13909 OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 214 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Thursday, May 14, 2015 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES May 14, 2015 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 214 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 214 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 214 (Version officielle) 147 214 14 05 2015 2015/05/14 10:00:00 House of Commons Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates 41 2 The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS Routine Proceedings (1000) [ English ] Information Commissioner of Canada The Speaker : I have the honour to lay upon the table, pursuant to subsection 39(1) of the Access to Information Act, a special report of the Information Commissioner entitled “Investigation into an access to information request for the Long-gun Registry”. [ Translation ] This report is deemed permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.

Supplementary Estimates (A), 2015-2016 A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting supplementary estimates (

A) for the financial year ending March 31, 2016, was presented by the President of the Treasury Board and read by the Speaker to the House.

[ English ] Foreign Affairs Hon. K. Kellie Leitch (Minister of Labour and Minister of Status of Women, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Foreign Affairs and pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the treaty entitled “Convention concerning Minimum Age for Admission to Employment” done at Geneva on 26 June, 1973. An explanatory memorandum is included with the treaty.

(1005) Government Response to Petitions Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to five petitions.

[ Translation ] Committees of the House Status of Women Ms. Hélène LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women in relation to its study on the main estimates, 2015-16.

[ English ] National Defence Hon. Peter Kent (Thornhill, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 12th report of the Standing Committee on National Defence in relation to the main estimates 2015-2016.

Justice and Human Rights Mr. Mike Wallace (Burlington, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present, in both official languages, the 21st report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in relation to the study of the main estimates for 2015-2016. We have met 76 times in this session. It is a very hard working committee.

[ Translation ] Official Languages Hon. Michael Chong (Wellington—Halton Hills, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, entitled “Main Estimates 2015-16: Vote 1 under Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages”. [ English ] Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP) : Motion Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations among the parties and I believe if you seek it you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: That, in the opinion of the House, and in advance of the twentieth anniversary of the Srebrenica genocide of 11 July 2015, Parliament should (

a) reaffirm support for former Motion M-416 passed in the House of Commons on 19 October 2010, which recognized July 11 annually as Srebrenica Remembrance Day in Canada, and (

b) include the Srebrenica genocide, and Srebrenica Remembrance Day, as part of “ Genocide Remembrance, Condemnation and Awareness Month ” every April going forth as supported by the House in Motion M-587 passed by Parliament 24 April 2015. The Speaker : Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion? Some hon. members: Agreed. The Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Some hon. members: Agreed. (Motion agreed to)

Petitions Impaired Driving Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition today that sadly informs the House that Rayel MacDonald was tragically killed by a drunk driver who chose to drive while impaired. Rayel's family is devastated. Families for Justice is a group of Canadians who have had a loved one killed by an impaired driver. They believe that Canada's impaired driving laws are much too lenient. They want the crime to be called what it is: vehicular homicide.

It is the number one cause of criminal death in Canada, where 1,200 Canadians are killed every year by drunk drivers. Families for Justice are calling for mandatory sentences for vehicular homicide and for this Parliament to support Bill C-652 , Kassandra's law.

Seniors Ms. Peggy Nash (Parkdale—High Park, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of more than 100 constituents calling upon the House to pass Motion No. 529, which calls upon the government to work with the provinces, territories, municipalities, and seniors organizations to develop a national strategy on aging.

This would deal with secure public health care, reducing out-of-pocket health expenses, establishing appropriate policies for seniors housing and income security, and basically ensuring that seniors issues are addressed by this government, as well as creating a seniors advocate to monitor these changes. I am pleased to submit this petition on behalf of my constituents.

(1010) Agriculture Mr. Frank Valeriote (Guelph, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I stand to present several petitions with hundreds of signatures from people in and around Guelph who feel that multinational seed companies are replacing the immense diversity of farmer seeds with industrial varieties through an increasing number of patented seeds, and that UPOV 91 will deter or outlaw the saving and exchanging of seeds between farmers, all of which affects both Canadian farmers and peasant farmers in third-world countries.

The petitioners ask Canada to adopt policies, internationally and here at home in Canada, that support small farmers, especially women, and ensure the exchange and preservation of seeds. Hon. Keith Ashfield (Fredericton, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of my constituents, which calls upon the government to both adopt international aid policies that support small family farmers and ensure that Canadian policies and programs are developed in consultation with small family farmers.

Taxation Ms. Irene Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions. The first is from Canadians who are telling us very clearly that feminine hygiene products are essential to the lives of Canadian women and that paying the GST on these products contributes to a financial burden on Canadian households. Therefore, they request that the Government of Canada withdraw the GST from feminine hygiene products.

Canada Post Ms. Irene Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from constituents who are very concerned about the plans to end door-to-door mail delivery. The petitioners believe, rightly so, that this is an important service, particularly for seniors and persons living with disabilities, that the loss of 8,000 well-paying jobs is absolutely unacceptable, and that the loss of this service, which should absolutely be supported by this House, is a travesty. The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to stop the devastating cuts to our postal service and to end this notion that somehow we should do without our Canadian postal service.

Impaired Driving Hon. Ron Cannan (Kelowna—Lake Country, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it is great to see our hon. colleague from Fredericton back in the House. I rise to table a petition with respect to the sad case of 19-year-old Kendra Cole, who was tragically killed by a drunk driver who chose to drive while impaired. Kendra's family is devastated. As we heard from the petition of one of the previous members, there is an organization called Families for Justice, which is a group of Canadians who have had a loved one killed by an impaired driver.

A lot of people may not be aware that research shows that more than 1,200 Canadians are killed every year by drunk drivers. Families for Justice is calling for mandatory sentencing for vehicular homicide and for this Parliament to support Bill C-652 , Kassandra's law.

Pensions Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, today I am tabling a petition signed by many constituents of Winnipeg North who are very upset with the Prime Minister 's decision to increase the age of retirement from 65 to 67. The petitioners are asking for the Prime Minister to reconsider and to allow Canadians to continue to have the option to retire at the age of 65 and receive their old age pension. They also believe that people should be able to have that retirement option at 65, and do not want the government to in any way diminish the importance and the value of Canada's three major programs, the OAS, GIS, and CPP.

Agriculture Mr. Peter Braid (Kitchener—Waterloo, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by many residents of my great riding of Kitchener—Waterloo . This petition highlights and underscores the importance of respecting the right of the small-scale family farmers to preserve, exchange, and use seeds.

[ Translation ] Canada Post Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present to the House a petition that has been signed by dozens of Ontarians, mainly from Oshawa, who are very concerned about the end of home mail delivery. The message they are sending to this House is that they want to keep home mail delivery. We have no rational fiscal or economic reason to be the only G7 country that can no longer provide home mail delivery.

[ English ] Pharmacare Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise to present two petitions from residents within Saanich—Gulf Islands . The first petition is calling on the House to develop and promote a national pharmacare plan that would include, among other things, a bulk purchasing agency at the federal level to ensure that, by bulk purchasing of drugs, the price can be brought down for provincial health care systems.

(1015) The Environment Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition is also from residents of Saanich—Gulf Islands , Salt Spring Island, Sidney, and Brentwood Bay, calling on the government to put in place a carbon price through the means of fee and dividend, where a fee is charged at the pollution source and the dividend is returned equally to every Canadian.

Canada Post Ms. Yvonne Jones (Labrador, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of people in my riding in the Labrador West area who, unfortunately, are seeing cuts to their postal services. The petitioners ask that Canada Post Corporation not downgrade its service and leave the community with reduced levels of postal service. They are calling upon the Government of Canada to instruct Canada Post to maintain and improve postal services, and to cease any proposal to reduce hours and diminish service to the residents of Labrador West.

Questions on the Order Paper Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand. The Deputy Speaker : Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

Government Orders Government Orders [ Translation ] Economic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1 Bill C-59—Time Allocation Motion Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) moved: Motion That, in relation to Bill C-59,

An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 21, 2015 and other measures , not more than two further sitting days shall be allotted to the consideration of the second reading stage of the bill; That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government orders on the second day allotted to the consideration of the second reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment. [ English ] The Deputy Speaker : Pursuant to Standing Order 67(1), there will now be a 30-minute question period.

I invite all hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise in their places so that the Chair has some idea of the number of members who wish to participate in this question period. The hon. leader in the House for the official opposition. [ Translation ] Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, this is another sad day. This is the 96th time this government has invoked closure or time allocation in this Parliament. No other government has done that. Canada has never had a government that has abused time allocation and closure as much as this one has.

This is a sign of arrogance and incompetence because many of the bills that the government has introduced in the House of Commons have been rejected by the courts. They reject the legislation because the government does not really double-check its bills as much as it needs to. [ English ] Sadly, this is the 96th time in this Parliament, which is the worst record of all time. It is three times worse than any other previous government for bringing in closure and time allocation. The government is going to say that it is trying to do this for our veterans.

We will recall that after years of neglect of our nation's veterans and years of just refusing, cutting back on services and treating our nation's veterans with disdain, the Conservatives finally introduced a bill that would help to improve the situation. That is Bill C-58 , which has sat on the order paper all week. For days, the NDP has been standing up and asking for unanimous consent to get Bill C-58 for veterans into committee so that veterans can start getting the relief that is called for. Instead, the government is saying that it is going to make them wait even longer with Bill C-59 .

The question is very simple. Why are the Conservatives playing so many games with veterans? Why do they not heed the message from Alberta and, instead of showing such arrogance and incompetence, why do they not work with the opposition parties so that they can get good legislation that is not rejected by the courts? (1020) [ Translation ] Hon. Joe Oliver (Minister of Finance, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, Bill C-59 is in line with our government's plan for low taxes and a balanced budget to promote employment, growth and security.

The budget implementation bill contains measures that were announced in economic action plan 2015. Many of these measures are tax-related, but they all achieve one main goal: Canada's long-term prosperity. It is common practice, even for Liberal governments, to include various measures in a budget. That is nothing new or out of the ordinary. [ English ] As to the question about veterans, our Conservative government places the highest priority on making sure that veterans and their families have the support and the services that they need when they need them.

Our government made significant progress in key areas, such as long-term financial security, increased family support and removing barriers of eligibility for certain financial benefits. Canadian Armed Forces veterans who are moderately to seriously disabled as a result of their service will soon have additional benefits after age 65 and new money to support family caregivers. In addition, those from the Canadian reserve forces will receive fair financial benefits from VAC.

These new initiatives are evidence of our government's commitment to ensuring that Canadian veterans and their families are treated with care, compassion and respect. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, once again, we have time allocation on the government's financial piece of legislation, which I would argue is unfair. The Minister of Finance needs to recognize the reality. His taxation policies would be to the advantage of Canada's wealthiest, and he is asking Canada's middle class to pay for that tax giveaway.

