Debates of April 23rd, 2015

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I was glad to be here because I have seldom heard such an amusing speech. It was totally unconstrained by the facts and was hyperbolic in every sense of the word.

Let me start with the first comment where my colleague spoke eloquently about the finance minister. She started off talking about him in glowing terms, yet when I heard the finance minister on CBC's The National being asked about what this budget contained in terms of climate change measures, he said that there were some measures with respect to public transit and that more than 60% of greenhouse gases in this country are produced by transportation.

I have to say that more than 60% is not the right figure. I am wondering whether my hon. colleague might set the record straight and tell the House how much in fact transportation is responsible for greenhouse gases in this country. I think it is important for Canadians to know. It is the basis for some of the measures taken in this budget.

We should speak from the facts. Perhaps my colleague could tell us what percentage of greenhouse gases are created due to transportation.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when the member's party was in government, emissions just went up. Our government was the first government to actually lower emissions, not only greenhouse gases, but also pollution. In addition to clean water and clean air, we are also cleaning up the soil in different sites.

With respect to transportation, if the hon. member was listening, I was talking about the hydrogen economy. What we are gearing up for there is using hydrogen as a fuel. For those who do not know, the emission from a hydrogen fuel battery is water.

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

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member forParkdale—High Park.

I am very pleased to take part in the debate on the 2015 budget introduced by the Conservative government. In the short time I have available, I want to raise some issues that I, and the people I represent in Laval, think are the most important in this budget.

First, I must mention the impact that the reduction in Canada Post services is having on the people of Laval, along with the Conservatives' reluctance to invest and tell Canada Post that it should do its work properly and respect the will of Canadians across the country.

From east to west on our island of Laval, we are beginning to see community mailboxes appear; we are also seeing the lack of consultation by Canada Post with respect to the changes it is making.

I have met with a number of constituents and received many phone calls lately. People are writing to me about this issue, as they probably are to many of my colleagues, as they deal with these changes. They are worried and they are angry.

I would have liked this budget to say something about Canada Post, to see the government in some way admit that there are problems and repercussions for our constituents, particularly seniors and people with limited mobility.

I should also mention the lack of consultation about the future being planned for Canada Post. At the moment, the existing plan is unnecessary and badly designed, especially since Canada Post had a recent profit of $194 million. I just wanted to say this as I began my speech.

Another element I have been studying concerns the whole issue of seniors' pensions and well-being. First, the government has finally listened to the NDP. It looked into the question of obligatory minimum withdrawals from registered retirement income funds. This is something the NDP has been asking for for years, in order to ensure that seniors do not outlive their savings. That is important, as I am sure we all agree. No matter which party we belong to, we all think seniors deserve to live with dignity.

Dealing with the issue of minimum withdrawal requirements from RRIFs is a good thing, and I am pleased that the Conservative government has learned from the NDP's example.

I would be remiss if I did not mention the incredible work being done for the well-being of seniors in Laval. I am thinking of the Association pour aînés résidant à Laval, DIRA Laval and the Table régionale de concertation des aînés de Laval, who do wonderful work every day to make sure that our seniors receive adequate services, no matter where they live on the island of Laval, and to ensure they have a happy and dignified retirement.

However, in terms of pensions, the Conservatives have not respected the commitments they made to our seniors, and this budget does not bode well for the future.

As we all know, the Conservatives want to increase the retirement eligibility age from 65 to 67. Moreover, they are blocking any attempt to increase CPP and QPP benefits, which is frankly unacceptable when we see the number of seniors across the country living below the poverty line. It is deplorable that the federal government is not looking into an issue that is as fundamental as the well-being and the dignity of our seniors, who built the society in which we are living today.

However, they responded to the NDP’s request that the amount that seniors must withdraw from their RRIF be reduced, beginning with a reduction of 29% of the amount withdrawn at age 71 and smaller reductions in later years. We can see that there is some openness here, but very little. I had hoped for more for our seniors from our federal government.

This brings me to another issue. This is an issue that is often raised by the seniors I represent in my riding of Alfred-Pellan. They tell me they really hope that we can leave future generations with a healthy environment, with development that is sustainable and with a greener economy. This comes up all the time in the comments that I have received ever since I began my term.

The environment and climate change have always been issues that are important to seniors, because they worry about the generations to come, about their children and grandchildren. Basically, I am here today to voice their concerns and I have to say, unfortunately, that in the Conservatives’ 2015 budget, there is absolutely nothing that tackles the issue of climate change. It is very disappointing because the federal government should play a leadership role on climate change.

