Debates of April 23rd, 2015

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's comments, particularly those relating to regional economic development. I am from Prince Edward Island, and in my province, the government closed the Citizenship and Immigration Canada office, the Veterans Affairs Canada regional offices and, as my colleague said, the Canada Revenue Agency office.

My question is about this government's priorities. My colleague commented on the government's decision to wait before spending money on infrastructure. The government also decided to postpone spending on financial aid for students and our military personnel. However, some measures will be in effect immediately.

Given these differences and under the circumstances, what message is the government sending to Canadians?

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yes, some measures apply immediately—those that benefit the wealthiest. Income splitting applies immediately, and the higher TFSA limit will be in effect very soon. Basically, the measures the government is implementing now are for the wealthiest. The measures that could help communities, particularly those that have been suffering since this government came to power, will not come into effect for some time.

We all know that this government will be replaced after the next election and that Canadians will vote in an NDP government that will really look after people's priorities.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Canada's economic action plan for 2015.

I am excited about this budget. In fact, I only have 10 minutes, because I will be sharing my time with the member for Medicine Hat, but there is so much in the budget about which I want to talk.

Before I do that, I would like to congratulate the member for Medicine Hat. I understand this will probably be the last budget to which he will be presenting. I also acknowledge the great work he did on the agriculture committee and in the background in Ottawa to represent his constituents of Medicine Hat. He does such a wonderful job and we will definitely miss him.

I want to talk about what the budget means to the people in Saskatchewan, particularly in my riding of Prince Albert.

When I went through my riding doing pre-budget consultations, my constituents told me that we needed to be focused on jobs and the economy. They told me that we really needed to be focused on doing things that were right so their kids would have jobs in Saskatchewan now and into the future, which is what the budget presents.

We have a balanced budget, about which my constituents are excited and happy. Saskatchewan is the only province that has a provincially balanced budget and now we have a federally balanced budget, and the people of Saskatchewan respect and understand the importance of that. Not only do we have a balanced budget, but we will have a surplus of $1.4 billion, which is huge.

I look back at what we faced in 2008 with the economic downturn and recession and how we handled that. We had to go into deficit to provide the jobs and growth that were required to keep people working right across our great country, and we did that in a strategic way. We put in water treatment plants, sewage and roads. We put in the infrastructure that was required for our economy to grow into the future. Therefore, we are excited to see that we have basically the best debt to GDP ratio in the G7, with 1.2 million net new jobs created, which are high-paying jobs. Again, when my constituents talk to me about being focused on the economy, this budget definitely is focused on the economy.

The other thing my constituents asked for was support for families to ensure they would become strong and thrive. We have done that since we came into power. In fact, when we look at the support we have given to families, an average family have $6,600 in their pockets to spend because of this government. We have done things in such a way that we have balanced the books and have allowed taxpayers and families to keep money in their pockets. That is $6,600 they can spend as they see fit.

There are other things we have done for families. When we look back to previous budgets, we have increased the amount Canadians can earn tax free. We have removed over one million Canadians from the tax rolls. We have introduced the children's arts tax credit, children's fitness tax credit, the family caregiver tax credit and the first-time donor's super credit. There are a lot of examples of what this government has done that is progressive and beneficial for all Canadians, which is exciting. I know when I go back to my riding in Prince Albert this week, my constituents will thank us for doing these types of things.

We have also expanded the universal child care benefit. For a child under six, parents will now get $160 a month. For children aged 6 to 17, parents will get $60 a month that they never received before. This is exciting, and they will thank us for that because they asked for it.

We will introduce the family tax cut and let families decide how they want to raise their family and how they want to have their income split, which is a great thing. When we think about it, people can split their income with their spouse or partner to bring down their overall family tax to such a rate that they could benefit their entire family. What is wrong with that? It is such a positive and progressive tax idea. It is just wonderful, and I think Canadian families will be appreciative of the fact they can share their income and make decisions based on what is best for their families.

I want to talk about what we have done for small businesses.

The business tax rate has been reduced from 12% to 11%, and now it will go down to 9%, which is fabulous. This is a bit of relief that the small business can take advantage of and hire another employee or student. That is a big deal. This acknowledges that we understand small businesses and that we will help them as they grow their businesses.

Hopefully, as these small and medium enterprises grow, they can take on trade and look outside the great country of Canada, and we will be there to support them. With the benefit of EDC and BDC, businesses can take advantage of the big markets we are opening up for Canadian enterprises, which is one thing this government has done very well compared to previous governments. It is this government's aggressiveness that has opened up world markets, signing free trade agreements with countries like Chile, Peru, Colombia, Honduras, to name just a few in the western hemisphere.

CETA will be tremendous for Canada. The TPP and the agreement with Canada-Japan will cement our ability to grow and foster our economy. We will be able to take advantage of markets and have preferential access compared to our competitors, or at least be on a level playing field with them. Again, the benefits come back right into every small town in Saskatchewan, so we are excited about seeing that.

We also have support for seniors in the budget. Seniors came to us and said that they wanted us to change what they had to withdraw from their RRIFs, that it was not fair, so we did that. We made that change in the RRIF so seniors can withdraw as they see fit because the minimum is different now. This benefit will help seniors enjoy their retirement years.

Another small thing a lot of Canadians have been taking advantage of is the tax-free savings account. We have doubled the amount from $5,000 to $10,000. A lot of people may not put $10,000 in it. Some may put $6,000, some may put $5,000 and some may put $2,000 or $3,000, but it is there. If they should come across some extra cash and they want to go to $10,000 one year, they have the ability to do that.

