Debates of April 29th, 2015

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Joyce Bateman, Conservative, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I find it so interesting that the member is referring to this as a bogus budget. Maybe it is a bogus budget because it does not balance itself.

It has balanced itself because we have made prudent, responsible choices, just as hard-working Canadians have to with their own budgets. We have made those decisions over the past number of years, and we are back in balance. We were very responsible with the stimulus program when it was required for the economy and, as a consequence of those investments, we came out ahead of all of the countries in the G7.

Now, we are back in balance. There is nothing bogus about it.

To my hon. opponent's comment about the middle class, the middle class is benefiting from TFSAs. Some 11 million Canadians are benefiting from TFSAs. Just under 50% of them make less than $42,000 a year. I believe that $42,000 a year is a living wage, but it is not grand wealth.

The Liberals would take that away from people who are being responsible and who are saving. That is help to the middle class.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure and privilege of sharing my time with the talented and passionate member for Edmonton—Strathcona.

From the outset, I would like to say that I am biased. I love young people. I love their energy, their curiosity and their enthusiasm. I love their ideals, their desire to build a more just society and a greener planet where they can achieve their full potential, a society in keeping with their aspirations. I love young people because I was young once and I identify with their desire to build a fair society where no one is left behind.

I am rising in the House today to speak to budget 2015, which was presented with great fanfare last week. Nevertheless, this budget does not include an overall vision to mitigate the ills of our society, transform our economy into a successful economy worthy of 21st century or deal with climate change and the growing inequality in our society.

While greenhouse gas emissions in Canada are increasing and inequality is growing, an OECD report indicates that the gap between Canada's rich and poor is continuing to grow. According to the OECD's analysis, Canada had the fourth-largest increase in inequality over the past two decades. Budget 2015 and the budget before that will only make matters worse.

The OECD report is not the only analysis of Canada's growing income gap. A study published in September 2014 by The Conference Board of Canada found that income inequality has been rising more rapidly in Canada than in the U.S. since the mid-nineties. This research in 18 countries found that Canada had the fourth largest increase in inequality between the mid-nineties and late 2000s.

In July, I organized an informal meeting with young leaders in LaSalle—Émard. They shared their concerns about their future, the challenge of balancing work and school, limited job options, and especially the instability of those jobs. They talked about the big issues, such as protecting the environment, inequality, the international situation and the need for electoral reform. They admitted to having little interest in politics because the message does not resonate with them. The recently tabled 2015 budget will do nothing to spark their interest. I hope that it will arouse their indignation.

Let us look at what our young people are facing. According to Statistics Canada, in 2013, the unemployment rate among youth aged 15 to 24 was 13.7%. That puts Canada behind other developed nations and is double the unemployment rate among workers aged 25 to 54, which is 5.4%.

In 2014, we had 387,000 young people who could not find jobs. That situation represents only part of the problem, particularly if we consider the fact that these statistics do not include people who are underemployed or young people who have become discouraged and stopped looking for work.

In my riding, LaSalle—Émard, the numbers are even more disturbing. In 2013, the youth unemployment rate was 15%, well above the national average of 8.2%.

The high rate of unemployment and underemployment is the result of a complex social problem that has to do with things like the lack of training to meet labour market needs, mobility challenges, the lack of subsidy programs for employers, the shortage of paid training, and the lack of high-quality, well-paying jobs, among other things.

Some of the measures in the budget reflect the NDP's wishes, but far too few. For example, we support the renewed funding for young entrepreneurs through the Futurpreneur Canada program, even though that funding has been reduced.

We are pleased that the government listened to the NDP and extended basic workplace protection to unpaid interns, and we look forward to finding out more about that.

Some other measures are a step in the right direction, but do not go far enough to alleviate student debt or give students the opportunity to be debt-free.

We are seeing a growing gap between the generations, and as the NDP leader said, we are leaving a growing economic, ecological and social debt to future generations.

The budget does not respond to the request by student associations, which called on the government to take action to reduce the massive increase in student debt, except for the announced reduction in the expected parental contribution under the Canada Student Loans needs assessment process. This does not provide any direct help to students, and no details have been provided.

