Debates of April 28th, 2015

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

This is what you put in your budget. This is the example you used.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. I know the minister of state is responding. Honestly, with all of the noise in the chamber, I am even at odds myself to hear what the response is. Therefore, we will have a bit of quiet, we will let the minister of state finish her response and then we will get on to a second question or comment.

The hon. minister of state.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, at the heart of the matter, our tax cuts for families benefit all Canadian families, regardless of gender, ethnicity and demographics. If we look at the graphs that are in the budget, they will show that it impacts low-income Canadians at a much higher rate. We are very proud of that.

I certainly hope my colleague opposite, who I do have a lot of respect for in debate, will support the budget as his colleague from Ottawa Centre has done in his householder.

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

Mr. Speaker, the questions I had in mind kind of piled up as my hon. colleague continued to speak, so I will try to roll them out and see what she says.

My first comment is that the budget and the minister have ignored the effects of inflation on the budget. If we look at the tri-council budget, it is about $33 billion, which means that with 1% to 2% inflation rate, which it has been in the last few years, that is $30 million to $60 million of lost purchasing power. She mentioned the funds that were announced in the budget. First, we will have to wait an extra year to them and they do not even cover inflation.

The second thing is that she talked about a balanced budget, but she did not talk about the fact that $2 billion were taken from the reserve. That $2 billion is what people who do computer programming call a magic number. It is just pulled out of nowhere without really good justification. If a different number had been chosen, would we have a budget surplus?

The third thing I would ask the minister is this. The budget assumes a future price of oil which does not agree with the real price in the market. If we believe in the market, if we believe that we are not smarter than the market, which is a good thing to do, we would use a much more conservative, lower future price for oil.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleague opposite to look to his leader for the definition of “magic number” when he made the statement that budgets would balance themselves. That actually is the definition of “magic numbers”.

When Canadians look to the Liberal Party and hear that it would reverse some of the tax cuts that are in this budget, they probably wonder if leader of the Liberal Party leader, who has existed on a trust fund for many years, thinks they are rich. That is a little rich. When we are talking about magic numbers, or magic eight balls or magic substances, that is probably more closely associated with the leader of the Liberal Party than any of the economists, leaders, business leaders and people who listen to average Canadians. That is who this budget supports.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am tremendously honoured today to speak on our budget, economic action plan 2015.

In the darkest days of the recession, our government made a very important promise to Canadians. It was a simple promise that once the crisis passed, we would set a course toward a balanced budget. We would not raise taxes to do it. We would control spending and rein in costs. Economic action plan 2015 fulfills that promise.

Canadians can rest assured that our fiscal house is in order. We have balanced the budget, just as families must do every day of their lives, and we balanced this budget while cutting taxes. Today, the overall tax burden is at its lowest level in 50 years. We balanced the budget while increasing transfer payments, thereby protecting our investment in the education and health care that Canadians cherish.

This is no small achievement. It took a plan, hard work and tough choices. After all, unlike the statement from the opposition, budgets do not balance themselves. We have heard that fallacy so many times.

Now, Canada sets out on a new course. With a balanced budget comes opportunity, the opportunity to put even more money back into the pockets of Canadians, and the responsibility to continue our focus on creating jobs, growth and long-term prosperity. That means cutting taxes even further for hard-working families. It means taking action so businesses can thrive, innovate and expand their markets. It means new and innovative investments in the infrastructure that Canadians rely on, and training a highly skilled workforce to respond to the evolving needs of employers. It means investing in Canada's most sacred responsibility, that of protecting Canadians and securing Canada.

Again, what is very important to our government, and certainly to me, is the fact that this budget would do what we promised to do. Canadians need to know that when their government makes a commitment, it is true to its word. It has been said many times that promises do not pay the bills. It is a lesson, sadly, that our opposition has not taken to heart.

