Debates of April 30th, 2019

Budget Implementation Act, 2019, No. 1

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, nearly four years ago, our government was elected with a commitment to invest in the things that matter most to Canadians, including housing affordability for young people; creating good, well-paying jobs; support for seniors and families; and protecting the environment. In March, our government tabled budget 2019, which would make important investments to deliver on this commitment to improve the quality of life for all Canadians and to continue to build on the work we have done over the last four years.

I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-97, the budget implementation act.

I have heard concerns from many of my constituents in Oakville North—Burlington, one of the most expensive housing markets in the country, about affordability and the accessibility of the housing market to first-time homebuyers. To help make home ownership more affordable for first-time buyers, budget 2019 proposes to introduce a first-time homebuyer incentive, which would create a fund of $1.25 billion that would be available to eligible first-time homebuyers with household incomes of under $120,000 per year. Budget 2019 would also provide first-time homebuyers with greater access to their RRSP savings to buy a home by increasing the withdrawal limit to $35,000.

Our government understands that the job market is changing rapidly. Many Canadians now need to develop new skills mid-career in order to pivot to a new career path. That is why budget 2019 proposes to invest more than $1.7 billion over five years in Canada's first-ever Canada training benefit. The new benefit would include two key components: introducing a credit to help Canadians with the cost of training fees, and creating an EI training support benefit that would provide workers with the flexibility to train when it worked best for them.

We would also lower the interest rate on all Canada student loans, changing the current federal student financial assistance regime so that student loans would not accumulate any interest during the six-month grace period after a student left school.

Recently I had the opportunity to visit Niagara College, in Welland, to talk to faculty and staff about these measures, and they thanked me for our government's work to support students, including our initiatives in budget 2018 to support young people who choose skilled trades.

In early March, the Advisory Council on the Implementation of National Pharmacare released its interim report. Budget 2019 affirms the government's commitment to work towards the three recommendations made by the council: the creation of a Canada drug agency, which would make prescription drugs more affordable for more Canadians; the development of a comprehensive, evidence-based list of prescribed drugs to harmonize coverage across Canada; and an investment in data on prescription drugs. Budget 2019 would provide Health Canada with $35 million over four years to support the development of this vision. In a measure being applauded by health care advocates, the budget would also invest up to $1 billion over two years to help Canadians with rare diseases access the drugs they need.

In 1980, Terry Fox united this country with a vision to one day find a cure for cancer. When Terry had to stop his Marathon of Hope, he said, “I’m not going to give up. But I might not make it...if I don’t, the Marathon of Hope better continue”.

Budget 2019 would help to realize Terry's dream by allocating $150 million towards the Marathon of Hope Cancer Centres Network. The federal government would collaborate with the Terry Fox Research Institute and its partners, which are providing matching funding, to link universities and hospitals across Canada to advance the principles of precision medicine and to transform how cancer research is done not only in Canada but around the world.

This particular investment is one that is close to my heart, and I want to thank Dr. Victor Ling, from the Terry Fox Research Institute; the Terry Fox Foundation chair, Bill Pristanski; and Terry Foxers across Canada for their advocacy and efforts to educate members of Parliament on this important investment.

Our seniors have shaped our country in countless ways, and after a lifetime of hard work, they deserve to have confidence in their retirement. Budget 2019 proposes new measures to better protect workplace pensions in the event that an employer goes bankrupt.

We are also allocating an additional $100 million over five years for the new horizons for seniors program. I know what an impact this program has for seniors in my riding at places like Tansley United Church and Oak Park Neighbourhood Centre, as it helps fund programming that promotes seniors' participation and inclusion in their communities.

I am proud to represent a community where so many of my constituents, in addition to their advocacy on environmental issues, make environmentally conscious choices in their day-to-day lives, such as reducing their use of plastics or driving zero-emission vehicles.

We know that more Canadians are choosing to drive zero-emission vehicles as an increasing number of models become available and prices decline. Regrettably, last year the Government of Ontario cancelled the electric and hydrogen vehicle incentive program, and a number of my constituents reached out to me to share their disappointment and frustration.

