13091 OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 202 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Tuesday, April 28, 2015 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES April 28, 2015 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 202 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 202 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 202 (Version officielle) 147 202 28 04 2015 2015/04/28 10:05:00 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 ] Auditor General of Canada The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : I have the honour to lay upon the table the spring 2015 report of the Auditor General of Canada, pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)( g ). This document is deemed to have been permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

Committees of the House Health Mr. Ben Lobb (Huron—Bruce, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the tenth report of the Standing Committee on Health, entitled “The Statutory Review of the Pest Control Products Act, 2015”.

Petitions Public Safety Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present two petitions. The first petition relates to the bill currently before this House, Bill C-51 . Petitioners from Saanich—Gulf Islands as well as Whitehorse and Mississauga wish this House to reject Bill C-51 as a dangerous bill that intrudes on constitutional rights.

The Environment Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from residents of Saanich—Gulf Islands who are concerned about the proposal for what is described as the northern gateway pipeline. The petitioners call on this House to ensure that support for this project from the Conservative administration be withdrawn. Mr. Kennedy Stewart (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition to the Government of Canada on the proposed Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion of the new pipeline running from Edmonton to Burnaby.

The signatories object to this pipeline and ask the Government of Canada to immediately act to prevent this new oil pipeline from proceeding through Burnaby. The reasons are numerous. For example, the petitioners state that the pipeline would only create 50 permanent full-time jobs and would most likely be built using temporary foreign workers. Also they are upset that this new pipeline would not bring oil to be refined in British Columbia or be sold to Canadian consumers but instead would be shipped by tanker to foreign markets.

Public Transit Ms. Rathika Sitsabaiesan (Scarborough—Rouge River, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise to present petitions on behalf of constituents in Scarborough—Rouge River who understand the struggles because of gridlock and the importance of the creation of a public transit strategy nationally in this country. Canada is the only OECD country that does not have a national public transit strategy, and it is estimated that over the next five years, there will be an $18-billion gap in transit infrastructure needs.

The petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to enact a Canada public transit strategy that seeks to provide permanent investments to support public transit; to establish federal funding mechanisms for sustainable, predictable, long-term, adequate funding for public transit; and to ensure that all levels of government are working together.

Gender Selection Mr. Leon Benoit (Vegreville—Wainwright, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present today. Two of them are on gender selection abortion. The petitioners call for equal treatment for males and females before birth, asking that the practice of aborting those fetuses determined to be female because they are female be ended.

Human Rights Mr. Leon Benoit (Vegreville—Wainwright, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the third petition is with regard to displaced Christians in Iraq. The petitioners call on our government to continue to pay careful attention and to do what we can to help displaced Christians in Iraq.

Palliative Care Mr. Marc Garneau (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, this petition deals with palliative care. Recognizing that hospice and palliative care is an essential component of national health systems, the petitioners ask the Government of Canada to call for the inclusion of hospice and palliative care in the United Nations' sustainable development goals.

Dementia Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition today from dozens of residents of the Lower Mainland of British Columbia from Delta, Richmond, Surrey, and Burnaby. These petitioners call on the Minister of Health and the House of Commons to pass Bill C-356 , sponsored by the member of Parliament for Nickel Belt , to put in place a national dementia strategy, including a comprehensive national plan to address all aspects of Alzheimer's disease and to ensure that we have national objectives to fight what for many people is one of the profound health issues in our country.

Questions on the Order Paper Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : 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 and of the amendment. Ms. Rathika Sitsabaiesan (Scarborough—Rouge River, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, from the outset I would like to let you know that I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Hochelaga . I am very grateful for the opportunity to speak today on this budget and on the NDP amendment.

So many times in the House we have seen the movement of closure and time allocation, so I have not been able to speak on all of the motions and bills before the House, and I am very grateful that I have this opportunity today. In an age of growing inequality, it seems that the Conservatives just want to help accelerate it. In Scarborough, my office hears about the need for jobs, the need for affordable and reliable transit, and the need for fairer immigration policies, among many other issues. Across Canada, communities are struggling to cope with major job losses. In Scarborough, we are a fast-growing community.

In 2011, there were about 616,000 people living in Scarborough. As an area, our average household income is below the provincial average, and so is per capita income. There are many people struggling to make ends meet in our community. We have many small and medium-sized businesses that are the real job creators. We have been waiting for a budget that meets our needs and priorities, but frankly, this is not the budget we need. Canada's economy is not strong without a strong middle class, and Scarborough is home to many in the middle class.

From this budget, it is clear that the Conservatives either do not understand the realities of middle-class Canadians or just do not care. Instead of taking action to help Canadians get ahead, the Conservatives are stubbornly pushing their schemes that would help only the richest 15% of Canadians. The Conservatives simply do not understand the priorities of Scarborough and the priorities of Toronto. This region has lost hundreds of thousands of good manufacturing jobs, yet the Conservatives have offered the bare minimum of support for manufacturing and have failed to build a balanced economy.

Toronto alone has lost 24,600 jobs in the last six months and nearly 100,000 manufacturing jobs since the Prime Minister took office. The Conservatives have failed to build a balanced economy that works for our city. Looking at the budget, it is clear that it would not address our city's looming affordable housing crisis either. It would fail to extend funding for social housing. The $150 million in the budget would not address the scope of the challenges facing our cities. Right now, there are 167,022 people on the City of Toronto's affordable housing wait list.

Our city is committed to working on social housing, but it needs federal support to meet this glaring need. However, something we do see in this budget is the government's income-splitting scheme, which the former finance minister, Mr. Flaherty, strongly opposed. Financial experts have warned that 85% of Canadians would get nothing at all from the Conservatives' income-splitting scheme, yet this is what the government has put forward. This wasteful and unfair policy would take billions from middle-class Canadians, who need the help the most, and hand it over to the richest 15%.

This makes no sense at all when one in two Canadians lives paycheque to paycheque and countless others work full time but still fall below the poverty line. For ten long years of the Conservative government, we have seen billions dumped into tax giveaways to the largest corporations and tax loopholes for CEO salaries. With rising inflation rates and storm clouds looming for our economy, most of us would not benefit from this income-splitting scheme, which is really there just for the wealthy few, or from the doubling of the TFSA limit, or from the tax loopholes for CEOs. These would not benefit most Canadians.

Where are the measures in this budget that support middle-class Canadians? We know that people are going to need strong supports if this storm materializes and our economy faces a further downturn. We could benefit from closing the tax loopholes to fund the recent commitment to eliminate child poverty. My motion to eliminate child poverty was supported almost unanimously here in the House, but we do not really see any measures in this budget that work toward that goal.

Unfortunately, this budget continues the $700-million loophole for CEOs to avoid paying taxes on stock options, forcing ordinary Canadians to pay more. We could provide a helping hand for parents looking for child care, return the retirement age to 65 from 67 for Canadian seniors, and create a $15 minimum wage so that people have more money in their pockets and support they can rely on.

(1010) I must mention some of the victories, which are measures that are actually good in this budget. I am pleased to see that NDP proposals, which the Conservative government voted down in the House already, have now, of course, shown up in the budget. These are measures such as decreasing taxes on small businesses, increasing the time working Canadians dedicate to caring for their ill loved ones, stimulus for investment in manufacturing, and extending basic workplace protections for interns.

I am also glad to see the government act on the NDP proposal to extend the accelerated capital cost allowance for manufacturing investments and new equipment. It is great that any of the positive measures in this budget are really all NDP proposals. This demonstrates to Canadians that clearly we are ready to be the government and should just write the entire budget next time around. Small businesses have watched their tax rate drop 1% since the Conservatives took office, to 11% from 12%, while watching the corporate tax rate drop 7%, from 22% to now 15%, which included a now defunct surtax, over the same period.

This budget proposes to drop the small business tax rate by 2% by 2019, which is exactly what the NDP had proposed, but the Conservative government voted against it. It would bring the tax rate for small and medium-sized enterprises from 11% to 9%. Nevertheless, it is good to see the government adopting another NDP proposal. We also believe in extending basic workplace protections for interns, and I commend the government for supporting this NDP initiative also. Again, I wonder why the government just recently voted down the same measures in my New Democrat colleague's private member's bill, but it is what it is.

The Conservatives have brought forward the NDP proposal for seniors for registered retirement income funds, RRIFs, and have reduced the amount seniors must withdraw from their RRIFs so that they are not forced to deplete dangerous amounts of their savings. However, the Conservatives have broken their word to seniors on pensions, and this budget shows no sign of their changing course. The current government plans to raise the retirement age for old age security from 65 to 67, and the Conservatives have blocked progress to boost CPP and QPP benefits.

Finally, the budget accepts the long-time NDP proposal on the employment insurance compassionate care benefit that would extend it from six weeks to six months, which will begin in January 2016. I am very happy to see another NDP initiative brought forward in this budget. However, I would be remiss if I did not mention at this point that access to employment insurance has dropped to historic lows following cuts by the current Conservative government, leaving many Canadians unemployed and unable to get the support they need. Sadly, this budget does nothing to ameliorate that situation.

I also believe that this budget is short-sighted at a time when Canada needs vision. What are we passing on or leaving behind to future generations? The Conservatives plan to double the annual contribution limit for the tax-free savings account to $10,000. This is another unfair scheme that only helps the rich. Most Canadians can only dream of those kinds of savings. Worse yet, this measure will cost Canadians $20 billion over the next four decades. The response from the Minister of Finance that our grandchildren will deal the problem is simply unacceptable.

It is not responsible to burden our grandchildren with this $20-billion problem just because this government wants to create another venue for their wealthy friends to put away more money. I wish the Minister of Finance thought of the vast majority of people living in Toronto who just cannot afford to part with $10,000 every year. According to one of the new reports from the Metcalf Foundation, authored by one of my constituents, John Stapleton, on the working poor, 63 of Toronto's census tracts show an increase in working poverty rates between 2006 and 2012, while only 14 show a decrease.

In 2012, the report noted, there was a major deepening of the incidence of working poverty in census tracts for the northern parts of Toronto, representing a constituency that is only north Scarborough. This is very concerning for me and the constituents I represent. I would have liked to have had more time to go through more issues, such as gridlock and more instances of poverty. I hope someone will follow up with that in the questions and answers.

(1015) [ Translation ] Mr. Pierre Nantel (Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Scarborough—Rouge River on her speech, which pertained directly to her community and raised very specific things about this budget that we condemn, namely, the fact that this government's priorities are completely out of touch with the reality of Canada's middle class. The government seems to have stolen its ideas from our platform—yes, we are prepared to take office—even though we have to admit that those ideas will benefit Canadians.