I look at that as part of a suite of packages we have when we plan for retirement. When we have RRSPs, the tax-free savings account and our pensions, we have a suite of things we can work with as we plan for our retirement, and that will pay dividends greatly into the future years as more Canadians retire.

When we look at the farming community, the average age of farmers is getting older. We have to see what we can do to bring in more young farmers. The best thing we can do to bring in more young farmers is to give them a market in which to sell their product. By removing the Canadian Wheat Board and giving farmers freedom, we are starting to see more young farmers coming into the agricultural community. This is exciting.

When I go to a town hall or to the post office and look around, I do not recognize a lot of the young people in our community. They have come back to take advantage of raising a family on the farm. In order to do that, they realize they have to buy the land. A large number of farmers are at the age when they want to retire. The $1 million capital gains exception for the selling of farmland is huge to them.

These guys have worked hard. The families have worked hard. They have gone through a lot of things over the past 30 or 40 years. They have seen droughts, floods, they have had their hands tied by the Canadian Wheat Board and they have seen rail issues. Every year there is something new and they have had to deal with it, yet they still claw their way through, survive and thrive. Now, as they approach retirement years and they sell their assets, this will allow them to have a proper nest egg as they go into retirement. That is appropriate. They asked for this and we provided for it in the budget.

The farming community is very excited about that. However, the other thing we did for them was the export market development programs. Again, $20 million over two years, helping them expand their exports. We grow more than we could ever consume in Canada, so we need to be able to export that product around the world to get the maximization of prices in Canada. Every once in a while we need to have some help from market development to sell those products that we normally do not consume in Canada, so this $20 million will definitely go a long way.

Whether we are talking about farmers or small business, and small and medium enterprises, the one thing they told us in the trade committee was that they wanted to see us enhance the Trade Commissioner Service. We have done that. In 2015, we have put $14.3 million over two years and $9.3 million per year thereafter to expand the footprint of the resources of the of the Canadian Trade Commissioner Service.

These guys are great. They are located throughout the world. If individuals own a small or medium-sized enterprise and they want to go into a new market, for example, Brazil, they would phone the Trade Commissioner Service and tell it the product they want to sell, that they want to go into Brazil. Trade professionals will go into the marketplace and tell individuals some good potential partners, potential customers and the nuances the individuals need to know about a marketplace. They do that over and over again to help small and medium enterprises take that leap into becoming exporters.

Ten minutes is definitely not enough to talk about the budget. One thing I will say about it is that when I go back to my riding tomorrow and talk to my constituents throughout the weekend, they will be happy with this budget. In fact, I call it a blue jean budget. Anybody who has ever worn blue jeans will receive a benefit from the budget.

I am excited about that. I am proud to say I am part of it. I am also proud to say that this Conservative government has kept its word and balanced the budget. Going forward, we will have balanced budgets that will leave our economy strong going into the future for our kids and grandchildren.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

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

I heard him boasting, like many of his colleagues did, about the enhanced universal child care benefit.

However, I did not hear him mention that the benefit will be considered taxable income. Canadians must be aware of that. They will not be able to fully benefit from the measure, because they will have to set aside enough money to pay their taxes the next year and not have any nasty surprises. It is important that people know about this and take it into consideration in order to properly assess this measure.

I do not understand why the government is not offering Canadian families a real choice, such as benefiting from tax measures like that kind of tax credit and at the same time from child care spaces at a maximum of $15 a day. This would help meet the needs of more Canadian families. Hence, people who cannot afford private child care or who opt out of that choice will at least have access to affordable child care.

I am wondering why this option was not made available in the Canadian budget, as the NDP is proposing.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I hope I get as much time to answer the question as the member took to ask it.

New Democrats talk about their plan for $15-a-day day care. What a joke. In Kinistino, Saskatchewan, how is a family going to take advantage of $15-a-day day care when people work 12 to 18 hours a day? The unionized workers who work from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. that want to provide this service are not available in Kinistino. That family will not be working from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. People work from six in the morning until midnight during harvest and spring seeding. People work shifts. Their program would do absolutely nothing for the average Canadian.

What does work is giving that money to the families to let them decide how they want to raise their kids. If it is grandma or one of the spouses or partners who wants to stay home, that is their choice. Let us leave the money with the people who actually earned it and know how best to spend it, unlike the NDP members, who want to take every dollar out of people's pockets and dictate to them, as if they were two years old, “You get $10, and you get $5, and you voted NDP, so you get $25”. No, let us leave the money in taxpayers' pockets and they can do as they see fit.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member about poor seniors, the seniors living in poverty.

Almost immediately upon obtaining their majority government, the Conservatives decided to increase the age of eligibility for old age security and the guaranteed income supplement from 65 to 67 years of age. The result of that is to take $28,000 from the pockets of the poorest seniors.

Within this budget, for those seniors who have had their pockets picked to the tune of $28,000, which of the measures is going to help them most: the TFSAs, the RRIFs, or the income splitting?

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, maybe I had better explain that it is 2023 when this will actually take place, when the age will go from 65 to 67, not today. There has been no pickpocketing of any senior today at all. In fact, if we look at it now, with the changes to RRIFs, they are going to have more flexibility with the money that they have saved in how they are going to spend it. People should not be confused by Liberal smears and confusing campaigns. Let us look at the truth. Seniors are better off.

This government took one million people off the tax rolls. One million people no longer pay taxes. It is this government that did that, not a Liberal government. When the Liberal government was in power, yes, it balanced the books, but it was at the expense of seniors' health, my health, and everybody else's health when the Liberals made cuts to the provinces. That was shameful.