Fortunately, our government is taking action and has proposed strategic investments to help more Canadians choose zero-emission vehicles, including $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 retail price of less than $45,000.

As of April l, it is no longer free to pollute anywhere in Canada. Our government recognizes that we need to act now to ensure that our children and grandchildren have clean air to breathe, that Canada has a strong and healthy economy, that we make Canadians' health and safety our number one priority.

Pricing pollution is the least costly way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and foster clean innovation. We will return all the revenue from a price on pollution to the provinces those revenues come from, with 90% going directly to families through a climate action incentive. In 2019, the average family of four in Ontario will receive $307 through the climate action incentive, while a single individual will receive $154.

The other 10% of revenues from the price on pollution will go towards helping small and medium-sized businesses, schools, hospitals, indigenous peoples, and communities improve their energy efficiency.

We are also making a one-time payment to municipalities through a municipal infrastructure top-up that will see Halton Region receive $16 million; Oakville, $5.9 million; and Burlington, $5.3 million. This money will go directly to support local infrastructure projects, such as public transit, disaster mitigation and adaptation projects, community centres and active transportation infrastructure.

As a former municipal councillor, I know that these funds will be a game-changer for our communities.

We are creating Canada's first national dementia strategy, with an investment of $50 million over five years. We are creating a pan-Canadian database for organ donation and transportation. We are investing in a pan-Canadian suicide prevention service, working with experienced and dedicated partners.

Diversity and inclusion are cornerstones of Canadian identity and something that all Canadians can be proud of. At the same time, recent tragic events in Canada and abroad have shown that no community is immune to the effects of hateful rhetoric. Around the world, ultra-nationalist movements have emerged, and in Canada those groups are unfairly targeting new Canadians, racialized individuals and religious minorities, threatening the peace, security and civility of the communities we call home. That is why this year's federal budget proposes to provide $45 million over three years to support the creation of a new anti-racism strategy. Its key purpose will be to find ways to counter racism in its various forms, with a strong focus on community-based projects.

The threat of climate change has become more tangible for Canadians as we see more severe, more frequent and more costly natural disasters, such as wildfires and flooding. One need look no further than the flooding in my community of Burlington a few years ago and the current flooding taking place here in Ottawa and Quebec and New Brunswick to know the devastation these natural disasters bring.

While Conservatives are making short-sighted decisions like the one in Ontario to cut funding by 50% to conservation authorities for flood forecasting and natural hazards management, we are investing $151 million over five years and $9 million per year ongoing to improve emergency management in Canada. These investments will enhance our understanding of the nature of risks posed by floods, wildfires and earthquakes. They will also help in assessing the condition and resilience of Canada's critical infrastructure.

There are many more investments in budget 2019, but I do not have time to outline them all. I am proud of the investments we are making to improve the lives of Canadians, and I know that all Canadians can be proud of them as well.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will go back to the member's introductory remarks about first-time homebuyers and some of the measures introduced in the first part of the budget, or chapter 1, as I call it.

With regard to the RSP measure, only about 8.5% of Canadians max out their RSP. It is a very small group of people, usually earning a very good income, who can make a maximum contribution to their RSP and will then be able to use it in a buy-back scheme to purchase their home. This will have a very tiny impact for first-time homebuyers.

The member talked about the shared equity mortgages as some great solution to the affordability problem for first-time homebuyers and for young people especially. However, the average price of a home in Toronto is about $780,000, and this program that the government is proposing caps out at $480,000.

The B-20 stress test has punished first-time homebuyers more than any other regulatory policy of this government. There is no easy way to fix this.

How can the member support a policy that has reduced mortgages starts young people by 20%?

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I purchased my first home with money that was in an RRSP. My 29-year-old son recently purchased a home; he had been contributing to an RRSP since he started working and was able to use that money as a down payment on his home, so there are young people who are taking advantage of it now. It expands it; it is not the only solution.

