Bill C-15 (Historical)

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1.

An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures

Part 1 implements certain income tax measures proposed in the March 22, 2016 budget by
(a) eliminating the education tax credit;
(b) eliminating the textbook tax credit;
(c) exempting from taxable income amounts received as rate assistance under the Ontario Electricity Support Program;
(d) maintaining the small business tax rate at 10.‍5% for the 2016 and subsequent taxation years and making consequential adjustments to the dividend gross-up factor and dividend tax credit;
(e) increasing the maximum deduction available under the northern residents deduction;
(f) eliminating the children’s arts tax credit;
(g) eliminating the family tax cut credit;
(h) replacing the Canada child tax benefit and universal child care benefit with the new Canada child benefit;
(i) eliminating the child fitness tax credit;
(j) introducing the school supplies tax credit;
(k) extending, for one year, the mineral exploration tax credit for flow-through share investors;
(l) restoring the labour-sponsored venture capital corporations tax credit for purchases of shares of provincially registered labour-sponsored venture capital corporations for the 2016 and subsequent taxation years; and
(m) introducing changes consequential to the introduction of the new 33% individual tax rate.
Part 1 implements other income tax measures confirmed in the March 22, 2016 budget by
(a) amending the anti-avoidance rules in the Income Tax Act that prevent the conversion of capital gains into tax-deductible intercorporate dividends;
(b) qualifying certain costs associated with undertaking environmental studies and community consultations as Canadian exploration expenses;
(c) ensuring that profits from the insurance of Canadian risks remain taxable in Canada;
(d) ensuring that the dividend rental arrangement rules under the Income Tax Act apply where there is a synthetic equity arrangement;
(e) providing specific tax rules in respect of the commercialization of the Canadian Wheat Board, including a tax deferral for eligible farmers;
(f) permitting registered charities and registered Canadian amateur athletic associations to hold limited partnership interests;
(g) providing an exemption to the withholding tax requirements for payments by qualifying non-resident employers to qualifying non-resident employees;
(h) limiting the circumstances in which the repeated failure to report income penalty will apply;
(i) permitting the sharing of taxpayer information within the Canada Revenue Agency to facilitate the collection of certain non-tax debts; and
(j) permitting the sharing of taxpayer information with the Office of the Chief Actuary.
Part 2 implements certain goods and services tax/harmonized sales tax (GST/HST) measures proposed in the March 22, 2016 budget by
(a) adding insulin pens, insulin pen needles and intermittent urinary catheters to the list of GST/HST zero-rated medical and assistive devices;
(b) clarifying that GST/HST generally applies to supplies of purely cosmetic procedures provided by all suppliers, including registered charities;
(c) relieving tax to ensure that when a charity makes a taxable supply of property or services in exchange for a donation and an income tax receipt may be issued for a portion of the donation, only the value of the property or services supplied is subject to GST/HST;
(d) ensuring that interest earned in respect of certain deposits is not included in determining whether a person is considered to be a financial institution for GST/HST purposes; and
(e) clarifying the treatment of imported reinsurance services under the GST/HST imported supply rules for financial institutions.
Part 2 also implements other GST/HST measures confirmed in the March 22, 2016 budget by
(a) adding feminine hygiene products to the list of GST/HST zero-rated products; and
(b) permitting the sharing of taxpayer information in respect of non-tax debts within the Canada Revenue Agency under certain federal and provincial government programs and in respect of certain programs where information sharing is currently permitted under the Income Tax Act.
Part 3 implements certain excise measures proposed in the March 22, 2016 budget by
(a) ensuring that excise tax relief for diesel fuel used as heating oil or to generate electricity is targeted to specific instances; and
(b) enhancing certain security and collection provisions in the Excise Act, 2001.
Part 3 also implements other excise measures confirmed in the March 22, 2016 budget by permitting the sharing of taxpayer information in respect of non-tax debts within the Canada Revenue Agency under certain federal and provincial government programs and in respect of certain programs where information sharing is currently permitted under the Income Tax Act.
Division 1 of Part 4 repeals the Federal Balanced Budget Act.
Division 2 of Part 4 amends the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act to, among other things,
(a) replace “permanent impairment allowance” with “career impact allowance”;
(b) replace “totally and permanently incapacitated” with “diminished earning capacity”;
(c) increase the percentage in the formula used to calculate the earnings loss benefit;
(d) specify when a disability award becomes payable and clarify the formula used to calculate the amount of a disability award;
(e) increase the amounts of a disability award; and
(f) increase the amount of a death benefit.