This is not a budget that would deal with or that has any concept of what it really takes to have economic and job growth. There is a lot of contrast. This is why we need to have a thorough debate on this budget. Let me give an example. The contrast of the Liberal Party would propose to make the tax system fairer and cut the middle-class tax rate by 7%. That would be a $3-billion tax cut for those who need it the most. The Liberal plan would also provide one bigger, fair, tax-free monthly cheque to help families with the high cost of raising their kids.

My question for the Minister of Finance is why does he not recognize how unfair his tax proposals are to the middle class and those who are aspiring to become a part of Canada's middle class? Why does he not instead adopt good, solid, fair taxation policies and stimulate Canada's economy? Hon. Joe Oliver : Mr. Speaker, I am very proud that our budget will provide benefits primarily to low-income families. We will do that in a number of ways.

The family benefit program, of course, will overwhelmingly benefit low- and middle-income Canadians, with two-thirds of the benefits going to them, and 25% to families earning less than $30,000. The tax-free savings account is a wonderful way for middle-class and lower-income Canadians to save for their kids' education and for their retirement. That is why 11 million Canadians have a TFSA, with the vast majority low- and middle-income earners, and 60% of those who contribute the maximum earn less than $60,000 a year.

Therefore, it is amazing that the NDP and the Liberals would take away the TFSA increases, robbing the middle class and seniors of an extra opportunity to save.

(1025) The Deputy Speaker : Before we proceed, I have allowed a little flexibility on the first two questions, but from now on I will be holding all members, in both questions and responses, to one minute. [ Translation ] Mr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the Minister of Finance that we are in the House of Commons of the Parliament of Canada. We are not in front of the media or in the middle of an election campaign. We are here to discuss a parliamentary procedure.

We are MPs who are accountable to their constituents, but all the minister is doing is giving speeches that have already been given. We are talking about the government's 96th time allocation motion, which will prevent members of the House from debating some of the complex issues in this bill. The government does not seem to care about the repercussions of the decisions it is making. [ English ] The Conservatives keep doubling down. However, when they are doubling down constantly, in the end, we end up losing, and this is what is going to happen to the current Conservative government. Hon. Joe Oliver : Mr.

Speaker, this bill would be a benefit to all Canadians. This bill will be debated in this House, and there will be plenty of opportunity to do that. We are very pleased about our commitment to introduce many tax measures that would benefit Canadians, such as our commitment to introducing balanced budget legislation, to strengthening the Canadian Labour Code, to providing benefits to families and to providing tax relief to small businesses that are the basic generator of employment. Some 50% of employment is created by small businesses.

The previous Liberal government's budget bill contained dozens of different pieces of legislation, and if I may say, it is not the committee's study that the opposition members really care about; they want to stop the necessary and vital economic reforms in the bill. Hon. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, it is good to see the Minister of Finance in the House of Commons answering questions. In the past, this was something that ministers of finance did on a regular basis, because they were accountable to Parliament.

They felt that participating in question period and responding to questions was absolutely part of their job. We hope that this participation in the House of Commons and accountability to Parliament becomes more of a regular occurrence for the current minister, who has only participated in seven question periods in 2015. My question to the minister is on the budget implementation act, which contains Nixonian changes to ATIP legislation to try to cover up the information that Canadians deserve about the long gun registry. It would also change the Copyright Act and actually bring in new parliamentary security.

However, with all these things that have nothing to do with the economy, why is the minister not focused on providing Canadians with a plan for jobs and growth at a time when the Canadian economy has flatlined? Hon. Joe Oliver : Mr. Speaker, first of all, the last time I attended question period, the Liberal opposition had no questions for me. The previous time, there were seven questions, which I was pleased to answer, and I will, of course, continue to do that.

However, it is also my responsibility to communicate to Canadians around the country about the measures that we are proposing for the budget bill, and I have been doing that from coast to coast. With respect to the long gun registry, our Conservative government has fulfilled its commitment to end the wasteful and ineffective registry once and for all. It is still possible to access outdated copies of the long gun registry through access to information legislation. However, the will of Parliament has been clear and all copies of the registry were to be destroyed. This technical amendment would address that.

(1030) Hon. Michelle Rempel (Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, this particular bill contains a provision that is very important to the protection of Canadian intellectual property, which is the extension of privilege to patent agents in Canada. The Intellectual Property Institute of Canada has been lobbying for this for close to a decade.

My colleague Heather Mueller, who is a patent agent in this field and is part of this particular committee, talked about how her colleagues actually cried tears of joy when they saw this, because it would have such an impact on our country's ability to protect intellectual property. I am wondering if my colleague could explain why it is so important to pass this bill in a timely manner, especially given this particular clause. Hon. Joe Oliver : Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister of state for her question and for the great work she is doing for Canadians.

Our government is dedicated to cutting red tape and supporting businesses, and that is why we created a statutory privilege to protect confidential communication between intellectual property agents and their clients. These changes would help Canadian businesses avoid costly litigation and remain competitive. We are also listening to businesses and making sure that our intellectual property system responds to their needs. That is why we have cut red tape and made it easier for businesses to use Canada's intellectual property system and to seek the legal protections they deserve. Ms.

Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise again in dismay to find that an omnibus budget bill is being pushed through with limitation on debate in what was supposed to be our second day here discussing the legislation. I also note, as other colleagues have noted, that this omnibus bill contains many measures that have nothing to do with the purview of the Minister of Finance , who is here to answer questions about limiting debate. I do not know how we are going to adequately get to the multiple levels of different bills.

I am particularly concerned, as other members have mentioned, about these very bizarre retroactive changes to remove a situation in law back to not only before the bill was passed but to the point when it was first introduced.

Referring to the long gun registry, Professor Kazmierski from Carleton has noted that the same government is now using omnibus legislation to introduce retroactive limitations on our already limited access rights and to potentially eliminate access to a material that we currently would have access to, and that this should be alarming to anyone concerned about the effectiveness of our democratic process. My question to the minister is this. Will this bill be split into many pieces, with multiple committees studying it?

Will we have time to ensure that we adequately study, for instance, the security of Parliament Hill? I do not see how we can. Hon. Joe Oliver : There will be, Mr. Speaker, ample time to debate this measure. I will repeat that in respect of the long gun registry, our Conservative government was pleased to end the wasteful and ineffective registry once and for all. Due to a bureaucratic loophole, it was still possible to access outdated copies of the registry through access to information. This clearly goes against the will of Parliament, and all copies of the registry should be destroyed.

A technical amendment reinforces this point. As to the omnibus bill, it supports our balanced budget, our low-tax plan for jobs, growth and security. All measures in the budget implementation bill were in economic action plan 2015. Many of the measures are tax related and accomplish our key goal of long-term prosperity and security. Ms. Françoise Boivin (Gatineau, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of Finance is missing the point. The problem is that if there were a loophole with the long gun registry, it should not be corrected through an omnibus budget implementation bill.

There should be a stand-alone bill. Procedurally, this is wrong because the public safety committee will not be able to propose and adopt amendments. It might make recommendations that will go back to finance. It has nothing to do with it. Is the minister not a bit ashamed to be part of a government that will have imposed time allocation 96 times to force bills down the throats of Canadians? Whatever the government's policies and promises are is fine, but it should do it properly. (1035) [ Translation ] Hon. Joe Oliver : Mr.

Speaker, it is common practice, including for Liberal governments, to include a number of different measures in a budget. There is nothing new or groundbreaking in this practice. [ English ] The bill, as I said, would support our plan for low taxes, jobs, growth, and security. The bill is balanced fiscally and is balanced socially. This is in contrast to the refusal of the opposition to support any of these job-creating measures. I will reiterate, because the point does not seem to be getting across to the opposition: there is nothing new or groundbreaking in this practice. [ Translation ] Mr.

Dany Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am disheartened because, as you know, every time a time allocation motion is moved, that means not every member will have a chance to speak to the bill. In this case, we are talking about the budget, the most important bill of the year. My region is going through tough economic times. The last time I checked, the unemployment rate in the urban areas was the highest in Canada. Our forestry industry is struggling, and so is the aluminum sector.

I have a lot to say about this budget, but unfortunately, the government is preventing me from delivering a full speech on it. I want to know why the Conservative government has such little respect for duly elected members. There are 308 members in the House of Commons. Things will likely only get worse when there are 338 and more people want to speak to bills. Hon. Joe Oliver : Mr. Speaker, as I said, we will allow enough time to debate the bill, which offers many benefits to all Canadians, including those living in the opposition member's riding.

The economic action plan proposes to change the funding plan for small businesses in Canada. This is a good example of measures that will allow more small businesses to submit an application for funding and will provide larger loans. These changes were proposed by stakeholders and could amount to an additional $100 million a year in loans. By improving access to funding, our government is continuing to encourage and support the growth and success of small businesses in Canada. [ English ] Ms. Yvonne Jones (Labrador, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, it is unfortunate that debate on the bill is going to be limited, because there are so many Canadians who will not be getting anything from the bill, and they want to have a voice. Why is there no northern strategy by the government opposite? In the north we hear of people looking in the dumps for food, because it is not affordable. We hear of people sleeping in vans and tents in -40° temperatures, because there is no housing for them. We hear of people going without proper medical care, because they do not have access to it. I ask the minister, why no northern strategy?

Why no strategy for Inuit people across the north? Why is his government not doing anything to help those who need it? Hon. Joe Oliver : Mr. Speaker, I am proud that our government has transferred to the provinces and territories record amounts. In fact, since we took office, the amount has increased by 63% over that of the previous government. There has been funding for health care, funding for social programs, and funding for equalization. There is also money for social housing. We have brought down taxes for all Canadians and have taken one million Canadians off the tax rolls.

Our Prime Minister has placed a priority on the north that we have never seen before in Canadian history, and we are all proud of that.

(1040) Mr. Terence Young (Oakville, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, Canada's seniors, like those in my riding of Oakville , have helped build our country and make it great. That is why I am proud that no government in Canadian history has done more to stand up for seniors than this Conservative government. For example, we enhanced the new horizons for seniors program to combat elder abuse and to engage seniors in their communities. We put money back into the pockets of seniors by legislating pension income splitting and by introducing the largest GIS increase in over 25 years.

We cut taxes, removed 380,000 low-income seniors from the tax roles completely, and created the landmark tax-free savings account. My question for the Minister of Finance is this: what would the budget bill do to support Canadian seniors? Hon. Joe Oliver : Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for that significant question and for his commitment to seniors in Oakville, and indeed around the country. I am pleased to assure the member that with budget 2015, we are introducing a new home accessibility tax credit to provide seniors with the ability to stay in their homes longer, if they choose.

