Debates of April 28th, 2015

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member is talking about my being concerned about oil prices. He should be concerned too about oil prices, because it impacts the whole country.

I am absolutely amazed and stunned, and in my speech I said so, that Canada did not need to bail out the banks during the worldwide recession, as other countries did. Therefore, I have no clue what he is talking about when he says that we subsidized the banks. As a matter of fact, we had excellent regulations that ensured that the banks would not take the risk. He should be proud of some of the things that have taken place instead of giving the NDP rhetoric, as it always does, about wanting high corporate taxes and about helping banks, which did not take place.

Let me remind him quite clearly: Canada did not bail out the banks in the worldwide recession in 2008.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is perhaps the most revisionist piece of history I have heard here in 11 years.

The member may have been here for 18 budgets, but I think he was probably asleep for most of them. I want to remind Canadians about a few of the facts he alluded to.

Number one, there were 11 consecutive surplus Liberal budgets before the Conservative government came into power. Number two, it was left with a $14-billion surplus, and it put this economy and country into recession before the 2008 great recession hit the globe. Everyone knows that. Every economist knows that. That is fact number two.

Number three is this idea that he goes around the world and hears from folks about the Canadian banking system. He is right, the Canadian banking system did withstand the American meltdown and is a model now for most of the planet, but I would like to remind him and Canadians and members in the House that his leader, as leader of the official opposition at the time, was attacking the Liberal government and then prime minister Chrétien, clamouring for Canadians banks to be owned by American banks to allow them to merge and join the ranks of the hyper-exposed global banking actors. His leader was the one who fought hardest to have the Canadian banking system exposed.

Therefore, it is very rich to hear the member put forward this revisionist history. His credibility here is on the line. He should perhaps keep to the merits of the budget he was speaking to earlier without going back and inventing things.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have to give credit to the member. At least he is not doing what previous members were doing and insulting others personally.

Let me say one thing about what he said. How did the Liberals balance the budget? They did it by cutting transfers to the provinces. The Liberal government he is talking about made massive cuts to transfers to the provinces to balance the budget, and he should feel ashamed. His government downloaded everything so that it could take credit, and it left the provinces on their own. It is this government that came into power and restored them. This government has increased transfers since 2006 so that front-line services could be provided to Canadians with the transfers his government cut by downloading to the provinces.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak in support of and to provide some input into economic action plan 2015. This is certainly a plan of action to continue the necessary actions required to keep our country in the focused direction needed and that has made us the envy of the G7.

Our government has worked hard, and continues to, and is focused on its commitment to the priorities of Canadians: jobs, economic stability, growth, and long-term prosperity. Economic action plan 2015's clear focus on jobs, growth, and security is what my constituents in the riding of Mississauga East—Cooksville and Canadians across the country are looking for.

Back in January, like many of my colleagues, I hosted pre-budget consultations with community and business representatives in my riding to hear their ideas and suggestions. Representatives from a number of key areas, including health, manufacturing, skilled trades, social services, business, and community services, were consulted. I submitted this valuable input to our Minister of Finance and am very pleased to see some of the measures that were included in this budget, economic action plan 2015.

A highly skilled and highly educated workforce is key to succeeding in the global economy. It is also important that we give an equal opportunity to everyone. I was very pleased to announce over $238,000 in funding for the opportunities fund to support the Centre for Education & Training's project to help people with disabilities overcome barriers to employment.

During the pre-budget consultation I held, there was a gentleman by the name of Mike Di Donato, who is the dean of the Skilled Trades College of Canada, which is located in the area I represent. He joined in the discussion on the role of skilled trades and pre-apprenticeship training. We had an opportunity to talk, and he voiced his concerns about the future of skilled trades training and the upcoming federal budget. There is always work to be done in the area of skilled trades, but there are some measures in this budget that are key to the future of skilled trades. This is something Mr. Di Donato is passionate about.

Our government is taking action to harmonize the apprenticeship training and certification requirements in targeted Red Seal trades. The budget also proposes to reallocate up to $35 million over five years for a pilot project for foreign credential recognition loans, and to make it permanent, to support internationally trained workers. This is important news for many constituents in my riding, where many new Canadians come and make their home and want to contribute their skills and expertise.

As a government, we have to do what we can to help create the conditions under which businesses thrive, create jobs, and move our economy. That means helping small businesses and entrepreneurs create jobs. I am pleased to say that our budget proposes to reduce the small business tax rate to 9% by 2019.