We balanced the budget without reducing transfers to the provinces. The Liberals did not. In fact, if we look at the transfers for health care, they are increasing year after year, and yet we still have a balanced budget and a surplus of $1.4 billion. What can the Liberals complain about? They can complain about nothing, so they make up things, and that is what the member has done.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Prince Albert for sharing his time with me today on the budget speech. I also want to congratulate him for all of his hard work on the agriculture committee. He was a very good support for me, as well as a great inspiration. I would also like to thank him for his work on the international trade file. He has done an outstanding job.

It is a privilege for me, as a member of Parliament, to get up and speak to Canada's economic action plan, 2015, entitled “Strong Leadership: A Balanced-Budget, Low-Tax Plan for Jobs, Growth and Security”. I want to thank our hard-working Minister of Finance, the hon. member for Eglinton—Lawrence, for the long hours and late nights spent working on this outstanding budget. I also want to recognize the hard work of past years by the late beloved hon. Jim Flaherty. God rest his soul. We got here, in part, thanks to Jim's vision and talent.

As promised, and as the Minister of Finance so proudly pointed out with reason, this economic action plan, 2015, is a balanced budget written in black ink. Indeed, I believe we will soon be faced with similar choices when we go to the next federal general election campaign later this year. I urge all Canadians to choose wisely between the risky economic plans and plans to increase spending and taxes by the NDP and the Liberals, and our Conservative government's proven track record of delivering on economic promises and our low-tax plan.

Our economic action plan contains a number of initiatives that will be particularly beneficial to the people of the Medicine Hat constituency, whom I have had the tremendous honour and privilege of representing here in the House of Commons since 2008. I will talk a little bit about all of them.

A very important part of this plan encourages investment in Canada's manufacturing sector. It will do this by maintaining a low tax burden on business to encourage investment in Canada by providing manufacturers with a 10-year tax incentive to boost productivity-enhancing investment, among other things. This will come in an extension of the accelerated capital cost allowance for investment in machinery and equipment used in manufacturing or processing for 10 years until 2025. I know that this will be an important initiative in my constituency, as I have met with stakeholders who have continually pointed out the necessity of such incentives to grow their businesses here in Canada, thus creating more jobs right here in Canada for Canadians.

The 2015 budget also proposes to lower the small business tax rate to 9% by 2019. This is good news for small business owners.

Another major section of the economic action plan is the plan to lower the EI premium by 2017. This is expected to result in a substantial reduction in EI premiums from $1.88 in 2016 to an estimated $1.49 in 2017, a reduction of 21%.

One of the big beneficiaries, of course, will be our farmers. My colleague talked about farmers. I have many farmers in the constituency of Medicine Hat, and they will be very pleased to hear that we will increase the lifetime capital gains exemption to $1 million for those who own farm property and meet the criteria. This will be very helpful to our farmers, who are the backbone of our rural communities and are certainly critical in making sure that our cities are fed. It is estimated that the measure would reduce capital gains taxes for owners of farm and fishing businesses by about $50 million over the 2015-16 to 2019-20 period. Also, to support agriculture and grow our exports, our budget will boost agriculture marketing by $12 million.

The economic action plan will help to train the workforce of tomorrow by supporting provinces and territories to facilitate the harmonization of apprenticeship training and certification requirements in targeted Red Seal trades. It will help by providing $1 million over five years to promote the adoption of the blue seal certification program across Canada, and by making a one-time investment of $65 million to businesses and industry associations to allow them to work with the willing post-secondary institutions to better align curricula with the needs of employers.

Our action plan also will support Canadian workers. I know that this is important to many of my constituents. It will do this by investing $53.8 million over two years to extend the employment insurance working while on claim pilot project to August 2016.

We will continue to pursue negotiations with provinces and territories on the $1.95 billion per year labour market development agreements to reorient training toward labour market demand. Economic action plan 2015 will provide $35 million over five years to make permanent the foreign credential recognition loans pilot project.

The government recognizes that the skilled trades are essential to Canada's economic prosperity. To reduce barriers to accreditation in the skilled trades and to improve labour mobility, our action plan proposes to extend further support to the provinces and territories for implementing recommendations made by the Canadian Council of Directors of Apprenticeship to harmonize apprenticeship training and certification requirements in targeted Red Seal trades. For example, the jurisdictions will work toward adopting common sequencing for technical training curriculum content and similar total hours for training both in class and on the job.

Our economic action plan proposes to reallocate $35 million over five years starting in 2015 to make the foreign credential recognition loans pilot project permanent to support internationally trained workers in their pursuit of foreign credential recognition. I know this will be beneficial to many of my constituents in Medicine Hat.

To build on the achievements to date, our plan also promises $18.1 million over two years starting in 2016-17 to expand the activities of the market access secretariat to introduce new agricultural trade commissioners abroad and play a more active role in setting international science-based standards and build on the opportunities created by our trade agreements.

I would also like to point out that the transition of the Canadian Wheat Board to a private competitor on the world stage is complete. With this deal it certainly opens up more opportunities for our grain farmers in western Canada. I thank the Minister of Agriculture, the hon. member for Battlefords—Lloydminster, for his hard work in delivering marketing freedom for the many grain farmers in my constituency.

Our action plan will help families make ends meet and will help our seniors.

In October 2014, the Prime Minister announced further tax relief and benefit increases for all families with children. These proposed measures include enhancing the universal child care benefit, increasing the maximum dollar amounts claimable under the child care expense deduction, and introducing the family tax cut. The government has also doubled the children's fitness tax credit amount and has made it refundable.

Our economic action plan builds on this record of support for Canadian families by proposing to increase the tax-free savings account annual contribution limit to $10,000.

