Debates of Feb. 12th, 2014

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

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

Mr. Speaker, repeatedly throughout my colleague's speech, she inaccurately referred to this as the “do-nothing budget”.

I have not had the chance to read all of the 400 pages in this budget, but as the chair of the environment committee, I did quickly go to the section on the environment to see what initiatives our government is proposing in this budget. I do not have time to read anywhere near all of them, but I am going to read a few of them.

The budget would protect Canada's national parks by providing over $390 million to make improvements to highways, bridges, and dams located in our national parks. It would support conservation by investing an additional $15 million in recreational fisheries conservation partnerships. It would support projects that would support the conservation of recreational fishing habitats.

I could go on and on about environmental initiatives, but I know that my colleague is very supportive of unions, so I have a question for her. I would like to give her a quote from Canada's Building Trades Unions, which said, “After years of being a mere add-on to post-secondary education, apprenticeship is being noticed by our federal government”. It went on to say, “The way apprentices are being treated has changed and they are now, thanks to measures introduced in the 2014 budget, treated more like their colleagues in college and university training”.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague if she would support the unions in their call for the support that we are giving to the trade unions by giving support to apprenticeship training, which is one of the most lacking areas of training in our country. If we are interested in improving the lot of middle-class Canadians, why would she not support this budget?

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot let the comments on environmental measures go by without expressing my serious concern about the demonizing of environmental groups that the government has engaged in. Whether by calling them radicals or terrorists, it is certainly adding to the chill in the environmental community. These organizations do a lot of good work in advocating for a sustainable environment, and there is genuine concern about the approach of the government with respect to charities.

I am also a strong supporter of apprenticeships. I am not sure that what is being proposed by the government will create one more apprenticeship in this country. What it does do is offer the opportunity for people who are already in apprenticeships to take on more debt.

We already have a challenge of household debt in this country. What would be good would be to expand the apprenticeship programs, but then the government would have to co-operate with the provinces, and the current government seems completely incapable of sitting down, having a reasonable discussion, and coming to a compromise with our provinces and territories.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on her comments on the budget. I know how passionately she cares.

There are 400 pages in this book. There are some good things in it, but I would say that about 375 pages are reannouncing things from the past or promoting things that are going to happen if everything falls into place in 2016. There is very little in here that is going to do anything much today.

I would like to ask my colleague a question on the issue of the infrastructure needs in our cities and throughout the country.

We have certainly had a very difficult winter. Our cities have had a lot of problems when it comes to aging and crumbling infrastructure. Never mind the bridges; I am just talking about the issues throughout the country and in Toronto in particular. We recently had an estimated $275 million in damage from the ice storm. I see nothing in here, no comment at all, about helping cities to deal with those challenges they are facing.

I would like to hear some comment on the infrastructure gap that Canada continues to face and the on the very small amount of money in this budget for infrastructure. It is really dealing with two important bridges that we want to see go forward, and some small craft harbour points; that is all that is there.

I would like to hear the member's position on the infrastructure issue.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly share my colleague's serious concern about of the lack of actual infrastructure spending. There is a real shell game going on in this budget with money that has been previously announced and is being reannounced, and we still do not know the details of many of the programs. Then there is infrastructure money that we are told will be spent in the future; what we really need is infrastructure spending now.

We saw a major problem with our hydro in Toronto. People in our area were without hydro for more than a week, which created serious hardship for many over the holiday period. There were very cold days, and a lot of people with mobility problems and seniors were challenged by this situation.

We have problems with hydro infrastructure, roads, water, and sewage, but I think the number one infrastructure issue in Toronto, and I thank my colleague for raising it, is gridlock. It is identified by the Toronto Board of Trade as our number one economic issue. It costs our economy in Toronto alone about $6 billion. It is an investment that we should be making now to improve our transit infrastructure, not to mention all the other infrastructure needs we have.

The government is failing our large cities by not investing in our infrastructure now. It is really shocking that it is abandoning our major urban centres.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Multiculturalism]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge the hard work of my colleague opposite. I used to have her role as the official opposition finance critic and I know it is always challenging. She certainly gives great credit to her assignment.

I have three questions.

The member suggested that this is an austerity budget. That is a term in Europe that has become associated with governments that are significantly reducing their program spending, often by 10%, 20%, or 30%, to deal with massive fiscal calamity.

However, in this budget, program spending is actually relatively flat. There is actually no reduction, because transfers to persons and provinces continue to grow at a very significant pace.

Would she not agree that it is inaccurate to characterize that as extreme austerity when, in fact, we continue to see massive increases in transfers to province--an increase of $65 billion over the past seven years, for example?

Second, she suggested criticism of one of the most exciting elements of the budget, from my perspective, that being the new apprenticeship loan. This is a measure that apprentices, the polytechnics in Canada, the career colleges, the community colleges have long asked for. Because apprentice training periods are typically about eight weeks, they were excluded from access to the Canada student loan program. Why would she and the NDP be against giving apprentice students access to the same financing option, if they choose, that regular post-secondary students have? Why should they be treated as second-class students? Why does she disagree with all of the colleges and the apprentice organizations themselves, which called for precisely this measure?

