Debates of April 28th, 2015

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

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

The problem is that he claimed that this budget is for all Canadians. I remind the member that the maximum RRSP deduction is $21,000; the TFSA limit is now $10,000; the RESP limit is $5,000; and the deduction for sports and arts is $2,000. That is a total of $38,000, yet 90% of Canadians do not have $38,000 of net income. For someone to take advantage of that $38,000 in tax breaks and to still have the means to pay rent and buy groceries—which are kind of important—they would have to earn over $150,000. Just 2% to 3% of Canadians earn that amount. When the government brings in such big tax breaks, they benefit just 2% to 3% of Canadians. Another example is income splitting, which is also not designed for the vast majority of Canadians.

Could my colleague explain why the government wants us to go without this money now and to leave our grandchildren with a $140 billion bill? Where is the tax fairness here?

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the biggest users of the TFSA program are seniors. They have found that program extremely useful and have benefited greatly from being able to put money into tax-free savings accounts to shelter some of the income that is so desperately needed in their retirement years from income tax. There was a demand for that, and I am sure our seniors are going to appreciate this measure, because it is a measure that is specifically used by that group of people.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there is a great deal of concern about the federal budget. When I think of how I would try to put it, I would suggest that it is a very unfair budget.

This is a budget that would do nothing to support Canada's middle class or people who aspire to become members of the middle class. There would not be any investment in a tangible way in infrastructure, when we know that virtually every municipality in every region of the country is in need of infrastructure spending, not two years from now, after the election, but this year so that they can be developing infrastructure this summer, not to mention the previous years when the government failed to deliver.

My question for the member relates to the Minister of Finance making reference to letting the Prime Minister's granddaughter deal with the issue. Does he not believe that there is a responsibility for the Government of Canada to start governing for today, not pass off issues to our grandchildren?

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Budget Officer today said that our grandchildren will not be saddled with the burden of that responsibility. I think that comment was taken out of context, and the Parliamentary Budget Officer has added clarification on that issue today.

In reference to his question about the middle class, this budget would do so much for the middle class. I am thinking of the universal child care benefit. The biggest beneficiaries of the universal child care benefit would be low- and middle-income families. For every child under the age of six, each family would get $2,000 annually. For children between the ages of six and 17, they would get $720 annually. As a percentage of income, the middle-class and low-income earners would be the biggest beneficiaries of that program.

In addition, we are not mandating that people send their children to a daycare to be recipients of that money. It is a very fair way of saying that they can choose to invest that money in a state-funded daycare, or they can choose to invest that money with a friend or a relative down the way who is willing to look after their children while they seek employment, or they can just use that money to subsidize their household budgets if they are stay-at-home parents. That is one of the most fair and appropriate tax measure in this budget for low- and middle-income families.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in the House today to speak to our budget, strong leadership, a balanced budget, and the low-tax plan for jobs, growth, and security.

We live in the greatest country on earth: Canada. People come here from all over the world for a variety of reasons, but most importantly, they come to Canada for hope and opportunity. Yes, they want opportunity for themselves, but more importantly, they want opportunity and hope for their children.

The riding I am so privileged to represent, York Centre, is very ethnocultural. I go around the community endlessly, time and time again, and what I see reminds me of when I was young, when my dad came to Canada as an immigrant and how hard he worked, and how hard new immigrants to Canada work. When I shake the hands of some of these men, these hands are worn. These hands have blisters. These hands are hardened by the hard work they do because they want to see their kids succeed in the hope and opportunity Canada has to offer.

We see this paying off. When I go to high school graduations, which I do every June in the riding of York Centre, I see kids whose parents came to Canada just a few years ago, and they are the ones who are getting all the scholarships to universities and colleges. They will be the doctors, the lawyers, the professionals, and the tradespeople of tomorrow.

I remember, growing up, when I would wait for my dad to come home late at night. He had a shoe store, and I remember peering through the window blinds waiting for him to come home. When I saw him pull into the driveway and get out of the car, I got so excited, and I know that these kids do too. As tired as he was, he still had time to play with me or do homework with me, just like these kids today in the riding of York Centre whose parents come from another country. That is what Canada is all about.