On reading the budget, I also noted that they are preventing Canadians from taking part in the review of natural resources projects. This is ridiculous. I do not want to go into too many details. However, at home in Laval, the residents have always taken action to protect their land. We live on an island near Montreal that has a lot of green space and a number of little islands as well, including those in the Des Prairies and Mille-Îles rivers. A number of organizations are watching over these areas. I am thinking, among others, of Sauvons nos trois grandes îles, and the wonderful work they are doing. All the small organizations that are working to protect the parks, such as the Bois de l'Équerre and the Boisé Papineau park, are making sure that we can visit these places and take advantage of the large urban parks that Laval residents hold dear. It is discouraging to note that the Conservatives do not support the people of Laval in their efforts and their initiatives to protect the environment. This is a huge disappointment to me.

One good thing the Conservatives have done is to reduce the tax rate on small business, as the NDP had suggested. They are reducing it from 11% to 9%. We suggested doing that over two years, but the Conservatives are proposing to do it over four. Any lowering of the tax rate is a good thing.

I have spent a large part of my term visiting small and medium-sized businesses in my riding. I am thinking, for example, of the Dolce Pane bakery in Saint-François, the small butcher shops in Duvernay and Saint-François and a small restaurant called Démen-Ciel, which opened not long ago and is doing an incredible job in Saint-Vincent-de-Paul. A number of SMEs were waiting to hear about federal government initiatives to help them make ends meet. We all agree that these are the prime job creators across Canada, and we have to support our entrepreneurs who have good ideas and sound ventures. I want to say once again that this rate reduction is a good thing. It is not being done as quickly as the NDP was suggesting, but it is nevertheless a very good initiative.

This time I will quickly move on to another subject, specifically stable funding for organizations that are so important in our communities, because I have to mention what disappoints me about this budget. This affects all organizations. We can talk about it among colleagues. It really is a problem for community organizations. Recurrent funding is not there. They often ask us to help them obtain such funding. Once again, it would have been good evidence of leadership on the part of the federal government to help organizations obtain stable recurrent funding.

A number of organizations do such good work, and I just want to name a few of them: the Centre communautaire Petit Espoir in Saint-François, SBEVA, APARL, the Société d'histoire et de généalogie de l'Île Jésus—with which I developed a good partnership for my 2014 calendar—Development and Peace, which does very good work in all our constituencies, Patrimoine en tête in Saint-Vincent-de-Paul, Sports Laval, the Maison des grands-parents, Jeunes au travail, Mieux-Naître in Laval, the Association des Cartier d'Amérique, youth centres, volunteer centres, Entraide Pont-Viau, and so many more.

Concerning stable funding—and unfortunately I will have to end with this—I would like to talk about infrastructure and transportation, which are priorities for the Laval region. I should mention that the mayor of Laval responded to the federal budget. He expressed disappointment that the necessary investments will be a long time coming. He said:

We recognize that there are good intentions, but the 2015 federal budget falls short when it comes to major and necessary investments, particularly for public transit....Waiting another year before getting access to funding creates a pointless delay that will push back the introduction of efficient public transit and the improvement of systems already in place. For Canada's big cities, the wait time will exacerbate the urgency of the need for action.

I completely agree with him.

I see that my time is up, but there is so much more I would like to say. If my colleagues would like some ideas for questions they could ask me, may I suggest household debt, the middle class, anything to do with wastewater infrastructure, and the HPS. Go ahead; that is what I am here for.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on the member's comments about Canada's seniors.

Obviously what we have witnessed in the government's budget is a continuation of applying tax policy to the detriment of our seniors. A good example of that is that on the one hand we are telling people who are 55-plus years of age that they are going to have to work longer, an additional two years. The government is increasing the age of retirement from 65 to 67 years of age, when we know, in fact, that there is no real crisis situation. There is no justification. We have had independent sources tell us that.

On the other hand, as a direct result, in the future we will have thousands of additional seniors who will be living in poverty because of that policy decision. It is a decision that we in the Liberal Party have committed to reverse.

Other policies we have seen in recent months are the TFSA announcement and income splitting. Once again we are seeing an enrichment of those who are wealthy in Canada at a substantial cost to Canada's middle class. It will affect our seniors more than any other sector.