We are also giving seniors more choice when it comes to managing their retirement income by reducing the minimum withdrawal requirements for registered retirement income funds. What is more, we are proudly increasing the tax-free savings account annual contribution limit to $10,000. About 600,000 seniors across Canada aged 65 and over with incomes below $60,000 are currently maxing out their TFSA room. This is a measure that will primarily benefit low- and middle-income Canadians. This is a very important venture, and these initiatives will benefit seniors right across Canada. Mr.

Tyrone Benskin (Jeanne-Le Ber, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it is a shame that we are in a situation where we are here debating the use of time allocation for the 96th time. Rather than responding to why that is, why the government feels that there is no need to debate any of its bills, we are getting speeches on cherry-picked items from the budget. Why are we again, for the 96th time, in time allocation for a budget bill, arguably the most important document we will debate in this House, as it affects all Canadians?

Why are we not giving it its just time to have a fulsome debate with as many members of this House as want to participate? Hon. Joe Oliver : Mr. Speaker, we have continually heard, throughout the past half-hour, complaints from the opposition that there is no opportunity to debate. Perhaps if the opposition members asked questions on the measures in this bill we could discuss them in a little more depth. However, all they want to talk about is the fact that they do not have an opportunity to talk, while they are talking.

Our government is focused on what matters to Canadians: helping them make ends meet by lowering taxes and securing Canada's long-term prosperity. We are supporting a balanced budget. We are supporting lower taxes. We are supporting incentives for manufacturers. We are reducing the small business tax rate. We are reducing the minimum withdrawal rate for RRIFs. We are doubling the TFSA. We are introducing the home accessibility tax credit.

We are introducing a new retirement income security benefit and a compassionate care benefit, and we are providing the needed resources for our brave men and women in uniform. [ Translation ] Mr. Pierre-Luc Dusseault (Sherbrooke, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it is incredible to see a finance minister who is so unfamiliar with the parliamentary rules in place that allow us 30 minutes to debate a time allocation motion. That is the motion being debated. The only justification he gave for having a budget implementation bill with so many different measures is that the Liberals have done this before.

I would like him to tell us if he has some more convincing reasons for having a budget implementation bill that contains so many measures and if he has an explanation other than the fact that the Liberals did even worse. I would like a more convincing explanation.

(1045) Hon. Joe Oliver : Mr. Speaker, and so it goes on. The opposition members do not want to discuss the bill, they want to discuss the fact that they cannot discuss the bill. However, we want to discuss the specific measures that will benefit Canadians, the four million Canadian families, seniors and the middle class. The fact remains that the previous Liberal government amended dozens and dozens of different legislative measures.

Let us be clear: the opposition members do not really care about studying the bill in committee; they would rather stop the vital economic reforms that the bill contains. [ English ] Mr. Sean Casey (Charlottetown, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, another group that has been overlooked in this budget and by the economic policies of the current government is young people. We now have in this country 169,000 fewer jobs for students than there were before the downturn. We have seen cuts since 2005 to the Canada summer jobs program.

I see it particularly in my riding in Charlottetown and right across Prince Edward Island, but this is happening right across the country. At the same time, when we watch the playoffs on TV, we see expensive ads, at $100,000 a pop, and that money could be much better spent on creating jobs for young people. Why is it not? Hon. Joe Oliver : Mr. Speaker, we will continue to communicate with Canadians and provide them with the information they need to access the benefits we are offering them.

By way of example, there are some 200,000 Canadians who have a right to some of the family benefits being offered, in particular young families, who have a right to have access to the universal childcare benefit but are not registered. We need to provide them with that information. With respect to the Canada Labour Code, we are providing more benefits to interns. We are providing job matching. We are providing loans to students, and we are reducing the dependency on parents' contributions. We are doing a great deal for youth right across this country. [ Translation ] Mr.

Pierre Dionne Labelle (Rivière-du-Nord, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, Canadians will remember the Conservatives' omnibus bills. They will also remember the time limits placed on debating bills. The Conservatives will have a place in history, but not for the right reasons. They will go down in history for systematically imposing closure, from the beginning, once they obtained a majority. Their reputation for governing with this kind of contempt for the parliamentary process and the opposition will stick with the Conservatives for generations to come. Hon. Joe Oliver : Mr. Speaker, I would rather discuss the bill.

As I said, our government is focused on what matters to Canadians and on helping the middle class by reducing the tax burden and securing Canada's long-term prosperity. Economic action plan 2015 will provide benefits directly to families, create jobs, stimulate economic growth and improve Canadians' security, all while helping us return to a balanced budget. I am very proud of that.

(1050) The Deputy Speaker : Order. It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith the question necessary to dispose of 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 Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea. Some hon. members: Yea. The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay. Some hon. members: Nay. The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it. And five or more members having risen: The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.

(1130) [ English ] (The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:) (Division No. 404) YEAS Members Ablonczy Adler Aglukkaq Albas Albrecht Alexander Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac) Allison Ambler Ambrose Anderson Ashfield Barlow Bateman Benoit Bergen Bernier Bezan Blaney Block Boughen Braid Breitkreuz Brown (Leeds—Grenville) Brown (Newmarket—Aurora) Butt Calandra Calkins Cannan Carmichael Carrie Chisu Chong Clarke Clement Crockatt Daniel Davidson Dechert Dreeshen Duncan (Vancouver Island North) Dykstra Eglinski Falk Fantino Fast Findlay (Delta—Richmond East) Fletcher Galipeau Gill Glover Goguen Goldring Goodyear Gosal Gourde Grewal Hawn Hayes Hiebert Hillyer Hoback Holder James Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission) Kent Kerr Komarnicki Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings) Lake Lauzon Lebel Leitch Lemieux Leung Lizon Lobb Lukiwski MacKay (Central Nova) MacKenzie Maguire Mayes McColeman McLeod Menegakis Miller Moore (Fundy Royal) Norlock Obhrai Oliver O'Neill Gordon Opitz O'Toole Payne Perkins Poilievre Preston Rajotte Reid Rempel Richards Ritz Saxton Schellenberger Seeback Shea Shipley Shory Smith Sopuck Sorenson Stanton Strahl Sweet Tilson Toet Trost Trottier Truppe Valcourt Van Loan Vellacott Wallace Warawa Warkentin Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country) Weston (Saint John) Wilks Williamson Wong Woodworth Yelich Young (Oakville) Young (Vancouver South) Yurdiga Zimmer -- 136 NAYS Members Allen (Welland) Angus Atamanenko Aubin Bélanger Bennett Benskin Bevington Blanchette Blanchette-Lamothe Boivin Borg Boulerice Boutin-Sweet Brison Brosseau Caron Casey Cash Charlton Chicoine Chisholm Choquette Christopherson Côté Cullen Cuzner Day Dewar Dion Dionne Labelle Doré Lefebvre Dubé Dubourg Duncan (Etobicoke North) Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona) Dusseault Easter Eyking Foote Freeman Fry Garneau Genest Genest-Jourdain Giguère Godin Goodale Gravelle Groguhé Harris (Scarborough Southwest) Harris (St.

John's East) Hyer Jones Julian Kellway Lamoureux Lapointe Latendresse Laverdière LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard) Leslie Liu MacAulay Mai Marston Masse Mathyssen May McCallum McGuinty McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood) Michaud Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue) Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord) Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine) Morin (Laurentides—Labelle) Morin (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot) Murray Nantel Nash Nunez-Melo Papillon Péclet Pilon Quach Rafferty Rathgeber Regan Saganash Sandhu Scarpaleggia Scott Sellah Sgro Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor) Sims (Newton—North Delta) Sitsabaiesan St-Denis Stewart Stoffer Sullivan Toone Valeriote Vaughan -- 105 PAIRED Nil The Deputy Speaker : I declare the motion carried.

Motion agreed to [ Translation ] The Deputy Speaker : I want to inform the House that because of the proceedings on the time allocation motion, government orders will be extended by 30 minutes.

Second Reading Bill C-59. Second reading The House resumed from May 13 consideration of the motion that Bill C-59,

An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 21, 2015 and other measures , be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment. Mr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I will begin my speech by simply saying thank goodness. This is this government's last budget bill because there are only 158 days before this government is replaced by a government that is competent when it comes to finance and the economy, and particularly when it comes to respecting Parliament and parliamentary institutions.

I was here during the debate on the time allocation motion, which just wrapped up. It was unbelievable. We could feel the contempt rolling in waves off the members, particularly the Minister of Finance . I had the pleasure of working with his predecessor, Mr. Flaherty. Although I respect the current minister as a person, as finance minister, he cannot hold a candle to Mr. Flaherty, who was at least diligent and passionate about what he was doing, even though we may have disagreed with the direction the government was taking.

The current finance minister is simply taking orders from the Prime Minister's Office and saying what they tell him to say, while completely disregarding parliamentary tradition. Once again, we are talking about an omnibus bill. This bill does indeed deal with measures that were debated in the budget, but it also includes all kinds of other measures that have absolutely nothing to do with the budget we were given. These measures should be given serious study by the appropriate committees because of their ramifications and consequences.

Once again, we are in a situation where most members of the House, who represent the 100,000 or so people in their ridings, will be unable to even speak to this bill. Speeding up the passage of bills the way the government does, especially for something as important as a budget bill, is not necessarily a good thing for it to do. In addition to trying to pass bills quickly, they try to prevent people from getting the extra research time they need to uncover flaws in these bills and gaps that undermine the credibility and efficiency of government initiatives.

We have seen that in the past, and we will see it again this time with this budget bill. As I mentioned in the past, when I had the opportunity to debate other budget bills, this government seems to have a certain number of criteria that is uses when drafting and introducing its budget bills. It has eight main criteria. One of them is obviously the size of the bills. In this case, we are dealing with a bill that is over 150 pages long. In fact, the French version is 167 pages. The government believes that a budget bill must amend a minimum of about 10 laws.

When I say amend, I mean create, amend or eliminate about 10 laws. In this case, the budget bill contains 20 divisions that amend about 20 different laws. Why does the government not introduce 20 separate bills to pass new laws or amend existing legislation? It is because the government simply wants to include them all in an omnibus bill to expedite the process. That shows the government's contempt for this Parliament. Another criterion that the government uses is that the budget bill must address many issues that have nothing to do with tax or fiscal policy.

This bill contains amendments to the National Energy Board Act, the Veterans Review and Appeal Board Act, the Public Service Labour Relations Act and the Industrial Design Act. Those laws have nothing to do with the budget that was presented. Another criterion that the government always seems to use is that the budget bill must create new laws. Once again, this bill creates two new laws: the federal balanced budget act and the prevention of terrorist travel act. These two new pieces of legislation will be created and discussed at the same time as the many other measures set out in this budget bill.