In addition, it contains transitional provisions that provide, among other things, that the Minister of Veterans Affairs must pay, to a person who received a disability award or a death benefit under that Act before April 1, 2017, an amount that represents the increase in the amount of the disability award or the death benefit, as the case may be. It also makes consequential amendments to the Children of Deceased Veterans Education Assistance Act, the Pension Act and the Income Tax Act.
Division 3 of Part 4 amends the sunset provisions of certain Acts governing federal financial institutions to extend by two years, namely, from March 29, 2017 to March 29, 2019, the period during which those institutions may carry on business.
Division 4 of Part 4 amends the Bank Act to facilitate the continuance of local cooperative credit societies as federal credit unions by granting the Minister of Finance the authority to provide transitional procedural exemptions, as well as a loan guarantee.
Division 5 of Part 4 amends the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act to, among other things, broaden the Corporation’s powers to temporarily control or own a domestic systemically important bank and to convert certain shares and liabilities of such a bank into common shares.
It also amends the Bank Act to allow the designation of domestic systemically important banks by the Superintendent of Financial Institutions and to require such banks to maintain a minimum capacity to absorb losses.
Lastly, it makes consequential amendments to the Financial Administration Act, the Winding-up and Restructuring Act and the Payment Clearing and Settlement Act.
Division 6 of Part 4 amends the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act to change the membership of the committee established under that Act so that the Chairperson of the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation is replaced by that Corporation’s Chief Executive Officer. It also amends several Acts to replace references to that Chairperson with references to that Chief Executive Officer.
Division 7 of Part 4 amends the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act to authorize an additional payment to be made to a territory, in order to take into account the amount of the territorial formula financing payment that would have been paid to that territory for the fiscal year beginning on April 1, 2016, if that amount had been determined using the recalculated amount determined to be the gross expenditure base for that fiscal year.
Division 8 of Part 4 amends the Financial Administration Act to restrict the circumstances in which the Governor in Council may authorize the borrowing of money without legislative approval.
Division 9 of Part 4 amends the Old Age Security Act to increase the single rate of the guaranteed income supplement for the lowest-income pensioners by up to $947 annually and to repeal section 2.‍2 of that Act, which increases the age of eligibility to receive a benefit.
Division 10 of Part 4 amends the Special Import Measures Act to provide that a finding by the President of the Canada Border Services Agency of an insignificant margin of dumping or an insignificant amount of subsidy in respect of goods imported into Canada will no longer result in the termination of a trade remedy investigation prior to the President’s preliminary determination. It also provides that expiry reviews may be initiated from a date that is closer to the expiry date of an anti-dumping or countervailing measure and makes amendments related to that new time period.
Division 11 of Part 4 amends the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985 to combine the authorities for bilateral agreements and multilateral agreements into one authority for federal-provincial agreements, and to clarify that federal-provincial agreements may permit the application of provincial legislation with respect to a pension plan.
Division 12 of Part 4 amends the Employment Insurance Act to, among other things,
(a) increase, until July 8, 2017, the maximum number of weeks for which benefits may be paid to certain claimants in certain regions;
(b) eliminate the category of claimants who are new entrants and re-entrants; and
(c) reduce to one week the length of the waiting period during which claimants are not entitled to benefits.
Division 13 of Part 4 amends the Canada Marine Act to allow the Minister of Canadian Heritage to make payments to Canada Place Corporation for certain celebrations.
Division 14 of Part 4 amends the Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act to authorize the Minister of Infrastructure, Communities and Intergovernmental Affairs to acquire the shares of PPP Canada Inc. on behalf of Her Majesty in right of Canada. It also sets out that the appropriate Minister, as defined in the Financial Administration Act, holds those shares and authorizes that appropriate Minister to conduct, with the Governor in Council’s approval, certain transactions relating to PPP Canada Inc. Finally, it authorizes PPP Canada Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiaries to sell, with the Governor in Council’s approval, their assets in certain circumstances.
Division 15 of Part 4 amends the Canada Foundation for Sustainable Development Technology Act to modify the process that leads to the Governor in Council’s appointment of persons to the board of directors of the Canada Foundation for Sustainable Development Technology by eliminating the role of the Minister of Natural Resources and the Minister of the Environment as well as the consultative role of the Minister of Industry from that process. It also amends the Budget Implementation Act, 2007 to provide that a sum may be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund to the Foundation on the requisition of the Minister of Industry and to clarify the maximum amount of that sum.

