Debates of June 3rd, 2013

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in a way, it is not surprising to hear the negativity from the other side when we consider that opposition members go to the States and talk down our economy.

I am very much aware of the fact that the city the member comes from is experiencing one of the highest unemployment rates in history. I would think that the member would be concerned about creating jobs, especially for young people. Yet, Liberals are saying they are going to oppose the budget when it offers all kinds of opportunity for job creation.

I want to quote Mike Holmes with relation to Skills Canada. He stated:

Actually, (I’m) very satisfied. I mean, to hear the $47 billion go into infrastructure which, one, we need--we need to fix the bridges, the roads--two, to help the young get into the trades, a $15,000 per person tax benefit. I mean, this is a move in the right direction. We’re going to encourage the young to get into the trades and we have jobs for them to do. In the long run they’re all going to be working for many years and the government is going to be receiving tax dollars. This is a win-win.

My question, very simply, is this. Why would opposition members, especially this member from a high unemployment area, continue to work against the very thing our government has been trying to do: encourage youth to get into the skills trades and find meaningful employment?

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, you may have noted that when I began my speech, I spoke about talk, talk, talk, with no action. We are not seeing anything that is tangible and real.

Yes, of course, there is unemployment in my town, thanks very much to the lack of action of the government. When Electro-Motive Diesel and Caterpillar threatened workers with a 50% reduction in pensions, wages and benefits, the government sat on its hands. Yes, there is unemployment because the government continues to sit on its hands.

About a month ago, I visited one of the employers in my riding, Great Lakes Copper. It is managing. It does remarkable work and has a very strong workforce of about 300 people. It pays decent wages and provides benefits. However, it told me that the government allows the dumping of cheap copper into the Canadian market. There is no support or help for entities like Great Lakes Copper, and no practical training either. Within that particular manufacturing facility, multiple skills are required, and the government has provided nothing with regard to the multi-skilled levels for companies like Great Lakes Copper. Conservatives can talk, and they do talk, but I want to see some action.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it was just over a year ago when we heard that the Conservative government was going to increase the age of retirement from 65 to 67. The member made reference to poverty and many seniors are in a poverty situation. When one looks at the budget we are talking about today, the fact that there is really—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

On a point of order, the member for Kitchener—Conestoga.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is no truth to the concept that this government is increasing the age of retirement. I would ask my colleague to retract that statement.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

That is not a point of order. That is obviously a question of debate.

Resuming questions and comments with the member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, if the Conservative member gets in touch with his caucus, he will find out that, in fact, the age is being increased from 65 to 67. Anyone who is 52 years of age and younger is going to feel that impact.

Pensionable incomes are one way that people are able to afford to live after retirement. Does the member find there is anything within this budget that would provide any hope that the government is going to deal with that particular issue?

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, indeed the age of eligibility for OAS-GIS has increased to 67. This is extremely difficult for people who do jobs that require hard labour or who are dependent upon provincial programs. The government did not discuss any of that with the provinces or with pension providers.

The truth is that this country can afford to look after its seniors. The OECD, Bernard Dussault and Kevin Page have made it very clear that the GDP will increase on a par with the number of seniors and we can indeed maintain the age of eligibility at 65.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to the budget bill.

Let me begin by saying that the leadership provided by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance since 2006, when we formed the government, has drawn world attention. As the parliamentary secretary of foreign affairs, I travel all over the world doing my job. The question I am often asked is, “How did you guys in Canada do it? How did you avoid the serious recession?”

As we know, countries all around the world, in the eurozone and elsewhere, are facing a serious recession. The question we are asked is how we avoided it, considering that our largest neighbour to the south also went through a very serious recession. It was through the strong leadership provided by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance during these years.

Let me just point out one factor with respect to Governor Mark Carney. Governor Carney provided strong leadership during the period of this recession and has earned worldwide respect, so much so that the Bank of England, a country facing a very serious recession, has hired him to chart its economy through this recession. That is a great honour for Canada and speaks volumes to the leadership that was provided by the Minister of Finance and Governor Carney. I take this opportunity to wish him bon voyage and the best of luck in the U.K.

