Debates of Feb. 25th, 2014

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Wladyslaw Lizon, Conservative, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as we know from past years' experiences and the infrastructure projects that were happening in the GTA and in many places in Canada, there was co-operation between all levels of government, and I do not see this not happening in the future. We are open to co-operating and we will be in the great infrastructure projects that we propose for our country.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there was some great news today from Statistics Canada. It released its survey of financial security, which confirmed that Canadian families are better off today under our Conservative government than under the previous Liberal government. StatsCan found that the net worth of Canadian families was up 44.5% from 2005 and was almost 80% higher than in 1999. In fact, the largest increase in net worth between 2005 and 2012 occurred for families in the middle-income bracket. Therefore, I wonder if my colleague would like to expound on some of the other things in this budget and previous budgets that are doing great things for families across Canada.

[Wladyslaw Lizon, Conservative, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the short answer is that this is more proof that the plan started in 2006 is working very well.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today to speak to budget 2014 and outline some of our government's key points from our economic action plan.

Six years ago, Canada and the world faced an economic crisis unlike any seen in generations, perhaps the worst we had seen since the Great Depression. Rather than hope that the crisis would resolve itself, rather than make glib statements about how budgets balance themselves, we chose to act. We chose to assess the problem, develop a concrete action plan, and take strong action.

We chose to invest in much-needed infrastructure as a time-limited stimulus. This action plan put our neighbours to work. It built for our community, certainly in the GTA, roads, bridges, water pipes, and community centres. I was young and determined and led my community, the sixth-largest city in our country, to match the Prime Minister's leadership and undertake an ambitious building plan.

Today the GTA stands as the beneficiary of that much-needed infrastructure. This past weekend, in fact, a neighbour of mine who used a swimming pool that generously carries my name on a bronze plaque at the front entrance shared with me how her family has used that pool each and every week for years. Results speak for themselves, and Canada has led the world in pulling out of the recession and rebuilding prosperity.

However, back then there were many naysayers. There were quite a few so-called experts, some advocating that we should hoard money and take it out of the money supply. We understood that was not the prudent course. We chose to show leadership and make time-limited investments immediately, investments that would be needed to be built anyway. Those investments would be accelerated by a few years, and we could plow the money back into the Canadian economy and put our neighbours to work. In fact, we could save dollars, because we would not be competing at some future date with the private sector and ramping up the costs for steel and concrete. We could instead choose to invest the money immediately and potentially save taxpayers some money.

Canada's economic action plan invested billions of dollars into local communities to strengthen Canada's infrastructure and promote local business investment. These investments were necessary to position Canada to strengthen and weather the storm. However, even during those challenging economic days of 2008, even as our government stood firm on its commitment to returning Canada's finances back to balance by 2015, even then there were many skeptics who doubted it was possible—yet look at where we are today.

Today I am proud to stand before all members of the House to indicate that we expect to be back to balance on time, as promised by our great Minister of Finance. In fact, under economic action plan 2014, our government's deficit will be eliminated, and a surplus of over $6 billion is anticipated.

It is important to put this into perspective. Thanks to the stewardship of our Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, our government made some challenging but responsible choices. We have reduced wasteful and redundant government and we have reduced spending by some $9 billion through prudent fiscal management and administrative efficiencies.

Balanced budgets promote stability, business investment, confidence, and lower taxes. Most importantly, they protect families. Unlike what happened under the Liberal government of the 1990s, the fiscal recovery in Canada has not been, and will not be, borne on the backs of hard-working families and future generations. To be clear, we have not cut health transfers to the provinces. In fact, what we have done through these most challenging economic times is honoured our word and increased transfers to the provinces. By the end of the decade, they will reach an historic $40 billion. My family, my mother, and my children rely on our health care system, as do all Canadians, and Conservatives are firm and committed to the priorities of average middle-class Canadians.

Economic action plan 2014 continues to build upon our government's strong record of supporting everyday Canadians. Budget 2014 will further improve the quality of life for Canadian families by expanding access to vital services, increasing consumer protection, reducing taxes, and, most importantly, promoting job growth.

For example, we will further enhance employment insurance sickness benefits for parental benefit claimants. Beginning this year, people who receive benefits to care for critically ill parents will receive enhanced access to sickness benefits.

Disproportionately, the challenge of taking care of family members seems to fall to women, so I am very proud of our government's initiative on this front.