I wonder if the member might expand on how the government has not done its job protecting the best interests of our seniors.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Winnipeg North for pointing out the federal government's lack of commitment to our seniors. He mentioned the problem of raising the retirement age from 65 to 67. That is one part of the problem that the federal government has created and that he sees as a challenge for seniors.

In his question, he also mentioned the issue of income splitting. I think he is quite right. It is something the NDP has been working on a great deal. We are fiercely opposed to income splitting as proposed by the Conservative government. It is completely unfair. It will favour the richest families, unfortunately. It will cost Canadian taxpayers billions of dollars. It is really sad to see Canada going in that direction when we should be helping our seniors who live in poverty. There are thousands of them all across Canada. Sadly, in every riding, in all regions, there are still seniors living in poverty.

It is most unfortunate that they have not made a clear commitment to our seniors and have not helped them. Instead, they have decided to raise the contribution limit for tax-free savings accounts, which will, once again, help the richest among us. They have decided to put all their eggs—including income splitting— in one basket and give that big basket of goodies to the rich.

I am truly sad to see the government going off in this direction.

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the question our colleague asked. Once again, here is a budget that unfortunately is an election budget. None of the measures in this budget will apply until the 2015-16 fiscal year. What are they doing in the 2014-15 budget?

Can my colleague explain why all these measures take effect after the budget, yet income splitting takes effect this year?

If this is not an election budget, and a hastily devised one, what kind of budget is it?

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

Mr. Speaker, there is one thing that is even sadder: it appears that there are big gifts in the Conservatives' 2015 federal budget, but most of these measures and funding plans will only take effect in 2017.

The measures proposed for all sectors of public safety in budget 2015 do pose a problem. To give just one example out of many, in budget 2015 they propose an envelope of around $290 million—I do not have the exact figures here—but in the upcoming fiscal year less than $20 million will be set aside for the RCMP, Canada Border Services and CSIS to fight terrorism. That is not much money. We get the impression that there is a lot of money to fight terrorism but the funding is very far away in the Conservative's budget forecast.

That is only one example among many because the same thing occurs in many departments. This affects cities, infrastructure, public transit and homelessness, all across the country. It is a fine smokescreen, but in the end, there is very little substance for our cities and communities.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to speak in this House representing my constituency of Parkdale—High Park. I am very happy to talk about the priorities of my community, because budgets are about priorities. They are about making decisions and choices.

Canadians were hoping that this budget would reflect their priorities. They wanted to see measures that would help their kids get further ahead. They wanted to see measures that would create good-quality, family-supporting jobs.

Sadly, what we see in this budget, after a decade in power, is how woefully out of touch the government is with the priorities of Canadians. Middle-class families are working longer and harder and are falling further behind, and the current government does not reach out to help them and their families do better.

After so many years of Conservative government, we have seen seven years of deficit budgets and all of the cuts the Conservatives have made to veterans' services, to Coast Guard facilities, to meat and railway inspectors, to the EI process, and to many other services, which puts Canadians' quality of life and safety at risk.

The Conservatives reduced health transfers to the provinces. They did it unilaterally, without consultation, and that will begin in 2017 and will cut health care funding by $36 billion over a decade. It is shameful. Health care is our most important social program, and the Conservatives are turning their backs on it. They will also force Canadians to work two years longer, to age 67, before they can collect OAS in retirement.

While this budget has plenty of giveaways for Canadians at the top end of the income scale, who are already doing very well, sadly, average Canadians will find very little relief.

While some of the tax cuts and tax benefits for the wealthy are so immediate they would actually be retroactive, when it comes to infrastructure to relieve the gridlock in our major cities and the lack of public transportation investment, sadly, we would have to wait another two years for a very small amount of money, and then it would be tied up in so much red tape it would be difficult to access it. Frankly, it would be too little too late. It is a very sad commentary on the current government.

The financial and ecological costs of the Conservatives' failures in this budget will be paid for years and decades to come. That is a very sad commentary on a government that is supposed to be looking out for the best interests of Canadians. Canadians work very hard every day. They expect their government to have a bit broader vision, to look to the future to ensure that their interests are protected.

Canadians today are working harder than ever and are having trouble making ends meet. Far too many are working two or three part-time jobs trying to cobble together a decent income. Far too many Canadians are in jobs that are part-time, temporary, and lower-paid, and they are not getting the kinds of benefits and the retirement income security of generations earlier.