The world has acknowledged our fiscal leadership despite the NDP's anti-growth and trade agenda. We now see that the Liberal leader is following the same agenda because I think he is now competing with the NDP for more seats in Quebec.

However, that is not what this is about. Let me highlight what this government has done and talk about the good news since we have come in and why the world is so impressed by us.

The first item on our action plan is to return to a balanced budget. I am pleased to say that we are track to balance the budget by 2015 and 2016. That is quite a considerable achievement.

How did we do that? By reducing wasteful departmental spending, reducing travel costs through the use of technology, continuing to control public service compensation and eliminating tax loopholes that benefit a select few. We are helping businesses succeed and grow in the global market. We are providing tax relief for manufacturers, helping small business expand through the small business fund, increasing the lifetime capital gains exemption and supporting mining exploration.

Let me also say that this government is strongly supporting families and communities. We are supporting families through an enhanced new tax relief for families. We are investing in communities, nearly $1.9 billion over five years, to create more affordable housing.

We are supporting and honouring our veterans by enhancing the funeral and burial program by simplifying it and more than doubling the current funeral services reimbursement rate from $3,000 to $7,000.

We are promoting strong aboriginal communities by strengthening opportunities for on-reserve economic development, improving safety for aboriginal peoples and enhancing health care services on reserves.

Not only that, our economic action plan would also be connecting Canadians with available jobs. In my riding of Calgary East, people are looking for jobs so that they can provide for their children and growing families. This government is providing more job opportunities for people through the Canada skills grant. We are also strengthening the apprenticeship program, and supporting job opportunities by providing tools to persons with disabilities, youth, aboriginals and recent immigrants to help them find a job.

As well, we are investing in a long-term infrastructure plan, with over $70 billion over 10 years for a new building Canada plan, including $32.2 billion over 10 years for a community improvement fund, $14 billion for a new building Canada fund, $1.25 billion for the renewal of the P3 Canada program, and $6 billion under current infrastructure programs for provinces, territories and municipalities.

We are continuing to invest in world-class research and innovation. I am pleased to say that I have taken many trips with the governor general who has been promoting education links around the world. We have seen, first class, what Canada can offer to other countries, in research and innovation.

It is very important we have a strong health care system and social security network. I am happy to say that there have been record transfer supports for social and health services for my province of Alberta and it will receive significant support through the federal transfers in 2013-14.

Let me also talk for a minute about supporting seniors. Seniors have spent their lives building our country. Therefore, it is natural that we do support them. Since 2006, over $2.7 billion in annual tax relief has been provided to seniors and pensioners.

Not only that, we are very happy to say that we have expanded tax relief for home care services. We are better protecting seniors using financial services, in working with the banks. We are supporting palliative care services provided by the Pallium Foundation of Canada. We are encouraging a timely implementation of the pooled registered pension plan. We are assisting in construction and renovation of accessible community facilities.

All of this is part and parcel of plan 2013, a plan that will provide hope, direction and guidance so we have a very strong foundation left in our country that will help propel us into the future. Talking about the future, we have to look past it.

The only problem we now have with the NDP, and now these days with the Liberal Party, is they do not look beyond their noses. All they are looking at is when they are getting the next election. That is why the NDP members are opposed to the free trade agreement agenda. Every time we have a free trade agreement, the NDP opposes it. I have sat in this Parliament and time after time I have heard the NDP say that it does not want free trade agreements.

Not only that, in the famous words used by the Leader of the Opposition on growth, it is a disease.

All of this indicates quite clearly why the NDP's economic policies will take us nowhere. A prime example is what happened in British Columbia. The NDP lost the election in British Columbia, because the people there got very scared of the economic agenda of the NDP.