What is more, our ideas seem to be the only good things about this budget. Could my colleague elaborate on that? (1020) [ English ] Ms. Rathika Sitsabaiesan : Mr. Speaker, my colleague is right. Any of the good initiatives that we see in the budget are strictly taken from NDP proposals that we have made public over the last many years and which we have been working on for many years. It adds to the proof that when we combine all budgets at the federal, provincial and territorial levels, the NDP has balanced the budget more often than any other party.

The Conservatives are now promising balanced budget legislation but those are just words coming out of their mouths. As usual they are saying, “Please, believe us. We are going to do better”. Our country deserves better. That is what the NDP is doing. We are going to continue fighting for Canadians. The presentation of this budget goes to prove that the NDP is the only party that is standing up and fighting for middle-class Canadians. New Democrats are ready to form government. We are ready to write the budget next time around. [ Translation ] Ms. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet (Hochelaga, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, my colleague would have liked to speak about infrastructure and public transit, but she did not have the chance to do so. I would like to give her that opportunity because I think she agrees with me that the budget is seriously lacking when it comes to infrastructure and public transit, particularly for a city such as Toronto. [ English ] Ms. Rathika Sitsabaiesan : Mr. Speaker, gridlock costs Canadian cities billions of dollars each year. Earlier, I presented a petition which says that Canada is the only OECD country that does not have a national public transit strategy.

We know there will be a gap of $18 billion over the next five years with respect to infrastructure needs. The NDP proposed a bold urban plan for permanent, stable and predictable funding for public transit. The Conservatives talk the gridlock game, but they do not really do anything. Their scheme is filled with so much red tape that the municipalities will not even be able to get their hands on the money they desperately need to invest in our crumbling cities. In Toronto, bridges and roads are crumbling and are literally falling on top of cars that are driving below them.

In Scarborough, we are so reliant on buses in our community. In Scarborough—Rouge River and north Scarborough we are reliant on surface level buses only. The Conservatives are continuing to leave people in Scarborough waiting on the streets for buses. Mr. Marc Garneau (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's comments today, most of which I agree with. One of the things we in the Liberal Party have noticed concerning the budget is the total lack of focus on something that is incredibly important, which is economic growth. As we know, in January our economy actually contracted.

We heard the Governor of the Bank of Canada's comment about an atrocious start to the year. The CIBC said that we have the worst job quality in 25 years. The numbers are still pretty high on unemployment. What would the NDP propose in terms of growth? I know New Democrats consider it to be an important aspect of the budget. Ms. Rathika Sitsabaiesan : Mr. Speaker, we know that the economic growth projections have actually been downgraded. The budget is balanced in 2015, but persistent weak economic growth has dramatically reduced the expected surpluses.

The Minister of Finance touts that there will be a surplus and that he is investing it in communities and our seniors, but really we do not see that. We need to make sure that we are investing in our small and medium-sized enterprises even more. The government has continued to give away tax breaks and create loopholes for the large, already profitable corporations and CEOs instead of actually investing in our small and medium-sized businesses that are the economic engines of our local communities and the ones that are really creating jobs in our communities.

The Conservatives are not really investing in them. [ Translation ] Ms. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet (Hochelaga, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, once again, I am disappointed with the budget the government has presented. I thought that in an election year, the Conservative government might throw people who are less fortunate a bone to try to win their votes. However, much to my dismay, the 2015-16 budget offers them nothing. In reality, I am not surprised. Those people are not the Conservatives' target demographic.

Again today, I am going to talk about issues that are very important to me and were overlooked in the budget: housing and homelessness. I want to set the record straight right away on the fight against homelessness. The word “homelessness” appears only three times in Canada's economic action plan for 2015, and in all three cases, the budget refers to announcements that have already been made. The Conservatives are just repeating old announcements that were made two years ago and were not even good news then.

The first mention is to remind Canadians that in 2013, the government renewed only part of the funding for homelessness. Personally, if I had made cuts to an already insufficient amount of funding two years ago, I would not remind everyone of what I had done. The other two instances where the word “homelessness” appears remind Canadians that the government unilaterally changed the way the homelessness partnering strategy works, to focus on the housing first approach.

Since this approach was adopted at the time of the last call for proposals, it has become clear that directing all the funding to one area has had serious consequences: many groups that provide front-line services are realizing that they will no longer be eligible for funding that they have been receiving for years now. Many essential services provided to the homeless through a variety of approaches, including prevention measures, are simply disappearing. How short-sighted this government is being. It would have been better if the Minister of Finance had said nothing at all, rather than rubbing salt in the wound.

I would now like to shift the discussion to housing, a subject that is extremely important to the NDP, although clearly, it is not something that the Conservatives put much thought into. Through some accounting gymnastics and by manipulating numbers and language, the Minister of Finance tried to make it look like he was actually following through on what the NDP has been calling for for years, implying he would stop cuts to social housing when the long-term agreements between social housing providers and CMHC expire.

Let us set the record straight: no new funding for social housing has been announced, beyond what had already been invested in previous years, and I think the budget has even been cut. I will come back to that in a bit. The budget plays with words and throws numbers around to create confusion among housing groups. However, some of those groups are beginning to realize the extent of the trickery and have contacted my office to confirm their fears.

In addition, as recently as last Friday, FRAPRU used social media to send the message that contrary to what most people thought they read in the federal budget presented last Tuesday, there are no new investments to maintain the $1.7 billion in funding in the long term. This funding helps subsidize 568,600 social housing units in Canada, including 125,500 in Quebec. I cannot believe a Canadian government would stoop so low. The estimates in table 4.2.1 of the budget speak for themselves.

The only new amount is $150 million in relief over four years to allow co-operative and non-profit social housing providers to prepay long-term, non-renewable mortgages held with Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation without penalty. Many of those mortgages were taken out at interest rates in the neighbourhood of 20%. This will enable providers to undertake necessary renovations or help their lowest-income tenants. This ministerial decision too is at least two years old. I supported the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada's call for this and hounded the ministers about it a few years ago.

Finally those groups were successful. Imagine this: when a social housing provider wanted to negotiate a mortgage with a credit union, for example, at the best interest rate on the market, CMHC forced them to pay a penalty equalling the total residual interest, which was a huge sum of money. The $150 million the government is offering to help groups get out of their mortgages without paying that penalty was framed as an investment, but I think it is actually a cut. When the minister made that decision several years ago, no cap was set.

(1025) Now, we are talking about a maximum of $150 million over four years, which will not be available for another year and will be broken down as follows: $50 million in 2016-17, $50 million in 2017-18, $25 million 2018-19, and $25 million in 2019-20. What happens if this is not enough money to help all the social housing groups that want to break their mortgage with CMHC without paying the penalty? As I was saying, there never used to be a limit. Now, there will be a maximum of $50 million for the next two years and a maximum of $25 million for the following two years.

This seems more like funding cuts than new funding. There is tremendous need for housing across the country. Twenty-five years from now, the $1.7 billion allocated to social housing will have completely disappeared. The 570,000 social housing units and as many families currently receiving federal funding might end up in hot water. What is more, according to the most conservative estimates, more than 300,000 housing units are in jeopardy in Canada. I have a few tangible examples of the repercussions of the Conservatives' inaction on social housing.

In my riding, Hochelaga , Carole Parent, a resident of the Odyssée housing co-operative, whose long-term agreement is ending in the next few months, will see her currently affordable rent go up by $200 a month. Ms. Parent is unable to hold a job because of her physical condition, and she cannot afford to pay this new rent. What is she to do? What do the Conservatives have to offer other people across Canada who, like Ms.

Parent, will no longer be able to pay their rent when their social housing provider is no longer able to subsidize them and will have to increase the rent? (1030) [ English ] I have another example, but this time in Ontario. In 2013, the executive director of the Native People of Sudbury Development Corporation came to me to testify about a situation that occurred in his community. That October, two Sudbury families had to move out of their apartments because their rent had jumped from less than $400 a month to more than $900 a month.

The housing provider had to rent the apartments at market price in order to pay the bills. That meant the loss of two more social housing units. Those are just a few examples of what is happening right now, and the worst is yet to come. [ Translation ] The government continues to repeat the same scripted lines to the effect that their budget is a good thing for those less well off.

Instead of announcing measures that will only benefit a small part of the population, Canada's rich, the federal government could easily help low-income families and make life more affordable for the middle class by ensuring that housing is actually affordable in Canada. Investing in social housing by spending the amounts saved when the long-term agreements expired on maintaining rent subsidies for families in need, helping social housing providers pay for renovations and contributing to the construction of new units would at least be a start that would not affect the current budget.

When we, the NDP, win the next election and form the Government of Canada, we will work with the provinces, territories, municipalities, first nations, housing providers and groups in civil society to achieve that goal. We have to ensure that everyone has adequate, affordable and sustainable housing. Housing is an important determinant of health. Money spent on housing is an economic and social investment. In the medium term, it would reduce government spending on health, public safety and justice.

Truly affordable housing where tenants and owners would not have to spend more than 30% of their income on shelter would allow them to invest in other sectors of the economy by buying better quality food or a public transit pass to go to work, or by investing in their children's education. Canada is a party to international treaties recognizing that housing is a right. We must now put words into action. Cities and communities across Canada need the federal government to be a stable and long-term partner in housing. Mr. Marc Garneau (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague.

She focused primarily on social housing, which is extremely important, but I know that homelessness is also important to her, and it is to me as well. I would like to ask her what she thinks about the government's attitude towards the homelessness partnering strategy. The government does not seem to realize that homelessness will, tragically, be around for many years. In fact, the problem is even growing. Furthermore, the agencies that work in this area and could help the homeless need predictable, long-term funding instead of last-minute, piecemeal funding.

Of course, this would require a good relationship between the provincial and federal governments. They need to talk to each other. What does my colleague think about homelessness and long-term funding to combat homelessness?

(1035) Ms. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question on an issue that is close to my heart. As I said earlier, in budget 2013, the Conservatives renewed the budget for the homelessness partnering strategy, but they reduced the amount. The budget had not been indexed since it was created, which means that the budget had been going down and then it was actually cut in 2013. There is not enough money. Then, the Conservatives came up with the new housing first approach. I completely agree that we need more housing. I mentioned that.

However, this approach only helps one group of people: people who are in desperate need of housing and who experience chronic or episodic homelessness. The approach does absolutely nothing to address hidden homelessness or to prevent homelessness. This is a short-term vision, since the budget was renewed for five years instead of for a longer period. Furthermore, if we give food to people who have to choose between paying the rent and paying for food, for example, we could prevent them from ending up on the street. We must not wait for people to end up on the street before we provide assistance.