Another criterion that the government always seems to use is that its budget bills must always contain provisions that concentrate power in the hands of various ministers. Again this time, we see that this bill gives discretionary powers to the President of the Treasury Board, among others, despite the Public Service Labour Relations Act.

(1135) The final three criteria that the government feels it must meet in this budget bill, as with past bills, relate to the presence of at least one legislative amendment to restrict the rights of workers and immigrants, and finally, one measure that deals with law and order. Those elements can be found once again in this budget bill, so the pattern is repeated here, and we have yet another mammoth omnibus bill. The government is imposing time allocation. It is imposing conditions on the committee regarding its study of the proposed initiatives and measures.

In the House, it is imposing constraints on independent members, who should be given the opportunity to have their say at report stage, especially since they are not members of the committee. With no regard whatsoever for parliamentary traditions or respect for democratic parliamentary practices, this government is quite happy to simply steamroll over everything, as though the House were merely an annoying obstacle to overcome in order to achieve its ends. I know that the Minister of Finance was uncomfortable talking about time allocation.

He kept returning to the subject of the debate, when we were discussing a motion regarding yet another gag order imposed by the Conservative government. He only wanted to talk about the budget. I will now talk about the measures and initiatives in the budget. Although the government likes to brag about balancing the budget, I would remind the House that it was this very government that put us in a deficit situation in 2007-08, before the recession even began.

In fact, if the balanced budget legislation had been passed or even proposed by this Conservative government when it was first elected nearly 10 years ago in 2006, this government would have already been in violation of its own law, even before the recession. In fact, aside from the time when the government used up the entire existing surplus shortly after coming to power, this is the first time the budget has been balanced since 1912. Obviously, this government is boasting about the fact that, unlike the previous Liberal governments, it did not off-load the deficit to the provinces.

The government is not wrong, because that is what the Liberals did to balance the budget in the 1990s. However, what it is not saying is that balancing the budget would have been impossible for this government if it had not dramatically reduced the contingency fund. It would have been impossible if the government had not, yet again, dipped into the EI surplus. It would have been impossible if it had not sold, at a loss, its GM shares. It took these three measures for the government to be able to boast about balancing the budget before the election. That is not the mark of a competent government.

That is not the mark of a government that shows competent economic leadership. That is the mark of an ultra-partisan government that is trying to score points at the expense of good management and sound financial administration. Let us get back to the balanced budget act, because it is the first division of the part that deals with other measures. If we want to talk about a balanced budget act, I have no trouble doing so, but we should have talked about it separately.

The Conservatives are being underhanded and at the end of their mandate are feeling the political heat because they know that their chances of forming the government in October 2015 are very slim. They just want to say that they are being responsible and they are going to limit subsequent governments' room to manoeuvre when it comes to managing the economy and public finances. The Standing Committee on Finance heard from a number of witnesses who talked about the legislation and how it is applied in the rest of the country and where it has been implemented around the world.

This kind of legislation often has perverse and negative effects that will not necessarily be found in this bill because there are so many loopholes that we can just assume that it is a symbolic gesture by a government that wants to look good. As for the effectiveness of such legislation, the NDP has not yet had the opportunity to govern at the federal level, but we can look at what the provinces have done.

(1140) Since the early 1980s, the NDP has had the best record on balanced budgets among all the parties that have governed, at both the federal and provincial levels. In provinces that have had a New Democrat government, balanced budget legislation was not needed for the government to properly manage the provinces' finances. This tradition started with the first New Democrat government, in Saskatchewan, under Tommy Douglas, who managed to balance 17 consecutive budgets. Seventeen. He still found a way to bring in Canada's first public health care system.

There is a way to provide quality services that the public can be proud of and still balance the budget. That is not what we have seen from this government. Far from it. For 10 years now it has been mismanaging this country. Once again, I am mentioning the fact that it ran a deficit when Canada was not even in a recession. Now, 10 years later, the government is trying to make itself out to be a good manager. On the contrary, over the past 10 years this government has undermined Canada's potential to develop its own economy in a way that would benefit the entire population.

The government could have supported the manufacturing sector and could have supported our exports, but it did not. The Conservatives can count themselves lucky that we can stack up against other countries whose job creation and economic records were often poorer than ours, as a result of the circumstances. This was not due to the Conservatives' good work, but rather to the situation being worse off in other countries, not necessarily because of their policies, but often because of their geographical context. Obviously, I object to the government's desire to include measures that do not belong in a budget bill.

One can argue that a balanced budget act is part of that. Obviously we are talking about public finances. However, there are other elements. For example, division 2 of

part 3 is about other measures and enacts the prevention of terrorist travel act. We just had a long debate in the House and in committee on Bill C-51 , which is about combatting terrorism. Putting a division about terrorist travel in a budget bill gives the impression that the government realized it forgot that. It looks like the government wanted to introduce Bill C-51 so quickly and it was so important to do things really fast that it forgot that aspect and had to sneak it in through the budget bill by saying that that aspect was there and could be debated anyway.

Again, contrary to what most Conservative Party backbenchers might think, our role in the House is not simply to approve the government's initiatives. It is our duty to thoroughly study proposed legislation. The role of the official opposition, and the opposition in general, is not just to oppose what the government does. There are some things we can even throw our support behind. Beyond this opposition role, it is also our role to make proposals and conduct reviews. Our fundamental role is to point out any flaws in the government's legislation so that the appropriate corrections can be made.

This government is denying the fundamental role of the traditional structure and operation of the House of Commons. The government is so partisan and obtuse in its desire to leave its Conservative mark on this country that it does not seem to care one bit about the effectiveness or constitutionality of its bills. We have here another example with division 2 of

part 3 of the budget bill on the prevention of terrorist travel act. Why make changes to the Industrial Design Act, the Patent Act and the Trade-marks Act under the radar yet again? The last budget bill made the same types of changes to these laws. Is this a patch job? The government finds flaws and gaps and then quickly tries to fix them behind closed doors so that once again it does not appear to be too incompetent. That approach certainly gives that impression.

(1145) Another important initiative found in this

section is the extension of copyright terms for sound recordings. This significant extension should be debated separately, either in the House or in committee. Due to the new structure that the Conservative government has imposed, we can no longer even have an adequate debate in committee, because when we send a bill like this one to a committee—I imagine it would be the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage in this case—only a two-hour meeting is scheduled. The minister speaks for about half an hour and then answers questions for an hour or an hour and a half.

The minister usually speaks for 15 to 30 minutes and answers questions for 15 to 30 minutes. Then there is time remaining to hear from perhaps four witnesses to talk about a fundamental amendment. Then the bill is usually submitted without amendment. I had the opportunity to sit on the Standing Committee on Finance for the study of five budget bills. We studied over 2,500 pages and only one amendment was adopted by the government, which had a majority on these committees. Furthermore, it required a Conservative sub-amendment.

A careful and rigorous examination of the measures proposed by the government simply does not happen, because this government systematically rejects criticism, even when it is constructive. It refuses to examine opportunities to improve the provisions it puts forward. That concludes my remarks on the proposals of the third division, even though I could have talked about them for a long time. Other members—although sadly not many—will have the opportunity to talk about this some more. I would like to come back to some of the initiatives that will certainly be of interest to many members here.

I am talking about the income splitting initiative proposed by the government. Income splitting will benefit only 15% of the population. By raising the contribution limit for TFSAs, the government is trying to confuse Canadians with all sorts of statistics that have nothing to do with reality. The reality is that raising the contribution limit for TFSAs from $5,500 to $10,000 will help only those who contribute the maximum amount. Right now, only 17% or 18% of people with a TFSA contribute the maximum amount. They are the ones who will benefit from the increased contribution limit.

Basically, raising the contribution limit for TFSAs will merely allow people to move their savings from one place to another, since TFSAs are not currently helping people to save money. The government claims that the increased contribution limit will help two-thirds of those who contribute the maximum amount and who earn $60,000 or less. That gives the impression that two-thirds of Canadians contribute the maximum amount and that these people are all earning $60,000 or less. That is not true. It is two-thirds of the 17% or 18% of people who contribute the maximum amount who will benefit from this measure.

That means that only a very small fraction of Canadians will benefit from this measure, which will be used more and more as a tax shelter when it was supposed to help people save money. The members on this side of the House proposed several initiatives. The government adopted some of them and now it is boasting about them. Meanwhile, when we moved a motion in the House to lower the corporate or small business tax rate from 11% to 9%, the Conservatives and the Liberals voted against it. We also moved a motion to extend the accelerated capital cost allowance for investment in machinery.

The Conservatives and Liberals voted against that motion, but now that measure is included in the budget. The government might want to start doing some soul searching, because the election is fast approaching; it is 158 days away.

The day after the election, when they find themselves on this side of the House, perhaps the Conservatives will understand the completely disastrous consequences of their actions, their behaviour and their attitude over the past several years, especially the past four years, toward democracy, the parliamentary system and the traditions that have made this House a place to work for the common good and all Canadians.

(1150) The Conservatives refuse to hear this message. We will put it into practice after October 2015. [ English ] Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments the member made, especially when he focused on the fact that the role and responsibility of the opposition is not just to criticize but to generate ideas, alternatives, and so forth. I believe that a good comparison is the manner in which the government made the determination to move forward with income splitting.

It means that less than 14% of Canada's population, primarily the wealthiest, would receive $2 billion annually. That is a significant amount. We in the Liberal Party are opposing that and have provided a tangible alternative. We have said that a Liberal government would make the tax system fair and would cut the middle-class tax rate by 7%. It is a tangible difference and is a much fairer policy. Can the member provide his thoughts on the 7% tax break the Liberals are proposing for the middle class? What is his party's position on that issue? [ Translation ] Mr. Guy Caron : Mr.

Speaker, I think the official opposition and the third party agree that income splitting is not a good measure. We also oppose the increase in the contribution limit for TFSAs. Our positions are consistent, and we oppose what the government is proposing. I looked at the measure the member for Winnipeg North mentioned and found a number of glaring weaknesses. The first weakness has to do with the 7% tax cut. In fact, it is not really a cut, because it leads to the same problem that plagued former premier Jim Prentice.

When he talked about the Alberta NDP's proposal to raise corporate taxes by 20%, he gave the impression that the NDP wanted to raise taxes by 20 percentage points, but that was not the case. Ms. Notley, the new premier, emphasized that she was simply raising taxes from 10% to 12%, which is an increase of only 2%. In this case, it is not really a 7% tax cut, but rather a decrease from 22% to 20.5%, or a real cut of 1.5%. However, this measure would not benefit two-thirds of taxpayers, since it would apply only to those who earn over $44,800.