The support of our communities is important, and this is done through a number of commitments, including gas tax funding. For the city of Mississauga, that means millions of dollars every year that allows the municipality and the Region of Peel to make priority investments in transportation and infrastructure to keep people moving.

The budget also proposes several measures to help families. The underlying point of balancing the budget is that it allows us to keep the focus on lower taxes to help families and hard-working Canadians. In fact, the overall federal tax burden is now at its lowest level in more than 50 years.

Just two weeks ago, I hosted the 50+ Expo for people over 50 years of age. It was an exciting event for local people who are at the point in their lives when important matters such as retirement planning, security, and safety become a reality. I heard from a number of those who came that they want to remain independent and not have to depend on others as they move to their later years in life.

I would mention some of the measures in the budget to support seniors and people with disabilities. The budget proposes a home accessibility tax credit to help seniors and people with disabilities with renovation costs to make their homes accessible so that they can stay at home and be independent.

We are also introducing changes to the registered retirement income fund that will assist seniors and allow them to withdraw less from their tax-deferred savings. Also, we are increasing the tax-free savings account annual contribution from $5,000 to $10,000. This is something colleagues on the opposite side are criticizing very heavily, but this is a great measure, and I have heard wonderful comments from constituents in my riding about it.

We will always support our veterans, our heroes. Just recently I was honoured to receive a visit from one of them, a Mr. Donald Somerville, who is going with a group of veterans, leaving this weekend, to the Netherlands to celebrate the 70th anniversary of liberation.

We honour our veterans, and we have to make sure that they receive everything and anything they need, especially at the later stages of life. It is important that veterans know that they can count on support for their services. Our budget increases the level of individualized care to veterans requiring regular support by improving the ratio of veterans to case managers. We are also introducing a new retirement income security benefit for severely disabled veterans.

I also want to speak about security for all Canadians. This is very important. People across Canada are looking for safe streets and safe communities, and they want to make sure that our government provides measures and support to our security agencies that keep us safe here in this country.

In closing, the budget is a balanced budget. This was a promise made. This is a promise kept. Therefore, I would like, in closing, to ask all my colleagues in this House to support the budget to support what Canadians are looking for.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to ask a question of my colleague, who concluded his speech by talking about the Conservatives' promise to balance the budget, when they presented Canadians with seven budgets in a row that were not balanced.

Today, the Conservatives have a new-found passion for balanced budgets. What is more, they are set to introduce a bill to force future governments to present balanced budgets when they themselves did not do that for the past five years. It is rather surprising, not to mention hypocritical, for a government to claim to be passionate about balanced budgets when it did not balance any of its own budgets in the past five years. It did not even respect its own legislation that it is about to introduce to Canadians.

Could my colleague speak to how sincere the Conservatives' new passion really is?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am as surprised as my colleague who spoke before me that all that is coming from the other side is criticism without any ideas being put forward. It is very easy to criticize.

To answer the member, he should probably go back and read the history of what happened in the past. That would probably help him understand better why there was not an investment during the difficult economic times, and how well Canada did in those past years. We have done so well that we are truly the envy of other developed nations. That is what government is for, to act when there is a need to act, to work in the best interest of the country, to work in the best interest of Canadians and to act when the need arises.

We were able to balance the budget this year without raising taxes. We are cutting taxes. Taxes are at the lowest level in 50 years. I think the member should appreciate this. Canadians do appreciate it.

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

Mr. Speaker, perhaps this is a question that should more properly go to the finance minister but I have not had a chance to put a question to the finance minister yet.

We could have balanced the budget last year had the minister been willing to go into the contingency fund. The balanced budget this year is because the finance minister went into the contingency fund. I am not clear at all on the matter of fiscal planning why the contingency fund was needed this year but not last year, other than the political promises that have been made based on “once we balance the budget, we will bring in income splitting” and so on.

In other words, I think this budget is being driven by political machinations and not actual good financial planning. Perhaps the member could explain why the contingency fund was not used last year to balance the budget.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I stated when answering the first question, the government is here to do the best for the country and for Canadians. These measures that are included in this balanced budget are what Canadians were looking for. We are helping Canadians. We are helping businesses. We are helping families. We are helping those who have challenges in life. That is what is important.

This is what Canadians are looking for. They are looking for good management of the economy, and they are looking for a good future for themselves and their families.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Victoria.