Similarly, economic action plan 2014 will continue supporting families who seek to grow through adoption. In recognition of the many expenses related to the adoption process, our budget will enhance the adoption expense tax credit up to $15,000 per child.

These measures outlined in our budget build upon our record of putting families first, and since 2006, our Conservative government has taken many steps to improve the quality of life for Canadians of all ages. For example, in 2006 and since then, we have reduced the GST from 7% to 6% to 5%. That saves Canadians money every single day, every time they make a purchase.

Our government also established the tax-free savings account, strengthening Canadians' ability to save for their future.

We have introduced dozens of new tax credits to help stretch the family budget even further, initiatives like the universal child care benefit, the family caregiver tax credit, the textbook tax credit, and the public transit tax credit.

As I indicated earlier today, I am the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, and we are vitally focused on the health and safety of all Canadians. I am pleased to report that this budget will invest more in Canada's world-class health care system while keeping Canadians safe and well.

Canada has one of the finest health care systems in the world. We expect the best from our health care professionals and they expect the best from us. That is why our government is sending more health transfers back to the provinces than any government before. These investments will ensure that the provinces and territories have the necessary capacity to deliver vital medical services to Canadians when they need it the most.

Another area of prime importance is Canada's food supply system. This budget will invest almost $400 million in the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to further enhance food safety. We all have a shared goal of ensuring that the food we purchase from grocery shelves and place before our families at the kitchen table is safe. We will invest $153 million to strengthen the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's food safety information programs. We will provide funding to hire 200 new food inspectors, and we will invest almost $31 million to establish a food safety information network so that we can link provincial bodies together to increase safety and our knowledge of hazardous events.

The health and safety of Canadians is not limited to the food we eat; it includes the communities in which we live. I am proud that this budget has considered the important work of my committee and will invest almost $45 million to combat prescription drug abuse across Canada.

Sadly, prescription drug abuse is a growing danger in Canadians' lives and sometimes targets the most vulnerable in our society. Prescription drug abuse has effects on all segments, all ages, from seniors to adults to teens and even very young children, and many families are forced to suffer in silence without adequate resources to support them or their loved ones. As a government and as a society, it is our responsibility to ensure that these individuals and their families are protected and have access to programs to help them cope with these very difficult challenges.

By investing in and expanding the national anti-drug strategy, we will ensure that Canadians and their families are properly supported.

It is not only dangers from prescription drug abuse that I am concerned about. A growing number of individuals are becoming addicted and are dependent on illicit drugs such as heroin. Our government has taken concrete, strong action to ensure that we do not continue their addictions, but instead, that we intervene and try to help these people back to a drug-free life.

I am pleased that our Minister of Health and our Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness have taken decisive action to keep our streets safe from dangerous narcotics. Through the introduction of Bill C-2 respect for communities act, which I spoke to earlier this session, we will help protect Canadians from the dangers of illegal drugs, including those who struggle with drug addiction.

In a nutshell, I believe that economic action plan 2014 strikes a much needed balance between balancing our books, paying down the debt, and making the crucial investments that average hard-working Canadians have come to expect from our government.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her speech.

At the risk of repeating myself, I have to say that I am always surprised to hear the government bragging about its investments, which, in reality, only go halfway at best toward correcting the mistakes it made in the past when it made reckless cuts across the board.

I wonder if my colleague could talk about health transfers. The Conservative government is no different than the Liberals, who 20 years ago made large-scale cuts to all sorts of transfers.

My colleague is confusing absolute and relative numbers. In relative terms, the health transfer deficit is massive, as it relates to activities and particularly the needs of the provinces.

How is it that the hon. member is unable to understand that simple concept and is not addressing it?

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

Mr. Speaker, the numbers speak for themselves. In fact, the transfers to the provinces have increased year over year.

We made a commitment to increase spending and transfers to provinces by 6%, and during the most difficult economic times we have delivered on our word.

I think the member is perhaps mistaken. If he is looking at Ontario, which is where I hail from, he may want to speak with the provincial government. While we transferred a 6% increase to that province, it has spent only an additional 3% on health care. I am not quite clear where the province has chosen to invest otherwise.

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

Mr. Speaker, I noticed that the hon. member mentioned the Statistics Canada report that came out today.