I will be quite honest. I worked in commercial mortgage financing for many years, and the stress test is an important tool to ensure that people do not get mortgages that are more than they can afford. We certainly do not want to see a situation like the one in United States, where people were over-mortgaged and were losing their homes. Especially in places like my communities of Oakville, Burlington and Halton, where prices are so high, we need to ensure that people can afford their homes.

I would not support getting rid of the stress test. In fact, I think it is a very important measure that we brought in to ensure that people can stay in their homes once they have purchased them.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, in the member's speech she mentioned pensions. I am wondering what happened to the promise the Liberals made in 2015 that they would fix the Bankruptcy Act.

I understand they were going to do something last year. Now they say they are going to do it this year. They mentioned in the budget that they have some plans, but the experts have told us that this is nothing. This is window dressing.

We have many steelworkers here today and for the next couple of weeks who want to know why nothing happened under the Bankruptcy Act when pensions have been taken. Pensions of the people at Sears have been taken. The workers do not get any termination pay. They get no severance pay and no vacation pay. Their health benefits are gone. Nothing has been mentioned about how the government is going to fix it.

Liberals are coming out with a little window dressing. We want to know why the Liberal government has not committed to fixing the Bankruptcy Act to stop this pension theft.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, one of the very first meetings I had when I was elected was with a Sears pensioner who explained the situation that he foresaw happening with Sears. I was part of a group, along with the members for Hamilton, Burlington and Oakville, that has met a number of times. As the member knows, it is not only the federal government that is involved with the problems with the bankruptcies of these companies. It is also provincial.

The Minister of Finance has done a good job of making some changes to pensions to ensure they are protected, because these are people who have relied on their pension and in particular their defined benefits to be able to—

[An hon. member]

It's a federal law.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is hard to speak when someone is interrupting.

We have made good changes with what is happening with pensions and we look forward to supporting pensioners going forward.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I will remind members that whenever someone has the floor, whether it is speaking on the debate or whether asking or answering questions, the person should be getting the respect of the House, and if other people have things to say or comment on, then they should wait until it is time for questions and comments or their turn to debate.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased today to rise to speak to the perspectives and concerns of my constituents, as well as in my role as the shadow minister for transportation, regarding Bill C-97, which is another omnibus bill proposed by the current Liberal government.

I want to begin by commending my hon. colleague, the member for Carleton, for his thoughtful and comprehensive response to the budget. As he so aptly noted, this budget is a string of broken promises and perhaps the most expensive cover-up in history. The Prime Minister and his government are attempting to change the channel on the SNC-Lavalin affair and are using billions of taxpayer dollars to make this happen.

As we all know, the Liberal Party ran on the promise of balancing the budget in 2019. It is a promise made, and it is a promise broken to the tune of $19.8 billion.

For years now, the member for Carleton has repeatedly asked a simple question of the finance minister: When will the budget be balanced? Every time, the finance minister has refused to answer. Despite the minister's refusal, we do know that there is no plan to balance the budget before 2040, if even then. By 2040, the Liberals' current plan would see $271 billion added to our debt. The government has left us with nothing in our back pocket. The Liberals have spent their paycheque, our paycheque and our children's paycheque. If we face another economic downturn, they will spend our great-grandchildren's money as well, long before they have even been born.

In just three years, this Prime Minister has added $60 billion to our national debt, and any comparison to the previous Conservative government's spending is made in bad faith. While the Conservative government faced down the worst economic crisis since the 1930s, this Prime Minister has had nothing but clear sailing. Under the Conservatives, Canada weathered the economic storm better and returned to balanced budgets faster than any other country in the G7. That is because we spent when we needed to and saved when we could.

This Prime Minister has managed to turn a balanced budget and booming world economy into giant deficits and a slowing Canadian economy. While our neighbours to the south enjoyed a 3% growth in 2018, Canada eked out a mere 1.8%. Only a few days ago, the Bank of Canada suggested that we will slow even further this year, to 1.2%.