Importantly, this deficit has been reduced from $55.6 billion at the height of the great recession to a projected surplus of $1.4 billion for 2015-16. It is necessary, because for all Conservatives, we recognize that we cannot continue to run deficits. Very simply, I and most of colleagues, if not all of them, believe that today's deficits are tomorrow's taxes. We must demonstrate to our young generation that we will not leave them with the obligation of paying for our responsibilities.

Importantly, we have done this while investing in families, seniors, the military, security, veterans, job creation, transfers to the provinces and infrastructure, while still reducing taxes and waste. We have proven that we can create a more prosperous economy, resulting in increased revenues.

I will briefly outline just a few of the positive elements in this budget, and I will touch on only a few because time will not permit me to go on at length.

We are supporting jobs and growth. What this particular component is about is tax cuts, training and trades. We are reducing the small business tax rate to 9% by 2019, putting in an estimated $2.3 billion back into the pockets of job creating entrepreneurs between now and 2020. We are increasing the lifetime capital gains exemption to $1 million for farmers and fishermen.

We are improving access to financing for Canadian small businesses through the Canada small business financing program. We are expanding the services operated by the Business Development Bank of Canada to help small and medium-sized businesses. We are investing $14 million over two years to Futurpreneur Canada in support of our young entrepreneurs. We are investing in the action plan for women entrepreneurs to help women business owners succeed.

We are helping innovative companies grow and create jobs through the venture capital action plan. We are taking action to harmonize apprenticeship training and certification requirements in targeted Red Seal trades.

We are investing in world-class research and innovation by providing $1.5 billion in funding over five years to advance the government's renewed science, technology and innovation strategy. We are continuing to provide $5.3 billion per year on average and growing for provincial, territorial and municipal infrastructure under the new building Canada plan.

In addition, we will invest another $750 million over two years, starting in 2017-18, and a billion dollars more ongoing thereafter, to a new public transit fund aimed at building new public transit infrastructure to reduce congestion and fight the gridlock in our large cities.

We are helping families and communities prosper. As has been stated many times, and I know it is so welcome, we will increase the tax-free savings account annual contribution limit to $10,000, effective in 2015 and subsequent taxation years. About 60% of the individuals contributing the maximum amount had income of less than $60,000. Overwhelmingly, they are seniors who are taking money from their RRSPs and putting them into their TFSAs so they can have a secure retirement.

We are supporting families through tax cuts, which will give money to 100% of households with children. That is critical. For an average family of four, that is over $6,000, through the family tax cut and the increased universal child care benefit. We believe moms and dads are absolutely in the best position to look after the interests of their children, and certainly not government bureaucrats.

We are supporting seniors by introducing changes to the registered retirement income fund that would allow them to withdraw less from their tax deferred savings. We are supporting seniors and persons with disabilities by introducing the home accessibility tax credit to help with renovation costs so they can live independently and remain in their homes.

We are enhancing access to post-secondary education by expanding the eligibility for low and middle-income Canada student grants to students in short duration programs.

We are extending the temporary measure that allows a qualifying family member to become the plan holder of a registered disability savings plan.

We are supporting the most vulnerable in our communities by providing an additional $50 million in 2016-17 to what is already there to support social housing in Canada by allowing social housing providers to pre-pay their long-term, non-renewable mortgages without penalty.

As well, we are improving access to print materials for the visually impaired.

We are introducing a new retirement income security benefit for severely disabled veterans. We are increasing the level of individualized care to veterans requiring regular support by improving the ratio of veterans to case managers. We are expanding the veterans independence program.

Very important as well, we are ensuring the security of Canadians. How? We are increasing National Defence funding by providing the Canadian Armed Forces with an additional $12 billion, thus ensuring that Canada can and will continue to be a combat capable military, ready to serve at home and abroad.

We are supporting the deployment of the Canadian Armed Forces in order to counter the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. We are countering violent extremism and terrorism by providing additional resources to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and the Canada Border Security Agency.

We are enhancing Canada's capacity to gather foreign intelligence. We are protecting the integrity of our borders by expanding the use of biometric screening to further improve the security and integrity of the Canadian immigration system and facilitating legitimate travel to Canada for low-risk travellers from select visa-required countries.