According to the Canadian Federation of Students, the federal budget will “put nearly 200,000 students into deeper debt”. An article in Maclean's magazine says, “measures will mean larger Canada Student Loan amounts awarded to borrowers. For kids in lower income families...it’s unlikely this change will do much to encourage them to think about higher education”.

Faced with a mortgaged future, young people between the ages of 18 and 35 are looking for ways to fully participate in society in keeping with their aspirations.

The role of the federal government is to create favourable conditions by making strategic investments to diversify the economy and create 21st century jobs in growth sectors, such as the green technology, high-tech and research sectors.

Young people must also be able to count on public policy to reduce intergenerational inequality so that they can be assured of a dignified retirement and accessible, universal health care. If we do nothing to change the situation, future generations will have huge challenges to address, including the aging population, climate change and increased inequality.

Budget 2015 and the austerity budgets of the past 20 years have only served to reduce the public sphere's ability to mitigate the negative effects of an unbridled market economy. Canada's young people will need all of their imagination and creativity to clean up that mess.

The NDP is the only party that is proposing practical solutions to make life more affordable and reduce inequality through progressive public policies. We believe that the government has a role to play in building a more just, greener and more prosperous Canada where no one is left behind and future generations can thrive.

[Emmanuel Dubourg, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech, which I listened to with great interest. Given that we are talking about the budget, she focused quite a bit on youth employment. However, the Conservatives' budget mostly favours the rich, and even the Minister of Finance was unable to say how many jobs this budget will create.

My colleague also spoke about the high youth unemployment rate. Whether we are talking about her riding of LaSalle—Émard, my riding or other areas of Canada, the youth unemployment rate is extremely high.

What does the member think about the fact that the Conservative Party is spending millions of dollars on partisan advertising when it could be using that money to create jobs for young people?

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the member acknowledged that youth underemployment and unemployment are a tragedy for Canada. We are losing a human resource because it is not achieving its full potential. It is a great loss for Canada.

To spend millions of dollars on advertising is frivolous. This government has done this a number of times. That is unfortunate. That is not a strategic investment in job creation across Canada. The federal government represents all regions of Canada and must put in place conditions that foster job creation in every sector of activity.

We are lucky because our economy is diversified, but we need to create the jobs of the future and be innovative and determined so that Canada becomes a leader in the fight against climate change and in research and development. We can do it because our youth are well educated, and they have to be able to contribute to our society.

[Joyce Bateman, Conservative, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member gave a rounding speech, saying only the NDP could deliver. It is clearly not happy with our budget.

Would she comment on the fact that federal transfer payments have reached historic levels under this Conservative government, nearly $68 billion right now? That is a 62% increase since we formed government. All of this was done while we balanced the budget, while we cut taxes for families and businesses and while we were being responsible. What is wrong with that? We are helping Canadians and cutting taxes.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that we have an infrastructure deficit and that we have fallen far behind in adapting to climate change. We are seriously behind. This budget will make it even harder for governments to tackle these challenges.

We have huge health-related challenges, such as the aging population. My colleague mentioned transfers, but the government has actually rolled back those transfers. There are huge challenges. The government and this budget are making it harder for our country to tackle these challenges.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague for LaSalle—Émard is a phenomenal representative in the House. It is an honour to work with her.

It is my pleasure to speak to Motion No. 18, the 2015-16 budget.

With rising income disparity, the Canadian government is faced with clear choices: to implement fiscal measures to address that disparity, or not; and to choose to genuinely support economic diversification, or not. Disappointingly, based on the budget bill, it is clear the Conservative government has chosen the later path in both instances.

There is some good news for middle-class Canadians in this budget. As recommended by the NDP, there will be a gradual small business tax cut from 11% to 9%. Also recommended by the NDP is the extension of the EI benefit to care for sick or dying relatives, from six weeks to six months.

It is commendable that the government does sometimes listen to the opposition. Still, unfortunately, there is no willingness to restore the right to claim OAS or GIS benefits at age 65, as CARP, the NDP and many others have sought, and no action on the requested increase in CPP benefits.