That is why we have presented here today, and since 2006, a path and a plan for economic prosperity in Canada. It is so immigrants will have opportunity and can have hope for their children.

We have presented a plan here in the House for debate today that is based on low taxes, on trade, and on a balanced budget. Why is it important to balance the budget? The opposition parties do not think it is important. We cannot really blame New Democrats. They are blinded by their ideology, an ideology of spend, spend, spend. Spend as if we have it, is their ideology. What is the Liberals' ideology? They are still searching for one, but they do have a set of principles, and if we do not like those, they have a whole other set for us.

Let me tell the House a bit about our plan, a plan for jobs, for growth, and for long-term prosperity. Our plan has created 1.2 million net new jobs since the depth of the recession in July 2009. Our financial sector has been rated by the World Economic Forum for the seventh year in a row to be the soundest in the world. We have lowered taxes not 50 times, not 100 times, and not even 150 times. We have lowered 180 different taxes. We have taken over one million people off the tax rolls altogether. We have brought in income splitting for seniors so they can split their pensions and do not have to pay as much tax.

Now we see that the Liberals and the New Democrats are against the proposals we have in this budget to put more money in the pockets of hard-working Canadian families. They seem to be under the impression that the government treasury will have less money. We know what that means. First, they have to understand that this is not the government's money. My dad and these dads and moms in York Centre who are working hard, that is their money. They have earned it. They say that the government will be out of that money.

The taxpayers would have more money to spend how they see fit. Let us not forget that, when our government introduced the universal child care benefit, it was the Liberals who got up and said people would just use it to buy beer and popcorn. What an outrage. People are using this money to pay for education for their children, and if they so choose, to pay for daycare for their children. It is about choice. It is about putting kids with the experts, those who know how to raise them. That is not the government, Liberals, or NDP. That is mum and dad. They are the experts on how to raise children.

Our fiscal plan is sound. It makes sense and it is working. We do not know the opposition's fiscal plan. We know the Liberal's is smoking marijuana, for one, but the NDP plan is to raise taxes and spend recklessly. Both these plans fail the first test of fiscal responsibility, which is that the numbers just do not add up. New Democrats just want to tax and spend because they think there is an endless supply of money out there. Well, that chicken has been plucked. There are no feathers left. There is only one taxpayer, and taxpayers are maxed out. That is why we are lowering taxes. That is why we see people spending more money.

We have lowered corporate taxes. The NDP seems to think we need to raise corporate taxes. We do not. It does not understand that corporations, artificial entities, do not pay taxes. Taxes are passed down to the end user, which is the consumer, so middle-class Canadians pay higher prices because corporate taxes are higher. Therefore, we lowered those taxes. Now we find that corporate investment in Canada is way up. Corporate taxes are way up and there are more jobs as a result. That, at the end of the day, is doing our job.

Canadians sent us here in 2006, 2008, and 2011 to get the job done, and that is what we are doing. We made a pledge to the Canadian people that we were going to provide jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity, and that is exactly what we are doing. We are going to be the first government in the G7 to balance our budget, and not just balance it—we will have a surplus of $1.4 billion.

The opposition parties are very fast at criticizing what we do, and they propose these kinds of wacky schemes like carbon taxes and one-size-fits-all daycare where there is no choice. They do not understand the reality, and when we try to explain it to them, they just want to double down on what they know is wrong, or they should know it is wrong. That is why it is incumbent on us, the government, the Conservative Party, who know that Canadians deserve to keep more of their hard-earned money in their pockets so they can decide how to spend it. It is not to create big bureaucracies to spend and tax wildly with reckless disregard for the future.

Success is not by chance, but it is by choice, and we have been making the right choices since 2006. That is why we are not mired in recession, as are other countries around the world. If it were up to the opposition, it would have us right at the edge, like Greece.

[Wayne Easter]

Thanks to Paul Martin.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we did not balance any budgets on the backs of the most vulnerable, like the Martin and Liberal Party did in the 1990s. Even in those heydays of economic prosperity, they could never get the unemployment rate below 7%. Ours is lower today, while our economy is still fragile.