I have only had a bit of time to highlight a very few of economic action plan 2015's many important initiatives. Therefore, I urge listeners to visit the Department of Finance website, where they will find the complete budget plan and the my benefit site that spotlights individuals, just like anyone listening today, to see how they could benefit from this budget.

Our government is absolutely committed to job creation and economic growth, objectives that have underpinned our economic action plan since its inception in 2009. Implementing policies focused on raising Canada's economic potential and creating stable, well-paying jobs continues to be our government's top priority, and it always will be.

Economic action plan 2015 proposes to take additional steps to achieve these objectives, including eliminating the deficit, as promised.

Maintaining focus on these priorities is the best way to ensure that Canada is prepared to weather any future economic storm. By staying the course and sticking to our proven economic action plan, we are clearly on track to a better future.

I thank the numerous groups and individuals in my riding of Prince Edward—Hastings for their wise counsel. I know they are encouraged to see their input has been reflected in this budget, a budget that is designed not only for today but certainly for tomorrow.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Prince Edward—Hastings for his speech on the Conservatives' 2015 budget. We serve together on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. First and foremost, I must say that he is doing an excellent job as chair of the committee. I really appreciate his work. That brings me to my question, which relates to public safety.

One of the main issues that every member here in the House would like to work on is that of radicalization and terrorism, although we all have different opinions. Various law enforcement agencies from across the country all talk about the same problem: financial resources. As the Minister of Public Safety said during question period, the Conservative budget gives the Canada Border Services Agency, the RCMP and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service $300 million to combat terrorism across the country. There are two problems with that. First of all, $300 million is not enough for our law enforcement agencies to put a plan in place to combat terrorism all across the country. Second, most of that money will not be available until 2017. Less than $20 million will be available between now and then. That is a very small amount, considering the huge impact this issue is having on our communities and our society in general.

I would like to ask my colleague if he thinks that the Conservative government should have presented a plan providing for increased investment in our law enforcement agencies to combat the serious problem of terrorism and radicalization, not only among our young people, but in our communities in general.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Mr. Speaker, certainly I recognize the contribution of my colleague from across the floor and it is a pleasure to work with her at committee. We have a tone of civility that certainly adds not only to the composition of the committee but also to the good work that we do. Our differences may appear to be so large in the public sphere when they are magnified under a national media perspective. Quite frankly, we share a lot of common values that in most cases we can work through to find a solution, so I thank her for her contribution in working with her.

There is no doubt that any increase to all of our enforcement services, whether it is CSIS, RCMP, NSE or the police services, is always welcome. Is there enough? There is never enough, particularly facing the challenges we do today. But I recognize in dealing with Bill C-51 right now at committee that we understand how much of a challenge we face as a country. I do not want to be melodramatic about it, but it certainly is a serious challenge that requires not only serious dollars, but serious attention to dealing with all the prevention tools that we need.

We have had consultations with these organizations and I am quite confident that we are going to be able to satisfy their needs so they can work for the protection of Canada accordingly.

[Arnold Chan, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to also thank the hon. member for Prince Edward—Hastings for his contribution to the debate on budget 2015.

My question relates to his party's support, or lack of support, for the opposition day motion that was introduced by our party this week with respect to government spending on advertising. He talks much about protecting taxpayer dollars and about making sure that taxpayers are respected, yet it appears Conservatives will not be prepared to support our party's motion calling for an independent commissioner to look at ads that are supposedly out to promote the government's position on various initiatives. Why is that the case?

My second question relates to the whole question of jobs and growth. There again, there is much talk about how this economic action plan will be promoting jobs and growth, yet the Minister of Finance cannot actually tell us how many jobs the budget will produce.

Can the member shed some light on that question?