I would suggest the changes we are seeing are not due to policies of the Conservative government but to demographic factors. For example, people’s net worth was seen to change with where they were in their life cycle. People between 55 and 64 had almost three times the median net worth.

Among the provinces, net worth was highest in B.C., which reflects housing prices. If we look at the economy in B.C., the unemployment rate is not that low. The economy is not doing that much better than elsewhere. I would suggest the rising housing prices might have to do with population growth.

Is the member taking credit for policies that really have not impacted on net worth?

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

Mr. Speaker, in fact it was not myself who spoke to that. Another colleague of mine spoke to that earlier on. However, I am happy to address it.

Some people are always going to be negative and doom-and-gloom. I think the facts speak for themselves. Around the world, one country has dominated and has really led in the recovery from the recession, and that country is Canada. As Canadians we ought to be proud of that.

There are other parties with obvious motivated self-interests, and it is to their benefit to deride Canada's economy. However, something is very clear: whether it is the OECD, an independent third party that cites it, or whether it is Canadians as they look at their own books and compare themselves to other countries like the United States, Germany, and Greece, the results speak for themselves.

Canada has shown leadership. We have pulled out of the recession. We are the strongest in pulling out of the recession. I am terribly proud to be a part of the government that has worked to do that for our neighbours.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member's speech and intervention was excellent, as was her response to that ill-informed question from the member opposite about transfers to the provinces, in particular.

Health care transfers to my province of British Columbia were a record high at $5.3 billion, and $3.4 billion of that was the Canada health transfer, the highest transfers ever. I want to thank the parliamentary secretary for pointing that out.

I wonder if she would address an another important issue, and that is our Canada jobs grant. In fact, we have a surplus of jobs in Canada in certain areas and we have skills shortages. We have a plan to address that.

Would the parliamentary secretary address how important that is to Canada’s future?

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

Mr. Speaker, my hard-working colleague from British Columbia is quite right.

Transfers to the provinces are reaching record levels. However, in addition, we are also the largest investor in the nation for research, delivering over $1 billion of much-needed research money.

My colleague raises a question about matching skills with job shortages, and he is quite right. Our government has shown leadership on this issue, looking to tackle it. It is devastating to see our neighbours searching for jobs in areas of the country while other areas come to us and tell us how they just cannot fill jobs, how they are unable to compete successfully with other countries because jobs are going unfilled.

Our government is showing clear leadership, trying to match up this imbalance. That is why we are investing and focusing, and if the provinces do not join us, which we hope they will, we will take action.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague and friend from LaSalle—Émard.

I am rising today, as the official opposition's housing and infrastructure critic, to speak to budget 2014-15. The budget, which was tabled on February 11, is a rehash of last year and, in some cases, the years before that.

The budget summary could easily have been called “The Road to Balance On the Backs of the Less Fortunate, the Middle Class and the Provinces”. That is exactly what is happening with social housing, the fight against homelessness and infrastructure. True to form, the Minister of Finance will likely continue to make cuts to social housing. Despite what those on the other side would have us believe, I did say “cuts”.

Much to my dismay, the budget again made no mention of renewing funding that has run out following the expiry of certain long-term operating agreements on social housing. Since the Conservatives always seem to confuse the issue, I will explain to them once again what the long-term operating agreements are for, before they try to talk to us again about the agreement on affordable housing or access to home ownership. In case they still do not understand, people who benefit from those agreements on social housing are rarely in a position to dream of one day owning their own home.

Long-term operating agreements were signed between 1970 and 1993, which is when Jean Chrétien's federal Liberal government began turning its back on social housing. Through CMHC, the government signs agreements directly with social housing providers—mostly co-operatives and non-profit housing organizations—to allow them to grant rent subsidies to their members and tenants so that they do not spend more than 25% to 30% of their income on rent. These agreements also allow the provinces and municipalities to provide low-income housing to people living there. These agreements, which were signed for periods of 25 to 50 years, have gradually been expiring in the past few years. What happens to a building after all that time? It often needs major renovations.

The government would have us believe that property replacement reserves for social housing projects, combined with the end of the mortgage on a building, will bring financial viability. However, that is not really how it works. When agreements come to an end, most social housing providers are in no position to pay for the necessary renovations on top of granting rent subsidies to their low-income tenants.