We have made the right choices as a government. The Canadian people sent us here. We made a pledge to them in three successive elections that we would balance the budget, create jobs, and lower taxes. That is exactly what we have done, and we are proud to take this platform to the Canadian people come October.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I find it quite interesting that the member says that the NDP does not have any real propositions or ideas coming forward; yet every single thing he has touted as good in this budget is an NDP proposal that the Conservatives voted against every time it came up for a vote before. Now, the Conservatives are saying it is their brilliant idea.

My question is about one of the brilliant ideas that the New Democrats have. That is to create universal child care in this country that would cost parents a maximum of $15 a day. Doing some quick math, for 20 days a month, that would mean a family's cost for child care would be $300 a month.

The statistics right now show that an average family in Toronto is paying $1,676 per month for child care. The NDP would offer savings of $1,376 per month for these families; whereas, the member and his party are saying the Conservatives would give them $100. The NDP is saying we would save them—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please.

The hon. member for York Centre.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to that.

Logic alone would tell us that, if these ideas were proposed in the past, they would be policy today. I do not know where the member is coming from when she talks about proposing policies that we are now adopting, but I would caution the New Democrats on one thing. It is this party here that we have to be careful of. They used to call the NDP “Liberals in a hurry”. I would keep an eye on these guys. People should not be worried about us stealing their policies.

What we offer Canadians is choice. We are not saying they cannot send their kids to daycare, but we are giving mums and dads the option. We are offering the money and they can send their kids to daycare or, if they want, they can raise them themselves. The New Democrats should imagine not having government raise their children. What a unique concept.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with wonderment to the remarks of my colleague from the Conservative Party.

First, the budget was delayed by the current government well into the next fiscal year for one reason: the Conservatives had to sell the GM shares and book those revenues for $2.2 billion to achieve an illusory surplus of $1.4 billion, on the eve of an election.

Going forward, the Conservatives' budget projections for the future are based on oil prices increasing by 50%. Nobody saw oil prices dropping by 50%, but the current government is actually basing its fiscal projections on increases in oil prices of 50%.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer and the Bank of Canada are using much lower figures in their projections for oil prices. As a result of that, the PBO is projecting budget deficits in 2017-2018, 2018-2019, and 2019-2020.

Does the hon. member actually believe that rosy projections and wishful thinking are a replacement for sound budget practices? Why is the government making—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. We are out of time in this time for questions and comments. The hon. member for York Centre.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have a phrase in Yiddish. The word is “chutzpah”. This is a great demonstration of a question that is based on chutzpah, which loosely translated means rashness or nerve to ask such a thing.

Did members know that a Liberal budget was introduced into this House on February 16, 1999? In the following fiscal year, in 2000-2001, lo and behold, there was no Liberal budget presented by the government. Then, the following fiscal year, two and a half years after the Liberals introduced the budget on February 16, 1999, they got around to introducing their next budget. It was two and a half years.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order. We are resuming debate with the hon. member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Rivière-du-Nord.

The Conservative government promised a balanced budget that would benefit all Canadians. Instead, it presented a budget filled with election goodies. In the past four years, we on this side of the House have gotten used to seeing propagandist bills. However, the fact that the Conservatives presented a completely populist budget just to win votes in the election this fall is simply mind-blowing.

The budget is balanced because the Conservatives scraped up money by draining the contingency reserve and selling shares. They are using House of Cards as their inspiration as they scrounge for loose change, the same way they took their statistics from Kijiji.

They are promising measures that will not take effect until much later on. However, income splitting will take effect immediately. This government is dishonest. Believe me when I say that Canadians are not fools. They understand that the Conservatives' promises are worthless, not to mention that the budget promises came late this year, just like spring.

I was elected to defend the interests of the people of Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert. I am obliged to tell them that this budget fails them. It is failing Quebeckers.

Let us talk about health. Health is being dealt a blow again this year. The government still has not understood the importance of investing in health. It does not understand that thousands of Quebeckers will not be able to pay for their health care costs, much like it does not understand that investing in health is investing in our country's economic future.

Treating a person over the age of 65 costs five times more than treating a person between the ages of 15 and 65. This government is failing our seniors, middle-class Canadians and the poorest members of our society, who will not have access to proper health care.