It shows our humanity when we help prevent people from ending up on the street instead of helping them only after they are already there. Mr. Dany Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, as the voice of the people of Chicoutimi—Le Fjord in Ottawa, I would like to quote Sonia Côté, coordinator at Loge m'entraide, an organization that represents low-income people who are looking for affordable housing. In response to the federal budget, Ms.

Côté said: This is another slap in the face from the [Prime Minister's] government to poor tenants who, over the next few years, will lose the subsidies that currently allow them to spend 25% of their income on housing. Overlooking them like this is a totally inhumane thing to do. In light of Ms. Côté's expertise in the area of affordable housing, does my NDP colleague agree with what she said? Ms. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet : Mr. Speaker, Ms. Côté, much like Mr. Saillant from FRAPRU, is in a very good position to know what is happening on the ground.

Every time I ask the Minister of State for Social Development a question about the agreements expiring, I get the same answer. She tells me that the agreements have expired and that these groups should be able to help people who cannot afford to spend more than 25% to 30% of their income on housing. However, this does not reflect the reality. Expenses have gone up faster than incomes. There are a number of housing co-operatives, for example, that are currently in a very difficult financial situation. We have had to download this onto the provinces.

In its most recent budget, the Quebec government, for instance, offered assistance to groups whose funding is expiring, but only for two years. Is that what the federal government wants to do? It is in a much better position to support housing than the provincial governments are. It is absolutely critical that the federal government do not abandon its support for social housing. [ English ] Mr. Dean Allison (Niagara West—Glanbrook, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am certainly honoured to rise in the House today to speak to the budget, economic action plan 2015.

Before I get started, I want to indicate that I will be splitting my time with the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo , who has graciously let me go first so I can get to a committee meeting that I must chair. Each year, we gather in this House as a matter of tradition and obligation to recognize the importance of planning and of creating the conditions that ensure that this country will continue to be the greatest place in the world to live and to work. I can assure members that this country is the greatest place in the world to live and to work.

Time and again, we are confronted with the challenges of uncertainty, risk, and change. This year, our way of life and security was threatened, presenting us with a new, albeit equally important, challenge. I am proud to stand behind a government that has consistently responded to all of these challenges with the same quality leadership.

In this year's budget, we continue to exhibit the leadership Canadians deserve by staying true to the principles that put us in government in the first place: supporting hard-working Canadian families, supporting small business, and consistently daring to innovate and grow our economy in ways that make Canada a world leader. Today, I will spend the time I have, speaking about these three parts of the budget and how they combine to offer a strong vision for what this great nation can be in 2015 and in the years to come.

Supporting hard-working Canadian families is where my journey as a member of Parliament began and it is where I begin today. Central to my values is a belief in the importance of community and the importance of family. One of the unique aspects of this country rests in the Canadian family unit. Moms and dads working equally hard to pay for daycare, put their oldest through another year of university, pay for activities like hockey and dance, and eventually pay off the mortgage on their first home make up a snapshot of what it means to raise a family here in Canada.

I know that raising a family is hard work, and I believe that any investment in Canada's future means investing in ways to help our Canadian families. Simply put, measures introduced by our government in this budget would make life more affordable for every single Canadian family with children across this country. Increasing and expanding the universal child care benefit, or the UCCB, to provide every family in Canada with an additional $720 per child under the age of 18, and introducing the family tax credit, are two out of many ways in which we plan to help support raising a family here in Canada.

All in all, this budget would ensure that the average Canadian family of four gains average benefits of more than $6,600 every year. One of the most important aspects of these benefits is that every single Canadian family would receive them. Part of why I am so proud to stand here in the House today in support of the economic action plan 2015 comes from this budget's recognition that no two families have the exact same needs.

It is through accepting this reality that we as a government have taken seriously our duty to introduce programs and policies in the 2015 budget that would help all families and would leave the most important decisions to the true experts, which happen to be moms and dads. Great examples of such programs lie in our continued support for benefits such as the children's arts tax credit and the children's fitness tax credit, which promote the importance of arts and fitness programming among children through credits of up to $500 and $1,000 respectively.

Additional programs such as the first-time home buyers' tax credit, the expanded home buyers' plan, and the public transit tax credit would help Canadian families with the process of buying or building their first home. No matter what stage a family is at or where it needs most help in shouldering its expenses, this government has made it clear that it will be there for Canadian parents and their kids.

Building on the base of the family, this government has committed a great number of resources in this year's action plan to provide communities across Canada with the infrastructure and support they need to continue providing the high quality of life that Canadians should expect. The new building Canada fund is a key example of one of these investments to the community, earmarking $5.35 billion per year for provincial, territorial, and municipal infrastructure.

Another is the creation of the new public transit fund that would ramp up to $1 billion a year to reduce urban congestion and gridlock in Canada's largest and dynamic cities. It is one example that comes to mind. Under the $33 billion building Canada fund launched in 2007, we supported more than 12,000 infrastructure projects from coast to coast to coast, and we would continue to support projects that make up our communities' great spaces in which to raise families. To me, part of taking pride in the strength and the resilience of community is tied to taking pride in the businesses that are rooted in communities.

Making up over 90% of Canadian businesses and employing two-thirds of all Canadians, small businesses are an essential part of what makes our Canadian communities so great and unique. Our communities grow, and this is something I have believed to be true for my riding since first being elected in 2004.

(1040) This government believes in small businesses, and therefore wants them to not only grow but prosper and triumph. That is why, since forming government, we have reduced the small business tax load by almost 50%, and in this budget we would continue to invest in small-business owners throughout this nation. Part of this investment is through our slashing EI premiums for small businesses through our small business job credit.

This credit would be effective for two years, beginning in 2015, and available to employers paying $15,000 or less per year in EI premiums, so that is approximately $570,000 in EI assessable payroll in Canada. The net result of applying this credit would be a 15% reduction in employment insurance premiums paid by small businesses over the next two years and roughly $0.5 billion in savings from small firms and payroll tax cuts. The CFIB has commended measures like these that make it easier to hire new workers or invest in additional training to help Canadian entrepreneurs grow their businesses.

Feedback such this drives our government to work even harder to help small businesses where we can.

In this year's budget we continue to commit to the following: reducing the small business tax rate from 11% to 9% by 2019, allowing small businesses to do what they do best, invest in their companies and create jobs; improving access to financing for Canadian small businesses under the Canada small business financing program, which since 2006 has provided more than 50,000 loans to help new businesses get started and expand; increasing access to venture capital financing to help innovative, high-growth companies grow and create jobs.

Accompanying these measures, this year's budget would enshrine into policy what has been made clear through the Red Tape Reduction Commission in its finding that needless red tape kills jobs and growth for small business. Cutting the red tape burden by eliminating more than 800,000 payroll deduction remittances to the Canada Revenue Agency, made every year by more than 50,000 small businesses, marks a step towards jobs and growth for small business owners.

Pairing this policy with the freeze on EI premiums demonstrates a winning strategy for small businesses and their ability to gain the certainty and flexibility that they need, to continue being key parts of Canada's economic success story. It is measures like these that allow for small businesses to gain support, stay competitive, thrive, and prosper. An important part of leading Canadian small businesses towards paths of success is ensuring that their paths towards success are not stifled by red tape and raising the capital necessary to grow.

It also means, most importantly, investing in the futures of Canadian entrepreneurs. We take seriously the need to invest in tomorrow's best and brightest small business owners by allocating substantial resources to the future of entrepreneurs in Canada. Economic action plan 2015 would support entrepreneurship by investing substantial resources into internships in small business and supporting leaders in the promotion of entrepreneurship, such as the Canada Youth Business Foundation.

By investing $15 million for up to 1,000 post-secondary graduates to intern in small and medium-sized businesses across Canada, and further providing $49 million to the CYBF, this budget would create the supports needed to make sure that Canadian entrepreneurs are part of the unique success story emerging from this great nation post-recession. Strongly tied to entrepreneurship and what is perhaps the most important part of this budget is the vision it articulates for research and innovation.

This budget would make substantial investments in world-class research and innovation by providing more than $1.5 billion in funding over five years to advance the government's renewed science, technology, and innovation strategy. Enshrined in this investment is the belief that the real key to Canada's future prosperity is investing in making Canada a hub for cutting-edge research and innovation. We are currently ranked number one in the G7 for our support for scientific research and development in our colleges, universities, and other research institutes. However, why stop here?

By supporting innovation in our post-secondary institutions and centres of higher learning, we commit towards continuing to foster the sharpest minds when it comes to driving Canadian-made ideas, research, and technologies.

This generation will receive the support it needs to thrive, starting with this budget's commitment to the following: expansive support advanced research infrastructure at universities and colleges through new funding to the Canada Foundation for Innovation; and landmark investment in post-secondary education through the creation of the Canada first research excellence fund, with $1.5 billion over the next decade. These initiatives would combine to create results for all Canadians.

By remaining committed to the principles upon which we were elected, we have created 1.2 million net new jobs since the depths of the downturn and have delivered the lowest overall federal tax burden in over 50 years. Supporting hard-working Canadian families, supporting small business, and consistently daring to innovate and grow our economy in ways that make Canada a world leader represent the road map for this accomplishment, but leadership is what has made this possible.

What separates a simple plan or design from true leadership is the willingness or the wherewithal to innovate and excel above the status quo.

(1045) By putting forward a budget like the economic action plan, we are allowing every Canadian to do what they do best. We are continuing to uphold our commitment to make this great nation the best that it can be in 2015 and the years to come. [ Translation ] Mr. Alain Giguère (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the problem with this budget is that it is the latest in a long line of budgets.

Since Paul Martin, the former Liberal finance minister—I apologize for naming him—in the past 20 years, we have seen a neo-liberal philosophy whose sole policy is to bring in massive tax cuts for the richest in the hope that they will one day invest, that they will one day drive the Canadian economy.

After 20 years of that approach, after the former finance minister, in the final months of his life, pleaded with the wealthiest to stop accumulating wealth and do others a good turn for a change—which they still have not done—it might be time for us to ask ourselves whether it really is a good idea to keep cutting taxes for the rich and sending the bill to the rest of Canadians given the meagre outcomes in terms of investment. (1050) [ English ] Mr. Dean Allison : Mr. Speaker, that pretty much sums up the difference between the NDP and the Conservative Party.

We believe that hard-working families deserve dollars back in their pockets for them to decide how they should spend that money. While there were structural deficits that were happening under the Martin government and the Liberals went a long way to correct that, unfortunately it was done at the expense of education and health care in this country. One of the things that we wanted to do, and we realize it is a fine line, is how do we create incentives for job creators? How do we create a climate for people to invest in this country?