We now see that the Liberal Party is not only doing that, but is pitting one region against the other. The leader comes from Quebec, but he seems to forget all the time that he is also the leader of the Liberal Party. All we hear from him, constantly, out west is about the interests of Quebec.

I can understand because he wants to grab a few more seats from the NDP and de-throne it as the official opposition. I wish them good luck. We do not really care, if they remain on the other side of the bench, who the official opposition is. For us, this party is the same party when it comes to the economic agenda.

This government will remain focused on the economic agenda. This government will look to the future so our children have a bright future and will see a strong Canada, economically, socially and for all other things.

Let us move forward. This government is providing the direction.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs for his speech, but I cannot say that I agree with what he had to say.

If we are going to talk about employment rates and economic growth, I would like to tell the House that I had a chance to talk about the 2013 federal budget with the people of my riding in Laval in April. I wanted to tell them about what was in the federal budget, both good and bad. I asked them what they thought of this budget. They talked to me primarily about their concerns, and at the top of the list was the elimination of the tax credit for labour-sponsored funds.

My colleague across the aisle talked about how important employment, economic growth and prosperity are. Quebeckers really liked investing in our local economy using that tool. However, the Conservatives are pulling the rug out from under us, since over 85% of these labour-sponsored funds come from the province of Quebec.

Would my colleague opposite not agree that this budget measure is a direct attack on Quebec's economy?

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely not. I do not agree with the member's assessment of labour sponsored funds in Quebec. This budget would help all of Canada, from coast to coast to coast, and would create the economic environment that provides economic benefits for Quebec as well.

With this legislation, there would be a tax break for new manufacturing machinery and equipment that would benefit Quebec. The reduction in GST benefits Quebec. The Canada job grant benefits Quebec very much. The Canada opportunities for apprentices benefits Quebec very much. Supporting more internships for post-secondary graduates benefits Quebec very much.

To say that Quebec will not benefit is absolutely wrong. Rather we are looking forward to having a very strong Quebec within Canada.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to join in the debate on Bill C-60, the budget implementation act.

I would think that anybody who speaks to me about CPAC, the House of Commons and watches the proceedings outside of question period are usually pretty dialed in to the issues facing the nation. They have a great interest in the issues of the nation and there could not be one any more important than the budget implementation act.

My good friend and colleague has been here for the last 13 years so he should be able to answer this question on the budget.

The budget did not have a lot of numbers in it and my good friend's speech was not really overwhelmed with a lot of numbers either. However, could the member tell us, and the people watching at home would really like to know, what the country's accrued debt now stands at? How much debt is our country currently carrying? Just the number would be fine.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my friend asks a good question. I always look to him to provide some colourful language and questions.

I am very happy that he has asked such a question, for which I must give him credit, but I will have to get back to him with that answer.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to debate Bill C-60, the budget implementation act. In answer to the previous question, the parliamentary secretary should know that the debt has increased. Again, we are seeing a further addition to that total debt through this budget.

It is interesting that when the Minister of Finance gave his budget speech, he committed to balancing the books by 2015. Well is that not wonderful? The only problem with what the minister said was he has never hit one single target he has ever set, when he was minister of finance with the province of Ontario or when he was Minister of Finance with the federal government.

In fact, the government came to power when there was an annual surplus. Conservatives squandered that away. Now, so the parliamentary secretary understand because he is part of the cabinet, we have a government that is the biggest spending government in Canadian history. It has cut more services and programs than any other government in Canadian history. It is still in deficit spending.

My colleague, the member for Kings—Hants, in his remarks pointed out that there were a number of areas in the bill that we could support, but there were a number of areas that we could not. I have said in this place before that one of the problems is that for some of those technical areas we cannot really get into a discussion and debate on because they are all tied up in the omnibus bill. This one is not as bad as previous ones in covering so many topics, but it still is bad and takes away the ability to really debate in-depth and hold proper hearings on specific sections that are affected by Bill C-60.