Third, in question period the other day, one of her colleagues opposed our shutting down of the current investor immigrant program, which effectively gives away Canadian permanent residency to people who provide a five-year fully-guaranteed $400,000 loan that they get back after five years, which very typically results in no real investment in Canada.

To be clear, the average investor immigrant pays in federal taxes, over the course of 20 years, $200,000 less than the average immigrant who arrives as a federal skilled worker and $100,000 less in federal taxes than someone who arrives as a permanent resident through the live-in caregiver program.

Why would she support giving away Canadian social benefits to wealthy foreigners, many of whom continue to live in tax havens abroad while their dependants use Canadian social programs, and do not pay their fair share of taxes?

With respect, the NDP should have demanded years ago that we shut that down.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and his questions. I know he is a member in this House who always does his homework.

In the brief time I have remaining, let me try to deal with each of the issues he has raised.

I do not think he has ever heard me, in this place or in public, accuse the government of “extreme” austerity, but clearly the government is focused on austerity. We have seen cuts take place in program after program, and over the years tens of billions of dollars have gone out of government spending. In our program growth, we are not keeping pace with population growth or with inflation. I think our programs are increasingly focused on an approach to Canadian families that is more in keeping with Leave It to Beaver from the 1950s than it is with the modern family of today.

Therefore, clearly, we are on a path of austerity, but not to same degree as Europe. I give him that.

I did not say I opposed the skilled trades student loan program; my criticism of it is that it is a very small measure to deal with youth unemployment. I am a big fan of the trades and I would like to see a big expansion of skilled trades programs. This is a very tiny measure to that end.

With respect to immigration, I know the member who asked the question is a former immigration minister and knows that dossier well. All I can say is do not get me started, because it is a huge issue in my riding, where families have to wait years for family reunification.

There was the tragedy we have seen of many members of our Roma community losing their ability to stay in Canada and being sent back to very unsafe conditions when they were seeking refugee status here. As well, we have very serious concerns about the ability of people to get their documents dealt with by the current government in a timely fashion.

We have huge problems in our immigration system. We would have liked to have seen a more comprehensive approach to immigration, one that would actually help immigrants who come to this country and one that would get their cases dealt with in a timely fashion.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to budget 2014, tabled yesterday at about this time in the House.

Last night on CBC's The National, Peter Mansbridge asked the Minister of Finance, “Are there those who are going to lose as a result of today's budget?” The minister's response was quite telling. The minister said, “That's an interesting question. I hadn't thought about it that way, Peter, and I can't think of any, actually”.

The Minister of Finance cannot think of any Canadians who will be hurt by the budget.

He tried to sell us the idea that it was a boring budget. However, this budget does nothing to help young Canadians who cannot find decent jobs, and it does next to nothing to help middle-class parents.

However, when we read the fine print of the budget, and I must assume that the Minister of Finance is aware of the details of his own budget, we see that this is a budget that actually does hurt many Canadians. In fact, it hurts one of our most vulnerable groups, a group to whom we owe so much, and that is Canada's veterans.

The Conservatives' latest budget actually hits our veterans squarely in the pocketbook. It hits them when they are at the medical clinic or at the drug store. For Canadians who bravely served this country and who are now retired and living on fixed incomes, the budget doubles the amount they must pay each month for their medical plan. Yet these cuts to our veterans did not get any coverage in the news last night. Perhaps it is because some of the language in the budget is so cleverly deceptive.

The change the Conservatives are making to the public service health care plan for retirees is one of the single largest items in the budget. By doubling the amount these retirees must pay for their health plan, the Conservatives hope to save roughly $7.4 billion over six years. That is $7.4 billion that is being taken from retired Canadians living on fixed incomes.That is not pocket change.

For a measure as big and as important as this, Canadians expect that there should be a lot more detail in the budget to explain who will be affected and by how much, but Conservatives left those details out.

For example, there is no information in the budget about who qualifies for the public service health care plan as a retiree. However, if we go to the website of the public service health care plan, it has a list of who qualifies for this plan as a retiree. That list includes retired members of the Canadian Forces, our veterans, and retired members of the RCMP. It includes their dependents and their survivors.

This is what these changes will mean for our veterans. For veterans who receive the most basic health care coverage, their annual contributions will go from $261 to roughly $550. That is double. Veterans with the most basic family coverage will see their annual contributions go from $513 to roughly $1,080. That is an additional $567 per year these pensioners on fixed incomes will have to pay to cover their prescriptions. That is an extra $567 retired veterans will have to find so that they and their spouses will not lose their medical coverage.

Yesterday we saw members of the government rise to give the Minister of Finance a standing ovation, over and over again, for his budget. Those members ought to think back to last Remembrance Day, and they ought to think about those brave veterans of World War II, our veterans who still show up each year on November 11, in smaller numbers, and who are still so valued and so worthy of our nation's undying gratitude. I ask them to think of an 88-year-old veteran of World War II who is struggling with diabetes and a heart condition, a grandfather who still cannot talk about what he witnessed in that war. Do the Conservatives actually think this man is living so high on the hog that he ought to be forced to pay double for his medical benefits?