When people come and see me about this, they tell me that there are social housing providers that, when their agreements come to an end, are forced to choose the families with the highest incomes for their vacant housing in order to ensure that they will not have to pay rent subsidies to those families. It seems to me that this was not the original purpose of this kind of housing. That is completely unacceptable.

When we add up the Conservative government's disengagement over the past three years alone, we get $65.2 million that it has saved on the backs of Canadians who need that money the most. In 2011-12, the government saved $20.2 million; in 2012-13, it saved $21.7 million; and in 2013-14, it saved $23.3 million, for a total of $65.2 million in the past three years alone. The worst years are yet to come.

By 2030, the government will have saved $1.7 billion a year through attrition. In 2012, in just one year, CMHC posted a $1.7 billion profit, thanks to its financial products. It seems to me that some of that profit could be reinvested in social housing.

The decision not to renew the agreements could have serious consequences for low-income households. In some cases, people's rent could increase by $200, $300, even $500 a month. It goes without saying that this situation will make many people more vulnerable. Once again, it will be the provinces and the municipalities that will inevitably end up paying the bill. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities estimates that roughly one in three social housing units, or 200,000 units across Canada, could disappear when these agreements end.

According to the federal government's own estimates, in 2011, 40% of Canadian tenants spent 30% or more of their income on housing. Over the past few decades, the federal government has invested billions of dollars in the social housing stock. We might expect a responsible government to continue its investments and partner with the provinces when they want to start renovating their low-income housing.

However, again this year, the government is dragging its feet when it comes to making a commitment to the provinces and clearly announcing that it will help fund the renovation of low-income housing. Canada needs to stop considering social housing as an expense. Housing is a right and an investment.

The announcement regarding the fight against homelessness from last year was copied and pasted into the most recent budget. The government once again confirmed its intention to move forward with the Housing First approach, but it will not get very far without any housing.

The Conservatives have been reminding us that they renewed the funding for the homelessness partnering strategy, but they fail to mention that they are making $15.8 million in cuts per year starting this year. They have cut the already insufficient budget of $134.8 million to $119 million per year.

Funding for the fight against homelessness has not been indexed since the SCPI was created in 1999. Now, the government is making budget cuts. That does not make any sense. We are losing social housing units and people are ending up on the streets. What is more, the government is reducing the money for homelessness services and prevention by 60% to 65% and using that money for the Housing First approach, which focuses on episodic or chronic homelessness.

Do people have to be living on the streets for months before they get help? Like social housing, homelessness prevention is also an investment. Once again, the Conservative approach does not make any sense.

The Minister of Finance and the Minister of Infrastructure also failed to deliver when it comes to infrastructure. In last year's budget, the government announced a new $14 billion building Canada fund but did not tell us how that money could be accessed. I raised this issue in the House a number of times.

On February 13 of this year, the government finally announced the parameters of the new building Canada fund. It is about time. The municipalities and provinces have been waiting for a year for more information and were concerned that the construction season would be jeopardized because of the government's inaction.

Unfortunately, we are used to the Conservatives' empty promises, their announcements with no follow-through and their misrepresentations. For example, what the Conservatives have failed to mention is that most of the $14 billion announced will not be paid out until the end of the 10-year life cycle of the fund. That money will no longer even be there. Only 1.5% or $210 million of the promised $14 billion will be available this year.

Municipalities face another problem. Infrastructure projects costing more than $100 million will now have to undergo a mandatory P3 screen. Naturally, if more than one project undergoes this process in the first year, there will only be two such projects because only $210 million is available. However, the major problem is that P3 assessments take 6 to 18 months. Once again, the Conservatives are unable to provide predictable, long-term funding for our municipalities, which are left in limbo.

Moreover, the Conservatives have once again broken their promise to make things easier for communities. Small communities are the losers with this new fund because they will no longer be able to use these monies for their roads and cultural, sports or tourism infrastructure.

To fund those projects, they will have to rely on the gas tax fund, which is already insufficient to meet their needs. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that a portion of the money available in the new fund will go to municipalities.

One of the major differences between the new and the old fund is that, previously, municipalities could cover one third of the cost of their infrastructure projects through this fund and also use the gas tax fund for the same project.

Starting now, the maximum federal contribution will be one-third of the total project cost. To fund their projects, municipalities will have to find new revenue streams and, because these are limited, will have to increasingly rely on the gas tax fund.