Our action plan also proposes to extend employment insurance compassionate care benefits from six weeks to six months.

This budget will also implement a new home accessibility tax credit for seniors and persons with disabilities. The proposed 15% non-refundable income tax credit would apply on up to $10,000 of eligible home renovation expenditures per year, providing up to $1,500 in tax relief. Eligible expenditures will be for improvements that allow for seniors or a person who is eligible for the disability tax credit to be more mobile, safe and functional within their home.

Our action plan also confirms funding to create a new retirement income security benefit for moderately to severely disabled veterans who receive income replacement under the earnings loss benefit or the service income security insurance plan. This new benefit will provide additional financial security by guaranteeing that the income of eligible recipients after age 65 does not fall below 70% of pre-65 income provided through National Defence's service income security insurance plan and through Veterans Affairs Canada's earnings loss benefit, permanent impairment allowance and permanent impairment allowance supplement. This will ensure that moderately to severely disabled veterans have the necessary financial resources to maintain their quality of life in their retirement years.

Starting in 2017, our plan will increase the amount of money for the Department of National Defence by $11.8 billion over 10 years. This is good news for our Canadian Armed Forces and our ability to keep our country safe. It also enhances national security by investing $292.6 million over five years in intelligence and law enforcement agencies for investigative resources to counter terrorism; by providing $12.5 million over five years, starting in 2015-16, and $2.5 million ongoing thereafter, in additional funding to the Security Intelligence Review Committee to enhance its review of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service; by providing $58 million over five years, starting in 2015-16, to further protect the Government of Canada's essential cyber systems and critical infrastructure against cyberattacks; by investing $36.4 million over five years to support the operators of Canada's vital cybersystems in addressing cybersecurity threats.

This is by no means an exhaustive list. I encourage all Canadians to visit budget.gc.ca online to see the details.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am from Newton—North Delta, and Newton is part of Surrey. Recently, in my community, we have had a huge number of shootings, 23. Last Sunday, tragically, there was a fatality, and a 22-year-old young man was killed by gunfire. It was devastating for the family and for the community.

I have been pushing in this House for additional resources for communities like Surrey to take on gang violence and drug-related activities of the kind we have had. As I have gone through this budget, I have not been able to locate where there is funding for real issues like crime and safety in my community. The government talks about being tough on crime. Could the member please point out where in this budget there is money allocated to help cities like Surrey fight crime so that my neighbours and my constituents can feel safe?

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to hear about the individual who passed away, and our condolences to the family.

It is a difficult situation, and I understand that the police need to ensure that they continue to work. The resources will have to come from the provinces and communities they are in and from the taxes paid by the citizens of Surrey and by Canadians across the country. I certainly hope they will be able to resolve those issues in terms of crime.

I do not know whether the gun violence the member is talking about is because of weapons coming in from other countries. Under Bill C-42, I know that CBSA will be able to work with the RCMP to ensure that if illegal guns are coming into this country, they can follow them, track them down, and stop that.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I was mildly bemused to hear the member for Medicine Hat extolling the virtues of the changes made to the EI program in his remarks on the budget. In particular, he talked about the working-while-on-claim pilot that has been extended. There are many things the government has done that have been bad with respect to EI benefits for those in seasonal industries, but few as unpopular as that particular program.

My question for the member also relates to EI. It comes from page 163 of the budget, where it says that the government will be:

Taking steps to ensure that Employment Insurance claimants are aware of their job search responsibilities when moving or considering moving for work. The Government will also ensure that individuals willing to move are not excluded from Employment Insurance training opportunities across the country.

Is this a veiled attack on those who are not willing to move?

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am amazed by the question. From my experience, and I am only one individual, I took every opportunity to find work and move across the country. Certainly that was something I saw I needed to do for myself and my family.

The member talks about EI. As I understand it, the Liberal Party took somewhere between $50 billion and $60 billion out of the EI program and used it for its own pet projects. I do not know how that member can actually stand up and have any credibility.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am following up on the question from my friend from Charlottetown. Perhaps the hon. member for Medicine Hat is unfamiliar with the way the employment insurance system works.

Recipients are actually told that if they are searching for work but leave their own community to search for work they are cut off EI for those days on which they search for work somewhere else. It is fine to say that in his experience he was able to search wherever it was he could get work. However, there are constantly changing rules for employment insurance, a shrinkage of benefits, and the fact that so many people who are unemployed are unable to access the system. I hear from constituents who have waited on a phone line to a 1-800 number to nowhere for hours to find out when their claims will begin. These are people in a system that was intended to cover them in the event of unemployment. They have paid into the system.

The words in this budget seem to suggest that if they are not willing to move, they may not have access to training benefits. We certainly know the way the system works. If people go looking for work, they are often cut off the employment insurance benefits at that moment. Perhaps the member can address the question.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the short answer is that I understand that people are unemployed and that they need to find work. My understanding is that if in fact they can prove that they were out of the community looking for work elsewhere, they should be able to continue their claims.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be speaking on the federal budget today. I will be splitting my time with the member for Etobicoke North.

This budget has no real plan for jobs or growth. It gives the most to people who need it the least, and it keeps Canada in a deficit situation.

The Prime Minister's claim of a balanced budget is about as credible as George W. Bush's claim, in 2003, when he declared “mission accomplished” on the Iraq war. History proved the president wrong; the U.S. remained in Iraq for another seven years.

I think history will prove that this Prime Minister is wrong to declare victory on deficits. It is a cautionary tale about premature declarations of victory. This lesson is lost on the Conservative government. Instead of learning from history, the Conservatives are using this budget to declare mission accomplished in a fiscal year that will not even end until March 31, 2016.