While some appreciate the non-refundable tax credit for renovations for seniors and handicapped, according to the Canadian Alliance of United Seniors, only those with the means to pay upfront for renovations will benefit the most, meaning more would have benefited from a refundable tax credit. Those seniors fortunate to have invested in RRSPs and then converted to RRIFs will benefit from the lessened duty to withdraw amounts per year. Unfortunately, many have no RRSPs or RRIFs.

Bad news for struggling families is that the budget provides grossly inequitable tax benefits, including raising the annual limit for tax-free savings account deposits to $10,000 a year, which clearly will assist only those with that scale of surplus income. While many managed to contribute $5,000, doubling that is doubtful for the many facing record household debt. The Parliamentary Budget Officer projects the cost at $1.3 billion this year alone and by 2060, a loss of almost $15 billion a year to the Canadian revenue. Thus there will be a loss to programs meeting the needs of most families.

According to Rob Carrick of The Globe and Mail, the national conversation on personal finance has been hijacked by the tax-free savings account offer. Rising household debt, in his view, is the bigger issue. He has reported that while government is lauding its balanced budget, a record number of households are sinking in family debt. The growth in debt is exceeding salary and wages by a 163% ratio. The opportunity to contribute even more to a tax-free savings account is a luxury prospect for far too few.

Among the clearest evidence that the Conservative government chose to reward the wealthy is the spousal income splitting measure, a multi-billion dollar windfall for the 10% wealthiest Canadians. This year alone, $2.4 billion will be diverted from federal revenues for this privileged group. In each of the next five years, $2 billion more will be lost from revenue, with a grand total of a $12 billion loss from programs that benefit all Canadians.

What potential programs are lost or promises broken? There will be no new money for home care; no new national pharmacare program; no national senior strategy on health care supported by the Canadian Medical Association; no national housing strategy; and despite a decade of promises, zero dollars to create critically needed, affordable child care spaces.

Despite the great hullabaloo, actual delivery of the monies for many programs is being delayed for up to two to four years, well past the next election, which is perhaps not a minor factor in enabling a balanced budget this year. The government is simply delaying major expenditures into future parliaments, despite the critical need and in face of the fact that the cost for delivery will inevitably rise, particularly for infrastructure.

Ninety-five per cent of Canadians think investment in public transit is important. Commitments to long-term transit funding was called for and then welcomed by the FCM and the mayors. However, an increasing number of municipal leaders are now expressing concern that no clear monetary commitment has been made to entrench a permanent transit fund or a proportion of federal dollars transfer. Far more is needed to address the critical and growing need for public transit. The government is forcing cities to pursue private financing agreements through P3s, whether they like it or not.

Concerns with infrastructure funding are even greater, as funds over the next three years will be cut by 87%. Only 25% of the money is to be allocated to cities before 2019. No new money is budgeted to assist municipalities in complying with the new federal regulations on wastewater and therefore, there will be implications for the environment.

The $150 million announced for mortgage relief for social and co-operative housing will enable repairs. That is welcomed, yet over the next 25 years, $1.7 billion in housing funding will expire, putting social housing in jeopardy. No new money is committed for new affordable housing and there is no commitment to a long-term stable funding program for housing.

Economic diversity is the major topic in my province these days. The government has a clear choice to make in the path it chooses to diversify our economy. For manufacturing, the budget offers some limited support, including extended accelerated capital cost write-offs for another 10 years. Astoundingly, the Conservatives are decreasing transfers for western economic diversification despite widespread calls in my province of Alberta to end the over-reliance on the oil-based economy. Many long-tenured oil workers seeking assistance for work are saying they want out of the boom-and-bust roller-coaster ride of the oil sector.

EI claims in Alberta are 72.9% higher than last year. There is a 30% increase in EI claims the past two months straight. Alberta is experiencing the highest unemployment rate since 2009, projecting almost 20,000 jobs lost alone in drilling activity.

Limited immediate support is offered to our universities, colleges and technical schools for science, research and education, despite the contribution they make not only to direct employment, including for students and in creating our workforce of the future, but also as contributors to the economy in advances in science, research and education.