It is an honour to rise today and speak in response to the budget introduced by the government in the House last week. Over the last four years, as a member of Parliament, I have learned one thing for sure: Conservatives and the Prime Minister are not nearly the economic managers they seem to think they are. In fact, time and time again, the government chose precisely the opposite. The Conservatives have shown us, and Canadians, just how incompetent they can be as managers of the economy. The government has dropped the ball on so many incredibly important files. We just have to look at the F-35.

Conservatives must have a good supply of pixie dust to use on unsuspecting Canadians if they think they can pass this budget off as sound economic planning. Of course, this is backstopped by at least a $13-million advertising budget, using Canadians' money, which they are going to spend on propelling themselves into the election.

I had to laugh last week when my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley said this in his response to the budget:

They spent the surplus before they had it. Then they panicked....They didn't know what to do because the economy was not performing the way they had hoped. One would think that planning more than praying would be [the norm] within the finance department, but not under [this government].

My esteemed colleague could not have been more correct.

How else do we explain a budget that is predicated on such a shallow set of priorities and planning principles, with so little regard for thinking things through? How else could one explain draining the contingency fund so that in the short term it looks like we are not in a deficit? Of course, dropping that from $3 billion to $1 billion means that any unforeseen event that could take place would actually bring the government back into the red. We just have to look at last year to some of the events that happened. We had the ice storm in Toronto. We had tremendous flooding in Alberta and in Toronto. There were also other weather events that cost the economy, and certainly cost the provinces and the federal government, billions of dollars. The contingency fund is there for good reason, to protect against unforeseen events.

We also saw the fire sale of our government's interest in General Motors. We all understand that the government was not supposed to hold on to these shares in perpetuity. However, one of the simple staples of investing in stocks is to buy low and sell high. What the government has done in selling the shares at this time is actually costing $3.5 billion. It sold the shares at a net loss of $3.5 billion. It is as if every single Canadian across the country had a $100 bill to begin with, took it out of their pocket and set it on fire. That is $100 for every Canadian that the government has wasted in order to say it has a balanced budget.

These things are very questionable, and not just in my opinion, but in the opinion of many economists on both sides of the political spectrum.

Much more importantly, I want to talk about the changes the government is making to tax-free savings accounts. These changes really represent just how cynical and crass the government can be and how shallow and short-sighted its economic policy really is. The Conservatives are going to change the maximum allowable contributions for TFSAs to up to $10,000 a year. Who does this help? We have heard from the government that millions of Canadians have TFSAs.

[Andrew Saxton]

Eleven million.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, 11 million. However, only 11% of those people deposited the maximum last year. Therefore, 90% of the people depositing already do not have enough to deposit the current maximum, but the government wants to double it. Why is that? It is because it will help the Conservatives' well-heeled friends. It is not going to help the majority of the working-class and middle-class people I work for in my riding of Scarborough Southwest. These people do not seem to find themselves burdened at the end of the year with having to decide what to do with an extra $10,000 that is burning a hole in their pockets. I wish I could say that they did because Scarborough used to be a prosperous place. It used to have above national average incomes. It used to have tens of thousands of good-paying manufacturing jobs that helped to elevate people into the middle class. However, through successive Liberal and Conservative governments, since first free trade and then NAFTA came in, all of that industry and all of those good-paying jobs left.

We used to have a GM van plant in my riding. It has been gone since the early 1990s. We used to have tens of thousands of good jobs along what was called the golden mile, which, when it opened after the Second World War, was the model on which many communities ended up being built because people could live and work close together and also have good-paying jobs. They are all gone, and they have been replaced by part-time, precarious, largely retail jobs and car malls that are not very accessible by transit, that do not make good planning for those areas. Who are these changes being made for? I have said, it is for the wealthy few.

That is just like the income-splitting plan, a $2.5-billion waste of our money that could be far better spent, either on actually balancing the budget so they do not have to dip into the contingency fund or on other programs like affordable child care.

The current government's entire package and plan for families would give families up to $1,960 a year per child. In the city of Toronto, child care costs are between $1,000 and $2,000 a month per child. Exactly what are the Conservatives telling families to do for the other 10 to 11 months beyond what the government's money gives? The government would give $1,960 but then families pay between $10,000 and $20,000 in child care costs. Are families actually going to be further ahead at the end of the day? No, they are not. They end up having to make really tough choices in our city of whether to lose one income and have one parent stay home, which puts a lot of strain on families and makes it hard to pay the mortgage. God forbid if the parents are also trying to help a kid through university or college, because of skyrocketing tuition fees. The Conservatives want to give $1,960 but then let parents throw $15,000 to $20,000 a year into child care costs.