What the NDP sometimes fails to understand is that capital flows around the globe all the time and can be invested wherever people and companies want to invest. Companies are going to invest wherever they think there is the best prospects and where there is the greatest opportunity, where the culture or the climate is best for companies. We firmly believe that more money should go back to families; there is no question about that. We will never apologize for that, because we think that is very important. We will continue to create a climate that fosters job growth, innovation and creativity in this great country.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, budgets are all about priorities. For example, 18 firefighters and seven police officers, on average, die every year in the line of service. There is a public safety officer compensation fund. The annual cost to provide that subsidy to the families of those 25 first responders who die on average every year would be about $7 million. That is actually half the amount that the government is going to be spending on advertising to promote its budget alone. Would the member not agree that budgets are about priorities?

When we think about the millions of tax dollars that are being used to promote this budget, would the money not be better spent by doing what the leader of the Liberal Party indicated yesterday, and supporting the public safety officer compensation fund by giving it $300,000 for those who die in the line of service? Mr. Dean Allison : Mr. Speaker, certainly I know that not only the member's party but all parties in the House support the great work that our first responders do. They play an important

part in the economy. They play an important

part in society. I would point out that it was our government that actually introduced the tax credit for volunteer firefighters in previous budgets. While I understand that is very important, we also understand that families are under unbelievable pressure. That is why we have made sure that not one family will be left behind. Every family will have a chance to participate. That is why we have gone out of our way to make sure that families have resources and tools. That is why we have looked at tax credits for families. It is important when it comes to the arts and to sports.

My mom and dad had me involved in sports. They also had me, unfortunately, in piano lessons. My mother wanted to make sure that I was involved in the arts and my father wanted to make sure that I was involved in sports. This provides a great balance for all families to take advantage of what we have to offer as a government. Mrs. Cathy McLeod (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and for Western Economic Diversification, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it was approximately one week ago that the finance minister stood in this House and delivered economic action plan 2015.

We have all had approximately one week to reflect on what is in the plan. I have read the document in greater detail, and I am coming to realize how accurately this budget reflects a lot of the things that were said to me during our round table, my budget consultation process, in many areas. I am very pleased to be speaking to this budget and reflecting on what it means to the residents of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo . I will speak briefly about a couple of broad themes, but really I want to get into talking about individual families and constituents and what it would mean to them.

I was here in the House as we headed into the global economic recession. I remember the minister of finance of the day saying that we would have stimulus spending that would be temporary in nature and that we would get back to a balanced budget as we did not want to leave a debt for our children. This budget is really a promise made and a promise kept. Another broad subject is supporting jobs and growth. There is a whole host of measures, again in the riding of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo , that I heard directly about in terms of what is important to support.

There is the mining exploration tax credit, the fund around innovation for our forestry sector, the response for technology, responsible resource development, and in particular, LNG, although it is predominantly the accelerated capital cost allowance for the LNG industry to really take hold in British Columbia and will provide enormous benefits. It is not as direct as it is much more north, but we see that there will be tremendous opportunities through that for us. Obviously, ensuring the safety of Canadians is the government's most solemn responsibility.

There are significant and important measures in place for that. Helping families and communities prosper is where I really want to focus some important comments. I will do this by providing examples. I think the New Democrats need to hear that this is not about supporting families that are rich, that this is about supporting everyday Canadians who work hard and try to move ahead in their lives. My first example is a young adult whose name is Ali. She graduated from university two and a half years ago.

From when she was very young she had always been told by her father to put away 10% of anything she earned, whether it was babysitting money, money from her first job after graduation, or money from her first career opportunity. She is 25 years old now and her tax-free savings account is sitting at $10,000. This is an enormous achievement, because she paid herself first and then looked at the things that she wanted next. This year her employer offered her a bonus for work accomplished and she was able to move ahead of what she had planned for her contribution.

That extra bonus will be moved right into her TFSA and it will be tax free. All of us recognize that right now it is very hard for our savings to move forward because of the interest rates. We all talk about how Canadians need to save more, but we also look at the interest rates and how hard it is to have our savings grow. When the government takes a portion of that every time, it makes it that much more difficult. This is one person. This is not a person who is rich, but while she does not make an awful lot of money, she will exceed the $5,000 limit this year because she has savings from paying herself first.

My next example is again from my riding. Peter is in his 40s and is married. They have three children who are all above the age of five. In this case, the mother is working full time to support the family and the father has chosen to home-school his children. They live in a rural area. The father is home-schooling, and he has a small agricultural business on the side.

(1055) We can imagine that if a family has predominantly one income and three busy children, it is a little tough to make ends meet. In their particular case, the expansion to the universal child care benefit to now include their three children between the ages of five and eighteen is going to make an enormous difference. The family tax cut is also going to make an enormous difference, with his wife working and him making not as much income. In their case, the changes to the child expense are not going to make a difference.

What is happening is that their tax money is not going to pay for services that they are not going to have, such as a bureaucratic program that very few people have access to. Again, it speaks to leaving the money in the pockets of Canadians. In this particular case, there is something else that is important to recognize. People frequently ask who can afford $10,000, and that only the rich can afford $10,000. In this case, they were given a small inheritance. Some money was given to them.

They have not really been able to save for the future, given their circumstances, so they have chosen to have a tax-free savings account. Although they maybe could not put in $10,000 every year, they could take that $40,000 that is coming to them and put it in between the space that they have. It will be an enormous benefit. Again, this is not a family that is rich. This is a family that is very prudent and is working very hard. My final example is with respect to seniors, a couple in their late 70s. They owned a small business. They partnered in a small business all of their lives.

There was no pension plan for them. They have the old age security and they have the money they put aside during their working years in order to give them a retirement that they were comfortable with. They had a huge challenge during the time of the recession, because they had to make fairly high mandatory withdrawals from their RRIFs. That provided a real challenge for them in terms of how they were going to support themselves in the future. Again, for them, there are the changes to the RRIF.

Many people came into my office to talk about how they would really appreciate some increased flexibility in their registered retirement income funds. I am really pleased to see that. There is another item that is of enormous benefit. One of the spouses is beginning to have some significant mobility issues. They have had to adapt their washroom facilities. The home accessibility tax credit is something that is significant.

First of all, what we see in these three examples are everyday Canadians who are working hard and saving money, and who are going to see an enormous benefit from the changes that we have made in our policy, by keeping taxes low and keeping money in their pockets. In the end, it might actually save our system some additional money in terms of how we are supporting Canadians in their homes. Another important element of this budget that speaks to hearts and something that I see in my constituency is the compassionate care benefit.

There is the ability for family members to take time to be with their loved ones, not for six weeks, but for six months. I could take a lot more time to talk about this particular budget and the elements that I believe are going to be particularly effective in supporting the riding of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. Mostly, this budget is a budget that would be good for communities and would be good for people. They are not rich financially, but they are rich in being able to live in the greatest country in the world, and rich in terms of their life and opportunities.

I am very pleased to see this budget, and I look forward to all parties supporting it. (1100) [ Translation ] Mr. Pierre-Luc Dusseault (Sherbrooke, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to ask my colleague a question. She provided some examples of typical families that might benefit from her budget. I would like her to comment further on the higher tax-free savings account limit. That limit is now $5,000, and the government would like to double it. Many experts, tax experts and economists have said that this will benefit only the wealthiest.

I would like her to tell us about a typical family in her riding that will benefit from that additional $5,000. What typical middle-class family has enough money to benefit from being allowed to put an additional $5,000 in a tax-free savings account? (1105) [ English ] Mrs. Cathy McLeod : Mr. Speaker, we know that the majority of people who have money in the tax-free savings account, apparently 60% of them who have middle and lower incomes, are contributing the full amount. I gave two very important examples.

Perhaps there are a number of years where a middle-class family cannot contribute but has space and receives a small inheritance. That is one example where it is an enormous benefit. Maybe in one year the family would contribute $40,000. I also gave another example of a middle-income single person who has made a commitment to save 10%. Making $50,000 a year and receiving a small raise, that individual would have more flexibility. Again, this is important for Canadians to do.

We talk frequently about concerns regarding Canadians saving enough and this is an enormous benefit in terms of people being able to take advantage of saving their hard-earned money. Hon. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, this morning I attended a big thinking conference that the Federation for the Humanities and Social Sciences put on for many of us on Parliament Hill. It was with great sadness that what the professor produced for all of us in attendance was that prior to Conservatives taking power in 2006, when it came to the 15 OECD countries, Canada placed third.

Today, Canada is 14th out of 15 countries when it comes to providing the various services, and so on, that Canadians need. Therefore, Canada has fallen to the bottom rather than being the example. I would like to hear my hon. colleague's comments on the fact that Canada is 14th out of 15 now. Mrs. Cathy McLeod : Mr. Speaker, I think it was just last week that a study came out with regard to Canada being one of the best places to live in this world. Due to many measures in the last 30 years, in spite of what the opposition says, which is inaccurate, middle-income earners have enormous opportunities.

We have enormous mobility within our country for someone who struggles. Another example would be the 32 weeks that are now available for students to access programs. A single mother might be willing to make a commitment to a 32-week course and become a dental assistant. Really, Canada measures very well in terms of mobility, the middle class and being one of the best places in the world to live. Hon. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Trinity—Spadina . Mr.

Speaker, I am glad to be able to speak to “budget 2017”, as I call it, because it will be 2017, frankly, before much of this budget ever gets enacted. That, again, will depend very much upon what happens in the the upcoming election. As the representative of the people of York West , I am on my feet to express my disappointment and the feelings of betrayal felt by the people and the communities, certainly, in my riding. They have been very vocal in their concerns for many of the things lacking in this budget that they were hopeful would be there. Budget 2015-17 is not about what we have accomplished.

Sadly, this budget is about what the current government has yet to attack, including the security of our grandchildren. If members want an example, during the budget speech, the Minister of Finance smugly declared “the winds of prosperity again fill our sails”. This is perhaps one of the most shameful and out-of-touch statements to cross the lips of a federal finance minister to show that, clearly, the Conservative government is out of touch.

First, when a government pretends to balance its books by selling off public assets and swallowing the rainy day reserves, just to look good because we have an election coming, it is both disappointing and dangerous for the future of our country. However, the current government did exactly that, and worse. After being handed a massive $14-billion Liberal surplus, just nine short years ago, we have to say, look at what has happened. The Conservatives have mismanaged Canada's finances into a deep hole and budget 2015 proves they have no plan to stop digging themselves into that hole.

