12905 OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 199 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Thursday, April 23, 2015 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES April 23, 2015 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 199 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 199 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 199 (Version officielle) 147 199 23 04 2015 2015/04/23 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 (1005) [ English ] Committees of the House Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Mr. Blake Richards (Wild Rose, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, today, in both official languages, the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, in relation to Bill S-6 ,

an act to amend the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act and the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House without amendments.

[ Translation ] Carriage by Air Act Hon. Stéphane Dion (Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, Lib.) Bill C-666. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-666,

An Act to amend the Carriage by Air Act (fundamental rights) . He said: Mr. Speaker, the bill that I have the honour to introduce today is entitled

An Act to amend the Carriage by Air Act (fundamental rights) . This bill amends the Carriage by Air Act to in order to specify that that Act does not restrict the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Official Languages Act and the Canadian Human Rights Act. This bill solves a problem that we as legislators need to solve, a problem that undermines the basic rights of Canadians.

This bill will correct one of the flaws undermining the rights that protect us all. [ English ] The bill would clearly establish that a Canadian citizen, when taking an international flight under Canada's jurisdiction, could be entitled to damages if her or his rights are not respected with regard to the Official Languages Act or the Canadian Human Rights Act. I encourage all my colleagues in Parliament to support passage of this bill that would protect the rights of Canadians. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Navigation Protection Act Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, NDP) Bill C-667. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-667,

an act to amend the Navigation Protection Act (Sooke River) . He said: Mr. Speaker, I am introducing this private member's bill today to restore federal environmental protection for the Sooke River by adding it to

part 2 of the

schedule of the Navigable Waters Protection Act. This is protection that was removed by the Conservative government, in 2012, in Bill C-45 , the first of the omnibus budget bills. The Sooke River system drains a watershed of some 403 square kilometres near the southern tip of Vancouver Island, in my riding. The rock falls at the Sooke River Potholes divide it into the Upper Sooke River and the Lower Sooke River systems. Protection of the Sooke River watershed is particularly important for two quite separate reasons. The Upper Sooke watershed is the source of drinking water for the Greater Victoria area.

The Lower Sooke River is becoming crucial for the restoration of local salmon runs, including chinook, which are critical to the survival of the southern resident killer whales. Two volunteer-driven organizations, the Sooke Salmon Enhancement Society with its Jack Brooks hatchery on Rocky Creek and the Juan de Fuca Salmon Restoration Society with its Charters River Salmon Interpretive Centre and demonstration hatchery, are doing key work in salmon habitat restoration and enhancement of wild stocks.

Restoring federal environmental protection will play an important role in ensuring the long-term health of the watershed so important to Greater Victoria's drinking water supply and to the continued success of salmon enhancement and habitat restoration work. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Navigation Protection Act Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, NDP) Bill C-668. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-668,

an act to amend the Navigation Protection Act (Colquitz River) . He said: Mr. Speaker, I am introducing this private member's bill today to restore federal environmental protection for the Colquitz River system. Again, this is protection that was removed for all rivers, lakes and streams, on Vancouver Island by the Conservative government, in 2012, in Bill C-45 . The Colquitz River system drains a watershed of some 49 square kilometres in Greater Victoria, largely in the new riding of Esquimalt Saanich—Sooke.

It begins in Elk and Beaver lakes, but also includes Swan and Blenkinsop lakes on its way to Portage Inlet. As a heavily urbanized watershed, the quality of the watershed is under constant threat. A wide variety of volunteer groups have undertaken efforts to preserve and enhance the Colquitz system and have had success in restoring a run of between 200 and 400 coho salmon and dozens of chum salmon in the river.

Restoring federal environmental protection to the Colquitz would support the important work of the Friends of Cuthbert Holmes Park, the Peninsula Streams Society, Friends of Swan Creek Watershed, the Habitat Acquisition Trust and the Colquitz Watershed stewardship project in restoring the important role of the Colquitz in our local ecosystem. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Petitions Workers' Rights Mr. Matthew Kellway (Beaches—East York, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, tomorrow marks the second anniversary of the collapse of Rana Plaza in Dhaka, Bangladesh, a building that housed 5,000 garment workers. I am pleased today to present a petition that acknowledges the deaths of over 1,100 workers and injury to 2,500 more in that, the world's second-largest industrial accident. The petitioners are reminding this House that it is the fundamental right of all people, wherever they live in the world, to be able to go to work without fear for their safety, health or indeed lives.

They are calling upon the Government of Canada to endorse the Accord on Fire and Building Safety in Bangladesh, and they encourage Canadian companies that manufacture in Bangladesh to become signatories to that accord.

(1010) Komagata Maru Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the Punjab assembly in India unanimously passed a resolution calling on the Canadian Parliament to apologize for the Komagata Maru incident. The 1914 Komagata Maru incident was a dark moment in Canada's past, when 352 passengers aboard the steamship were denied entry into Canada based on a discriminatory immigration policy. The ship was forced to return to India and, as a result, 19 passengers were killed not to mention the many other hardships that were endured.

The petitioners ask that the Government of Canada provide a formal apology in Parliament with respect to the Komagata Maru incident of 1914. I thank the petitioners and the individuals who took the time to sign the petition.

[ Translation ] CBC/Radio-Canada Ms. Christine Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today. The first calls for stable long-term funding for CBC/Radio-Canada. CBC/Radio-Canada is very important to ridings like mine. Without it, regional news would be virtually non-existent. Stable funding to ensure the longevity of CBC/Radio-Canada is essential, especially for rural areas like mine.

Pensions Ms. Christine Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition calls on the Government of Canada not to take money from retired federal public servants by changing their defined benefit pension plan. Many retired public servants, not just in my riding but all over Quebec, are very worried. They are asking the Government of Canada not to go back on the commitments it made to its former employees.

Public Safety Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today. I am honoured to present a petition opposing Bill C-51, the Anti-terrorism Act, 2015 . [ English ] At least that is the name that the law bears. The petitioners point out that it would create, through weak and strangely over-broad

definitions, not just abuses of the rights and liberties of Canadians, but actually would not make Canadians safer against security threats. The petitioners are from Peterborough, Guelph, Waterloo and other areas of Ontario. They are calling on this House to reject Bill C-51 .

41st General Election Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, the other petition is from residents of the Vancouver area. They urge this House to take action to fully investigate the occurrences of electoral fraud that occurred in the 2011 election, referred to as “robocalls” but that were also often paid live callers who misdirected voters in an attempt to defraud voters of their right to vote.

Public Transit Ms. Rathika Sitsabaiesan (Scarborough—Rouge River, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today because communities like mine in Scarborough, especially in north Scarborough, only have access to public transit at a surface level such as buses. People in my community realize the importance of creating a Canada public transit strategy because Canada is the only OECD country that does not have a national public transit strategy. It is estimated that over the next five years there will be an $18-billion gap in transit infrastructure funding.

The petitioners are calling upon the Government of Canada to enact a Canada public transit strategy that seeks to provide a permanent investment plan to support public transit; to establish federal funding mechanisms for public transit; to work together with all levels of government to provide sustainable, predictable, long-term and adequate funding; and to establish accountability measures to ensure that all governments work together to increase access to public transit.

I know how very important and needed it is in my community in Scarborough—Rouge River and all of the northern and eastern parts of Scarborough, so I am very pleased to present this petition on their behalf.

Insect Pollinators Mr. Malcolm Allen (Welland, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today. The first is on pollinators, specifically bees. There are 200 species of bees in this country. The petitioners are calling on the government to enact studies so the colonies can be saved from the collapse that we are seeing across this country, in numerous regions. We need to save pollinators as they are an intrinsic piece of the agriculture sector, which we need to make sure is successful. The petitioners would like to see that happen.

(1015) Employment Insurance Mr. Malcolm Allen (Welland, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition is about the Conservative government's changes to EI. The petitioners are asking that those changes be rescinded and that the government make sure that EI actually does what it was intended to do. It is an insurance premium that folks pay and they expect to be covered when they get laid off. The petitioners are calling on the government to reinstate the benefits that people used to receive not that long ago, before the government took them away.

[ Translation ] Canada Post Ms. Laurin Liu (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition today in support of Canada Post. The people from the Lower Laurentians region and Laval who signed the petition are calling on the federal government to reject Canada Post's plan for reduced service and to explore other options for updating the crown corporation's business plan. They deplore the fact that between 6,000 and 8,000 jobs will be eliminated and that this reduction in services could lead to the privatization of Canada Post, which is an essential public service.

[ English ] The Environment Mr. Kennedy Stewart (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am standing today to present a petition from residents of my riding of Burnaby—Douglas who are calling on the Government of Canada to immediately act to prevent the new Kinder Morgan pipeline from being built in Burnaby. The petitioners note that they are against the project, saying it brings massive environmental and economic risk, and the existing pipeline has already spilled 40,000 barrels of oil into the community.

They also mention that this project will not create more than 50 permanent full-time jobs and the company has stated it will use temporary foreign workers to build most of this pipeline. They are opposed to the process as well, saying that the Conservative government has undermined the National Energy Board review process, resulting in an unfair review of this project and many local residents being prevented from sharing their concerns. I urge the government to take this petition seriously.

Questions on the Order Paper Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, Question No. 1110 will be answered today. [ Text ] Question No. 1110-- Mr. Scott Andrews : With regard to the processing of Employment Insurance claims and Service Canada agents: (

a) has the department hired an additional 400 new agents; (

b) if the answer to (

a) is negative, how many new agents have been hired; (

c) when were these new agents hired; (

d) to which location have the new agents been assigned; (

e) to which areas of the Employment Insurance claims processing unit have they been assigned; (

f) how long did it take to train the new agents; (

g) when will new agents be hired, (

i) if no new agents have been hired, (ii) if some new agents have been hired; and (

h) is the department committed to hiring a total of 400 new agents? Mr. Scott Armstrong (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the Department has hired more than 400 additional new agents.

With regard to (b), it is not applicable.

With regard to (c), hiring began in October 2014.

With regard to (d), new agents have been assigned to employment insurance processing in: Moncton, St. John’s and Halifax in Atlantic region; Boucherville, Laval, Montreal, Quebec City, Saguenay and Shawinigan in Quebec region; London, Mississauga, Richmond Hill and Sudbury in Ontario region; and Vancouver, Kamloops, Nanaimo, Edmonton and Regina in Western Canada and Territories region.

New agents have been assigned to EI call centres: in Bathurst and St. John’s in Atlantic region; Montreal and Shawinigan in Quebec region; Sudbury and Toronto in Ontario region; and Edmonton in Western Canada and Territories region.

With regard to (e), the resources hired for the inventory reduction strategy are assigned to the various work units within EI processing to help reduce age and volume of the inventory.