There are over 200,000 young Canadians who are graduating with record levels of debt and are desperate to find work. In my community, I have talked to families with young children who are paying $2,000 and $3,000 each month for child care. It is a disgrace. That is if they are lucky enough to find child care spaces. There are seniors whose retirement income does not keep up with the cost of living.

In the short time allowed to me, I want to address the priorities of Canadians in our community, in Parkdale—High Park, those who have been left out of the current government's agenda, left out, once again, of a budget that is supposed to benefit the country as a whole.

Let me talk about rail safety. Few issues have generated as much concern in my community as the government's slow pace of modernizing our country's rail safety regime. Two years after the tragedy of Lac-Mégantic, and dozens of announcements by the minister, the very same volatile crude oil is rolling through downtown Toronto in the very same type of tank cars that exploded at Lac-Mégantic in Quebec.

The budget contains nothing to ensure a safer rail system, and the cuts to rail safety programs at Transport Canada remain in place. The government has not even reversed those cuts. It is absolutely outrageous after that horrific accident at Lac-Mégantic.

The other rail in my community is the new Union-Pearson Express link, which will be operating beginning next month powered by outdated diesel engines, with no confirmed date for electrification. The budget could have made a big difference for transit and the environment by investing in this significant infrastructure project and by helping with electrification, but the money is not there. There is nothing in the budget for rail safety. That is shocking, and it frankly is a disgrace.

Speaking of public transit, the most obvious half-measure in the budget is the proposed public transit fund. First, the funding is delayed two years, and the $250 million, as I said, is too little too late. To access it, municipalities have to navigate the red tape of risky P3s through PPP Canada.

As we recall, the Auditor General of Ontario revealed in December of last year that the Liberal provincial government had wasted nearly $8 billion on the extra costs associated with public-private partnerships. That does not have to be the case, I suppose, with every P3, but that has certainly been our experience in Ontario.

With this overwhelming evidence, the Conservatives insist on taking a page from the Ontario Liberal notebook that will put our urgently needed transit funding at risk. Municipalities like Toronto, where gridlock costs the city of Toronto $6 billion a year, need stable, long-term, direct funding for transit and infrastructure projects. They need predictable funding to allow municipalities to plan ahead for population growth and density changes and to move to greener transit vehicles and improved services for their residents.

On that point, I want to talk about climate change, because somehow the government forgot about climate change in the budget. Unbelievably, the words “climate change” do not appear in this budget. A budget is supposed to be a blueprint for the future about the direction of our country, and sadly, there is nothing to address climate change.

The budget has nothing for roads or bridges, and nothing for upgrading infrastructure to adapt to climate change. In fact, the words “climate change”, as I said, do not appear in the budget. For a Prime Minister who called climate change “the biggest threat to confront the future of humanity today”, and that is a direct quote, this omission in the government's fiscal blueprint is truly stunning and horribly disappointing.

I also want to talk about jobs. The proportion of Canadians with jobs in Canada today is at the lowest point in a decade. There are some measures the NDP proposed that make a lot of sense, things like reducing the small business tax, and we are glad to see that the government has agreed with us and has put this measure in the budget. Although it does not happen as quickly as we would have liked, we are glad to see that the Conservatives are supporting our approach to creating jobs. However, they really missed the boat when it comes to capping credit card fees, and they missed the boat in showing leadership in making Canada an advanced manufacturing power.

The Conservatives have stood by while we have lost over 400,000 jobs over their term in office. Between 2011 and 2014, Canada received 0.2% of all global dollars for the auto industry, so the government has been missing in action, and we can see the results in the hollowing out of the middle class in Canada.

There is nothing for long-term stable funding for the CBC, NFB, Telefilm Canada, and the Canada media fund to demonstrate the government's commitment to strengthening Canada's place in the world as a creative and innovative country.

There is nothing in the budget for housing to take the pressure off Canadians. We have seen federal funding agreements for housing expire.

I could go on about the priorities in my community. Rather than spending money on a major tax credit that nine out of ten families will not get through income splitting the government could have invested in the priorities of Canadians.

The NDP has a practical plan to make life better for the middle class. That is why I will vote for the NDP amendment to the budget and for a positive and hopeful alternative that will help build a fairer, stronger Canada.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member made reference to the Ontario Liberal government. She brought up one valid point, and that was that there was a responsibility for the federal government to take the necessary actions to address issues, even within provinces. For example, the NDP government in the province of Manitoba today has kids in jails who should not be in jail because of poor NDP government management. There is a role for the federal government to properly finance, for example, education. The government has refused to do that. As a result, it is putting pressure on issues such as child and family services.