Budget 2015 contains nothing that would make a real difference for the families, students and seniors living in my riding because it ignores key items like job creation. This budget ignores the pleas of students at York University, Humber and Seneca. It does nothing to expand the vital community programming offered by groups like Elspeth Heyworth Centre, Ephraim's Place, Youth Now On Track, and so on, and it ignores the struggles faced by those living in places like 35 Shoreham and 7/11 Arleta. These are good people who work hard and deserve better.

They deserve a hand up from their government, but they have been ignored by the current Prime Minister . Yet, again, the minister is proving that Conservatives are more concerned about prosperity around boardroom tables than the kitchen tables. To me, and to those I am here to serve, it seems clear that this budget would be about giving more to those who already have so much, rather than helping those who need it most. Even the Conservative backbench knows that the current government has dropped the ball when it comes to real fiscal management.

The Conservative backbench is appalled by the minister's shocking admission that he and the Prime Minister are sticking our grandchildren with a huge bill in an effort to hide the growing holes in the Conservative fiscal strategy. I listened to the budget speech and I have read the minister's comments carefully. I am astounded that he would pretend that “the winds of prosperity again fill our sails”. Clearly, the minister has never worked a shift at West Finch Bakery or at Globe Meats. He has clearly never slept the night at 15 Tobermory or 3001 Finch.

Had he done any of these things, he would understand what it is like to worry about the next rent payment, the grocery bills or a medical bill. Perhaps the minister was referring to his banker friends on Bay Street, who are the top 10% of income earners, because he certainly was not talking about the single parents, the blue-collar labourers, the low-income seniors, the struggling students or the unemployed workers along the Jane-Finch corridor. Yet, this kind of prosperity quest is part of a very long tradition that we have seen from the current government.

Community groups and service organizations in my riding, and in ridings across the country, have been staring down draconian cuts in the face of the government since it came to power. No, the lasting and deep social damage caused by the current government's short-sighted, top-down philosophy started long before budget 2015. The members of North Islington Seniors and the Giovanni Caboti silver age club remember too well when the Prime Minister announced to the world that he would be rolling back old age security benefits for low-income seniors. He said it was necessary because they needed to tighten their belts.

(1110) After that, the Conservatives lined up to vote against a Liberal motion to end a special $90,000 annual prime ministerial pension. I guess the Prime Minister is all about belt-tightening, as long as it is not his belt. This was similar to the shock felt by the Northwood Community Centre seniors when the Prime Minister specifically violated his election promise, just another one, not to tax income trusts, again thrusting seniors under the Conservative cost-slashing knife because he thought it was necessary.

Seniors know just how the Prime Minister is funding the so-called prosperity agenda that the Minister of Finance is crowing about. However, seniors are not the only ones under threat. Certainly, the Conservatives would not dare deny their attack on new Canadians when they decimated settlement agencies in 2011, just as a reminder. The 10% cutback in funding was quietly announced just days before Christmas. Most of the cuts fell in Ontario, where at least 10 Toronto based agencies had their funding cut by 100%, while 35 other Ontario agencies had their budgets drastically reduced.

I would gladly give the Prime Minister the telephone number for the Elspeth Heyworth Centre if he had the courage to chat with the administrator there about how the Conservative prosperity agenda has touched people in areas like mine. The reality of budget 2015 is that it is the most recent hack in a series of Conservative cuts working to dismantle and destroy the vital social programs built over generations and manned by hundreds and hundreds of volunteers across Canada.

Since winning power nine years ago, the Conservatives have chipped away at programs that helped define the compassionate, caring Canada built by our grandparents. We all know, thanks to the Minister of Finance , what the Conservatives plan to hand to our grandchildren. On the ground and in my riding, groups like Black Creek Community Health Centre, Northwood, Doorsteps, Youth Now On Track, Jane Finch Community Legal Services, the Elspeth, and the Jane Finch Community and Family Centre have all faced so-called prosperity cuts at the hands of the government. These groups and agencies are not alone.

Multiple aboriginal organizations, environmental groups, including the Experimental Lakes Area research site and the Hazardous Material Information Review Commission, have all been hit. Anyone working to advance the causes not in the Prime Minister 's good graces has faced and will face the knife.

Groups working on child care, rights advocates, health care researchers, numerous immigration support organizations and women's groups, including the National Association of Women and the Law, as well as the National Network on Environments and Women's Health received less support from Ottawa than they did under the previous Liberal government, a government that offered support while delivering tax cuts and the largest surplus in our history. It is too bad the Conservatives did not ask for some advice. I am sure we could have helped them.

The truth of the budget is the same as every Conservative budget delivered under the mean-spirited and paternalistic eye of the Prime Minister . The budget offered a $2-billion tax break for the wealthiest 13%, while slashing support to the 87% of Canadians who will never see a dime of that money. The budget fails to offer even a glimpse of a plan for job growth and ignores the fact that unemployment is now higher than before the recession began.

The minister feels that the winds of prosperity again fill our sails, but those living in my riding, and countless ridings across the country, are unfortunately tied to an anchor that Stephen Harper has produced for them. Clearly, I have touched—

(1115) The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : Order, please. The member is a veteran. She knows she cannot use given names of other members, including the Prime Minister, in the chamber. Hon. Judy Sgro : Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I have completed my comments. [ Translation ] Mr. Alain Giguère (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it is a bit strange to listen to the speech of my distinguished Liberal colleague because she is criticizing a budget that could be a carbon copy of a Liberal budget.

Under the Liberal watch, Paul Martin made unthinkable cuts to public services, particularly to the health care system and social assistance. The zero deficit was achieved at the expense of the provinces and public services. The Conservatives are seeking to achieve a balanced budget at the expense of future generations. Our grandchildren will have to foot that bill because we are off-loading our problems onto them. The problem is that my colleague is criticizing the Conservatives' Bay Street and oil company friends when she is a member of the Liberal Party.

Perhaps she needs to be reminded that Bay Street is on her side, not on Canadians' side. We would like to hear the Liberal Party's position on Canada Post, the CBC and foreign trusts, for example, rather than hear my colleague claim that she is different from the Conservatives when she is exactly the same. [ English ] Hon. Judy Sgro : Mr. Speaker, clearly some of the history has already been forgotten. When the Liberals came into power in 1993, there was over a $42 billion deficit. Canada was facing bankruptcy.

The cuts that had to be made were made, and the reinvestments were also made in the years that followed, to the point that the Liberal government was able to leave a $13 billion surplus for the current government, which it squandered away in its first three years and then started running a deficit. In order to have a so-called balanced budget today, the Conservatives had to raid the contingency fund and anything else they possibly could to claim they had balanced the budget, finally, after nine years.

(1120) Mr. Adam Vaughan (Trinity—Spadina, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I keep hearing questions from a party that talks about coalition, but every time we speak, its members get mad at us for having an opinion. It is a strange way to make a coalition work. I, too, lived through the nineties with the Liberal government and worked at a Crown corporation at the time. I was also aware of the cuts. However, I also saw that as the budget was balanced, repayment and rebuilding social programs were well under way. There were two programs in particular.

The first was daycare, a new national agreement, which would have delivered real daycare spaces across the country, was finally achieved with consent and co-operation from the provinces, in which provincial jurisdiction is important to acknowledge. The second was in housing which, in the last budget presented in the House by a Liberal Party, had $2.7 billion for public housing. When that government fell, the $2.7 billion, which would have been spent this year, disappeared with it. Are those the programs that are part of the thinking that criticizes the budget, the absence of daycare and a housing program?

Is that why the member is so concerned that the budget fails to meet the needs of Canadians? Hon. Judy Sgro : Mr. Speaker, many of the single moms I meet every day in my riding all want to go to work or they want to return to school. They cannot do either one of those things because they cannot get child care. There are long lists to get into subsidized child care. If we truly want to give people a hand up and give them the opportunity to work, we have to provide opportunities for child care. I do not believe anybody wants to sit at home collecting welfare.

I think people want to work, but there are two fundamentals: one is housing and the other is child care. Those basic things need to provided to ensure that women can get out to work today so they can fulfill their dreams just as everybody else has wanted to do for such a long time. Mr. Adam Vaughan (Trinity—Spadina, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight three areas of significant concern with this budget as they relate to both the city I live in and also the portfolios I hold as the Liberal critic for housing and urban affairs.

This budget really should be called the 2017 budget, because none of the money for cities really arrives for two years. The promises are made now, but the obligations and opportunities are off into the future. I can assure the House that the government in 2017 will be addressing those issues, but it will be addressing them in real time, not in some deferred payment scheme that, quite frankly, does not work for cities that have needs now and the people who live in those cities have needs now. The first issue and the one dearest to my heart is housing. There is one provision in this budget that deals with housing.

The government's position has been to penalize co-ops and affordable housing projects that are suffering from extraordinarily high interest rates. If those projects sought to refinance, the Conservative government would penalize them at a profit for the treasury, but at a huge detriment in obligation to the housing providers. The government has now surrendered its punitive penalty program and in doing so may free up dollars that can deal with some state of good repair issues, which are enormous in our country.

This is because there is no program on state of good repair budgets that even comes close to dealing with the deficiencies that exist, not just in aboriginal housing but almost all public housing stock in our country. It is a public asset that has been neglected, part of the infrastructure deficit that is not addressed by the government and a real hardship for people living in substandard housing. However, when the Conservatives put that policy on the table and we asked CMHC or even yesterday when I asked a member of the government to detail how it would work, they had no idea how it would work.

For example, when surrendering CMHC mortgages, quite often the subsidy agreements are tied to those mortgages. Therefore, would we be surrendering the subsidy as well? The agreements that expire see the mortgage expire and the subsidy agreement expire. The government is saying not to use that money to recapitalize or repair housing, rather use it to sustain subsidy so one neighbour subsidizes another, which is a crazy way of providing public housing, but it is the ideological position adopted by the government.

When we ask that question, we can not get an answer because nobody at treasury, nobody at CMHC and nobody in the House knows the answer. However, it is a fundamentally important question, because if the money that is supposed to flow to public housing suddenly disqualifies the subsidies that make it affordable, it is no longer affordable housing and will actually cost housing providers more money than they will be earning under this surrendered penalty policy. We need an answer on that.

We also have no idea how one would qualify or apply, because no program has been enunciated beyond the promise in the budget, and this is important. The city of Toronto's public housing provider, Toronto Community Housing, could use all of that $140 million in one year, which means no other providers across the country would get relief from it. If it is not available to Toronto Community Housing, then it suddenly does not have the money to repair its housing stock.

Therefore, how it is handed out, who gets to apply, whether it is done on a regional basis or project-by-project basis, what the size of the penalty is, or how close one is to the end of one's mortgage, are all details for which answers do not exist. That is why this budget, which is so unfair to individuals, is also useless to civil society when it tries to actually use it. This is not a budget, but rather a series of ethereal promises that will be worked out in time. In other words, even though the Conservatives took extra time to write this budget, they now need extra time to tell us what it actually means.