I know it can be hard to track the numbers. In fact, that is what the Liberals count on. Therefore, let us simplify it: The tens of billions of dollars of wasted, inefficient spending from the current government have done nothing for our economy but bleed it dry. What is the government's response? It is to spend more. The Liberals spend in the good times and the bad. They always spend.

There are only two reasons for a country to have a deficit problem: Either there is a revenue problem or there is a spending problem. With tax revenues actually higher than expected, the answer is clear. The government has a spending problem. In fact, with this budget containing over $41 billion in new spending over the next five years, a seemingly ridiculous question has to be asked: Are the Liberals intentionally spending so recklessly just to stay in deficit? How else can we explain a 20% increase in spending in the first three years of the government's mandate? All of this increased spending is taking place against the backdrop of higher taxes and an increased cost of living brought on by the government.

Over 80% of middle-income Canadians are paying more in taxes now than they were three years ago. This has resulted in many Canadians finding it hard to make ends meet. Almost half of Canadians are within $200 of not being able to pay their bills at the end of the month. Any unforeseen expense would result in these families facing serious financial hardship.

If the government had handled finances better, paid down debt and built a rainy-day fund, we could be cutting taxes for these families and helping them make their payments. Instead, the Liberal government has spent beyond its means and brought in a carbon tax, forcing families to pay more to heat their homes and drive to work. What is even worse is that the Prime Minister is forcing those families to pay the GST on his carbon tax. Imagine that, Madam Speaker, a tax on a tax.

There are two very specific sections on which I would like to comment briefly in my role as the shadow minister for transport in the Conservative caucus. First, I would like to discuss division 12, the government's proposed changes to airport security screening. The Minister of Transport has once again been strong-armed by his colleagues to include drastic changes to the system in a budget implementation act. It appears the minister and the government do not care about the economic well-being of our transportation system, or in this case the air passenger system.

At committee today, we heard that over the past two years, the Liberal government has time and again assaulted the Canadian airline industry with new taxes and costs without thought to how these changes will impact air passengers. Not only that, the government is rushing legislative and regulatory changes through to meet an artificial deadline.

The proposed changes in division 12 contain another example of this. Rather than consult and facilitate negotiations between the parties on a new security screening entity and its assets, the Liberals are ramming drastic changes through Parliament and down the throats of the industry. This will hurt not only airlines but also passengers. For years, governments have paid out less than they collected in the airport security fee that air passengers were charged. This means that passengers have already paid for CATSA assets worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

In a ridiculous move, the government's changes will force Canadian travellers to pay for these assets all over again, without due consideration for their depreciation or their actual value. This will doubtless result in higher ticket prices before even accounting for the carbon tax. The out-of-touch Prime Minister does not get that most Canadians do not have a taxpayer-funded private jet at their disposal for weekend cross-country surfing trips. Most Canadians have to save in order to afford a vacation. Those average Canadians are the ones who will pay for the reckless, heavy-handed changes in this bill. From making Canadians pay a tax on a tax to forcing Canadian travellers to pay for screening equipment twice, the government is better than the sheriff of Nottingham at squeezing taxes out of Canadians.

Finally, I would like to briefly discuss division 11, which contains changes to the Pilotage Act. Based on conversations I have had with stakeholders, I do not have deep concerns with the proposed changes, but it is very disappointing that these proposed changes were once again buried in a budget implementation act. Improvements to the Pilotage Act will reinforce Canada's commitment to a safe and efficient marine transportation system supported by a legal and legislative framework.

Given that, an oil tanker moratorium in any region of the country is an insult to both marine pilots and shippers alike. An arbitrary shipping ban based on an ideological election promise is basically an admission that the government believes there is no way marine pilots or shippers can do the job they have been trained to do. This is an insult to the entire industry.

As I said earlier, this entire budget is a litany of broken promises: a broken promise to balance the budget, a broken promise to help the middle class and a broken promise by introducing an omnibus bill. Come October, Canadians will remind the government of the cost of broken promises.