My colleague from Kings—Hants indicated that there were two key reasons that we would continue to oppose the bill. One is the legislation threatens the independence of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. In the section in Bill C-60 that talks about crown corporations, Treasury Board collective bargaining, it would allow the cabinet to require that a crown corporation have its negotiating mandate approved by the Treasury Board before beginning negotiations.

It would also allow cabinet to require that a Treasury Board employee attend and act as an observer during that collective bargaining process. In other words, the real ability of a crown corporation to operate in its own right would be taken away by Treasury Board. That is just pure wrong.

We know the dislike that the Prime Minister, the cabinet and government has against the CBC. They are basically going to have the mandate to order the crown corporation, which is supposed to be independent of government, on how it should negotiate. This really undermines that independence in a very serious way.

The second area my colleague from Kings—Hants mentioned, which I agree with, and as our leader has said many times in this place, was the budget continued to raise taxes on middle-class Canadians to pay for the Conservatives' wasteful spending. That is so evident.

It is interesting that when the Minister of Finance got up and read his budget speech and talked a bit about the budget, he outlined the tax relief on hockey equipment, et cetera. What he failed to talk about were all the areas where there would be really, in effect, tax increases or cost recovery fee increases and other measures that would place a financial burden on middle-class Canadians. It is middle-class Canadians who make our country tick. What we see in the budget are a number of tax measures that are really making it much more difficult for Canadian middle-class families to make ends meet.

It is not just the tax measures. The government members get up and say that by our not wanting to increase the tariffs on China, we are putting a damper on creating jobs in Canada. That is not true at all. The fact of the matter is that none of the low-end bicycles are produced in Canada. The higher end, the $5,000 and $6,000 bicycles, are, in fact, produced here. It goes to show how narrow the focus of the government is. It tries to paint everything with the same brush. As a result, ordinary Canadians are facing increased costs and certainly a lot fewer services.

The budget also raises taxes on small business owners by some $2.3 billion over the next five years, directly hurting about three-quarters of a million Canadians and risking Canadian jobs. That is what the budget actually does. Employment insurance premiums will go up. There is a huge cost to Canadians.

In Bill C-60 there was an opportunity for the government to show some vision for the future. Where that vision really needs to be shown is in the whole area of youth employment. That is an absolute missing factor in this particular budget. Canada's labour market for young Canadians has yet to recover from the recession. Unemployment for young people is around 24%. Young people need the opportunity to have a job to help pay for their education but also to give them skills in the employment field and in the business market. Youth employment has been completely ignored by the government. It had an opportunity to do something about Canada's future, but it is failing dismally.

In fact, as has been said in the House a few times, there have been ads during the Stanley Cup playoffs hockey series about Canada's action plan. The government spends on Canada's action plan ads and talks about the student program, but there are a lot of disclaimers at the end of the commercial. It talks about it, but consultations with the provinces on that program have not even started. It is not up and running, and here is the government spending on ads, when the cost for one of those ads, under the current assistance for student work, is equivalent to 32 student summer jobs, in terms of the federal government share. Every time Canadians look at those ads, they must think that there is money that could have been spent more appropriately creating student summer jobs. That is what really needs to be done, and the government failed dismally in that area.

The government will talk about the incentive for greater charitable donations for young people. However, unless it is a family of wealth, and that is not the middle class, that is not going to make any difference either.

To close, this budget is terrible for Prince Edward Island. In my province, the cuts to the Canadian Tourism Commission mean stopping its advertising in the United States market. That means fewer tours coming to Prince Edward Island to help our economy.

There would be cuts to agriculture. That would hurt us in Prince Edward Island. There would be cuts to the fishery, which would hurt us as well.

This is a dismal budget, and the government should just admit it.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Before moving on to questions and comments, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment: the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, Employment Insurance; the hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, Science and Technology.

Questions and comments.

The hon. member for Kitchener—Conestoga.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was a little surprised to hear the negativity from the member. I was not surprised to hear it from the NDP, but I thought this member would actually understand that within this budget, there are all kinds of measures to have job creation opportunities for youth. Over and over again, they are ignoring the facts of the budget.