Quite frankly, when it comes to housing, fighting homelessness and infrastructure, the Conservatives have once again missed the mark with this budget.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Hochelaga for her riveting speech, which showed once again that she knows her stuff.

I have many questions for her, especially about what she just mentioned with respect to the infrastructure projects that are causing headaches for municipalities across Canada.

Could she talk more about the impact that the expiration of housing co-operative agreements will have? They serve as a model for offering affordable housing to residents. They work together to provide good places to live.

What impact does my colleague think this budget will have on housing co-operatives?

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague very much. She is also familiar with the co-operatives file. By the very definition of co-operative, the people who live there help each other. It is a very healthy environment in which people live together and work together. I grew up in that environment, in all kinds of workers' co-ops. Housing co-operatives are similar.

I will give an example of what is happening now that the agreements are expiring. There is a big co-operative in the Pierrefonds-Roxboro neighbourhood in Montreal. It has about 700 residents. Nearly half of the residents—about 40%—live in subsidized housing. The agreement is expiring this year or next year. Two months after the co-operative stops receiving money from the subsidies it will go bankrupt. Will 300 or 400 people end up on the street? That is what will happen when these agreements expire.

Two families in Sudbury who were living in a co-operative lost their subsidy on October 31. They were paying less than $400 for housing. After October 31 they had to pay over $900. One of the families was a mother with two children. The mother was going to school. These people did not have the means to more than double their rent payments. They could have ended up on the street. If the co-operative had not been able to find them housing elsewhere, these people would have literally been out on the street.

That is what will happen when these agreements expire.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the expiration of the agreements will impact both co-operatives and cities.

There is an impact on the city of Kingston, which is mandated to operate roughly 2,000 units of affordable housing. Of course it is not going to cut those units as these operating agreements and mortgage subsidies expire. Therefore, what does it have to do? It has to raise property taxes.

The Conservatives' non-action is essentially raising the property taxes of people in Kingston and the Islands. That is what happens when the Conservative government decides to ignore affordable housing.

Does my colleague agree that we should consider the impact on cities and property-tax payers as well as on housing co-operatives?

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, of course I agree. I also spoke about that in relation to infrastructure and low-income housing.

Low-income housing units are in disrepair right now and need federal government funding for renovations. If the federal government does not give the money to the provinces, the provinces will have to take it out of their budget. On and on it goes. The federal government stops investing and offloads it to the provinces. The provinces have the means for a short period, but eventually they will no longer have the means and will offload it to the municipalities. If the municipalities cannot handle it, the public and community groups are the ones that will have to foot the bill.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the House to express some concerns about the budgetary policy presented by the Conservative government on February 11.

I would like to join my colleagues in saying that this budget clearly does nothing to stimulate the Canadian economy and that it could even create obstacles for credit unions, for example. I rise as the member for LaSalle—Émard and the official opposition's critic for co-operatives.

I have two simple suggestions for the Minister of Finance and the government. First, I am asking them to acknowledge the positive contribution of co-operatives to our economy. Second, I am asking them to look at co-operatives through the eyes of their members so that they can gain a better understanding of co-operatives, their structure and the democratic way in which they operate.

Co-operatives make a major contribution to our economy and our society. They are engines of growth and job creation. These businesses benefit communities and meet their needs. That is the case in my riding of LaSalle—Émard, where credit unions are firmly established in the community. Our community is served, to name just a few, by the Caisse populaire de LaSalle, the Caisse populaire canadienne italienne and the Caisse de Saint-Henri et Ville-Émard, of which I am a proud member. We also have the Association coopérative d'économie familiale du Sud-Ouest, which is a consumer advocacy organization that provides tools to help people get out of debt and make informed choices.

Despite the significant growth of the co-operative sector in all provinces and territories and despite demands presented by the main umbrella groups for Canadian co-operatives, the government once again tabled a budget that does not reflect their reality and, above all, that does not recognize the positive impact of these activities on our economy and our communities.

As the NDP has already mentioned, the government has tabled an uninspiring budget. It is full of vague statements and does not set out real measures to strengthen the co-operative sector and to make the federal government an active partner in its development.

However, it does contain clues about changes that could affect the credit union system in the medium term. We will keep a close eye on those to make sure that the government heeds the recommendations put forward by the co-operative sector. In its budget, the government indicated that it would streamline the process for amalgamations of two or more provincial credit unions wishing to move to the federal credit union framework. This proposal complements measures introduced by the government in 2010 and the federal framework introduced in 2012.