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is so much in the budget we could talk about that would help my region in northern Ontario. The Canada child tax benefit is a very important one, as well as the significant investments in infrastructure. There is a huge infrastructure deficit in northern Ontario from years of cutting back by the previous government.

The budget goes such a long way. We are already starting to see the fruits of the budget in investments. Those are long term. They will be creating jobs and helping out the middle class, as well, in northern Ontario.

Social housing is also a big investment we would be making through our infrastructure projects. That would have a great effect in my community.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it was interesting to hear the previous question about the Canada child benefit program. We could better refer to the budget as the Canada child deficit program, with the continuing long-term deficits being brought in.

I asked a question earlier today regarding the GST increases that are projected to be 21% over the next five years. That is far more than any increase in the economy is predicted to be. Where is the 21% increase in GST revenues coming from? Is it coming from a tax increase?

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is very simple. The budget has no increases in the GST. It is as simple as that.

We are investing in the middle class and investing in infrastructure. After conversations with Canadians for the past little while as to what mattered to them, that is what the budget is about. That is why I am proud to support the budget.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. I just want to point out to the hon. member that we have about seven minutes, so when 2 o'clock strikes, she will have three minutes to continue when the debate continues.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise at report stage to speak to Bill C-15. In the seven minutes I have, I will try to be very economical and focus on a few points that have been mentioned by other members.

I have a very strong view about the improper use of omnibus budget bills, and I want to reflect briefly on the history of omnibus budget bills.

The mandate letter to the hon. government House leader makes it clear that he is directed to “end the improper use of omnibus bills”. Therefore, having fought very hard in the spring of 2012 against Bill C-38, the omnibus budget bill, I want to canvass this because I think it is important for me to say out loud that this is not an improper use of an omnibus bill but it comes dangerously close.

Omnibus budget bills between 1993 and the 2000 were generally around 12 pages long. The biggest omnibus bill that I had seen was in the spring of 2005 under the previous Liberal government of Paul Martin, which topped 120 pages. People actually protested that the Martin government's 2005 budget bill, at 120 pages, was too long, including the leader of the official opposition at that time, who went on to become prime minister and became the champ of all inappropriate and improper uses of budget bills.

This budget bill, at 179 pages, is clearly the longest omnibus budget bill from a Liberal government. However, it is a piker compared to the abuse of democracy that we saw under the previous Conservative regime.

In the year 2010, we saw an omnibus budget bill that was 883 pages long. In the spring of 2012, we saw the first part of an omnibus budget bill that was 440 pages long, with a second part in the fall, which was another 400 pages long.

What makes an omnibus bill appropriate or inappropriate? If in one piece of legislation we are working toward a single purpose and all pieces of the legislation stem from that single purpose, it is an omnibus bill all right, but it is not improper. What happened in the spring of 2012 is that Bill C-38 destroyed our Environmental Assessment Act, which was not mentioned in the budget, destroyed the Fisheries Act, repealed the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, repealed the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act, and changed the National Energy Board Act. No fewer than 70 laws were changed at that time.

Therefore, let us not muddy the waters. The warning to my friends in the Liberal government is that they should not tread too far. This one should have split out the commercialization of the Wheat Board. We needed to study that separately. However, overall, this one is not an improper use of omnibus bills; rather, it just flirts with the word “improper”.

What is good and what is not good about this? Obviously, there is much in this budget to like. I was disappointed because I thought there would be more to like, and there are two specific elements I must mention, before we move to Standing Order 31s, that are really unfortunate and, in fact, egregious.

In terms of the good things, there are changes to the employment insurance program that I welcome. However, as many groups have said, including those who testified before the finance committee, we need to go further and fix EI to get it back to the systems we had before the changes of the Conservative regime. Therefore, while it is certainly better to have the changes we just made, I tried in committee to make amendments to deal with the long-tenured worker, the idea that one has to work for seven years to qualify for those pieces. We have not yet seen the reversal of the changes to seasonal workers. We need to see that.

In the case of the child benefit program, I agree with the Canadian Teachers' Federation, which described it as a good first step to alleviate childhood poverty. However, I found this evidence from the Canadian Teachers' Federation really telling, and we should all take it on board as parliamentarians. It stated:

Each day in our classrooms, Canadian teachers engage with children and youth who are hungry, tired, and struggling due to poverty.

I talk to teachers all the time. We need to do much more for our children. This is just a very small first step.

