had many meetings with my city councillors, regional councillors and the mayor of Brampton. We all seem to agree that these projects cannot open up soon enough. However, it seems that Doug Ford does not want to invest, does not want to create jobs. Time is running out. The summer construction season is practically under way. Unions, trade associations and contractors are speaking up. They are concerned they will not have any work this summer.

While the province refuses to let cities apply for public transit funding, refuses to let them apply for any infrastructure funding, billions of dollars are being left on the table, as are the jobs and projects that come with it.

However, perhaps I am focusing too much on public transit funding. After all, looking at the Ontario transit plan, it does not look like Premier Ford intends for Brampton to receive any of it. A $28.5 billion transit line for downtown Toronto will take up every drop of infrastructure funding from multiple levels of government and then some, while leaving my city and my constituents out in the cold.

However, the municipal infrastructure funding is far from the only important part of budget 2019 for Brampton North.

If there is one thing my constituents have wanted in Brampton for a very long time, it is a university. Much like our government, we are a city that strongly believes in the value of learning and access to a good education. Our government's changes to make post-secondary education more affordable have been well received.

Within our first year of government, we increased Canada student grants by 50%. We ensured that graduates were not required to start making payments on their loan until they were earning $25,000 a year. We have more than doubled the number of Canada summer jobs so more students can get valuable work experience and save money for tuition or living costs.

Changes proposed in budget 2019, which are included in Bill C-97, will extend the interest-free period on student loans by six months, giving students room to breathe following graduation.

Investing in all levels of education, including post-secondary education, is essential to ensuring young people get the skills, training and opportunities they need to succeed in the workforce, now and well into the future. Our government understands that. My constituents understand that. I am proud that many of them joined in the province-wide walkout on April 4 to protest Premier Ford's education system changes. While we are making the six-month period interest-free, Premier Ford has taken away that period completely.

This is why so many of my constituents were devastated when one of the first things the newly elected Conservative provincial government did was cut the funding for the downtown Ryerson University campus. The cuts were unexpected and they blew a hole in Brampton's vision for an economic revitalization of our downtown core. They were universally condemned by my community.

I recall the president of Brampton's board of trade commenting that the move to cut funding did not inspire confidence in the government's decision-making—

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I do wish my friend well if she has future plans of pursuing a seat at Queen's Park, but the topic we are supposed to be addressing is the federal budget. I know there is a lot in there that the government probably does not want to talk about, but I wonder if you could call the member to order and encourage her to address the issue before the House at the moment.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I remind the hon. member that we are discussing the federal budget, not the provincial budget. I will let her continue. I am sure she is coming around to the federal government, so I will leave it to her to bring it back.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is completely relevant. I am contrasting what happens when there is a government with a vision that makes cuts and a government that invests in growth.

After that university cancellation announcement, both I and my fellow Brampton MPs spent months speaking with Ryerson and with my city and with provincial counterparts. We advocated tirelessly to our colleagues, including the hon. Minister of Finance, to ensure that Brampton's interests were being heard, even if the province was not listening.

It worked. Included in budget 2019 was an $80 million investment over four years to support three or more cybersecurity networks across Canada, which are affiliated with a post-secondary institution. Ryerson's cybersecure catalyst was mentioned by name, and I believe it will be a strong contender for the funding. We are expecting to make announcements in the coming months.

Another common issue constituents raise with me is the cost of pharmaceutical drugs. As our government has constantly said, we firmly believe that no Canadian should have to choose between paying for prescription medication or putting food on the table. While Canadians are proud of our health care system, they are still forced to make this impossible decision.

I could draw attention once again to the many cuts to health care funding that Premier Ford's government has managed to put forward in a remarkably short amount of time, but there is just too much ground to cover there and not enough time in the few minutes I have left.

In budget 2018, our government established an advisory council on the implementation of national pharmacare. After talking to Canadians from coast to coast to coast, we are awaiting its final report. However, through budget 2019, we are laying the foundation for a national program. This includes the creation of a Canadian drug agency. Together with the provinces and territories, this agency will negotiate drug prices for all Canadians, lowering costs by up to $3 billion per year. We are also putting in place a national strategy for high-cost drugs for rare diseases which will help families most in need.

Looking through this legislation and comparing it to recent events, I am convinced this budget truly has the interests of Canadians at heart. We are taking action to make their lives better in real and tangible ways. We are helping the people who need it most, not burying our heads in the sand through cuts and more cuts. We are giving people the tools they need to grow Canada's economy on their own. It is their hard work that is building an incredibly strong economy for today and laying the foundation for continued growth for years to come.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is always interesting to hear the perspective of those at Queen's Park and those working hard to join them.