Those who earn less than that, which is two-thirds of Canadians, will not benefit at all from that tax cut. The Liberals should not be making it sound as though this measure would benefit only people earning between $44,700 and $89,000. It would benefit everyone who has an income between $45,000 and $215,000. At the end of the day, the measure proposed by the Liberal Party would take a little money, by increasing taxes for the top 1% of earners, and redistribute it among the top 15%—or thereabouts—of earners.

I think that the Liberals' proposal shows a real lack of consideration for the public and the middle class, whose average yearly individual income is under $44,000. (1155) [ English ] Mr. Costas Menegakis (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as the member would well know, it is our Conservative government that has restored fiscal balance. We have done this through long-term transfers to the provinces. They are historic transfers. This year it was nearly $68 billion. There has been a 62% increase since the Liberals were in government.

That is an increase of more than $3 billion and almost 63% since the Liberals. Federal support for health, education, and social services has increased some 59% since we formed government. I know that the member is a member of Parliament from a great riding in Quebec. There is a very important contribution to the province of Quebec. The federal government has increased transfers to the province of Quebec. We believe in collaborative government, where we work with our provinces.

I wonder if the member can now stand in his place and speak to the advantages these additional transfers to the province of Quebec have brought to the province and to his riding. Would he indeed reconsider his position and the rhetoric we have been hearing in the House on this budget and actually stand up and support his constituents in his riding by supporting this budget? [ Translation ] Mr. Guy Caron : Mr. Speaker, standing up for my constituents is exactly what I am doing in speaking out against this bill.

I find it curious that the parliamentary secretary is talking about a government that works with the provinces. When he talks about a 59% increase over 10 years, I thank the miracle of compound interest. In fact, if the member crunches the numbers, 59% over a period of 10 years is not all that much. Why was I smiling about his comment on this government's collaboration with the provinces? Let us take a look at health transfers. There is no collaboration. Ottawa and the provinces had a health agreement, but the government did not renew it.

It even refused to sit down with the provinces to renegotiate these transfers. Negotiation involves discussions and collaboration. The government unilaterally imposed a reduction in the growth of health transfers. These are important, especially since health care spending is growing at a higher rate than inflation. Cutting growth from 6% to 3% means that the provinces will see their transfers reduced to half what they were under the agreement that had been signed and negotiated. We are talking about a $36 billion cut in the coming years. Quebec is losing out, as are all of the provinces.

I would like the parliamentary secretary to reconsider his support for this budget bill and the government's policies.

(1200) Ms. Élaine Michaud (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his excellent speech and his very hard work as a member of the Standing Committee on Finance. It must be so hard sometimes, knowing how the Conservative government operates. I can talk more about that later during my own speech. I would like my colleague to comment further about something. He talked about measures in the budget that the NDP supports, such as the tax cut for small and medium-sized businesses in Canada. We support that measure because it was our idea.

The Conservatives took a long time to act on it. All the same, I would like my colleague to explain how the NDP would have implemented that tax rate. I know that the Conservatives are making our small and medium-sized businesses wait for the tax cut. I would like my colleague to talk about how the NDP would start trying to help Canada's entrepreneurs right away. Mr. Guy Caron : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier for that question because it is relevant. Both the Conservatives and the Liberals rejected our proposal to cut taxes for small businesses.

The initiative in the current budget implementation bill does not go as far as the NDP's proposal. When we moved our motion, which was debated for a day in the House, we wanted an immediate reduction from 11% to 10%, and then to 9% when finances allowed, such as in a budget surplus situation. What the government has put on the table is a plan to gradually reduce small business taxes over a period of time that is twice as long as what was proposed in the NDP motion. I feel that the government has shown bad faith. For one thing, it voted against the principle of cutting taxes for small businesses.

For another, it is taking much longer to implement the tax cut than an NDP government would have done. [ English ] Mr. Terence Young (Oakville, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to share my time with the member for Burlington , if I that is agreeable. Mr. Speaker, there is one initiative that stands above all others in this budget bill, because it would allow millions of Canadians, from all backgrounds and walks of life, to work hard and plan ahead to become more self-reliant, and even wealthy, over time. This is the bright future Conservatives want for all Canadians, especially our children and grandchildren.

Ordinary people would have the independence that is available only to wealthy people now. That initiative is the tax-free savings account limit being increased to $10,000 a year. Tax-free savings accounts are the most powerful savings vehicle in Canadian history. They will allow hundreds of thousands of ordinary working people to actually become millionaires. Here are 10 reasons the Conservative government, in this bill, has the only plan for Canadians to conserve their earnings, build personal wealth, and be financially independent in their senior years: tax-free savings accounts.

Number one, they help our youth understand the importance of saving. What is the most important gift for financial success and security we could give our children and grandchildren? It is teaching them to be self-reliant and to work and save for their future using the power of compound interest. It is teaching them to not spend what they do not have, to not get buried in charge card debt and interest, to pay their bills on time, and to save for life's priorities, like education, a home, and their retirement. The ratio of debt to net income is 1.6 for the average family in Canada right now. It is the highest ever.

However, it gets worse. What happens when the interest rates go up, as they will? Hundreds of thousands of families will be trapped in monthly credit card payments at an 18% interest rate, or higher, that they will struggle to pay down. By promoting saving as part of our culture, instead of credit card debt, we can help spare millions of young people from this interest rate trap that never ends. Eleven million Canadians have opened their own tax-free savings accounts so far and agree with us. Every Canadian over 18 should try to save in a tax-free savings account.

They should not be misled by the subterfuge of the Liberals, who are telling Canadians that tax-free savings accounts only help the rich. That is absolutely not true. It is never okay to mislead Canadians like this. It is shameful. Here is the truth about tax-free savings accounts. Sixty per cent of those Canadians who have invested the maximum in tax-free savings accounts to date earn less than $60,000 a year. By whose standards are these people rich? No one's. More than half of the Canadians who have opened tax-free savings accounts and have saved in them earn $40,000 a year or less. That is 5.5 million people.

Are they rich? Certainly not. The Liberals are setting us all up by saying that they will only increase taxes for the rich. What do they mean by that? Who is that? It is everyone who earns over $40,000, which is the vast majority of Canadians. They want to get their hands on that $6,600 our government has cut from the average Canadian family's tax bill. The federal Liberal leader has already announced, on May 4, the Liberal plan to cancel our increase for tax-free savings accounts to $10,000 a year. That is a tax increase of the most foolish kind. Number two, tax-free savings accounts are the great equalizer.

Canadians who do not earn over $100,000 a year have only one way to become financially independent: save, invest, and watch their money grow. That is what tax-free savings accounts facilitate. With tax-free savings accounts, ordinary Canadians who work and save can become wealthy. For example, a skilled tradeswoman electrician who took full advantage of her tax-free savings account limit from age 20, with a modest 4% return on stocks, could receive her first million dollars tax free by age 61. That is 13 years sooner than it would be without a tax-free savings account.

Tax-free savings accounts also grow our economy. When people open tax-free savings accounts with Canadian securities, their money goes to invest in Canadian enterprises that create jobs here in Canada. Businesses expand. Economic activity is boosted. That growth, over decades, could easily replace any lost government tax revenues from tax-free savings accounts. Here is the problem. The Liberals and the NDP believe, and they want all Canadians to believe, that money not in government hands is not benefiting Canada. This is a Marxist hangover. It is nonsense. Here is the truth.

Money invested by Canadians is money that is loaned out to industry and job creators to help build Canada. Entrepreneurs are our most important creators. This is reason number four: they support innovation and job creation. With tax-free savings accounts, entrepreneurs can tap into their accumulated tax-free savings to create new industry and replenish their accounts later as their businesses grow.

(1205) The fifth reason is that tax-free savings accounts are fair because the government should not tax all people's money twice. It saddens me to see our seniors, the people who built Canada, trying to live on interest on their savings that gets eaten up by inflation and then taxed. They are just falling further behind. With tax-free savings accounts, the federal government is forgoing the double taxation that prevents Canadians from growing their most important lifetime savings, leaving them one little pile of their own money to grow without interference. Canadians deserve that.

The sixth reason is that tax-free savings accounts shine a light on how ordinary Canadians have been robbed of their right to affluence and self-reliance. Big-spending governments, like both opposition parties would create, are addicted to spending and borrowing. Just look at Ontario right now. The Liberals and New Democrats believe that all money belongs to the government and Canadians just get to use it for awhile and governments can tax it back any time they want, any way they want, whenever they want. The Conservatives believe that money earned after tax belongs to the people who earn it.

They should have at least one special account that the government has no right to touch, or even its growth, ever again. The seventh reason is that tax-free savings accounts help ensure better health care for Canadians. Canadians who want to be able to afford choice in their own health care in their senior years should be saving as much as they need in tax-free savings accounts. The most hysterical socialists at the Broadbent Institute are playing the fear card, claiming that health care is threatened if the doubling of tax-free savings accounts is approved. They have no shame. The exact opposite is the truth.

The fact is that governments only cover 60% of our total health care costs. Canadians pay the rest, if they can afford to, such as dental care, chiropractic care, naturopathic care, homeopathic care, long-term care, blood tests, vitamins. We pay more for drugs than we do for doctors. We pay for long-term care. Let us face it, the nanny state is a failure. People can save in the TFSA and be self-reliant so they are not left without the money they need to pay for these things. By saving $7,000 a year from age 25, at a modest 5% rate of growth, a 65 year old would have $887,000 to handle any such bills.

No government could ever do that for them. If that same person saved $10,000 a year and got a 5% rate of return, he or she would have over $1.2 million. This drives the socialists crazy. They cannot stand that ordinary people could be that independent. Who would need the nanny state? That is why the socialists hate TFSAs and would get rid of them if elected. The eighth reason is that TFSAs reduce the underground economy. TFSAs are registered savings plans. The government knows about them.

They will help bring our considerable underground economy above ground by making it more attractive to invest in Canadian companies because the growth is tax free. The government will get more tax income from the companies that grow out of the investments and from their employees. The ninth reason is that tax-free savings accounts support the flexibility of future governments to act. The Broadbent Institute claims that by 2080 the government will be short $15 billion that it otherwise would have had.

That completely ignores the fact that some of those billions of dollars would have remained in the underground economy. It also ignores the multiplier effect of those dollars invested back in the economy and the fact that our economy, by that time, would be as large as $15 trillion. Therefore, $15 billion would be about .001% of such an economy. This is simple math. If governments are ever low on money, they can always raise taxes, reduce spending or borrow if need be. Tax-free savings accounts do not hinder any of that.