With respect to veterans, I would say that the Liberals kept their promise to open the veterans offices across Canada that were wrongfully closed. They have done some things that will change the permanent impairment allowance and the grade determination. This is an improvement. However, we still need much more to be done for our veterans, just as we do for pensioners.

The National Pensioners Federation made the same point. The increase in GIS for pensioners is very welcome, but it is $2.60 a day. The maximum improvement for poor seniors in this budget is $2.60 a day. That is not enough.

There is more that I liked in the budget, such as cultural industries and better deals for students, although the money needs to be improved. However, there are two pieces that are completely egregious. One is found on page 221, where the fossil fuel subsidy to liquefied natural gas is left in place until 2024. This is a violation of the Liberal election promise to end subsidies to fossil fuels.

Also, at pages 166 and 167, we see a commitment to keep environment assessment in place under the Bill C-38 version, which as I just mentioned, destroyed our environmental assessment regime. Specific reference to continue to fund CEAA under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012, is offensive to all of us who understand environmental law.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

The hon. member will have four minutes remaining when debate resumes.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures, as reported with amendments from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands has four minutes left in her speech.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, resuming more or less where I left off, I am speaking to Bill C-15 at report stage.

I had earlier canvassed a couple of key points. One is that this is not an improper use of an omnibus bill, but it certainly is an omnibus bill. It does stay and pertain to one central theme, which is implementing budget 2016. I do remain concerned, however, that we should have spent more time on it.

I mentioned one item in particular where I think the current Liberal government may be flirting with the accusation of it being improper. We did spend some time on this one item in finance committee, but not enough, and that is clause 38, which adds section 135.2 in relation to tax-deferred treatment for transactions under the continuation of the Canadian Wheat Board.

It would have been good to have had this in a separate piece of legislation. The chair of our finance committee pursued the matter of what happened to the assets of the Canadian Wheat Board with some departmental officials. There were billions of dollars there. Where did that money go? How do we find out where it went?

We know that, in respect of the tax consequences of the trust created in connection with the continuation of the Canadian Wheat Board, the debt of the Wheat Board acquired by the trust is not included in the trust income, but we do not know what happened to the assets of the Canadian Wheat Board, which is a rather substantial question, and whether they were transferred to prairie farmers, as was expected. It appears that they were not.

That is an item that would have been better handled had this part of the budget bill been separated out so it could be properly studied.

There are other aspects that I did not have enough time to address before we stopped for members' statements and question period. I want to revisit one of them in particular that I described as egregious moments ago. Let me explain why.

That is found in the budget, and also, of course, the funds are provided in Bill C-15. On the face of it, if we did not know this issue well, we would think that it was great that the government is providing funding for the improved process under the National Energy Board for looking at environmental assessments.

I found it egregious, and I will read from the budget, at page 166. It says:

Budget 2016 proposes to provide $14.2 million over four years...to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency to support the Agency in fulfilling its responsibilities under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012.

Further up on the same page, there is a similar suggestion that money will be provided:

...$16.5 million over three years...to [support] the National Energy Board...to implement the interim approach.

That was announced earlier this year by the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and the Minister of Natural Resources.

What must not be lost in this discussion of environmental assessment is that the current state of Canadian environmental assessment law is unacceptable, full stop. It is a failure. It is a process that does not work. It does not examine all parts of the environment, nor does it allow the right agency to do the reviews.

Having the National Energy Board do environmental assessments at all is a departure from Canadian environmental law, it is a departure from the National Energy Board's area of expertise, and it is completely unworkable.

We need to go back and revisit the changes that were made in Bill C-38 and repair the Environmental Assessment Act for good, not based on interim measures being spread out for a further three to four years with funding to operate under interim measures to fix a broken process.

It would be far better for all concerned, including industry stakeholders. I was speaking the other day with the Mining Association of Canada leadership. They said they had never wanted the changes that happened in Bill C-38. They do not find the process better.

We need to fix the process, not fund a kind of Rube Goldberg device to try to make something unfixable slightly better.

Those are main concerns with the budget. I find that, although I like this budget a lot more than anything I have read in the last 10 years, I cannot vote for it, because of the continuation of fossil fuel subsidies and the continuation of funding a broken EA process.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to congratulate my friend from Saanich—Gulf Islands for an honest and passionate speech, as she always gives.

I wonder if she could talk a little about what changes she would want to see in order to support it. I am curious about her opinions.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I feel as though this budget suffered from the fact that, when input went into Finance Canada to draft this, ministers were just beginning to establish their staff, just getting briefed up.