I just want to quote, again, for the benefit of this member and those who may be watching, Mike Holmes. We all know Mike Holmes and the way he promotes job creation and the renovations he does. This is what he said:

Actually very satisfied, I mean, to hear the $47 billion go into infrastructure, which, one, we need—we need to fix the bridges, the roads—two, to help the young get into the trades, a $15,000-per-person tax benefit. I mean, this is a move in the right direction. We're going to encourage the young to get into the trades, and we have jobs for them to do. In the long run, they're all going to be working for many years, and the government's going to be receiving tax dollars. This is a win-win.

In Prince Edward Island, Ontario, Manitoba, wherever, this is going to be good for youth. Why would this member from Prince Edward Island not support our youth?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, that is why I am on my feet. It is because I do support our youth. The problem is that the budget does not.

Maybe the members are just looking at the talking points. Take, for instance, the $47 billion in infrastructure. Does that number not sound good on the surface? However, it is stretched out over 10 years. It is back-loaded on the other end, well after the next election. For the next two years, there is hardly anything in that budget for infrastructure.

The member can get up to talk about the $47 billion. The problem is that the $47 billion does not exist for that age group that is now youth. By the time that money is available to be spent, they will be well beyond being youth.

That is the problem with the current government. It talks a good line, but it fails to put in the measures to actually do the job. That is the problem with this budget.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Malpeque for his speech. I had the pleasure of working with him on the Standing Committee on International Trade.

He was right when he said that the infrastructure money for all of Canada is peanuts—peanuts in the shell, actually. Stakeholders who want to apply for program funding for their projects will have a lot of work to do.

I would like him to comment on another issue that I am quite concerned about, an issue that we discussed at length at the Standing Committee on Finance. I would like to tell the member for Malpeque how frustrated we felt when the Liberal Party representative supported the government on this issue.

The proposed changes to the Investment Canada Act will raise the threshold so high that, a few years from now, only those transactions worth over $1 billion—which is very few of them—will be reviewed. It will also depend on what the minister wants, of course.

How can he support that when he talks about fighting for jobs and the future of our youth? Is he not ashamed?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, in terms of the Investment Canada Act, the reason we did not support the motion coming forward from the NDP was that it would not allow the necessary investments. We are in 2013. The figures from 10, 15 and 20 years ago, in terms of global investment, just do not work anymore. There are other measures we can take to ensure that the investment coming in, whether it is from foreign countries or state-owned enterprises, meets the requirements we believe are necessary in Canada to protect our natural resources and our value-added industries for Canadians.

We live in a global economy. In fact, I was at a trade session this morning where we were talking about the necessary investment to utilize the best aspects of our natural resource industry.

[Eve Adams, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, economic action plan 2013 is our Conservative government's plan for jobs, growth and long-term prosperity. Our economic action plan is centred on the priorities of hard-working Canadians and their families. We remain focused on what matters to Canadians. This government knows that Canadians are concerned about the economic prosperity of this nation. They want to know that we have a solid plan of action to ensure that Canada continues to prosper. I am proud to say that our government continues to put Canadians first.

Ongoing economic turbulence in the United States and Europe, among our most important trading partners, continues to impact Canada. That is why our government introduced economic action plan 2013 to help protect and grow the Canadian economy with positive measures like the hiring credit for small businesses; the Canada job grant, the largest federal investment in job-creating infrastructure projects in Canadian history; and significant new investments to support manufacturing.

In order for Canada to grow, we need more businesses and more investment in our economy. We need more support for job-creating measures. We just posted the strongest quarter in two years. And with the over 900,000 net new jobs that have been created since the depth of the global recession, we have many encouraging signs that Canada's economy is back on track. Our government is ensuring that Canadians get first crack at available jobs by reforming the temporary foreign worker program. Canada's job growth record remains the best among all G7 countries. Our economic stewardship is second to none in the G7.