There is no doubt that we could be talking about many different issues with regard to the budget. However, the underlying theme of what I and the Liberal Party believes is that there is a high sense of unfairness. We see that in the taxation policy being put on Canadians where we are enriching some of Canada's wealthiest and at the same time taxing Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be in the middle class.

Would the member not agree that the government needs to refocus its taxation policy so Canada's middle class is treated more fairly and given the opportunity to create the jobs that are so critically important to Canada today?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is true that with the abandonment of a national housing strategy under the former Liberal governments and then the continued squeeze on the middle class under the Conservatives, Canada's housing crisis is definitely getting worse. I absolutely agree with that.

In my riding of Parkdale—High Park people are facing unaffordable rent increases and decade long wait lists for affordable housing. The affordable housing options that we do have are at risk of being lost entirely as federal funding agreements expire, and an estimated $1.7 billion will be lost in the next two decades.

I agree these facts seem to be lost on the federal government. The budget contains no new money for affordable housing. It is a crisis already in the city of Toronto and the government is turning its back on the need for affordable housing for people across Canada.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Parkdale—High Park, who defends workers and the middle class, day after day.

In this budget, there is not much support for agriculture. Moreover, the budget provides for a 25% cut to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. We know that one out of every eight jobs is found in the agri-food sector. For instance, in Beauharnois—Salaberry, there are a number of agri-food businesses. Of the 31 municipalities, 29 are rural and live off of agriculture. My riding is also home to the fertile area known as the pantry of Quebec.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks about this. Everyone needs to eat. The Conservatives also voted against my bill, which had almost unanimous support and which was about eating locally and encouraging local farmers. What does the member think about the fact that the Conservatives say they are there to create jobs, while the people who work with raw materials such as food are receiving no support and are even seeing cuts to the budget for their sector?

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

Mr. Speaker, even in big cities like Toronto, we are well aware that agricultural lands have to be protected. It is very important to have safe food everywhere in Canada.

We really want to help our farmers and the agricultural sector. It does not make any sense to cut funding for this sector. I can only say that perhaps the Conservative Party thinks that some of these rural ridings are a sure thing, but the constituents need to take a close look at what the government is doing because it is not in their interest. The government has made decisions that will help the rich, not the people who work in agriculture.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today in support of economic action plan 2015, which continues our strong focus on jobs, economic growth and prosperity.

Before I go any further, Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time.

I congratulate the Minister of Finance for tabling this balanced budget, a great accomplishment and another promise kept by this government. As the Minister of Finance said on Tuesday, “This budget is written in black ink”, a standard accounting practice of using black ink as opposed to red ink to denote positive values, especially a net income.

Contrary to what the leader of the Liberal Party believes, that “a budget will balance itself”, it takes work. It takes thoughtful, careful consideration and it takes a great deal of discipline to balance a budget. Ask families in Newmarket—Aurora about budgeting and they will tell us what discipline it takes to ensure that the mortgage is paid, that there is money for gas in the car and that there is money for food on the table.

It is important to note that the budget was balanced not on the backs of others, as has been done by past governments, but through a consistent low-tax, well thought out plan plan that puts Canadians first.

Not only is the budget balanced, but it cuts taxes and increases transfers to the provinces and territories to record levels. I am happy to note that Ontario will receive a record $20.4 billion this fiscal year, including $2.4 billion in equalization transfers. This level is 88% higher than under the former government.

I would like to highlight just a few of the items in economic action plan 2015 that are particularly helpful for my riding of Newmarket—Aurora. The first is our help for hard-working families.

Our government, under the leadership of the Prime Minister, believes that those who work hard to earn their dollars deserve to keep them. That is why we have cut taxes over and over again. Canadians at all income levels are benefiting from our 180 tax relief measures, including our cut to the GST of nearly 30%. As a result of these tax cuts, individuals will receive $37 billion in tax relief and increased benefits this year alone. Low and middle-income Canadians will receive proportionately greater relief. By putting more money in the pockets of people, we are helping them make ends meet, thereby enabling them to spend more on their priorities.