The budget shows that after seven consecutive deficits, the federal Conservatives have yet to balance the budget. Canada has not been in a recession since May 2009. In fact, the Conservatives have been breaking the principle of their proposed balanced budget legislation since then.

Now the Conservatives have fabricated an illusory surplus on the eve of an election. How did they do that? First, they cut the contingency reserve. That is right. In the past, they kept intact the contingency reserve put in place by finance minister Paul Martin. If the Conservatives had actually done that this year, the budget would have shown that the Conservatives would be in deficit until at least 2017.

Slashing the rainy day reserve is just plain reckless. Last year, then-finance minister Jim Flaherty agreed. He said it would be “imprudent” to cut the contingency reserve. Earlier this year, the then-employment minister, now the defence minister, promised that the government would not touch the contingency fund. He said, “We won't be using a contingency fund”, to balance the budget. “A contingency fund is there for unforeseen circumstances, like natural disasters”.

This finance minister and the Prime Minister did not listen to either. Instead, he has recklessly cut the contingency reserve, leaving the government with no room for any unforeseen events.

The finance minister's reckless streak does not end there. His budget also depends on a 50% increase in oil prices. The Bank of Canada knows better than to build its forecasts around the hope that oil prices are going to go up in the mid-term. The Conservatives should be similarly cautious. It is reckless to build a budget around rosy assumptions.

The cut to the contingency reserve, in fact, is not the only item in this budget that is larger than the illusory surplus. There is also the one-time asset sale of GM shares, a $2.2 billion sale of GM shares that is actually bigger than this illusory surplus.

That confirms the reason the finance minister sat on his hands and delayed the budget until April, after the fiscal year had already begun.

Since 2010, job growth in Canada has been stagnant, and with the fall of oil prices, Canadians have been losing their jobs. The Bank of Canada has called the economy in 2015 “atrocious”. The Governor of the Bank of Canada actually took action in January. He stepped in with a historic interest rate cut to strengthen the economy. Meanwhile, the finance minister was nowhere to be found. He went into hiding, avoiding questions in Parliament for months. Now we know the real reason he did this. The finance minister was putting politics ahead of the economy and the Conservatives' political fortunes ahead of the Canadian priority of having a real plan, in a timely manner, to create jobs and growth for Canadians who need them.

He delayed the budget so that the sale of GM shares would count toward this fiscal year instead of last. That is not a plan. That is a gimmick. It is not just unsustainable, it is pathetic. It is playing politics with the livelihoods of Canadians.

The Canadian economy desperately needs a plan for jobs and growth. Instead, the Conservatives remain committed to their fiscally irresponsible plan for income splitting and the doubling of the TFSA contribution limit. They spent the surplus even before it arrived, and they are spending it on those who need the help the least.

Neither income splitting nor the increase to the TFSA limit would do anything for job creation. Neither of these measures would create the jobs and growth Canadians need or help young Canadians find work. Both of these measures would skew benefits toward the rich, doing little for the middle class and those Canadians working hard to join the middle class.

Doubling the TFSA limit would be particularly reckless, because the cost of the measure would ramp up dramatically over time and would gut the capacity of future governments by tens of billions of dollars every year. According to the PBO, a third of that cost would be borne by provincial governments, and because TFSAs would not count toward income-tested benefits, it would also result, perversely, in billions of dollars each year in additional old age security payments for wealthier seniors.

At some level, the Minister of Finance seems to understand that doubling the TFSA would create a problem for the next generation. When asked about that problem, he acknowledged that there would be a problem and said “why don't we leave that to [the Prime Minister's] granddaughter to solve”.

Canadian parents believe in building a better country for our kids and our grandkids. We do not believe in burdening the next generation with today's tax breaks for the rich. We do not believe in gutting our social safety net to pay for those tax breaks.

The Conservatives do not get this. They have grown out of touch with the challenges faced by middle-class Canadian families. Instead of building for the future, the Conservatives have engineered, effectively, a reverse mortgage on Canada's fiscal house to help them pay for giveaways to the rich. Doubling the TFSA limit would dramatically reduce the government's capacity in the future to invest in what matters.

All of this is bad enough, but it was only three years ago, just shortly after the last election, that these same Conservatives falsely claimed that they had to raise the age of OAS from 65 to 67 because of financial pressures. They falsely claimed that the OAS program was not financially sustainable. They passed these measures in Bill C-38, the spring 2012 omnibus budget bill, which resulted in cutting OAS and GIS to Canada's most vulnerable seniors for two years.

When fully implemented, Bill C-38's cuts to OAS and GIS will take $32,000 away from each of Canada's poorest and most vulnerable seniors. The Conservatives will be taking that money from low-income seniors at precisely the time when doubling the TFSA limit will start to get really expensive for the government and when the extra OAS payments for wealthier Canadians kick in.

The Conservatives are playing anti-Robin Hood. There is an adage that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Under this Conservative budget, it is now official government policy.

Raising the age of OAS and doubling the TFSA limit would take money away from the poorest, most vulnerable seniors and would give it to the rich. It would give that money to the select few who have an extra $10,000 burning a hole in their pockets every year. We need to keep in mind that some families are wealthy enough that there would in fact be two adults who could each contribute, so that is $20,000. I do not know a lot of families like that in Kings—Hants. People are working hard. They are struggling. Middle-class families are barely getting by.

The Conservative decision to take from the poor and give to the rich is unfair and un-Canadian. It is another example of how out of touch with the priorities of Canadians and the challenges of middle-class families the Conservatives have become.

