House Publications

    I have the honour to table the report of the Canadian parliamentary delegation on its visit to the Republic of Korea and to Mongolia from September 5 to 10, 2016.

     moved for leave to introduce Bill C-32, An Act related to the repeal of section 159 of the Criminal Code.

    Mr. Speaker, today I have the honour of presenting two petitions.

    The first petition is from many members throughout my riding as well as stretching into the Edmonton area and calls for the House to refuse to register GMO fish. We know that this petition comes in the face of existing permissions for AquaBounty Atlantic salmon. The petitioners call upon Parliament to make sure no genetically modified fish or fish eggs are approved for production or sale in Canada.

    The second petition is similar, but signed by entirely different communities from Victoria, to Meaford, Ontario, to Sherbrooke, Quebec and calls on the Government of Canada and the Parliament of Canada to ensure the labelling of genetically modified products.

    Mr. Speaker, I rise to present two e-petitions today. The first is a petition that calls on the government to order a federal environmental review of the Massey Tunnel replacement proposal. The petitioners' concerns are numerous and I will highlight a couple of them. They are concerned about the risk to the ecology of the Fraser River Estuary impacting wildlife in the region as well as risks to commercial, recreational, and first nations fisheries. They are also concerned with this project's impact on food security, as it will lead to further loss of fertile agricultural land. The petitioners know a federal environmental review of the Massey Tunnel project would be a good place to start if we are going to protect the Fraser River ecosystem for generations to come. While the rules in the House do not allow members to endorse petitions, let me say I am pleased to present it on behalf of more than 340 people who have signed it.

    Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to also present an e-petition initiated by Michael Donovan from Calgary, Alberta with 1,071 signatures collected online from across the country. The petitioners call on the government to ban the importation of all animal parts originating from Africa into Canada for the purpose of trophies. The petitioners are concerned about the rapid decline of African wildlife populations that they feel are due in part to trophy hunters, many of whom come from abroad, including Canada. Canadians care deeply about wildlife conservation and look forward to the government's response.

     Mr. Speaker, I have an electronic petition to present about the notorious Kathryn Spirit, a vessel that has been languishing in Lac Saint-Louis, which is in my riding, since 2011. The petitioners are calling upon the government to have the boat seized safely by appropriate experts.

    I am presenting this petition, which has been signed by 4,000 people since 2011.

    Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

    Is that agreed?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

     moved:

    Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1 there will now be a 30-minute question period. I invite hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise in their place so the Chair has some idea of the number of members who wish to participate in this question period.

    Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying how disappointed I am that the government House leader has moved this motion. I think that to this point in time we have had a very good working relationship. There have been certain bills that our members have not wanted to speak to at length, and so the government has been able to see legislation move through at a pace it would have been happy with.

    Definitely, in the case of this bill, we have a lot of members who are extremely concerned with the budget implementation bill. Our members on this side of the House wanted to speak to this important bill and get their voices on the record.

    I recognize that maybe the government thinks that some of what is being said may be what it considers repetitive, but these are important points that need to be made. By moving this motion and stopping the time that we are allowed to speak, it does a number of things. It really disenfranchises the members of Parliament who have been elected, who are duly elected, and who want to speak. I think it also does not benefit our working relationship.

    I have concerns about that.

    However, I am also very concerned about something else. I am not assuming the Minister of Finance will be answering the questions that we have. This is his bill and he is not even here in respect of this place, so what is really the plan? Why is the government rushing this through? Why does it not see the importance of this budget implementation bill, in terms of the harm that it would do to Canadians, the massive deficit that would be passed on to generations and generations of Canadians? The government is not dealing with the problems of the bill and, instead, it is rushing it through.

    Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to respond to the hon. member's question. I agree that we have been working well together. I believe that we can continue working together.

    The reality is that, including today, there will have been six days of debate on this legislation. This is the budget implementation act. This bill will be moved on to committee, where it will be further debated and further studied. The committee will have an opportunity to invite Canadians to come as witnesses to answer some questions, and to share with the committee what they like about this bill and what their concerns are. The committee also has the opportunity of doing a clause-by-clause, word-by-word analysis. This furthers the debate on this legislation. It is important that we allow the committee to do the good work that it does.

    Madam Speaker, I too rise more in sorrow than in anger. I agree with my colleague, the House leader for the Conservatives, that the working relationship in this Parliament has been affected as a consequence of this bill.

    I can remember when the Conservatives, under the Harper government, moved time allocation on over 100 occasions, perhaps setting a parliamentary record, and that the Liberals joined with us many a time to advise the House how upset they were with time allocation. How things have changed.

    The Minister of Finance told us just how important this budget was to Canadians. He talked about the importance of dealing with tax evasion measures, pollution measures, and so many other things. We have drawn attention to the incredible change in Canadians' lives that the infrastructure provisions are going to bring, and the government tells us how important this budget is.

    My question is, if it is that important, why is the government limiting the right of parliamentarians to scrutinize such an important budget?

    Madam Speaker, I would like to take a moment to commend the working relationship that I have had with the hon. member, and I look forward to continuing that conversation. The member very well knows that I do believe in reaching consensus and that we can all work better in this place. We can work better for Canadians, for middle-class Canadians, who are the very people who elected us to do the good work that we do.

    I recognize that members of Parliament are here to represent their constituents and I also recognize that Canadians expect this government to advance the legislation that they have mandated us to advance. It is important that we have the opportunity to have a fruitful and meaningful debate, but also to allow the committee to do the good work that it does. This budget implementation act actually would implement only measures that were introduced in budget 2016 on March 22.

    I assure members of this House that the work will continue, and I look forward to working with all members of this House.

    Madam Speaker, once again we see the government members grabbing their toys. Like kids in a sandbox, they are grabbing their toys and going home if they do not like the way things are going.

    Our hon. colleague from Portage—Lisgar, our hon. House leader, said that we have not had the opportunity to hear our voices. It is not our voices that the government needs to hear. There are 338 members of Parliament who have been elected to be the voices of their constituents, of Canadians. There are six days of debate, if that is actually what the number is, and if our hon. colleague says it I guess we have trust that. Similar to that, I guess we have to trust that they only spent $10 billion; or I guess that is wrong as it is actually quite a bit higher than that.

    The current government has pledged to spend billions of dollars, putting us further into debt. It is not for us here; it is going to be on the future generations who are going to have to pay that back.

    This budget, this financial update, and this bill impact my riding. We do not have a softwood lumber agreement in place. This bill and the Liberals' update do nothing to create jobs in my riding. I have not had an opportunity, except for today right now, to be able to share what the government is doing and is not doing and how that impacts my riding. Six days does nothing to further the voices of the constituencies of the 338 members of Parliament.

    I ask this of my hon. colleague. Why is the government trying to rush this through? Why not give a voice to Canadians and to the members of Parliament, as we have been elected to be the voices of our constituents?

    Madam Speaker, I agree that members of Parliament are elected to represent their constituents. I agree that we do important work for Canadians each and every single day. We are saying, let us continue that work. Let us continue to work hard for Canadians, whether they are in our constituencies or across this great nation.

    Including today, we will have had six days of debate on Bill C-29 at second reading. The bill will move on to committee where it will be further studied and further debated. Canadians will have the opportunity to come as witnesses. It will return to this chamber where we will get to continue the debate, the dialogue, and the discussion so that we can represent our constituents and Canadians across this nation.

    Our plan for middle-class Canadians and Canadian families in the hon. member's constituency, in my constituency, and across this nation and our plan for infrastructure are about delivering for Canada. They are about delivering for their families. They are about delivering the plan that Canadians elected this government on. We need to work together so that we can ensure that we create the opportunities that Canadians need us to create.

    Madam Speaker, I could not help but notice the coincidence that the motion for closure on the budget bill that would establish this new privatization bank was tabled on the very same day that the Prime Minister got together with investors of trillions of dollars of world capital, and that we are going to be voting on that motion the day after. When we talk about the purpose of debate in Parliament, sometimes that is to take the time to learn more about what the government plan is. Now, instead of having the benefit of information on what they discussed in that room as the details leak out, we will already have voted on second reading. I just could not help but notice that coincidence.

    We can get a lot of fluff about moving on to committee and the next stage in debate and everything else. This is a seminal piece of legislation from the government. It would change the way that infrastructure projects are delivered in the country, and for the worse. This closure is really about trying to hide from Canadians the details of the Liberals' new privatization plan for Canadian infrastructure. Let us not pretend. I would like to hear what the government House leader has to say about that.

    Madam Speaker, this is the budget implementation act, No. 2. It would implement budget 2016 that was passed in the House, that was introduced in the House on March 22 of this year. It is important to note that this budget implementation act would only implement measures that were introduced in the budget in March 2016. It would implement the plan that Canadians elected us on, the plan that would help grow opportunities for Canadians, the plan that would invest in Canadian communities and families, and create the growth that we need for this great nation. We need to do this work and it is important that the committee has the opportunity to study this bill.

    Madam Speaker, in the last week I have had the opportunity to speak to students from Brock University, the University of Manitoba, and Western, McMaster, and Wilfrid Laurier. Young Canadians are our future, but as we know, many are struggling with student loans and increasing debt.

    Minister, can you tell us how this bill would help young Canadians succeed—

    I would remind the member to address her questions to the Chair.

    I would also remind other members to wait their turn to speak when someone else has the floor.

    I apologize, Madam Speaker.

    Could the minister tell the House how this bill would help young Canadians succeed and make education more affordable?

    Madam Speaker, that is an important question.

    I, too, had the privilege of being in my constituency last week, just as all members of the House did. I got to interact with everyday Canadians, the very people whom we work hard for. I can remember being a student and the debt that came with it. The important measures this government has introduced would help those very students.

    Now, more than ever, it is important that post-secondary education remains affordable and accessible. Young Canadians must have access to meaningful work at the beginning of their careers and must not be burdened by increasing student debt. Budget 2016 would make post-secondary education more affordable for students from low and middle-income families and would make it easier to repay student debt.

    I heard this time and time again at doorsteps. It is something that Canadians and Canadian families want, something that students are asking for, and something we are committed to delivering on.

    Before we continue, I want to remind members to stay in their seats until members have stopped speaking. Then, when I ask for questions and comments, members can stand.

    Questions and comments, the hon. member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola.

    Madam Speaker, I am sure the minister is very happy to be speaking about something other than the pay to play fundraisers that she has become so familiar with. It seems that the Minister of Finance has completely abdicated his responsibility by pinning the defence of this bill and this motion on the member, so I feel sympathy for her in this case.

    However, this half hour is for the government to tell parliamentarians why it is necessary to go ahead at this time. Liberals conducted a technical briefing and gave parliamentarians eight hours' notice. They have already directed, through their majority, to put forward a motion at committee to start the pre-study of it. They know exactly what they are doing. They are saying they want consensus. The minister said earlier that she wants consensus, and yet she is applying the government's majority rather than listening to the legitimate concerns of parliamentarians. That is disrespectful of the chamber.

    I would like the minister to stand and articulate why this bill must push aside all of the parliamentarians who have not yet had a chance to speak at second reading. I want to hear exactly why a time limit is needed. They are simply using their majority because they can.

    Madam Speaker, I was looking forward to receiving a question from the member, because I feel that he is projecting something that the previous government did, but which is not true.

    It is actually with great regret that I had to bring forward this motion today. I was hoping that we could work together better and would know how much debate was needed. Part of working together is having those conversations. I really believed we could have those conversations to know how much debate the members opposite wanted. We would be more than willing to work with the opposition, but when are not getting an answer, it is really hard to work with them in this case. I know there will be many more opportunities.

    I would like to remind the hon. member that our budget implementation bill is half the size of a bill the previous government once introduced. We have given more time to debate this legislation at second reading, six days of debate. The previous government thought that three or four days was always more than enough. It is interesting to see how perspectives change.

    We will continue to ensure that we have meaningful debate and that committees have the ability to do the good work they do, as well.

    Madam Speaker, to hear the Liberal House leader say this budget implementation bill is a reflection of the Liberals' campaign commitment to Canadians is hard to square with the government's failure to live up to its commitment to reduce the small business tax to 9%.

    Its failure to do that in the March budget was a broken promise to Canadians. The parliamentary budget officer estimates that this cancellation, this broken promise, will cost small and medium-sized enterprises more than $2.1 billion. Small business was looking forward to those promised tax reductions as a way to stimulate the local economy and create jobs. We know that 80% of new jobs are created by small business.

    In what way does the small business tax cut broken promise square with the Liberals' election commitments to Canadians? As well, why is the government unwilling to allow further debate on this broken promise?

    Madam Speaker, this is a great opportunity for me to rise in the House during Global Entrepreneurship Week when small businesses and entrepreneurs are being celebrated. They should not only be celebrated for a day or a week, but every day. I agree that small businesses are the backbone of this economy. They are our job-creators. They are the people that grow communities.

    We have been working very closely with them. We are taking a whole-of-government approach, with over 20 departments recognizing how they are relating directly to and working with small businesses. We know we can always do more. We are listening to them and engaging with them.

    We are taking the priorities and changes they want to see, so we can advance and implement them. It is important to note that small business owners do believe they can grow their businesses. They want measures so they can grow and create the opportunities and jobs they want to create. Small business owners do not want to remain small. Some may, and they are welcome to. However, there are many who want opportunities to grow their businesses, to create the jobs that Canadians want them to create, to grow their communities and the opportunities in them.

    We look forward to continuing to work with all members of the House and small business owners, especially.

    Madam Speaker, I, too, had a great return to my riding last week. While there, I visited a number of high schools and met with four different classes. They were all kids who are about to graduate. They are very concerned.

    They are concerned about where the Liberal government is going with their taxes, asking how they were going to pay for this. Some of the kids were telling me that they were looking at the budget as part of a class project. They wanted to know how a government comes out with a budget that does not even factor in indexing. The kids were very concerned about that.

    I would like to ask the government House leader a question. How can you bring in a budget without putting in indexing, and how much is that indexing going to cost us over the next five years?

    I am assuming the member is asking that through the Chair, not directly to the member.

    Madam Speaker, it is always great to hear about colleagues visiting their constituents and visiting kids.

    I would like to commend that teacher for bringing the budget into her classroom so that our youth had the opportunity to discuss it, and for more youth to have the opportunity to engage with the Government of Canada to see the work we are doing. They are not only the leaders of tomorrow, but the leaders of today. Therefore, I applaud that teacher and the hon. member for taking the time to speak with those very students. Those are the kind of people we are investing in.

    The hon. member said this government has lowered taxes on middle-class Canadians. This government increased taxes on the 1% of wealthiest Canadians. That is something we have not seen done before. That is investing in Canadian families. That is investing in middle-class families. That is living up to the commitment we have made.

    As the member said so eloquently, the youth are watching to see what this government is doing. They expect us to deliver on our commitments. That is why the implementation of the budget is so necessary and why the committee should have the opportunity to study this legislation.

    Madam Speaker, I want to return to the issue of privatization, because a central piece of the Liberal promise and budget was to invest in infrastructure. What we learned from the economic update is that the way the government will do this is by selling that infrastructure and having that new infrastructure owned by private investment firms, many of which are not from Canada. Therefore, the idea that we should be closing down debate just as we are learning the details of this central pillar of the Liberal financial platform is ridiculous. Perhaps it is the fact that the only person from the government side that I have heard standing up and defending this cockamamie scheme during the debate is the member for Spadina—Fort York. He likes to talk about how this is really about affordable housing, and that we should look at the platform. He mentioned the Canada infrastructure bank. The platform mentions it as a bank that will lend money to municipalities and provinces that want to build infrastructure; it does not talk about using it to leverage private funds and then having our highways, airports, and bridges owned by multinational foreign investors. That is simply not in the platform. Maybe the member for Spadina—Fort York is running out of breath and the government cannot find anyone else to defend this scheme.

    Is that why we have to close down debate, because the government cannot find anyone else on its benches willing to defend this ridiculous scheme?

    Madam Speaker, I will remind members that this is the budget implementation act. It does not refer to the infrastructure bank. The budget implementation act brings in the amendments that we committed to to Canadians, which were introduced in budget 2016 in March of this year: amendments to the Employment Insurance Act; to the Old Age Security Act; to the Canada Education Savings Act; to the Canada Disability Savings Act; and to the financial consumer protection framework.

    To go back to an earlier question, our tax measures closed loopholes to protect consumers, to support our small business owners, and to do the work that Canadians want us to do. This act implements the measures that were introduced in budget 2016 in March of this year. Every measure in this implementation act was in the budget of 2016. It only advances and implements that act.

    Except this part.

    Madam Speaker, we are saying let us get it to committee so that it can study it.

    I would remind the member for Elmwood—Transcona that he was afforded the opportunity of respect while he was standing. I would expect that he will do the same when someone else is speaking.

    Madam Speaker, Canadian veterans have bravely served our country. They have stepped up to serve us in the most difficult of situations. We owe them our respect, gratitude, and support.

    Can the hon. government House leader tell the House how this bill will support our veterans?

    Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for that great question, especially as last week was Veterans' Week. As I am sure many members did, I had the opportunity to be with our veterans on Remembrance Day. The night before Remembrance Day, I went around my community to visit cenotaphs and to thank our cadets as well. Last week, I also had the opportunity to bring together land, sea and air cadets in one room to have a fruitful discussion with the Minister of National Defence.

     We recognize the important work that our veterans have done. We recognize that the rights and freedoms that we enjoy today are because of our men and women in uniform, not only those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice but also those who came home and those who continue to fight for our rights and freedoms. The government will give back to the veterans who have given so much in service to all Canadians. Canada will restore critical access to services for veterans, and ensure the long-term financial security of disabled veterans. Canada's veterans will receive more local in-person government services, as well as better access to case managers.

    I was in the Waterloo region and I had multiple people commend this government for opening up the offices—and most recently in Nova Scotia as well. I have to say that it has been very well received, not only because it is the right thing to do but because it is what we should have done a long time ago.

    Madam Speaker, I heard the government House leader talk about the importance of moving this legislation to committee so it could hear from witnesses, study the bill further, and send it back to the House with recommendations. Is the government House leader aware that closure has already been introduced in committee on this particular legislation? If committee only has a limited amount of time to study the bill, then how can moving closure at this time in the House be justified?