How about the brave men and women who have come back from Afghanistan, veterans who have been medically discharged against their wishes and now find themselves veterans instead of current members of the Canadian Forces? Should the government be making it harder for them to receive the care they need?

What about the survivors, Canadian widows and widowers who are grieving for soldiers and police offices who are no longer with us? Why are the Conservatives balancing the books on the backs of these widows and survivors?

The Conservatives know the hardship these cuts will cause. In fact, an internal audit by the government in late 2009 showed that some veterans were actually having difficulty paying for their health benefits. That audit said:

[Veterans Affairs Canada] staff interviewed noted the importance of this health care coverage for both clients and their families. However, the cost of monthly premiums and deductibles was stated to be an obstacle for some clients.

Instead of listening to this audit, conducted by the government, of Veterans Affairs Canada, the government actually doubled those costs, and now it wants to make it even tougher and more expensive for veterans to get the medical coverage they need. The way the Conservatives are treating our veterans is beneath contempt. It is reprehensible.

Last night, the finance minister actually went on national television and told Canadians that he could not think of any person or group in Canada that would lose as a result of this budget. Clearly he is not thinking, and the Conservatives are not thinking, about our veterans. He also is not thinking about current members of the Canadian Armed Forces. He is not thinking about the brave men and women who stand on guard for Canada.

The Conservatives are actually slashing the budget for military procurement by $3.1 billion in the next few years. They say that our brave members of the Canadian Forces will have to wait for the equipment they need to do their jobs, as if they have not been waiting long enough. The Conservatives have been bungling military procurements for years, and now they have given up on these major purchases until well after the election; so much for the Conservatives supporting our troops. The government simply will not put its money where its mouth is.

This budget is a no-growth budget at a time when Canadian families need growth, jobs, and opportunity. This budget does nothing to help Canadian middle-class families. Too many Canadians are struggling right now under the crushing weight of personal debt. For some, it is because they have lost their jobs. In other cases, it is that they have lost full-time jobs and are struggling to replace those jobs with part-time work, and they have lost benefits such as supplemental health insurance and pension plans. They might have found new jobs, but they simply do not have the same benefits as the old ones.

However, the bills keep coming in. The mortgage still needs to be paid, and these people have taken on more debt to make ends meet. Some Canadians are approaching retirement with adult children who have not quite left the nest, because they cannot afford to. Their children may have college or university educations, sometimes both, but they cannot catch a break. They cannot get jobs that enable them to sustain themselves economically.

Young Canadians have been excluded from the recent economic recovery. There are 262,000 fewer jobs for young Canadians than before the downturn. Many middle-class families have taken on extra debt just to financially support their adult children who are living at home. Some parents take on more debt to help children go back to school. It is also to help them with rent, or in other cases, to renovate the basement or pay for extra groceries until these young people can get a good start.

These Canadians do not know how they are going to pay the bills today. In many cases, middle-class parents, and in some cases grandparents, have delayed their retirement saving and have taken on more debt. They are struggling to get by today, when interest rates are low, and are petrified of what will happen in the future as rates inevitably rise.

These Canadians need a break. They need a government with a vision and a plan to create jobs, growth, and prosperity, but the finance minister was not thinking of them when he wrote this budget. He failed to provide Canadians with the plan they need. Instead of creating jobs, growth, and prosperity, the latest Conservative budget includes no new jobs, low economic growth, and more debt for Canadians than prosperity.

Canada's job market completely stalled in 2013. Only 5,300 net new full-time jobs were created last year for the entire country. A whopping 95% of last year's net new jobs were part-time. As I mentioned before, young Canadians still have 262,000 fewer jobs compared to before the downturn. It is clear that the government needs to change course and provide a credible plan to stimulate job creation. The status quo is not working.

Instead of introducing a new plan to create jobs, the budget would actually cut provincial programs that today are helping Canadians find work. Instead of working together with the provinces, the Conservatives have decided to go full steam ahead, to go it alone, on the Canada job grant, damn the torpedoes. To pay for it, they are actually taking money from the provinces, money that is currently being used to deliver skills training to some of our most vulnerable citizens, some of the Canadians who need the help the most.

This decision, for instance, endangers programs like BladeRunners, a program in B.C. that the OECD has called “one of the most successful programmes in Canada to support transition to employment of disadvantaged youth”. That program was funded through the labour market agreements that would be dismantled under this budget.

In my own riding of Kings—Hants, groups like the Valley Community Learning Association receive critical funding through the labour market agreements. This association has helped 91 Nova Scotians get their GED since it started receiving funding from the labour market agreements in 2010. It is giving those people a chance to get an education and to further themselves and their families. It helps apprentices with their math so they can pass the academic portion of their programs. It helps people prepare for aptitude tests so they can get through the screening processes in the military or for work at the local Michelin plant.

There are many vital groups in my riding that rely on labour market agreement funding to help vulnerable Nova Scotians. I am talking of groups like Community INC, PeopleWorx, Hants County Community Access Network, and the Valley African Nova Scotian Development Association.