I am hoping that this is like a budget with training wheels, and the Minister of Finance will get it better next year.

This does not meet the expectations of proper funding for infrastructure. For instance, having announced $100 million for infrastructure in the first 10 years, only 10% of that funding is in the first five years.

We are talking about the need for economic stimulus. The Liberal government got elected on a pledge to use deficit spending to stimulate our economy and specifically to help infrastructure. It does not adequately help infrastructure. It is too little.

Let us hope that 2017 really addresses the infrastructure crisis and removes fossil fuel subsidies and commits to a revised environmental assessment act, one similar to what we had up until Bill C-38 in the spring of 2012.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands for her speech.

We nod our heads whenever someone talks about environmental issues. She is right about how so many issues have been put off. I am sure she is very aware of the burden of being so few in number and, as a result, seeing governments ignore so many of the measures they could include in an omnibus bill.

Would my colleague like to comment on the fact that the Liberal Party was elected for its bold promises? I like her image of training wheels that a young cyclist uses when learning to ride a bike and the fact that this does not meet people's expectations, including those of the party's own backbenchers, the MPs who are not in cabinet.

That is what is kind of sad about an omnibus bill, is it not? The fact that it silences everyone, not just opposition members, but also anyone whose opinion differs from that of cabinet ministers.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert for his question.

I think that this budget implementation bill really is an omnibus bill. However, it is not at all like the omnibus budget bills introduced by the previous government. At least this bill does not contain changes to laws that have nothing to do with the budget, as was the case with omnibus Bill C-38 in the spring of 2012. It was really terrible and gutted certain laws meant to protect the environment.

I think the bill before us would be better if the government would examine certain projects, particularly the one that pertains to the Canadian Wheat Board. I would agree that it is an omnibus bill, but it is not all that terrible.

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise on behalf of my constituents in Saint-Boniface—Saint-Vital to speak to these important issues in the House.

It is a great honour to rise today on behalf of the citizens of Saint Boniface—Saint Vital who, on October 19, voted for change, change in leadership, in direction, and in priorities for our country. I am very happy to say that budget 2016 delivers on those promises of change.

As a former city councillor for many years, I am proud to say that this budget delivers on our commitment to rebuild our communities, both rural and urban, as well as rebuilding our cities.

Just this last weekend I had the pleasure to attend the Federation of Canadian Municipalities annual general meeting in Winnipeg, Canada. There, cities and municipalities from coast to coast to coast met in Winnipeg and they collectively sent the message that they had been sending for the last 20 years to little avail. That message is that cities are in desperate need of the most basic of infrastructure. Whether it is regional roads, residential streets, back lanes, sidewalks, bridges, community centres, libraries, pools, day cares, and more, all need the help and the investment of the federal government.

Let me give members a little real-time example. The City of Winnipeg currently spends $1 billion a year on infrastructure, above ground infrastructure only, and the heavy construction industry of Manitoba commissioned a study about six years ago that said that the City of Winnipeg should actually be spending an extra $300 million per year on above ground infrastructure, just to maintain the current infrastructure at its current level. That bears repeating. This would not actually improve our infrastructure; it would only maintain it to the level that it is currently at today. I daresay that cities cannot do this alone, and the time has never been better for federal investment into our infrastructure.

This weekend, I spoke to a councillor from the great ward of St. Boniface, Mathieu Allard. I also spoke with a councillor from Transcona, Mr. Russ Wyatt, who spoke about the absolute need of the federal government to partner with municipalities to construct transportation infrastructure on the east side of the city of Winnipeg, which is one of the fastest-growing segments of the entire city. Whether it is Woodvale-Lagimodiere, whether it is Marion Street, whether it is Archibald Street, the city is crying out for partnerships from the federal government to get the traffic moving on the east side of the city.

Those very same councillors spoke of the need for the federal government to also partner with Transcona on the Transcona outdoor pool project, as well as the Taché Boulevard walkway project in St. Boniface.

The councillor for St. Boniface spoke to me about the importance of the Tache Boulevard walkway project in front of the St. Boniface Cathedral. It is a wonderful project, one that is extremely important to the people of St. Boniface. It is supported not only by the City of St. Boniface, but also by the Winnipeg Foundation. The only thing missing is infrastructure funding from the federal government.

Both of these are very worthy projects that will be eligible under our green and our social infrastructure programs, which will be rolled out in the future.