As with many programs, the budgeted $46 million new funds for the granting council budgets will not actually flow until 2016 or 2017. There is a continuing trend to limit federal research and innovation dollars, including the NSERC grants to those who garner matching industry partners or for projects that create long-term economic advantages.

That undervalues the contributions of the universities and technical schools in my riding to pure scientific research, to breakthroughs in combatting disease, including diabetes, to addressing pollution, and to developments in physics, chemistry, and so forth. The $1.33 billion for the Canada Foundation for Innovation research is spread over six years, and is delayed again until 2017-18. As this fund simply keeps being reannounced under new names, it is not clear how much of the money is actually new money.

Only $3 million is assigned to the Council of Canadian Academies, which has done stellar work on our behalf. Preference is given to innovative enterprises garnering endorsements from favoured major corporations. For example, western economic diversification has favoured the defence industry over support to the burgeoning renewable sector.

So many apply each year for support to provide summer employment for students, including many university research jobs. So many are turned down. A small increase could provide valuable work experience for our youth.

Other concerns voiced to me about how the government is delivering a balanced budget include the decision to withdraw $2 billion from the contingency fund. People ask me what happens if there is another major flood or record forest fires in Alberta or other provinces or territories. There is a decade of cutting front-line services. More bad news, not clearly revealed to Canadians, includes the imminent cuts to health care transfers starting in 2016-17, moving from the 6% escalator to 3%.

In the brief time remaining, I want to mention there are no new benefits for veterans, no money for missing and murdered women, and no new money for aboriginal education or benefits.

Despite the continuing claims of responsible resource development balancing development and environmental protection, there is zero money to support the participation of Canadians in major resource project reviews. Climate change is not even mentioned in the budget. That is absolutely reprehensible. Even the oil and gas sector is asking the government to step up to the plate and address our climate issues and to address the fact that it has not dealt with first nations claims.

Why is there no support for any businesses, communities and first nations wanting to pursue a cleaner, more affordable, sustainable future? It is a matter of choice.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we have seen develop over the last number of days after the Minister of Finance actually tabled his budget a lot of assertions in terms of this being a bogus balanced budget.

There was the sale of GM shares in order to get a balance and dipping into the contingency fund, for example. We have seen a great deal of unfairness in terms of the TFSAs and income splitting. Both are very controversial.

There are many controversial issues related to the budget, yet since the minister actually tabled the budget, he has refused to stand in his place during question period to answer any questions whatsoever related to his budget. This might be a first in Canadian history.

I wonder if the member would like to comment on the responsibility the Minister of Finance has in terms of being held accountable here inside the chamber for presenting his budget, and why she believes he does not have the political courage to actually answer questions related to this budget.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, while I appreciate the member's focus on the Minister of Finance, to tell the truth, I spread the blame across the cabinet and the backbenchers, including the backbenchers and the cabinet ministers from my province of Alberta. The responsibility falls on all the members on the government side of this place for failing to deliver on these important matters. They stood by and allowed the government to balance the budget by simply not transferring money now, but in two to four years from now, to address the most critical needs faced by my constituents and theirs, such as transit, health care, opportunity for education, giving our aboriginal Canadians equal opportunity within our country.

Yes, the Minister of Finance should defend his budget, but it is just as important that the other ministers defend how they are underspending in their portfolios and going in the wrong direction when it comes to priorities for our country.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I just heard the member opposite talk about how critical health care is.

If we think about the fact that our health care dollars and the federal transfers have just been increasing constantly, the dollars that are being spent in Alberta are actually going down. How could the member, coming from Alberta, speak about that, trying to perpetuate this myth that is coming from the NDP that health care in Alberta, or throughout this country, has not been increasingly improved because of our Conservative government and our not doing the types of things that the Liberals did, which was to balance budgets on the backs of our communities?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member from Alberta raising that question. Absolutely, for my constituents and likely my colleague across the way's constituents, health care is top of mind in Alberta. There has been a lot of fear for quite some time, because of the Conservative government in Alberta, that they might have privatized or two-tier health care. It is very clear, and the government has said so in its own budget, it is going to be reducing the escalator from 6% to 3% into the future. That is a reduction in transfer any way we cut it. It is going to be based on the GDP growth. That is a threat to potential transfers.