Vulnerable Canadians who are out of work rely on these programs to find jobs, and these vulnerable Canadians will be hurt by the budget. Once again, last night the Minister of Finance was unaware of who he is hurting with his callous budget that is so out of touch with these Canadians who are struggling.

On the jobs front for young Canadians, the budget announced $70 million for youth internships, but that is the same money that was announced in last year's budget. This is a déjà vu budget. It is a Groundhog Day budget. It does not actually do anything to really address youth unemployment and youth underemployment. The minister has not been thinking of our youth who need a government that does more. Instead, this is just another area of the budget where the Conservatives have been cleverly deceptive. When it comes to growth, the budget actually downgrades the Conservatives' own expectations for the Canadian economy established in the fall economic statement.

In the lead-up to the budget, we knew that the Prime Minister already had the worst record on economic growth of any Canadian prime minister since R.B. Bennett in the depths of the Depression. Canada's economy is actually growing more slowly today than the economies of the U.S., the U.K., Australia, and 11 other industrialized countries. Next year, Canada's growth is projected to fall below the OECD average.

The IMF has said that Canada's growth is at risk due to “high household debt and house prices”. The fact is that the finance minister's reckless introduction of 40-year, zero-down-payment mortgages in 2006 helped fuel a Canadian housing and personal debt problem that continues to endanger our economy.

The only thing that seems to be growing in Canada's economy these days is household debt. In 2013, Canada's household debt hit a record high. The average Canadian household now owes $1.66 for every dollar of disposable income.

In terms of the fiscal debt, the federal debt of the country, the Conservatives will have added $161 billion to the federal debt before the next election. That is according to their own numbers.

Canadians know that debt equals future taxes, because we will have to pay down that debt at some point in the future. An extra $161 billion in debt means that the average Canadian family will have to pay over $18,000 more in future taxes to pay off the debt racked up by the Conservative government, and that is not counting the interest.

With all of this debt, too many Canadians may have to delay their retirement plans. They are putting off saving for tomorrow because they can hardly make ends meet today. However, everyone has to stop working at some point; we cannot put off the cost of retirement indefinitely. The government does not seem to get it.

That is why the premiers are proposing a way to strengthen the CPP, to make sure that Canadians are better prepared for retirement. However, when the provinces proposed increasing the CPP, the Minister of Finance shut them down. He called it a job-killing payroll tax. What hypocrisy because this is the same Minister of Finance who is keeping EI payroll taxes artificially high.

According to this budget, the EI account is set to balance in 2015, yet the minister intends to collect an extra $5.2 billion in surplus EI revenues next year and use that to pad his books to create a surplus before the election. The minister could lower EI premiums. That would give Canadians business and workers a much needed break. Instead, he is keeping these EI rates artificially high. He is charging Canadians billions in extra EI premiums to pad his books.

The logic of the minister goes like this. When the provinces proposed an expanded CPP, it is a job-killing payroll tax. However, when the Conservatives keep EI premiums artificially high in order to create a phony surplus on the eve of an election, it is fair game.

The Conservatives are not just relying on bloated EI taxes to pad their books and create a phony surplus, but are also using one-time asset sales. Ontarians have seen this show before from the minister. During the Harris government, the same Minister of Finance in his previous position orchestrated the failed Highway 407 asset sale to pad his books and cover up his deficit. The minister held a fire sale and sold the highway to Spain at billions of dollars below market value. In Ontario, the same minister left Ontarians with a $6 billion deficit when he had promised a surplus. Today, here in Ottawa, the minister is again creating a phony surplus on the eve of an election for his political gains and misleading Canadians.

This budget would hurt too many Canadians. It punishes veterans, ignores the struggling middle class and struggling Canadian youth. It creates a phony surplus on the eve of an election, built on artificially high EI premiums, defence cuts, and asset sales; and it tries to balance the books on the backs of the most vulnerable Canadians, including aging veterans and marginalized Canadians who rely on provincial training programs to get themselves ready for the job market.

For this reason, the Liberal Party stands opposed to this budget. Therefore, I move the following:

That the amendment be amended by deleting all the words after the word “services”; and substituting the following:

g) Slashes billions of dollars from the health care plans of veterans, RCMP officers and of other Canadian public service retirees.

h) fails to offer a real plan for long term economic growth that would help middle class families;

i) takes money from workers and employers by keeping Employment Insurance premiums artificially high;

j) fails to revoke the Budget 2013 tariff hikes that increased the cost on everything from wigs for cancer patients to tricycles; and

k) fails to fill the $3 billion infrastructure hole that Budget 2013 created in the Building Canada Fund.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, who sits on the finance committee with me. I agree with his analysis that this is a do-nothing budget, but a budget that actually hurts people. Certainly, in this do-nothing budget, there is nothing for housing, for transit, nothing to help young people get a toehold in the job market, and nothing to help families with affordability. However, he made some points about how the government goes further and actually hurts people. He talked about veterans and others who are negatively affected.