    Madam Speaker, the committee has recognized the important work that has to be done. Under this government, committees are working. They are doing good work. They are a part of the process, and there is a reason why the process exists. The work of the committee is the work of the committee. I do not comment on the work of committees. That was part of the commitment we made to Canadians. Our parliamentary secretaries do not even have a vote in committees, so that they can do the open and transparent work that they do.

    I understand that the committee wants to study this legislation. I understand the committee recognizes the importance of this legislation, especially when it comes to the Canadians we represent in the House.

    We have important work to do. I know that if we really want to, and if we work a bit harder, we can work together for Canadians. That is a commitment this government has made, and it is a commitment we will continue to live up to.

    Madam Speaker, I have two points I want to make to the government.

    First of all, we are in the middle of a session of Parliament, and we just returned after a week in our constituencies. What I am trying to say is that when we gather for a parliamentary session, we have a duty, which is to speak directly to the legislation before the House.

    In addition, we have nothing against ministers or the Prime Minister meeting with people outside of the House, but there is a time for that, and that time is when Parliament is not sitting. Ministers need to be present in the House in order to respond directly to our questions and so that all members who want to speak to a given bill have the opportunity to do so. The motion being put forward by the government right now does the exact opposite.

    On the other point, the member for Yellowhead raised the issue of youth. It is important to tell our youth the truth. May I remind the minister that she has been elected under the oath of her platform? It said a modest deficit and getting back to zero deficit in three years. The reality is everything but that. The deficit is expected to be three times higher, and we do not know when we will get back to a zero deficit. How can she deal with that?

    Madam Speaker, I am sure the hon. member was not implying that I am not telling the truth. The member has been in the chamber far longer than I, and he knows that we do not make such implications.

    We have already had six days of debate, and we want the committee to be able to study the bill, hear from witnesses, and work hard so that we can continue our discussions.

    I find it unfortunate that we could not reach a consensus. We wanted to work together to find out how many days of debate the Conservatives wanted, but they did not provide us with that information.

    When it comes to youth, we are committed to working with youth and we will continue to engage with youth. We have done that at unprecedented levels.

    Madam Speaker, it is truly a shame that the Liberals are imposing time allocation on a bill that has more than 146 clauses and amends 13 statutes. Its 234 pages make changes to a number of aspects related to the budget.

    The Liberals claim to be transparent. They claim to be agents of change, the kind of change ensuring that all Canadians will be consulted, that there will be time to talk things out, and that there will be fewer inequalities.

    There are several measures in this bill that will not help reduce inequality. For example, there is no tax credit for hiring young people in this budget. There are a number of inconsistencies when it comes to employment insurance. The board that is meant to ensure that workers are heard—

    I must interrupt the hon. member if she wishes to obtain a response. The minister, for a brief response to the hon. member.

    Madam Speaker, it is precisely for the reasons the hon. member has given that we want to refer the bill to committee for review.

    Again, we do not take these decisions lightly. We are committed to ensuring that all members have enough time within reason.

    It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House.

    Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    Some hon. members: No.

    The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

    Some hon. members: Yea.

    The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): All those opposed will please say nay.

    Some hon. members: Nay.

    The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): In my opinion, the yeas have it.

    And five or more members having risen:

    The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): Call in the members.

    I declare the motion carried.

    I wish to inform the House that because of the proceedings on the time allocation motion, government orders will be extended by 30 minutes.

    Mr. Speaker, let us imagine that I am a television game show host who has a multiple choice question for those who are following the debate on Bill C-29.

    I will give a few numbers and they can tell me which political party those numbers make them think of. For example, I am thinking of a bill with 146 clauses. That is a fairly common occurrence. However, the bill I am thinking of also amends 13 laws. People may now be starting to get a better idea of which party I am talking about. Another hint is that the bill is 234 pages long and has to be examined at record speed. Also, as of just a few minutes ago, the bill became subject to a time allocation motion, or what is commonly known as a gag order. If people answered “the Conservative Party”, they are incorrect, but I understand their reasoning. What this clearly shows is that the Liberal Party does not seem to have brought real change. Once again, the government is using the same old strategies to ram through bills that should be debated more extensively in the House.

    That is exactly the situation that we find ourselves in right now. Once again, when it comes time to debate a bill like Bill C-29, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures, we do not have enough time.

    There are some aspects of this bill that I could get on board with. However, since I have only 10 short minutes to share my views on this bill, I will focus on the aspects that I find completely incomprehensible and even surprising.

    The first example I would like to talk about is the infrastructure bank. There was no mention of this type of measure during the election campaign. It came as a total surprise, and God knows that not all surprises are good ones. We have to discuss this. For those who are watching, I would like to show just how harmful this approach will be.

    Taxpayers like me, hon. members, and all citizens heard no mention of this before. During the election campaign, the Liberal Party told us that it was going to invest heavily in infrastructure by borrowing money, supposedly because interest rates are so low. That message struck a chord, 39% of Canadians thought it was a good idea, and now we have a Liberal government. No matter how low the interest rates are, we are going to have to pay back these billions of dollars one day. I see no way to pay back these low-interest loans other than through taxation. We might feel a bit better if there were a plan for paying back these loans, but it seems that issue has been left for another day. The modest $10-billion deficit is now hovering around $30 billion.

    Worse yet, now we learn something that was never mentioned before, namely that the government wants to privatize a significant portion of our public infrastructure. I want to emphasize the word “public”. The Liberal strategy involves transferring $15 billion earmarked for infrastructure into a bank that will be used as a lever to attract private investors.

    The first problem is that those $15 billion, which are actually in the infrastructure bank, are earmarked for infrastructure projects of $100 million or more. The result is that $15 billion is taken out of the public infrastructure budget for projects under $100 million. A town like Trois-Rivières and a region such as Mauricie have much infrastructure they would need to build or upgrade, and these projects seldom come in at more than $100 million. The Liberals have just taken $15 billion that could have been used to fund these projects, and there will be interest to pay.

    Once the $15 billion is in the bank, the government wants to attract many more hundreds of millions of dollars from private investors: pension funds, retirement plans, major corporations, and private investors.

    Government finances and personal finances are subject to the same main principles of sound management. If I invest $100, I am looking for the best return. I imagine that those who are going to invest billions in a public investment bank will also want a return well above the low interest rate on the loans that the government talks about making. We even heard Michael Sabia, of the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec, say that he hopes for a rate of return of 7% to 9% on the investments made by the infrastructure bank.

    Second, who will be paying these returns? The citizens, as always. I would remind members that they have already paid once by paying the interest on government loans. Now, they will be paying a second time by offering a return on the investments of private companies. If there is one thing we agree on, it is that Quebec and Canada have an infrastructure deficit. Our infrastructure is in bad shape and needs major investments. Many economists agree that we need about $500 billion. We could debate that amount, but let us just say that it is somewhere in that range. There is too much of a gap between $500 billion and $15 billion. They really need to do something else.

    Too often, we forget to talk about how economists estimate that, over the past 10 years, as the corporate tax rate fell from 28% to 15%, the government missed out on $15 billion to $20 billion per year, money that it could not invest in updating our infrastructure. The government called its economic approach revolutionary. It said that corporations would inject the money they were able to save back into the economy, that they would create jobs, that everything would go gangbusters and be totally awesome, but in fact, that did not happen.

    Even more unbelievable is the fact that the money corporations saved is now available to be invested in an infrastructure bank. Not only did taxpayers forgo the fair share that all members of society should pay, but also, if corporations take the money they were allowed to keep in the hope they would create jobs, and if they invest it in this bank, it will cost us to pay them a return on their private investments, which they expect to be between 7% and 9%, investments that they will make using money they saved at the expense of the public purse.

    In other words, this is the third time that taxpayers, including me and my colleagues, have had to use their own money to pay for the very same public infrastructure, which will be private from now on. If we compare that to the $15-billion federal infrastructure fund and the hundreds of billions the government hopes to attract, it becomes clear very quickly that the government is going to become a minority in its own regime and that our public infrastructure will be increasingly privatized. Private infrastructure automatically means additional taxes, user fees, tolls, and so on. Imagine all the systems needed to ensure good returns.

    I was hoping to address a number of other topics, including EI. We have some interesting ideas on that, such as coming up with a better definition for “suitable employment”, although it is not clearly defined in the act. However, nothing has been done so far regarding accessibility.

    I also would have liked to talk about SMEs. We are still waiting for support measures for them. Instead, a promise to lower the tax rate from 11% to 9% has been broken. On top of that, nothing has been done to cap credit card rates and fees for our SMEs.

    I will use the few minutes I have left to answer questions.

    Madam Speaker, I had the pleasure of listening to the long speech given by my colleague from Trois-Rivières.

    I would like to come back to the example that he gave, since there are people from the Mauricie and Trois-Rivières who are watching these proceedings.

    People had a choice and they chose to vote for a government that invests in the middle class and Canadian families, a government whose budget implementation bill seeks to help young Canadians to succeed, improve employment insurance, improve our seniors' quality of life, support veterans, and strengthen fiscal integrity. That is why they voted for a Liberal government, our current Prime Minister's government.

    I would like to ask the member for Trois-Rivières a few simple questions. Why is he against investing in Canadian families and our country's young people? Why is he against investing in our seniors and veterans? That is exactly what the budget implementation bill does. It invests in Canadians. Ambitious, confident countries invest, and that is exactly what we are doing. Why is he not in favour of that?

    Madam Speaker, I will give an example which aptly demonstrates the dichotomy, or should I say the yawning abyss, between the message sent and the reality.

     We come from the same region. People talk to me of the middle class, but the Liberals have now defined the middle class as people earning between $45,000 and $190,000, which does not apply whatsoever to the population of the Mauricie.

     In Quebec, the median wage is $31,500. In the Mauricie, the median wage is a tad below that. No one in the middle class has benefited from the government’s income tax reductions, even though the government boasts of supporting the middle class. That is true of every example I could cite. But I will not cite them all, for I do not have enough time.

     With regard to employment insurance and the support being offered to small business and individuals, there is an abyss between rhetoric and reality. It is for that reason that it will be an honour for me to vote against the bill.

    Madam Speaker, I appreciated the speech by my colleague from Trois-Rivières, who points out a great many inconsistencies on the part of the government.

     I will speak a little now about employment insurance. The people on an unemployment committee in my riding have told me that, with the application of the new rules, compassionate care benefits have increased from 26 weeks to 28 weeks. A sick person, however, can only receive 15 weeks of health insurance. That makes no sense.

     Something else that makes no sense is the Social Security Tribunal of Canada, of which we have been critical for a very long time. New evidence can no longer be presented. The tribunal is used to review certain cases. However, people can no longer present new evidence or new facts.

    What is more, a single judge represents both employer and worker. Before, there were three judges. What does my colleague think of this?

    Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her important question.

     Every constituency office deals on a weekly basis with people grappling with employment insurance. All of the cases my colleague has mentioned have this in common: most of them will at least be eligible for employment insurance and will subsequently experience all of the problems associated with that. Most people are not yet eligible. That is the crux of the matter, the first thing that should be emphasized: how to set up measures that will make a plan accessible that is paid for by employers and employees. Fewer than four workers in 10 have access to EI when the worst thing that could happen, happens: they lose their job.

     I would simply recall the notion of a universal 360-hour eligibility standard.

    Madam Speaker, in his response to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, what the member did not allude to is the fact that we have the middle-class tax cut. We also have the increase in the GIS and the increase in the Canada child benefit tax-free portion, lifting thousands of vulnerable seniors out of poverty and thousands of children out of poverty. I wonder if the member might want to provide comment on that aspect of the budget.

    Madam Speaker, once again, I could give plenty of examples, but I will only give one, that of the Canada child benefit. In theory this benefit was supposed to be more generous than the Conservatives’ benefit.

     I do some door-to-door in my riding, and people have very clearly understood that they are the ones paying for their benefit, which they will hand down from generation to generation. Since it will not be indexed until 2020, it will lose its value and revert to the equivalent of what we had previously.

    Madam Speaker, I am truly honoured and privileged to rise for the first time during debate here in the House of Commons on this traditional territory of the Algonquin peoples.

    Allow me to begin by thanking the people of Scarborough North for continuing to put their faith and trust in me. It has been an incredible journey serving this community over the past 10 years, starting in 2006, when they first elected me as their public school board trustee. I am deeply humbled to now represent them in this House, where I will fight on their behalf each and every day.

    The people of Scarborough North constitute a cultural mosaic in which visible minorities are the vast majority. More than 90% of the population are people of colour, which is the highest percentage of any riding in the country, and 70% of them were born outside of Canada. They have come from all corners of the world to make Scarborough North their home.

    Indeed, this is the story of my parents, who emigrated from India to Canada over 40 years ago for a better life not only for themselves but for future generations. I would like to take this opportunity to thank them for their unconditional love and support. When I speak about the residents of Scarborough North, I am reminded of the hopes and dreams my parents brought with them to Canada.

    My constituents are hard-working families. Many of them are new immigrants. They work long hours to pay rent or the mortgage, to put food on the table, and to provide a good life and education for their children. They are young Canadians who have studied hard, graduated, and are now looking for work. They are seniors who have worked hard their entire lives, contributed to society, and are now hoping to spend their retirement days in comfort.

    Now more than ever, many people in Scarborough North, and across Canada, are finding it increasingly difficult to get ahead. That is why our government has focused our investing on our people to make their lives better and to build a country that works for everyone.

    That is precisely why I stand today in support of Bill C-29, the budget implementation act, which would round out the measures our government introduced in the 2016 budget. This bill would help create a stronger economy by supporting the middle class and those working hard to join it. It would enable Canadian families to have more money in their pockets. It would create more opportunities for youth, give seniors a bit more assurance, and ensure tax fairness and a strong financial sector.

    There is no better time than now to invest in Canadians. Interest rates are at historic lows, and Canada has the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio among the G7 nations.

    At the heart of our country is the middle class. When the middle class has more money to save, invest, and grow the economy, all Canadians benefit.

     One of the key measures our government introduced to help build the middle class is the Canada child benefit. As of last July, nine out 10 Canadian families with children have more money each month to spend on the things they need, like school supplies, groceries, and winter jackets. What is so great about the new Canada child benefit is that it is not only more generous than previous programs but is also better targeted to help the families that need it the most. This new tax-free benefit will lift 300,000 children out of poverty this year by providing an annual benefit of up to $6,400 per child under the age of six and $5,400 per child aged six through 17. It will mean that Canadian families with children will see an average increase of approximately $2,300 in child benefits this year.

    This budget implementation bill would further help these families by ensuring that the Canada child benefit is indexed to inflation, starting in 2020. I know how important this is for Canadian families, having worked with many parents, children, and youth in my previous role as a school board trustee.

    Our government is also working hard to set up young Canadians for success. This past summer, I witnessed first-hand how the 2016 budget is helping our youth gain valuable work experience, experience they need. In my riding of Scarborough North, close to 80 non-profit organizations, businesses, and faith groups received funding through the Canada summer jobs program to hire youth. All across Canada, twice as many young Canadians were employed this year through Canada summer youth jobs, earning income and experience that will help them land a good-paying job after graduation.

    As caring and compassionate Canadians, it is important for us to empower the next generation but also for us to take care of older generations. That is why I am pleased to see that this budget implementation bill would help seniors by enabling them to retire more comfortably. Our elders have worked hard their entire lives. They deserve to be treated with the utmost respect and dignity.

     In budget 2016, the government returned the age of eligibility for old age security and guaranteed income supplement benefits to 65 from 67, thereby putting thousands of dollars back in seniors’ pockets. Since last July, 900,000 single seniors across Canada have enjoyed improved financial security thanks to a guaranteed income supplement top-up benefit of as much as $947 per year.

    It is the right thing to do because single seniors are especially vulnerable and have a much higher risk of living in poverty. This budget implementation bill would take it one step further by making benefits for seniors more flexible. For couples living apart due to extenuating circumstances, each senior would be entitled to the guaranteed income supplement and spousal allowance benefits based on their individual incomes. This measure, along with the changes our government has made to strengthen the Canada pension plan, will help our seniors live with dignity and respect. It is dignity and respect that they deserve.

    This budget implement bill supports a plan to invest in Canadians not just for today but for the years and decades ahead. As we approach the 150th anniversary of Confederation, let us work together to build an even better Canada where all Canadians can flourish and find opportunities to achieve success.

    Hope and hard work was not just the campaign slogan we ran on. Hope and hard work represent the values that have built this great nation, the true north strong and free. Let us create a climate of hope across this country, a land of opportunity, for every single person who works hard to make Canada a better place.

    Madam Speaker, the member talked about the generous programs of the government, which it is basically financing with debt, large volumes of debt that will be paid for by future generations. This debt will have to be paid by them through higher taxes. That is quite the legacy the government is leaving for our children, the next generation that comes after us, and probably our grandchildren.

    The member talked about how we are going to help children in school. With his school board experience, it is interesting that the member also voted against Bill C-241, which was a private member's bill that would have helped school boards have an easier time paying the excise tax with a reduction.

    On child poverty rates, the member must know that the Liberal record is quite terrible. Between 1993 and 2005-06, when the Liberals were in charge, child poverty rates stayed exactly the same. During the Conservative government's years, child poverty rates actually went down significantly. They went down from 14.7% for the last year figures are available. There was a nearly 2% difference from the start to the finish of the government's record. Why is the member voting for a budget that will basically leave future generations with huge amounts of debt and worse off--

    The hon. member for Scarborough North.

    Madam Speaker, to correct the record, I voted in favour of the private member's legislation on excise school taxes. Indeed, having sat on Canada's largest public school board and having been chair of that board, I know how important it is for us to ensure that our young people and children have a strong education system and have an opportunity to succeed. It is exactly why our government is working hard to support our children and the next generation of leaders in this country. Our Canada child benefit will lift 300,000 children out of poverty this year. That is what our government is doing to support our children to make sure they have a chance to succeed.

    Madam Speaker, I was wondering why the member is in favour of using public funds to give to foreign companies so they can then privatize public infrastructure. I am wondering about the logic behind his supporting this measure.

    Madam Speaker, our government is making historic investments. We are investing nearly $12 billion in new funding. This money will go to help build bridges and create new roads. It will link our communities together, building bridges between people all across our great country, from coast to coast to coast.

    Not only will this money be used to support child care centres and social infrastructure, but it will also create cultural and recreational facilities. These facilities are much needed and will only serve to generate an even better economy as we invest now for the betterment of our future as Canadians.