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I find it almost strange that the member would not want to comment on the budget. He wants to switch to another topic. That says it all to me for a simple reason; I will go through some of my life experiences. I was in the hospitality business for many years where one becomes a student of body language. I sat in the House while the budget was introduced and I understand why the opposition members do not want to talk about the budget. I could see across the floor, opposition members were deflated. They knew that the budget touches literally everybody across this nation in a positive manner.

I can certainly understand wanting to switch the channel, but I welcome the member back to the House and we are pleased to see him in the recovery mode and making a contribution to the House. As I said, whether we agree or disagree, the fact is we are all proud Canadians. From the point of job numbers, the job numbers are going up while the unemployment level is going down. What better indication is there than that, that the country is in good shape with this government?

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Random—Burin—St. George's.

I want to discuss budget 2015 in detail with regard to science and technology and research and experimental development. I would like to start by talking about why that is important. It is important because we must invest in the future. If we want our grandchildren to have well-paying jobs, they need the know-how, the tools, the equipment, the infrastructure and the community in order to be productive. If they are productive, they can command good salaries. We need to stay on the forefront of technology to do that.

If we want our grandchildren to have jobs where they have a competitive advantage, if they work in areas where Canada's competitors have a barrier to entry, then science, technology and innovation are a prime source of that advantage. If we want good jobs to stay in Canada for our grandchildren, then we have to develop new industries, not only new companies but new industries, which means companies around emerging technologies but also the supply chain, the partners, the pool of skilled labour, the finance, all of the infrastructure. Those are the things that would create good jobs for our grandchildren.

In light of the finance minister's comment that the Prime Minister's granddaughter could fix any problems in the budget, I say let us give our grandchildren the resources to fix problems, some wealth-generating resources to help them. They will need it because our grandchildren, it seems, will be taxed by the burdens left behind by a short-sighted, closed-minded, innumerate and ideological Conservative government.

I want to talk about the budget in detail now, and I would like to start by looking at federal spending on science, technology, research and development in constant 2007 dollars. This comes from data collected by Statistics Canada. It is government spending on science and technology corrected for inflation. In 2005-06, the spending in all of the federal government was $10.0 billion. This was just before the Conservatives took power. In 2014-15, the fiscal year just completed, the number, according to Statistics Canada, corrected for inflation, was $9.1 billion. Therefore, federal government spending has gone down by $900 million a year before we even get to anything announced in the budget.

Remember that there were cuts to the scientific research and experimental development tax credit announced in 2012 that are not counted, because StatsCan is only counting contracts, grants and contributions and research fellowships. Therefore, that tax credit, which was cut for scientific research and experimental development in the private sector, really kicked in last year and this year, so that in 2014-15, there were $315 million of cuts to tax credits. This year, there were $480 million. Next year, there will be $500 million. This is money that is not going into companies that are doing research and development here in Canada.

I want to now deconstruct what the government would say in reply to that. The government has been saying that $11 billion in new investments in science, technology and innovation have been made since 2006. I put in a written order paper question, which is Question No. 950, asking for a breakdown of that $11 billion. The answer shows that when money was moved from one place to another, it was called new spending. Aside from about $3 billion in stimulus spending right after the recession, there was not really any new spending. When the government talks about this $11 billion, it does not account for any cuts, especially inside the federal government, such as in Environment, Fisheries and Oceans, StatsCan, and the government does not account for inflation when it quotes this number.

The most egregious example is that the government told me, in the reply to the written order paper question, that included in this $11 billion was $110 million a year of new money for IRAP, the industrial research assistance program, and one-time $400 million for a venture capital fund investment. However, if anybody remembers budget 2012, that was supposed to be paid for by cuts to the scientific research and experimental development tax credit for the private sector. That $500 million a year cut in support for the private sector R and D swamps that new spending.

At this point, I want to make some special mention of the cuts to the eligibility of capital expenditure for the scientific research and experimental development tax credits. We have heard from a number of companies that it should not have been eliminated. Some companies are labour intensive, others are much more capital intensive, and there is no good reason for favouring one over the other.