With regard to (f), for EI processing, training generally took between 9 and 13 weeks, including the training and monitoring period. For EI call centres, training generally took nine weeks, including the training and monitoring period.

With regard to (g), it is not applicable.

With regard to (h), Service Canada has hired more than 400 new agents since October 2014 for EI processing and EI call centres. [ English ] Mr. Tom Lukiwski : Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand. The Deputy Speaker : Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

Government Orders The Budget [ English ] The Budget Financial Statement of Minister of Finance Motion The House resumed from April 22 consideration of the motion that this House approve in general the budgetary policy of the government, of the amendment and of the amendment to the amendment. Mr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, yesterday, when I started my speech, I started by saying that it was actually very telling that the first Conservative speech after the Minister of Finance was by the Minister of State for Agriculture , who is also the minister responsible for small and medium-sized businesses and the member for Beauce, the same one who advocates economic policies that could actually be called crank economic policies, such as zero inflation and a return to the gold standard.

Those are obviously policies that make no sense in modern economics and yet that same member, who advocated those policies, gave the first speech, saying that the budget would be good for the economy. [ Translation ] This is not an economic budget; it is a political budget. I started talking about that yesterday, and I want to have a chance to talk about some other aspects in the few minutes that I have left.

Yesterday I talked about the fact that the budget was balanced in an extremely artificial manner, first by dipping into the contingency fund, and then by selling—at a loss—the government's shares in GM as well as dipping into the EI fund surplus, which is projected to be $1.8 billion next year. What a coincidence—the projected budget surplus is $1.4 billion. However, in 2013, then finance minister Jim Flaherty specified that a Conservative government would never use a surplus in the EI fund to create a surplus in the consolidated revenue fund.

He pointed out that that is what the Liberals did, and said the Conservatives would never do that. This, then, contradicts the policy of the Conservatives' former finance minister, and yet they clearly do not feel any shame about taking that approach. What is more, the EI surplus has been moved over to the consolidated revenue fund. This was done at the expense of its accessibility and to the detriment of seasonal workers, even though some regions, like eastern Quebec and the Maritimes, still rely heavily on such workers.

We are reducing access to EI and creating a surplus in the EI fund, just so the Conservative government can use it however it wants. I also talked about income splitting. The Conservatives talk about ending a discriminatory treatment. There is no discriminatory treatment. A couple in which one person earns $100,000 while the other, quite often a woman, stays at home, is not living the same reality as a couple where one person earns $50,0000 or even $30,000 and the other person is forced to go to work so that they can make ends meet.

There is no comparison between a couple where one person earns $100,000 and the other person stays home, and a couple with two, three, or four children where one person earns $50,000 and the other is forced to work. That couple also has to pay for child care in order to be able to join the workforce and provide for the family. Not only do the Conservatives' analogies not hold water, but yesterday in the media we learned that the then clerk of the Privy Council advised the Prime Minister at the time not to announce the measure before it was presented to Parliament.

The Prime Minister and his cabinet ignored that advice, completely disregarding parliamentary institutions and members of the House. Those are not my words. A former legislative clerk of the House was quoted as saying that in the media. I spoke about many of these things yesterday. I want to finish my speech by talking about other aspects of the budget, in particular the increase in the contribution limit for TFSAs from $5,500 to $10,000. Once again, I heard my colleague from Beauce say that there are 10 million people who have TFSAs and that increasing the limit will benefit these 10 million people.

That is absurd. Yes, there may be 10 million people who have opened a TFSA. That shows how the TFSA may be a useful tool. However, only 15% of the people who contribute to a TFSA put in the maximum amount of $5,500. Most Canadian families do not have $60,000 at the end of six years to put in a TFSA. However, the $10,000 ceiling will ensure that this tool is no longer used solely as a savings vehicle, but will become a tax shelter for the rich.

There are certainly exceptions, like people who save a lot and who may be able to save 15%, 20% or 25% of their income, especially, as my colleague mentioned, after the sale of a house. Those are exceptions. Honestly, the current ceiling of $5,500 is adequate. Once again, increasing it to $10,000 is simply going to benefit those people who are fortunate or wealthy.

(1020) These measures will cause a lot of problems for the Canadian treasury, while the measures we want to put in place across the country, such as the $15 child care program, will directly benefit these people, in particular the middle class. For example, two spouses who each earn $30,000 or $40,000 will not be able to take advantage of income splitting. They will be able to take advantage of the universal child care benefit, and we are obviously not opposed to this improvement. However, we must put things in context. This is not a gift from the Conservative government to families.

Improvements to the universal child care benefit were largely funded by the elimination of the child tax credit. Canadians filed their tax returns, and parents of young children were probably surprised to learn that this line no longer existed. Billions of dollars were given back to families through this child tax credit, which the government used to make this improvement. I do not want to hear the Conservatives tell us that this is a gift for families. It came, in large part, from the elimination of another tax credit.

I would like to take the last few minutes of my speech to talk about job creation because the budget does in fact contain measures that promote job creation. However, it is interesting that the measures that the government adopted are NDP measures. I know that the members on the other side of the House will not like hearing what I am about to say. On February 6, 2015, the NDP moved an opposition motion in the House. I am going to read it again because it is very educational.

It says: That the House call on the government to take immediate action to build a balanced economy, support the middle class and encourage manufacturing and small business job creation by: (

a) extending the accelerated capital cost allowance by two years; (

b) reducing the small business income tax rate from 11% to 10% immediately, and then to 9% when finances permit; and (

c) introducing an Innovation Tax Credit to support investment in machinery, equipment and property to further innovation and increase productivity. The Conservatives voted against the NDP's motion that opposition day, but now these measures are included in the budget. They told us that we did not understand the economy; yet, now these measures are in the budget. Once again, this budget is about politics, not economics.

It is a pre-election budget that does not in any way take into account the reality of Canadian families, a reality that the NDP recognizes by proposing such measures as raising the minimum wage to $15 for employees of companies under federal jurisdiction and negotiating a pan-Canadian child care program that would cost families a maximum of $15 a day and would give Quebec the right to opt out with compensation, since it already has its own system. The Conservatives changed the retirement age to 67, but we want to reinstate the retirement age of 65.

The Conservatives' policies were harmful to the economy and Canadian families. When the New Democrats take office in 2015, we will change that and really work for Canadian families, the middle class and workers. (1025) [ English ] Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the leader of the Liberal Party addressed the House about the budget, and I believe that he captured the major flaw in this budget. The budget delivers the most to those Canadians who need it the least. It is not a fair budget.

It is not a budget that is going to generate the economic growth Canadians need at this time. It unfairly benefits the rich instead of helping the middle class or those who aspire to be part of Canada's middle class. It contains no plan at all for substantial job growth. Good examples are income splitting and infrastructure dollars. At a time when Canadians are looking for strong leadership from the government to deliver on economic growth and fair taxation policies, would the member not agree that the government has been found wanting in terms of delivering what is important to Canadians? [ Translation ] Mr.

Guy Caron : Mr. Speaker, my colleague is right about much of what he said. That was the gist of my speech to the House. The Conservative government's measures, not only in this budget but also in previous ones, do the opposite of what the Conservatives say they will. I remember a budget from two or three years ago that made a huge deal out of cutting tariffs on certain products, but when we looked at the specifics in the budget, tariffs went up overall because the preferential tariff was eliminated.

There is a yawning chasm between what the Conservatives say in this budget and what it will really mean for the middle class, workers and families. I know for a fact that the government should pay attention to what we know about economics and fiscal and economic multipliers. The best investments we can make are in infrastructure, social housing and help for families with low incomes or in difficult situations. Instead, the government is using this budget to give money away, but most of that money will go to the wealthiest families.

That is the opposite of what we will do when the leader of the official opposition, the member for Outremont , becomes the Prime Minister of Canada in 2015. (1030) [ English ] Mr. Matthew Kellway (Beaches—East York, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate my colleague's distinction between this budget being an economic budget versus a political budget. As the infrastructure critic for our caucus, I looked very closely for new infrastructure money, and there is none but for the curious Canada 150 community infrastructure program. The program is not spelled out in the budget itself.

It states that the government will announce further details about the program over the coming months. I would note that over the coming months we are heading into an election. That community infrastructure program looks far more like a political action plan than an economic action plan. I would ask the member how responsible he feels it is to put something like that in a budget when cities and communities across the country are crying out for federal support to deal with infrastructure deficits that amount to tens of billions of dollars. [ Translation ] Mr. Guy Caron : Mr. Speaker, that is a good question.

Obviously, in the limited time I had for my speech, I did not get around to addressing the matter of infrastructure very much. I am glad to do so now. Again, the Conservative government is using infrastructure as a political tool. I have two examples. The first is from 2012, when the Minister of Infrastructure, Communities and Intergovernmental Affairs announced the new building Canada program—not funding, just the new program—with great fanfare.

The government said that the municipalities could use the communities fund, not the gas tax, as they saw fit, particularly for infrastructure projects related to sports and culture and so forth. In 2013, when the conditions for the building Canada program were presented, the municipalities were denied the chance to use this fund for their own needs, particularly the municipalities that had already addressed their needs in terms of roads or water and wastewater systems. That is the situation the mayor of Rimouski finds himself in today.

He was told he could use this fund, which is generally shared one-third, one-third, one-third between the federal, provincial and municipal governments. Today, Ottawa claims to know more than the mayor of Rimouski about what that municipality needs. Ottawa is telling the mayor that he can use the gas tax, but that will not be nearly enough to pay for the projects for a city like Rimouski. That is the first example. The second example is that the Minister of Infrastructure, Communities and Intergovernmental Affairs still claims that this is a major investment program.

Sure, there is funding for public transit in big cities such as Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver. However, to start with, there is very little funding and it just does not cut it. Honestly, the funding for the first year for the City of Toronto might be enough for half a subway station. That the government is boasting about investing in infrastructure in this manner is beyond comprehension. The use of the 150th celebrations as a political tool is also reprehensible. The Conservatives will pay for that in 2015. Ms. Christine Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, since my colleague is from a fairly rural area, like mine, does he think that there is anything in the budget for rural areas and that it takes into account their economic reality, or will there only be crumbs left, or nothing at all? Mr. Guy Caron : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue . We represent two regions that are very far from one another, but that have much in common. Yesterday, I was asked the same question when I was interviewed by Radio-Canada on the program Pas de midi sans info .

When asked who came out on the losing end of this budget, I answered that it was the regions. Big cities are getting a little bit of money because they need it. However, as I said, it is not enough. There is nothing to help the regions with their needs, though, or to compensate for the major cuts made by this government over the past four years. The effects of these cuts on the regions have been disproportionate.