    Madam Speaker, I certainly appreciate the member's contribution to this debate. He is a very eloquent speaker.

    However, he does bring new meaning to “the silent majority”. We hear from the parliamentary secretary to government House leader on a regular basis, yet this is the first opportunity for this member. It has been over a year since he was elected.

    How will the member feel when his constituents find out that after he has had a whole year to be part of the discussion in this place, this is the first time he has given a speech in the House? I ask this because all of us are accountable to our constituents. I mean him no personal ill will, but I would like to hear the answer to that.

    Madam Speaker, I have had the incredible privilege of serving in the House and of working hard on behalf of my constituents each and every day. Whether it is holding consultations in my riding or hosting pre-budget consultations with MPs across our Scarborough region, I have been working hard to ensure that the voices of the people I represent are heard.

    I have had the incredible opportunity to speak many times in the House on important issues, for example, to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the Scarborough Gurdwara in my riding, and to talk about how I accompanied our Prime Minister on his official visit to China.

    Each and every day, I feel proud and privileged to represent the people who elected me.

    Before we resume debate, I want to remind a few members, only because it appeared there was some question as to how I had allocated the questions.

    I just want to remind members that on November 3, the Deputy Speaker did raise this. He said:

    Again, I want to indicate that this has had a bit of a change, but it is to allow full debate so when a member gives a speech, the questions and comments will mostly come from the other parties.

    Resuming debate, the member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen.

    Madam Speaker, it is a great honour to rise in this place and speak on behalf of my constituents.

    While in the riding this past weekend, I was fortunate to meet many citizens of Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola and hear first hand their concerns. To be candid, while many appreciate the new tone in Ottawa, they are increasingly losing confidence in the direction. Let me explain that.

    Every member in this place knows full well that economic growth continues to be downgraded, much as we also know there are no promised net new jobs. Keep in mind that these facts are irrefutably true.

    We also know the Liberal government has basically pulled an Evel Knievel and jumped over all the promises of modest $10 billion a year deficit budgets. The same Liberal government has pulled off a four horsemen magic performance and turned a promised $10 billion modest deficit budget into a $25 billion budget, with no end in sight for red ink. While turning that $10 billion promised deficit budget into a $25 billion deficit budget, the Liberals also made their promise of a return to a balanced budget in the 2019-20 fiscal year. That has magically vanished as well.

     As citizens told me last week, they have not felt this betrayed since the Liberals originally promised, if elected, they would eliminate the GST in the 1990s. How did that Liberal red book promise turn out? We all know, but why does that matter?

    If we look at the 2013-14 fiscal year, the federal government spent $28 billion servicing debt. Let us put that $28 billion into perspective. That is more than was spent on national defence that year, at $21.5 billion. In fact, that same year the federal government spent over $30 billion on the Canada health transfers to provinces. In other words, we are spending almost as much servicing debt as we are transferring to provinces to pay for their health care.

    Let us be clear. The Liberal budget in Bill C-29 sets a series of deficit budgets that will exceed $113 billion by 2021. There is no path to a balanced budget despite Liberal election promises to the contrary.

     We heard from people at finance committee during the pre-budget consultation process. For example, the Chamber of Commerce for Metropolitan Montreal said that it was a credibility issue for the government and for the finance minister. It said that a return to balance had to be a part of the budget.

    When and exactly how does the Liberal government propose to reconcile the obvious? How do we return to balance? We all know the Liberals have no answer to this question. What we do know is that the Liberals like using buzz words. Debt is now called “investing”. Deficits, interestingly enough in Liberal speak, are also called “investing”. I suspect if the Liberals offered a VISA card instead of a credit limit, we would see an investment limit on our credit card bills. Canadians know there is interest on debt and so far we have yet to hear what the translation for interest on debt is in Liberal speak. Perhaps it could be called “a price on investing”.

    Now the infrastructure bank is coming. Is this directly related to the bill? We do not know. The bill hints about all kinds of spending on infrastructure, yet $35 billion, about the same amount as annual health transfers to provinces, is being carved away from somewhere for this infrastructure bank.

    P3 partnerships used to mean that the private sector would borrow money to finance public infrastructure in partnership with the government, all done with private capital. Now the Liberal government wants to borrow money it does not have to ensure private capital receives a generous rate of return to finance public infrastructure. What do we call that? The borrow low to pay high interest plan. This week the Liberal government is promoting a plan where, according to Liberals, for every $1 that the government puts in, borrowed, it hopes to attract $4 in private money in return.

    Let us think about that for a moment. Where else on the planet does anyone borrow $1 and get $4 of private money lent to them in return? It seems the Liberal government has taken a page from the four horsemen. There is only one problem with turning $1 of borrowed money into $4 of private sector investment. Private sector investment requires a return. Not even the four horsemen can change that.

     Exactly what level of return to private investors has the Liberals promised to their Bay Street friends? We do not know. So far, I have yet to see any rate of return being promised. However, we should make no mistake that it is the taxpayers who will be paying. When? We do not know. The Liberal budget implementation act enacts a cone of silence on returning to a balanced budget. The only thing we do know is that the billions of soon to be added debt will now be financed by Liberal friends with interest paid by Canadian taxpayers.

    After one year, we already know the Liberal plan is failing. Economic growth has been downgraded. We just have to ask the Parliamentary Budget Office or the Governor of the Bank of Canada. There are no new net jobs. What is worse that the Liberal changes to mortgages will hurt the housing market.

     We know from internal finance reports that the expanded Canada pension plan will be a drag on the Canadian economy and will particularly hurt jobs for the next 15 to 20 years.

     Let us keep in mind that this is not just speculation by me. All of this is factually verifiable. The Liberal solution is to borrow more money and throw more money at this failed plan. I am not trying to sound partisan, however, that is really what is on the table and why I am opposing the budget implementation bill.

    I would also pause for a moment to point out that it is easy to criticize, more so at the present time given that the PBO, major bank economists and Statistics Canada all provide data and reports that easily show this Liberal plan is failing, and failing badly.

    What should the government do? First, members should raise their hands if they think an MP or anyone earning up to $199,000 a year should have a tax cut? The Liberals are wrong to do this. What should have been done instead? Instead of penalizing potential homebuyers in all of Canada for a problem that existed largely in the Liberal strongholds of Vancouver and Toronto, and keep in mind that recent B.C. government changes to foreign buyers was already cooling off the Vancouver housing market, the Liberal government should be implementing measures that would help to increase housing supply across the country.

     Increasing housing supply will lower prices. It will get more Canadians into home ownership, which in turn opens more rentals to ease the demand for rental accommodations. More important, it also helps our Canadian economy. It will put more people to work and it will help the Canadian lumber market as well. That is very important considering the Liberals have made zero progress on the softwood lumber deal with the United States.

    How could Ottawa help to catalyze housing supply? By increasing the threshold for the GST rebate on new housing, so new homeowners are not penalized by Ottawa for realizing their dream to own a home. The B.C. government is already doing this with the property purchase tax, and it is working. It is time that Ottawa stepped up and did the same.

     This policy would not only help our economy at a time of desperate need; it would also help the very middle-class Canadians who have become the Liberal government's second favourite talking point right behind debt—sorry, I mean investing. That is one idea that I would propose the Liberal government could do in the budget implementation bill to help.

    I have one final thought. If more Canadians were homeowners and had home equity, the Liberals might realize that harming jobs and our economy through a bigger CPP is the wrong way to go. There is already an alternative that will help jobs and our economy through enhanced home ownership.

     I have other proposals as well. We also know the Liberals have no interest in imposing internal trade on Canadian provinces. They would much rather impose a national carbon tax. On that note, I would simply point out that none of our major trading partners will be imposing such a tax. All those same trading partners have superior internal trading policies of their own, something we should all be thinking about if we are serious about growing the economy.

    I am thankful for the opportunity to not just oppose this bill, but to make a few proposals on how I believe we can strengthen our economy and increase the unity of our country.

    Madam Speaker, the member knows the enormous respect I have for him, because he sits on the finance committee with us. I respect him not only for that but also for the perspective he brings to the debate. However, instead of trying to sound partisan, which obviously he was, he sounds very much out of touch with Canadians and the world. I would just like to remind him that the plan we have put forward is a plan to invest in Canadian families, the Canadian middle class, and infrastructure. That is what ambitious and confident nations are doing today.

    I would like to remind the member, because I know he is very studied on this issue, that the IMF director said just recently that she hopes the plan Canada has put forward for the middle class, for Canadian families, and for infrastructure goes viral around the world. Not only is it good for Canada, but it would be good for the world.

    Therefore, I would like to ask why the member voted against cutting taxes for the middle class. Why would he be against improving employment insurance for the same constituents whom he represents and for whom he says he is working? Why would he not support our Canadian veterans? Those are the measures in the budget implementation act that we are talking about. We are not talking about the infrastructure bit, on which I am quite happy to answer questions, but we are talking now about measures that would make a difference for Canadians today. These are measures that would help our youth, our veterans, and our seniors. I cannot understand why, today, when he saw the things in our budget, he would vote against implementing those same measures that would help the people in his riding.

    Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member opposite for his contributions. He says I am out of touch with Canadians. I talk to my constituents and I make sure my priorities align with theirs.

    I would also just remind the member that he is actually not a member of the finance committee. It was his own government that said it would keep the two separate, yet he acts as if he were a member. While I value his contributions at committee, he is not a member.

    I do not know where to go with that, other than to say that if we can all agree that economic growth is important and the government should have a plan, as previous administrations have had, then let us put that plan to the test. We see economic growth downgraded. We see no net new jobs, despite what was in the budget. To me, the importance of a plan is not just in having a plan. It is in the execution of said plan to the benefit of all Canadians. That is where the member and his government fall short.

    Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the opportunity to share two quotes with the House.

    Who said that? It was the Liberal member for Malpeque.

    Who said that? It was the Liberal member for Winnipeg North.

    I would like to ask my colleague why Liberals always change their minds once they are in power.

    Mr. Speaker, that is such a nice, easy, softball question for me. I appreciate where the member is coming from. I will say that things like time allocation are helpful tools. In the previous Parliament, I supported the government because it had a plan and it wanted to implement those measures to the benefit of the economy, and it got results.

    Unfortunately, this government chooses to say one thing during election. The House leader said today that she loves to build consensus, yet despite legitimate concerns of members such as him and our own House leader, that was thrown aside in favour of the majority bulldozer that the government has chosen.

    It is the difference between what they say and what they do. They say during the election they have a plan that will work. Then we find out that it is coming off the rails. We find that now, suddenly, they have to invest in ideas like an infrastructure bank when no one understands what exactly it will do, and conveniently, it will take five years for a new crown corporation to get set up with full policies and to implement those policies. Therefore, the public will not be able to judge if they are actually good managers of it.

    It is important to point out that what the government says and what it does are two different things. Members across the way would do well to take a hard look in the mirror and ask themselves if that is okay.

    Mr. Speaker, before I start my speech, I would say for the member who just spoke that he should be happy to vote in favour of this bill, because actually, we are sending the bill to the same committee of which he is a proud member, the finance committee. Therefore, he should be happy that he will have the chance to look at the bill in detail, and I hope he will invite his constituents to share their perspective on the great things we are doing for Canadians.

     I will now speak of the matter before us today. My colleagues have spoken at length about the Canada infrastructure bank, but what we are talking about is very simple: implementing the plan we have proposed to help Canadians and Canadian families. This is the plan to help the middle class, to help families, and to invest in our infrastructures.

     It is also a plan to help young Canadians succeed, and to improve employment insurance and our seniors’ quality of life. This plan also supports our veterans, and it will bolster our fiscal integrity. I hope that all of my colleagues will be able to vote in favour of this bill and send it to committee, because it is a plan for Canadians.

     I am pleased to have the opportunity today to speak about part 2 of the budget implementation act. As the House knows, the government has an ambitious plan to ensure the growth of the middle class, and with it, the growth of the country’s entire population.

     Canada was the first country to act on the idea of focusing on the progress of the middle class in order to spur growth across the entire country. We understand that when the middle class is thriving, the whole country thrives.

    We have received major support from all over the world for the measures we have taken. The Financial Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, and the managing director of the IMF, Ms. Lagarde, cite Canada as a model to be followed for its capacity to utilize every possible lever to generate growth. I am sure that my colleagues in the House today will want to support a bill that generates economic growth.

     The government of Canada is resolved to pursue its economic agenda centred on the middle class and on Canadian families. Since November, our government has taken concrete steps to support the middle class and so make our economy grow.

     That is why we have taken measures to support the middle class. The first thing we have proposed is an income tax reduction for the middle class. Nine million Canadians are in fact paying less tax today thanks to this government, which has adopted this initial key measure.

    Next we introduced the Canada child benefit. I would say that this is probably one of the measures of which my colleagues and I are most proud. It is probably the most innovative social measure since universal health care. It is a measure that helps reduce child poverty. Indeed, it may be possible to lift 300,000 young people out of poverty.

    When we visit ridings and talk to people, we realize the extent to which this sort of measure, which helps our youth succeed and emerge from poverty, creates a profound transformation in our society in terms of the fight against poverty.

     In addition, we have increased the guaranteed income supplement for nearly one million seniors living alone. Often our single seniors are women. People have talked to me about this situation.

     At the time of the last budget framework, I had the opportunity to travel from Moncton to Yellowknife to consult with Canadians. People talked to me about these measures that would help them. They asked us for two very simple things, namely that we help them and their families, and that we help the middle class grow. That is exactly what these measures have done.

    Next we managed to conclude an historic agreement with the Canadian provinces to top up the Canada pension plan, because this finance minister is someone who looks to the long term. He is someone who looks ahead, who knows that we have to make some changes now to help young Canadians prepare for their retirement. We know that today some 2.3 million Canadian families are not saving enough for retirement, and we want to give them the tools they need to live with dignity in their retirement. That is important to us.

     Now I want to talk about the plan for the Canada child benefit.

     As you know, Mr. Speaker, even in your riding Canadian families have been receiving more money since July 1 thanks to the Canada child benefit. They are receiving up to $6,400 a year for each child under age six and $5,400 for each child between 6 and 17. Nine families in ten have seen their benefits go up. This is an outstanding measure for reducing poverty in the country.

    The 2016 budget implementation act no. 2 also strengthens the Canada child benefit by indexing it to inflation. This government has a long-term vision and is making sure that families can count on supplemental assistance today and for many years.

     Canadians also need to feel supported and protected once they have taken their retirement. That is precisely the aim of the Liberal government’s plan. This plan helps people at every stage of their lives. We have talked about measures for youth, for families, and for pensioners. We have decided to invest so as to ensure that people who are retiring can have more money in their pockets.

     In 2014, the latest year for which data have been collected, 3.9% of senior citizens in Canada, or about 200,000 of them, were living below Statistics Canada’s poverty line. Nearly 80% of these low-income seniors, a large majority, are single, and most of them are women. This is why we have also increased the guaranteed income supplement for low-income single seniors by $947 a year. It is one of a series of measures aimed at investing in the middle class, because it is the right thing to do.

     I would like to return to comments made some of my colleagues. They have talked a great deal about the Canada infrastructure bank. That is another important measure that will enable us to do more and do it faster. However, that is not the purpose of budget implementation act, 2016, no. 2. That is a measure we announced in the 2016 fall economic statement, but that is not what we are talking about.

    Since my colleagues said that they needed to express their views, that they were commenting on the measures intended to improve the lives of Canadians, such as the legislative measures we have just taken on employment insurance, I would like to hear their views on this. Why are they opposed to measures that will give more people access to employment insurance?

     I would also like them to talk about the increase in benefits for senior citizens. I am sure that seniors in my colleagues’ ridings are talking to them about this important measure.

     In addition, I would like to hear their views on the measures in this bill to assist veterans. We all care about helping and respecting veterans, and there are specific measures on this in budget implementation act, 2016, no. 2.

    I would also like to hear my colleagues’ views on the integrity of the tax system. My colleagues are wondering about many things on this issue, and rightly so. Well, budget implementation act, 2016, no. 2 in fact contains measures to strengthen the integrity of Canada’s tax system.

     My colleagues must realize that these measures will help Canadian middle-class families and provide for more fairness. I am sure that this is exactly what my colleagues want: to foster prosperity at home, to provide financial security for families, and to allow senior citizens, as well as young people, eventually, to retire with dignity.

     All these measures are improving the living conditions of Canadians. Every one of us is here, in Ottawa, today, working on their behalf. That is exactly what the budget implementation bill does. It helps families and middle-class people and invests in infrastructure.

    Mr. Speaker, I have listened intently to the last few speakers and tried a couple of times to ask a question. I appreciate being recognized and allowed to ask a question, though I know I have a short period of time for that.

    The Liberals would like us to believe that this is a plan for our future and our youth. We heard the House leader say earlier that, indeed, the youth are our leaders of tomorrow. The Liberals would be taxing our youth. They are putting high debt on the backs of our youth, who will be future leaders. Honestly, a future of high debt, high taxes, and no jobs would do nothing and does not sound like a bright future to me.

    The hon. parliamentary secretary said Canadians are questioning the government's tax program. No, Canadians are questioning the integrity of the government, because it told us one thing, did another thing, and is now putting closure on debate and not allowing the 338 members of Parliament, who were elected to be the voices of Canadians from coast to coast to coast, to have a voice. The government is not spending its own money. It is not the government's money; it is Canadians' money. The transformational infrastructure spending is less than 7% of overall debt that the government is projecting.

    I would ask my hon. colleague this question. Is limiting debate and forcing closure truly open and transparent?

    Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question by the member because it allows me to explain the process. People at home are listening to the debate.

    We are saying that we want to send this bill to committee so that the member and his constituents can be heard. We want to listen to Canadians. That is being transparent and open. We want to listen. We are just sending the bill to committee. It will come back to the chamber at third reading. However, let me be more precise.

    Members have been talking in general, but let me say what this bill would do. I am sure the member has people in his riding who will benefit from improved employment insurance. Let me say what this bill would do. It would change the eligibility rules, which would make it easier for new workers and those re-entering the workforce to claim benefits.

    Let us look at veterans. I am sure the member has veterans in his riding. What would this bill do? It would help Canada's veterans. They would receive more local in-person government services, as well as better access to case managers.