I will say to the credit of the Minister of Industry, who was not the minister in 2012, when he was in my riding of Kingston and the Islands, somebody who owns a company asked him about the exclusion of capital expenditure. He sounded open to reversing that mistake and I hope that he will look at that and change the government policy in the budget implementation legislation.

I would now like to talk about particular lines in the 2015 budget. There is a line in there for CANARIE, which is Canada's Internet backbone. The government said it would spend $21 million a year for five years. The problem is, that is just continuing the current level of funding, which is $20 million a year with a little inflation adjustment. Great, it is worth a congratulatory tweet from the minister, but the minister forgot to mention that the budget is now $20 million. It used to be $30 million before the government cut the budget in 2012.

Budget 2015 also mentions funding for the CFI, $1.33 billion over six years. I talked to somebody at CFI who told me it is actually equivalent to just continuing funding at the current level, so there is nothing new there.

National Research Council will get $60 million a year for the next two years. Two years ago in budget 2013, the government said that it needed to spend an extra $60 million on top of the $900 million NRC budget to refocus NRC. It is not clear to me whether it finished refocusing, whether these next two years of funding are required to continue the refocusing because it is taking a lot longer than expected or whether NRC has found a good use for a permanent $60-million increase to its budget. We cannot tell that from the budget document.

MITACS internships, which connect graduate students in Canada by giving them industry experience, get $14 million a year for four years. Last year, when the last boost to MITACS was announced, budget 2014 moved the NSERC industrial post-doctoral fellowships to MITACS and said that NSERC, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, could use the money left over for other purposes, could reallocate it.

This year, the government moved a different program, the NSERC industrial post-graduate scholarships program, over to MITACS to create internships, but it does not say that any money would be freed for NSERC, so we may actually be losing money over at NSERC to pay for this increase to MITACS. The budget is very different this year than last year. It is not clear at all. It seems to me there will actually be a cut in NSERC.

Since we are talking about the research councils, we could go over their budget. Budget 2015 announces $46 million for the three research granting councils, starting not this year but next year. Notice the skipping year. The problem is that the three research councils have a $3-billion budget, so we lose $30 million to $60 million every year just from inflation. The government does not mention that. A one-time boost of $40 million does not even cover the inflation, since we have to wait another year until it starts. Bread and butter research grants across Canada will shrink.

That leads us finally to the new programs. There are new programs. There is money for TRIUMF out of Vancouver, the 30-metre telescope and the Canada first research excellence fund. I am sure that good science will come out of these programs because of the proven quality of Canadian scientists. The point I would make is that the funding on these new programs does not come near what all the cuts have been so far.

Let me just summarize. The Conservative government's spending on science, technology, research and development, according to Statistics Canada, is down $900 million since it took power. Add to that another $500 million every year from cuts to the scientific research and experimental development tax credit for the private sector. Add to that another $102 million cut just because of inflation and the Conservatives have not replaced the effects of inflation. That overwhelms the real new money in budget 2015.

We will hear the members on the Conservative side tout the extra spending. The conclusion is that on the Conservative record on science and technology, if we really dig down into the numbers, look back at the last ten years, look at inflation, look at what has been cut elsewhere in the federal government and in the private sector when it comes to research and development, the talking points of the Conservatives fall apart.

The Conservative government's record on science and technology and research and development is dismal and it is failing our grandchildren.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's take on the budget. He indicated future generations, which I think is extremely important.

When we look at first nations education, for example, the government in its budget has put down that it is going to invest $200 million. Now, we know that the Liberals are the ones who put the 2% funding cap in place, but I would like the member to acknowledge the math the government has actually put forward. There would be $200 million divided by 600 first nations. Guess what that would come to? It would be about $67,000 for each first nation. How much does the member think that would help a first nation community?

I want the member to acknowledge that it was wrong for the Liberals to put in the 2% funding cap and that we need to make sure that there is a very good investment in first nations education. They are the future of this country, but $67,000 will not go very far.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will note that the Liberal critic for aboriginal affairs, the member for St. Paul's, brought up this very issue during question period. I am also reminded, although I was not here, that it was the NDP that brought down the government just before the Kelowna accord went into place.