The Credit Union Central of Canada stated that credit unions have experienced major challenges in transitioning to the federal framework. We hope that the government will consult them about the amalgamation process and will take their experience and their needs into account.

Again, I would like to remind the minister and the government that I hope they will look at this from a co-operative perspective to ensure they also understand the co-operative principles that govern credit unions, the principles that make these institutions democratic institutions.

The second element that could affect credit unions is the move to review and update the federal regime for credit unions. In addition, joint supervision of provincial credit union centrals by the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions will cease.

I would like to point out to all MPs how important it is to carry out a responsible review of the powers of federal entities with respect to provincial credit unions.

The largest co-operatives, the largest credit union federations are concerned about this measure. The government must take care to ensure that changes to the nature of the relationship with the lender of last resort do not have consequences in terms of how ratings agencies react and in terms of access to the capital of provincially regulated credit unions.

We hope that the government will undertake an open consultation process with the provinces and stakeholders such as the Credit Union Central of Canada and the Mouvement Desjardins.

The third element of the budget plan that I would like to talk about is establishing a property and causality demutualization framework. At the beginning of the month, I met with representatives of mutual companies from across Canada as part of the Canadian Association of Mutual Insurance Companies' lobbying day on Parliament Hill. Their message was clear: do not incentivize demutualization, and if there must be demutualization, there must also be equitable redistribution to the whole sector.

The NDP believes that there should be no external or internal incentives to demutualization. Rather, the upcoming regulations should be strongly oriented toward the elimination of demutualization incentives. Any regulation on this matter should be developed by considering the history of property and casualty mutuals and the collective nature of the assets.

Like the Canadian Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, we feel that demutualization should not benefit a small group of policyholders, directors, or employees; it should provide fair and equitable treatment to all of them. All policyholders must have the right to vote and participate in the decision process. We must avoid unfair enrichment as a result of demutualization. It is for this reason that we support the distribution of proceeds of an eventual demutualization within the co-operative sector.

The fourth and last element of the budget plan I want to talk about pertains to the government's proposed measures to ensure that new financial market participants and small banks can be more competitive.

We agree with increasing competition in a financial sector dominated by three or four main players. We also want to remind the government that it is important to consider the differences between a small bank and a credit union.

I remind the government and the Minister of Finance that they need to look at things from a credit union perspective. They need to understand the structure of co-operatives and the democratic manner in which co-operatives operate, and they need take that into account in their approach.

Co-operatives, caisses populaires and credit unions can be found in communities where there are no banks. They offer products and services adapted to the needs of their members and they reinvest in their community. It is the same in my riding. However, they have a hard time dealing with some aspects of the regulations and they face significant challenges in terms of human resources and logistics. That is why we need to make sure that the new standards do not increase their administrative burden.

In conclusion, I am concerned that there are no measures in this budget to address some priority needs that the co-operative sector has been calling for for years. The budget does not contain a proposal for tax fairness for credit unions. Similarly, the budget does not say anything about a review of Farm Credit Canada's mandate.

This budget fails to invest in the development of the co-operative sector. The co-operatives demand the creation of a co-operative investment fund, with the joint participation of the co-operative sector and federal government. Access to capital remains a key challenge for co-operatives. That is why the NDP, since 2012, has been seeking the support of the federal government to create conditions facilitating access to financing and capitalization.

I truly expect that the government will reconsider its approach on this fund and that it will introduce measures for this matter in the budget bill. One can only hope.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I hope that my colleague could share some of her experience in working alongside the co-operative movement, and the kind of rhetoric we have heard from the government's side around supporting rural communities and communities that often depend on co-operative banking and businesses. While we hear that rhetoric, the government turns around and makes that very same work more and more difficult in the communities that they represent.

I would like to hear her experience with this.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for the question.

In fact, the current government is turning its back on the regions and the co-operative movement. This movement is deeply rooted in the communities. It provides local jobs. It is good for the local economy. These people are not going to get up and relocate when the wind changes. They are deeply rooted and they not only help the communities, but they also meet pressing needs in big cities.