For example, the typical two-earner family of four is saving over $6,000 on their tax bills this year compared to when we came into office. This is incredible, and I know that thousands of families in my riding of Newmarket—Aurora appreciate this. They appreciate, for example, the tremendous increase in the universal child care benefit.

Under our announced improvements, parents will receive $1,920 per year per child under the age of 6, and we are delivering a new benefit of $720 per year for each child aged 6 through 17. These are funds that parents can choose to decide for themselves the best way to spend on their family.

We have also introduced the family tax cut, allowing up to $50,000 of taxable income to be transferred to a spouse in a lower income bracket. This is important because it makes the tax system more fair. We recognize that two families with the same income can pay vastly different amounts of tax, and this new federal tax credit will help fix this imbalance.

For families who pay for child care services, we have increased the child care expense deduction dollar limit by $1,000.

Finally, we are enhancing the child's fitness tax credit. We have doubled the amount parents can claim for enrolling their children in sports activities to $1,000, and as of the 2015 tax year, the credit is refundable, increasing the benefits to low-income families.

Let me draw attention to our strong support for seniors. Since coming into office, the financial security and well-being of Canada's seniors has been a priority for our government. In all, we are providing almost $2.8 billion in annual tax relief to seniors and pensioners through landmark tax saving initiatives like pension income splitting. We are building on this support through our economic action plan in a number of ways.

First, we are doubling the annual contribution of the tax-free savings account to $10,000. We heard yesterday from CARP on how pleased its members were with this initiative.

Second, we are reducing the minimum withdrawal requirements for registered retirement income funds. By permitting more capital preservation, we are helping to reduce the risk of one outliving their savings.

Third, we are supporting seniors and persons with disabilities by introducing the home accessibility tax credit. This is a new 15% non-refundable income tax credit that would apply on up to $10,000 of eligible home renovation expenditures per year. This will provide up to $1,500 in tax relief for individuals to renovate their home to allow seniors or someone who is eligible for the disability tax credit to maintain their mobility and their independence.

On a personal note, having had to renovate my home to accommodate a wheelchair-bound parent, I know that the costs associated with this are huge and this will be an enormous help to people who want to stay in their own homes.

We are also supporting families caring for gravely ill seniors or other family members by extending employment insurance compassionate care benefits.

Finally, we are providing $42 million to help establish the Canadian centre for aging and brain health innovation. Research on aging and dementia can lead to better diagnostic tools and treatments, thereby increasing the quality of life for aging adults.

Again, as a person who lived through 19 years of caring for a parent who had a catastrophic brain injury from a motor vehicle accident, I know the kind of impact that has on family and caregivers. I know the work being done through organizations like the Baycrest Centre for Geriatric Care in Toronto, an organization that is doing an enormous amount of research into brain aging and the effects of acquired brain injury. This is an organization that will help to diagnose the kinds of things we need to do to assist people with dementia as they go into their elder years.

All of these initiatives that I have just spoken about are ones that will be welcomed by seniors who live in my riding of Newmarket—Aurora.

Let me turn just for a moment to another important aspect of the budget, and that is regarding small businesses. We know that small businesses are the backbone of the economy, both in Newmarket—Aurora and across our country. Our government believes that entrepreneurs should focus on growing their businesses and creating jobs, not dealing with the unnecessary red tape of choking on high taxes.

Economic action plan 2015 continues our strong support for these job creators by reducing the small business tax rate to 9% by 2019, improving access to financing through the Canada small business financing program and expanding the services offered through the Business Development Bank of Canada and Export Development Canada.

My time is about to finish, but I believe this budget will help Canadians from coast to coast. It will help seniors, families and people across the country in the middle class. Most important, it will help our businesses grow jobs and opportunity for our young people. I look forward to the questions from my colleagues and I am grateful for the opportunity to speak.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Order. It being 5:15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith all questions necessary to dispose of the amendment to the amendment now before the House.

The question is on the subamendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the subamendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

In my opinion, the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to an order made on Monday, April 20, 2015, the division stands deferred until Monday, April 27, 2015, at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent to see the clock at 5:30 p.m.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed from March 9 consideration of the motion, and of the amendment.

Canadian Air Transport Security Authority

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to support this motion, which, in my opinion, fits in well with our government's commitment and priority to promote economic development and job creation across Canada in a fiscally responsible manner.

The motion also fits in with our government's risk-based approach to air security, whereby funding is targeted to areas of highest risk.