However, I think it is very important for Canada to make sure that aboriginal Canadians are full participants in building the Canada of the future, and education is a very important part of that.

I went to Saskatoon recently and talked to people there about the importance of aboriginal education and the local situation in Saskatchewan. I would just say that we need to return to a Liberal government, and when we return to a Liberal government, we will improve the situation for all of Canada.

The NDP members are laughing and shaking their heads, but they did vote down the government before the Kelowna accord was implemented.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I was somewhat intrigued by the earlier question. The member stood up and was somewhat critical of the Liberal Party in terms of a commitment that was made.

The Kelowna accord was a Paul Martin achievement. We had consultation throughout the nation, including with many stakeholders who were chiefs of first nations. It was the NDP, working with the Conservatives, that killed the Kelowna accord. They do not need to give any sort of lesson on not being there when it really mattered for first nations.

In any case, my question is very specific.

Could the member comment on the $14 million the government has decided to spend on promoting a budget that really is an attack on the middle class because of the taxation that would be imposed on them to fund tax splitting, at $2 billion a year?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am all in favour of government advertisements when they contain real information and talk about programs that are in place. However, the practice right now seems to be to promote government initiatives that are being debated in Parliament. The problem is that we are not supposed to use public money to influence the public while government legislation or proposals are being debated. The public should decide for itself and not be influenced by advertising, using public funds, until the legislation is passed through Parliament. We could then say that it is government policy. We should make sure that we have real information in these advertisements.

I would call on the government to vote for the Liberal motion, which calls for an independent third party to review advertisements. Maybe a lot of the government advertisements will go through in the future. I do not think the Conservatives should fear that.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the issues and concerns my constituents of Random—Burin—St. George's have raised with me about the measures contained in the budget we are debating today.

Unfortunately, this is a budget that is unfair and does not generate growth, contrary to what the Conservatives would have us believe. Instead, it provides the most for those who need it the least.

Last Tuesday, the Conservative government ended weeks of procrastination and finally presented the federal budget for 2015. To my disappointment, the Minister of Finance presented a plan to help those Canadians who need it least instead of presenting a plan to help the middle class and those working to join it. Instead of giving all Canadians a real and fair chance of success, the Prime Minister is giving a $2.2 billion tax break to Canadians through his income-splitting scheme, a program, by the way, the Parliamentary Budget Officer estimates will help only 15% of Canadians.

On top of that, the Prime Minister's decision to raise the retirement age from 65 to 67 and to double the limit for the tax-free savings account is being paid for by taking $32,000 out of old age security for our elderly, who need it the most.

The Minister of Finance also claims that the budget is balanced, a misleading claim at best. Make no mistake, the budget was not balanced by stimulating the economy and job growth. In fact, the Bank of Canada said last week that the Canadian economy saw zero growth in the first quarter of this year. According to a recent projection by the International Monetary Fund, 139 countries are ahead of Canada for expected growth in 2015, and that projection was made before the recent decline in oil prices.

CIBC has said that job quality is at a 25-year low and is declining. A Statistics Canada survey released earlier this month reported that another 28,000 full-time jobs had disappeared. A recent report in The Globe and Mail stated that Canada is in its longest period of anemic job growth, outside of a recession, since 1976, which is when Statistics Canada started keeping comparable records.

This lackluster job growth is bad news for all Canadians but especially for our youth, who need that very first job. As our young people strive to start careers, it becomes harder for them to do so as the economy stagnates and opportunities disappear.

Recently released employment data for the province I represent, Newfoundland and Labrador, shows that unemployment levels are steadily rising. The general unemployment rate for February 2015 was 12.6%, up nearly a full percentage point from February 2014. For the same period, the unemployment rate for young people aged 15-24 was 16.4%.

Adult children are moving back in with their parents, because many cannot get that first job, and if they are lucky enough to secure work, if jobs are available, they are part-time, making it difficult, if not impossible, for them to survive by their own means. That is the impact such a weak economy is having on parents and their children.