The concern is our health care costs are rising. Yes, the government has been increasing the transfers and so it should, so any government should. However, where is the support for innovation? We keep doing all these pilot projects. Let us give some support to actually implement those innovations. Let us bring together the federal, provincial, territorial and first nations health ministers, and have a dialogue on bringing back an overall national plan on health care, a health accord like we used to have, long-term commitment with everybody's input on the future of our health care.

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time this afternoon with the very distinguished member for Macleod. I look forward to his remarks.

It is a pleasure today to rise to speak to budget 2015.

As members know, I chair the Standing Committee on Finance. Each fall we engage in prebudget consultations. This past year we received submissions from 430 Canadian individuals and organizations. We heard from about 100 organizations and individuals at committee in the fall. We submitted our 47 recommendations to Parliament in December, and we are very pleased to see that many of these recommendations made their way into this budget.

The budget has three themes: supporting jobs and growth, helping families and communities prosper, and ensuring the security of Canadians.

I want to take this opportunity to try to address as many of the specific measures as I can, starting with supporting jobs and growth. The first thing I want to mention is that we have provided manufacturers a 10-year tax incentive to boost productivity-enhancing investments. This was very welcomed by the manufacturing sector and Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters. Jay Myers has done an outstanding job leading that organization and fighting for that sector. Many of us go back a long way in this House. I am going back to the industry committee that was studying that sector in 2006-07. We tabled our report in 2007. It recommended a five-year period for a 50% straight-line depreciation. It was put in the 2007 budget for a two-year period and kept being extended for a two-year period. However, the government has very wisely put in place a 10-year window so that manufacturers across this country can build on that.

I want to quote from Alberta's Industrial Heartland Association, which applauds the Government of Canada's budget initiative. It states:

New investment in the manufacturing sector is expected as a result of a long term tax credit announced in the Government of Canada’s 2015 Budget. Alberta’s Industrial Heartland Association commends this initiative. The program provides long term certainty to industry and helps boost Canada’s global competitiveness to attract new investment.

That is very good news for that sector.

The second item I want to highlight is supporting world-class advanced research. The previous member spoke about this. I do not know what budget she is reading if we read all of the budgets presented by this finance minister and the previous one. In this one there is an additional $1.3 billion over six years for the Canada Foundation for Innovation, an additional $46 million per year to the three granting councils, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, providing funding for basic research, for researchers to do what they do best in terms of supporting that basic research at the university and college level across this country.

Other initiatives in the research area is partnering with Mitacs in support of graduate level industrial research and development internships. A lot of this is geared to supporting the National Research Council so that we not only generate good basic research here in Canada, but we can actually commercialize it. We can translate that good idea into a commercial success, which has been a challenge for this country in the past.

The next area is supporting small businesses. We have reduced the small business tax rate from 11% to 9%. This builds on the reductions in the tax rates we have done for businesses of all sizes. We have reduced the small business tax rate already from 12% to 11%. We have increased the amount that a business can earn from $300,000 to $500,000 before it pays the higher tax rate of 15%. We have encouraged provinces across this country to adopt a 10% rate. The larger businesses pay a 25% rate, but for small businesses the rate is 9%. That is exceptionally good news for these generators of jobs.

The second item I want to highlight is that we are providing $14 million over two years to Futurpreneur Canada in support of young entrepreneurs. Going back to the work of our finance committee, this was recommendation 46.

In terms of training a highly skilled workforce and focusing on students, there are two policies I want to highlight. We are making the Canada student loans program work for families by reducing the expected parental contribution, and we are eliminating in-study student income from the Canada student loans program needs assessment process. This is based on recommendation 13. I want to commend the student organization CASA for bringing this forward year after year as a policy idea to our committee and to the government.