Funds allocated to the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec were not disbursed—the situation is not very different in other regions of Canada—and the reform of employment insurance has had a major impact on the regions, where there is always a large proportion of seasonal jobs, especially in tourism, agriculture, forestry and the fishery. The government is doing nothing to remedy the situation that it has created in the regions. There is absolutely nothing in the budget to address regional realities, like my region's realities.

We are home to the Technopole maritime du Québec, in the scientific field. That institution needs federal investments, because current investments are clearly insufficient. Regions like the Lower St. Lawrence are being prevented from reaching their full potential and taking their place among the premier research institutions in the marine sector. It is extremely unfortunate to see that this government is in no way using its capacity for investment, which would yield significant returns and help the regions develop.

The government is washing its hands of the regions, and unfortunately, it is regions like the Lower St. Lawrence and Abitibi-Témiscamingue that are suffering.

(1035) Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member a couple of questions. The government says it is going to invest in infrastructure, but those investments will not really begin for a few years. It is possible, however, that the economy could recover in a few years, especially if the government changes, and interest rates could go up. Would my colleague agree that the government's approach lacks some wisdom, given that, with interest rates so low at the moment, now is the time to invest?

It is possible that in the future, as former finance minister Jim Flaherty said, interest rates could go up, especially if there is inflation, since there is a lot of money in the system. The central banks have put a lot of money into the system, so inflation could resume some day. Mr. Guy Caron : Mr. Speaker, I do not necessarily want to respond to hypothetical questions, but the member for Lac-Saint-Louis makes some interesting points. Inflation is at a record low right now.

Regardless of inflation and interest rates, it is recognized that the best investments are investments in infrastructure, because infrastructure gives the best returns in terms of multipliers. In my opinion, the government is headed in the wrong direction by limiting the municipalities' ability to choose their own projects and limiting necessary investments in public transit, for example. The investments being made are not enough to meet the needs in this area, which is something that has received a lot of criticism from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities.

The government is also headed in the wrong direction in its relationships with certain provinces, including Quebec, with which it has not yet even signed the building Canada agreement. Right now, Quebec municipalities have access only to the excise tax on gasoline. They do not yet have access to federal funding for major projects or the community improvement fund. That is extremely harmful to Quebec and the provinces that have not signed the agreement. We are asking the government to expedite the process and sign the agreements so that the whole country has access to the building Canada program. [ English ] Hon.

Peter Kent (Thornhill, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Edmonton Centre . I am delighted to rise in the House today to voice my support for economic action plan 2015 to support jobs and growth, to support families and seniors, to ensure that communities prosper and to ensure the security of Canadians. Despite the slicing and dicing by the opposition and some of the carping, complaining and hairsplitting by some of the more partisan members of the media party, I just want to say again in this House that the government has fulfilled its commitment to balance the budget.

Economic action plan 2015, as I said, despite the slicing and dicing and the carping by the opposition, the budget is balanced and it has been done using the fiscal tools at the government's disposal. Economic action plan 2015 will create jobs, growth and long-term prosperity. [ Translation ] As we promised, this is a balanced budget that reduces taxes for hard-working individuals and families. [ English ] I would add that this is a prudent budget. It is a prudent plan. It is a principled plan that will see Canadians more prosperous, more secure and even more confident in our country's place in the world.

This morning I would like to speak to those elements of the budget that are important in my constituency of Thornhill , which sits just atop the northern city limits of the Canadian metropolis of Toronto. As this House knows, the government's long-term commitment to keeping taxes low is making life indeed more affordable for all Canadians. By reducing taxes year after year and enhancing direct benefits to Canadians, the government has given families and individuals a greater flexibility to make the choices that are right for them.

Canadian families and individuals will receive $37 billion in tax relief and increased benefits in 2015 as a result of actions taken since 2006. This includes measures announced by the Prime Minister in October 2014. On their own, the measures announced last October 30 will provide more than $4.5 billion in annual tax relief and increased benefits to all families and children under the age of 18. I repeat that these benefits will accrue to all families with children under the age of 18.

The proposed measures also include the enhanced universal child care benefit that will provide an increased benefit of $160 a month for children under the age of six, and a new benefit of $60 a month for children ages six through seventeen, backdated to be effective January 1, 2015. There is a $1,000 increase in each of the minimum dollar amounts that can be claimed under the child care expense deduction effective for the 2015 taxation year. The family tax cut, a federal non-refundable tax credit of up to $2,000 for couples with children under the age of 18, is effective for the 2014 taxation year.

The House will also recall that in his speech, the Minister of Finance referenced the fact that as announced on October 9, 2014, the government doubled the maximum amount of expenses that may be claimed under the children's fitness tax credit to $1,000 as of 2014, and made the credit refundable effective for the 2015 and subsequent taxation years. Parents are already taking advantage of the new $1,000 maximum limit as they, even now, complete their tax returns for 2014.

(1040) Also, given that the government recognizes that all Canadians are interested in increasing their physical fitness, to this end the government intends to establish an expert panel to study the potential scope of an adult fitness tax credit. Moving from families with young children to our seniors, the government has again renewed its support for seniors in economic action plan 2015. As a result of actions taken to date by the government, seniors and pensioners are receiving about $3 billion in additional annual targeted tax relief.

In particular, since 2006 the government has increased the age credit account by $2,000: $1,000 in 2006 and $1,000 in 2009. Based on these increases and adjustments for inflation, the age credit this year, tax year 2015, is just over $7,000, providing tax relief of up to $1,000 for eligible seniors. We have doubled to $2,000 the maximum amount of income eligible for the pension income credit. We have introduced pension income splitting, which the opposition parties say they would revoke.

I believe pension income splitting, which was the first phase and has been extended this year to families with young children, is providing benefits right across the country, and to folks in lower and middle income classes right across the board. Annually, over 2.2 million Canadians take advantage of pension income splitting. As members will note, and as many seniors in my riding have communicated their satisfaction with, budget 2015 reduces the minimum withdrawal factors for registered retirement income funds.

The old age security guaranteed income supplement programs and the Canada pension plan and Quebec pension plan form the first two pillars of Canada's three pillar retirement income system, but in order to supplement income provided by the first two pillars, many Canadians also rely on their own savings for income in their senior years. I hope the opposition recognizes these benefits to families and seniors as they consider exactly how they will vote when the budget comes before the House for a vote. There has been a great deal of talk from my colleagues across the way about funding for transit across the country.

As we know, although some in the media, some in different parts of the country and some in the opposition seem not to have read what is quite clearly stated in the budget, economic action plan 2015 proposes to provide $750 million over two years starting in 2017-18 and $1 billion annually ongoing thereafter for a public transit fund. This is a guaranteed commitment to fund public transit across the country. Since 2006, the government has provided unprecedented support for public transit, committing close to $5 billion to date for public transit projects across the country.

These are projects that have been identified as priorities by municipalities and their governments. I see time is short, so I will just conclude by saying that given the fact that we are going to see quite a very different budget presented later today by the largest province in Canada, one which will reflect the gross mismanagement of that province's economy for the last several years, there is no fiscal imbalance in Canada. All governments have the capability, competence and capacity to balance their budgets, but as I said, not all governments have either the intent or the competence.

I hope my colleagues across the way will read very carefully the provisions in economic action plan 2015 and support this very important budget. (1045) [ Translation ] Mr. Pierre-Luc Dusseault (Sherbrooke, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have a short, very specific question for my colleague on his government's new passion for balanced budgets. This government has spent seven years running deficits and tabling unbalanced budgets, and now, in 2015, it has discovered a passion for balanced budgets and has even proposed a law to mandate balanced budgets in the future, except in specific circumstances.

For the past five years our country has been in a period of economic growth. We were not in a recession. Five of these seven deficits were after the 2008-09 recession. Could the member explain this new passion for balanced budgets, when this government posted seven consecutive deficits over the past seven years? [ English ] Hon. Peter Kent : Mr. Speaker, my colleague seems to forget the international economic recession, and the measures that were taken by Canada to alleviate, respond to, and recover from that recession.

Indeed, we generated a historic deficit responding to the international recession, and we made a commitment at that time to pay it back, to eliminate the deficit and balance the budget as soon as was financially and responsibly possible. That is what my colleague sees in economic action plan 2015. As I said earlier, we believe that all governments in this country have the capacity to balance their budgets, extraordinary events like the international economic recession aside, and those must be addressed.

I heard some of the member's colleagues, including the NDP finance critic, talking enthusiastically about the legislation we have before this House regarding balanced budgets. I would hope the NDP supports that as well.

(1050) Mr. Adam Vaughan (Trinity—Spadina, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I listened very closely to the transit announcement. While we all welcome a federal presence on the file, the presence is the problem. Nothing is present this year; no money until 2017. The budget should not be called the 2015 action plan; it is the 2017 action plan. The $1 billion does not arrive for years and years. What arrives in 2017 is $250 million.

The funding formulas, which are constant across this country on transit, mean that for Ontario it is $80 million, and for the GTA, where we represent ridings, it is probably about $40 million, which means $20 million for the York Region and Durham and Pickering and everywhere else, including Mississauga, and it is about $20 million a year for the City of Toronto. Twenty million dollars in the City of Toronto does not even buy a fleet of street cars. It does not build a subway station. It does not put track down. It is nothing. Twenty million dollars just does not pull its weight in transit.

If this money were allowed to be used for state of good repair, it would be making a contribution. Will the government allow these dollars, the $20 million, for state of good repair, when the $20 million will not build a new subway line, will not build a new street car line? Hon. Peter Kent : Mr. Speaker, I would note that the mayor of Toronto, along with the mayors of our other large metropolitan areas have all endorsed the transit plan in the budget.

The member was a member of the Toronto City Council when our government, in 2007, pledged for one-third of the cost of the Spadina subway extension, through my riding, through Thornhill into York Region. That project is still not completed. It is years behind

schedule for a variety of reasons I will not go into today. That money has not been spent. The money that the federal government pledged for the Sheppard LRT extension, as the Toronto City Council flip-flopped between subway— An hon. member: I did not. Hon. Peter Kent: Well, you did not flip-flop, but certainly the city did. I think we have to realize that— The Deputy Speaker : Order, order. The member's time is up, and he should know not to address comments to other members of the House but to the Chair. Resuming debate. Hon. Laurie Hawn (Edmonton Centre, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, I am happy to rise in support of economic action plan 2015, a budget that fulfills our government's promise to be back in the black in this year. Pursuant to our long-standing commitment to responsible fiscal management, economic action plan 2015 will see the budget balanced, and Canadians can rest assured that Canada's fiscal house is in order. Under this plan, the deficit has been reduced from $55.6 billion at the height of the global economic and financial crisis to a projected surplus of $1.4 billion for 2015-16. This government has lowered taxes every year since coming into office.