Small businesses are one of the economic engines of the Canadian economy, accounting for 98% of all employer businesses and supporting workers and communities from coast to coast to coast. My parents, new immigrants to Canada, saved their money and became small business owners. I pumped gas at their gas stations, managed the payroll and inventory orders at their restaurants, and negotiated their land development deals, as my parents' language skills were lacking. To this day, my mom still does not speak English very well, but her work as a small business owner meant that our payroll was always met and our success meant jobs for our neighbours. Small business owners are willing to invest their savings, work hard and take risks to create jobs. In order to maintain Canada's record of job growth, we need to continue to support our businesses, which are our job creators.

Economic action plan 2013 proposes a number of key measures to support small businesses, including extending the temporary hiring credit for small businesses for one year. Approximately 560,000 small business owners would benefit from this measure, allowing them to reinvest approximately $225 million in 2013, as long as they hire more people. We would also increase the lifetime capital gains exemption to $800,000 from $750,000 in 2014, and index it, going forward. The lifetime capital gains exemption increases the rewards of investing in small businesses, and makes it easier for owners to transfer their family businesses to the next generation of Canadian entrepreneurs.

Under our government's low tax plan for Canada, a typical small business owner with a taxable income of $500,000 has seen his or her tax bill drop by over 34%, or $28,000, since we were first elected in 2006. Our government clearly values the contribution of small businesses to the success of the Canadian economy. We will continue to support and encourage growth in this vitally important sector.

Economic action plan 2013 would provide $18 million to the Canadian Youth Business Foundation to help young entrepreneurs grow their firms. Our government has also lowered the small business tax rate from 12% to 11%, allowing small businesses to invest in growth, to hire new employees, our neighbours, and expand in new markets.

We are also extending the temporary accelerated capital cost allowance for new investments in machinery and equipment by Canadian manufacturers for two years.

Conservatives also understand the role of infrastructure in our country's economy. We have invested in an unprecedented number of projects that are improving the GTA's roads, highways and public transit. My neighbours in Mississauga and Brampton rely on public transit and highways on a daily basis. Whether it is commuting to and from work or simply driving our kids to hockey practice, road conditions matter. Improvements to infrastructure and public transit systems throughout Canada will not only preserve more jobs but will also allow for an improved quality of life for commuters.

During the depth of the recession, our government invested in important infrastructure projects. In Mississauga, those vital dollars allowed us to build Sheridan College, a new downtown centre and undertake the largest transit expansion in our city's history. Funding allowed us to fix up our parks and build new community pools. It put our neighbours to work.

Economic action plan 2013 builds on our investments in infrastructure and announces a new building Canada plan, the largest investment in job-creating infrastructure in Canadian history. The new building Canada plan outlines our investments in our nation.

The community improvement fund would provide $32.2 billion, consisting of an indexed gas tax fund and an increased GST rebate for municipalities to build roads, public transit, recreational facilities and other community infrastructure across Canada that would improve the quality of life of all Canadians.

In 2008, we made the gas tax fund permanent to help municipalities plan and fund improvements to essential infrastructure. Economic action plan 2013 commits that the gas tax fund be indexed at 2% per year starting in 2014-15.

The new building Canada fund would allocate $14 billion for major economic infrastructure projects that have both a national and regional significance, bringing back the focus to our communities.

Our government understands the needs of Canadian taxpayers. We understand that Canadians want to save their money and invest in their future. That is why we have introduced measures like the tax-free savings account, TFSA, which allows Canadians to earn tax-free investment income to more easily meet their lifetime savings needs. As of 2013, Canadians can contribute up to $5,500 annually to a TFSA. This is an increase from the annual contribution limit for 2009 and reflects indexation to inflation. This year the TFSA allows for contributions of up to $25,500, promoting savings.

We have removed one million low-income families from the tax rolls altogether.

We have targeted personal income tax rates and cut the lowest personal income tax rate to 15%.