The previous speaker spoke of a lack of investment in public transit. Again, I am not sure what documents the member is reading, because this budget provides an additional $750 million over two years starting in 2017-18, and $1 billion per year ongoing thereafter for a new and innovative public transit fund. The mayor of Edmonton, Don Iveson, has pushed for this for years and was very pleased to see this recommendation in our budget.

The next item I want to mention is something that was actually identified before the budget. It is providing accelerated capital cost allowance treatment for assets used in facilities that liquify natural gas. Obviously, this is very important for our colleagues from British Columbia, but it would have benefits across the country if we were able to competitively locate some of these facilities here in Canada.

The next item is extending employment insurance compassionate care benefits from six weeks to six months to better support Canadians caring for gravely ill family members. This is an excellent idea and there is an excellent policy in place, but the government recognizes that this needs to be extended for people in this situation. Therefore, I am very pleased to see this in the budget as well.

The next item I want to mention in this area is the proposed change to reduce the minimum withdrawal factors for registered retirement income funds. I did a town hall in Edmonton with about 150 seniors who all raised this with me. It is a fact that Canadians are living longer. It is a good news story. Canadians are living longer and if they do not need to they should not be forced to withdraw at the rates they are currently forced to withdraw. Right now, they convert their RRSP to a RRIF at age 71 and start the mandatory withdrawal rates at age 72. All of the RRIF has to be converted at age of 94. The proposed change was based on finance recommendation no. 11. This would allow seniors, if they are in a position to, to preserve more of their income in that form if they are living longer and to better enable them to care for themselves in their retirement. This is a good news policy. It was proposed by a number of organizations at the committee, so this is something we recommended. We are very pleased to see it in the budget as well.

The next item would introduce a new home accessibility tax credit for seniors and persons with disabilities that would help with the cost of ensuring their homes remain safe, secure and accessible. This is another excellent policy.

I want to move on to the issue of health care. The health care issue has been mentioned by some members on the other side. I am very pleased to see the mandate of the Mental Health Commission of Canada would be renewed for another 10 years. This is a very positive item. We heard in committee from various witnesses about the importance of the commission. Dennis Anderson, who very much works on the commission, lives in my riding. He does excellent work. He was obviously very pleased as well to see the extension.

As a member who sponsored a motion on Alzheimer's, I was very pleased to see the next item. The budget would provide up to $42 million over five years, starting in 2015-16, to help improve seniors' health through innovation by establishing the Canadian centre for aging and brain health innovation. I was very pleased to see that, and I want to thank the Minister of Health for that action item as well.

In July of last year I had the opportunity, with the hon. member for Markham, to tour Ghana with Engineers Without Borders. It is an organization that does an outstanding job in its development work. We had such an educational period there. I commend all the, primarily young, people who dedicate so much of their lives to all types of international development. Whether financing initiatives, helping a local government or helping a property tax reform, we spent a very impressive time there. One of the recommendations this organization has been making is to establish a development finance initiative to support effective international development by providing financing, technical assistance and business advisory services to firms operating in developing countries. It was the idea of Engineers Without Borders. It was an excellent idea, and I am so pleased to see it in the budget. I have to say, my colleague from Markham was an excellent travelling companion as well.

In terms of balancing the budget, this was something we committed to back in 2009. The then-finance minister, Jim Flaherty, said the government was committed to balancing the budget over the medium term. That is exactly what we have done this year by balancing this budget. We have done so while increasing funding for provincial governments, for health care, education, social assistance, seniors benefits and family benefits. We have done so by reducing discretionary federal expenditures of $70 billion, between 5% and 10%. We have done so in a very responsible way.

I want to encourage members on all sides to support the budget and I look forward to their questions.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of my friend opposite, but one of the things that his finance minister said, and I am quite alarmed by it, is that in fact it will be our grandchildren who would have to suffer the consequences of this very short-sighted budget. In fact, they will be able to fix the problems, I guess is what he said.

The question for the member opposite is, given that this budget would in fact short-change the federal treasury by some $17 billion in the next 20-25 years, how does he propose to recoup that money given that, in addition to short-changing the budget by $17 billion, it would also continue the Conservative and Liberal trend away from taxes on capital gains and on corporations and over to taxes on working people, on ordinary, middle-class people? That is how the current government sees the tax system increasing. If we need another $17 billion, where is it going to come from?