Therefore, those promises are empty on housing. However, the real issue is that the Conservatives continue to brag about the status quo, and the status quo in our country is terrible. There is not a city that does not have a waiting list for public housing. Yet, when we look at the waiting list, 92,000 households in Toronto and close to 200,000 people, the money given under the existing agreements that the Conservatives are bragging about deliver 60 units of housing per year over the next five years.

That means the city of Toronto technically has a 1,500 year wait list, and the Conservatives pat themselves on the back for having approached this with $140 million in mortgage relief penalty funds. It is does not work. That money does not build new housing. We need new housing. There is no national program, and we need one now.

(1125) There are two issues, and one of them is transit. The FCM has thanked the government because in two years $250 million will start to flow for transit projects. Even then, there is a catch. The money has to be borrowed through a private sector fund and the money is spent out over 30 years. Then, they are going to be chosen on merit. No one can define what merit means. The last time merit meant something, the government went to a guy called Rob Ford and got advice on how to spend money on transit. If that is the kind of merit process we are about to walk into, God help us.

The real issue is that the money is needed now on this file. The biggest problem the major cities, like Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver, have is not new projects, it is the state of good repair of existing transit infrastructure. That money, that capital dollars, those flows could start immediately and start helping to repair and support cities that are trying to provide transit, despite the fact the government has no real policy except when it comes to the opportunity to cut a ribbon and put a billboard up. The transit policy has to move far beyond new projects. It has to include state of good repair.

Yet, on this file, the money is not there for two years, and the commitment to state of good repair does not exist at all. When we look at the actual dollar amounts, it is too little for the big cities and it actually becomes too big for the smaller cities because they do not have the fiscal capacity to partner with the federal government let alone the private sector to deliver many of these programs. The fear is that this will only work in a few suburban communities, and it will not provide us with a national transit strategy that is effective.

The final issue is water, the most pressing concern for the folks in city halls and town halls right across the country. They are dealing with two very different dynamics. One of them is climate change, and we can see the impact of climate change and not preparing for it. We can see the impact of that in Calgary with the floods and the hundreds of millions, close to billions, of dollars that could cost that city hall because it did not have the money to protect itself with the infrastructure.

There is no money for climate change, no money for adaptation, no money for cities to deal with these flash storms that are occurring and creating havoc in cities right across the country, large and small. Without the ability to manage the next century, it will be hellish for municipalities because they do not have the capacity to deal with storms of the century, which now occur every two and three years. This is a significant issue. No money has been set aside in this budget, anywhere, for new infrastructure to deal with that issue.

The Conservatives talk about the building Canada fund, but there were zero dollars last year to almost every city in the country. Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal received zero dollars, all matched by Winnipeg, Regina, Calgary, Halifax and Quebec City that received zero dollars. The reason was because the budget that introduced it also had no program and no detail attached to it. It took the government almost eight months to even set up a desk to take inquiries let alone applications.

Once again, because the government delayed the budget, it has missed another building year, another construction cycle, and it will be two years before people can even apply for that money and get real dollars into their budget. The real crux of the matter is that money does not arrive for 10 years. Therefore, there is no money for climate change adaptation in this budget to arrive at city halls to get to work now to help cities immediately. The final piece of the water puzzle is clean water for drinking.

On this file, the federal government has loaded requirements onto small cities in particular and has not provided one penny in predictable, stable funding in a way that those small cities can actually build the water plants they need to meet new federal regulations and also to replace aging infrastructure.

In places like the regional municipality of Cape Breton and Sydney, where there is a $625 million water bill on the horizon, the infrastructure dollars are so insignificant that people in that part of the country are wondering if they have to shut down their entire governmental operations, which is ironically $625 million a year on a regional budget basis. They are wondering if they have to shut the whole thing down just to pay for the new federal regulations. Then they are wondering if they are going to get any help from Ottawa.

Small town by small town, rural town by rural town, northern town by northern town, these new obligations are so magnificent that the federal government has driven into city hall and town hall budgets. We have to wonder why the government did not respond with an infrastructure program that dealt with this specific set of requirements. Instead, what we get is silence. The only help that seems to materialize is 10 years from now. We cannot wait 10 years for clean water. We need it now. On housing, water and transit, this is not a 2015 budget, it is a 2017 budget at best.

Even then the dollar amounts are so low, it is a useless budget and it is an unfair budget, particularly for people living in urban areas. (1130) [ Translation ] Mr. Pierre-Luc Dusseault (Sherbrooke, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to ask my colleague a question. We share some of the same questions and concerns. More specifically, I want to ask him about the tax rate for small and medium-sized businesses. I am still not clear about where he stands on this issue. When the budget was presented, the leader of his party did not take a clear stand on this issue.

He said one thing but then changed his position. I would therefore like the member to clarify his party's position regarding lowering the tax rate from 11% to 9% for small and medium-sized businesses in Canada. Many local businesses in my riding, whether it be my dry cleaner or the convenience store around the corner from my house, are happy that we proposed this measure and that the Conservatives took it from our platform. I would therefore like to know what my colleague thinks about lowering the tax rate from 11% to 9% to help small and medium-sized businesses across Canada. [ English ] Mr. Adam Vaughan : Mr.

Speaker, our leader was very clear, so let me help the member understand it in more detail. We support the cut for small businesses, but we think the implementation requires more detail. There are different types of small businesses. People can self-incorporate as individuals. They can have a law degree and hire themselves out as a consultant and make a six-figure salary, doing wonderfully well, but only employ themselves and effectively self-incorporate as a model to manage their tax load as opposed to actually starting and running a small business.

Then there are small businesses, of which my riding has many, that employ people: a corner store, a small start-up firm in a high-tech field, or a new law firm. There are small businesses that have employees. We think that the tax cuts need to bonus those businesses that hire people; so we should target the small-business cut to employment growth, not simply to tax avoidance. A blanket statement of whether a cut for small-business taxes is good or bad is too easy to make. The question is how to make cuts to small-business tax to generate jobs for people and grow the strength of a community.

That is the distinction that the leader of the Liberal Party was making when he said he was concerned about the tax cut as just a tax cut in and of itself.

(1135) Mr. David McGuinty (Ottawa South, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague for his remarks. I want to go back to the theme he raised with respect to climate and what has been increasingly described as the need for resiliency as we adjust and adapt to the new normals around the effects of climate change. The member alluded to water. California is now drilling 600 metres below the surface to try to find water for agricultural and irrigation purposes.

The not-so-deep aquifers have been depleted to such an extent that the California land mass has actually fallen, which is why California is building, for example, massive desalination plants on the coast. There is nothing in this budget that addresses the need for innovation. There is nothing that addresses the need for new-tech, clean-tech start-ups. There is no recognition of the need to prepare ourselves to be resilient and adapt to climate.

I wonder if the member could expand on those concerns and particularly talk not just about the concerns or the magnitude of the challenge in front of us, but let us talk, as we like to talk in the Liberal Party, about the magnitude of the economic and job opportunities for us to create wealth and do well inside and outside of Canada. He could start, for example, to talk about water and water technology. Mr. Adam Vaughan : Mr. Speaker, the way in which urban areas manage water is going to be one of the defining issues of the next century.

In downtown Toronto, I have a great set of examples as to why it is so critical. Our drinking water comes from the lake and our lake is fed by the rivers. The rivers that flow through Toronto are heavily polluted and as they enter the lake they pollute our drinking water. Cleaning up the Don River, as an example, is fundamental to protecting the source of our drinking water in a city like Toronto, but also for the region of the GTA. We have a project that is on the books that requires a federal commitment of about $325 million.

It is a $1 billion project to build flood protection for the lower Don lands but also a filtration system to clean the water before it gets to Lake Ontario. We had heard that money was going to be in this year's budget, but it is not. When we do not invest, we send pollution into the lake that makes it difficult to clean for drinking water, but we also have not unlocked billions of dollars in real estate opportunities in downtown Toronto.

We end up with the worst of all worlds: we do not make an investment that protects the water; we do not make an investment that produces an economy; and we do not make an investment that protects the city from being flooded. Instead, we expose the city to risk on all three fronts. Hon. Deepak Obhrai (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and for International Human Rights, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to stand in the House and speak once more on a budget. As a matter of fact, this is my 18th budget speech I am making today, and 11 of them were on Conservatives budgets.

Before I talk about the budget, I want to pause and reflect on the terrible tragedy that has befallen Nepal due to an earthquake. In January, I went to Nepal to celebrate the 50th anniversary of Canada-Nepal relations. Our relationship has been a long and good one, and it was a successful visit. I saw the development challenges Nepal was facing due to the long Maoist rebellion. It was looking forward to moving on; then this tragedy struck. Nepal is poor, and the Nepali are poor and struggling to provide for themselves and their families. The government has responded in a variety of ways.

I today want to make an appeal to Canadians to give to organizations that are in the forefront of assistance. The government will match contributions. Please help the people of Nepal in their time of need. Turning to the budget, I will be sharing my time with the member for Mississauga East—Cooksville . It would come as a big surprise to have the NDP and the Liberals actually supporting the budget. As in the past, this year they have indicated without looking at the budget that they will not be supporting it, and then they went on to find reasons why they do not want to support it.

I come from Calgary, Alberta, an oil-producing province. No one here is talking about the dramatic collapse of oil prices, as if the price of oil falling would have no impact at all on the budget or on the economy, not recognizing the fact that all of Canada benefits from the oil industry, including from eastern Canada. Everybody is saying we want money, we want money, and the government has not done this, and that it went into the contingency fund to balance the budget. What are we talking about? There has been a massive shortfall in revenue. My own family works in the oil industry.

My daughter, my son, and my son-in-law are facing an uncertain future today. Massive layoffs are taking place. This is impacting the whole of Canada, yet this is the time to provide sound economic management of the economy and that is what the budget would do. The budget has focused on growth, on jobs, and on security. In October last year, we were attacked in Parliament. These are the concerns of Canadians. When I went doorknocking last weekend for my colleagues in the Conservative Party in Alberta, this is what I heard from people.

Yet, here we have the NDP and the Liberal Party talking about no investment here, no investment there. It is time they took a pause and said it is time to provide sound management. When the price of oil goes back up and the economy moves forward, then there will be choices to be made where we can invest, but currently, what Canadians want is security of their jobs. That is what we are facing. That is what the budget is talking about. That is why the budget is a forward-looking budget. It is amazing that the Liberal MP said this budget will hit in 2017.