The NDP approach to the budget has been that the Conservatives are playing politics and ignoring the real needs of Canadians. They are playing politics because it is a do-nothing budget until next year, when they can roll out some goodies right before an election. More than that, it seems that in the budget the government is playing politics by going after environmentalists, unions, and environmental groups. Could the member give me his view of whether the government is targeting or scapegoating certain groups for political benefit?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the government does have a real history of attacking any person or organization that has the audacity or honesty to speak truth to power. They have gone from attacking the scientific community, both within government and independent scientific advisory groups within Canada, including the environmental community, which has been demonized, marginalized, and stigmatized by the Conservative government, to people within the public service, long-standing public servants, like Munir Sheikh as an example, or Arthur Carty, people who have a long record of contributing positively to public policy development.

Therefore, this budget continues this attack on independent thinking. We are seeing it now with the Conservatives' latest legislation on Elections Canada. The government has a problem with groups that actually tell it the straight goods and have the audacity to disagree with it.

We in the Liberal Party believe in evidence-based decision-making, not decision-based evidence-making, which is the approach the Conservatives are taking.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, Perrin Beatty, president and CEO of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, outlined some of the barriers to competition. He said:

Canada is struggling to stay competitive. In fact, our country’s ability to remain a leader among nations is stagnating. For the second consecutive year, the World Economic Forum ranked Canada 14th in global economic competitiveness—down two places from 2011 and sliding five places since 2009. Restoring Canada’s competitiveness requires an ambitious, aggressive and innovative private sector. Strategic thinking and smart public policies are also needed to address long-standing structural impediments that hinder businesses at a time when they need much greater flexibility to compete.

He goes on to say that urgent action is needed and that every Canadian's standard of living depends on the government meeting the challenge.

Was there anything in this budget that deals with the concerns raised by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce? Was there anything in this budget that would deal with the growth problem this country really has?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Beatty also cited in his report the job skills mismatch in Canada. It is the situation where we have people without jobs and jobs without people.

In budget 2013, the centrepiece was the Canada jobs grant, which indicates that the Conservatives recognized there was at least a problem. However, the fact that it is also the centrepiece of budget 2014 and that over the last year there has still not been program, the fact all we have is a multi-million dollar bill for the advertising of a non-existent program, speaks to the economic incompetence of the Conservatives on this very significant file, the job skills mismatch, which is limiting growth, job creation, prosperity, and competitiveness for Canadians.

This is a case where the government's failure to build strong relationships with the provincial governments, to work with them and actually meet with them on an ongoing basis, has a significant economic cost to our country.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's leader often refers to the importance of investing in our middle class. One of the great initiatives of this budget is in fact that very thing, an investment in the training of apprentices.

I would like my colleague to listen to this quote from Canada's Building Trades Unions:

After years of being a mere add-on to post-secondary education, apprenticeship is being noticed by our Federal Government...the way apprentices are being treated has changed and they are now, thanks to measures introduced in the this 2014 Budget, treated more like their colleagues in college and university training.

Will my colleague support this investment in training of apprentices or does he agree with his leader that budgets balance themselves?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my leader was very clear in that he believes that economic growth helps governments balance the books. I think he is absolutely right. I think most economists would agree with that. I wish the Conservatives would get that memo: growth is actually good for balancing the books and we need to create growth to help families move forward.

In answer to the question, I do agree with the member that apprenticeship programs and support for apprentices is tremendously important. In Canada, we need to restore the honour paid to skilled trades. We can look at what some other countries are doing. For instance, Germany has done a much better job of maintaining and fostering respect for skilled trades. Of course, support for apprenticeship programs is something we would like to see more of.

However, when the member began to speak about the benefits for middle-class families, I thought he was going to raise the issue of income splitting, because that is where we expected more discussion from the government.

We did hear from the Minister of Finance earlier today that he disagrees with that Conservative platform plank, but we also heard from the Minister of Employment and Social Development that he still agrees with that Conservative platform plank. We heard the Prime Minister earlier today agree with both of the ministers on that. So, we are trying to understand where the Conservatives are going in terms of tax support for middle-class families.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, who serves with me on the Standing Committee on Finance.

We have been talking a great deal about the Canada job grant. I will talk about it some more in my speech.

Aside from the program itself, there is still the issue of jurisdiction. The federal government has clearly not done its job. It has not tried to bring the provinces together over a program to which they can all contribute. As we have seen over the past two years, the Conservatives have done this with other programs, not just this one.

For instance, the budget refers to the immigrant investor program. Its value is debatable. However, the program falls under shared jurisdictions. Quebec uses the funding for venture capital, among others. However, it seems that without consultation the federal government decided to eliminate the program and create a new one.

The federal government is also moving forward with the national securities commission without consulting the provinces, despite the Supreme Court ruling on the matter.

Could the hon. member for Kings—Hants comment on the way the Conservative government operates as it casts the provinces aside and tries to impose its vision?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, we must absolutely work with provincial governments on important economic and social issues. Of course, we must also respect provincial jurisdictions.

The Conservative government refuses to meet with provincial governments and to work with them on issues that are important to our country. The Conservative government obviously does not respect provincial jurisdictions. It is rather strange to see a Conservative government take this approach.