The budget has no plan for jobs and growth. It would do next to nothing to help Canada's struggling middle class. It would do the most for the people who need it the least, the rich, and it would keep Canada in deficit.

A Liberal government will have a real plan for jobs and growth and support for Canada's middle class, and we will balance the books.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my Liberal colleague's speech. He concluded by saying that his party had a plan for creating jobs and long-term prosperity. That is nice to hear, but we have yet to see anything . We keep waiting, and still nothing.

The NDP has a solid plan. What is more, the Conservatives thought our plan was so good that they included it in their budget. They are going to lower the small business tax rate from 11% to 9% and create an innovation tax credit. These are concrete NDP proposals.

Nonetheless, where is the Liberals' plan? How long do they think Canadians will wait for a solid plan?

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

Mr. Speaker, just wait, because we are going to present a solid plan for the economy, job creation and economic growth. It is a solid and positive plan for the middle class, for making investments in infrastructure and for helping young people find jobs.

The hon. member will have to wait a little while longer, but I am sure that she will very much like our plan for Canada's economy. I hope she will support our Liberal plan for Canadians because we worked very hard on developing it. I hope she will agree with our ideas for stimulating economic growth in order to benefit Canadians.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, it is always wonderful to listen to the Liberal members opposite talk about their plans and then say, “We have great plan, we're going to do all this, but you're just going to have to wait and see.” On this side of the House, we are not actually all that worried or waiting with bated breath to see any plan that the Liberals produce because it really does not matter, However, I am curious just for interest's sake because our plan of course includes record levels of transfer payments.

Let us talk a bit about that plan, which would include $923 million to my home territory in the Yukon, which is record level and would be 73% higher than previous Liberal governments. However, the Liberals back then balanced the budgets by cutting and slashing those transfer payments to the provinces and territories, affecting health care, affecting education, affection social outcomes, affecting economic outcomes, affecting the territories' and provinces' local abilities to set local priorities and local initiatives.

I wonder if the hon. member's plan, which nobody has ever seen and probably nobody ever will see, would include slashing those transfer payments to the provinces and territories again? Does it include slashing the important family tax cut that we have put in place in this? Does it include increasing taxes? How on Earth will the Liberals ever reconcile their history with what they anticipate their future to be?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is quite amazing that a member of the Conservative caucus would actually accuse someone else of not having a plan when they cannot even present a budget on time. Of course, they say the reason is falling oil prices. If that were the real reason, then how did Alberta or Saskatchewan, both of which are more dependent upon oil prices for their fiscal framework, actually come up with a budget?

The reality is the only reason they delayed the budget is they needed to book the sale of GM shares, a one-time asset sale, this year so that they could create this illusory surplus on the eve of an election, so they could cobble it up and tell Canadians the books are balanced. Canadians will not be fooled by that.

I was proud to be part of a government, Paul Martin's government, that negotiated with the provinces and territories and actually sat down and met with premiers, that invested and put in place a 10-year health care plan, that increased investments in health care from the federal government by 6% per year. That was before the current government unilaterally imposed a cut to those transfers by half, in fact. Now, it has only grown by 3% per year. We will take no lessons on fiscal responsibility working with the provinces from the current government.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by thanking the good people of Etobicoke North, the beautiful community where I was raised, for the privilege of serving them. I hope our community members know that our constituency office is their home and that we are always here to celebrate the good times and to provide support during the challenging times.

I will not be supporting the budget as it gives the most help to Canadians who need it the least. The Conservative Party's proposals will benefit the rich on the backs of the middle class. That is simply not fair. For example, the priority of the Conservatives is a $2-billion tax break for the rich. What is more, they are doubling the TFSA limit by taking away tens of thousands of dollars in old age security for seniors. In the long term, doubling the TFSA will help the rich and do nothing for the middle class.

Our Etobicoke North community needs jobs. I have worked hard to get a $500,000 job program and to help my constituents find jobs they need to support their families. I personally review resumés, often doing two and three drafts. I get people into job programs. We follow up with them to see if the program is meeting their needs, and we provide other necessary support such as clothing and food programs. Finding jobs in this economic climate is not easy. Unemployment last year, including youth unemployment, was still higher than before the recession. According to the CIBC, job quality in Canada is at its lowest in a quarter century. For the past 16 months, job growth has been under 1%. This is the first time in four decades this has occurred outside of a recession.

Over the past year, close to 80% of the people I have seen need a job. Many are youth with bachelor's, master's, nursing and law degrees. Some have been out of school with no work for two years despite spending each day sending out resumés. Many are internationally trained professionals, and some are people who have been downsized after working 20 years for one company. They are good people with good skills and would be an asset to any organization. However, they are struggling. In some cases, they cannot feed their children. In some cases, they cannot buy medication for diabetes, heart disease and multiple sclerosis. In some cases, they cannot pay for their children's dental care. We do the best we can to help.

I have already heard from our youth who are looking for jobs. They want the Conservative government to know that $7 million to “support the relocation of youth and immigrants to areas where job opportunities exist” is, in their words, inexcusable. Perhaps the government is unaware that the youth employment rate in Ontario stands at 20%, and that one in five young Torontonians cannot find a job. They also want the government to know that they would like to have the opportunity to stay in their community, to get a job, to work and be near family if they choose. They should not be forced to look elsewhere. They also ask whether the government understands the gridlock and lack of transit in Toronto, and that it can take two hours to commute from our community to the downtown core for a job. They see through why there will be no new investment in community infrastructure for two more years, even when cities are calling for help today.

Our Etobicoke North community and Canada deserve a better plan for investing in jobs and growth for the middle class and those working hard to join it.