I want to zero in on one particular aspect of the budget, which is the investments made by the current government regarding infrastructure in Asia.

The finance minister tells us that giving money to the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank to build pipelines in Asia, which is a tool for advancing Chinese foreign policy, is about demonstrating our commitment to international development and green improvements. I think he knows there are many organizations we can co-operate with internationally that are doing development, that have much better environmental and human rights standards and that do not have the same transparency problems as the AIIB. In fact, President Obama highlighted these transparency and other problems with respect to the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, never mind the current ongoing problems with respect to Canada-China relations.

My constituents are wondering, and I suspect the people in Brampton are as well, why their hard-earned tax dollars are going to build infrastructure in Asia in a way that is not transparent and accountable, when at the very least we could be working with development vehicles that do not have the same problems. At best, perhaps we could be using those resources to invest and respond to the infrastructure needs we have in Canada.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in my speech and on many occasions in the House, such as in question period and in the debates, we have heard time and time again about the many investments that have been made by our government. This investment will reduce the use of coal in China. However, I would like to talk about our energy and environmental policies in Canada as well. We are investing here to ensure that the concerns of Canadians with respect to climate change are heard and understood by this government. We are taking real action. We have yet to hear any ideas from the Conservatives when it comes to climate change or what they would propose instead.

I know China will benefit greatly, but so will we and the world. When growing up, I remember the smog advisories throughout almost the entire summer, day after day. Now there are none. Therefore, any initiative that is taken and any money that is invested to improve the environment is a good investment not only for Canadians, but for the whole globe.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is one important issue happening across Canada, and that is with respect to bankruptcy and insolvency. In the last election, the Liberals said they would fix that. I know the member did not mention it in her speech, but during bankruptcy protection, the first thing that happens to the majority of people is their severance and vacation pays are taken away. Then, if the company is insolvent and has to declare bankruptcy because it is in a deficit, all the pensioners lose. Therefore, this is a huge issue.

The Liberal government said that it was going to fix it. This was the last time it could try to do that in its budget and all it did was a bit of window dressing. There is nothing in it that states that pensioners would have their pensions protected either as a secured creditor or in some type of guaranteed pension fund. I want to know why this was omitted and what the government plans on doing about it.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that I have colleagues in the House, such as the Minister of Seniors, who have been working hard on this issue, and that does not stop with this budget. However, I would like to highlight some of the steps that have been taken in this budget.

We have taken a whole-of-government evidence-based approach to addressing these concerns, using all the levers that our government has at its disposal. That is why, through this legislation, we would be establishing tools to promote responsible corporate behaviour toward pensioners and better protect Canadians. These changes include allowing courts to examine executive compensation in insolvency cases to make proceedings fairer and more transparent; establishing better oversight of executive compensation and setting higher expectations for corporate behaviour by mandating shareholders' votes on approaches to compensation; and enhancing income security for Canadians with a disability by ensuring when individuals are in bankruptcy, creditors will not have access to the monies deposited and held in registered disability savings plans. These steps will help ensure that those who need the money or who have a pension will get it.

It does not stop there. We are looking at other ways and avenues to protect our pensioners.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak about the budget implementation act, 2019. While the budget acknowledges anxieties facing Canadians today, the government is failing to show a sense of urgency for addressing the underlying causes.

The budget contains misguided priorities and also includes delays and a lack of funding for serious issues, such as climate change, child care and universal prescription drug coverage. With the last budget of its mandate, the Liberal government has failed to take the bold actions Canadians want to build a more sustainable and equitable future and a better Canada.

Canadians, particularly young Canadians, are deeply worried about climate change. Last month, high school students in Nelson joined thousands from across the country and the world, who had been walking out of class to demand stronger action on climate change. I also received passionate letters from grades 5 and 6 Ktunaxa students. They are worried about polar bears and the environment. I have special concern for my granddaughter Lalita, who at times worries if her generation will have a future at all.

The IPCC says we have less than 12 years to act to avert climate catastrophe and a recent report found Canada was warming at twice the global average. Bold, urgent action is needed. However, the budget continues to delay phasing out fossil fuel subsidies that jeopardize our ability to transition to a green economy before it is too late. It proposes simply to study subsidies pointing to a peer review process announced last June.