The Prime Minister gave a speech in Quebec City during the 2006 election campaign. He said that he would work with the provincial governments and would always respect provincial jurisdictions. That is utter nonsense, since the government and the Prime Minister do not respect provincial jurisdictions.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Kitchener—Conestoga.

I am delighted to speak today in support of economic action plan 2014.

Yesterday I was honoured to sit in this House as the Minister of Finance tabled his 10th budget. This budget confirms our government is on track to have a balanced budget by 2015 while creating more jobs for Canadians. I am proud to highlight some of the key elements of the budget.

Our government is clearly on track to balance the budget while keeping taxes low and protecting the programs and services that Canadians count on. As the opening words in the budget document, “The Road to Balance: Creating Jobs and Opportunities”, says, Canada's economic action plan is working.

The deficit is expected to decline to $2.9 billion in 2014-15, followed by a surplus of $6.4 billion in 2015-16, after taking into account $3 billion in annual adjustment for risk.

Since our government implemented Canada's economic action plan during the global recession, Canada has achieved the best job creation record of any of the G7 countries. It has the strongest income growth. As well, it has one of the best economic performances in the G7.

The Canadian economy has continued to create jobs with over one million more Canadians working today than during the worst of the recession. Canadian families in all income groups have seen increases of about 10% or more in their real, after-tax, after-transfer income since 2006.

Canadians at all income levels are benefiting from tax relief introduced by our government with low- and middle-income Canadians receiving proportionately greater relief. An average Canadian family of four now pays approximately $3,400 less in taxes than in 2006 due to the government's record of tax relief.

Canada is now one of only a handful of countries in the world that continues to earn a AAA credit rating with a stable outlook from all the major credit-rating agencies.

Economic action plan 2014 builds on this record of achievement with positive measures to grow the economy and to help create jobs.

Yesterday afternoon, after the finance minister tabled the budget, I was shocked by the first comment and characterization by the finance critic of the NDP, who said that there was absolutely nothing for young people or for jobs in this budget. I will just take a look at what exactly economic action plan 2014 will do with regard to jobs and growth.

It will implement the Canada job grant and job-matching service to help Canadians with available jobs. It will introduce, and this is no small matter, the new Canada apprentice loan to help registered apprentices in red seal trades with the costs of training.

Our government will invest to reform the on-reserve education system in partnership with first nations through the first nations control of first nations education act. An improvement of education on reserves and off will certainly improve and set up the graduates of secondary and post-secondary education programs, better suiting them for positions in a job market which is looking for appropriately trained graduates.

Economic action plan 2014 will invest in programs to help older workers and persons with disabilities across the labour market. It will create thousands of new paid internships for young Canadians entering the job market. It will make a major investment of $500 million in automotive sector support, investments in Canada's forestry and mining sectors, and so much more.

It will also provide $1.5 billion over the next decade for the Canada first research excellence fund for post-secondary education.

To support families and to support communities, this budget will stand up for consumers by encouraging competition and lower prices in the telecommunications market and introducing legislation to prohibit cross-border price discrimination. Certainly, this is front of mind for all Canadians living in proximity to our border.

Economic action plan 2014 will eliminate the practice of pay-to-pay billing. It will increase the adoption expense tax credit to help make adoption more affordable for Canadian families. It will expand tax relief for health care by exempting acupuncturists and naturopathic doctors' professional services from GST and HST. It will also strengthen food safety for Canadian families, with major new investments of $390 million. It will invest more than $300 million to bring faster broadband Internet to rural and northern Canada.

It will protect Canadians from the impact of natural disasters, with $200 million to establish a natural disaster mitigation program. It would create a new search and rescue volunteer tax credit to recognize the important role played by search and rescue volunteers who put themselves at risk while contributing to the safety and security of Canadians.

As we have already discussed several times in the House, it will expand the funeral and burial program so that modern-day veterans have access to dignified funerals and burials.

If I could reflect for just a moment on the benefits of economic action plan 2014 with regard to protection of our great natural places and spaces, it will provide funding for the sustainability of Canada's national parks, and the infrastructure, which has been neglected over the decades, in and around the national parks. It will double the funding for the recreational fisheries conservation partnership program, a program which has enjoyed resounding success and effectiveness in the first year of its application from budget 2013. It will also provide a way for Canadians with ecologically sensitive land to protect natural areas for future generations. It would expand tax support for green energy generation.

With regard to balancing the budget, unlike the Liberals who slashed health and social transfers to the provinces, economic action plan 2014 will advance our government's commitment to control direct program spending with proposals to ensure that overall public service employee compensation is reasonable and at the same time affordable. The government will work with crown corporations to implement fifty-fifty employee pension plan cost sharing, and to increase the retirement age for new hires.

Along with economic action plan 2014, our government issued a very important document yesterday, “Jobs Report: The State of the Canadian Labour Market”, which examines recent developments in the labour market. There are challenges, again, coming out of the recession. “Jobs Report” is an important document for everyone in the House and beyond to consider and digest. There are very relevant charts, graphs and information which will affect the way our country continues on a steady course out of the economic downturn. It also outlines actions that our government has taken to support Canadians in upgrading their skills and in the creation of high-quality jobs.