While the government provides tax giveaways to those who need them least, there are people throughout our country who are struggling to make ends meet and are having to tighten their belts to provide for their families. Household debt is at a record high. Two-thirds of middle-class parents are worried about affording post-secondary education for their children.

No, the budget was not balanced through sound economic management. The budget is not actually balanced at all, not to mention that over the last decade, the Conservative government has added $150 billion to the national debt and that unemployment is higher than it was before the recession.

The Conservatives brought the books back into the black by selling off assets like the remaining GMC stocks and by cutting the contingency fund by $2 billion, not exactly a plan for the future. Contingency funds are meant to deal with unforeseen circumstances, emergencies that might arise.

Just this past January, the Minister of National Defence said, “We won't be using a contingency fund. A contingency fund is there for unforeseen circumstances, like natural disasters”.

He apparently forgot to tell the Minister of Finance.

The Conservatives are clearly more focused on looking good before the election than they are on growing the economy and helping Canadians in need. We only need to look at where money is being spent to see where the government's real priorities are and who they appear to have written off. This budget is clearly more about politics than people.

There is no new funding for Marine Atlantic, which faced a $108.1 million cut earlier this year. It is not only a vital part of Newfoundland and Labrador's economy but serves as an extension of the Trans-Canada Highway, connecting the province to the rest of the country. With the Conservative government fixated on cutting expenditures at all costs and demanding what I think is an unreasonable percentage of cost recovery from Marine Atlantic, the crown corporation found it necessary to increase its fares by a total of 11% over the past three years. Less government funding may well result in yet more fare increases.

For those producing goods for sale on the mainland, higher shipping costs using Marine Atlantic make their goods less competitive. For those shipping products to our province, the high cost is added to the cost of the product and is absorbed by the consumer. For those in the tourism industry, high fares are a deterrent to visitors. Fare increases impact everyone.

Yet another example of where the government has fallen short in this budget is that it does not address the immediate needs of the Canadian Armed Forces. Although the mission to Iraq has been expanded, the last few years have seen major cuts to the Canadian Armed Forces' bottom line. Budget 2015 defers all new defence spending to 2017. Is it any wonder this budget is being referred to as budget 2017 and not budget 2015?

Canadians are tired of seeing the Conservative government pay lip service to issues affecting our enlisted men and women. For those who are presently deployed or will be deployed this year and next to an extremely dangerous conflict zone, the fact that funding for upgrades to resources has been pushed out to 2017 has to be worrisome for those directly involved and for their families. Whenever we ask our Armed Forces personnel to put themselves in a situation where in many cases their lives are at risk, the very least we owe them is our full support by providing them with all the resources necessary to keep them as safe as possible. It is irresponsible and disrespectful to offer anything less.

Again, it speaks volumes about the misguided priorities of the government when it is more concerned about presenting the illusion of a balanced budget and saving $2 billion dollars in taxes for those who need the break least than it is in supporting our military.

However, no one should be surprised. Over the past 10 years we have repeatedly seen the callous attitude of the Conservatives toward our enlisted men and women and veterans. We watched as the former Minister of Veterans Affairs ignored the concerns being raised by a spouse of a veteran.

Veterans are forced to repeatedly prove that they are still amputees as a result of service injuries. As Matt Edwards, a veteran from Newfoundland, said, could the government not save money and make lives easier for veterans by streamlining medical approvals? Common sense solutions seem to elude this government.

My Liberal colleagues and I believe that every Canadian deserves a real chance at success and that budgets should be balanced by growing the economy, not by using smoke and mirrors or creative accounting, which we witnessed last week with the Conservative government.

We need to cancel the Prime Minister's unfair income-splitting scheme, from which only 15% of Canadians will benefit. We need to reverse the unthinkable decision that forces seniors to wait two extra years to receive their OAS benefits. It is a particularly cruel decision for those seniors who will have no other source of income at age 65 and will have to rely on the welfare assistance programs in the provinces. Not everyone is able to continue to work past 65, as some Conservatives have said is an option.