Quebeckers can only manage a hollow laugh because Canada must respect the Canada Health Act, which provides for universal health care. That means that all Canadians have the right to free public health care. However, how can the provinces apply these principles if cuts are being made to their funding?

The Conservative government is ignoring the provinces' desperate needs. It has refused to take Quebec's rapidly aging population into account when calculating health transfer amounts. Health transfers will no longer go up by 6% per year. They will be capped at 3%. This means a heavier burden for the provinces. The Conservatives are depriving the provinces of thousands of dollars. Canadians deserve better. They deserve a good health system.

Clearly the government does not understand a thing about health. It expects people to be happy with a few piddly programs when staff, nurses and doctors are in short supply and people are not getting the care they need at the right time.

Medical clinics are closing. Three clinics have already closed in my riding, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, and another will be closing this year. That is unacceptable. The federal government must adhere to the principles in the Canada Health Act. If the Conservative government is unable to maintain a formula that enables the provinces and territories to pay for universal access to quality care, it should let us take over. We on this side of the House will listen and sit down with the provinces to come up with solutions that fit.

The NDP has a plan to strengthen our health system because we all deserve access to quality care no matter where we live. In 2013, I introduced Bill C-523, which called for the mandatory reporting of drug shortages. The Conservative government voted against that bill, then last February, it announced that it would require drug companies to report drug shortages in advance.

I was delighted that the government had finally seen the light on such an important issue. However, I was very disappointed to find no sign of the announcement about drug shortages in the budget. There is nothing about that in the budget, and certainly no investment. Simply put, the government is dishonest. It makes big announcements, but that is all it knows how to do. There comes a time when you have to stop making promises and get out the chequebook.

Let us talk about infrastructure. Freight trains and oil cars go through Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert. The hon. member for Brossard—La Prairie and I have talked to our constituents, who have all said that they are very concerned about the lack of investment in rail safety. The Minister of Transport promised that the government would invest in enhancing safety, but where is that investment in budget 2015? Where are the promises of tangible measures to ensure the safe transportation of hazardous materials? Where is the increase in the number of inspectors? Unfortunately, I do not see any of that.

Nor is there anything about the Champlain Bridge. There are no details as to the cost of the toll or how this toll will affect the other bridges. We gathered more than 1,000 signatures in Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert alone from people denouncing this arbitrary measure. That is more than 1,000 locals who have spoken out against this toll, and thousands more if we include the south shore, but the government does not seem to think that what they have to say matters. My colleagues from the south shore and I are going to have to explain to our constituents why they are not important enough for the government to listen to them.

Let us talk about public transit. The government boasts about having good ideas in its budget to address public transit. The Conservatives' proposed measures for public transit are limited, and the provisions are so complicated that they will prevent funding from getting to the municipalities. The budget is out of step with what the south shore mayors want. They say that improving public transit, the light rail system, and extending the metro to Longueuil are priorities for the local economy and the shift toward sustainable development. What is more, the money for public transit will not be available for another two years, provided there is a contribution from the private sector.

Canadians expect budgets to address their priorities. They expect budgets to provide their children with the best possible start in life and create good jobs. The Conservative government is walking on thin ice. It is Quebeckers and middle-class workers who are paying the price.

Two words come to mind when I read the budget: “dishonesty” and “improvisation”.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member made reference to what is a very important issue to me, that being health care. When I think of social issues that are important not only to my constituents but to all Canadians, it is the issue of health care. We believe very passionately in our health care system. I know that Canadians treasure it and feel very disappointed that the federal government has not been able, through a first ministerial conference or through ministers of health coming together, to come up with a health care accord.

There was a great deal of satisfaction in the Paul Martin era where we had a health care accord. We had the provinces working with Ottawa to recognize one of the most important social issues that Canadians feel very passionate about.

Could the member comment on the government's failure to recognize how important health care is to Canadians by not getting a new health care accord and working with provinces on this very important issue?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my Liberal colleague for his relevant question.

The accords required that the Conservative government sit down and listen to the provinces and territories talk about their needs and priorities. We have asked the government many times not to impose measures arbitrarily.

Clearly, nothing has been done. We have not seen even the slightest political will to listen to the provinces and territories regarding the issue of health transfers.