    Let me talk about tax fairness, because I am sure his constituents are very concerned about that. What would this bill do? The government would invest in effective administration and enforcement of the tax law and would propose actions to improve the integrity of the Canada tax system. This is what we are talking about.

    Those measures would help people in my riding and his riding. They would help Canadians. That is what Canadians voted for and that is what we are delivering.

    Mr. Speaker, I have listened carefully to my colleague’s speech.

     Unfortunately, the first thing that comes to mind is Jacques Dutronc’s song The Opportunist.

    

     Only a short while ago, the Liberals were getting all worked up and finding it incomprehensible that a guillotine would be imposed and a House majority would be used to limit debate and discussion between parliamentarians. Surprise, surprise! Now that they are in power, the Liberals are back to their old tricks; they are changing their tune and doing exactly what they condemned.

     What is my colleague the parliamentary secretary afraid of? Why can we not take the time to discuss the budget implementation bill in depth and find all its flaws, like the privatization of our public services and infrastructure and the forsaking of all those who do not earn $45,000 a year and do not benefit from the Liberals’ tax reduction measures, in contrast to what they said in the election?

    Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and his prose. He is a man of economy, but I know that he is also a man of letters, who has spoken to us about prose.

    That said, I would like to remind him of the facts. I hope his constituents are listening to us, because if the member votes against budget implementation act, 2016, no. 2, he will be voting against reducing income taxes for the middle class, against measures that will help young Canadians succeed and against improving EI.

     I know, because I know the member, that an issue of great interest to him is the improvement of Canada’s employment insurance system. I also know that the member would like to support a government that intends to improve the quality of life of senior citizens and veterans, because I have often heard him ask questions about that.

     Why not do so today? Why not support measures that will help the middle class—

    Order.

     Resuming debate. The hon. member for Calgary Shepard.

    Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be joining this debate on what is now the amendment to the amendment of the bill. Sadly, this will be the last day, so I am lucky to be getting a chance to get up and speak in the House. I will probably not get a chance to speak at committee, although the Liberals are saying that it will be a great opportunity for all of us to go there to participate. But I do not think they are expecting all 337 of us to show up at the committee and all ask to speak, and talk to the witnesses and have an opportunity to debate the contents of this bill. I doubt the Liberals are expecting all of us to be there. I would like to see that, as it would be an interesting committee meeting to have all 300-plus members there. I think the best place to have a debate is right here at second reading, so we can have a fulsome debate by all of my colleagues from different political parties, with an opportunity to have their voices and those of their constituents heard.

     I would like to thank my seatmate, the member for Calgary Signal Hill, for this opportunity and for moving a subamendment that would add the words “a stagnant economy” after “exemplified by”. On that concept of a stagnant economy, what is happening in Alberta is the direct result of the economic policies of the current federal Liberal government and the provincial Notley New Democratic government. What was a commodity downturn has been turned into a full-blown recession. Although there are hints of a possible recovery, I just do not trust the government to have the best interests of Albertans in mind when it is making policy decisions that will have an influence over that.

    Indeed, what we have here is a wholly owned Liberal stagnant economy. The biggest benefit from the Liberals so far today is the so-called middle-income tax cut, which they know would benefit those earning over $100,000 because those are the individuals who will take full advantage of this tax cut. For those people earning just over $45,000 and up to $95,563, they will be able to save a few dollars at most from this, whereas those earning more, including the members of the House, will be able to save all of those dollars.

    The Liberals on the other side took away the children's fitness tax credit; they cut in half the TFSA; and they took away many of the other tax credits that the working class and the working poor were taking advantage of. The Liberals are going to make it more difficult for those people to earn a living. To earn a living, they have to have a job as well. They could find a job working on behalf of someone else or for themselves as small business owners. Then small business owners are hoping that they will be able to earn a profit and provide for their family and pay their workers.

    Talking about small business, one thing I want to mention is the common reporting standards in the budget, which would have a severe impact on small credit unions. Alberta has a thriving credit union sector for many generations. The credit unions have been contributing especially to rural Alberta, but also to Calgary and Edmonton's economies. During the downturns of the 1980s when the big chartered banks were refusing to turn over mortgages and extend lines of credit to Albertans, it was the credit union sector that filled the gap and helped Albertans keep their farms and their homes. With the common reporting standard, it is one size fits all. That simply does not work for smaller credit unions that do not have the means to comply. But the current government loves one size fits all.

    I have a couple of examples to demonstrate this. We have heard from the government that it will be imposing a one-size-fits-all carbon tax across every single province. Whether a province likes it or not, it really will not matter, because they will have to live with the carbon tax.

    There are provinces like Saskatchewan, which has a great premier, Brad Wall, who is fighting to ensure that the people of Saskatchewan will not have to pay the tax, because the province has made a policy decision repeatedly during elections not to go down that path.

     Then there are governments like Alberta's, which already had a carbon levy and is introducing a carbon tax on January 1. It is something that the vast majority of Albertans do not want, including the vast majority of Alberta business owners. But the Liberals have said that if the provinces do not do it, the federal government will impose it. Hopefully we will change provincial governments in 2019, and hopefully it will be a former member of this House, Jason Kenney, who will be leading that political party to victory in 2019. Even if provincial governments say they do not want a carbon tax provincially, the federal government will impose one with that one-size-fits-all mentality.

    On the Canada health transfer negotiations, again the government has said that one size fits all and that the provinces will get what they will get. No negotiations are going to happen. There is no give and take. It is one size fits all.

    On the CPP or Canada pension plan premium increase, which basically is a payroll tax, the government has again said that one size fits all. It does not matter what type of seniors they are. It does not matter how they are trying to save for their future. It does not matter what choices they have made in terms of income, career, or moving around the country. None of that matters to the government. It is one size fits all for everyone.

    The government has been talking about how it will help seniors. The premium increase will not help seniors immediately because CPP works in a very particular way, like any pension plan, which is that we make an investment into it, we put a certain amount of premiums into it, and 40 years down the line, our investments then return as a pension to us. The seniors of today will gain no new benefits. They cannot. They have to pay into it.

    Unless the government amends this budget bill or introduces another budget bill at some point, what they are saying is that it will simply increase unpaid benefits to someone who has not invested into it. For the younger generation especially, my generation, the CPP is not a great return on investment. I can make real estate investment decisions, I can use my TFSA. Many young people I know are making those types of decisions and planning for their own retirement. They are being responsible with their own savings. This will take away the opportunity to choose the types of savings they want to make and the investment vehicles they want to have, and it will give all of these decisions to the government.

    We have an inkling as to why the government is doing this. It is potentially this infrastructure bank that it wants to use to finance large infrastructure projects. However, will it be touching CPP money to make it happen? Is that why it is increasing all of our premiums? It is just an extra tax that businesses will have to pay, which they cannot afford at this time, especially in Alberta.

    Here I will cite the Human Resources Institute of Alberta quarterly report, which track things among the 6,000 HR professionals across the province of Alberta. It tracks how people are losing their jobs and why they are leaving the workplace.

    For the longest time, dating back 2013-14, the leading reason for losing a job or moving on from a workplace was resignation for a better opportunity, which simply reflects an economy that had surplus job vacancies and people who were taking advantage of that and hopping between jobs, earning better pay, perhaps better benefits, and perhaps more flexible hours. They were taking that opportunity to better their careers, to grow their personal human capital.

    However, today, thanks to the decisions of the federal Liberal government and the provincial New Democratic government, we have termination without cause all across the board. Whether employees, executive managers, professionals, technical staff, tradespeople, or administrative support staff, across the board, termination without cause is the leading reason they are leaving their workplaces.

    I have heard members talk about infrastructure spending, which is something I had corrected the parliamentary secretary to House leader on in a prior debate. When the Liberals were in power many years ago, over the entire time they were in office, they only invested $351 million in Alberta. That is a pittance, really. There was even a year when they invested exactly zero infrastructure dollars. The past Conservative government, in contrast, invested $3.4 billion in Alberta, in things like highways and economic infrastructure, the things that would grow the economy, not only social infrastructure, which is spending that would probably be wasted.

     The economy of Alberta is stagnant, as the subamendment of my colleague alludes to, an economy with 122,000 out-of-work energy workers. The Calgary unemployment rate is just over 10%, or 10.2%. The Calgary vacancy rate for downtown lease space is going up to 30%. That does not even capture the true depth of how bad things are, because there are so many leases with no sublease opportunities. There are leaseholders paying full price to occupy buildings that no one wants to occupy. It just gets worse from there. The unemployment rate has increased over the past year by 1.9 percentage points province-wide. It is not just the story of Calgary suffering, but Edmonton and the rural areas as well. Out-migration is increasing. Alberta used to be a place where 30,000 people per year were moving to for work. Now we have this number dropping precipitously. Retail sales are down 3.9%. Cattle prices are down 25%. Electricity generation is down 10%, which is a great indicator of how much manufacturing is going on, how much usage there is, and thus economic activity.

    I will be voting against this bill with a clear conscience. There is very little for Albertans in this. There is no pipeline approval in this budget. There is nothing for the Trans Mountain pipeline in this budget. There is nothing laying the groundwork for economic recovery in Alberta, which Alberta workers, energy workers in particular, need. That is what I am looking for from the government.

     I do not see it in the budget, and I will be voting against it.

    Mr. Speaker, I am going to pick up on the points that relate to the carbon tax.

    When putting a price on carbon across the country for business certainty, it is very important that there be the same price on carbon across the country. The use of the term “one-size-fits-all” actually does not fit the facts. Every province can design their own. Quebec and Ontario have already decided to work on a cap-and-trade market with California.

     That is distinctly different from British Columbia's carbon tax, which is a straight-up tax at the pump, but revenue neutral. All British Columbians, such as myself, will get back in their taxes what they pay in carbon prices.

     The structure of the carbon price that was announced by the Prime Minister, and I have problems with it but not the same ones the hon. member does, allows that for any province that has not put in place a price, the federal government will. However, all the money will be returned to that province.

    I note, and congratulate, a member of the Conservative caucus in the leadership race, the hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills. He called for a much steeper carbon price than that being put forward by the Liberal government, but with a very important distinction that it would also result in deep cuts in income and corporate taxes. He was recently commended for this in the pages of the National Post by Andrew Coyne.

    Could the hon. member take off the assumption that carbon taxes are somehow always bad and look at it as a pricing mechanism to internalize externalities in the economy, which is ultimately correcting a market failure and not a partisan issue?

    Mr. Speaker, I will say I support a carbon tax if it is 0% collected and 0% levied. Basically, no carbon tax is the only one I will accept.

    We are an export-driven economy, and when I look at the markets that we compete against internationally, none of them are really moving full hog towards a carbon tax. We have President-elect Trump who has basically said he has no interest in keeping the COP21 targets. There will be no carbon tax there. He loves it, because there will be more manufacturing jobs in the United States and more energy jobs in the United States if we impose it on ourselves.

    We know that GHG emissions, carbon emissions have gone up in British Columbia, despite there being a carbon tax. It does very little. We cannot simply raise the carbon tax in one area and not in another. That is called carbon displacement. We will have energy-intensive industries moving to other locations. We have talked about value upgrading, refining upgrading for energy products, but that is a very carbon-intensive industry sector.

    I have heard that member asking before why we do not do more value upgrading, refining, but in truth it would actually increase carbon emissions, not decrease carbon emissions.

    When I look at this, I ask, “What is in this for Albertans?” All I see is another tax and another way of taking their money away, instead of them using it for themselves.

    Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's speech.

    Since we are talking about pipelines, and he was talking about pipelines in his speech, I wonder if the member could define for me what he understands the word “consent” to mean.

    Mr. Speaker, the member's question is very short and is more of a philosophical question. I will not answer it directly, but maybe we could have a conversation offside about it.

    I have said in this House before that I have been a big promoter of all pipeline projects across Canada, as long as they go through the regulatory process as it is supposed to be done, without protestors intervening in panel meetings, without people trying to actively undermine the process that was established by law.

    We believe in a society's rule of law. We should let the law take its place, and then decisions be made by the regulatory bodies that have been given the authority to render a decision and then by cabinet for approval.

    I know Albertans are expecting to see every single pipeline project approved, one after another, once they go through the regulatory process, with the conditions that the regulator deems necessary.

    Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise and speak on Bill C-29, the budget implementation bill.

    As we all know, the Budget Implementation Act provides the legislative framework to implement the key campaign promises that were reiterated in budget 2016. In this bill, our key focus is to grow the economy by investing in people through tax cuts, as well as investing in the environment.

    For the past 10 years, there has been no growth. The economy was lethargic, because the previous government did not take measures to invest in the economy. It made a lot of announcements and spent millions of dollars on advertising but not on people. Our government is more focused on investing in people and in helping to grow the middle class.

     We know that middle-class Canadians are working harder than ever, but they are not getting ahead. We know that there is a growing consensus globally that governments need to invest in the economy, and that this investment has to be on a long-term basis and not short term. Therefore, to grow the economy, we need an ambitious agenda and an innovative agenda, which is the focus of our government. If we wish to move forward and not be stagnant, we need to think outside the box.

    A strong economy starts with a strong middle class. When the middle class grows, so does the economy, because there is more purchasing power, and more money to save and invest. For example, in my riding of Don Valley East, our government's budget has had a great impact on the constituents. The riding is primarily a middle-class riding. Youth unemployment is above the national average. Our government's tax cuts have helped 90% of my constituents. This has put more money in their pockets. In my riding, I have seen a renewed sense of hope.

     Families with children have also benefited from our government's Canada child benefit. This has alleviated the poverty level for nine out of 10 families in the riding. We know how expensive raising a child is. Families work hard to provide for their children. Our government's Canada child benefit program has been a welcomed impetus for these families.

    As well, in the area of youth unemployment, we doubled our investment in the Canada summer jobs program. In my riding of Don Valley East, 66 businesses employed over 234 students. This was very important for these students, because it provided them with the skill sets and resources to help them through their university years.

    While we are talking about employment and the area of creating jobs for the future, our government has been bold in not only taking steps to invest in infrastructure, but working with provinces and municipalities to help them address the issues of falling bridges, tracks, bicycle paths, walking trails, switches, etc. These were neglected by the former government, because it never participated or talked to the provinces or municipalities.

    These are important first steps. In my riding, I have seen that there is an investment of over $125,000 in walking trails and paths. How does that benefit the residents? It benefits the citizens, because it is an area where people walk and build healthy lifestyles. As well, we help the environment.

    Also in my riding are engines of growth, which have benefited from our government's innovation agenda. The companies in my riding have been able to create over 100 good-paying jobs for young professionals.

    Confident, ambitious countries invest in their own future. They invest where the economy is growing. They do not shy away from progress. This type of progress is not easy. It takes smart investments in infrastructure, in technology, and most important, in the skills and creativity of its people.

    Our government has taken that bold step. We have worked with provinces. We have worked with municipalities. We have invested where there are shovels in the ground, when municipalities have come as our partners, when provinces have come as our partners, and we are seeking to expand that pool as well.

    Through our budget implementation bill, Bill C-29, that is what we are doing. We are moving forward. We are thinking outside the box. I would urge members opposite to participate in this bold, innovative agenda.

    Mr. Speaker, perhaps my hon. colleague's memory has failed her, because clearly she did not want to mislead Canadians with her comments, but under the governance of the previous government, we cut GST from 7% to 5%. We had the best job creation and economic growth in the G7 over the decade that our Conservative government was in power.

    It goes beyond that. That came at a time when the world was seeing one of the worst global recessions since the 1930s, the Great Depression, and our government did that. How did we do that? By strong fiscal management.

    The government continues to talk about strong investment. I might add that the Conservatives removed 380,000 seniors from tax rolls completely. When we talk about things that have measurable impacts, our government did that over a decade of governance.

    The present government is spending billions and billions of dollars. In my riding of Cariboo—Prince George, we are a resource-driven economy. Canada is a resource-driven economy, but the government has failed to renegotiate a new softwood lumber agreement. There are communities in my riding that are facing some serious times, and the budget, the bill we are debating today, does nothing to get people back to work.

    It is great that the government is putting more money in EI, but Canadians need jobs. They do not want to be reliant on the government. They need jobs to be successful.

    I ask my hon. colleague to show me in the budget, in the bill, where the budget will create jobs in my riding of Cariboo—Prince George, which is resource-driven. High-speed transit does nothing for my riding.

    Mr. Speaker, let me remind the hon. member of a little bit of history. When our government, the Martin-Chrétien government, took over, we took over a bankrupt country. The Conservatives had left it bankrupt. We left them with a $13-billion surplus. What did they do with it? Economists called Mr. Harper the worst economic manager. GST is a regressive tax. They took boutique tax cuts without creating any jobs.

    We do not need to learn any lessons from them because there they were stagnant, they were inward looking, and they put more money into advertising and in building gazebos instead of people.

    Mr. Speaker, there are certainly measures in the budget bill that I support, that our party supports, and the community supports.

    I would appreciate getting the member's feedback on some of the community-oriented disappointments that I have heard. One is the Liberal failure to reduce the small business tax cuts to 9% as they indicated in their election platform that they would. That has an impact on local spending and on job creation.

    We are disappointed that there are no child care spaces created with the bill, disappointed that the value of the new child benefit tax is eroded over four years, taking a significant amount of money out of family pockets in year four, compared to the first year. There was a failure to close the stock option loophole for the wealthiest CEOs. Right from the municipalities, there was a great disappointment that the newly announced privatization bank will actually take money away from the pool that municipalities would have been able to draw directly on.

    Those are all immediate impacts. They affect the environment, family, and the economy. I would like to know if the member shares my concern that the budget does not live up to those promises.

    Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her questions and for her concerns. In my riding, I have held more than 21 coffee meet and greets and town hall meetings, combined. The one thing I hear, as a business owner, as an accountant, as somebody who has been guiding businesses, is that people want investment in infrastructure. To be productive, they need rail, transportation, and the infrastructure that helps them move their goods along. They are quite happy that we have invested so much money in infrastructure. Municipalities and mayors have been very reflective and very happy with our investment money.

    When we talk about child care spaces, I would remind the member opposite that, under the Martin government we had a child care agenda and it was the NDP who voted against it. In my riding alone, it would have created 25,000 child care spaces. So I think the budget is on the right track.

    Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to speak to a bill focused on building a strong middle class that will build up our economy, Bill C-29, the budget implementation act 2016, no. 2.