The NDP has an alternative plan of $15 a day for child care that would actually be affordable for families and would let them make the right choices for their families, whether to have a parent stay home or have both parents work because they would have the option to do either. It would be good-quality child care. I started my working career in child care. I worked at the Not Your Average Daycare in Scarborough for five years, and I saw first-hand the importance of early education and learning.

The story does not end there. It gets worse. As we move forward through the years, the Conservatives' plan at the start would cost a few hundred million dollars, primarily of course to the wealthiest Canadians. The amazing thing is that this cost would grow with each passing year. In a relatively short time, the cost to Canadians would be $20 billion to the treasury. I heard one of the parliamentary secretaries say the Conservatives do not want to pass on debt to the next generation, to our children. The Conservatives are doing something far worse. They are passing it to our children's children. They are passing it to our grandchildren. No responsible parent, grandparent or government should ever pass the buck along two generations down the line.

Of course, we have seen this approach with the government when we talk about climate change, which was not mentioned even once in the budget. We see that the Conservatives do not care. They have not put this as a priority. They said they are going to regulate sector by sector. Then the Prime Minister got up and said they are not going to touch the biggest polluter, the biggest sector, oil and gas.

The current government's entire philosophy is relying on the high price of oil, a commodity where the cost goes up and down. I worked in Fort McMurray, in the oil sands. I have been there through one of those turns. The folks there know that it is cyclical. The casino in Fort McMurray is called Boomtown Casino because they know that the price of oil and commodities goes boom or bust. However, the Conservatives were relying on the fact that it was going to boom forever. It is absolutely preposterous to be putting all their eggs in that one basket.

We all know that we are supposed to diversify the economy. We are supposed to invest in different areas of the economy so that we can weather those storms, but the Conservatives never did that and now Canadians from coast to coast to coast are paying the price.

This budget should be helping people, but it is only helping the wealthy few and the rest are left to fend for themselves.

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

Mr. Speaker, the budget is extraordinary for what is left out.

I want to mention something so that Canadians will know, because I continue to be astonished by what has been left out of the budgets over the last number of years. They do not contain what I used to regard as the nuts and bolts of a budget. There used to be tables at the back of the budget that showed what every department was going to get in total to spend in the year. There was a comparison to the previous year and also a rollout for a forthcoming period of years. This budget does not include that, and neither did last year's.

For instance, if we want to find out about international development assistance, another topic not mentioned in this budget, we cannot find that department. Of course, the department has now been folded into the Department of Foreign Affairs, but we cannot find the foreign affairs budget in here either. We cannot find the budgets for Environment Canada or Parks Canada.

There is actually no information about what each department of government will be allowed to spend compared to other years. We have to wait for the main and supplementary estimates for that.

I wonder if my colleague has any comments on that.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my first comment would be, what happened to that open and transparent government?

By removing the tables, by removing information, the Conservatives have made our jobs as members of Parliament harder, but they have also made it very difficult for Canadians to see what actually is and is not being spent. It is even more insidious than that, because it hides the money that the government is spending. This means it gives ministers and certain departments the ability to deliberately underspend their budgets. We only have to look at veterans affairs since the Conservatives took office. Instead of spending all the money it was allocated on improving veterans' lives, it ended up returning billions of dollars to the treasury, and that is shameful.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech.

I really liked the part where he told us that he is very familiar with the child care sector. Once again, that shows just how prepared we are on this side. We have a plan, whereas the other side of the House clearly has bad plans and it only helps their pals.

Like all Quebeckers, I spoke out against the lack of measures for culture and the environment, for example. It is pathetic that there is nothing for those areas.

Clearly, there comes a time when it is not only disappointing, but also worrisome to see that there is nothing—and I believe this is the topic of the day—for rail safety.

Would my colleague like to comment on that last point?

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

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

Personally, I love taking the train. When I was young, I always took the train between Toronto and Montreal to visit my family. I also spent several summers in Lac-Mégantic, where my family has roots. In fact, my grandmother was born there and my mother was born in Sherbrooke.