I will now turn my attention to two of my critics roles, namely international development and status of women, and what was not in the budget. I will begin with international development.

According to a new study by Engineers Without Borders Canada, 94% of Canadians say it is important to improve the health, education and economic opportunity for the world's poorest people. After reviewing the budget, one humanitarian responded with, “was there development in the budget?”

The Conservative government is once again balancing its budget on the backs of the world's poorest. Liberals believe that development assistance must help reduce systemic poverty by stimulating the creation of democratic institutions, economic opportunity and job growth.

The government has announced a development financing initiative, or DFI. DFIs work with the private sector to promote development and investment in developing countries. While DFIs can be effective in job creation, which is a massive need for developing countries seeking economic progress and stability, these institutions must be managed properly in order to ensure that development outcomes are prioritized.

I have several questions about this new organization. First, where is the money coming from? According to the OECD, Canada's aid spending dropped to .24% of GDP in 2014, down from .27% the previous year, one of the country's lowest rates in more than a decade. It is very important that the DFI be funded with new money and not from the current official development assistance, or ODA, budget. Will the Minister of International Development and La Francophonie look elsewhere for funds and when will funding start?

A decrease in ODA spending is not the only worrying trend I see with this budget on the topic of international development. The Conservative government has shifted its aid priorities to reflect its commercial and political interests to the detriment of the poorest and most fragile countries, where local capital is limited and short-term risks are too high for banks or other investors.

The last issue I will address is what is in the budget for women. The budget focuses on women entrepreneurs and women on boards. These are important issues. I have many questions related to the government's proposals, which I will table as a written question to the government, but the major question is: Why is there no money attached to the action plan for women in business?

Last night, I attended a fundraiser for our local women's shelter, Ernestine's, which daily undertakes lifesaving work and is a refuge and touchstone in the Etobicoke North community. Men and women attending the fundraiser wanted to know what was in the budget for ending violence against women and girls. They were clear that we need a national action plan to end violence and that we need an inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women. They do not accept the government's round table on missing and murdered indigenous women and girls as sufficient or acceptable and they asked me to bring this up today.

They also asked that I discuss the Canadian Network of Women's Shelters & Transition Houses' latest report that shows that in just one day, 231 shelters welcomed 122 new women and 81 children, but they had to turn away 302 women and 221 children due to a lack of resources. Moreover, only 20% of shelters said they felt well equipped to help women with mental health concerns and only 31% said they could help women with substance abuse concerns.

I am thankful for the opportunity to raise concerns I have heard from the Etobicoke North community concerning jobs, economic growth, lack of infrastructure and lack of real help in the budget and to raise concerns of stakeholders regarding international development and women and men who support Ernestine's and want the violence to end. I cannot support this budget because it fails our communities and it fails Canadians.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech. We share many of the same concerns. The NDP is calling for a national inquiry into missing and murdered aboriginal women. That is something that all parliamentarians in the House should support, and we will continue to fight for this inquiry.

I know that my colleague was a well-known scientist before becoming an MP. Consequently, the lack of funding for science in the 2015 budget may be of concern to her as well. This has been the case since the Conservative government came to power. Increasingly and systematically, the government has focused scientific research on industry and applied research. It is fine to support research that can benefit our economy, but it is also important to support basic research and research that can benefit the public.

Could my colleague comment on this?

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for the question. I have enjoyed serving with her on a number of committees.

I want to start with missing and murdered indigenous women. We absolutely need an inquiry on this issue in this country. We have heard from the families, we have heard from the provinces and territories, we have heard from indigenous organizations, and we have even heard from international organizations that we need an inquiry. Quite frankly, the government is on the wrong side of history. This is a national tragedy and we need that inquiry.

When it comes to science in this country, there has been a war on science over the last many years. For example, there were cuts to the granting council several years ago. Scholarships are being tied to business, and the Conservatives are muzzling scientists.

People should be able to publish their research. Canadian taxpayers pay for that research and we cannot be muzzling our scientists. We have certainly heard from international journals like Nature that Canadian scientists are being muzzled.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her intervention today. I do applaud her for her passion and commitment to violence prevention programs against women. Of course, I think that is important to all members in this House. It is certainly important to me as a member of Parliament for the Yukon, with some of the long-term investments and personal contributions I have made to that very topic long before I got into politics.

I wonder if the member would help me understand. We have moved through a whole suite of legislative programs that are designed to prevent violence against women. They are also designed to afford people in our communities a greater opportunity in life, be that through work, shelters, a homeless partnering strategy, or the $252 million for the action plan against violence. All of these things formulate a suite of programs and services that help reduce risky lifestyles and outcomes for Canadians. However, time and time again, the Liberal members vote against that. I understand their position on missing and murdered aboriginal women, but that is not the only source of action. They speak about that as though it is the solution and the only solution.

I am curious why the member would vote against all of those other measures that are indeed improving the lives of Canadians day to day, in which we are investing, and stand up solely for a national inquiry, and not help on all the other fronts. I find it a little disingenuous, but I would like to give her the opportunity to respond to those very pieces against which she has voted.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend across the way. As the member said, I have spent close to two decades fighting to end violence against women and girls. When I taught women's health at the university, there was not one class in which I did not have a young woman stand at the end of the class and say that she was suffering abuse, whether by a boyfriend or family member, and I got help for that young woman that day.

What we hear from stakeholders across this country is that we need a national action plan to end violence against women. We do not have that national action plan. We need the inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women. We simply do not need re-announcements of funding announcements already made.

[Jay Aspin, Conservative, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Mississauga South.

I am pleased to rise in this House today to speak to budget 2015, introduced this week by our government.