The tenth reason is that tax-free savings accounts at $10,000 a year are the absolute best deal Canadian taxpayers have ever been offered. They will motivate Canadians to work, to be entrepreneurs and employ others, to save and to be self-reliant. We can build a much greater nation with millions of citizens like that, and that is what we would do with this budget bill. (1210) [ Translation ] Ms. Ève Péclet (La Pointe-de-l'Île, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would just like to give my colleague a basic lesson on the difference between a non-taxable amount and a taxable amount.

My colleague talked about the new universal child care benefit, which will benefit all parents. However, that benefit is taxable at the end of the year when families have to do their tax returns. In other words, a family that receives about $750 from the government will be taxed—this is taxable income, after all—and will have just a little under $200 left at the end of the year. Why do my colleague and the Conservative government want to tax families? [ English ] Mr. Terence Young : Mr. Speaker, the member has it all wrong. Our party is about lowering taxes on families.

That is what we have been doing since we became the government in 2006. In fact, the amount we have lowered taxes for the average Canadian family since 2006 is $6,600 every year. With this budget, we now have lowered taxes in 180 different ways. That is what we are all about and I think the taxpayers know that. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I believe the member is the one who has it all wrong. The government's taxation policy does favour Canada's wealthy. Using his example of the tax-free savings account, let me give him a dose of reality.

A good majority of the constituents who I represent will make individually somewhere between $20,000 to $40,000 a year. Out of that, maybe 5% will have contributed the maximum last year to their tax-free savings accounts. Compare that to those who make over $200,000 a year. There it would be close to 35% who maximize it, and the government has chosen to double that benefit. That tells me the people who benefit the most are the wealthiest in Canada. That is why I say the taxation policy favours Canada's wealthy. It is not fair taxation policy. Could the member explain how that discrepancy is fair?

(1215) Mr. Terence Young : Mr. Speaker, I do not think the hon. member was listening to my speech. The point is that the only way that people who never have an income over $50,000 in their whole working life can ever become independent and have the freedom that wealthy people have is if they are able to save in a tax-free savings account. The growth within that account is never taxed. It is extremely powerful savings plan to help people have that independence later in life. That is the point of tax-free savings accounts. There will always be people who earn more money than others.

However, why are the Liberals trying to create a class war in Canada? Why are the Liberals picking on our doctors, lawyers, union leaders and other business people and even people in the arts? Why are they targeting them and trying to create a class war? I think it is because the Liberals just cannot stand that highly accomplished people earn more than others and they do not make a very large voting base, so too bad for them. Mr. Earl Dreeshen (Red Deer, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to some of the questions I just heard and give the member an opportunity to talk about those.

Of those who have maxed out their TFSAs, 60% earned less than $60,000, which is contrary to what the member opposite just said. There are 856,000 Canadians age 65 and over who have maxed out their contributions. Another 1.3 million age 55 and older have done the same. Therefore, it is a tool being used by those who are in the lower and middle incomes. Could the member comment on the actual facts? Mr. Terence Young : Mr. Speaker, those are the undeniable facts. People understand the power of savings with compounded interest in a tax-free savings account.

However, if people ever want to know what a potential Liberal budget would look like federally, all they have to do is look at the province of Ontario right now. Ontario Liberals just announced two major tax grabs, the pension tax, which would take about $2 billion out of the pockets of people and employers, and the carbon tax, which would be another $1.5 billion. Then they are going to sell off portions of Ontario Hydro to try to raise another $4.5 billion. Imagine that on a national scale and imagine— The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) : Order, please.

We only had a limited amount of time on that last round. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Burlington. Mr. Mike Wallace (Burlington, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from the riding of Oakville for sharing his time with me today. I am very honoured to stand to speak to Bill C-59 . I have made an attempt to speak to all of the budget bills that have come before us, whether at the time the policy is introduced or during the implementation bills. There are normally two. One is in the spring, after the budget has been presented in the House, to implement what is in the budget, and other measures.

There is also, normally, an implementation bill in the fall, which I know will not happen this year because we will be out on the hustings, asking people to support us. It is my pleasure to be here, particularly this year. Over the last number of years, I have been advocating with our finance minister and finance officials for changes to the RRIFs in terms of the minimum withdrawal. I did not come up with that on my own. I want to thank the over 40 individuals who came to my office over the last year or so to talk about the issue of the level of required withdrawals they had to make from their RRIFs.

This is not an organized lobby. They are individuals and their families affected by the existing rules. I also want to thank the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country , who heard the same thing. We were very active with our colleagues on this side of the House on this issue, encouraging them to speak to the finance minister and financial officials about the possibility of looking at the withdrawal rate on RRIFs. I was very excited to see that in this budget we have actually moved on it. Under the current system, the minimum withdrawal is 7.38%, and that will go down to 5.28%.

Why is that important? Why did those 40 people come to see me, and what does it mean to them? We have a couple of programs for retirement savings. We have the RRSP and RPP to encourage individuals to save for their retirement. Part of that encouragement is to give them tax relief for the amount of money they put away for their retirement. A few years ago, the program required people to move that money from an RRSP, or the other savings program, into a registered retirement income fund.

I believe the age for that was 68 or 69, but we moved it to 71, knowing that people had some more time and did not need the money that early. The fact is that people are living much longer than when this program was introduced decades ago. People need their retirement money to last longer. They need to be able to stretch it out to meet the needs they will have if they make into their 90s. Many of my constituents are making it into their 90s. In my riding alone, the senior cohort is not only growing, it is actually the majority.

That is over 55; it is not everyone over 71, However, that cohort is growing and moving forward and we need to be there now, making the changes now, so they can take advantage of it. There is an excellent chart in the budget, which I would like to read into the record. Regarding the changes that we would make to RRIFs, or registered retirement income funds, let us look at the difference that it would make to an individual. Let us make the assumption, as the budget does, that it is $100,000. An 2% inflation rate is built into that, and the return on investment in their income fund is at 5%.

Some will do better, some will do a little worse, but this is our chart.

(1220) At age 71, one would have $100,000. At age 80, under the existing rules, one would have $64,000 left, but under the new rules of this budget implementation legislation, it would be $77,000, a difference of 20%. This is a significant difference that those individuals could hold on to for the retirement funds that they need for basic living. Under the current rules, at age 85, it would be $47,000, which would go to $62,000. Many of my constituents are living into their nineties these days. At age 90, under the current rules, it would be $30,000.

Under the new rules, it would be $44,000, and so on and so forth. It caps at $20,000 at 94 years of age. This is important because people are getting older in all ridings in the country, not just mine. We expect individuals to save for their retirement. The other option is to look to governments to support everything, but it cannot afford it. The government will not have the tax base to support the growing bubble of retirees who are coming with the baby boom.

We have tools for saving, whether that be the tax-free savings account, as previously mentioned, or the registered retirement savings plan, which encourage people to save for their retirement so they will have less reliance on government to support them. However, what was happening in my riding, because of the minimum, at 7.38%; because of good planning, good strategy and my constituents working hard, understanding their future and saving money; they were being required to take money out, reducing the cash flow that they would need in the years to come.

In the past, we would think that someone 71 years old would have another decade and a half left here. However, people are living longer. Last year I lost a grandmother at 97 years old. I have a grandmother still with me who is 97 years old. I have had two grandfathers aged 89. I have known four great-grandparents. People are living longer, but I will let members know that it does not mean that I will be in this seat for another 40 years. Some hon. members: That is not true. Mr. Mike Wallace: Mr.

Speaker, I know that members hoped I would get re-elected for another 40 years, but I do not think that is going to happen. I appreciate the fact that this government, through this budget bill, has recognized the importance of retirement savings and that it is our constituents' money. They have not paid taxes on it, because they use the system we put in place as a government to encourage people to save for their future. However, we now have recognized that they will need that money for a longer period of time. Let us be honest, the government of the day will get its taxes.

The plan for RRSPs is that when earnings are higher, money is put away and one would receive a reduction on taxes at that time, but when one takes that money out, one would pay taxes on it then. We would expect to be earning less when we take the money out and therefore the tax rate should be slightly less.

However, what was happening in Burlington, and I believe across the country as we heard from the MP from West Vancouver, because the marketplace was not performing as well in terms of the stock market, people were taking their money out of RRIFs and actually losing money. they were unable to get the return on that money that they could have if they had left it there. They lost money in their income funds, and then we were forcing them to take that money out, which became a double-edged sword.

We have recognized that and have made some significant changes to the registered retirement income fund, which is great for savings for seniors across this country. Therefore, I am very proud to be supporting Bill C-59 and we look forward to having the bill passed and in place for this fiscal year. (1225) [ Translation ] Mr. Pierre-Luc Dusseault (Sherbrooke, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to ask my colleague a question after his speech on the Conservatives' new-found passion for balanced budgets in 2015.

In Bill C-59 , they have introduced a balanced budget act to require the government to balance the budget under certain circumstances. Is my colleague prepared to make this measure retroactive, so that it applies to the Conservatives' last seven deficit budgets? Five of them would not have been accepted, according to the circumstances outlined in the budget implementation bill that allow a government to incur a deficit.

Would my colleague be prepared to make this proposal retroactive, so that cabinet ministers would have to pay out of their own pockets for all the Conservatives' deficit budgets that did not comply with the bill they are introducing today? [ English ] Mr. Mike Wallace : Mr. Speaker, in the implementation bill there is a

part implementing the balanced budget act. It states that if a country, or the world in our case, is facing a recession or a depression and the economics of the day require governments around the world, including Canada, to spend more than they are taking in, to have a deficit to stimulate the economy in order to create jobs and make sure that Canadians have the wealth they need to continue, the bill actually provides an exception for that to happen. The finance minister of the day would come forward to the finance committee and discuss the issues of the day. That is included in the bill. I stand behind it today.

I stood behind it three years ago. Balanced books is the way governments, businesses and households should operate.

(1230) Hon. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the hon. member's last response on balanced budget legislation. He is quite right. As it is defined in the legislation, balanced budget legislation would only apply during times outside of recession. Given the fact that we have not been in a recession, statistically, since the spring of 2009, would the government accept an amendment to the legislation to make it apply retroactively? As such, the cabinet and the Prime Minister would, of course, have their pay docked every year since 2009.

During that period of time we have been outside of a recessionary period and the government has actually added $160 billion to the national debt. Would he accept the spirit of the legislation and support an amendment to make it retroactive? Mr. Mike Wallace : Mr. Speaker, if we look back at the deficit reduction plans of all the parties in the House over the last number of years, which I have done relatively recently, the only party that had an actual deficit reduction plan was the Conservative Party. The Liberals want to spend more money. The NDP members always want to spend more money.