    Budget 2016 is a real plan to do the two things Canadians told us to do: help them and their families, and grow the economy.

    I want to take a moment to compliment the finance minister and his team's work. I also want to thank his parliamentary secretary. The member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain came to Brampton last week. He is an honorary Bramptonian now. We consulted the Brampton Board of Trade and a number of economic stakeholders on important issues going forward into budget 2017.

    Brampton has a lot to celebrate. There have been so many exciting developments in these past months: a long-desired university site coming to Brampton; the opening of Peel Memorial hospital in February; and other infrastructure developments, such as water and wastewater funding, which will protect Brampton against another flood situation, investment in post-secondary institutions such as Sheridan College in my riding, and Canada 150 local arts funding in order to keep our vibrant downtown an arts hub.

    At the consultation we heard that these developments need to be expanded upon, and I agree. I will not stop listening to Brampton's needs as we move forward into this exciting period of growth and development for all our children.

    I was pleased to hear at the event last week that many agreed with the fact that there is much ahead. I look forward to engaging in that discussion, building upon budget 2016 and these measures we are discussing today.

    People in my riding have noticed we have accomplished a lot already in our first year. A number of online lists outline the things we have accomplished.

    It is important for Canadians to understand that our government's plan builds upon things that strengthen the infrastructure of our system itself.

    Without a strong CPP, without strong cities, without post-secondary investment, everything else suffers. Building the Canada of tomorrow means investing today, now. We as a government understand that it matters to build from the ground up and focus on people first. Brampton understands that these major developments will make our community stronger and our children's lives better.

    In the last year, we took some important steps toward helping families regain the confidence they will need to drive our economy forward. We cut taxes for close to nine million Canadians. Our middle-class tax cut was the first thing we did as a government. We increased Canada student grants for students from low- and middle-income families and for part-time students. We increased monthly payments for the most in need seniors. We signed an agreement with the provinces to enhance the Canada pension plan to provide young people and future generations of workers with a stable and dignified retirement. We have also begun making major investments that will help the middle class grow and prosper today, while delivering economic growth for years to come.

    This second budget implementation act proposes items that will complete the implementation of outstanding measures from the Government of Canada's first budget, growing the middle class.

    We should be proud of what the House has passed. Budget 2016 puts people and families first. It introduces investments that take an essential step to growing the middle class. It is the first step of a long-term plan to restore hope and revitalize the economy for the benefit of all Canadians.

    The bill we are debating today would help foster a strong Canadian economy and would enable Canadians in the middle class and those working hard to join it to keep more of their money to save, invest, and ensure economic growth.

    The bill includes measures that would help families, give seniors a little more flexibility, protect consumers, and improve the quality and integrity of our country's tax system.

    In budget 2016 one thing that we introduced, which is at the centre of what I notice making a real difference in Brampton South, is the new Canada child benefit. The Canada child benefit is simpler and more generous than the benefits it is replacing. It is also tax free and better targeted to help those who need it most.

    The Canada child benefit will lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty in Canada. The cheques began to go out in July, and nine out of 10 families are now receiving more money than they did under the previous system. Families in my riding of Brampton South can use that money to make more nutritious choices for children's lunches, buy a warm coat for winter, or invest in activities like soccer or basketball.

    Let me explain how this benefit will help Canadian families. Parents with children under the age of 18 will receive a maximum annual benefit of $6,400 per child under the age of six and $5,400 per child aged six through 17. Supporting this budget implementation bill would help ensure that the Canada child benefit will be indexed to inflation so that the families can count on this extra assistance today and for years to come.

    This budget implementation bill would also support seniors by helping them retire in more comfort and with dignity. Canada's retirement income system has been successful in reducing poverty among seniors. However, some seniors continue to be at a heightened risk of living with low income. In particular, single seniors are nearly three times more likely to live with low income than seniors generally.

    I see an unfortunate number of them in my riding. There is much more to do to help seniors living in poverty and to prevent the next wave of people who are retiring from facing this situation some day. Budget 2016 aims to help seniors retire comfortably and with dignity by making significant new investments that support them in their retirement years. In budget 2016, we repealed the provision of the Old Age Security Act that increased the age of eligibility for old age security and the guaranteed income supplement benefits from 65 to 67 years of age, and the allowance benefits from 60 to 62 years of age over the 2023 to 2029 period. Restoring the eligibility age for old age security and the guaranteed income supplement benefits to 65 will put thousands of dollars back into the pockets of Canadians as they become seniors and look to retire. That is the right thing to do.

     Budget 2016 also increased the guaranteed income supplement top-up benefit by up to $947 annually for single seniors most in need, starting in July 2016. This is helping those seniors who rely almost exclusively on old age security and the guaranteed income supplement benefits and who may therefore be at risk of experiencing financial difficulties.

    This measure represents an investment of over $670 million per year and will improve the financial security of about 900,000 single seniors across our nation.

    In the second budget implementation bill, we are delivering on the promise we made in budget 2016 to support senior couples who face higher costs of living and are at an increased risk of poverty because they must live apart. The second budget implementation bill would amend the Old Age Security Act to make the program more flexible. When couples who are receiving the guaranteed income supplement and spouse's allowance have to live apart for reasons beyond their control, each will receive benefits based on their individual income. With respect to the income supplement and spouse's allowance, the government is improving fairness for seniors and helping them live with the dignity they deserve and need in retirement.

    In conclusion, budget 2016 represents a giant step forward in our plan to put people first and deliver the help they need now, while investing for the years and decades to come.

    I am so proud of these measures. They are focused on middle-class communities like Brampton South, which is a model riding where these benefits make a real difference.

    We can and must do more, and we will do more. We can achieve the Canada of the future together. Therefore, I encourage all members in the House to support this bill. It is right for Canada, it is right for families, and it is right for the middle class.

    Mr. Speaker, I remember the days when Brampton actually was a rural part of Canada. However, the Liberals' concept of rural Canada today is a paved-over suburbia. The reality is this. I do not know whether the member was in the House when the member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, talked about this budget giving increased handouts. Canadians do not want handouts; they want a hand up, and they want help. They want to do that by having the government do things.

    The present government campaigned on lowering small businesses taxes, which it did not do. The farmers who are in these small agriculture industries are businessmen who want to see those decreases, and they are not seeing that. I wonder what the member would say about how the Liberals will create jobs when small businesses do not have the opportunity to be economically viable?

    Mr. Speaker, the real concern the member should be asking about is the difference between our government's approach and the previous government's approach.

    In the first year, we accomplished so much for the middle class and those working to join it, such as the CCB cheques. We are focusing on the middle class. When people receive their cheques, they invest in the small businesses. When small businesses invest in our economy, it will be booming.

    We are not resting on our laurels. We are continuing to work to build a Canada that works for everyone. I am proud of our government's positive, optimistic approach, as seen in the bill.

    Mr. Speaker, sadly, there is nothing for small businesses in the budget. Also, everyone who makes less than $45,000 in our country is not part of the middle class.

    I want to quote an interesting thing about time allocation. It is “not only preventing business and debate in this chamber, but...[it is] hurting the ability of committees to do their work”. Who said that? It was the Liberal member for Malpeque.

    Another quote is that time allocation “is undemocratic and a type of abuse, as a rule, of the House of Commons”. Who said that? It was the Liberal member for Winnipeg North.

    Why are the Liberals changing their minds now that they are in power?

    Mr. Speaker, today we are focusing on Bill C-29. The budget implementation bills does a number of important things, including strengthening our tax system, indexing the CCB to inflation, improving EI, and supporting seniors.

    Our government has taken real action. It is a bill the Minister of Finance and the parliamentary secretary have consulted widely on, and it is working. I am hearing a lot of positive feedback in Brampton South.

    Mr. Speaker, the benefit of being in the House for 16 years, and the anniversary is next week, is that we have seen a number of closure motions. The Conservatives talk about closure. They used it 100 times in the last Parliament.

    The NDP are talking about it. I remember when David Anderson was trying to get the Kyoto agreement through the House, and the Conservatives were filibustering on its ratification. Day after day, a friend of mine, Alexa McDonough, a fellow Nova Scotian, would get up and hammer David Anderson, asking, “When are you getting it done?” and saying, “The Liberals don't want to do it. Get this done. Don't pay any attention to the Conservatives”. We called closure after about four weeks of debate. There were 13 NDP members, and only six of them showed up to vote, and the six of them voted against closure. They talk a good game, but they cannot get it done.

    I want to commend the member for her speech today.

    I want to remind the hon. member not to refer to the presence of members, even it was in the past.

    We are out of time. We will go over to the hon. member for Brampton South.

    Mr. Speaker, the infrastructure bank that is under way would support affordable housing. This is also a big accomplishment of our government. It would very much help people in my riding of Brampton South. Homelessness and mental health issues in our urban areas are serious problems.

    We are focusing on the middle class. The CCB cheques and strengthening the CPP for seniors are also very helpful in my riding of Brampton South.

    Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to join this important debate on the government's fiscal update and the fiscal policy of the government in general.

    To be frank, there is a lot to sink one's teeth into in terms of objections to the government's direction. I can say, having just come back from constituency week and having spoken with constituents in my riding, that people in Alberta, but I think across the country, are being hit very hard by the policies of the government.

    As I think through it and talk to business leaders, I am reminded of the fact that every single tax they pay is going up. Small businesses in my riding face a higher small business tax rate as a result of the fiscal policy of the government. They face a carbon tax, a carbon tax brought in by the provincial government but which the federal government will do everything it can to prevent any subsequent provincial government from repealing.

    We have the elimination of the hiring credit for small business. Bill C-26 would raise payroll taxes that individual employees as well as small businesses would pay. There is the undoing of employment insurance reforms, which would, in the long run, force up employment insurance premiums. Of course, small businesses are facing higher business tax rates in general from the provincial government and are grappling with the minimum wage hike and other changes that are happening, and there still has been no serious effort when it comes to market access for our resources.

    We have a government that is hitting businesses again and again and again. The reality is that these are the job creators in our economy. These are the people whose investments and ingenuity create jobs and opportunities for our country. I just went through the list, objectively, of things that are happening to businesses in my riding, and I have to say that I find the continuing optimism and the continuing desire of business leaders in my constituency to move forward and build truly inspiring. The government should be there to try to help them succeed, not make their job more difficult when it comes to creating jobs and opportunities.

    I will mention one specific thing in this fiscal update, and that is the implementation of certain regulations with respect to credit unions. There are credit unions in my constituency. The application of one-size-fits-all regulations, perhaps designed for the big banks, to every small credit union is a huge red-tape burden. Again, we have a government that is not listening, that is not paying attention to small businesses. This deals with one specific sector of the economy, credit unions, but it is another example of how the government is simply out of touch with the needs of the job creators in our economy.

    Moving beyond that, I was to talk about two general points: deficit spending by the government in general and the issue of the employment insurance changes contained in this fiscal update.

    The government's approach to deficit spending is, yes, to run deficits, but it is more than that. It is to undertake a policy of constant structural deficits. This is very different from the traditional arguments made for deficits. There are, I think, good arguments for running deficits in certain situations. The basis of that would be the Keynesian economic principle of counter-cyclical government spending, a government doing more spending during times of economic challenge to offset the pullback happening in the economy as a whole and then the government pulling back and running surpluses during times of economic prosperity.

    The importance of this is that the government is providing that stimulus for economic activity during relatively difficult times but is still balancing its budget over the long term. It is still in a position, in the long run, to balance its budget. I think we should all accept that we have to balance the budget in the long term. We cannot constantly, over a sort of forever time horizon, spend more than we have. Eventually, the capacity to borrow will run out. There is nothing wrong with running deficits in certain situations, provided that we intend to balance the budget over the long term.

    When we talk about stimulating the economy, the important thing is that it needs to be in times that are relatively less good. Of course, even during good times, there will be people who are struggling. There will be people without jobs. There will perhaps be a desire to increase growth. However, if the government always spends more than it has in good times as well as bad times, then eventually, it is going to run out.

    The government talks about stimulus, but it is really abusing these arguments, because its position is not that the government can do counter-cyclical spending at certain times to stimulate the economy. Rather, its position, stated by the finance minister, is that we can just run deficits all the time. The finance minister responded to a question I asked earlier during committee of the whole about whether the government would ever balance the budget. He would not say yes to that very simple question.

    If we look at what is happening in the economy, the government is constructing arguments that are entirely resistant to the evidence. If things are going well, Liberals will say it is an indication of the fact that they can spend more. When things are going poorly, they say that they need to spend more. Every situation, good or bad, every data point, in their minds, is proof that they need to constantly be spending more money. Of course, there are limits.

    Although Canada has a relatively low federal debt-to-GDP ratio, our total government debt-to-GDP ratio, which includes what the Kathleen Wynne Liberals in Ontario are doing and other spending programs of provincial governments, is comparable to countries like the United States and the U.K. It is important that we look at the total debt-to-GDP ratio, because in Canada we have relatively more public services provided at the provincial level than we do federally. For the federal government to say that it has lots of room to run deficits just is not true, because it needs to look at the overall debt-to-GDP ratio.

    We see in this fiscal update the government making promises to people, increasing spending, and announcing the indexing of the new child benefit program. The Liberals are just not dealing with real money, because they are making promises into the future that are not costed, and that, in the long run, they should know they will not have the capacity to do. I think it is wrong to promise people that the government is going to spend money on things it knows it does not have the capacity to. When it has this kind of policy, when it undertakes government spending and assumes that it can run deficits forever, what it leads to eventually are significant cuts. The benefit of running surpluses during relatively good times and stimulating deficits during relatively less good times is that the government is able to spend more during challenging times, whereas countries that have consistently spent more than they have find themselves during bad times also in a position where they are forced to cut spending before they go off the fiscal cliff. That is the situation of some countries in Europe. We know that this has happened. We do not want to see Canada go down this road.

    Just to complete blowing a hole in this stimulus argument, if we look at government spending, it is not targeted or temporary stimulus spending. Liberals are instituting what they would like to propose as permanent new social spending. They are proposing spending that is not targeted to economic stimulus. It is permanent new promised spending, a promise they know, or should know, simply cannot be kept.

     I will conclude with a few comments about employment insurance reforms. In the last government, we brought in some very sensible reforms for employment insurance. Under new rules we brought in, it was expected that individuals would be actively involved in a job search to receive benefits. That is a reasonable requirement. We worked to define suitable employment in a way that said that even if individuals could not find exactly the same job they had before, there should be a broader definition of suitable employment but also that the government should provide more help to people in terms of finding jobs. We instituted a stronger system of providing job information to people who were seeking jobs.

    It is important that individuals be actively involved in a job search when they are on employment insurance, that employment insurance be a meaningful insurance system, and that it be designed to help people get back to work, not something that can be constantly relied on year after year. I think that is a sensible way of structuring the program. The government, in undoing those employment insurance reforms, is creating additional costs for small businesses as well as for individuals, because everyone has to pay into that EI fund.

    Therefore, if we take away those reforms to encourage job search on the payout side of it, then we have to increase the burden on those paying into it. This has a real cost for the creation of jobs and for people who work in our country. I prefer a policy that makes it easier for people to get jobs, not one that cuts back on jobs.

     This is the wrong direction for our country, and I will be voting against this.

    Mr. Speaker, I always find it a little ironic to hear the Conservatives talk about deficits.

    If we look back to the turn of the 20th century, back to 1900, the Conservatives managed to balance one budget in the 20th century, which was in 1912, and they inherited it from the Liberals. The next year they were in deficit. In 1914, we went into the First World War already in a deficit position. The next time the Conservatives balanced a budget was in 2006, when they inherited it from the Liberals. However, if we go back to Confederation, there was only one Liberal prime minister who did not post at least one balanced budget, and that one had no budgets tabled at all as he was only there for four months.

    Does the member have any comments on that?

    Mr. Speaker, I do not really see any need to go through and defend the policies of every Conservative government or oppose the policies of every Liberal government since Confederation. However, I really wish we had a prime minister and a finance minister who were more willing to align themselves with the Liberal fiscal policies that we have seen in the past. Although I would have many disagreements with some of those past Liberal governments, generally they had a much more sensible approach to fiscal policy than the current one.

    What we are debating are the budget documents in front of us, which very clearly show no plan for ever returning to a balanced budget. There is even no acknowledgement that it is necessary.

    Specifically to the record of the last Conservative government, one that I am very happy to defend in this respect, there was value in those stimulative deficits during the worst global financial crisis since the Great Depression. They were timely, targeted, and temporary stimulative investments. It is clear, and the parliamentary budget officer agrees, that we were back to a balanced budget, which the Liberals inherited before thoroughly destroying it, as quickly as they possibly could, in hopes of pinning their deficit on the previous government. However, we know from the parliamentary budget officer and from what the “Fiscal Monitor” has said that the current government plunged us into deficit after the Conservatives had balanced it.

    It is a nuanced argument. There are times when it makes sense to run a deficit, but just because there are times when it makes sense to run a deficit does not mean that it makes sense to run deficits all the time. The Liberals think we should run deficits all the time. The Conservatives support deficits in certain situations for that targeted, stimulative approach, but we need to have a balanced budget over the long term.

    Mr. Speaker, I know the member was not elected in this place at the time Bill C-60, the omnibus budget bill of spring 2013, first brought in changes to disadvantage credit unions by increasing their tax rates and removing the tax credit they used to have. However, I was pleased to hear him speak in favour of the importance of credit unions, particularly to rural Canadians.

    I have been disappointed that the changes made under Harper have not been rolled back by the current government. Would the member favour restoring to the credit unions the status they had before the spring omnibus budget bill of 2013, which was then known as Bill C-60?

    Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with my friend about the importance of credit unions. I would be happy to dig more into the specifics of that provision from a previous budget and hear her perspective on it.

    I am certainly not wedded to defending every policy of the previous government, although, in the broad direction when it comes to fiscal policy, we were moving very much in the right direction in terms of the stimulative deficits I talked about, but also moving back toward a balanced budget.

    Definitely with respect to the bill in front of us, I have some significant concerns about what it would do to credit unions. However, I am happy to look at the provisions the member mentioned.

    Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to rise in support of Bill C-29, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures.

    Members of Parliament know better than most the staggering importance of the federal budget. I am speaking not only about this budget in particular but federal budgets in general. The spending choices federal governments have made since confederation have in fact shaped the Canada we live in today.