The price of oil is low today and revenues are compromised and even then we managed, without raising taxes, to bring in a balanced budget. What is the contingency fund for? This is a rainy day. Opposition members do not know what a rainy day is, as the Liberal member talked about. When the price of oil was $100 a barrel and today it is close to $50, is that not a rainy day? When is a rainy day then?

(1140) Nevertheless, this government has made sound decisions on where it will invest and which ones it will invest in, so that there is confidence that the Canadian economy is moving. I am the parliamentary secretary. When I go overseas and when I meet people, all of them have questions to ask me. How did we manage to escape the 2008 recession? Are our banks not failing? How is Canada providing such strong, economic stability while other countries are facing different challenges? Who are we? We are an oil producing country. We are not an oil consuming country that is benefiting from low prices.

At the end of the day, I want to say to my colleagues that at this given time when there are challenges out there of low oil prices, it is time to make sound judgement. The NDP opposed the pipeline that would help export our oil. That would benefit the whole country, but no. The NDP nitpicks here and there. For the Liberals, let me say this. As I have said, this is my 18th budget. Of them, 11 were Conservative and 7 were Liberal. Members should have seen the rhetoric that was coming from the Liberal Party. Today, the last Liberal speaker to stand up was insulting the Minister of Finance .

That is all the Liberals love to do. They love to insult people. They do not come up with any good ideas. All they do is insult. What a shame. I have sat in this Parliament. Canadians do not like other people insulting them. If they want to talk, they should talk about exactly what it is that they are standing up for. That is why there is confusion now. The question was asked by the NDP to the Liberals: what do they stand for? There is total confusion out there. I was here in Parliament when the Liberals presented their budgets, and did they come up with anything?

Now they are blaming the Conservatives for doing anything, specifically when there was the 2008 global recession. We went through that, with banks failing. No Canadian bank failed. Where do they think that came from, the Liberals? It absolutely did not. Now, with low oil prices, we are still doing okay. The country is still managing well because of sound management. Do they think it came from the Liberals? It absolutely did not. The NDP, of course, wants high taxes. That would be their government. I have no idea where they would get the money that they are talking about, spending with high taxes.

This is something where, these days, the Liberals and the NDP are becoming pretty difficult to distinguish between. They have different names, but they seem to be talking the same language. Maybe this is the coalition that they are trying to form for the next federal election. I can tell the House that the way in which this budget was presented and from the feedback that I got, we are on solid footing and we will remain on solid footing. This government, under the Prime Minister , has provided excellent leadership on economics as well as on security. Let us talk for a minute about security.

Canadians are concerned about security. We hear it time after time. We just heard from the security agencies that, yes, Canadians are under threat, and the jihadis have made absolutely no secret about wanting to attack Canada. Would it not be prudent for us to invest money there for our own security? Would that not be prudent? My opponent from the Liberal Party came out and said that we should not be in Iraq, that we should be out of Iraq, until he got such a severe backlash that he had to withdraw what he wrote on his Facebook page. Mr. Speaker, you have pointed out that I have a minute. I want to say this.

This is the budget that would provide the security of jobs and national security for the people of Canada, and I am very happy to support it. (1145) [ Translation ] Mr. Jonathan Tremblay (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Conservative member is complaining about the price of oil and the faltering economy, but the Conservatives have only themselves to blame. They put all their eggs in one basket. They ran seven deficit budgets. They increased the national debt by $100 billion. They subsidized big corporations and banks without requiring them to reinvest in our society.

They dipped into the contingency fund and the employment insurance fund, they sold off shares and they would have us believe that they are good managers. The only thing the Conservatives are currently doing for the future is accumulating debt for future generations. What does the member think of the government's mismanagement? [ English ] Hon. Deepak Obhrai : Mr. Speaker, the member is talking about my being concerned about oil prices. He should be concerned too about oil prices, because it impacts the whole country.

I am absolutely amazed and stunned, and in my speech I said so, that Canada did not need to bail out the banks during the worldwide recession, as other countries did. Therefore, I have no clue what he is talking about when he says that we subsidized the banks. As a matter of fact, we had excellent regulations that ensured that the banks would not take the risk. He should be proud of some of the things that have taken place instead of giving the NDP rhetoric, as it always does, about wanting high corporate taxes and about helping banks, which did not take place.

Let me remind him quite clearly: Canada did not bail out the banks in the worldwide recession in 2008.

(1150) Mr. David McGuinty (Ottawa South, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, that is perhaps the most revisionist piece of history I have heard here in 11 years. The member may have been here for 18 budgets, but I think he was probably asleep for most of them. I want to remind Canadians about a few of the facts he alluded to. Number one, there were 11 consecutive surplus Liberal budgets before the Conservative government came into power. Number two, it was left with a $14-billion surplus, and it put this economy and country into recession before the 2008 great recession hit the globe. Everyone knows that.

Every economist knows that. That is fact number two. Number three is this idea that he goes around the world and hears from folks about the Canadian banking system.

He is right, the Canadian banking system did withstand the American meltdown and is a model now for most of the planet, but I would like to remind him and Canadians and members in the House that his leader, as leader of the official opposition at the time, was attacking the Liberal government and then prime minister Chrétien, clamouring for Canadians banks to be owned by American banks to allow them to merge and join the ranks of the hyper-exposed global banking actors. His leader was the one who fought hardest to have the Canadian banking system exposed.

Therefore, it is very rich to hear the member put forward this revisionist history. His credibility here is on the line. He should perhaps keep to the merits of the budget he was speaking to earlier without going back and inventing things. Hon. Deepak Obhrai : Mr. Speaker, I have to give credit to the member. At least he is not doing what previous members were doing and insulting others personally. Let me say one thing about what he said. How did the Liberals balance the budget? They did it by cutting transfers to the provinces.

The Liberal government he is talking about made massive cuts to transfers to the provinces to balance the budget, and he should feel ashamed. His government downloaded everything so that it could take credit, and it left the provinces on their own. It is this government that came into power and restored them. This government has increased transfers since 2006 so that front-line services could be provided to Canadians with the transfers his government cut by downloading to the provinces. Mr. Wladyslaw Lizon (Mississauga East—Cooksville, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak in support of and to provide some input into economic action plan 2015. This is certainly a plan of action to continue the necessary actions required to keep our country in the focused direction needed and that has made us the envy of the G7. Our government has worked hard, and continues to, and is focused on its commitment to the priorities of Canadians: jobs, economic stability, growth, and long-term prosperity.

Economic action plan 2015's clear focus on jobs, growth, and security is what my constituents in the riding of Mississauga East—Cooksville and Canadians across the country are looking for. Back in January, like many of my colleagues, I hosted pre-budget consultations with community and business representatives in my riding to hear their ideas and suggestions. Representatives from a number of key areas, including health, manufacturing, skilled trades, social services, business, and community services, were consulted.

I submitted this valuable input to our Minister of Finance and am very pleased to see some of the measures that were included in this budget, economic action plan 2015. A highly skilled and highly educated workforce is key to succeeding in the global economy. It is also important that we give an equal opportunity to everyone. I was very pleased to announce over $238,000 in funding for the opportunities fund to support the Centre for Education & Training's project to help people with disabilities overcome barriers to employment.

During the pre-budget consultation I held, there was a gentleman by the name of Mike Di Donato, who is the dean of the Skilled Trades College of Canada, which is located in the area I represent. He joined in the discussion on the role of skilled trades and pre-apprenticeship training. We had an opportunity to talk, and he voiced his concerns about the future of skilled trades training and the upcoming federal budget. There is always work to be done in the area of skilled trades, but there are some measures in this budget that are key to the future of skilled trades. This is something Mr.

Di Donato is passionate about. Our government is taking action to harmonize the apprenticeship training and certification requirements in targeted Red Seal trades. The budget also proposes to reallocate up to $35 million over five years for a pilot project for foreign credential recognition loans, and to make it permanent, to support internationally trained workers. This is important news for many constituents in my riding, where many new Canadians come and make their home and want to contribute their skills and expertise.

As a government, we have to do what we can to help create the conditions under which businesses thrive, create jobs, and move our economy. That means helping small businesses and entrepreneurs create jobs. I am pleased to say that our budget proposes to reduce the small business tax rate to 9% by 2019.

(1155) The support of our communities is important, and this is done through a number of commitments, including gas tax funding. For the city of Mississauga, that means millions of dollars every year that allows the municipality and the Region of Peel to make priority investments in transportation and infrastructure to keep people moving. The budget also proposes several measures to help families. The underlying point of balancing the budget is that it allows us to keep the focus on lower taxes to help families and hard-working Canadians.

In fact, the overall federal tax burden is now at its lowest level in more than 50 years. Just two weeks ago, I hosted the 50+ Expo for people over 50 years of age. It was an exciting event for local people who are at the point in their lives when important matters such as retirement planning, security, and safety become a reality. I heard from a number of those who came that they want to remain independent and not have to depend on others as they move to their later years in life. I would mention some of the measures in the budget to support seniors and people with disabilities.

The budget proposes a home accessibility tax credit to help seniors and people with disabilities with renovation costs to make their homes accessible so that they can stay at home and be independent. We are also introducing changes to the registered retirement income fund that will assist seniors and allow them to withdraw less from their tax-deferred savings. Also, we are increasing the tax-free savings account annual contribution from $5,000 to $10,000.

This is something colleagues on the opposite side are criticizing very heavily, but this is a great measure, and I have heard wonderful comments from constituents in my riding about it. We will always support our veterans, our heroes. Just recently I was honoured to receive a visit from one of them, a Mr. Donald Somerville, who is going with a group of veterans, leaving this weekend, to the Netherlands to celebrate the 70th anniversary of liberation. We honour our veterans, and we have to make sure that they receive everything and anything they need, especially at the later stages of life.

It is important that veterans know that they can count on support for their services. Our budget increases the level of individualized care to veterans requiring regular support by improving the ratio of veterans to case managers. We are also introducing a new retirement income security benefit for severely disabled veterans. I also want to speak about security for all Canadians. This is very important. People across Canada are looking for safe streets and safe communities, and they want to make sure that our government provides measures and support to our security agencies that keep us safe here in this country.

In closing, the budget is a balanced budget. This was a promise made. This is a promise kept. Therefore, I would like, in closing, to ask all my colleagues in this House to support the budget to support what Canadians are looking for.

(1200) [ Translation ] Mr. Pierre-Luc Dusseault (Sherbrooke, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to ask a question of my colleague, who concluded his speech by talking about the Conservatives' promise to balance the budget, when they presented Canadians with seven budgets in a row that were not balanced. Today, the Conservatives have a new-found passion for balanced budgets. What is more, they are set to introduce a bill to force future governments to present balanced budgets when they themselves did not do that for the past five years.