In fact, since 2006, our government has introduced more than 180 tax relief measures. The overall tax burden is now at its lowest level in 50 years. Canadian families and individuals have benefited from significant tax reductions that have given them the flexibility to make decisions that are right for them and not decisions that are made for them by bureaucrats. Canadians at all income levels are benefiting from the tax relief introduced by the government, with low- and middle-income Canadians receiving proportionally greater relief.

Canada's debt to GDP ratio is less than half the average of all G7 countries, making us the economic envy of most of the world. Indeed, real gross domestic product has increased more in Canada than in any other G7 country since the end of the recession. We have done this and much more without resorting to higher taxes and higher debt, as those across the floor would advocate. This budget is good news for Canada and Canadians today and tomorrow. This will not surprise anyone who knows me, but I would like to focus my remarks on one group of Canadians for whom I have the utmost respect and commitment, our veterans.

The Government of Canada is dedicated to ensuring that veterans and their families receive the support they need, while understanding that there will always be more that we would like to do and more that we should try to do. With the implementation of the new veterans charter in 2006, the government significantly increased the range of benefits and services provided to ensure that disabled veterans not only receive compensation for the pain and suffering related to their disabilities but that they also receive support aimed at restoring their ability to function at home, in the community, and in the workplace.

With any new program, unintended gaps begin to appear, and it is the government's job to address those gaps effectively. No government moves as quickly as people would like. In truth, as a veteran, I wish we could have moved faster. That said, we have made significant progress with action on the recommendations of the unanimous report of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs tabled last June, and with more recent activities and announcements by the Minister of Veterans Affairs and his dynamic staff.

Since implementing the charter, the government has made important improvements to the new veterans charter to adapt it to the needs of veterans, allocating close to $5 billion in additional resources since 2006 to enhance veterans' benefits, programs, and services. We established a minimum pre-tax income of $42,426 for veterans receiving the earnings loss benefit, which provides income replacement to disabled veterans to age 65. We introduced a new monthly supplement to help severely injured veterans who are permanently impaired and unable to return to gainful employment.

We also increased the overall level of benefits provided to disability pension recipients by having the pension no longer offset other Veterans Affairs Canada and National Defence benefits, and a lot of the credit for that goes to a veteran named Dennis Manuge, who advocated tirelessly for years. We expanded access to the funeral and burial program for younger veterans and we improved online services. We enhanced employment opportunities in the federal public service for veterans and Canadian Armed Forces personnel with the Veterans Hiring Act.

We also expanded Veterans Affairs Canada's network of operational stress injury clinics to better serve veterans suffering from mental health conditions. Building on progress to date, the government recently announced additional plans to invest in significantly expanded benefits and services for veterans and their families, reaffirming the government's ongoing commitment to veterans and their families. Beginning in March 2015, the government has announced a series of complementary improvements to the spectrum of benefits and supports available to veterans and their families.

Moderately to severely disabled veterans, those who need it most, will be provided with continued assistance in the form of a new monthly retirement income security benefit beginning at age 65 and continuing for life, and picking up where the earnings loss benefit leaves off. As of April 1, 2015, the permanent impairment allowance will be available to all Canadian Armed Forces veterans who have a permanent and severe disability, even if they do not require assistance to perform daily activities.

These lifetime financial benefits are designed to compensate for the loss of employment potential and career advancement opportunities caused by disabilities suffered while serving in the Canadian Armed Forces. Between the earnings loss benefit, the retirement income security benefit, and the permanent impairment allowance, moderately to severely injured veterans and their families will be assured of the necessary financial resources to maintain their quality of life in their retirement years.

(1055) The government also wishes to recognize the important contribution made by Canadian Armed Forces reserve force members; 25% to 30% of our combat commitment in Afghanistan was filled by reservists. Therefore, economic action plan 2015 confirms modifications to the earnings loss benefit to ensure that part-time reserve force veterans have access to the same level of income support as regular and full-time reserve force veterans while they rehabilitate and transition to civilian life. Previously, a severely injured part-time reservist would receive a minimum of $24,300 from earnings loss benefit per year.

That will increase by 75% to a minimum of $42,426 per year. This is in addition to other benefits this veteran may receive under the improved new veterans charter. Family members and informal caregivers are very often faced with helping to take care of seriously disabled veterans, and those dedicated people deserve our help. To better recognize this important contribution, economic action plan 2015 confirms funding to create a new family caregiver relief benefit to seriously disabled veterans requiring daily assistance from an informal caregiver.

The new benefit will provide a tax-free annual financial support of $7,238 to eligible veterans so that they can purchase services to allow respite for an informal caregiver. The disability award or lump sum kicks in after the final assessment of disability is made. Before that point, an injured veteran would probably have undergone a lot of pain and suffering through treatment and rehabilitation, such as recovery from surgery. To recognize that, economic action plan 2015 confirms funding to create a new critical injury benefit.

This new benefit will provide a tax-free lump sum amount of $70,000 up-front to compensate eligible Canadian Armed Forces members and veterans for the immediate consequences of very severe traumatic injuries sustained in the line of duty. As part of our government's commitment to service excellence for our veterans and families, we recognize that veterans suffering from severe and complex disabilities need access to ongoing professional assistance with managing their care.

This critical element is provided by Veterans Affairs Canada case managers, and we are decreasing the ratio of veterans to case managers from 40:1 to 30:1, by hiring more than 100 permanent case managers, who will have more time to provide dedicated one-on-one support. We also recognize that it sometimes takes too long to get disability benefits started because of backlogs in the approval process. Economic action plan 2015 confirms funding to hire more than 100 new disability benefits staff to ensure veterans receive faster decisions on their applications.

Faster decisions on disability benefit applications will in turn expedite access to other financial benefits, health care, and mental health treatment. To further support rehabilitation of our veterans, the government has expanded vocational training in order to provide eligible veterans with the flexibility to pursue new career directions that are not directly linked to skills developed during their military service. The budgetary process for all this is not simple and must comply with public sector accounting standards, which have been in place for many decades.

As such, the budgetary projections reflect the accrued value of future benefit payments to eligible veterans, which must be recognized up-front. Consistent with that process, the value of the overall commitment that the government is making to veterans through these measures is estimated at $2.5 billion over six years, starting in 2014-15, and these amounts have been incorporated into the government's budgetary projections. By recording $2.5 billion at this stage, the government is setting aside funding to ensure that enhanced benefits will be available to veterans and their families in the years ahead.

The annual cash value of benefits provided to veterans will significantly increase over time. For example, as more modern-day veterans reach age 65, they will become eligible for financial support under the retirement income security benefit. People need to understand that all these figures are estimates and that Veterans Affairs benefits are demand-driven. That means that no matter the level of demand, it will be met. That is our solemn commitment to veterans and their families, backed up by legislation.

It is no secret that this has been a difficult file, but it is absolutely not for lack of commitment to veterans and their families by every single member of this place and the other place. Veterans issues will always be a work in progress, and there will always be more work to do as circumstances change The key word is progress, and with economic action plan 2015, our government is continuing that progress. I am proud of that, and I would welcome questions from my colleagues.

(1100) Mr. Fin Donnelly (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I listened to my hon. colleague's comments with interest, and the member mentioned veterans in his speech. I am wondering if he will agree that the government has a moral, social, legal, and fiduciary obligation to provide equitable financial compensation and support services to past and active members of the Canadian Armed Forces who have been injured or disabled or have died as a result of military service, and to their dependants, which the Government of Canada is obligated to fulfill.

Does the member agree that this social covenant with our veterans exists? Hon. Laurie Hawn : Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his very transparent question. In fact, we have been doing that since Robert Borden's speech in 1917, we have continued to do that until today, and we will continue to do that tomorrow, regardless of where it is written or not written. That is an obligation the government has. Every government of every stripe has tried to fulfill that. As I said, there is always work to do. It will always be a work in progress.

In fact, the wording in Bill C-58 , and I am sure my hon. colleague has read Bill C-58, addresses that and formalizes it, if it makes people more comfortable that it formalizes in language what has in fact been happening for decades and will continue to happen. Mr. Sean Casey (Charlottetown, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank that member for his speech and for his service to this country. I know that he is sincere when he talks about the interests of veterans. He must at times be frustrated that he is swimming against the tide in that caucus.

I also appreciate his reference to Dennis Manuge, whom the current government fought tooth and nail in court until the injured veteran won in court and compelled the government to take action. The member referenced case managers and disability claims adjudicators. I want to focus my question on those positions that are now being added. I have two questions. First, case managers in the past worked from district offices for veterans. The current government has closed those district offices. Does the member continue to stand by the decision of the government to close district offices?

Second, is the fact that this budget has announced 100 new positions for case managers and 100 new positions for disability claims adjudicators tantamount to an admission that the Conservatives cut too deep?

(1105) Hon. Laurie Hawn : Mr. Speaker, as far as the tide in this caucus, there is no tide. There is not a single member of this House or of the other place who is not completely dedicated to the interests of veterans and their families. That includes every member on this side, every member on that side, and every member in the red chamber as well. We need to stop that BS. It is just not true. With respect to adjudicators and case managers, it is not an admission of anything. It is an admission that we are continuing to try to do more and more as we make progress in serving our veterans.

In 1938 we had no idea that we would have hundreds of thousands of World War II veterans. Fifteen years ago we had no idea that we would have thousands of Afghanistan veterans. In 20 years we will look back and say that 10 years ago we had no idea that we would have thousands of veterans from whatever the new situation is. The government adapts, as every government has tried to do, Liberal or Conservative, in the best interests of veterans. It is an ongoing process. It will always be a work in progress.

To suggest that there is some lack of commitment on the part of anyone in this House is simply wrong and offensive. Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, the hon. member directed most of his comments to veterans, but I know he has a long career and interest in defence spending. I wonder if he cares to comment. We hear a great deal from Conservative members that there was something called the “decade of darkness”, but the actual figures do not show that light has dawned.

This budget, at pages 322 and 323, says that defence spending in the National Defence budget would start increasing, but that increase would start in 2017. I wonder if the hon. member is concerned that the Department of National Defence is over-stretched, with missions in Iraq, Syria, and now Ukraine, and has fallen below the per capita, and in fact, the percentage of GDP spending on defence compared to any of our industrial country allies. Hon. Laurie Hawn : Mr. Speaker, the premise of that is only partially correct. It is not true that we have fallen below all of our industrial allies.

As a military member, sure I would love to have more defence spending, but the fact is that every government has a lot of legitimate calls on the treasury. There is a legitimate balance. We would bring in an increased accelerator, going up to 3%, which would ensure that the military has more funding year over year moving forward. We ask a lot of the military. It does extremely well with resources that will always have limitations. I lived through that for 30 years, and we did an awful lot.