It is therefore difficult for me to express how I felt when I saw the disaster that befell that town, a disaster that happened because the government cut corners. Fifty people died, and we must never let that happen again.

We must definitely make the safety of our railways, pipelines, airplanes and roads the top priority in order to prevent such disasters from happening in the future.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague opposite why he is so against tax-free savings accounts. Why is he against allowing Canadians to save for their future, for their retirement and for their children's education? This is an opportunity to give Canadians that chance. Eleven million accounts have already been opened.

My next question is regarding his expensive bureaucratic child care program. How does he expect to pay for that? Will it be through a $20 billion carbon tax?

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, maybe the member was not listening when I said that while 11 million accounts are open, only 11% of Canadians currently donate the maximum.

We are not opposed to TFSAs. We are not going to get rid of them. We just do not want to put in the increase the Conservatives have put in. There are other investment opportunities for people. If they are saving for their education, there are RESPs. If they are saving for their retirement or to buy their first home, there are RRSPs. There are other avenues for Canadians, if they have extra money, to put their money into to change their taxes.

The specific benefit he is talking about would mostly go to wealthy Canadians who already have it easy. Why did the Conservatives not close loopholes for CEO stock options that cost the treasury $750 million? There would be some of the money for child care. Why did they not cancel income splitting? There would be $2.5 billion for child care. Why did they not increase corporate taxes to the rate where they would be paying their fair share? That would pay for roads, for transit and for child care.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to stand in this place to discuss the budget that is before the House. I only have a few minutes, so I would like to divide my remarks into, first, some general comments specifically relating to seniors, second, to speak to the health aspects of it, as I am the official opposition health critic, and third, to focus on British Columbia and the city of Victoria, which I represent.

On the general points, we have heard much this morning already about the income-splitting regime in this budget and the TFSA going from $5,500 to $10,000 a year. On top of that, of course, we have $4,400 in new federal debt that every newborn child has and our grandchildren are going to have another $15 billion or $20 billion in debt created by the TFSA. It may be a laudable policy, but doubling contributions, or virtually doubling them, certainly will be helping wealthier Canadians more than others.

That has been the subject of much commentary, and not just by opposition politicians. It is important that Canadians know it is the Parliamentary Budget Officer who, just a day or so ago, drew attention to the disparity. My colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley pointed out yesterday that these handouts will cost tens of billions of dollars a year and the doubling of the TFSA itself will give the wealthiest 20% twice as much as all other Canadians combined.

The Globe and Mail, of course, has brought to our attention just what this document is. It is designed, as it says in its editorial of April 21, to win an election. That is really all it is. This is a document designed to give gifts to the Conservatives' wealthiest friends and donors in the hope that the rest of Canadians will not notice what is happening to our country in the meantime.

The Conservatives talked at one point about having a leaner, meaner tax code, cleaner and simpler. Of course, that has not happened. It is rare for me to stand in this place and agree with the Fraser Institute, but in a report that it put out just this week, it pointed out how the tax code has become bigger and bigger and more and more complex. It is great work for accountants and lawyers, I am sure, but it is incomprehensible to many Canadians. That is not the result of these little tax breaks and credits here, there and everywhere, what are called boutique tax credits, which litter this budget.

In addition, members have heard my colleagues talk about the fact that the contingency fund cupboard has been raided and it has gone from $3 billion to $1 billion in order to balance the budget. We have heard about the fire sale of GM shares in order to get more money to balance the budget, the holy grail of re-election.

The Globe and Mail said:

...one category of taxes remain far higher than it should: Employment Insurance premiums. These premiums are, basically, a tax on jobs. For years, Ottawa has quietly been taking in several billion dollars more than it pays out. The budget promises a long-term plan to lower premiums....

Guess what? That, like so much in this budget, does not happen until 2017, 2018, 2019. We will hear about that in the context of transit and so many other issues. It is bad public policy. It is simply a gift for re-election purposes, and I am confident Canadians will see through this.

A day or so ago, the Canadian Alliance of United Seniors, which brings together dozens of seniors groups, talked about this budget in very unfavourable terms. It pointed out that income security, including restoring the old age security and GIS to age 65, should be enhanced. The Prime Minister went to Davos, Switzerland, and announced that the government was going to change the age for OAS to 67, which seems to me a little unfair to people who had the misfortune of being born after 1958, and no change to the Canada pension plan. That is a payroll tax, although it is not a tax at all, and that is why we cannot fix for the next generation the inequities. Nothing in the budget would deal with that. EI, of course, is okay, but CPP improvements are not.