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

Madam Speaker, I respect that the member has provided her thoughts regarding the budget, even though they are somewhat misinformed. She is very selective with respect to what what she is telling Canadians. Despite her conclusion, things are quite the opposite.

Our government has been genuinely focused on supporting Canada's middle class, not only through budgetary motions but also through many different policy initiatives. These have had a profound positive impact on Canadians from coast to coast to coast. I could speak to the tax break for Canada's middle class, the increase to the guaranteed income supplement and the increase to the Canada child benefit. The government has done a litany of different things.

The bottom line is that our economy has done exceptionally well. By working with Canadians, we have generated over 900,000 jobs in the last three and a half years. It took Stephen Harper 10 years to accomplish what we were able to do in three and a half years. We have put forward so many wonderful policy initiatives.

I wonder if the member opposite might want to revisit her thinking and maybe conclude, as I believe most Canadians would, that this government continues to be focused on Canada's middle class, which is a good thing.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, as I prepared for this speech, I did reflect on what the government had done for Canadians. I think I made very clear in my remarks that the Liberal government was making life more unaffordable for Canadians.

Let us take a look at the facts. About 80% of middle-income Canadians are paying higher taxes. The Liberals have raised payroll taxes. They cut the tax-free saving account limits nearly in half. They cancelled income splitting for families. They cancelled the public transit tax credit. They cancelled tuition and textbook tax credits. They cancelled the children's fitness and arts tax credits. Above that, they have created a carbon tax that will increase the price of gas, groceries and everything else.

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

Madam Speaker, once again, I rise to talk about the environment. This is the number one priority for young people, who have been participating in marches and protests across Canada for weeks now. The Liberals love to talk about how they have a plan and how it is working, but reports were released last week, and according to the Environment Canada report, the Liberals will not reach their targets, which they cribbed from the Harper Conservatives, until 2230. They promised to reach their targets by 2030. That is 200 years too late to limit global warming to 1.5°C. What are we going to do?

On February 10, people in Salaberry—Suroît drafted a motion and came up with lots of ideas. For example, they suggested putting GHG reduction targets in a binding law that would force the government to honour its commitments under the Paris Agreement by 2030, not 2230.

What does my colleague think about the fact that the Liberals are not keeping their promises and are even going to—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. I will give the hon. member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek a chance to answer the question.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, all Canadians need to take responsibility and should be good stewards for our environment.

To briefly answer her question, we cannot believe the government when it promises it will do something. As I pointed out in my speech, its budget includes a litany of broken promises. We know the Liberals are not going to reach the targets they adopted, which were set by the previous government. On this point, again, promise made; promise broken.

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

Madam Speaker, the member opposite, much like the rest of the Conservative caucus and the NDP, has it all wrong. This government has been focused on Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it.

In many ways, we have seen policy initiatives that have really provided a helping hand. This government has really made a difference in three and a half years. It has accomplished so much more than what Stephen Harper attempted to do in 10 years, and on so many different fronts.

Where do I actually begin, when I have such a limited amount of time to speak?

Some of the highlights in this particular budget deal with things such as infrastructure. We are providing municipalities, for example, with a substantial increase, going into millions of dollars. In Winnipeg alone, our government is providing approximately $35 million in additional funding to help with local infrastructure. The constituents I represent understand and appreciate how important it is for us to invest in infrastructure, such as local roads.

This budget is a continuation of the very first budget we brought in. It contains policies that would enhance and support Canadians in every region of our country.

I often talk about things that really make me feel good about being on the government bench. If I were to list the top five things that come to mind, the top two would be the tax break for Canada's middle class and the tax on Canada's wealthiest 1% to help pay for that tax break.

We have to recognize the increase in the guaranteed income supplement, which has literally taken many poor seniors out of poverty. I look at the residents of Winnipeg North. The same principle applies to the Canada child benefit.

I know that my time has run out. I would encourage members of the opposition to look at what our government has been able to accomplish in the last few years and recognize that this is exactly what Canadians want a good government to do.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It being 5:54 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House.

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #1300

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I declare the amendment defeated.

The next question is on the main motion.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #1301