We would love to have more, but the military does a great job, and we are going to support it every step of the way as best this government possibly can. Mr. Fin Donnelly (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to address the current Conservative government's 11th, and hopefully final, budget. Mr. Speaker, I will also be splitting my time with the hon. member for St. John's East . After a decade of Conservative government, middle-class families are working harder than ever yet falling further behind.

Canadians spent the winter waiting for a plan focused on their priorities: giving their kids the best possible start in life and creating good jobs to support their families. Yet instead of presenting a real plan to invest in middle-class families feeling squeezed, the Conservatives have presented a perversely distorted Robin Hood budget, taking from the poor and giving to the richest Canadians.

Budget 2015 would stubbornly move ahead with a plan to spend billions on measures like income splitting for the wealthiest few, a doubling of the tax-free savings account contribution limit, and tax loopholes for CEOs, measures that would overwhelmingly help those who need it least. At the same time, the budget fails to provide a helping hand for parents looking for child care, fails to lower the retirement age back to 65 for Canadian seniors, and fails to reinstate the minimum wage for federal workers.

The Conservatives' unfair income-splitting scheme would take billions from the middle class and give it to the rich; 85% of Canadians would get nothing at all. The Parliamentary Budget Office has highlighted this disparity, noting that only the wealthiest Canadians would benefit from the Conservatives' income-splitting gift. Even Conservatives are critical of the scheme, with Conservative insider Michael Taube publicly equating income splitting to “state-run socialism for the wealthy”.

The doubling of the TFSA contribution limits would just create more tax loopholes for the wealthiest, while ordinary Canadians working hard to pay the bills would not even be able to take advantage of it. In fact, most low- to middle-income Canadians cannot afford to double their contributions to the TFSA, with fewer than 16% of working Canadians maximizing contributions under the current limit, according to the recent Broadbent Institute report.

Conservatives know that the expansion of the TFSA would be unsustainable and that their plan would be a huge burden on future generations, with indications that doubling the limit could cost $15 billion a year within a few decades. The finance minister admitted as much when he stated that we should “leave that to [the Prime Minister's] granddaughter to solve that problem”. New Democrats oppose placing this financial burden on the backs of future generations for the sake of the wealthiest Canadians.

It is morally unconscionable that the finance minister expects his granddaughter's children to clean up the financial mess his government is intentionally leaving. Speaking of leaving a mess to future generations, the budget shockingly makes no mention of the environment or climate change. It offers little support for first nations or coastal communities, and its transit commitments would not start soon enough or go far enough to meet the growing challenges facing Canada's urban centres. Budget 2015 also demonstrates, once again, that the Conservatives take B.C. for granted.

For instance, New Democrats have repeatedly urged the Conservative government to reverse cuts to marine safety by reversing the Conservatives' closure of the Kitsilano Coast Guard base and cuts to Marine Communications and Traffic Services centres, but the budget has failed to do that. The budget also fails to address B.C.'s need for significant investments in housing and infrastructure, providing no additional funding for new affordable housing or roads or bridges.

Canada's New Democrats have presented a significantly different vision that would ensure a prosperous long-term future for our country by proposing practical steps that would help fix the damage done by the current Prime Minister . They would create good jobs and opportunities for families, new supports for small businesses and manufacturing, a $15 federal minimum wage, and public, affordable, accessible child care. There are currently 900,000 children in Canada whose parents lack access to quality, affordable child care spaces.

In many parts of the country, parents face monthly child care bills in the thousands of dollars.

(1110) Canada's New Democrats have presented a plan to create or maintain one million affordable child care spaces across Canada to ensure that parents do not pay more than $15 a day for a child care space. Our plan would build on the successful child care model in Quebec, where research from economist Pierre Fortin showed that affordable child care helped 70,000 mothers join the workforce and boosted the economy by $1.75 for every $1 invested by the government. That is a plan that makes sense for families and for the economy.

Canada's New Democrats are also committed to making life more affordable for Canadians by raising the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour. Under the Prime Minister , Canadian families are working harder than ever but are falling further behind. The Liberal government before the Conservatives eliminated the minimum wage for federally regulated workers in 1996, and the Conservatives have done nothing to boost wages since then.

The introduction of a $15 an hour federal minimum wage would help fight growing income inequality and would provide leadership to increase standards for workers in all sectors of the economy in all regions in Canada. All Canadians who work hard and play by the rules should be able to make a decent living. Restoring a federal minimum wage would help make life more affordable for many workers and would help build a fairer, healthier, and more sustainable society.

New Democrats also understand the importance of increasing productivity by making smart investments in our roads, bridges, and public transit to help families get around faster and help Canadian businesses get their products to their customers, yet this budget would not do anything for local roads and bridges. It contains no new spending for new affordable housing and nothing for tourism, sports, recreation, or cultural infrastructure.

While the budget contains new money for public transit projects, it is a pittance compared to what is required to meet the growing challenges faced by municipalities in the Lower Mainland, like Coquitlam, New Westminster, and Port Moody. Most worrisome, investment is contingent on municipalities borrowing money from private lenders, requiring them to use “alternative financing and funding mechanisms involving the private sector”.

This raises real concerns about whether the stringent rules would once again keep infrastructure investments from getting out the door in communities that remain opposed to public-private partnerships. On a positive note, after a relentless NDP campaign, the government decided to use the copy and paste function and inserted our proposal to lower the small business rate from 11% to 9% to create good local jobs. The government inserted that into its budget.

Whether they are local coffee shops, hair salons, or bakeries, small businesses continue to be the engine of our local economies and the backbone of thriving, prosperous, and sustainable communities. It is these small-business owners who create jobs, employ our neighbours, and support our charities. That is why the NDP has prioritized supporting small businesses as part of its practical plan for jobs and the economy.

Why then would the government make incremental reductions that would not be fully realized until 2019 instead of providing immediate help for Canada's hard-working small-business owners, who create 80% of all new jobs in this country? Instead of offering immediate tax relief to the richest 15% of Canadians through the government's income-splitting scheme, would it not make more sense to provide this immediate tax relief to companies that are already creating good jobs and investing in our communities now? In conclusion, Canada's economy is only strong when it has a thriving middle class.

This budget would do nothing to address Canada's struggling middle class. Instead, it would focus on handouts to the wealthiest 15% of Canadians. The Leader of the Opposition is a principled leader with the experience and the plan to help grow the middle class, create good jobs, protect our environment, and fix the damage done by the Prime Minister and his Conservative government.

(1115) In October, Canadians will have a historic opportunity to support the NDP's practical plan for Canada when they reject the Conservative approach and elect the first-ever federal New Democrat government. Mr. Brad Trost (Saskatoon—Humboldt, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed listening to my hon. colleague speak and have two basic questions for him. The New Democrats are suggesting raising the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour. If politicians can dictate wages without any regard to the economics, why stop at $15 an hour? Why not $25 or $30 an hour?

The member kept referring that the maximization of the TFSAs would only benefit the rich. My second question is in many ways much more personal. My grandma is in a nursing home. She is 98 years old, turning 99 this summer. She maximizes her TFSAs every year. Her income, though I am not sure what it is, is under $20,000 a year. Of the people who maximize TFSAs, 60% have an income under $60,000 a year. Why does the hon. member want to raise taxes on grandma who is in a nursing home and who makes less than $20,000 per year?

(1120) Mr. Fin Donnelly : Mr. Speaker, there currently is no minimum wage for federally regulated workers. The previous government to the Conservatives, the Liberal government, eliminated the federal minimum wage in 1996. The Conservatives have not done anything on that front, so we feel a measured response to increasing it to $15 an hour would lift those federally regulated workers to a minimum of $15 an hour, which is a basic level and not even the living wage that many organizations across the country call for.

On the issue of investments for seniors, we believe the New Democrats have the best comprehensive plan for seniors in the country. In terms of the TFSA, raising the contribution level would not allow most seniors to contribute. They unfortunately do not have that kind of disposable cash to put into investments because they have to put it toward rent, food, prescription drugs and health care. At the end of paying all of that, they unfortunately are unable to invest in those kinds of wealthy schemes. It would be nice for all of us to take advantage of that if we were in the position to do so. Mr.

Adam Vaughan (Trinity—Spadina, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the statements made about small business. There are different types of small business. There are multimillionaire lawyers who are self-incorporated and are consultants to other multimillion dollar corporations. They are a small business because there is one employee in their corporation. Cutting their taxes is cutting taxes for affluents, but there are also small businesses that employ 10 people or 15 people, such as a corner store or a small manufacturing base. Cutting their taxes creates jobs and opportunities for other Canadians.

Would the NDP support a plan that tied the small business tax cut to job creation rather than simply allowing affluent consultants pay less tax? Mr. Fin Donnelly : Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that my hon. colleague's leader has decided that he will not support small business, while the leader of the NDP has categorically stated that he will invest in small business. We feel that small businesses are the engine of job growth because they create 80% of jobs. Whether it is one or five employees, or a self-employed business, they are still creating jobs and doing a lot for our country. Those investments are wise.

That is what an NDP government would do. That is what the official opposition leader has committed to do. We will continue to support our small and medium-sized enterprises right across the country. Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have an opportunity to speak to the Conservative budget. The budget is no pleasure, but to have a chance to talk about what is wrong with it, where it is lacking, the negative direction it is taking the country and some of the things that my party, the NDP, would do instead is something I cherish.

The Conservative budget would spend billions in handouts to the wealthiest at a time when the government should be investing in accessible child care, affordable housing and supporting seniors who are struggling to get by. Places like Newfoundland and Labrador and the people there and the Atlantic who have critical issues that need to be addressed, like regional economic development and supporting communities, issues such as the constitutional obligation of the government to support Marine Atlantic, are absent from this budget.

Absent as well are the $280 million that the government promised the government of Newfoundland and Labrador in a fishing industry development fund in response to the consequences of CETA and the request to remove its powers to expect local processing in fisheries. Where is that? All of these are absent. Instead, we have a claim for an allegedly balanced budget.

After nine years, in which the Conservatives increased the size of the deficit by a total of $150 billion, they now have an allegedly balanced budget, and this is supposedly a talking point that they think will take them to the election and bring them another majority government. That is not going to happen, because people are starting to realize that the Conservative administration is, in fact, not the prudent fiscal manager that it claims to be. How did the Conservatives balance the budget? What do we have here? They claim to have a balanced budget. How did they get there?

They got there by taking $2 billion out of the contingency fund. It used to be $3 billion, and now it is only $1 billion. They achieved $2.1 billion by selling off GM shares to add to the budget. If they had waited another couple of weeks, they would have actually made another $100 million. Now there is prudent fiscal management. There are another $3.4 billion. Where did they get it? They stole it from the EI fund, the employment insurance fund. We have $3.4 billion, we have $2.1 billion, and we have another $2 billion shaved from the contingency fund.