Health care reform is the second thing that the Canadian Alliance of United Seniors has talked about. It asked for increased funding for issues such as home care and a national pharmacare plan. That notorious radical group, the Canadian Medical Association, has called for a seniors strategy on care and health care, something which, of course, the official opposition has been very much in favour of. The government has done nothing whatsoever on that score in this budget.

A national housing strategy is the third thing it asked for, a strategy to allow seniors stay in their homes or move to purpose-built affordable housing. There is very little, as so many critics have pointed out, on the affordable housing front in this budget.

There is very little for fighting inequality to assure all citizens, including seniors, can get out of poverty. That is a bit of a sleeper issue in the budget.

Yesterday, Mr. Ian McGugan wrote in The Globe and Mail that there was a disparity increasingly among seniors, among the wealthy and the less wealthy. There was a lucky elite that could take advantage of TFSAs and the like, but that there was another group, a growing mass of retirees who must patch together their own safety net. Their prosperity or lack of it hinged on how much they could stow away in RRSPs, TFSAs and defined contribution pensions. If they happened to be in the wrong industry and suffered prolonged periods of unemployment, their retirement nest eggs would suffer through no fault of their own.

It is a tale of two cities among seniors in our communities. There is no doubt that the budget works for the wealthy seniors. We just have to ask the Parliamentary Budget Officer. However, for the vast majority of seniors who struggle to get by, with the low interest rate environment and so forth, it is a very different part of the world in which they live.

On health care, the College of Family Physicians of Canada talks about the federal budget as “a missed opportunity to advance health care”, and that is what it is. It, like the official opposition, are pleased with government's commitment to a Canadian centre for aging and brain health innovation, but it says what is needed is “higher-level leadership for the entire spectrum of health care”, not a patchwork of single programs, and that is the point about the budget.

There are lots of little goodies here and there, boutique tax credits here, announcements there, innovation centre there, but on the main event it is a notorious and continuing lack of leadership on so many fronts.

Regarding the Canada health transfer, Conservatives keep talking about how much money is being transferred, and there is a lot of money being transferred, but much less than there would have been if they had not killed the Health Council a few years ago. The government sees no benefit in doing anything that involves leadership and working with the provinces to achieve better results for our population.

There is much more about health that needs to be said in this context, and not only the fact Conservatives are sticking to the unilateral formula for the health transfer, axing the Health Council and showing no leadership in public health issues for Canadians. However, the one good thing is that the mandate of the Mental Health Commission of Canada has been renewed. We need to see a lot more leadership in that area. I salute the government for that aspect of the health care issue. However, money is really what has to be important.

I promised to talk about British Columbia. It has been said over and over again that climate change is a foreign concept in the budget, it is a word that dare not be mentioned by Conservatives. I think they do not believe it exists. The word “Victoria” did not get mentioned and for British Columbia, pretty thin gruel. British Columbians will remember a few weeks ago, when the government in its zeal to save $700,000 thought it was sound public policy to close the Kitsilano Coast Guard. That $700,000 should be matched in people's minds with the $7.5 million Conservatives will spend to advertise the budget.

Budgets are about priorities. Governing is about choosing. The government chose to put our coastline at risk for a small savings. We see the results. Thank goodness they were not worse, but $7.5 million for feel good ads is what will happen.

What is not in the budget? Money for transit that comes forward many years later. There is nothing for local roads and bridges, nothing for the Belleville Street terminal in my riding, which everyone agrees is the number one infrastructure, not even a signal that it might occur sometime, no money in gang violence prevention and so forth.

This is a budget that works very well for the wealthy. It does not make the kind of long-term investments in health care that will be necessary going into the future. Seniors groups have understood that it helps only a small segment of their population. For British Columbia, it reflects priorities that British Columbians simply do not have.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague mentioned employment insurance premiums and rates and how they were too high. When we introduced the small business job credit, which is a significant reduction in EI premiums for small businesses, in fact, 700,000 small businesses in Canada will benefit from that, why did the member and his party voted against that reduction in premiums?

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the government is famous, and Canadians see right through it, for what we call the poison pill strategy.

What it does is it puts a lot of things in a budget that would appear to be things we could support, and then it puts poison pills in that no serious opposition could ever support. That may be an example of that, I do not know.