Our government appreciates the ongoing contributions of seniors; now it is time for us to show our appreciation. Our government has provided seniors with the very much needed ability to split their pension income.

The average Canadian family of four meanwhile has seen savings totalling more than $3,200.

Our Conservative government continues to provide the 6% increase to provinces for health care funding all the while.

Since 2006, we have introduced more than 150 tax-cutting measures and provided over $160 million in tax relief for Canadian families and individuals over a six-year period.

I would like to speak briefly about our veterans, an issue very near and dear to me. Our veterans fought for the preservation of our nation and the safety and freedom of our country.

Our government is committed to ensuring that those who die without financial means receive the necessary financial support to provide for a dignified funeral and burial. The funeral and burial program, which is delivered by the Last Post Fund on behalf of Veterans Affairs Canada, offers financial assistance to veterans' estates where the veteran died as a result of a service-related disability or for cases where the veteran had insufficient assets. This budget commits over $65 million over two years to more than double the amount of money available for veterans' funerals.

Our government's plan to get back to a balanced budget is working and we have reduced the deficit by more than half over the past two years. Economic action plan 2013 builds on past efforts to reduce government spending by announcing an additional $1.7 billion of additional savings.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member spoke of support for seniors and families, and so forth. We have been hearing from delegations of medical practitioners for the last couple of weeks who are very concerned about the lack of support by the government to the issues they see arising. To their credit, they have been travelling across Canada talking about the social determinants of health. Very clearly, they are concerned. What the evidence is showing is that the poor are very unhealthy and those with resources are much healthier.

Could the member speak to the call by the Canadian Federation of Municipalities to finally have the government dedicate specific funds for affordable housing, which would help many who are suffering financially and torn between paying for their rent, medicine or food for their children?

[Eve Adams, Conservative, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

In fact, Mr. Speaker, as a former regional councillor, I was honoured to invest some much-needed federal dollars in social housing in the region of Peel, including Mississauga, Brampton and Caledon. They were critically important dollars.

Our government is also supporting seniors by allowing for pension income splitting. This is critically important to many couples. More to the point, our government has removed altogether from the tax rolls over one million individuals, the most needy members of our society, including seniors and low-income families. I think the member opposite will agree that is vitally important.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, could the member comment on how she would justify the government hitting new records in terms of expenditures on advertising? The government spends a great deal of tax dollars in order to tell Canadians about an economic action plan. In fact, the current government, more than any other government before it, has allocated hundreds of millions of dollars in self-promotion, on things such as the action plan. The cost of one ad during an NHL hockey game would finance summer jobs for 30 youth.

How does she justify the government, given today's economic times and the call for responsible government spending, wasting so much money on advertising? People do not want to see the economic action plan ads any more and, for whatever reason, that is not sinking in with the government.

[Eve Adams, Conservative, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in fact, our Conservative government's spending on advertising is lower than the last Liberal government's spending. We are very good stewards of taxpayer dollars.

It is important to communicate with residents across the country. People want to know about the tax credits that are available to them and the job hiring grants. Many parents want to know about the fitness tax credit, for instance, and we need to communicate with Canadians to let them know about the money that is available to them. It is their tax dollars.

Also, everyone will note that it was our government that undertook the reforms to MPs' pensions. We are very serious when we say that we respect taxpayer dollars and our ministers' office spending is lower than what the Liberals spent.

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

Mr. Speaker, in line with the last point to the parliamentary secretary, I was recently reviewing the costs of the operations of the Prime Minister's Office, which is the least accountable part of this entire federal budget. It is now almost double what it was at any time in our history. It is now at about $10 million a year. In an effort to find out how many people work there, I was told that it was off limits for Canadians to know what the $10 million in the Prime Minister's partisan operations of exempt staff in the PMO actually is spent on.

I wonder if the hon. parliamentary secretary could offer us any guidance as to how we could get some accountability out of that rogue branch of government.