That is where the Conservatives come up with a phony balanced budget. Are we really talking about prudent fiscal management or are we talking about a shell game that is designed to confuse people and let people believe that they have somehow or other magically balanced the budget through prudent fiscal management? What really has happened is that they taken away important sources of income from the government, like the corporate taxes that are necessary to pay for the services that Canadians need and deserve, and they have done that in a way that is basically a corporate gift.

We now very likely have the lowest corporate tax rate in the whole OECD. All of the wealthiest nations in the have corporate tax rates higher than ours. We would do something about that. If people want to call it raising taxes, yes, that would be raising taxes. My colleague in the provincial party in Newfoundland, when confronted with the notion that the NDP was supposedly a tax and spend party, said yes, it was a tax and spend party. It would tax fairly and spend wisely. The Conservative government would do the exact opposite of that.

It would take away the taxes that other countries all across the world make corporations pay, give away revenue and then take away the services for which that revenue pays.

(1125) When we look at the things the Conservatives do have in the budget in making special arrangements for the wealthy, the first one that is obvious and jumps out at everybody is the income-splitting proposal, $2.4 billion. It is income splitting for families with children under 18, income splitting that does zero for single-parent families that are among the poorest families in the country and families without children under 18 or parents who are in the same tax bracket. With a cost of $2.4 billion, this gives zero benefit to 86% of families, but helps the wealthiest.

Is that wise spending of the government's money? Is that good for the future of our country? Is that good for solving some of the problems Canada has? No. When we add on top of that the significant increase, almost doubling, of the tax-free savings account, what do we get? We get another program that helps, and is designed to help, the wealthiest of Canadians. We just heard someone opposite talk about his mother, aged 98, putting money into a tax-free saving account. It is wonderful that she is able to do that. We need a reality check with the government because it is ignoring the vast majority of Canadians.

There was a survey done by the Canadian Payroll Association, and this is not a left-wing think tank. Last September it said that 51% of employees found it difficult to meet their financial obligations if their paycheque was delayed by one week. Therefore, they are living from paycheque to paycheque. They are not putting $10,000 each or $20,000 per couple into a tax-free savings account. They are just not capable of doing that because they are doing their very best to try to meet their obligations, paycheque to paycheque. That is just people who are working.

That is not people who are unemployed, or people who have been looking for work for a long time, or who are disabled or living on social assistance because of their difficult circumstances. These people are working. Where is the benefit to the people of Canada to have this tax-free savings account almost doubled. It is not there. It does nothing to solve the problem Canadians have now. What is the government's answer?

The answer of the Minister of Finance when someone said that this was putting an unfair burden on taxpayers to take away this source of revenue, and it will grow over the years, was that we would let the Prime Minister 's granddaughter solve that problem. That is the answer. The Conservatives will let the Prime Minister's granddaughter solve that problem somewhere down the road. We have a plan that will make our children and our grandchildren better off, because we want to have a program that serves their interests now.

One of the most obvious ones—we have announced it already and it is something that is gaining more and more attraction as time goes on—is the national child care plan for a maximum $15 a day child care. What would that do? It would ensure that single parents would have an opportunity to get to work, to finish an education, to ensure that their children would be looked after and have a better income for themselves. It would ensure that couples would be able to work as well as look after their children, instead of having, what in many cases is, the next highest expense next to their mortgage.

That is what needs to be fixed to make life better for our children and our grandchildren, and not go the other way, which the government seems to be quite happy and content to do. We have proposed measures that will do positive and good things for the future of our country and help solve some of the problems of inequality, ensure that families have a better opportunity to look after their families and the future of their families, and the government ignores those needs in a crude attempt to try to buy the votes of people with their own money.

It is an old game, and it is one that will not work because Canadians are wiser.

(1130) We look forward to an election coming up later on this year because we have plans and proposals that we believe can help solve some of the problems that Canadians have. We have a vision for a more equal Canada and a greater opportunity to work together to build our country instead of tearing it down. Mr. Mike Wallace (Burlington, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the member's honesty. He was clear in his speech that his party is in favour of increased taxes to pay for a number of the programs the New Democrats have indicated they are interested in.

I am actually looking forward to debating those issues at election time also. However, I am a little confused. On one hand, in his speech he talked about corporations needing to pay their own way, and then the previous speaker from his party was taking credit for the small business tax rate going from 11% to 9%. Ninety per cent of the businesses in the country are small businesses. Are the New Democrats for increasing taxes on business, or are they against taxes going up for business? It is a very confusing message. I do not think they know what they actually stand for.

I would be interested to hear what he has to say about that.

(1135) Mr. Jack Harris : Mr. Speaker, we have noticed over here that the hon. member is confused on many occasions. He did not actually need to tell us that. If he had been listening, he would have known that the leader of the NDP gave a major speech several months ago in which he called for a decrease in small business tax rates down to 9%. That was very clear. He also called for an increase in the capital cost allowance for manufacturers.

This is desperately needed in the member's neck of the woods, in Ontario, because of the hollowing out of manufacturing that has happened during the government's administration. We are trying to fix that. We do understand what needs to be done, but we do not support the notion that major corporations, highly profitable corporations, can have tax cuts and sit on that cash for years and years and not use it to create jobs. Mr. Sean Casey (Charlottetown, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, as a fellow Atlantic Canadian, the member and I certainly have some issues in common. He talked about the EI fund.

Certainly, because of the dominance of seasonal industries in my province, issues around employment insurance are extremely important and the gutting of the program in previous budgets has had a terrible effect. The question I want to ask the member is in regard to a direct quote from the budget with respect to EI. I would like to get his take on it. In the budget it says: Taking steps to ensure that Employment Insurance claimants are aware of their job search responsibilities when moving or considering moving for work.

The Government will also ensure that individuals willing to move are not excluded from Employment Insurance training opportunities across the country. I would take that to mean that those who are not willing to move would be excluded. I invite my colleague's comments with respect to this particular provision regarding availability of EI under the budget. Mr. Jack Harris : Mr. Speaker, yes, one of the things that has happened over the past couple of decades is employment insurance, which used to be called unemployment insurance, is now unavailable to the majority of people who are unemployed.

That happened, I have to say, starting with his party's government in the 1990s and continues through to the efforts of the Conservative government to in fact make it more and more difficult for people to get employment insurance when they need it. The member talked about seasonal industries. We have a tremendous number of seasonal industries in our country.

Seasonal workers are needed for seasonal industries and when seasonal workers are treated as if they are repeat offenders, I think is the phrase they sometimes use, when the government treats them with disdain and makes the program unavailable to them, then the government is destroying some of the important parts of the economy of this country, including tourism, forestry, fishing, and I could go on. The government has done a lot of damage to the economy, particularly rural and seasonal economies that need to have a variety of jobs throughout the year.

Seasonal workers need to have unemployment insurance when they cannot get it. The passage he quoted sounds like code for another attack on workers, so I would agree with him on that. Mr. Bev Shipley (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the great member to the north of me in the riding of Huron—Bruce . It is always a joy to speak in this House on important issues, particularly at this point in time when this Conservative government has just presented economic action plan 2015. What are budgets?

Budgets, whether they are business, government, or personal ones, need to look back a little bit to assess what has worked, what has not worked, what the business plan is. Then it moves forward with an analysis of what one has, what the requirements are for the business, or in this case, the government, and then what is needed for the present. Since 2006, we have had the incredible leadership of the Prime Minister , as well as the finance ministers. The new Minister of Finance just presented his first budget.

They not only have the intuition of what is coming and what is needed, but more importantly, how we should move forward so that as a country and a government we can continue on the path we have been on. In 2006, after we were elected to government, we presented a budget. In 2006, 2007 and 2008, this Conservative government focused on how to continue to pay down the debt, which we did by almost $40 billion over those first three budgets. We did that with the initiative of lowering taxes. Then in 2008, we saw as a government something coming that did not look good. It was not just happening in Canada.

It was an international recession. It struck in 2008 and stayed for 2009. In 2010 this country was coming out of it. I might add that Canada was the only country in the industrialized world that was basically coming out of it. We made an agreement in 2008, because what was happening was a worldwide recession. I do not want to overestimate or underestimate the significance of that event. I know in the 1990s when the Liberals were in power, there was a blip in the economy. I believe they manufactured this huge issue about how bad it was for Canada. However, this one was not; this recession was actually global.

It reached deep into the pockets of everyone, every industry, every family, every business, and every government. It was the worst recession since the Great Depression of the 1930s. Quite honestly, there was a lot of good discussion here in this House. It was agreed by the parties that we needed to do something to help stimulate the economy, and we did. We put forward one of the largest stimulus packages in Canadian history. There were guidelines that our government put in place that it would be temporary, for two years. We actually wanted to see what was going to happen at the end of that time.

We had implemented a lower tax, giving people and businesses back the money that they needed to help stimulate the economy. We came out of that better than just about any country in the world.

(1140) We now have budget 2015, and it is called Canada's economic action plan, as the budget was called in 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011 and 2010. Why? Our government has the true belief that we should build a plan around economic growth. Canada's economic action plan is the reason we now have the lowest tax rate for individuals in this country in 50 years. It is why the tax rate is the lowest that it has been for our industry, businesses and small businesses. We are here to rebuild our country and we have done it, but we are not done. That is why we look to the future when we are building a budget.

This plan looks not just at the present, but it has a vision for the future of how we are going to build and help continue to create jobs, on top of the 1.2 million net new jobs that have been created by businesses in this country. We have created the environment for that. Governments do not create jobs that create much economic growth; it is businesses and individuals that do that. I come from Lambton—Kent—Middlesex. All members will say their riding is the greatest, which is a proud statement we should all make. My riding is very much comprised of small businesses and agriculture.

When we looked at the significance of leaving money in taxpayers' pockets, we did what our people and small businesses wanted, and that was to give them an opportunity to grow and hire people. Let us look at what we have done. Let me start with families, because they are the foundation of every country. Families are the foundation of my riding, but it would not matter if I lived in a rural riding as I do or in one of the urban ridings. The foundation of this country is families, and those families run small businesses or people work for small businesses. I am a father of three children.

I am a grandfather, and I am proud to say that by July I should have 10 grandchildren. I am a little behind my colleague, who announced yesterday that he has 32 grandchildren. However, with a focus on the significance of what families do for this country, we should leave money in their pockets and as a government only take from people what we need to provide the services. We should run this country like a business. Although governments are not businesses, we should run them like a business with the same principles.

When we do that, we look to families and think of what we can do to help keep them remain solid and leave money in their pockets. We have done a number of things, particularly with our tax cuts over the years, which have lowered taxes for families by $3,400 since we were elected in 2006. On top of that, we have just added universal child care benefits and programs for children six and under, up to $160 a month, with benefits for children six to 17. We also thought about what we can do on income splitting for parents.