I think the following metaphor is quite fitting: our free public health care system seems to be in palliative care. It is as though we were trying save something that is already dead.

The Conservative government does not understand that Canada has an aging population and that, ultimately, having high-quality health care when we need it will be a heavy burden for the provinces to bear.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her passionate speech about health care and about public transport also. I would like to talk to her about public transportation and the need for more investment in the public transit infrastructure.

We know that within the next five years, Canada will have an $18-billion infrastructure gap specifically for public transit needs in our communities. I am asking with a Toronto lens because we know that in Toronto we are seeing our bridges and roads literally crumble down before our eyes. I am sure that she is facing a very similar situation in the Montreal region also. Would she comment on some of the NDP proposals to improve infrastructure or with respect to public transit funding specifically?

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

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

As I mentioned in my speech, the government claims it is investing in infrastructure. Unfortunately, those funds will not be accessible this year and actually not until four years from now.

I also said that infrastructure is important. In my region on the south shore, in the greater Longueuil, Saint-Bruno and Saint-Hubert area, all the mayors agree that we need money for infrastructure.

How are our provinces and municipalities supposed to function with this aging infrastructure? It is important to act now, and that is what we on this side of the House, the NDP, want to do.

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, here we are with the Conservative government on its way out. I am sure that the government would have liked to finish its term with a bang, but instead it is fizzling out.

Just about everywhere, the Conservatives are calling the balanced budget a fantastic achievement. Unfortunately, it is not an achievement. How did they balance their budget? Once again they took money from the employment insurance fund. They are not the first to do so. The Liberals did the same thing. I remember the days when the Martin-Chrétien duo tackled the deficit. They took the federal deficit and passed it on to the provinces and the provinces passed it on to the health system. Since then, our health system has has been posting a deficit. The deficit only moved somewhere else. It is no longer in the columns of federal government figures, but it is somewhere else. They are presenting that as a fantastic achievement.

We must not forget that behind all that, what is putting the government in a precarious position is the fact that since 2006, the Conservatives have cut corporate taxes from 21% to 15%. This money has been accumulating in the coffers of major corporations and depriving us of resources. That was a significant source of tax revenue. Unfortunately for the Conservative strategy, it did not work. That money accumulated in the corporations' cash reserves, which means that there are currently $660 billion to $700 billion that were not reinvested. We can look at the situation of our manufacturing production systems. Corporations did not reinvest this money to improve their productivity with robotics or informatics. No, they waited. Why? Because the economic situation was unstable. Consequently, these tax reductions did not help Canada's economic recovery. That is quite the accomplishment.

A government must make choices. In the few minutes I have, I will try to show that the government has chosen to help those who are well off.

Take, for example, income splitting, which our Conservative friends love so much. This measure will not benefit 86% of the population. I did a little calculation. A family that earns $120,000—one person earns $100,000 and the other earns $20,000—will pay $1,807 less in taxes. However, a family that earns $50,000—one person earns $35,000 and the other earns $15,000—will get what kind of tax break? Nothing. It is very clear that these measures are essentially geared towards the wealthy. A government must make choices, and this government made this choice.

Meanwhile, the $1.5 billion that this measure will cost in terms of tax expenditures is the amount it would take to bring seniors out of extreme poverty. Right now in Canada we have seniors who are forced to go to food banks for food because the guaranteed income supplement and their small pension are not enough. The government could have taken this $1 billion and invested it to help bring our seniors out of poverty, but no, it would rather help a small fraction of the population that is already well off and does not need this measure to survive.

The government also made a choice with employment insurance. It is once again dipping into the EI fund. In his report, the Parliamentary Budget Officer said that with this money, the government could have increased the EI wage replacement rate from 55% to 68%. On average, EI recipients receive $440 in benefits to live on.

The government could have implemented another measure on something I have a personal interest in, since someone very close to me has cancer. This person received 15 weeks of employment insurance and is now living off their meagre savings because they are not eligible for last-resort assistance. The government could have implemented some sort of measure to ensure that this person had access to EI throughout their treatment, but no, it chose not to. Instead, the government dipped into the EI fund and is using that money to balance the budget.