Let us remember this. What I was saying about the employment insurance fund was not me talking, I was talking about The Globe and Mail saying how the government, “has quietly been taking in several billion dollars more than it pays out”.

That is another nefarious way the government has used to create this mystique of a balanced budget. It has raided a contingency fund, used the EI fund as a piggy bank and sold GM shares just in time to create this magical illusion. I think Canadians understand what is going on.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on the member's last statement because his so correct.

When we look at it, even before the recession occurred a number of years ago, the government entered into a situation where we went from a surplus budget to a deficit situation. It has been in that deficit situation for years now.

Then when we are in an election year, the Conservatives wave a wand to try to give Canadians this impression, spending a lot of money to tell Canadians, that there is a surplus. The way the surplus was created was through the wholesale sale of GM shares and dipping into the contingency fund, for a marginal surplus that could evaporate depending on the price of oil.

Would the member provide his thoughts in regard to how much a falsehood it is to give Canadians the impression, in the time of an election, that the books are in good order when it comes to balanced budgets?

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I can do no better than quote the headline of The Globe and Mail editorial to which I referred. It states, “This budget was designed to win an election”. I think the member for Winnipeg North and me understand what that is about.

Imagine a government that spends a decade with deficits, huge debt, and all of a sudden, on the eve of an election, announces that, there is a surplus. Then we are told that we are getting it by way of raiding a contingency fund, selling shares and using the EI fund.

I think Canadians understand that this is really about an election promise. Much of the goodies that we are hoping will happen, goodies that are essential in places like Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal and my community of Victoria, to deal with transit, for example, will not happen for many years.

All of the good stuff is back end loaded with these great promises but, halleluiah, the government has balanced the budget. I am sure Canadians see through that.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, could my colleague tell us more about his thoughts on the proposed investment in public transit announced in budget 2015? The government is proposing just $250 million, which will start in 2017 and will then be gradually increased.

What does the member think about this new funding that will not start until 2017 and of the amount of this investment, compared to the scope of the problems with public transit in our Canadian cities?

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, most Canadians understand that we have a crisis in our major cities with crumbling infrastructure and particularly problems with transit.

I noted that the Ontario finance minister referred to the transit part of this budget as “crumbs”. Recognizing that we need help now, the government, wanting to balance the budget at all costs, has decided that this stuff will start after the election, and the $1 billion is two years after that. Then all of a sudden we are supposed to be happy. Let us not forget, we have to work with P3s, private-public partnerships, which often cost more money and reward friends of the government.

It is a happy package for everybody but the people who need transit services now.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for York Centre.

It is a pleasure for me to rise in the House today and speak to a budget of which all Canadians can be proud. It is a balanced budget. This is a great accomplishment. Canada is not where it is at today by chance. The budget did not balance itself. It was hard work, careful financial planning and prudent fiscal responsibility on the part of the strong leadership of our country that we can boast of a balanced budget.

We went from a deficit of $55.6 billion at the height of the global recession to a projected surplus of $1.4 billion for 2015-16. Canada is the envy of many countries right around the world. Over 1.2 million net new jobs have been created since the depths of the recession. Despite what the opposition would like Canadians to believe, over 80% of these were full-time jobs, and nearly 80% were in the private sector. Over half of these jobs were in high wage industries.

Canada's economy has seen one of the best economic performances among all the G7 countries in recent years, both during the recession and throughout the recovery. As a business owner myself, I am pleased that Canada's business investment performance has been the strongest in the G7. We leapt from sixth place to second place in Bloomberg's ranking of the most attractive countries for business to grow. For the seventh straight year, we have also ranked with the soundest banking system. That ranking was given to us by the World Economic Forum. We are also one of two countries in the G7 to have a rock solid AAA credit rating.

I could go on and on about the many great things that our government has accomplished.

Most Canadians understand and personally strive for such things as a balanced budget and a good credit rating. They understand well the benefits of achieving this on the federal level as well. Running a surplus, having a sound banking system and having a AAA credit rating makes our country more attractive to investors, and that opens up the doors that lead to more growth.

Running a surplus also means more tax breaks for Canadians who need and deserve them the most. The opposition continues to say that our tax breaks benefit the wealthy. That, quite simply, is not true. Canadian families across the nation with children up to the age of 17 will feel the advantage of enhancements to the universal child care benefit directly when payments begin this coming July.