Also, one of the greatest assets for many families is the tax-free savings account, and I am sure I will get some questions about that. In conclusion, we made a promise to balance the budget, which we did. We made a promise to maintain a strong and stable economy. We promised to create jobs. We promised to cut taxes. I am proud to stand here today, because not only did we say it, but we also did it. Budget 2015 is a budget for hard-working, responsible Canadians, and we will make sure they receive what they deserve.

(1145) [ Translation ] Ms. Élaine Michaud (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. However, I think it is a problem that there are no concrete measures to provide affordable child care services for Canadian families in the budget tabled by the Conservative government. They are nowhere to be found. The NDP proposed a plan that the government does not seem to want to consider. The Conservatives spend their time bragging about improving the universal child care benefit, but they refuse to tell Canadians that these benefits will be considered taxable income.

Canadians will therefore be taxed directly. The government gives with one had but has no problem taking away with the other the first chance it gets. Why does the Conservative government insist on taxing hard-working Canadian families who need help, when the NDP's plan to create $15-a-day child care spots puts money directly and immediately back in the hands of Canadian families, who will not have to spend obscene amounts of money to ensure that their children have good child care services? I would like to understand the government's perspective.

Why is it okay for the Conservatives to tax Canadian families and promise them fake benefits? (1150) [ English ] Mr. Bev Shipley : Mr. Speaker, we now have the lowest tax regime for individuals, and that is families, in 50 years. It goes back to former Prime Minister Diefenbaker's time, another great Conservative. We talk about what we are doing. We believe that they should have the option. We over on this side believe moms and dads are still the ones who should make the choice. That may not be the belief of everyone, and that is fine. We now provide money for families.

Every family in Canada with children now benefits from the universal child care program that we have. That $15 a day is a bit of a challenge for those people who work night shifts, who have vacations, who work on weekends. However, not ours. Moms and dads make those decisions. They can hire someone to come in. They can use family. They are the ones given the choice. It is a different ideology. We believe parents make the decisions. I do not think the government should be making all the decisions for families. Mr. Sean Casey (Charlottetown, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, I would like to ask the member about seniors living in poverty. He talked about the economic action plans. It was in either economic action plan 2011 or economic action plan 2012 that the Conservatives made the decision to increase the age of eligibility for the old age security and the guaranteed income supplement from 65 to 67. The result is that poor seniors would receive a two-year delay in receiving about $13,000 a year. It was tantamount to reaching into their pockets and taking out $28,000. That is for our poorest, most vulnerable seniors. My question for the member is this.

Which of the measures in this budget is addressed to those vulnerable seniors who are being forced to pay more than their fair share to bring the budget into balance? What is going to help them? Will it be income splitting? Will it be the universal child care benefit? Will it be the increased limits on TFSAs, or will it be the ability to have less tax on their registered retirement income funds? These are seniors living in poverty. Which one of those programs will benefit them the greatest? Mr. Bev Shipley : Mr. Speaker, what the member forgot to mention is that we have also increased the GIS for seniors.

The GIS, as members know, is part of the old age security for those in the most need. As every government has had, we will have programs for our seniors. We now have the lowest ratio of people in poverty in Canada, at less than 5%. We have work to do. However, to say that Canada is not in a good position in terms of how we have dealt with seniors is misleading.

(1155) Mr. Ben Lobb (Huron—Bruce, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House today and speak about the budget and most importantly, speak about a balanced budget. When I was first elected in 2008, we certainly were in some very serious and challenging economic times and that is putting it lightly. We were in the midst of the worst economic downturn in a generation. We have been able to carry through that time over the last number of years, almost seven years now. We were able to provide stimulus to the Canadian economy to keep Canadians working to lessen the blow to our economy.

As time passed by, we were able to eliminate some of the stimulus and get back to balance. That is what we have done and now the economy is responding like it should and in the budget there are many years of balanced budgets moving forward. Another key indicator is our debt-to-GDP ratio. We have committed by 2021 to have that at 25%. We are by far heads and tails above other developed G7 countries. We are way ahead, so that is encouraging. There have been 1.2 million jobs added to the Canadian economy since 2009. The marginal effect of the tax rate when we first took government in 2006 was at 33%.

Today it is at 17%. That allows businesses to keep more of what they earn so they can reinvest. Another kind of checkpoint as to where we are is on the fiscal balance with our provinces, municipalities and cities. Currently, we are at about 50%, so 50% of the taxes collected in this country are from the provinces, municipalities and cities. We have our fiscal balance. Again, when we look at other countries, other developed countries, this is one of the best rates going. Of course in the budget document it is the best going. In Huron—Bruce, we are Ontario's west coast.

It is a very rural riding with a mixture of agriculture, tourism, energy production is significant as well, and light manufacturing. The budget really does address a lot of the needs and initiatives that we need to keep the economy growing in Huron—Bruce and the greater region of southwestern Ontario. As for the small business tax rate, in 2008 we took that number from 12% to 11%. In this budget document, we are dropping that level from 11% to 9% over the next number of years. In addition to that, we have increased the threshold. A number of years ago it was $300,000.

It was increased to $400,000 and now it is at $500,000 of earnings. This allows employers to keep what they earn, reduce the tax on that and again, be able to reinvest. There is a fairly large automotive manufacturer in my riding. I worked for it years and years ago. There is an auto supplier innovation fund of $100 million over the next five years. We know that in Ontario there is a tremendous number of automotive parts manufacturers. Linamar and Magna are two of the larger ones that come to mind. This fund in the next five years will help automotive parts suppliers do some innovative things.

One is to improve fuel efficiency and reduce emissions. These are important investments. For my former employer Wescast, in the exhaust manifold business, anything it can do to improve fuel efficiency with large manufacturers is of great benefit to it. Another one important to remember as well is the auto innovation fund. There has been over $1 billion invested in the auto innovation fund. Large manufacturers like Ford, Toyota, Honda and again, Linamar and Magna have all benefited from the auto innovation fund to keep our local economies moving.

Another important investment in the budget is the extension of the accelerated capital cost allowance, allowing manufacturers that purchase machinery and equipment in their facilities to accelerate at 50% per year. This would be extended for 10 years. This is something that the government has remained committed to for a long period of time. This would help to increase investment and spur manufacturers to continue to innovate and modernize their facilities.

(1200) Coupled with this is making Canada a tariff-free zone for machinery and equipment purchased in a manufacturing facility. There are 1,800 tariffs that we would eliminate. That would be a savings to manufacturers of about $450 million a year. When we couple that with the accelerated capital cost allowance, we would really start to put some dollars into job creators to create future jobs, become more efficient and be able to sell around the world. That is great. We have committed our investments in IRAP. Those who are involved in it will know what the acronym is. That is to help with research and innovation.

I would also like to mention the member for London West , who is the Minister of State for Science and Technology . The percentage to GDP of research and innovation in this area is the highest in the world among the G7 economies. We are doing things for today, but with the investment in research and technology, we would also make those investments for tomorrow. I did mention that agriculture is a massive economic component to the Huron—Bruce economy. The lifetime capital gains exemption is very important to farmers who are looking to transition their farms to the future generations.

We know that farm families put everything that they have into their farms. The ability to increase the lifetime capital gains exemption in the Conservative government's time frame has doubled from $500,000 to $1 million. That is important recognition of the importance of farm families in our communities. All the while, I should mention that the annual budget of agriculture has seen the commitment from this government. There are billions of dollars per year in non-business risk management and business risk management. We are certainly thankful in our areas for that. There are a couple of additions to that budget.

One is increasing the trade commission. We know the importance of the trade commission's role in the countries that we serve and where we have embassies, as well. There is also the market access secretariat. This has proven to be a vital investment to growing trade and maintaining what we have, making sure that if the market does get closed down for a brief period or there is an interruption with its work, we have the great relations to get it open again so that we can get our beef, pork, or whatever it is, back into those markets. There is the agrimarketing fund, and we have made enhancements there.

Many of the members on this side of the House are going to talk about the family tax plan and the benefits therein. This is important to families in Huron—Bruce as well. I see that there is one minute left. I have probably got 45 minutes' worth of material here, but I want to highlight the fact that families would now be able to split their incomes. We have increased the universal child care benefit from $100 to $160 per month. For children over six, that is $60 new per month. In addition, children's activities are fully refundable, whatever they may be. Parents will see that.

There has been $6,600 in tax relief to the average Canadian family since the Conservative government took office. That is important. Today, we are going to see the provincial budget. The province takes and takes from Canadian families. The Conservative government has provided tax relief time and time again to Canadian families, as well as to seniors. I know that I will probably get a question on seniors as well. Doubling the tax-free savings account would be great for families and seniors. In addition to that, reducing the minimums for RRIFs at 71 would also be beneficial. (1205) [ Translation ] Ms.

Ève Péclet (La Pointe-de-l'Île, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, my question for my colleague is about health care in Canada. We have a new normal: an aging population. All of the experts agree that the health care system as it is now is not ready to handle that. Why then are the Conservatives planning to cut transfers to the provinces, which are already struggling and looking to the federal government for leadership? How can the member come here and defend a budget that will balance the books at the expense of our seniors and people who want adequate, accessible health care?

At this point, the budget includes $36 billion less for health care. How can the member balance the books at the expense of people who need health care? [ English ] Mr. Ben Lobb : Mr. Speaker, the member is welcome to sit in the House all day and ask as many farcical questions as she wants. That is her right as a member of Parliament. The fact is that health transfers have gone from $32 billion to $40 billion. The budget for CIHR, through Health Canada, is $1 billion a year for health research. Social transfers are going to be at $14.6 billion in a couple of years, increasing each and every year.

As well, to help seniors age better in the future and deal with issues facing seniors, the Canadian centre for aging and brain health is a five-year commitment that we have made in Toronto to start to figure out some of the serious issues, like Alzheimer's and other forms of dementia. That is delivering for seniors and health care in this country. Mr. Adam Vaughan (Trinity—Spadina, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, one of the most significant issues facing smaller municipalities, particularly municipalities in the part of the country the member opposite represents, is water quality.

Federal changes to water quality standards have side-loaded millions and millions of dollars onto smaller municipalities to upgrade water facilities. There is not a penny in new infrastructure money in this budget that recognizes these new obligations. In particular, in small towns in the Bruce Peninsula, where water quality has been a significant issue over the last 20 years, cuts to water quality support have played a significant role in putting people's health at risk.