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have to tell the member that is not what the Minister of Finance said, at all, and he knows that. He knows that very well.

The reality is this government is committed to reducing taxes. This government has reduced taxes for businesses, for families, for seniors, for individuals. We have reduced taxes because we believe Canadians work very hard and deserve to keep more of their own income for their priorities, whether it is raising their family, whether it is providing for an education, whether it is saving for their own retirement. That is a fundamental, philosophical distinction between this side and the other side of the House. We are very proud of the fact that we have reduced taxes for Canadians in all forms.

The other thing I want to point out, though, is that in terms of balancing the budget, we did not do what previous governments did. We did not reduce health care funding. We did not eviscerate certain departments. Funding for provincial transfers has gone up markedly-: 6% year over year for health care, 3% year over year for education and social assistance. Family benefits have gone up, seniors' benefits have gone up, and we continued that, at the same time, and frankly during a period of modest economic growth, we have balanced the budget. That is a true achievement and something of which I am very proud and of which everybody in this House should be very proud.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that this concept of the Prime Minister's grandchild being worried is alleviated because the Parliamentary Budget Officer has said that so few people would be able to avail themselves of this $10,000 that it would not be such a burden upon the government. However, that is just a sign that it is catering quasi-exclusively to the rich.

On a more positive note, I would like to agree with my colleague that we really admired Engineers Without Borders. He said the people were relatively young--he is younger than me, but I think every single one of them was under 30--and doing fantastic work over there, and I am pleased that the budget would be able to support them.

Finally, I understand his city is sometimes referred to as “Redmonton”. Is he not a bit nervous that his whole city, at the provincial level, seems about to be overwhelmed by the NDP?

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

I am not sure if that relates to the matter at hand, but I will go to the member for Edmonton—Leduc.

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure of the relevance of the last question. I will leave it to the voters of Alberta, next Tuesday, to decide what colour our city shall be.

With respect to tax-free savings accounts, my friend and I have some very strong disagreements. I think this is the greatest innovation, in terms of retirement savings, since the RRSP was introduced. I think, in some ways, it is even better than the RRSP, in the sense that it encourages savings. It is not a tax benefit right up front, but people pay the tax. It is after-tax income, which is often not mentioned by the other side of the House. It is after-tax income. Canadians pay the tax. They put some money away in investments. Those investments generate innovation jobs because it is in all sorts of companies.

It is interesting that they say only one in three Canadians have these. I actually heard a member on the opposite side say that. Eleven million accounts have been opened. Eleven million Canadians. One out of three Canadians is actually a very high number, a very good number. We certainly hope that number goes up. Again, it goes to that philosophical difference. This allows Canadians to keep more of their hard-earned money after they pay the tax, to prepare for their own retirement, to prepare for an education upgrade, to prepare to move into a bigger home for their family. That is what governments should be doing.

I just want to finish up by saying that I completely agree with my hon. friend that Engineers Without Borders is an outstanding organization. I was so impressed by these young people who could be in Canada, making an awful lot more money, but who are dedicating so many of their productive years to helping those who are less fortunate than we are. I would certainly agree with him on that point.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity today to rise in the debate on the federal budget, economic action plan 2015. Today, I am going to focus the bulk of my comments on the benefits that this budget would have for Canadian families.

First, though, I want to note that our government made a promise to Canadians. I made a promise to the residents of Macleod. Our government promised Canadians that we would balance our budget by 2015, and I am proud to stand in the House today and say that under the guidance of the Prime Minister, we have fulfilled that promise. Economic action plan 2015 is a balanced budget. This is the result of hard work, commitment and a prudent fiscal approach to government.

The Conservative approach has reduced the deficit from $55.6 billion at the height of the global recession to a projected surplus of $1.4 billion in 2015-16. Canada is the first country in the G7 to be able to balance its budget since the global recession in 2008.