In closing, I would invite my hon. colleagues on the opposite side of the House to abandon partisan criticism and partisan politics and to support economic action plan 2014.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague on behalf of the people that we both represent in the city of Toronto, how he can stand in this place and talk about all of the wonderful things this budget would do when some of the most crying needs in our city are clearly ignored by the Conservative government and by this budget.

Specifically, I am talking about infrastructure needs. Our city is grinding to a gridlocked halt, and we do not see the federal government stepping up and doing its full share investing in infrastructure spending. Not only do we have transit needs, but we also have needs with respect to water, sewage, roads and bridges. The need is great. He just has to speak with the Board of Trade.

This is not to mention the fact that there is nothing for housing, and that so many young people are being abandoned by this budget. They cannot get a toehold in the job market.

How can the member support this budget when he is abandoning his own city?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for a question that partially addresses the reality of challenges facing Canada's metropolis—Toronto, the GTA—and other Canadian urban centres across the country.

However, I would disagree. Since 2006, but particularly in the depths of the global recession, we invested mightily in infrastructure that needed to be addressed over a much longer term but in the short term was addressed and continues to be addressed. Also, we have assurances from the minister and from the Prime Minister that as we achieve our objective of eliminating the deficit next year and move back into surplus, in fact we will be working with the municipalities, large and small, to address these infrastructure challenges.

However, I would just very briefly offer a couple compliments. For example, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities stated:

Rural businesses, communities and residents need sufficient bandwidth to participate in the economy...[the] announcement is good news for Canadians....

The Canadian Chamber of Commerce stated:

The government has acted.... The result will be a stronger economy and more jobs.

The Canadian Council of Chief Executives said:

Balancing the federal budget and maintaining discipline to pay down the debt are not only the right things to do, they are essential for Canada’s global competitiveness.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the member's attention to two statistics. One is 1.9%, which represents the percentage drop in productivity from 2006 to September 2013. The other statistic is that we have had at least 24 consecutive months of merchandise trade deficits.

Would the hon. member not agree that this shows some kind of failure in the Conservatives' industrial policy or economic policies? I would like to know from the member what he believes these numbers tell us about where the future lies economically in Canada.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, productivity is a challenge, and that is why previous budgets and this budget address the assistance to our manufacturing sector to invest in technology, in equipment that will increase productivity. A great deal of our foreign trade balance has less to do with the steadily recovering Canadian economy than the inability of some of our traditional markets to buy our goods and our products.

However, again I would look to the Retail Council of Canada, which said, “All in all, this is a very good budget for Canadian retailers”. The Association of Canadian Community Colleges said:

...this is an encouraging budget that helps support measures to address the gap in skills affecting so many sectors of the economy. The budget also recognizes the important role played by colleges and institutes in Canada's innovation system....

Again, it is an investment that will speak to future improvements in Canadian productivity.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

The member for Wascana is rising on a point of order.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I do not mean to delay the debate here at all, but just for my own edification would the Chair confirm that we are now at the point in the debate of considering the subamendment proposed by the member for Kings—Hants?

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

That is correct. The subamendment has been filed and accepted by the Chair.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Kitchener—Conestoga.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise not only to express my support for economic action plan 2014 but also to express thanks on behalf of the citizens of Kitchener—Conestoga to the Minister of Finance for his great work stewarding Canada through some of the toughest times the world has faced since the Great Depression.

I rise today not only to praise the road to balance he authored but also to share with my friends across the Waterloo region the very real difference budget 2014 offers to their lives.

I rise not only to talk about the creation of jobs and opportunities for Canadian families put forward in budget 2014 but also to highlight the opportunities it will create for the communities in which we live.

In order to put all of that in context, though, I need to quickly outline what we have done already and what roads we chose not to walk. A noted Canadian once asked, “Do you think it is easy to make priorities?” Apparently it is not. The previous prime minister seemed to make new priorities every day. I do not think Canadians judge politicians on the volume of their priorities, though. I think we are judged on the content of our priorities and the diligence with which we address them.

This government's long-term priorities were identified in advantage Canada. This document was authored in 2006, and it remains the best lens with which I evaluate our diligence and our ability to focus on priorities. These priorities were a tax advantage, reducing taxes for all Canadians and establishing the lowest tax rate on new business investment in the G7; a fiscal advantage, eliminating our net government debt within a generation; an entrepreneurial advantage, reducing unnecessary regulation and red tape and increasing competition in the Canadian marketplace; a knowledge advantage, creating the best-educated, most skilled, and most flexible workforce in the world; and an infrastructure advantage, building the modern infrastructure we need to compete abroad and enjoy livable communities at home.

Through the intervening years, advantage Canada has served us well. Through the good times and the worst times, our priorities have remained unchanged. Our focus on them continues. When I say the worst times, I am of course referring to the worst global economic downturn since the Great Depression. By sticking to the priorities outlined in advantage Canada, Canada not only led the world in economic growth but will now benefit from the strategic investments we made.