    We know that billions of dollars of investment, if spent wisely, can transform our nation for the better. Indeed, a good budget has the capacity to push Canada closer to our shared ideal, a country where every Canadian, especially those struggling or who have been historically neglected, has a chance to succeed and find happiness, to feel secure, included, cared for and valued by his or her government.

    I believe the budget we are debating today is one of those budgets, a very good budget, one that leaves no Canadian behind, and one that I am proud to support.

    I represent a very diverse riding as the largest metropolis in Atlantic Canada. The riding of Halifax is home to people from a wide range of backgrounds and experiences. It is part of what makes my city so great. However, as with any diverse urban core, there is a range between those who are doing well for themselves and their families, that is those who are financially secure, and those who struggle every day to put food on the table, to pay rent and to make basic ends meet.

    This is a city that is on the leading edge of some truly amazing things, gripped by an excited, ambitious energy, a city on the rise, growing every day at an exceptional pace, second in Canada only to Vancouver. Now more than ever, we cannot afford to leave anyone behind.

    Yet the hard truth is that some of our most vulnerable populations in Canada have been overlooked for too long. For 10 years, their potential was left unrealized, their interests put on the back burner, their most basic needs often ignored. Therefore, I want to focus my remarks today on some of the important provisions proposed in budget 2016, in particular investments that will support Canada's struggling vulnerable and otherwise neglected communities.

    I would like to begin with our government's investments in indigenous communities, which seek to support a renewed nation-to-nation relationship with indigenous peoples. Members may know that I have the honour of serving as the chair of the House Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs. It is a role that, for me, has put a sharp focus on the extraordinary challenges facing indigenous peoples in Canada, as well as the daunting work that lies ahead for our government to address the tragic state of affairs caused by years, centuries, of neglect.

    This budget demonstrates our government's commitment to begin this important task to remove the obstacles faced by indigenous people through investments in on-reserve education, training, and infrastructure, to name just three.

    All in all, the government seeks to invest $8.4 billion over five years “to improve the socio-economic conditions of Indigenous peoples and their communities and bring about transformational change.” That funding includes $40 million for a national inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women and girls; $3.6 billion for ensure all first nations children receive quality education, including building and repairing schools; $1.2 billion for housing, early learning and child care centres on reserve; $2.2 billion for water and waste water treatment on reserve; and $33 million to support first nations to build sustainable fishing enterprises.

    Many members here will know that following the release of the budget, the Assembly of First Nations National Chief Perry Bellegarde called the $8.4 billion investment historic and a break against the status quo. However, this funding is only the beginning and there is still much work to be done on this matter. It is the start of transformational change that is long overdue, and it is one of the sections of the budget of which I am most proud.

    The next set of investments I would like to speak to are those supporting Canada's seniors. Our government understands that many seniors in Canada are facing difficult financial times after retirement, in particular single seniors who are three times more likely to live with low income than seniors more broadly.

    For this reason, our government has proposed to enhance seniors' pensions, including an increase in the guaranteed income supplement for single seniors by up to $947 per year, a measure that will improve the financial situation of 900,000 seniors across the country. Further, as promised, the budget returns the age of retirement from 67 to 65, giving seniors thousands of more dollars as they retire from the workforce.

    Another matter addressed by the budget is housing for seniors. On the campaign trail, I spoke with many seniors living in conditions that were inappropriate or inaccessible or where their rent and associated costs would eat up a devastating share of their monthly earnings. To help address this problem, the budget would invest $200 million in the construction, repair, and adaptation of affordable housing for seniors. These investments would unburden struggling seniors across Canada, allowing them the secure and dignified retirement that we all want for our grandparents, our parents, and ultimately ourselves.

    I would like now to speak about support for students.

     My riding of Halifax is home to seven colleges and universities. I learned this summer from representatives of the Nova Scotia chapter of the Canadian Federation of Students that one in 10 Haligonians is a student. As their MP, the issue of student debt is very important to me. We must make post-secondary education affordable to everyone, without burdening our future workforce with an impossible debt burden on the day of their graduation. That is why I am proud to support this budget, which would increase the Canada student grants program by 50% for low and middle-income students and which increases the loan repayment threshold, which is the amount an individual must be making per year before being required to make a student loan payment, from $20,000 to $25,000 per year.

    I am also happy to support a budget which would double the number of Canada summer jobs available to students. This is money that would go right into the pockets of Canadian students and would give them valuable work experience. In my riding, students benefited tremendously from the Canada summer jobs program this year, but so did the employers of students as many would otherwise not be able to hire student help. It is truly a win-win for our students and our community in Halifax, as it has been across the country.

    The final item I would like to speak about is the budget's support for low-income families.

     One of this government's flagship initiatives, and one I was proud to bring to the doorsteps of voters when I was running to be the Halifax MP, is the new Canada child benefit. It just did not make sense for the previous government to be sending cheques to millionaires to cover their child care costs. It sure did not make sense that it was sending the exact same amount to millionaires as it was sending to the low-income families. That was unfair and plain wrong, and yet the Conservatives and the New Democrats thought it was the proper approach. Canadians saw just how out of touch that scheme was and they voted for a plan that included an improved child benefit, the new Canada child benefit.

    The CCB is a simple, tax-free, and more generous benefit tied to family income where those who need it most receive the most, and no more cheques to millionaires. Now, nine out of 10 families receive more in child benefits than before, with the average family seeing an increase of $2,300 per year, and 300,000 fewer children will live in poverty in Canada. Simply put, the CCB is a transformational tool for low and middle-income families and it is another part of the budget that makes me so proud to support it.

    There is one other item that will improve the living conditions of low-income families, and that is affordable housing.

     All Canadian families deserve safe and affordable housing. Without stable housing at a price they can afford, every other goal families seek to achieve becomes secondary. Without adequate shelter, families struggle to raise their children, to get educated, to find employment, and even to stay healthy. Therefore, I am very glad, as an MP and as a career city planner, that budget 2016 would invest $2.3 billion over the next two years in affordable housing investments, which would be a great help to many low-income families and would lay the groundwork for a healthy economy for all.

    At the beginning of my remarks today, I spoke about how the federal budgets had shaped the Canada we know today. Budget 2016 would reshape Canada again, for the better, a Canada that would work for everyone, including our most vulnerable Canadians, those who are struggling to make ends meet and those who have been neglected for far too long. I support the vision this budget puts forward, and I will be voting for it. I implore my colleagues in this chamber to do the same.

    Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke about a number of the proposed spending items in this fiscal update. What he knows, and what many of the member's colleagues would know, is that these are committed spending items which cannot possibly be permanent, given the massive hole in this budget. There is no balance, and no intention to balance the budget. Therefore, one can talk about these short-term spending proposals that are not in any way sustainable.

    As my colleague thinks about this budget, I want to ask if in his mind there is any limit. Is there any point at which the member would say to the government that it is too much”? Is his limit $40 billion, or $50 billion, or $60 billion? At what point would the member say that, as much as those are nice things to spend money on, if the government is not able to sustain that level of social spending in the future, maybe it should pause and look at investments in Canadians that are sustainable over the long term rather than make promises of things that are not sustainable? I wonder if the member would tell us how much is too much and when, if ever, he thinks the government should balance the budget.

    Mr. Speaker, as it happens, we are debating this year's budget today, Bill C-29.

     The budget is responding to a ticking time bomb of deferred liability in the form of deferred infrastructure maintenance and deferred investment in social structure in this country. Right now there is a tremendous amount that we can and should be doing, and that the budget is getting done.

    Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

     I would like to make three points. How is it that the Liberals, after roundly criticizing guillotines to force bills through, are using the same strategies as the Conservatives? How is it that the new government, without ever mentioning it in the election campaign, wants to privatize our infrastructure on such a massive scale? Lastly, could my colleague from Halifax explain to us why people who earn less than $45,000 a year, which is less than $23 an hour, are being completely ignored by the Liberals, who do not consider them part of the middle class?

    Mr. Speaker, I think it is incumbent on everyone in the House to use to the greatest effect possible the time we have been given here by those who elected us. That is what the rules of Parliament allow us to do.

    I would add that low-income families who earn less than $45,000 per year are in fact tremendously helped by the budget, largely through the Canada child benefit, through improvements to retirement packages, through investments in seniors housing, through investments in affordable housing across the board, and the list goes on.

    Mr. Speaker, I have been wanting to put this question to a government member all day and this gives me a chance to do so.

    The difficulty I see happening in the House today is more a problem of how well the House leaders are getting along in scheduling time than it is the substance of the budget bill.

    I just want to put on the record what I see, and although I am not privy to the meetings of the House leaders of the governing Liberal Party, the Conservative opposition, or the New Democrats, my sense from the fact that we have time allocation on the bill is that things are not going as co-operatively as they might.

     I know that the bill has been before us for quite a while at second reading because of the fact that I was allowed to speak to it, and slots for members in the parties that are smaller only come along rarely, so we have had quite a lot more debate at second reading. But I object to these time allocations just the same.

    While I am not going to say, “a plague on all their houses”, I wonder if the member for Halifax can give me any kind of insight as to what is going on, why we have time allocation when the bill, with co-operation, should have gone to committee already.

    Mr. Speaker, I was very sympathetic to the words of the government House leader earlier in the day when she said it is only with great regret that she brought forward the motion for closure in the House.

     Unfortunately, we have been unable to use our time together wisely, and this is merely an attempt to make sure that we do the job today that we were sent here by Canadians to do.

    Mr. Speaker, the NDP opposes Bill C-29, the budget implementation bill, for a number of reasons. It has multiple flaws. The Liberals were very vocal in their criticism of the fact that the Conservatives introduced mammoth budget implementation bills known as omnibus bills.

    Now the Liberals have introduced a bill with 146 clauses that amends 13 acts and is 234 pages long. It is quite an eclectic mix. The Liberals are also and undemocratically imposing time allocation, which is a tactic they themselves condemned back then. Imposing time allocation prevents us from debating our positions in depth. The Liberals want to rush this bill to committee, which means that our constituents will not have access to all of the information. This is moving too fast, and the Liberals are not honouring their democratic commitment to transparency.

    Throughout the campaign and even to this day, for the past year, they have been talking about working for the middle class and reducing inequality. However, and I will talk about this in my speech, many of the proposals in Bill C-29, the budget implementation bill, are utterly incompatible with their stated aim of reducing inequality.

    Let us start by talking about SMEs. During the election campaign, we heard time and again from the Liberals that they would reduce the small business tax from 11% to 9%. Now they are not moving ahead with that proposal, which is not in the budget. We know, as do the Liberals who keep saying this, that SMEs are the job creators in the regions. They create 80% of jobs and keep the economy running. Why then are the Liberals putting obstacles in their way?

    Two independent grocers in my riding came to see me because they wanted to tell me that it makes no sense that our country has still not passed legislation to cap exorbitant credit card fees. One of these grocers told me that it costs him $141,000 a year just to be able to accept credit cards. Grocers make a net profit of only 1% or so a year. Credit card charges are between 1.5% and 2.5%.

    What should we do to ensure that these independent grocers continue to invest in our community? Every time there are school or community projects, independent grocers are asked for their involvement and financial support. However, if they are constantly hobbled, how are they going to survive in order to create jobs, first of all, not to mention to be able to contribute to their communities and our society? Times are tough.

    The Liberals also promised a tax credit for hiring youth. However, that is also missing from Bill C-29. Young people really are the forgotten ones in this bill. Just look at the lack of funding for youth organizations.

    My riding has three youth consultation forums. One is in Vaudreuil-Soulanges, a second one is in Beauharnois-Salaberry, and the third is in Haut-Saint-Laurent. During the three meetings I had with over 100 youth organizations, everyone agreed that the Liberal budget does not include any investments for prevention.

    The Conservatives made cuts, and then the Liberals came along and said they wanted to focus on youth and give them the tools they need to thrive. However, there is nothing for prevention, nothing for mental health, nothing to tackle crime and drug addiction. In my riding, Salaberry—Suroît, those three issues are related to a great many problems. When has this government ever talked about investing in youth programs and prevention? It never has, unfortunately.

    Problems related to housing, homelessness, and youth suicide persist.

    The NDP recently moved a motion calling on the government to reinvest in child services for first nations. This year alone, there is a shortfall of $155 million. In the end, the Liberals voted in favour of our motion after initially being opposed to it.

    However, there is nothing in the budget to suggest that there will be a reinvestment. No announcement has been made on reinvesting in first nations youth. In January, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal found that by failing to provide recurring investment year after year, the Government of Canada was demonstrating systemic discrimination and racism toward first nations children. How can this still be happening in 2016? There are cases where 25 young people are crammed into a substandard home and have limited access to drinking water, education, and health care. The Jordan principle is not always applied. Still, the Liberals are patting themselves on the back and imposing time allocation. They see no problem. They think the bill should be sent to committee right quick so that we can study it there. It is unbelievable.

    That is not the only measure affecting youth services. Young people were supposed to receive $105 million, as announced in budget 2016, to help them gain work and life experience while also supporting communities. However, those funds still have yet to be allocated, and there is nothing on that in this bill. Young people are important, but the federal government is not taking any meaningful action that reflects that.

    On the subject of legalizing marijuana, no new funds have been announced for prevention. In my riding, organizations like Liberté de choisir work on preventing addiction. According to them, every time the Prime Minister talks about legalizing marijuana, young people think it means that they can use it, because he said it was legal. This demonstrates a lack of awareness and a lack of prevention. This government has not announced anything on that. The Prime Minister is putting young people at risk by saying these things without giving the organizations and groups that work with young users the tools they need.

    In a French article entitled “Légalisation du cannabis: les intervenants jeunesse aux aguets”, which was published two days ago on November 13, 2016, Jean-Sébastien Fallu, a professor at the University of Montreal's École de psychoéducation, stated:

    I could talk for a long time about youth, but I would like to move on to other things. The Liberals have been bragging about lowering taxes for the middle class. However, if we look at this measure even just a little more closely, we see that the Liberals are lowering taxes for those who earn $45,000 or more. Over half the population earns less than $45,000, and these people will not benefit from a lower tax rate. Is that what working for the middle class and reducing inequality in Canada looks like? Personally, I do not agree with that.

    The Liberals are also saying that they are going to help lift seniors out of poverty. However, they are only focusing on seniors who live alone. Seniors living alone will be entitled to more guaranteed income supplement benefits. That is a step in the right direction. However, what about those who do not live alone? Do they not also have the right to live out of poverty? Can the government not also increase their guaranteed income supplement benefits and make sure that those benefits are paid out automatically?

    Many of the people who come to my office have heard about this measure, but they do not know what to do. They do not have the tools they need. They do not have Internet access. Most of our seniors live in difficult circumstances.

    I would like to wrap up with some comments on employment insurance, where there are still problems. Only four in 10 workers have access to employment insurance even though all workers pay premiums. Six out of 10 workers who need help are denied the benefits, never mind those with serious illnesses. The people who help these individuals are entitled to 26 weeks of employment insurance compassionate care benefits, but the individuals who are gravely ill are entitled to just 15 weeks of benefits. That makes absolutely no sense. There are still problems, and we still need to talk about them.

    It makes no sense to impose closure.

    Mr. Speaker, the member talks about equality. I would challenge the member to tell the House when there was a more progressive budget than the one we are talking about today. There would be a redistribution of wealth of great significance where we would have a substantial increase to Canada's wealthiest, in terms of a tax; we would have the middle-class tax break, which would help everyone, from health care workers, firefighters, factory workers; we would greatly enhance the Canada child benefit; we would have a substantial increase to the guaranteed income supplement; and there is a litany of other things that would be redistributing Canada's wealth. Yet, the NDP seems to have chosen to vote against these types of measures.

    The question for the member, specifically, is, can she indicate, to the best of her knowledge, if there was another budget in the last 30 or 40 years that has been more progressive than the one that we are actually voting on today.

    Mr. Speaker, it would have been really nice if my colleague from Winnipeg North had taken the time to listen to everything I said because he would never have stood up and said that to me. In fact, once upon a time, my colleague had this to say about time allocation:

     Those are his own words, and now his government is imposing time allocation.

     With regard to inequalities, since the member talked about the Canada child benefit, it has been shown that the Liberals’ benefit will not be indexed for four years. Therefore, families who thought they would receive more money from that child benefit than from the Conservatives’ benefit are realizing they have been duped. Because the indexing will not take place for four years, they will lose $5,500.

     My colleague also talked about tax breaks. I will repeat what I said about that, since he probably did not understand: the tax breaks do not affect people who earn $45,000 or less per year, which is more than half the population. More than nine million people will not benefit from that measure.

    Mr. Speaker, there are going to be many areas of disagreement, obviously, but one area of agreement I think that we have with the NDP is that we believe that social spending needs to be sustainable. We believe that, in the long term, we need to have a plan for getting the revenue for the spending. We cannot just promise things and do so on the basis of massive deficits that are then going to lead to cuts in the future. I think most opposition members understand the importance of having a balanced budget over the long term.

    I wonder if the member would comment on that. Really, how many spending promises from the government are not real spending promises? Given how far ahead of actual revenue it is with spending, it knows these are going to lead to cuts; it knows it cannot sustain the promises it has made to people; it knows, in the long term, that these things are not going to be in place for people. Why is the government making commitments that are clearly not costed and not paid for?

    Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, who has asked some very relevant questions.

     The Liberals promised that they would only run up a deficit of about $10 billion if they were elected. Now, we realize that that deficit has tripled and future generations will bear that burden.

     Since we are talking about measures that were not announced by the Liberals and are being announced in this budget, let us talk about infrastructure. They said they would invest in infrastructure that would meet the needs of communities for public transit and green infrastructure. However, as if by magic, we are now hearing that there will be a lot of privatization. When we talk about privatization, we are talking about companies whose primary goal is to make a profit and not to meet the public needs of the community.

     Once again, the Liberals are pulling a rabbit out of their hat. No one saw that coming, and they themselves had not announced it. Now, we are stuck with it, because they decided to tell us about it at the last minute. This goes against the public interest of Canadians.

    Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak about Bill C-29, which implements a number of important elements of the 2016 budget. I proudly support this budget, because it represents the best that this country has to offer its citizens.

     I have been following Canadian federal politics closely for more than 20 years, especially during the more than seven years that I worked as a constituency assistant, a parliamentary assistant and now as a member of Parliament. As a result, I have seen many budgets and changes, many attempts to try out new ideas, and numerous mistakes.