Canadians are being served a budget that would benefit those who need help the least. The needs of the most vulnerable in Canada, including seniors, students, and veterans, are being ignored by the Conservative government. It is obvious Canada needs new economic management with measures to protect the most vulnerable and a plan to build the middle class and grow the economy.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my question for the member is very simple. Why do the Liberals and the NDP continue to oppose all the measures our government introduces for the middle class? About 600,000 seniors with low income below $60,000 are currently maximizing their TFSA room, and would benefit from the measure. About 11 million Canadians have a tax-free savings account, with the vast majority of these accounts belonging to low-income and middle-income earners. Why would the Liberals and the NDP take away education savings, retirement savings, and first-time homebuyer savings from the middle class? Why are they so against prosperity for the middle class?

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the answer to my colleague's question is an obvious one. This budget does so little to help the middle class and those who are trying hard to become a part of the middle class that no one in their right mind could possibly support it. If we look at the tax breaks that are in this budget, they are geared to those who need them least.

It is time to listen to what Canadians are saying. That is what we have been doing as Liberals. We have been listening to Canadians from coast to coast to coast, hearing what their priorities are and determining from our perspective, having listened to what they had to say, what it is we need to be doing as a government, and what the Conservative government needs to be doing, instead of ignoring the priorities of Canadians.

It is not about the Conservative government. It is about Canadians. It is about their money, taxpayer dollars, that the government is deciding to use to put in place programs and give tax breaks that are of no value. The income-splitting scheme would benefit 15% of Canadians. How is that a responsible decision?

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

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

Speaking of income splitting, when the Minister of State for Western Economic Diversification spoke in defence of her colleague who gave a speech earlier—unless I missed something, and my colleague can correct me if I am wrong—she refused to use the words “income splitting”.

I have to say that such self-censorship on the part of Conservative cabinet members is certainly a mystery. They refuse to use the words “income splitting”, which are actually nowhere to be found in the budget.

Can my colleague comment on the restriction that seems to be in place for certain Conservative caucus members, or at least for the Conservative cabinet?

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, what is happening here is it has become pretty obvious that Canadians are not reacting favourably to the income-splitting scheme. They have heard what has been said in terms of the number of Canadians who would benefit from this and they are realizing that this was not a good measure to put in the budget. As their former finance minister, the late Jim Flaherty, said, this is not a good initiative. In fact, he spoke extensively about that and tried to convince his colleagues that it was not the right thing to do. What happened? Because the Prime Minister had committed to it and had committed to those who deserve it least so they could benefit from this high tax break, of course they went ahead with it, much to the chagrin of most Canadians who are now realizing that they will not benefit from this. They do not like the measure that is contained in this budget.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague on her speech about the bogus balanced budget, “B3” for want of a better term. I ask her, what was the emergency to get to the bogus balanced budget since the Conservatives sold off GM shares and lost $100 million doing that and they raided $2 billion from the emergency contingency fund to get to the bogus balanced budget? What was the emergency, other than the Prime Minister's mandate to get to a bogus balance?

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, anyone who is listening and everyone in this House, or at least those of us in the opposition, realize that the emergency is the federal election that is coming up in October.

This budget is more about politics than it is about people. The government is ignoring the most vulnerable in our society with this budget. There is no emergency. The former minister of defence said that the government would not use the contingency fund, but guess what? The government used the contingency fund. According to the minister, contingencies are only meant for natural disasters, so I would ask where the natural disaster is, other than the fact that there is ever the possibility that the government could get re-elected.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I see the hon. member for Mississauga—Erindale is rising on a point of order.

Business of the House

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, I ask for unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, during the debate pursuant to Standing Order 53.1 on Wednesday, April 29, 2015, any Member rising to speak during debate may indicate to the Chair that he or she will be dividing his or her time with another Member.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Does the hon. member for Mississauga—Erindale have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?