In response to the greatest global downturn since the Great Depression, our government introduced the necessary and strategic investments to keep Canadians working and maintain confidence in the economy. These investments paid off as Canada rebounded out of the recession faster than any G8 country, with the best results. Indeed, since 2009, Canada has generated the greatest real GDP growth; created more than 1.2 million net new jobs, 80% of which are full time and in the private sector; maintained the greatest performance of private sector investment; and maintained the lowest debt to GDP ratio.

This last point is particularly important. Whereas many nations tried to fight the recession by flexing fiscal and monetary policy almost without limit, our government, under the leadership of our Prime Minister, prudently balanced strong public investments to support the economy with necessary reductions in federal discretionary spending. The result is that our Minister of Finance stood in this House this Tuesday and announced a $1.4 billion surplus along with a $1 billion contingency. The result is that, without the implementation of this government's disciplined and prudent cost-saving measures, the current deficit would have been $17.2 billion.

The result is that our economy is healthy, strong, and growing. Circumstances of other nations have proven that neither reckless spending nor severe austerity is the answer. Success comes from long-term, disciplined leadership.

I am particularly proud of the fact that this government did not balance the budget on the backs of honest, hard-working Canadians. Nor have there been any cuts to critical services such as health care or key programs such as infrastructure, which remain at a historical high. No, we balanced the budget while simultaneously reducing the tax burden on Canadian families to record lows.

The GST was lowered from 7% to 5%. Small-business taxes have been cut. Various tax credits have been introduced for caregivers, volunteers, and those with disabilities. We introduced the tax-free savings account, raised the minimum income Canadians can make before federal rates are levied, reduced the lowest income tax rate, lessened EI contributions, and introduced assistance for first-time homeowners. I could go on, but the bottom line is this. As a direct result of our government's policies, for the typical Canadian family of two parents with two children, there are savings of an average of $6,640 every year.

Balancing the budget has never been just about sound and responsible fiscal management. It has been about principle. Our government promised Canadians that it would balance the budget, and Canadians sent the government back to Ottawa in 2011 with a clear majority and a mandate to do just that. This budget also would cement another promise made to Canadians, that of introducing income splitting for families. The principle of this government has been and remains that we keep the promises we make.

With my remaining time, I would like to highlight specific initiatives from the budget that would particularly benefit my constituents in Nipissing—Timiskaming.

For seniors, we would reduce minimum withdrawal rates for registered retirement income funds, or RRIFs. We would introduce a new home accessibility tax credit. Seniors and persons with disabilities would be able to claim up to $1,500 in tax credits for specific home renovations.

For families, we would increase the TFSA contribution limit to $10,000 so Canadians could improve their investments and have easier access to cash flows when they need them. I would just point out for the opposition members that it is the majority of middle-income Canadians who will benefit from TFSAs, not the wealthy. The facts are that 11 million Canadians have TFSAs and 60% of them make $55,000 or less.

We would expand the eligibility for student loans to make post-secondary education more affordable. There would be $184 million for students applying to short-term programs, and $119 million to reduce expected parental contributions to loan programs.

We would expand EI benefits for Canadians who need to leave work for compassionate care purposes. Benefits would be increased from six weeks to six months.

Budget 2015 confirms the family tax cuts and benefits introduced last fall. They are income splitting and increasing the universal child care benefit and the children's fitness tax credit.

For small business, we would improve access to financing. Available financing would be increased to $1 million from $500,000, and eligibility would be broadened from $5 million in revenue to $10 million in revenue. We would further cut taxes on small business, reducing the tax on small business by 2% from 11% to 9% over 4 years.

We would further reduce the EI premiums. The surplus gained by the EI fund would be reimbursed to employers and employees to lower EI rates.

For the space sector, we would invest in Canada's satellite industry with $30 million to support satellite research and development projects through the Canadian Space Agency. As my hon. colleagues may recall, I have recognized Nipissing—Timiskaming's entry into the space sector on several occasions, and I am very pleased that the government continues to mark its growing importance to our economy. These investments would ultimately serve to expand the space industry in Nipissing—Timiskaming and create high-paying, high-skill jobs.

We are further recognizing the increasing importance of space to Canada's economy and security. For aerospace and manufacturing, we would accelerate aerospace supply chain competitiveness and performance. We would continue to provide accelerated capital cost allowance measures to help manufacturers grow and create jobs.

For agriculture and agrifood, we would promote Canadian farm exports and improve competitiveness, with over $18 million to expand the Canadian Market Access Secretariat and provide more support to farmers trying to access foreign markets. Some $12 million of additional funding would go toward expanding the agrimarketing program to increase the demand for Canadian agricultural goods. We would also increase the lifetime capital allowance for farmers from $750,000 to $1 million.

Finally, for infrastructure, we would continue the improvement of the $53 billion new building Canada plan announced in March 2014. An additional $750 million would go to improve public-private partnerships in addition to continuing to provide $5.3 billion per year for provincial and municipal projects. The new building Canada plan expands on the $33 million building Canada plan introduced in 2007, which included increasing contributions from the gas tax fund, which supports municipal projects, as well as making it permanent.

We remain on the right track. Canada's fiscal position is the envy of the world. Taxes continue to fall for families and small businesses, and key investments in infrastructure, research, and development continue to be realized. The budget is balanced, and further measures have been introduced to ensure that it stays that way, with immediate penalties to senior government leaders who fail to keep it so. Furthermore, Canada is now uniquely positioned to attack its sovereign debt and will do so by applying unused contingencies to it to maintain at least a 25% debt to GDP ratio.

All of this is to say that, in budget 2015, promises made are promises kept.