They are not the first to have done that. When the Martin-Chrétien duo came to power, 60% of unemployed workers could get employment insurance. We pay premiums, as do employers, to help unemployed workers during their unemployment so they can have the time they need to find work. Back then, 60% of those people had access to employment insurance.

When the Conservatives came to power, the rate was 46%. The Liberals had already chipped away at that margin because they filched $50 billion from the employment insurance surplus. We need to remember that. The election is coming soon.

That funny guy over there talked about the middle class. What does he know about the middle class? When has he ever lost his job and waited a month for his first employment insurance cheque, unable to pay his power bill or his rent? He does not know the first thing about that. The only people who have been through that are the people around me, the people who belong to the only party that stands up for ordinary people who have had actual ordinary people problems.

Right now, what percentage of people have access to employment insurance? It has dropped to 38% under the wonderful Conservatives, who also balanced their budget using that money. The other thing they are going to do to balance their budget is scrounge money from federal employees' sick leave. I think that federal employees have really felt the pinch since the Conservatives have been in power. Some 19,000 jobs have been cut. People everywhere are working hard and burning out, so now what is the government doing? It is taking away their sick leave. That is no great achievement.

What would be an achievement is delivering a budget that cares about ordinary people and helps them get by, helps them get from one week to the next with enough money to cover their expenses. An achievement would be delivering a budget that includes measures to reduce people's indebtedness. Right now, people are going into debt because the big banks are taking advantage of them and interest rates are too high. We have to find a way to get out of the debt spiral, which is not good for anyone.

Now that I have finished my heated speech, I am available to answer questions.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will ask the member a couple of questions.

It is our Conservative government that has increased health and social transfers to provinces to historic highs all while balancing the budget. Unlike the Liberals, we did not balance the budget by slashing transfers.

If NDP members are serious about health care, will they support budget 2015? More importantly, if NDP members are serious about helping seniors, will they support measures in the budget, like the companion care benefits and the change to the RRIFs?

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, contrary to what my colleague across the way claims, health care transfers for the next 10 years will be cut by $36 billion. The percentage increase in health transfers does not match the percentage increase in health care costs. The provinces are headed straight into a brick wall.

Canadians need a government that recognizes this. We in the NDP are committed to maintaining health transfers at 6%, which will allow the provincial health care systems to survive the situation.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question follows in the same vein as the last question.

It is baffling to me that the Conservative member asked if the NDP would support the RRIFs as well as the increase in the time from six weeks to six months for EI compassionate care benefits, because both of these proposals came from the NDP. We brought them forward and when they came to a vote, the Conservatives voted against them. Now the Conservatives have included these proposals in the budget, among a plethora of other things. These are two of the good things in the budget, and yes, they are good things that came from the NDP.

I would like my hon. colleague to comment on some of the other good measures that are NDP proposals that are in this budget.

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I dare say that the only good measures in this budget came from the NDP.

This morning in committee, we met with the Parliamentary Budget Officer and we were examining TFSAs. Have Canadians been saving more since TFSAs were introduced? Canadians are not saving more. There has been an increase in tax-free savings primarily among the 15% of the population who reach the maximum. However, there has been no increase overall. There has been a shift in savings. Savings that used to be placed in other kinds of funds are being redirected to TFSAs. However, there has been no net gain in savings. On the contrary, the Governor of the Bank of Canada said that the household debt ratio is rising and will continue to rise.

Clearly, this is merely an election-minded measure, although it is not fooling anyone. What we want is a budget that really helps people in need.

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge the member's comments, but he was asked a question by my colleague about health care spending specifically, and I would like to understand the NDP's math. I would like to understand how an increase in health care transfers, which is what our government has scheduled in the foreseeable future, an increase every year, could be somehow interpreted by the NDP as being a decrease. We have to get beyond the party's talking points and get to the math. Apparently the NDP has a little trouble with math because the reality is there is an increase.

In fact, in Alberta, it is a 145% increase in transfers from the federal government to the provincial government, a two-and-a-half-times increase since we came to office in 2006. By anybody's math, that is an increase, and that will continue with an increase every year.

I would like to understand the NDP's math when the NDP says that somehow this federal government has reduced or will reduce health care transfers to the provinces, because it is not true.