Across Canada, there exists a significant diversity of people living in a very diverse landscape. We have people of many ethnicities, cultures and religions. We have people who live in very remote places up north and who live in the busy urban centres of our major cities. The universal child care benefit includes all Canadians and accommodates Canada's diversity. It is not required that children be placed in state operated child care centres to benefit. Families benefit while maintaining the freedom to choose the way their children are raised, whether they be with a stay-at-home parent, at a day care centre, or with a friend or family member.

We are allowing families to choose what works best for them, decisions that are best left for mom and dad.

The opposition also continues to purport that tax-free savings accounts benefit the very wealthy. Again, that simply is not true. Individuals with incomes of less than $80,000 accounted for more than 80% of all TFSA holders, and about half of TFSA holders had annual incomes of less than $42,000. At the end of 2013, about 1.9 million Canadians had contributed the maximum amount to their TFSAs. Of those who contributed, 45% were seniors and over 70% were over the age of 55.

I am pleased that economic action plan 2015 proposes to increase the TFSA contribution limit to $10,000. Our government understands the importance of saving money and of financial security.

The TFSA provides greater savings incentives for low-and modest-income individuals, because in addition to the tax savings, neither the income earned in the TFSA nor withdrawals from it affect eligibility for federal income-tested benefits and credits such as the Canada child tax benefit or old age security.

Another component of economic action plan 2015 I would like to highlight and that I am particularly proud of is the extension of compassionate care benefits. This budget proposes to provide up to $37 million annually to extend employment insurance compassionate care benefits from six weeks now to six months. I know first hand people in my riding who would benefit from this extension.

People who have cared for a gravely ill family member know the incredible demands involved. It can be mentally, physically, and emotionally draining. They also know that caring for a family member, especially at the end of his or her life, is a responsibility they would not want to leave in the hands of anyone else. Unfortunately, I have witnessed people who have had to quit their jobs to care for a family member, adding financial hardship to the struggles they are already facing. Through this enhancement, the government would ensure that the employment insurance program would continue to help Canadians when they needed it the most. Canadians should never have to choose between family and financial security.

I am pleased that so many people in my riding would benefit from the emphasis this budget places on families. In addition, coming from a riding that has a large farming community, I am happy that the budget would also positively affect the backbone of our community, farmers. Economic action plan 2015 proposes to increase the lifetime capital gains exemption for qualified farm or fishing property to $1 million.

The lifetime capital gains exemption for farm or fishing property provides an incentive to invest in the development of productive farm and fishing businesses and helps farm and fishing business owners accumulate and protect capital for retirement. It is estimated that this 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. There are many farmers in my riding who would benefit directly from this increase.

Our government is also committed to promoting Canadian products. Agricultural and agri-food products produced in Canada are among the safest and highest quality in the world. That is why economic action plan 2015 proposes to provide $12 million over two years, starting in 2016, to expand Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada's agrimarketing program to promote and differentiate Canadian products in a highly competitive global and domestic market. Promoting Canadian products here and abroad would have a positive impact on our farmers and food processors.

As Canada continues to grow, it is necessary that we continue to maintain the critical infrastructure that keeps our country running smoothly. It seems only appropriate that as we celebrate the 150th anniversary of Confederation, we support the renovation, expansion, and improvement of existing community infrastructure. Economic action plan 2015 proposes to create a new dedicated infrastructure fund for exactly that purpose to celebrate our 150th anniversary. These new investments, which would be cost-shared with municipalities, community organizations, and not-for-profit entities, would support projects that celebrate our shared heritage, create jobs, and improve the quality of life of Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

On a final note, I would like to commend our government for listening to the concerns of Canadians. As a sitting member of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, I sat through the vigorous study of Bill C-51, the anti-terrorism act. We listened carefully to expert witness testimony and have proposed appropriate corresponding amendments. One concern voiced many times over was that we needed to enhance oversight of our Canadian Security Intelligence Service review body. I am pleased that our government heard those concerns and has responded. Economic action plan 2015 proposes to provide up to $12.5 million over five years, starting in this next fiscal year, and $2.5 million ongoing thereafter, in additional funding for the Security Intelligence Review Committee to enhance its review of CSIS.

While we ensure that our national security agencies have the tools they need to protect Canadians from the threat of terrorism, we would also ensure that these practices would be governed by an effective and transparent framework that would protect the rights and freedoms of individual Canadians.

I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to this budget.