I greatly appreciate having the opportunity to speak about the work that the government is already doing on this issue and what we intend to do in the future to help support the initiatives of these airports.

Let me say at the outset that job creation and ensuring strong economic growth are this government's top priority. We firmly believe that the air industry still represents the fundamental pillar of our economic success.

Indeed, that industry provides goods, services and opportunities for Canadians all across the country, from the largest urban centres to the smallest communities. It contributes to our quality of life, our economy and our relationships with others and with the rest of the world.

Canada's vast geographic size has given rise to one of the largest civilian air transport networks in the world, with over 200 airports operating commercial flights.

Aviation helps distribute Canadian goods and helps us to develop new markets for our industries. It also allows people from outside to discover the beauty of this great land of ours. One hundred million passengers benefit from commercial services in this country on an annual basis. Aviation is truly an economic enabler for Canada. It is very understandable, therefore, that smaller airports are exploring ways of maximizing the economic benefits they get from being part of our aviation network.

Our national civil aviation security program is also one of the strongest in the world and we are committed to maintaining a high level of safety and security for the travelling public.

Of the 200 commercial airports in Canada, 89 are regulated and therefore required to offer mandatory passenger and baggage screening services. These 89 airports deal with approximately 99% of all air passengers in Canada.

The list of regulated airports required to offer mandatory screening services was developed in 2002 in the wake of the September 11 attacks and shows the airports where screening was already carried out before the establishment of the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority. From the point of view of risk-based security, it is not necessary that CATSA, the authority responsible for monitoring transportation security in Canada, ensure a mandatory presence in Canada’s 200 airports; otherwise, the cost of ensuring its presence would be prohibitive.

As we know, CATSA is the only body authorized to carry out security screening at Canadian airports. While CATSA contracts with service providers to carry out this function, it is CATSA that ensures a consistent screening process from coast to coast through the training, certification and oversight of all screening personnel. This is why we ask that the proposed motion be amended, so it is clear that only CATSA is authorized to provide screening services.

Many smaller airports believe that the sole obstacle to establishing new commercial services out their airports is the absence of passenger screening. If these routes are economically viable for the air carriers, then they may in fact be right as Canada's major airports require that passengers be screened before they can transfer to other flights within their airports. Passengers departing from the smaller airports must, therefore, be screened at the larger airports before they can continue their trips.

We strongly believe that security is and should remain the key consideration when allocating government-funded resources to prevent or mitigate threats to the transportation system. Nevertheless, we also believe our aviation security system must support, rather than hinder, economic opportunities.

We are constantly striving to achieve our security objectives, while supporting competitiveness in the aviation sector and minimizing the impact of this support on Canadian taxpayers and on the allocation of scarce security resources. This is why the changes made to the list of airports designated to receive government-funded security screening services are founded on risk-based principles.

Our understanding is that none of the airports interested in receiving screening services currently meet the risk threshold that would warrant mandatory screening. Nonetheless, we believe it is important that the smaller airports have the opportunity to explore all avenues for economic growth, including those that may come with the establishment of new commercial routes.

As we have heard, last June the Minister of Transport sent a letter to the airports that had expressed an interest in obtaining screening services to inform them that departmental officials would be exploring and assessing various mechanisms that would allow them to obtain these services on a cost-recovery basis. Since then, Transport Canada officials have been in contact with the interested airports to confirm their willingness to proceed down this path and to gather additional information on their anticipated commercial operations. Several airports have confirmed their desire to move forward.

Transport Canada has also begun to receive projections and plans that will help determine the level of service and equipment these airports would require. The department is continuing to work with both the interested airports and CATSA to assess the cost of having security screening at these airports. Much of this will depend on the number of flights they expect to attract, as well as other factors, such as passenger load and the frequency and destinations of flights.

Transport Canada will work closely with each individual airport so that screening costs and requirements are clearly understood and to ensure that the potential advantages of establishing screening services exceed the cost of those services.

Despite the progress that has been made, there are a variety of legal and financial challenges relating to this initiative that need to be addressed.

We are currently reviewing the legislative and regulatory changes that would best support this initiative. All parties recognize that these changes would take a certain amount of time. Beyond this, we also want to ensure that any solution takes a long-term view of how CATSA operates so that it is able to respond to this and other industry needs as they arise in the future.

Transport Canada will be working closely with our industry partners to make available all the necessary tools to provide a safe, secure and efficient transportation system to all Canadians.