In my home of Waterloo region, we saw Conestoga College grow its capacity to train much-needed engineers, health care workers, and food processing technicians. We opened the Institute for Quantum Computing, the Canadian Digital Media Network, and the Communitech Hub to support the entrepreneurs who create tomorrow's jobs.

We enjoy new community centres, safer drinking water, and improved park lands, thanks to the federal government investments. With the strong partnership of this government, Waterloo region has become a better place to live, work, and raise a family. All of this came without raising taxes and without cutting our support for health care or education, as the previous government did. All of this positive action occurred during the worst economic times most living Canadians have experienced.

As chair of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, I am pleased to see the key investments this Prime Minister and this government have made. Well over $17 billion have been invested in clean transportation initiatives, renewable fuels, clean energy, clean air, green infrastructure, research, energy efficiency, and work to preserve our oceans and lakes.

Economic action plan 2014 builds on this legacy by expanding tax relief for green energy generation, investing in Canada's national parks, and further supporting conservation efforts and family-oriented conservation activities, and by making it easier and more affordable to donate ecologically sensitive lands for preservation. All of this was done while outperforming every other G7 country in job creation, while maintaining the lowest debt to GDP ratio in the G7, and while Canadians are experiencing the strongest real per capita income growth in the G7.

Here we are debating budget 2014, the road to balance, the latest phase of Canada's economic action plan. While our neighbours to the south are tied up in debates about how much they are willing to increase their national debt, here in Canada we are coming to appreciate the fact that, thanks to the leadership of this Minister of Finance and this Prime Minister, Canada will soon enter a great national debate about how to allocate a surplus.

On behalf of the fine people of Kitchener—Conestoga, I thank the finance minister for all his work. I thank him for bringing us to this point where we are seeing the benefits of all these investments and where the end to deficit spending is in sight.

When the budget is balanced, a lower portion of tax dollars will be needed to pay interest on our debt. This signals our stability to the world and helps attract investment to Canada.

Most importantly though, ending deficit spending will lower the debt with which we burden our children and our grandchildren.

Speaking of our children, I would like to draw to the attention of the House a report authored by CIVIX, the student budget consultation. CIVIX consulted with students across Canada on their budget priorities. To a question about the most important step the government could take to help families, the answer was not to increase subsidies for post-secondary education, as we might have expected.

No, in fact, the most popular answer provided by students was to lower personal income taxes. When asked whether they agreed with the statement that the government should place a high priority on reducing the debt as much as possible, over 80% of Canadian students were onside. When asked what the priority should be for allocating the surplus, 46% of them said we need to pay down the debt versus a measly 9% who called for an increase in spending to boost jobs.

What does it mean when Canadian secondary school students have a better grasp of basic economics than the opposition parties? I think it means our future is in good hands. Even they know that budgets do not balance themselves. This road to balance ensures the future that these students will inherit will be a bright future.

Students pursuing a trade will, for the first time, have access to federal student aid. Youth looking for work will enjoy increased support for paid internships. Recent graduates and those in the workforce will find starting their own business much easier, thanks to the 800,000 payroll remittances or red tape that we have eliminated on small business.

For my home of Waterloo region I can be even more specific. The Canadian Digital Media Network and the Institute for Quantum Computing both receive support in budget 2014. CDMN will help entrepreneurs find commercial uses for what the industry calls “big data”. IQC will continue its work to develop the world's first quantum computer.

It is worth noting that even though the quantum computer has yet to be developed, IQC is already an active commercializer of knowledge. To do its research, it needed to invent the required specialized tools. These tools are now being sold around the world.

Our initial investment in the Communitech Hub has exceeded every expectation, and this road to balance supports the creation of similar success stories by increasing funds for the Canada accelerator and incubator program.

I know the opposition will disagree with me on this, but frankly, I was most happy yesterday to hear that this government remains committed to the Canada job grant. Virtually every employer I have spoken to over the last year sees our current system of training as broken. Polytechnics Canada sees the current system as broken, too focused on filling seats and not enough on real results; and it is right. We can take the easy road, as has the Wynne government, and defend a failed system, or we can try to do better. I am glad we are not giving up on doing better for Canadians.

I read in the media that some politicians in my home province of Ontario are upset that they will receive less money this year in equalization funding. An improving economy means there is less need for equalization in Ontario than there was last year. To anyone other than the Wynne government, this should be a good thing. An improving economy is something Ontarians should celebrate rather than mourn. It brings cheerleading for the recession to a new, indisputably lower level.

If Ontarians truly want to continue receiving equalization funding due to poor economic performance, all they need to do is re-elect a Liberal government in Ontario, and I know they are better than that.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

He appears to support the budget, so he must understand the whole thing. I would like to draw on his knowledge of the immigrant investor program, which this budget would abolish. Does he know what kind of effect that would have in Quebec?

Quebec relies heavily on the immigrant investor program. Will Quebec still be able to invite as many foreign investors and under the existing criteria?

If not, did the Conservatives consult Quebec before making this decision? A number of stakeholders in Quebec are very worried about this measure and are not quite sure what kind of effect it will have.