It is rather surprising, not to mention hypocritical, for a government to claim to be passionate about balanced budgets when it did not balance any of its own budgets in the past five years. It did not even respect its own legislation that it is about to introduce to Canadians. Could my colleague speak to how sincere the Conservatives' new passion really is? [ English ] Mr. Wladyslaw Lizon : Mr. Speaker, I am as surprised as my colleague who spoke before me that all that is coming from the other side is criticism without any ideas being put forward. It is very easy to criticize.

To answer the member, he should probably go back and read the history of what happened in the past. That would probably help him understand better why there was not an investment during the difficult economic times, and how well Canada did in those past years. We have done so well that we are truly the envy of other developed nations. That is what government is for, to act when there is a need to act, to work in the best interest of the country, to work in the best interest of Canadians and to act when the need arises. We were able to balance the budget this year without raising taxes. We are cutting taxes.

Taxes are at the lowest level in 50 years. I think the member should appreciate this. Canadians do appreciate it.

(1205) Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, perhaps this is a question that should more properly go to the finance minister but I have not had a chance to put a question to the finance minister yet. We could have balanced the budget last year had the minister been willing to go into the contingency fund. The balanced budget this year is because the finance minister went into the contingency fund.

I am not clear at all on the matter of fiscal planning why the contingency fund was needed this year but not last year, other than the political promises that have been made based on “once we balance the budget, we will bring in income splitting” and so on. In other words, I think this budget is being driven by political machinations and not actual good financial planning. Perhaps the member could explain why the contingency fund was not used last year to balance the budget. Mr. Wladyslaw Lizon : Mr.

Speaker, as I stated when answering the first question, the government is here to do the best for the country and for Canadians. These measures that are included in this balanced budget are what Canadians were looking for. We are helping Canadians. We are helping businesses. We are helping families. We are helping those who have challenges in life. That is what is important. This is what Canadians are looking for. They are looking for good management of the economy, and they are looking for a good future for themselves and their families. Mr. Dan Harris (Scarborough Southwest, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Victoria . It is an honour to rise today and speak in response to the budget introduced by the government in the House last week. Over the last four years, as a member of Parliament, I have learned one thing for sure: Conservatives and the Prime Minister are not nearly the economic managers they seem to think they are. In fact, time and time again, the government chose precisely the opposite. The Conservatives have shown us, and Canadians, just how incompetent they can be as managers of the economy.

The government has dropped the ball on so many incredibly important files. We just have to look at the F-35. Conservatives must have a good supply of pixie dust to use on unsuspecting Canadians if they think they can pass this budget off as sound economic planning. Of course, this is backstopped by at least a $13-million advertising budget, using Canadians' money, which they are going to spend on propelling themselves into the election. I had to laugh last week when my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley said this in his response to the budget: They spent the surplus before they had it.

Then they panicked....They didn't know what to do because the economy was not performing the way they had hoped. One would think that planning more than praying would be [the norm] within the finance department, but not under [this government]. My esteemed colleague could not have been more correct. How else do we explain a budget that is predicated on such a shallow set of priorities and planning principles, with so little regard for thinking things through? How else could one explain draining the contingency fund so that in the short term it looks like we are not in a deficit?

Of course, dropping that from $3 billion to $1 billion means that any unforeseen event that could take place would actually bring the government back into the red. We just have to look at last year to some of the events that happened. We had the ice storm in Toronto. We had tremendous flooding in Alberta and in Toronto. There were also other weather events that cost the economy, and certainly cost the provinces and the federal government, billions of dollars. The contingency fund is there for good reason, to protect against unforeseen events.

We also saw the fire sale of our government's interest in General Motors. We all understand that the government was not supposed to hold on to these shares in perpetuity. However, one of the simple staples of investing in stocks is to buy low and sell high. What the government has done in selling the shares at this time is actually costing $3.5 billion. It sold the shares at a net loss of $3.5 billion. It is as if every single Canadian across the country had a $100 bill to begin with, took it out of their pocket and set it on fire.

That is $100 for every Canadian that the government has wasted in order to say it has a balanced budget. These things are very questionable, and not just in my opinion, but in the opinion of many economists on both sides of the political spectrum. Much more importantly, I want to talk about the changes the government is making to tax-free savings accounts. These changes really represent just how cynical and crass the government can be and how shallow and short-sighted its economic policy really is. The Conservatives are going to change the maximum allowable contributions for TFSAs to up to $10,000 a year.

Who does this help? We have heard from the government that millions of Canadians have TFSAs. Mr. Andrew Saxton: Eleven million. Mr. Dan Harris: Yes, Mr. Speaker, 11 million. However, only 11% of those people deposited the maximum last year. Therefore, 90% of the people depositing already do not have enough to deposit the current maximum, but the government wants to double it. Why is that? It is because it will help the Conservatives' well-heeled friends. It is not going to help the majority of the working-class and middle-class people I work for in my riding of Scarborough Southwest.

These people do not seem to find themselves burdened at the end of the year with having to decide what to do with an extra $10,000 that is burning a hole in their pockets. I wish I could say that they did because Scarborough used to be a prosperous place. It used to have above national average incomes. It used to have tens of thousands of good-paying manufacturing jobs that helped to elevate people into the middle class. However, through successive Liberal and Conservative governments, since first free trade and then NAFTA came in, all of that industry and all of those good-paying jobs left.

(1210) We used to have a GM van plant in my riding. It has been gone since the early 1990s. We used to have tens of thousands of good jobs along what was called the golden mile, which, when it opened after the Second World War, was the model on which many communities ended up being built because people could live and work close together and also have good-paying jobs. They are all gone, and they have been replaced by part-time, precarious, largely retail jobs and car malls that are not very accessible by transit, that do not make good planning for those areas. Who are these changes being made for?

I have said, it is for the wealthy few. That is just like the income-splitting plan, a $2.5-billion waste of our money that could be far better spent, either on actually balancing the budget so they do not have to dip into the contingency fund or on other programs like affordable child care. The current government's entire package and plan for families would give families up to $1,960 a year per child. In the city of Toronto, child care costs are between $1,000 and $2,000 a month per child.

Exactly what are the Conservatives telling families to do for the other 10 to 11 months beyond what the government's money gives? The government would give $1,960 but then families pay between $10,000 and $20,000 in child care costs. Are families actually going to be further ahead at the end of the day? No, they are not. They end up having to make really tough choices in our city of whether to lose one income and have one parent stay home, which puts a lot of strain on families and makes it hard to pay the mortgage.

God forbid if the parents are also trying to help a kid through university or college, because of skyrocketing tuition fees. The Conservatives want to give $1,960 but then let parents throw $15,000 to $20,000 a year into child care costs. The NDP has an alternative plan of $15 a day for child care that would actually be affordable for families and would let them make the right choices for their families, whether to have a parent stay home or have both parents work because they would have the option to do either. It would be good-quality child care. I started my working career in child care.

I worked at the Not Your Average Daycare in Scarborough for five years, and I saw first-hand the importance of early education and learning. The story does not end there. It gets worse. As we move forward through the years, the Conservatives' plan at the start would cost a few hundred million dollars, primarily of course to the wealthiest Canadians. The amazing thing is that this cost would grow with each passing year. In a relatively short time, the cost to Canadians would be $20 billion to the treasury.

I heard one of the parliamentary secretaries say the Conservatives do not want to pass on debt to the next generation, to our children. The Conservatives are doing something far worse. They are passing it to our children's children. They are passing it to our grandchildren. No responsible parent, grandparent or government should ever pass the buck along two generations down the line. Of course, we have seen this approach with the government when we talk about climate change, which was not mentioned even once in the budget. We see that the Conservatives do not care. They have not put this as a priority.

They said they are going to regulate sector by sector. Then the Prime Minister got up and said they are not going to touch the biggest polluter, the biggest sector, oil and gas. The current government's entire philosophy is relying on the high price of oil, a commodity where the cost goes up and down. I worked in Fort McMurray, in the oil sands. I have been there through one of those turns. The folks there know that it is cyclical. The casino in Fort McMurray is called Boomtown Casino because they know that the price of oil and commodities goes boom or bust.

However, the Conservatives were relying on the fact that it was going to boom forever. It is absolutely preposterous to be putting all their eggs in that one basket.

(1215) We all know that we are supposed to diversify the economy. We are supposed to invest in different areas of the economy so that we can weather those storms, but the Conservatives never did that and now Canadians from coast to coast to coast are paying the price. This budget should be helping people, but it is only helping the wealthy few and the rest are left to fend for themselves. Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, the budget is extraordinary for what is left out.

I want to mention something so that Canadians will know, because I continue to be astonished by what has been left out of the budgets over the last number of years. They do not contain what I used to regard as the nuts and bolts of a budget. There used to be tables at the back of the budget that showed what every department was going to get in total to spend in the year. There was a comparison to the previous year and also a rollout for a forthcoming period of years. This budget does not include that, and neither did last year's.

For instance, if we want to find out about international development assistance, another topic not mentioned in this budget, we cannot find that department. Of course, the department has now been folded into the Department of Foreign Affairs, but we cannot find the foreign affairs budget in here either. We cannot find the budgets for Environment Canada or Parks Canada. There is actually no information about what each department of government will be allowed to spend compared to other years. We have to wait for the main and supplementary estimates for that. I wonder if my colleague has any comments on that. Mr.

Dan Harris : Mr. Speaker, my first comment would be, what happened to that open and transparent government? By removing the tables, by removing information, the Conservatives have made our jobs as members of Parliament harder, but they have also made it very difficult for Canadians to see what actually is and is not being spent. It is even more insidious than that, because it hides the money that the government is spending. This means it gives ministers and certain departments the ability to deliberately underspend their budgets. We only have to look at veterans affairs since the Conservatives took office.

Instead of spending all the money it was allocated on improving veterans' lives, it ended up returning billions of dollars to the treasury, and that is shameful. (1220) [ Translation ] Mr. Pierre Nantel (Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech. I really liked the part where he told us that he is very familiar with the child care sector. Once again, that shows just how prepared we are on this side. We have a plan,

whereas the other side of the House clearly has bad plans and it only helps their pals. Like all Quebeckers, I spoke out against the lack of measures for culture and the environment, for example. It is pathetic that there is nothing for those areas. Clearly, there comes a time when it is not only disappointing, but also worrisome to see that there is nothing—and I believe this is the topic of the day—for rail safety. Would my colleague like to comment on that last point? Mr. Dan Harris : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. Personally, I love taking the train. When I was young, I always took the train betwee