That is why we have seen co-operative health care and arts and culture co-operatives pop up. In remote regions, the co-operative movement is often the only existing service—whether it is a co-operative, a store, a hardware store, a gas station or a credit union—and it maintains the economic life of our communities in our beautiful and great country.

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During debate on Bill C-23 on February 6, I stated in the House that I had witnessed an event that had taken place with respect to voter information cards.

After reviewing the transcript in the blues, I recognized that this was an error on my part. Today, as I did yesterday, I withdraw those comments from the debate portion of my opportunity to speak on Bill C-23 on February 6.

I was referring to information that was relayed to me many years ago when I worked in the rental housing industry, but it was not first-hand knowledge; it came from second and third parties. I raised this at the earliest opportunity yesterday when the House resumed after its week-long break.

I would like to sincerely apologize to all Canadians and to all members of the House for the statement that I made. It was never my intention, in any way, to mislead the House, for which I have the greatest amount of respect.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in my former line of work, when we talked about the economy, we talked about a three-legged stool. One leg was for finances, the other the environment and the third for people.

The budget we have here has only one leg. My colleague was talking about co-operatives. When we talk about co-operatives, we are talking about a three-legged economy because it includes people, among other things. I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about this economic philosophy.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question.

It is actually more than a philosophy. The co-operative movement is about creating an economy that serves people, the community and society. Co-operatives emerge in response to a need and are part of Canada's DNA. They are part of our heritage. Co-operatives came into being in places like Saskatchewan because there came a time when people had to get together to create the services they needed knowing that there is strength in numbers.

In Quebec, the Mouvement Desjardins arose out of that desire to provide services at a time when banks were turning away people who wanted to start businesses or farm. In Alberta, I met with the association that brought electricity to the province because private companies did not want to bring power to rural areas. It is a rural electrification co-operative in Alberta.

Clearly this is part of Canada's DNA and our history. Why is the government turning its back on co-operatives?

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to talk about public finances in this place.

Before talking about the promising numbers and projects in the works for Canadians and residents of Orléans, I would like to congratulate our athletes who represented us so well in Sochi from February 7 to 23.

I would like to extend special congratulations to our athletes from Orleans, Vincent De Haître, Ivanie Blondin, and Cody Sorensen, for being great ambassadors of our region and our country.

I would also like to mention that I am sharing my time with the hon. member, the very dignified member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound.

With a total medal count of 25, of which 10 were gold, I am happy to say that the $153 million we have invested in our athletes in the past four economic action plans has yielded results.

The Government of Canada is the largest investor in sports development in the country. Since 2006, we have increased investment in sports development by more than 50%. The economic action plan 2014 plans to maintain this record level of funding for sports development and training for elite athletes.

This includes $23 million per year ongoing beginning in 2015-16 for the sport support program.

Special Olympics Canada will receive $10.8 million over four years, which is in addition to the $1 million in ongoing funding the organization will receive through the sport support program.

The government will allow income contributed to an amateur athlete trust to qualify as earned income for the purpose of determining that individual's annual RRSP contribution limit. This will provide amateur athletes with more flexibility to save for retirement on a tax-assisted basis and ease their eventual integration into the workforce by deferring tax on income from their athletic endeavours.

With these measures in place, Canada will continue bringing home medals from various world championships and Olympic games but, more importantly, children will have role models to encourage them to get out there and move, to participate in sports. This is the best way to fight childhood obesity.

To stimulate our economy, Canada needs to distinguish itself as an innovative country. Thanks to a working group established in 2006 with city councillors from Orleans and the Orléans Chamber of Commerce, we are in the process of rebranding Orleans in terms of economic development. While western Ottawa continues its excellent work developing world-class IT programs, Orleans and eastern Ottawa will become the national epicentre for cybersecurity and telecommunications security.

The new VENUS Cybersecurity Corporation chose to set up shop in Orléans. VENUS will serve as a business incubator for knowledge-sector jobs in east Ottawa. It will draw new companies to Orléans.

Venus receives support from this government through the National Research Council and the Communications Security Establishment Canada as well as the Government of Ontario, the City of Ottawa, and various partners in private and para-public sectors.

This is the kind of example the government should be following to stimulate Canada's economy.

With Venus, the upcoming move of the Communications Security Establishment Canada to Ottawa-Orléans, and the regional importance of the National Research Council, Orléans has everything it needs to excel.

We are pleased to propose investments in research and development.