Why has the government refused to step up on water quality, refused to invest infrastructure dollars in those projects, and why, for two years now, have cities and municipalities across this country received zero dollars in funding specified for water infrastructure? Mr. Ben Lobb : Again, Mr. Speaker, the member is also welcome to sit in the House all day and ask farcical questions. He got up about 10 minutes ago and complained about the federal government transferring $20 million a year to his city. The riding of Huron—Bruce received $6.6 million a year in gas tax funds.

It has received over $100 million in infrastructure since 2008. Umpteen investments have been made in Huron—Bruce, to the point now where they have no water problems. They have invested in sewers, in water and water treatment, in roads, in bridges, and in community centres, all because of this government. The member's provincial cousins, the Liberal government in Ontario, drag their feet every chance they get, because there is money ready to go for more investments in infrastructure in this province. Why do you not call your premier in Toronto and ask her why she is slowing things down? The Acting Speaker (Mr.

Barry Devolin) : Before we resume debate, I would remind all members to direct all of their comments directly to the Chair rather than to their colleagues. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Beaches—East York.

(1210) Mr. Matthew Kellway (Beaches—East York, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the MP for Abitibi—Témiscamingue . I am pleased to rise, today, to speak to the Conservative government's latest, and last, budget. It is not a budget without some provisions worthy of support, but it is a budget for the few, not for the many, and the few for whom the budget would make a difference are, by and large, the wealthier few. The income-splitting provision, for example, would cost $3 billion in lost revenues to the federal government.

Singles would be excluded; single-parent families, accounting for one in five Canadian families, would obviously also be excluded from the program; families with partners in the same tax bracket, accounting for another 30% of Canadian families, also would be excluded. In fact, nine of ten Canadian households would receive nothing at all from this program. The increased limit under the tax-free savings account would also heavily favour higher-income earners.

While the immediate cost impact of revenues would be significantly less than the income-splitting provision, the longer-term impact would be significantly greater. At maturity, the cost to the federal government is estimated to be upwards of $15 billion annually. This is not a sustainable way to budget. These two measures, alone, would continue the long-standing trend in this country of undoing the progressivity of our tax system.

Even prior to these measures, our tax system was the fourth least effective among OECD countries in reducing income inequality, with only Israel, the United States, and Chile, having less progressive tax systems. A progressive tax system is but one of the many buttresses against income inequality that successive federal governments have dismantled over almost 30 years. It would leave us with a country not quite as advertized, not as generous as most Canadians would like it to be and think it ought to be, with a level of income inequality by which Canadians are both surprised and disheartened.

The figures are, in fact, quite shocking. The wealthiest 20% of Canadians own 70% of the country's total wealth. The poorest 20% own less than 1%. In fact, the bottom 50% own just 6% of the country's total wealth. The gap is growing, thanks to budgets like this one. In fact, income inequality has become the hallmark of Canadian cities. In some Canadian cities, this is owed, in part, to stubborn, persistent levels of unemployment, but the problem also exists in booming urban economies with low unemployment rates. It is really about the changing labour markets in Canada's global and globalizing cities.

A study released just this month by the Metcalf Foundation, focusing on the working poor in the Toronto region, also looked at nine of Canada's ten larger cities, including Calgary and Edmonton, cities booming with the extraction economy, until recently at least. In only one city, Quebec City, did the percentage of working poor actually decline, and then just marginally.

Toronto and Vancouver, Canada's two richest and most globalized cities, are becoming, in the words of the report: ...giant modern-day Downton Abbeys where a well-to-do knowledge class relies on a large cadre of working poor who pour their coffee, serve their food, clean their offices, and relay their messages from one office to another. With tongue in cheek, I will share the report's good news.

The good news is that the population of working poor in Toronto grew by only 11% between 2006 and 2012, which is a far cry from the 39% growth in Toronto's population of working poor for the first five years of this new millennium under a Liberal federal government. However, while the growth rate has moderated, it is particularly worrying that the number of working poor is growing at all, in the context of a shrinking number of those actually working; that is, in the context of a falling employment rate in Toronto. It is getting increasingly difficult to make ends meet in Canada's richest city.

While workers fall behind, costs continue to rise. While the percentage of working poor has increased by 11% in Toronto, child care costs have gone up by about 30%, rent by about 15%, and the cost of public transit by about a third. A recent study by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives sets the living wage in Toronto for a two-parent family of four at $18.50 per hour, with full-time work weeks for both parents—no money left over for TFSAs there, no return on the tax form for a split income. That is just paying the basics and getting by.

(1215) In Toronto we are seeing the suburbanization of working poverty in cities that are having the highest growth rates of working poverty, such as Markham, with a 27% increase, and Ajax, with a 25% increase. People are moving out of Toronto to escape high housing costs but are moving to places farther from employment centres and public transit. This is Canada's richest city, and there is nothing in the budget that acknowledges this as a reality. After 10 years, the current government still does not understand cities.

It does not understand that, with 80% of Canadians living in cities, a federal budget must address the realities of urban life in Canada. This year there will be $3 billion given back to the wealthier few in the form of income splitting and nothing to address the pressing need for public transit. In fact, there will be more than $6 billion given back in income-splitting tax returns before a single new federal penny gets invested in public transit.

Even then, in the third year out, the Conservative government proposes that we start up the gentlest of inclines to meaningful dollars, dollars caught up in the red tape and bureaucracy of their mandatory P3 scheme. However, on the issue of housing, there is not even a recognition of need. Long-term operating agreements that provide housing subsidies to more than 600,000 households in Canada will continue to expire. In Toronto, where 45% of renters cannot afford the homes they live in, there has been virtually no growth in new purpose-built rental housing since 2006.

In Toronto, while 90,000 households, which is about 200,000 or so people, sit on a waiting list for affordable housing, only 260 new units opened up in 2013. There is nothing in this budget to remedy or ameliorate this situation. If this budget were worthy of being called an economic action plan, it would surely address the set of economic circumstances at the heart of my riding in Beaches—East York, where a Target store has shut down leaving nearly 200 workers without jobs.

The history of that site tells a story about the neglect of urban economies by not just the current government but by successive federal governments over a long period of time. The Target store started its life out as a Ford auto plant. Its workers were the highest paid factory workers in the British empire. A prosperous east end of Toronto was built on jobs like that. However, over time we have seen those kinds of jobs slip away.

The auto plant gave way to high-end, unionized retail, an Eaton's store, then to a Zellers store, but still with a unionized staff, and finally to a Target store, a foreign-owned, non-union discount retailer that has now picked up stakes, leaving an enormous hole in the centre of this community, a community where over a third live below the poverty line, with an unemployment rate that is double Toronto's, and with an expansive shadow economy as people desperately seek survival jobs in Canada's richest city. The finance minister promised every assistance to those who lost their jobs in the Target chain.

However, he could not write a budget that would make a meaningful difference to circumstances like these. He could not write a budget that even hinted at some hope for change. This is a government for the very few, for the wealthier few. It writes budgets, as it always has, for its own electoral constituency and leaves the rest of Canada out. What is most troubling is that it is a government that is blind to urban Canada, to the communities in which 80% of Canadians live.

It fails to see and address the challenges of Canadian cities, and it fails to see and harness the great potential of Canadian cities and the people who live in them. It fails as a government, and this document fails as an economic action plan for Canada. Mr. Adam Vaughan (Trinity—Spadina, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's story and heard many of the stories that define the riding I represent not too far away. The question I have for the member is this. We heard earlier today from the Conservative side that there is transit money in Toronto, specifically with respect to the Sheppard subway.

I am curious as to whether or not the NDP would sustain that investment and would continue to spend the $625 million of federal money earmarked for that project on the Sheppard subway.

(1220) Mr. Matthew Kellway : Mr. Speaker, the NDP understands the need of all cities right across the country, big and small, for federal transit funding. The NDP recognizes the critical place that cities hold in the economy of our country. It recognizes that public transit is critical infrastructure from an environmental, economic and social perspective to the 80% of Canadians who live in urban communities.

It is our intention to ensure that the federal government does its share to ensure that cities across the country get the funding required to build public transit to serve the people of those cities and to serve the economies of those cities. Most certainly, we will be increasing transit funding over what the current government proposes to do when we form government. [ Translation ] Ms. Charmaine Borg (Terrebonne—Blainville, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his speech.

He painted a very clear picture of what is in this budget, which will help just a small percentage of Canadians—the wealthiest 15%, who do not need help—even as the middle class is having a harder and harder time making ends meet. I know that public transit is a very important issue to my colleague, the member for Beaches—East York . I represent a riding that is pretty much a suburb, but we have a growing need for public transit too. The budget addresses the urgent need for investment in public transit, which the NDP brought forward. However, it involves public-private partnerships.

I see problems with that funding formula. I would like him to comment on that and explain what it means for him and the city he represents. [ English ] Mr. Matthew Kellway : Mr. Speaker, the issue of the funding formula for public transit in this budget is a very curious one in light of the government's proclamations that it respects the jurisdictions of other levels of government.

The government is imposing, through the public transit funding, when that funding finally comes through in three years, a funding mechanism that will require that cities engage in private-public partnerships to build their public transit. It ought to be left to cities, and the citizens of those cities, to determine the best way to build the transit they require. The government ought not to be imposing on cities a funding mechanism. Councillors and mayors of many cities who I talk to are struggling under the mandatory PPP screen that already exists for infrastructure.

It imposes enormous administrative burdens on cities for which the federal government does not pay. It delays money getting out so the infrastructure can actually be built. It is similar to the same disrespect the government has for other funding obligations it imposes on cities across the country. It has decided in its wisdom to amend the regulations to waste water treatment. The implications of that are $18 billion of required capital expenditures that will have to be borne by municipalities across the country. These are not insignificant amounts.

They are enormous amounts of money that the government has imposed on municipalities with absolutely no support. Metro Vancouver will have to pay $1.5 billion in order to implement these new regulations. For Halifax, it is almost $1 billion; Cape Breton, $423 million; Montreal, Quebec, over $1 billion; and so on and so forth. For smaller communities, these become incredibly onerous per capita charges.

For the town of Burgeo, Newfoundland, whose member is sitting directly in front of me, the per capita cost is somewhere between $24,000 and $27,000 to implement these waste water treatment regulations, with absolutely no support from the federal government for those municipalities. [ Translation ] Ms. Christine Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the budget before us shows the real lack of vision of the Conservative government and the Liberal governments before it. They put all their eggs in one basket and missed the boat on economic diversification.

The budget before us will mostly help the wealthy. Just look at the increase in the TFSA limit, which is going from $5,500 to $10,000 a year. The vast majority of Canadians do use the TFSA, but the vast majority of people do not even reach the current ceiling of $5,500 a year. This increase will benefit only the wealthiest Canadians. Just look at income splitting. Not only does this measure benefit only the wealthiest 15%, but it is also a regressive measure that might encourage women to stay home instead of going to work be