Earlier this month, the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development found the government's attempts to study fossil fuel subsidies had been flawed. Her audits found the government had failed to do a fulsome inventory of subsidies and did not consider long-term environmental and social impacts on an equal basis with economic factors.

The time is now to end fossil fuel subsidies and begin the shift to renewable energy, public transit and energy efficiency. That should not, however, include handouts to hugely profitable corporations such as Loblaws. Actions such as that show the government is out of touch and failing to support Canada's small businesses and workers in the transition to a low-carbon economy.

As the NDP's critic for national parks, I am also disappointed to see no funding has been allocated to protect Parks Canada's assets from climate change despite a recent report commissioned by the agency estimating this would cost up to $3.3 billion. In fact, it seems Parks Canada has lost $15 million from its budget, which was returned to the fiscal framework after the cancellation of the Icefields Trail project instead of being allocated to other urgent park priorities, like adaptation.

Canadians are also deeply anxious about affordability issues. They are grappling with sky-high housing costs in a time of stagnant wages and precarious work. The dream of owning a home and being able to retire feel like they are slipping out of reach for many.

The budget includes measures targeting millennials who want to buy their first home, but these measures are misguided. One proposal is to increase the amount first-time homebuyers can borrow from their registered retirement savings plans to $35,000. However, Abacus Data reports its research found only 36% of millennials even had an RRSP. Many young Canadians are struggling to save for a home or their retirement because of high student debt and lack of affordable child care. The budget does little to address these issues.

In British Columbia, the $10-a-day child care pilot project introduced by the NDP government has been a game-changer for the families selected to participate, including one of my former staff members in Nelson. There have been media reports of families saving around $1,000 a month or more on child care under that program.

The budget acknowledges that the lack of affordable child care is putting education, employment and home ownership out of reach for parents, particularly mothers. Despite this, the 2019 budget provides no new funding to make affordable child care a reality for more families.

One of my staff members in Ottawa spends more than a third of her take-home pay on day care for her toddler, but considers herself lucky because she was able to secure a licensed spot. Like most of the country, in my riding of Kootenay—Columbia, there is a shortage of licensed child care spots and parents sign up for wait-lists before their children are even born.

The budget acknowledges that women's participation in the workforce has stalled since the early 2000s and researchers cite access to quality, affordable child care as an important factor in encouraging women's attachment to the workforce.

Last month the Cranbrook Boys and Girls Club announced it was closing its licensed child care program for three-year-olds to five-year-olds because it had been unable to recruit qualified staff.

Recruitment and retention of early childhood educators is a major problem in Canada due to the low wages in this female dominated field. However, the federal government is not taking urgent action to address this issue.

Meanwhile, Sarah, a pharmacist in Kimberley, is leading an effort to get more after school care programs running in town. She conducted a survey that found that many local mothers are unable to work because of the lack of after school care or their employment options are extremely limited due to school hours.

Almost two decades ago, scholar Rianne Mahon termed the quest for universal child care the never-ending story. The Minister of Families, Children and Social Development has called it a long-term vision. Frankly, mothers are done listening to this story. An NDP budget would make funding universal, high-quality, affordable child care a priority, because it is good for families, for children and for the economy.

I was also disappointed to see that the budget would take the half-measure of reducing interest rates on student loans instead of eliminating interest entirely. Last month I wrote to the Minister of Finance and theMinister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour to request that they follow B.C.'s lead. It stopped charging interest on provincial student loans this February.

Too many Canadians of all ages are also anxious about how they will afford the medications they need, and the health of our nation is suffering. My constituency offices have heard stories of people taking half doses of their medications, risking anaphylactic reactions instead of purchasing EpiPens or waiting until payday to fill prescriptions.

Instead of acting with a sense of urgency to establish a universal, comprehensive public pharmacare program that would lower drug costs and cover everyone, the budget would delay this important work. The budget proposes funding over four years for the establishment of a new drug agency while not taking steps to deal with inadequate and unequal coverage across the country. It would also delay funding for those living with rare diseases until 2022.

Studies show that pharmacare would save Canada money and improve health outcomes, and most Canadians want us to fill this critical gap in our medicare system. The time for talk and study is over; it is now time to act. Canadians need to be able to use their health care cards, not their credit cards, when picking up their prescription medications.

The NDP has a plan to ensure that pharmacare is available for all by 2020, and I encourage the Liberal government to take a serious look at what can happen if it is truly committed to a better Canada.