New Democrats believe it grows on trees and somehow it grow back. It is like “the books balance themselves”, I guess. An hon. member: That was the Liberal leader. Mr. Mike Wallace: Mr. Speaker, that was what the Liberal leader said. The fact is, we did have a recession. We did have a deficit and we had a plan to pay it back and we met our obligations. We have balanced the books. We have balanced the budget in this fiscal year. We promised that. [ Translation ] Ms. Françoise Boivin (Gatineau, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, first, and it really is a first, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier . This is not the first time I have shared my time, but it is the first time I have remembered to mention it. I therefore have the honour of sharing my time with this excellent member. I quite liked the speech by the hon. member who spoke before me. He is also the chair of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. I felt like telling him that it is not that we always want to spend more money. We want to spend Canadians' money on Canadians,

whereas the Conservatives do not mind if that money is spent on a corporation. It is all a question of nuance, and that is the big problem with Bill C-59,

An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 21, 2015 and other measures . In the House, we are facing a time allocation motion—the 96th—which prevents members from across the country from speaking to such an important issue as the budget implementation bill. This bill is over 180 pages long and affects many laws. I especially want to talk in the House about other measures contained in controversial Bill C-59 . Since I do not believe that we will have the time to debate the bill at length, I will talk about three divisions that are of particular interest to me.

I am referring to division 10, which concerns the parliamentary protective service, division 18 on the abolition of the long gun registry, and division 20, which deals with sick leave and disability programs. I will start with the last one I mentioned, namely, the division on sick leave and disability programs.

Since this bill was introduced, and even before that—the budget gave us a taste of what was to come—we have had the clear and distinct impression that the Government of Canada was set on what it was going to do, even though, over the years, it had made a commitment to its employees across the country who serve Canadians. I am a labour lawyer. We know how negotiations work. You give and you take. That is what negotiating is. In the end, you come to an agreement. Each party compromises in order to reach an agreement or a collective agreement. That is what happened in negotiations in previous years.

Now, with the stroke of a pen, the Conservatives have decided to take back what they had given to people, who for their part had also given up something in return. Thus, the government won concessions on some things over the years by giving these much talked-about sick benefits and a certain disability plan, that it is now taking back. That is not very democratic. In my humble opinion, this could definitely be challenged in court and it is certainly not a way to treat those who are working here among the lawmakers in Parliament and delivering services to all Canadians.

Make no mistake: this is a blatant lack of respect. When I hear the minister and the President of the Treasury Board saying that over 200 negotiation meetings have already been held, I think to myself that the Conservatives are very good at throwing all sorts of figures around, whenever and however they want, because they lump in pretty much anything and everything. They certainly did not hold intelligent and productive negotiations in good faith on this issue.

What is worse, this is like me saying to someone that I am going to negotiate with him, but then I just go ahead and do whatever I want, even if he does not in any way support my decision. That basically means that there will be no negotiation. That is what this provision of division 20 of Bill C-59 boils down to. I can say that the NDP is strongly opposed to that way of doing things. If the Conservative government believes that the government negotiators were not able to negotiate the right things over the years, then it needs to do something about that. That is the government's decision.

However, it should not take away from people the things that belong to them, and it should not be spreading false information. For example, it should not be saying that all federal government employees abuse the system and their sick leave. I think that is insulting to dedicated employees who work tirelessly to serve the public.

(1235) If the government wants to defend an argument, there are many ways of doing so other than spouting such nonsense. The employees who work for us should at least have our respect. This is certainly not a very respectful way of doing things. To all those who have written me to ask what our position is, I can tell them that the NDP's position is clear: the NDP does not support the government's position on this at all. We are going to vote against this measure and we are certainly going to clean up the mess. Heaven knows that there will be plenty of cleanup to do after the October 19 election.

I will now move on to the issue with division 18, which I find most worrisome. When we were debating the time allocation motion, the Minister of Finance answered a question regarding the division on ending the long gun registry. His response concerned me. Let us not kid ourselves. All of the members will hear about the letter from the Privacy Commissioner, Ms. Legault, who wrote to the Speaker of the House. She informed him of some facts that I find extremely worrisome.

In short, she said that illegal acts were allegedly committed and documents were apparently destroyed, even though they should not have been destroyed and their destruction was not legal in any way. She even informed the Attorney General of Canada that the RCMP had committed this offence. Our RCMP. I get worried when these allegations come from an officer of Parliament as important as the Privacy Commissioner. Once again, we see a pattern. Just a few sentences in a budget implementation bill and the RCMP is absolved of everything it did illegally without legal authorization. That is absolutely despicable.

This government claims to be a law and order government, but only when it sees fit. That is extremely worrisome. The Minister of Finance gave a big, beautiful, super-intelligent response, saying that this was a promise the government had made in the 2011 election campaign. I listened carefully, because even though I do not necessarily share the government's views on the long gun registry, I can still admit that the Conservatives did promise to put an end to the long gun registry. I congratulate them for following through on their promise. I do not agree, but they did make that promise.

However, in their election campaign they never talked about destroying data, nor did they talk about absolving those who may have been involved in the obstruction of justice or committed other offences. They certainly never talked about that. I invite my colleagues, who have to deal with this issue with very little time, to pay particular attention to that. That is the problem with the government's approach, when it goes ahead with an omnibus bill that changes everything under the sun, even things that do not necessarily have anything to do with its main objective. I do not have high hopes in that regard.

As a final point, I would like to say a few words about division 10, which has to do with the parliamentary protective service. I encourage my colleagues to read that section. It reiterates the importance of our role as parliamentarians and outlines how that protection will be carried out. The RCMP is going to take over this task, under the authority of the Speaker of the Senate and the Speaker of the House. The bill reiterates the principle that the work of parliamentarians must never be obstructed. Once again, I feel as though I am reading one thing, but living another.

My colleague from Toronto—Danforth argued this point in the question of privilege he raised, which was recognized by the Chair but reversed by the government. I heard my colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques say that it was perhaps the last time we would have a chance to speak in the House on a budget bill. The Conservatives managed to balance the budget on the backs of just about everyone. This government has been the most undemocratic government I have seen in my life, throughout all the years that I spent following politics, as both a politician and a regular citizen.

(1240) I hope I got everyone's attention so that they will go read these three divisions. Public servants need not worry. The NDP understands them, appreciates their work, and will be there to repair the damage. [ English ] Hon. Michelle Rempel (Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's comments and impassioned speech on this matter. I would like to ask her a question about one of the provisions in the bill. It deals with the protection of intellectual property in Canada.

The protection of intellectual property is a very important part of building a knowledge-based economy, because it allows knowledge creators in Canada to protect that and put it into the marketplace in a meaningful way. One of the sections in this bill would give patent agents privilege, which is something the Standing Committee on the Law of Patents of the World Intellectual Property Organization talked about with regard to Canada, saying in essence that in order for Canada to have a stronger intellectual property protection regime, this particular privilege should be enacted.

Could the member comment on whether this is something the NDP would support? I know the Intellectual Property Institute of Canada supports it as well, and I think it is a great thing. I hope the member supports it. [ Translation ] Ms. Françoise Boivin : Mr. Speaker, I am very glad that my colleague asked me that question because it proves my point. Without necessarily getting into the wording of the title of the bill, which, again, is “An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget and other measures”, this is a typical example of something that falls under “other measures”.

Whether we are talking about security here or the issues I mentioned in the divisions I deemed important, such as abolishing the long gun registry and the amnesty given to actions that can be perceived as crime or obstruction, these aspects should be part of a separate bill so that the right committee can study all the pertinent repercussions. As far as the issue of copyright and registration is concerned, my colleague and Canadian Heritage critic often talks to me rather passionately about how all these rights can be reconciled. It is not easy.

If we make the companies happy, then the creators are not necessarily happy. Did this not merit a respectful amount of time for consideration, either at the Standing Committee on Finance or at the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, where this issue will likely end up and where we will not even have the right to make amendments? That is the problem with Bill C-59 . (1245) [ English ] Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the member talked about a real concern we have been expressing.

The member for Cape Breton—Canso , the Liberal Party's labour critic, has raised the issue of the lack of goodwill on the part of the government to negotiate in good faith with Canada's public service union. It seems the Conservatives just do not have respect for professionalism in our public service. We have witnessed it even beyond the immediate public service in some of the crown corporations, whether it is a lack of confidence in CBC or some of the dramatic decisions that have taken place in Canada Post with regard to letter carriers and door-to-door delivery.

I wonder if the member could expand on her thoughts in regard to the general lack of goodwill the Government of Canada has toward our public servants, whether they are with crown corporations or directly with the government, and the negative impact that has in terms of service overall. We could include service centres that have been closed down over the last number of years. [ Translation ] Ms. Françoise Boivin : Mr. Speaker, first of all, to this day I am always blown away by the quality of the work done by our public service.

With resources that began to be cut back in the 1990s and continued dwindling in the 2000s and now in the 2010s, it performs miracles with very little. When we speak to public servants, we see how burned out they are. While they might need some leave to recover from this profound exhaustion, the government is attacking something that is very important to them, and we have ended up where we are now. I am not surprised that the Conservative government did what it did. Just listen to how the President of the Treasury Board talks about the public service, the people who work in the service of Canadians.

The language he uses is so disrespectful that one would think he sees them all as people who abuse the system. Anyone who sits down with public servants will see that they are professional people who care about the services they are mandated to deliver to the public. There is a general lack of respect, and that needs to change. I would simply point out to the member for Winnipeg North that the strikes that took place in the 1990s and earlier did not happen under a Conservative government, but rather under the Liberals— The Acting Speaker (Mr.

Bruce Stanton) : Resuming debate, the hon. member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier . Ms. Élaine Michaud (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the more things change, the more they stay the same. The latest budget implementation bill is, not surprisingly, another omnibus bill. This one is 150 pages long and amends dozens of acts, most of which have nothing to do with the budget. Unfortunately, that should come as no surprise. The Conservatives have gotten into this habit and have tried to make it the norm for Parliament.

They have gotten us used to disdain—even outright disgust—for the basic principles of parliamentary democracy. Frankly, this is one of the biggest disappointments of my first mandate. Since being elected as a majority government, the Conservatives have done everything in their power to sidestep their transparency and accountability obligations. They are the government, but they seem to have forgotten that the MPs, including Conservative backbenchers and opposition MPs, are responsible for overseeing and studying bills.

Unfortunately, the Conservatives have repeatedly used omnibus bills as a tactic to avoid the oversight that is meant to be carried out by all of the other parliamentarians in the House as well as all Canadians. With this clearly undemocratic process, the Conservatives are trying to rush through hundreds of legislative amendments that have nothing to do with the budget, without any study. In the case of the most recent budget, which was tabled on April 21, 2015, on one of the rare work days of our current Minister of Finance , the Conservatives saw an opportunity to launch their election campaign.