     The bill before us is not just an annual budget intended to stay the course with policies that did not work before, in hopes that they will work this time. On the contrary, it is a budget that focuses on our future. It lays the groundwork for years of even better budgets, investments and innovations.

    In the economic update presented a few weeks ago, new investments were announced. As the MP for a very rural riding, I am pleased to see a new $2-billion investment, as a first step, for rural infrastructure priorities.

    We need to make up for the decades of negligence the regions have suffered. That money, along with $180 billion for infrastructure in many categories that are not specific to the regions, demonstrates the government's interest and its plans to deliver on that.

    Where I come from, high-speed Internet access is a very important issue. As far as we are concerned, all socio-economic issues can be linked to high-speed Internet access. The government allocated $500 million for this in the budget. That money cannot come quickly enough. However, we are not so naive as to believe that this small amount is going to solve the problem of rural Internet access after 20 years of failures in digital communication. That money is merely a first step. I am very proud to finally see a forward-looking budget that focuses on long-term planning after 10 years of mismanagement.

    I know the Conservatives will ask me how we can plan anything with such large deficits. It does not surprise me that they keep asking that question. For years, they looked at their own deficits and had no idea what to do about them or where they came from, even as they cut taxes and investment in our economy. They actually increased the national debt by more than $150 billion. Year after year, the Conservatives never stopped to think about how future generations would pay off the debt they accumulated.

    The Conservatives eliminated government revenue sources and spent willy-nilly. They did not have an infrastructure plan to build the country and our future. They fixed potholes and built gazebos. They spent, but they did not invest, with the possible exception being economic action plan posters, which sprouted up all over the country like mushrooms.

    During this debate, the Conservatives have repeatedly questioned whether paying taxes is the way to go. They do not believe that taxes are society's best tool for sharing common costs. They do not agree that it is the government's responsibility to manage that money and spend it in the country's best interest.

    Clearly, our job is to improve the lives of all Canadians. However, I can assure the House that we are not going to change things just by listening to the Conservatives. It will take concrete action by the government, and that means spending money in almost every case.

    As far as I am concerned, it is obvious that the government has an important role to play in the economy. As I said during yesterday's debate, taxes allow us to pool our resources in order to pay for the expenses shared by our society. The role of government is to improve citizens' lives and it does that by managing these pooled resources, in short, taxes.

    We should be talking more about citizens rather than taxpayers. We often do not consider the goal of the institution we work for and the reason why we are here. When the Conservatives imply that the government has no useful role or function, or that taxes are nothing more than a burden for citizens and business, they have completely missed the point.

    I find it amusing that the Conservatives are complaining about the government moving forward with enhancements to the Canada pension plan when they have a parliamentary pension plan. They complain about the fact that the government collects taxes and decides how to spend them to improve people's lives, but they do not turn down their own salaries, benefits, or their parliamentary budget.

    They know that, as members of the government and members of Parliament, we have the vital role of managing common resources and expenditures and of debating the best ways to improve the lives of our fellow Canadians.

    Accordingly, I believe that, eventually, we should consider the possibility of ensuring that all Canadians have a guaranteed minimum income. This idea has been debated in many countries by many generations and may have been around for as long as the debate on whether to annex Turks and Caicos, a measure that I am also not likely to oppose.

    Because so many aspects of our society are becoming automated, one day, there may not be enough work for all Canadians. However, I may be wrong, but I believe that that day is still a long way off.

    One of my favourite movies is The Gods Must be Crazy. The beginning of this South African and Botswanan movie from the 1980s explains how society becomes more modernized. We have created technology to simplify our lives, but the more simplified our lives become, the more complex the technology becomes. We need more education to understand our simplified lives, which are in fact becoming more complicated.

    To come back to what I was saying, the Canada child benefit, which provides parents with up to $6,400 a year per child, is a type of guaranteed minimum income. We already have a guaranteed minimum income for seniors in the form of the guaranteed income supplement, which we increased by 10% in the budget for those who need it most. The idea is already present in our social structures because one of the shared commitments we made as a society was to take care of those who do not have the means or ability to take care of themselves.

    Our budget therefore includes a number of components that focus on improving our future. Investments in infrastructure are essential, but we have to run a deficit to make those investments because our infrastructure is already in a deficit situation.

    For example, Internet access in our regions is often so unreliable that it is having a significant harmful effect on our economy. Many of our roads are in disrepair. It is estimated that only 400,000 km of Canada's one million kilometres of roads are paved. The investment needs of indigenous communities are so great that I cannot even begin to describe them here. It costs money to make all of these changes and fix these long-standing problems. However, all these investments will improve the quality of life of Canadians in the short term and strengthen our economy in the long term.

    Yes, we must go into debt to get there, but our society is already in debt, whether we are talking about our roads, our communities, or our basic infrastructure. By investing, we are simply quantifying this deficit.

    With a stronger economy, improved infrastructure, and essential investments, government revenues will increase without hurting the economy and the deficits will start to go down. We have the record to prove it. There has not been a Liberal Prime Minister since confederation who has not managed to balance at least one budget. The only exception was when no budget was tabled. As for the Conservatives' record, the opposite is true.

    The good news about infrastructure in the budget does not stop there. I initially had concerns about the idea of an infrastructure bank that the private sector would contribute to, as I consider myself more left-leaning. However, I now understand how we might benefit from it and I see the tremendous potential. I am by no means an expert on this, but if it is done correctly the possibilities are immense.

    Private-public funding of infrastructure gives us the chance to finally address the issue of high-speed Internet access in the regions, seriously address the issue of affordable housing, and build other green, social, and traditional infrastructure where traditionally user-pay models are used, without giving up on the idea that infrastructure should belong to the public sector. It is quite interesting and I look forward to following this project.

    I am proud of our budget, Bill C-29 and of our government's plans and I am not afraid to say so.

    Mr. Speaker, “I never thought I could be as proud to be a Quebecker as I am tonight”, said an emotional René Lévesque during the Parti Québécois' victory on November 15, 1976. It was an historic victory and the theme was “Beginning today, tomorrow belongs to us”.

    Over the following years, the Lévesque government would express that pride through the Act to govern the financing of political parties, the Act respecting the preservation of agricultural land and agricultural activities, anti-scab legislation, the Charter of the French Language, and Quebec's first referendum on sovereignty. Tomorrow belonged to us.

    Forty years later, the Bloc Québécois commends these men and women who contributed to forging the unique identity of the people of Quebec, who, let us not forget, are “something akin to a great people”.

    Thank you, René.

    Mr. Speaker, the Hockey Hall of Fame has added new stars to the galaxy: Eric Lindros, Sergei Makarov, Rogatien Vachon, and my old friend and neighbour Pat Quinn.

     Pat was born and raised in the east end of Hamilton and lived a life that brought honour to his family, his neighbourhood, his city, and his country.

     Pat was one of hockey's greatest coaches, a darn good hockey player, an all-round athlete, a scholar, a family man, and a guy who never forgot the people with whom he grew up.

     I first knew Pat as a baseball player on our 1955 championship team. He was the best player, but mostly he was a big, tough, friendly guy we were glad to have on our side. Pat was one of the greatest Toronto Maple Leaf coaches, and coached Canada to two world junior hockey championships and an Olympic gold medal.

    Pat was kind enough to endorse his old baseball teammate when I ran successfully for mayor of Hamilton, because despite all his success, including membership now in the Hockey Hall of Fame, Pat Quinn never forgot his roots.

    Mr. Speaker, our Prime Minister was elected just over one year ago. Although not my choice, I personally congratulated him and assured him that I would pray for him and wish on him God's blessings.

    Democracy can be messy, and election campaigns often bring out the worst in people. We have seen that.

     I would like to congratulate Donald Trump on becoming president-elect, as well as the newly elected and re-elected members of Congress and state governors. The United States is, and will remain, Canada's closest friend. Our unique relationship is time honoured. We have been friends, partners, and allies for nearly 150 years.

     My focus will continue to be on bilateral initiatives that will help move our economy forward, create jobs, promote trade, and enhance our collective security.

     My riding of Provencher shares a significant stretch of border with the United States, and I will be encouraging our government to continue to enhance the special relationship we have with our long-time friends and neighbours.

     May God continue to bless America. God bless Donald Trump.

    Mr. Speaker, I quote from The Partisan by Leonard Cohen:

    

    

    

    Rest in peace, Leonard.

    Mr. Speaker, in most parts of Canada the federal government has struggled to foster competitive telecommunications to lower prices for consumers. In Saskatchewan, phone companies face stiff competition, and consumers enjoy the lowest prices in Canada. That is because we own SaskTel, a crown corporation dedicated to providing good service at affordable prices across our province.

     Unfortunately, Brad Wall's SaskParty has presented legislation allowing it to start privatizing SaskTel without the approval of the Saskatchewan people. However, such a deal may require the approval of the federal Competition Bureau, the CRTC, and the minister of industry.

     If the federal government is truly committed to competitive telecommunications and consumer protection, it should strive to keep SaskTel public.

    Mr. Speaker, yesterday, thousands of Sikhs in Canada and all across this world celebrated the birth of Guru Nanak Dev Ji. He was a man of towering intellect with a fierce passion for community service and he spent his entire life helping others and fighting for equality.

     Guru Nanak stressed the importance of meditation, Naam Japna; selfless service Seva; sharing Vand Ke Chakna; and hard work, Kirt Karni. These laid the principles of the Sikh way of life.

    Canada is proud to be the home of one of the largest Sikh communities outside of India, and these values of love, compassion, and serving humanity and the community are evident every day.

    For example, yesterday, Seva Food Bank, in coordination with CJMR Radio 1320, raised over $115,000 for their food bank, which will help alleviate food insecurity for the region of Peel.

    Happy Gurpurab and congratulations to—

    The hon. member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound.

    Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to honour veterans across this country and remember those who made the ultimate sacrifice.

    During Veterans' Week, I met and talked to dozens of veterans. Whether it was over breakfast at the Hanover Legion, or after Remembrance Day services in Tara, Chatsworth, and Owen Sound, it was an honour to personally thank veterans of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound.

    I spoke with 101-year-old veteran Art Haley, who was recognized as Ontario senior of the year, and 92-year-old Ken Reimer, who celebrated 70 years with the Chatsworth Legion.

    We must make no mistake. Canadians would not enjoy our free and democratic way of life without the sacrifices of these Canadian heroes. Veterans are veterans 365 days a year, not just on Remembrance Day.

    I urge all members of the House and every Canadian citizen, if they see a veteran, to shake their hand, thank them for their service, and never forget their sacrifice.

    To all veterans, we thank them.

    Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the work of New Circles Community Services, a not-for-profit organization in my riding of Don Valley East.

    New Circles operates the largest clothing bank in Toronto, GLOW, gently loved outfits to wear. GLOW donates contemporary used clothing to those in need, including Syrian refugees, in a retail setting where they can pick outfits for themselves and their families. It also trains youth in retail marketing.

    In addition, New Circles has a mobile mall, which travels to six Toronto community housing seniors residences, enabling them to shop at their leisure.

     I applaud New Circles for the generosity of the organization and the positive impacts it has had on so many people.

    Mr. Speaker, Abbey Thompson founded Worthy Devotion 2015 as part of her senior year project at Chippewa Secondary School in North Bay, Ontario. She wanted to do something that would have a lasting impact even after she graduated.

    Ultimately, the goal of the program is to give students in grades seven to ten at Chippewa secondary school the necessary tools to build healthy self-esteem.

    Local businesses have given students the opportunity to attend workshops that promote physical activity and healthy eating, and that teach self-defence.

    I would like to thank Abbey, who is now a first year student at Nipissing University, for helping to build strong young women and thank her for her continued dedication in organizing Worthy Devotion Day.

    Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today to highlight wear purple day in support of the London Abused Women's Centre's Shine the Light on Women's Abuse campaign.

    Today we wear purple to raise awareness of violence against women and girls, and to stand in solidarity with abused women and support them in understanding that any shame or blame they may feel does not belong to them but belongs to the perpetrators of their abuse.

     During the month of November, cities, regions, and counties across Canada are lit up purple to show support, and here in Ottawa I am honoured to advise that tonight the Peace Tower will be illuminated in purple, beginning at 7:10 p.m.

    I invite all members, senators, and staff to attend the reception to Shine the Light on Women's Abuse tonight from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m.

    I thank Megan Walker and her team from the London Abused Women's Centre and centres from across Canada for their incredible work.

    I hope to see everyone there as we shine a light on women's abuse.

    Mr. Speaker, the month of November is Woman Abuse Prevention Month. This month, from community groups to the House of Commons, Canadians will come together to fight gender-based violence. In my own riding of Guelph, groups like Women in Crisis offer support and raise awareness of abused women.

    This past November 3, members from Burlington, Sarnia—Lambton, and Nanaimo—Ladysmith hosted Hope in High Heels on Parliament Hill. With both my male and female colleagues, I was honoured to kick off my shoes and don pink high heels to march for the rights of women.

    To the organizers and my fellow participating MPs, I extend my most sincere thanks.

    It is important to keep in mind a quote from Guelph's Women in Crisis Centre, “You don't have to be hit to be hurt”.

    Mr. Speaker, on this historic day, I would like to pay tribute to Louis Riel.

    Today, the Government of Canada and the Manitoba Metis Federation signed a historic framework agreement setting the path toward reconciliation.

    Tomorrow, Manitoba's Métis community will gather at the tomb of Louis Riel, in the cemetery of St. Boniface Cathedral, to commemorate the 131st anniversary of his death.

    We have long recognized the important role that Riel played in creating our country. He is the Father of Manitoba, and his photograph now hangs alongside those of the premiers of Manitoba in the legislature.

    Louis Riel is highly regarded as the father of Manitoba and is widely respected for his ability to build consensus among those around him. Tomorrow, I will join the Manitoba Metis Federation, l'Union nationale métisse, and the community to honour our Métis leader, a great Canadian, Louis Riel.

    Mr. Speaker, Canadians' awareness of pancreatic cancer is unfortunately exceptionally low compared to other cancers, despite it being the most deadly form. November is national awareness month for this disease, and Pancreatic Cancer Canada has initiated a purple lights program to encourage landmarks across Canada to shine a purple light to raise awareness.

    Pancreatic Cancer Canada is asking us to help literally shed light on this terrible disease and its presence in the life of Canadians.

    I encourage all members of the House to reach out to their community leaders and request that a local landmark be turned purple. They can also request that the city or municipality declare November as national awareness month, or November 17 as world pancreatic cancer day.

    Pancreatic cancer knows no bounds. It can strike anybody, at any time. It is estimated that 5,200 Canadians will be diagnosed with this disease this year alone.

    I encourage all my fellow members to wear purple this November 17 to shed light on pancreatic cancer and to help educate Canadians about this deadly disease.

    Mr. Speaker, this November marks the seventh year of the Shine the Light on Woman Abuse campaign. Launched by the London Abused Women's Centre, the campaign engages communities across Canada to stand in solidarity with abused women and girls, while supporting them in seeking services, by turning cities and regions purple for the month of November.

    Purple is a symbol of courage, survival, and honour, and it has come to symbolize the fight to end woman abuse. This year, we honour two women: Paula Gallant, a 36-year-old Nova Scotia resident who was murdered by her husband while her baby slept upstairs; and Mary Meadows, a southwestern Ontario woman who survived abuse with the support of the London Abused Women's Centre.

    I encourage all my colleagues to join me and representatives from the London Abused Women's Centre for the lighting of the Hill ceremony on the steps of Parliament tonight, after the votes, to shine the light on abuse against women.

    Mr. Speaker, the 26th Operation Red Nose campaign has begun in Salaberry-de-Valleyfield. This year, the goal is to provide transportation for 1,000 people.

    Between November 25 and December 31, hundreds of volunteers will give rides to drivers who have been drinking while celebrating. Proceeds will go to Fondation Tournesol, an organization that helps families with children who are critically ill or have a major disability.

    This year, the honorary chair is Marilyne Picard, co-founder of the Parents jusqu'au bout movement and mother of a four-year-old girl, Dylane, who has had several serious illnesses since birth.

    I would also like to point out the new youth component, “Party sans déraper”, organized by Liberté de choisir, a local organization that promotes healthy living and addiction prevention. Let us remember that young people continue to be the primary victims of motor vehicle accidents in Quebec, where young people under the age of 35 account for over one-third of traffic fatalities.

    I therefore encourage all those who want to get involved and help to go and meet with the Operation Red Nose volunteers this Saturday, November 19, from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. at 247 Larocque Road in Salaberry-de-Valleyfield.

    Let us save lives together.

    Mr. Speaker, as an Albertan it has been incredibly difficult to hear the stories of my friends and neighbours who have been affected by the economic downturn in our province.

    Last week I held round tables throughout my Foothills constituency as part of the Alberta jobs task force, and I heard countless stories of job losses, mental health concerns, faltering businesses, and families struggling to make ends meet.

    However, the resurrection of Keystone XL has brought renewed hope to thousands of unemployed energy workers in Alberta. The U.S. president-elect supports Keystone XL and I hope our Prime Minister will also make this a top priority and work with the proponents of this pipeline to get it built. Keystone XL would create critical jobs for Canadian workers and offer a new route to get our energy resources to market. We cannot afford to let this opportunity pass us by.

    Steelworkers in Saskatchewan and Ontario, welders in Nova Scotia, and engineers in Alberta are counting on the government to show leadership, abandon a job-killing carbon tax, and support a job-creating pipeline.

    Get Keystone XL approved.

    Mr. Speaker, we were shocked and horrified to learn of the anti-Semitic incident targeting a local Jewish home in Ottawa just last night. Residents woke to find part of a swastika and anti-Semitic slur spray-painted on their front door. This incident clearly demonstrates that anti-Semitism still exists in Canada and that all of us must be vigilant, speak out, and actively work together to combat it. We simply cannot let this kind of discrimination go unanswered, or worse, seep into the everyday lives of Canadians.

    All of us in the House and in our communities must signal that religiously motivated attacks are indeed contrary to Canadian values and principles. I ask all members to stand together, side by side, in condemning, denouncing, and most of all, repudiating this incident and any others like it.

    Mr. Speaker, today we wear purple to shine the light on violence against women. We stand in solidarity with women subject to violence, and we give them our unconditional support.