Another anxiety many retirees and workers have is whether the pensions they have earned from years of hard work will be secure and not stolen if their company goes bankrupt, as happened with Sears Canada.

Instead of moving forward with overdue changes to bankruptcy laws to protect workers and pensioners, as suggested by my colleague, the member for Hamilton Mountain, the budget asks them to rely on the good faith of corporate executives. This is out of touch with the experience of retirees who saw their pensions cut while executives got bonuses and shareholders received dividend payments. Pensions are deferred wages and need to be given super-priority status in bankruptcies.

The budget does contain some positive measures, such as increasing federal investments in broadband and setting a target for achieving high-speed Internet connectivity across the country by 2030.

In February, I gave a speech in Parliament about the digital divide between rural and urban Canada and urged the government to make funding this issue a priority in the budget. I am pleased to see that the government is acting on this issue, but 2030 does not show urgency. Rural cellphone coverage and the affordability of cell and Internet service also remain pressing concerns for Canadians.

I am also pleased to see a top-up of the federal gas tax fund this year, which will lead to an estimated $280 million in extra funding for local governments in B.C. and funding for the green municipal fund to support energy efficiency initiatives.

Every year I ask my constituents whether their lives are better, worse, or the same six months after a federal budget. While the government has been quick to bail out corporations like SNC-Lavalin or Kinder Morgan, it continues to tell ordinary Canadians to wait for solutions to their problems. Unfortunately, there is very little in this budget that will benefit my constituents, while adding $19.8 billion in debt for our children and grandchildren to pay off. An NDP budget would make different choices and put people and the planet at the centre of government policies.

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

Mr. Speaker, many in this House will not be surprised that I followed the NDP's pronouncements on housing with a great deal of interest. I would like to ask the member to comment on a housing policy announced in B.C. during the recent by-election that would effectively double the Stephen Harper tax credit for first-time homebuyers. It would see someone who can afford a $1.6-million house, which is the average price in Vancouver, who can afford a down payment of close to $350,000 and who can carry a mortgage of $1.25 million get a cheque for $750 six months after the house closed. When Harper introduced this tax credit, Jack Layton called it a “dribbling”, pathetic little tax credit that would do nothing for homelessness or the home ownership crisis.

Why have you doubled down on a failed Stephen Harper policy? Why are you sending cheques of $750 to millionaires?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I want to remind hon. members that when they are referring to other members, they have to go through the Speaker. I want to assure hon. members that the Speaker is not doing any of the stuff he was accused of by the hon. member for Spadina—Fort York.

The hon. member for Kootenay—Columbia.

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

Mr. Speaker, if my colleague across the floor had kept up to date with the proposals we were putting forward to benefit housing and to ensure affordable housing for the future, while at the same time improving what is happening with the environment, he would have noticed that recently we announced that we want to restore the energy retrofit program and increase the energy retrofit program for houses across Canada to make them more efficient, make them last longer and make them more desirable places to live.

Our platform is evolving. We are looking to have half a million affordable homes in place in the relatively near future. We know it can be done, because just after the war, when the government actually was serious about providing affordable housing, it created 350,000 war time houses that people still live in across the country. These were small houses but affordable houses built over the period of about two years. We know that if the government is serious about affordable housing, rather than just saying nice words about affordable housing, we can benefit hundreds of thousands of Canadians going forward.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, feeding into this discussion about affordability and helping people access home ownership, I wonder if my colleague could share his party's perspective on the issue of the mortgage stress test. Some of the new policies the government has brought in are maybe geared to respond to situations in some of Canada's big urban centres, but in reality, they make home ownership much less accessible for Canadians who really could afford to invest in home ownership themselves but have a harder time doing so as a result of policies the current government brought in on the regulatory side. It would not cost anything for the government to revisit those policies. It is simply a matter of trying to get the government out of the way of people who should be able to afford and invest in their homes to allow them to do that. I am curious about whether my colleague has thoughts on ways we can undo some of the damage the government has done in that respect.

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

Mr. Speaker, the damage has to be shared between the Conservatives and the Liberals, because it was the Conservatives who reduced the period for mortgages to 25 years, which makes it much more difficult, particularly for young people, to qualify. We would like to see the mortgage period increased to at least 30 years, which would then allow more people to get into the market and afford their mortgages. Some of those problems actually started with the Harper Conservative government, and they have been exacerbated by some of the policies of the Liberal government.