I also spoke with a councillor from Point Douglas, Mike Pagtakhan, who emphasized the necessity for a new Arlington Street Bridge, which connects central Winnipeg to the north end of Winnipeg. I spoke to the councillor from Elmwood, Jason Schreyer, who advocated strongly for a new Louise Bridge, a piece of infrastructure that should have been renewed long ago but fell by the wayside because of a lack of funding by all levels of government.

I spoke to the councillor from Old Kildonan, Devi Sharma, who advocated on the merits of completing the ring road project called Chief Peguis Trail, which would link Main Street to the CentrePort project, an initiative not only important to alleviate traffic congestion in Winnipeg but also to enhance economic development opportunities at CentrePort Canada, Winnipeg's very own inland port located near the airport.

Winnipeg needs to catch up on its rapid transit obligations. The future of cities is closely connected to managing traffic, getting rid of gridlock, and getting traffic moving again, and nothing does that better than getting people out of their cars and getting them to use rapid transit. Winnipeg has ambitious plans for rapid transit and what it needs is a federal government that is equally interested.

I am equally proud that our first slice of infrastructure spending will be on what is arguably the most important of all, our underground infrastructure: water systems and wastewater treatment systems.

People have to understand that for many years federal and provincial governments have been extremely reluctant to invest in our underground systems for a simple and cynical reason, because we do not often get to cut ribbons when pipe is placed underground. It is not a play structure that would be immediately utilized by hundreds of children in any park or schoolyard. It is not a bridge that would benefit thousands of citizens as they commute back and forth. Nonetheless it is probably the most important of all because nothing is more important than clean water and a clean environment.

That is why I am proud that budget 2016 makes green infrastructure its first priority. It is filling a void that previous federal and provincial governments have created, because make no mistake about it, cities cannot do it by themselves and budget 2016 recognizes this.

We will also be giving families more money to help with the high cost of raising their children. We will be introducing a more generous, simplified, and tax-free Canada child benefit to give families more money to raise their children. Our Canada child benefit is geared to income. Those who need the help the most will receive the help, single- and low-income families. Our plan will raise 300,000 children out of poverty. This is an important measure that will give children a better opportunity at a brighter future. Families in Manitoba alone will receive $490 million more next year than the previous year. That is incredibly significant.

Another part of our plan is to raise the guaranteed income supplement for low-income seniors by 10%. This would give one million of our most vulnerable seniors, often women, almost $1,000 more per year.

The budget includes a $675-million investment in CBC/Radio-Canada, a national institution that is crucial to official language minority communities. In Saint Boniface, Radio-Canada Manitoba, which broadcasts on radio and television, is an important member of the Franco-Manitoban community that supports and promotes our culture.

The federal budget recognizes the contribution of cultural industries to the Canadian economy by committing $1.9 billion to arts and culture over five years. These investments will support major national institutions, protect both official languages, and support industries that showcase Canadian culture, including the Canada Council for the Arts, Telefilm Canada, and the National Film Board of Canada.

Recently a round table was held at the Barbara Mitchell Family Resource Centre. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and I met with community organizations to discuss poverty and housing issues. Stakeholders discussed the urgent need for affordable housing and that such housing needs to be part of a larger community plan in mixed neighbourhoods, creating an ecosystem of community housing that supports people through training programs and other services.

Budget 2016 proposes to double the current federal funding under the investment in affordable housing initiative, create an affordable rental housing initiative fund to test innovative business approaches, such as housing models with a mix of rental and home ownership, and invest in renovations to existing social housing.

Budget 2016 will lift 300,000 children out of poverty. It will offer nine million Canadians a middle-income tax cut, which I really have not spoken of today. It will improve the living conditions of one million seniors through a 10% increase in the guaranteed income supplement. There is $8.4 billion of new funding for indigenous infrastructure and education, $2 billion for arts and culture over five years, and Canada's largest-ever infrastructure program is being introduced in this budget. I am very proud to support this budget.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to hear the hon. member for Saint Boniface—Saint Vital underline the need to replace the Louise Bridge in his speech. It is indeed a project long overdue.

One of the connected projects and an important infrastructure need that is adjacent to where the new Louise Bridge would go is the Columbus housing co-op. The riverbank around the co-op has been eroding and is now actually quite close to the housing complex and risks the housing on that land. It is City of Winnipeg land.

I am wondering if the member and his government would agree with me that federal infrastructure money should be able to be applied to riverbank reinforcement projects, especially when doing so could help save housing in Winnipeg.