The best Minister of Finance in the world has proposed an investment of $46 million in new annual funding to the granting councils to support cutting-edge research and scientific discovery.

The best minister of finance in the world—I am not the one saying this; it is internationally recognized—is also proposing to invest $222 million in the TRIUMF lab to support advanced research and to create leading-edge companies.

To ensure that the next generation of researchers is ready, we are proposing a record $1.5 billion investment over 10 years by creating the Canada first research excellence fund.

Members will agree with me that Canada is the most dynamic country in the world to do business in, and this statement is based on hard facts.

More than 1 million net new jobs have been created in Canada since the worst days of the economic crisis, in July 2009. Moreover, 85% of these jobs are full-time positions, and 80% of them are in the private sector.

Furthermore, the economy in the national capital is very strong, despite the unfortunate cuts to the public service in the past few years and the doomsayers' predictions.

Ottawa's unemployment rate in January 2014 was 6.3%, which is below the national average of 7%.

Independent and credible organizations such as the International Monetary Fund and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development are predicting that Canada will have the strongest growth among the G7 countries in the years ahead.

This does not happen by magic, as the leader of the third party would have us believe. The tight spending controls put in place by the best Minister of Finance in the world and the government are behind this job creation.

The government is responsible for creating a favourable business climate.

Keeping our debt load under control is part of this climate. Economic action plan 2014 shows us that Canadians are almost done using their credit cards to make ends meet every month.

We are on track to balance our budget by 2015-16. Furthermore, Canada's net debt-to-GDP ratio is the lowest of all G7 countries, sitting at 37.5%. That, as far as I am concerned, is still too high, but it is still 20% below the next ranked country, Germany.

To keep our momentum going, we need to focus on our infrastructure, another cornerstone of our economy. Our massive investment in infrastructure during the recession was one of the main reasons Canada was the first country to climb out of the recession.

State-of-the-art infrastructure is a symbol of a healthy economy. Our previous infrastructure plan allowed Ottawa to begin work on a light rail system, which will be operational by 2018. The federal government has invested $600 million in this major public transportation project through the building Canada fund and the Canada strategic infrastructure fund in addition to $161 million from the gas tax fund.

Thanks to the infrastructure improvement fund announced in January 2009 to help stimulate the Canadian economy, citizens in Ottawa–Orléans saw 11 projects in their neighbourhoods receive more than $11 million in funding.

It is with pleasure that I see that the minister of infrastructure is proposing $70 billion over 10 years as part of the ambitious building Canada plan.

I have pages more to deliver. I know that the most important thing of interest to Ottawa under this program will be a further extension of the light rail program and more funding for cleaning up the Ottawa River.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Ottawa—Orléans for his speech, but I must say that his praise for the Minister of Finance bordered on the ridiculous. The member may as well have called him the best finance minister in both the known and unknown universe.

Let us get back to more serious issues. The member for Ottawa—Orléans began his speech by quite rightly thanking our athletes for their performance and for everything they were able to accomplish at the Olympics. However, that gives us the opportunity to point out another problem. The budget was tabled in the middle of the Olympics, as though they were trying to hide or gloss over the government's inaction in the budget.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer clearly stated that tens of thousands of jobs were not created because this government opted for austerity. In large part, that explains the deficit of 300,000 jobs or the additional 300,000 people who are unemployed.

Can the member for Ottawa—Orléans tell us why he supports this lack of job creation, this shortfall?

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member opposite for highlighting the importance of job creation. Job creation is a top priority for this government. That is why Canada has created more jobs, per capita, than any other G7 nation since the depths of the recession. In fact, more than a million new jobs were created.

Now he wants us to create more jobs. We need to create more, but we cannot rack up a credit card bill doing it.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the member's response to do it on a credit card is absolutely true, because that is how the government is doing it. Will he not admit that the additional debt to Canada, as a result of the Minister of Finance's managing of the finances of the nation, is up $169 billion?

In terms of so-called balancing the books, that is really only on an annual basis.

Let us be brutally honest. How are they going to get to that balance? They deferred military spending by about $4 billion over time, putting in jeopardy some of the shipbuilding and military expenditures and causing a problem in terms of jobs. Is it not correct, as well, that they are scapegoating, with a lot of their surplus position being on the backs of the unemployed, with the $5 billion surplus in the EI fund?