For the Conservatives, it was not an opportunity to help people who really need help and middle-class Canadian families. It was an opportunity to give presents to their wealthy friends instead of helping those most in need. Despite the warnings of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, many opposition MPs and various experts, the Conservatives are moving forward with their ill-advised income splitting regime, which will obviously help just 15% of the richest Canadian families and not those who really need help.

The income splitting together with the increase in the TFSA contribution limit, which will rise to $10,000, will mean a decrease of billions of dollars in the public coffers in future years. That money could be used to implement social programs to help families; people living in poverty; single mothers, who the Conservatives claim to want to help; more traditional couples; and so on. However, the government prefers to work on getting re-elected. According to this government, it is not the problem of today's elected officials. Rather, it is the problem of the Prime Minister 's granddaughter and future generations.

Quite frankly, that is one of the worst things I have heard in the House or anywhere else. In any case, that is what the current Minister of Finance and this Conservative government think. They are washing their hands of it and will leave it up to our children, grandchildren and future generations to fix all the problems they are creating now. Frankly, that is an irresponsible attitude that I do not understand, especially from people who boast about being extraordinarily strong fiscal managers. Time and time again we have seen that this is not the case.

The Conservatives would have us believe that this is their reputation, but Canadians can see right through it. They know very well that this is not the case. In fact, more and more recent studies name provincial New Democrat governments as the best managers of public funds. In 2015 we will have the opportunity to show Canadians that we will also be the best federal managers of public funds. To get back to the budget that was just tabled, even the measures that appear to be universal will have very few positive effects on Canadian families. The universal child care benefit is the best example of that.

The Conservatives announced a $60 increase with much fanfare. Canadian families will now receive $160 to help them with child care costs. At first glance that may seem like a lot, but with the Conservatives, the devil is in the details and you have to dig a little deeper. The first thing the Conservatives refuse to tell Canadian families is that this universal child care benefit will be considered taxable income. It is therefore another tax that the Conservative government is imposing on Canadians, regardless of their income.

(1250) That tax will be imposed on families regardless of their income. The advice that financial experts are giving Canadian families is to not spend that money on child care but to keep at least half of it to cover any unpleasant surprises they may get when they file their income tax return next year. How does the government think it is really going to help families when they have to put some of the money it gives them aside to cover the cost of this new tax? Frankly, that is ridiculous.

The Conservatives do not seem to understand that $160 per month does not even come close to covering child care costs across the country. I would like to quote a few statistics from 2012 that I obtained from the Childcare Resource and Research Unit. Unfortunately, things have not improved since then. In Nova Scotia, parents who manage to find a day care space for their child—because not all of them can—pay an average of $825 a month. In British Columbia, parents pay an average of $1,047 a month, and in Ontario they pay $1,152 a month. In Toronto, more specifically, child care costs can be up to $1,676 a month.

I do not know who the Conservatives think they are going to help with $160 a month. That amount is absolutely ridiculous when we look at the actual financial constraints faced by families who simply want to earn a living and make sure that their children are receiving the best care possible. I really do not know where the government's head is at, offering families such a ridiculously low amount, especially given that they have to save part of it to pay their taxes the following year. Ms. Ève Péclet: In the sand. Ms. Élaine Michaud: Mr.

Speaker, indeed, as my colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île pointed out, the Conservatives probably have their heads in the sand. I would like to talk about another deplorable effect that the budget will have. Actually, in this case it is more of a failure to have an effect. Increasing the universal child care benefit will not create new day care spaces. For parents who have already been lucky enough to secure a spot for their child in a day care centre or in private child care, that is not a problem. They may get a minimal amount of assistance.

However, the Conservatives' plan does not address the difficult situation of all the other parents who have nowhere to take their child when they go to work. The NDP has proposed a plan that the Conservatives continue to ignore, for some unknown reason. Contrary to the Conservative propaganda, the NDP does not want to eliminate this benefit. We obviously want parents to have access to what little money they can get. In addition, the NDP has a plan to create $15-a-day child care spaces. Thus, we are offering real choice to parents.

In addition to receiving the universal child care benefit, they will have access to affordable day care. This program already exists in Quebec. The NDP program could bolster the existing program with federal moneys. The results of this program have been extraordinary.

I will quote Ann Decter, the spokesperson for the YWCA: Between 1996, when low-cost child care was introduced in Quebec, and 2008, a total of 69,700 additional mothers joined the workforce;...the number of single mothers on social assistance was reduced by more than half...; relative poverty rates for single parent families headed by women declined from 36% to 22%...; and the GDP rose $5.1 billion... These are real, tangible effects that will benefit everyone in Canada, not just families. That is the kind of measure we want to see in the budget.

We are nonetheless pleased that the Conservatives have finally seen the light after many years and have decided to establish a tax credit for small and medium-sized businesses. That is an NDP idea. They have finally seen the light. We also support the tax credit for home renovation, another of our wishes, along with the measures to assist veterans included in the budget implementation bill. I do not understand why they are there; it is a subject that deserves a proper debate in the House, but we do support these measures, no matter what.

However, because the Conservatives have decided to play political games and include these measures in an omnibus bill, we cannot support it. We must oppose it. It is clearly undemocratic and it does not help the vast majority of Canadian families.

(1255) [ English ] Mr. Ray Boughen (Palliser, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest. I wondered where the hon. member was taking us. She quoted the minister, which is not the quote at all. On page 12 of the document it says: Reducing Canada’s debt burden is also a question of intergenerational fairness—it would simply not be fair to saddle our children and grandchildren with inevitable tax hikes to pay for the expenses we could not settle ourselves. There is a decided difference between saying this was what was said when in fact what is said is in print on page 12 of the book.

I think it is noteworthy that we want to correct the record; the minister did not say it would be the fault of the children. He said it would be unfair. In other words, we should not do it. That is where we sit. (1300) [ Translation ] Ms. Élaine Michaud : : Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite must not watch the same news channels as most Canadians and he must not read the same newspapers, because everyone saw and heard the Minister of Finance use those words to answer a question about the impact of raising the TFSA contribution limit to $10,000. I am not sure where he was at that moment.

The question has been asked in the House several times. Everyone in Canada is aware of it. Perhaps the hon. member is confused because I presented a lot of facts based on science, and I know that is not the strong suit of those on the other side. It is difficult to follow but he should go and watch all the videos available on the tabling of the budget, because the Minister of Finance really did say those words and they were criticized all across the country. [ English ] Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, spinning off the last question to a certain extent about saddling future generations, there are two ways that we can saddle future generations, either with debt or with the lack of ability of governments to provide the programs to citizens for which citizens are asking. Although the government likes to claim it is a good fiscal manager, we do know this is really the first budget, and it is kind of a fiction figure in terms of balancing the budget because the Conservatives have sold off a lot of property around the world.

They have basically used the employment insurance fund to balance the books, and the list goes on. My question for the member is this. The way the government manages its fiscal affairs, does she see that as leaving future generations the ability to have the kind of programming they need, or is that just a misnomer on the part of the government? [ Translation ] Ms. Élaine Michaud : Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

It is one of the rare moments in the House when the NDP and the Liberals agree on the fact that no one should let themselves be taken in by the idea that the Conservatives are good managers of public funds. People have repeatedly seen the evidence that it is not true. No one believes that government propaganda any more. Unfortunately, but clearly, as I said in my speech, both the Parliamentary Budget Officer and a number of financial experts have decried the Conservative government's poor decisions, including income splitting and raising the TFSA limit to $10,000.

Billions of dollars are going to be kept out of the public treasury just to help this Conservative government get re-elected and to help their wealthy friends keep more money in their pockets. We in the NDP have a different vision. We want to ensure equality of opportunity so that people who live in poor conditions can still have access to services and help from the government so they too can take their place in our society. That is true for today and for future generations. Unfortunately the Conservative government does not share our vision. [ English ] Mr. Leon Benoit (Vegreville—Wainwright, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, I am delighted to be here today to speak to the 2015 budget. I have been a member of Parliament now for 22 years, and I have spoken to a lot of budgets, first from the point of view of the opposition and for the past nine years from the government side. I want to say that I really prefer the budgets from the government side. I have enjoyed speaking to them and pointing out to Canadians the benefits and changes that have been presented not only in the 2015 budget but in a series of budgets leading to a long-term plan to help make our country better. Canada, as we all know, is a marvellous country.

It is truly the best country in the world in which to live, but when we were elected as the government almost 10 years ago, there was a need for a change in direction. I would argue that the country had been going the wrong way for a number of years, with increased taxation, more interference in business, more red tape, and less freedom all around. I am proud to be a member of Parliament in this Conservative political party, which has done a lot over these 10 years to make Canada a much better place. I am here today to speak to budget 2015.

We only have a little time to speak to the budget, but I want to take my time to focus on two topics, and they would be seniors, who are extremely important in every constituency, and as time allows, some of the changes for small business. Mr. Speaker, I am sharing my time with the hon. member for Calgary Centre . Since 2006, our government has strengthened the retirement income system and has increased direct support for seniors to address their changing needs. In fact, actions taken by this government have substantially increased the income seniors can earn before they are required to pay income tax.

In 2015, a single senior could claim income of $20,368 before paying any tax at all. I remember what that number was when we got into government nine years ago, and it was considerably lower. For a couple, it would be $40,720 before they would pay a penny in income tax. That is a remarkable transformation for seniors across this country. However, that is only one area we have worked on. In the budget there are changes that would add to the benefits seniors see.

Economic action plan 2015 continues in this direction by proposing a reduction in minimum withdrawals from registered retirement income funds, RRIFs, and the creation of a home accessibility tax credit. The reduction in the minimum withdrawal factor takes into account the longer lifespans of Canadians. We all know that we are living longer. For RRIFs, we are requiring now that Canadians take less money out so they can stretch that capital for a longer period of time so that they are far less likely to run out of retirement income before their lives end.

The minimum withdrawal factor for registered retirement income funds is determined by percentage factors, which are on a particular rate of return and indexing assumptions. For example, currently, a senior must withdraw 7.38% of the RRIF in the year he or she is age 71. The new factors proposed will reduce that minimum withdrawal to 5.28% at age 71. By permitting more capital preservation, the new factors will help reduce the risk of outliving one's savings while ensuring that the tax deferral provided on registered retirement savings plans continues to serve into retirement.

The proposed measures would benefit seniors by allowing them to preserve up to 60% more of their registered retirement income funds by age 95, if they so choose. Of course, that is a decision each senior and each couple can make.

(1305) The new RRIF withdrawal rates would apply for 2015 and subsequent years. RRIF holders who at any time in 2015 withdraw more than the reduced 2015 minimum amount would be permitted to re-cont