    When I was health minister, I was pleased to announce a 10-year $100 million investment to prevent, detect, and combat family violence and child abuse, with 30% of that funding going to aboriginal women, who, of course, are the most vulnerable of the victims.

    Can the health minister reassure the House that this funding and investment is still ongoing?

    Mr. Speaker, I think we all stand in solidarity with women who are experiencing violence in their everyday lives. It is heartwarming to see so many people wearing purple today.

    I am very excited to be working on a federal gender-based violence strategy that is going to take into account the tremendous work that needs to be done in this country to address this issue. I am very much looking forward to reporting to this House in 2017 how our strategy will unfold.

    Mr. Speaker, the new reality Canada faces is simple. The president elect in the United States has promised major personal and business tax cuts. The current Prime Minister has raised income taxes, business taxes, and is implementing a carbon tax. His approach will drive new investment away from Canada to the United States. This means less jobs for Canadians and less growth.

    Faced with this new reality, will the Prime Minister cancel his tax hikes so Canada can compete?

    Mr. Speaker, we inherited a slow growth economy, and our government has invested in jobs and growth. It is why we reduced taxes for the middle class. It is why we introduced a Canada child benefit, which will raise 300,000 Canadian kids out of poverty. It is why we are investing in infrastructure to build more livable communities, a more competitive economy, and to create jobs and growth.

    When the member talks about taxes, why did she vote against a tax cut for the middle class, one that really helps generate economic activity in communities across Canada?

    Mr. Speaker, the reality is that it has been a year and the current government has not created one new, additional full-time job.

    One year ago, the Prime Minister claimed that he was disappointed with President Obama's decision to reject the Keystone pipeline, but now that the new president elect has expressed his support, will the Prime Minister do the right thing and move quickly to lend his personal and public support to the Keystone XL pipeline?

    Mr. Speaker, the government had indicated its support for Keystone XL, and it also said that it was disappointed when President Obama saw it a different way.

     All of the necessary approvals in Canada are in place. They have not timed out. If the company decides that it wants to introduce it once again, the government will, as it was before, be supportive of the application.

    Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's infrastructure bank should offer his billionaire buddies a return on their investment. This means user fees and tolls. The Prime Minister eliminated the toll from the Champlain Bridge. Is he now saying that he supports tolls?

    Who will make these decisions, the Prime Minister, mayors, the provinces, or investment firms?

     Mr. Speaker, we are very proud of the unprecedented investments our government is making. Some $180 billion will be invested over the next 12 years in green infrastructure, social infrastructure, public transit, and transportation corridors to enhance trade.

    We also created an infrastructure bank so that investors can contribute and we can do even more to enhance our infrastructure. That is what Canadians want.

    Mr. Speaker, if foreign billionaires loan the Canadian government money for bridges, hospitals, and schools, they are not doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. They are looking for a return. Jobs will be a cost that is kept to a minimum, and taxpayer dollars will come second to their profits whenever a project goes over budget.

    Can the Prime Minister explain what safeguards he will put in place to ensure that taxpayer dollars are treated with respect, and do not simply become a backstop for the margins of billionaire investors?

    Mr. Speaker, we always treat our tax dollars with great respect in this government.

    We have decided to make unprecedented investments in infrastructure, something that was never done by the previous government. We will invest $180 billion during the next 12 years in green infrastructure, social infrastructure, public transit, and transportation corridors. This is a good thing for Canada, and we have created an infrastructure bank so we can get even more money to put into our infrastructure.

     Canadians want this. It creates jobs. It is good for the economy.

    Mr. Speaker, the Liberal bill on pensions will penalize women who take time out of the workforce to raise kids, a protection that has existed since 1977.

    The Liberal government insists that it is proud of the new Canada pension plan. How can it be proud of a plan that penalizes women? My question is simple. Was this an oversight in the drafting of this legislation, and if so, when will the government fix it?

    Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear our hon. colleague talking about how proud everyone in the House is of the improvements to the Canada pension plan. These improvements will lift 300,000 families out of income insecurity in a few years. Most of these families consist of women. Beginning in 2019, this will lift 6,000 low-income workers out of insecurity, again, most of them women, all thanks to an increase in the working income tax benefit. This is very good news for all Canadians, and especially for women.

    Mr. Speaker, the minister dodged the question, and he knows it. I guess he must not really be that proud after all, which is why he imposed time allocation.

    In 1977, the government reformed the Canada pension plan to ensure that women would no longer be penalized. The prime minister of the day was Pierre Elliott Trudeau.

    Forty years later, the current Prime Minister is refusing to admit to the mistake and is using closure to shut down debate.

    Trampling on women's rights like that is not very feminist, is it?

    Mr. Speaker, once again, I appreciate this opportunity to go into more detail about how important the Canada pension plan enhancement is for women.

    We know that, unfortunately, many of them live alone once they reach retirement age. In recent months, we lowered the age of eligibility for old age security to 65, which will lift 100,000 Canadian seniors out of poverty or prevent them from becoming poor. Many of those seniors are women, and 80% of the seniors living in poverty are single women.

    This is important. We are working very hard—

    The member for Outremont.

    Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' bill removes rights from women. How can they be proud of that?

    In the wake of Stephen Harper's decade-long reign, Canadians have lost faith in our pipeline review process.

    The Liberals set up a panel to fix the review process, but most of the members of that panel are from the oil and gas industry.

    Would the minister like to share with us his definition of “conflict of interest”?

    Mr. Speaker, I have to say I am surprised at the hon. member's response to a panel of five distinguished Canadians who represent many interests. There are two indigenous leaders as part of this five-person panel. There are those who have long experience with the regulatory process. Would the member have us appoint people who have no experience with the process?

    We are proud of the five. They will do great work for Canada.

    Mr. Speaker, that is the choice? Industry hacks or nobody?

    Stephen Harper broke Canadians' trust in the pipeline review process, because he completely dismantled it. Instead of fulfilling their promise to fix the broken system, the Liberals have appointed a panel dominated by people with close ties to the oil industry to rewrite the rules for the oil industry. Hmm, I really wonder if the minister has even thought about the notion of conflict of interest.

    How can Canadians have any faith that the government is fixing the Harper mistakes when it keeps repeating them?

    Mr. Speaker, the member perhaps may want to reflect on what he just said about distinguished Canadians, including grand chiefs, both in Saskatchewan and in British Columbia, that he is accusing of being corporate hacks.

    That is not the kind of respectful discourse that will create some credibility for the regulator trying to do a good job for Canadians. These are very unfortunate accusations.

    Mr. Speaker, members will recall that we asked the Minister of Finance five times when he will balance the budget. The minister was never able to tell us when there will be a zero deficit in Canada.

    Today, the parliamentary budget officer took the government to task. In his report, the parliamentary budget officer stated that the government does not have a timeline for balancing the budget.

    Can the minister answer a very simple question? When will Canada again have a balanced budget?

    Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent for his question.

    Our objective is to invest in Canadian middle-class families and create jobs in Canada. That is why we are very proud of what we have done. The fall economic statement announced historic investments in public transit infrastructure, green infrastructure for water and air quality, and social infrastructure. We have also invested in our trade corridors, and our rural and northern communities. We have created Investing in Canada and brought in a number of skills—

    The hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent.

    Mr. Speaker, in French or in English, zero deficit.

    Zero deficit, it is the same thing.

    However, the Liberals are unable to say that here in French or in English.

    This government has been elected on the platform that it will have a balanced budget in 2019, but today it is no longer the case.

    My question is quite simple, in French or in English: Give Canadians a date when Canada will get back to zero deficit.

    Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to answer in English what we have done for Canadians, and in the fall economic statement, we invested in Canadian families. We invested in infrastructure. We invested in our economy to create jobs.

    The world gets it and Canadians get it. Even the IMF managing director said she hopes the Canadian plan goes viral. I just hope that our friends on the other side will understand.

    That is the plan for Canadians. That is a plan for Canadian jobs. That is a plan for Canadian families and we will continue with that.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    I remind hon. members that the rules members of the House have made provide that we do not interrupt. I will ask the members to listen to the questions and to the answers.

    The hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska.

    Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Prime Minister was in Toronto pitching his new bank and claiming that the provinces and municipalities are happy with the idea of having access to additional funding.

    However, what the Prime Minister did not say is that the municipalities in the regions, the rural municipalities, will not see a penny of that money. The $15 billion that was earmarked for them will go into the infrastructure bank, and only projects of $100 million and over will be approved.

    Will the Prime Minister at least be honest with Canadians and tell the regions of Canada that, as a result of this bank, they will not see a single penny of infrastructure funding?

    Mr. Speaker, we were elected on the promise of creating the largest infrastructure program in Canada's history. That is exactly what we are doing with $180 billion in investments: $81 billion in new funding, $25 billion for public transit, $22 billion for green infrastructure, and $22 billion for social infrastructure.

    The infrastructure bank is an additional tool that will allow us to build more infrastructure. We want more, not less.

    Mr. Speaker, there is no mention of the regions in the Speech from the Throne. There are no longer any ministers for the regional economic development of Canada. Now the Liberals have the nerve to take the $15 billion that was allocated to the regions and put it into this future bank that will fund projects of only $100 million or more and will not be accessible to Canada's rural municipalities and regions.

    In short, the government is saying goodbye to small and medium-sized municipalities and hello to Liberal Party cronies.

    Is that how the Liberal Party plans to create jobs?

    Mr. Speaker, allow me to say again that we are delivering the most ambitious infrastructure program in the history of Canada. I am talking about $81 billion in new funding. I talked about green and social infrastructure and public transit. Perhaps my colleague overlooked this part of the document, but there is also $2 billion going directly to small rural communities. We are investing not only in our cities, but also in all of our regions. It is time the hon. member understood that.

    Mr. Speaker, privatization works. CN Rail, Air Canada, and Petro-Canada have gone from costly wards of the state to profitable private sector employers, because investors got both profit and the risk.

    By contrast, the Liberals will force taxpayers to take on the financial risk of infrastructure megaprojects while allowing billionaire bankers, like the ones the Prime Minister was schmoozing yesterday, to enjoy all the profit. Why should taxpayers get all of the risk while billionaire insiders get all of the profit?

    Mr. Speaker, I am sure my colleague on the other side would be happy to hear about our clear action plan to grow the middle class and Canadian jobs. We are very proud that our Prime Minister was in Toronto yesterday to speak with investors, and we had a number of ministers. Let me remind this chamber what one of the members said, and I hope the member is going to listen. The chief executive of the Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan said, "I believe that they have a vision to put together a model which is pretty ground-breaking. ...In terms of the details of how it will actually be executed, I think they are correctly looking to the expertise that exists in the country for input and advice on how to move this agenda forward." That is the—

    The hon. member for Carleton.

    Mr. Speaker, if pension funds want to invest in infrastructure, they can. They do not need a $35-billion backstop from taxpayers. The question is who is actually going to run this. The Liberals say it will not be elected officials or public servants. Will investment bankers have the use of $35 billion in tax dollars to guarantee the profits of other investment bankers? Self-serving insiders get the reward, taxpayers get the risk. How will the government ensure that this scheme does not become a $35-billion, taxpayer-backed, self-licking ice cream cone?

    Mr. Speaker, the infrastructure bank is far too serious a matter to joke about. As I said, we are delivering the largest infrastructure program in the history of Canada. We are investing in green infrastructure, social infrastructure, and public transit. The infrastructure bank is a fundamental tool for even more investment.

    The minister is currently holding consultations with cities, municipalities, the provinces, and the private sector. We will have the opportunity to announce the details later. This is a good thing for Canada.

    Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister and eight ministers were in Toronto for a meeting hosted by the powerful, private equity firm BlackRock to discuss what the Canadian government can do to help these investors get a piece of our public infrastructure. Of course, private investors will not invest out of the goodness of their hearts; they will want a big return. The only way they will get that is through tolls and user fees for Canadians. Why did the Liberals hide their privatization scheme from Canadians during the campaign? This is not what Canadians voted for.

    Mr. Speaker, I do not think we hide anything. I would invite my colleague to read page 8 of the platform. If she is not satisfied, she can read page 15 of the platform. If that is not enough, maybe she could read page 40 of the platform. That is three times.

    We are investing in the largest infrastructure program in the history of Canada. The infrastructure bank is an additional tool that will allow us to have more infrastructure: not less infrastructure, but more infrastructure.

    Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' Wall Street and Bay Street cronies are being ushered up to the trough.

    The government is putting BlackRock in charge of infrastructure privatization and infrastructure revenue. The government also asked Crédit Suisse, an investment firm that buys infrastructure, to advise it on whether it should privatize our airports. Now we know that Morgan Stanley, which was involved in the 2008 financial crisis, is advising the Canadian government on whether it should privatize ports. Not even Stephen Harper went that far.

    Where in the Liberals' platform is their promise to privatize infrastructure?

    Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago, I was very pleased to present my Transportation 2030 strategy. When it comes to transportation, the government is working for Canadians.

    With respect to ports, the important thing is to make sure that it is good for Canada's economy. Ports are where our goods are imported and exported.

    As for airports, the traveller comes first. Travellers' interests will always be top of mind as we make decisions.

    Mr. Speaker, no one seems surprised to see the old Liberal culture resurfacing when it comes to political financing. That being said, it does not make this dishonest and dubious practice any more acceptable, less offensive, or more ethical.

    Is this privileged access to Liberal ministers for a select few wealthy Canadians somehow advantageous to the ministers themselves, and if so, for what purpose? Is this to guarantee that they will hold on to their ministerial portfolios?

    Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be here to answer this question.

     I would like to tell the House that the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner has confirmed that the Minister of Finance followed all the rules when he attended both the Halifax fundraiser and the Toronto fundraiser.

    As I have repeated many times, federal fundraising rules are some of the strongest in the country, and we will continue to follow the rules.

    Mr. Speaker, protecting the integrity of cabinet positions should go without saying.

    The exception, however, seems to be during fundraising galas, where everyone has fun and $1,500 is the price for privileged access, so that the Liberal Party can raise some cash.

    Can the ministers reassure this House, show some backbone, and say no to this dubious and dishonest Liberal fundraising practice by voting in favour of today's motion?

    Mr. Speaker, as I have said repeatedly in this House, federal fundraising rules are among the strictest in the country, and we will continue to follow the rules

    It is very important to listen to what the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner said. She confirmed that the Minister of Finance followed all the rules when he took part in fundraising events in Toronto and Halifax.

     Mr. Speaker, she also said that the activities that the Liberal Party is currently engaged in are quite unsavoury, right in front of the ethics committee.

    Later today, the Liberals will have a chance to show Canadians they believe in the words of the Prime Minister. The House will vote on our Conservative motion to empower the Ethics Commissioner to enforce the Prime Minister's own open and accountable government rules. Those are the rules we are talking about. The Ethics Commissioner has called for this authority, so it seems the Liberals are going to vote against the motion, at any rate.

    If the Prime Minister believes in his own words and wants to be transparent, will he lead by example and direct his caucus to vote in favour of the Conservative motion today?

    Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise in the chamber and share with all members, as well as Canadians, that the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner has confirmed that all rules were followed with regard to the finance minister's attendance at the Halifax fundraiser and the Toronto fundraiser.

    As I have said many times in the House, Canada's fundraising rules are some of the strongest and we will continue to follow the rules. The level of engagement with this government is unprecedented and we will continue to engage with Canadians.

    Mr. Speaker, if the Liberals do not even believe in their rules, how can Canadians believe anything they say about anything at all?

    Since the election, the Liberals have held over 80 cash-for-access events, they made California dream trips, they have taxpayer-funded nannies and limos, ministers and senior staffers charging ineligible expenses, and the Prime Minister giving over $200,000 to his BFFs to move to Ottawa. I could on, but I only have 35 seconds. I do not have 35 minutes.

    Will the Prime Minister finally put a stop to all of this unethical behaviour and give the Ethics Commissioner the power to enforce his very own rules?

    Mr. Speaker, as I have said time and time again, and I encourage the member to listen to what I am saying. In Canada, we have some of the strongest and strictest fundraising rules and this government will continue to follow the rules.

    Something that this government has done, unlike the previous government, is to engage with Canadians, to consult with Canadians, to listen to Canadians, and to deliver on the commitments we made during the campaign, including lowering the taxes on middle-class families.

    Mr. Speaker, first it was journalists, now indigenous activists are under surveillance.

    We have learned that indigenous peoples who exercised their rights as citizens at protests on issues ranging from environmental protection to the denunciation of the far too many cases of missing or murdered indigenous women have been under RCMP surveillance since 2014. We can all agree that Bill C-51 will only make matters worse.

    Can the minister explain to us why the RCMP is spying on indigenous activists?

    Mr. Speaker, the right to peaceful protest is guaranteed by the charter. The focus of this particular investigation was in keeping with the recommendations of the Ipperwash Inquiry, which highlighted the importance of handling indigenous protests with dedicated and unique resources, strategies, and knowledge. The investigation concluded, by the way, that there were no direct threats to critical infrastructure and no organized crime nexus associated with indigenous protests.

    Mr. Speaker, last week, the Prime Minister stood in Parliament and agreed to immediately flow the $155-million shortfall in child welfare, but Cindy Blackstock is already saying she may have to take the government to court because it is stonewalling. Meanwhile, there are communities that are struggling with serious allegations of sexual abuse. Without the resources on the ground, there is no way to protect these children. This is money that is urgently needed. This is about the credibility of the Prime Minister's word.

    Is he going to flow that money or is this going to be just another in a long line of broken promises to indigenous kids in Canada?

    Mr. Speaker, we take the tribunal's ruling very seriously, and we took the vote in the House of Commons very seriously as well. As members know, we have committed $635 million to address the funding gap and we have committed to overhauling the child welfare system.

    The issue of child abuse is very serious. It is going to be increasingly important that we talk openly about this and have first nations' leadership deal with this in a way that we can share this and deal with the 80% of addictions, 80% of incarcerations attributed to child abuse. This has to stop now.

    Mr. Speaker, my riding of South Shore—St. Margarets is home to a beautiful coastline, where a number of my constituents make their living because of our proximity to the ocean. My constituents also recognize that a clean environment and a strong economy go hand in hand.

    Would the Minister of Transport please update the House as to the work he has done, and will continue to do, to improve marine safety in Canada?