Balancing the budget is essential, not only because it instills confidence in our economy and allows us to turn our attention to paying down our debt, but, perhaps most importantly, it is what Canadians have told us that they wanted. They want sound fiscal management and they want assurance that the tax dollars of hard-working Canadian families are being spent wisely. Canadians are confident that our Conservative government is utilizing tax dollars in the most effective manner.

How are we doing this? We are doing this by balancing our budget, ensuring vital social and infrastructure programs are funded and, most importantly, by leaving more tax dollars in the pockets of those who know how to use it best: hard-working Canadians. Our economic action plan is built on smart, long-term fiscal planning and, as a result, we can not only table a balanced budget, but we can provide funding for communities in need. These are funds such as the new building Canada plan, the longest and largest infrastructure program in Canadian history. I am very proud to say that there is also the $750-million annual contribution to the innovative public transit fund, something that municipalities across the country have been asking for for years. It is something that they are very impressed to have in this budget.

All Canadians, including my constituents in Macleod, would benefit from this budget. I am sure that many of the people here share a similar story, but my wife and I both work very hard. To be honest, we have often struggled just to make ends meet, especially when we were raising a young family. Families across the country share this story. They can find it difficult paying for their children's activities, child care, or the other necessities of life. It is with this in mind that I am proud that our economic action plan includes various tax credits geared toward helping hard-working Canadian families make ends meet. These tax credits would help 100% of Canadian families with children.

Among these tax credits is the enhanced universal child care benefit. This means almost $2,000 per year for each child under 7, and $720 per year for each child between 7 and 17. The universal child care benefit provides families with the flexibility that they need to meet their child care needs, whether they are families on shift work, those who have family help or those who are in communities where traditional day care is not always easily accessible.

Families can choose how to use these funds to address their child care needs how they see fit. Unlike what the NDP would have us believe, child care is not a one size fits all issue, nor is it best served by a multi-billion dollar bureaucracy that would only benefit 10% of Canadian families.

Another program of which I am very proud is the expansion of the child fitness tax credit. I recall quite vividly when the fitness tax credit was first introduced and how much it helped my wife and I pay for our kids' sports, including volleyball, soccer and hockey. It made a big difference to my family. It is critical to keep our kids healthy and active and now, by doubling the child's fitness tax credit to $1,000 per child and making it refundable, it ensures that even more families will be able to keep their kids healthy and happy.

As I said earlier, I have three children, and I understand the costs of post-secondary education. Speaking with my own kids and with students, they expressed the importance of making student loans more accessible. In budget 2015, we have also included several initiatives to improve student grants and loans. These initiatives include expanding eligibility, reducing expected parental contribution and an important change of removing the financial aid penalty for students working while studying. This would allow students to have some hard-earned and much needed spending dollars while they are attending school without impacting their student loans.

We have expanded the eligibility for the Canada student grants, made significant investments in post-secondary education to remove financial barriers and to streamline the Canada student loans program. We have also expanded the eligibility for low and middle-income Canada student grants.

In addition, one program which is going to be very successful is the Canada apprenticeship loan program. Canadians participating in the apprenticeship loan program will be eligible for $4,000 in an interest-free loan per training session. They can use these dollars to help pay for a mortgage, put food on the table, buy tools or anything that they may need while they are attending school.

This will ensure Canadians have the financial support they need as they pursue a red seal trade. This is an important initiative because these trades address the critical need for the skilled labour we need across Canada.

We have also made it a priority to pass along the benefits to Canadian seniors. We recognize they have put years into supporting our communities. After all, they have built this country. It is our turn to give back and make their lives more comfortable.

In meeting with seniors over the last few months, one issue arose again and again. Thankfully, they are living longer, but as a result, they need the savings they put away to last.

Again, our government listened and we are reducing the minimum withdrawal factors for registered retirement income funds, RRIFs. This, in combination with pension income-splitting, is enabling seniors to preserve more of their retirement savings.

We have introduced a new home accessibility tax credit for seniors and people with disabilities.

This credit will help seniors with the costs of ensuring their homes remain safe, accessible and tailored to their needs. This will allow them to stay in their homes, in their communities close to their friends, family and that important social network.

Over the past few weeks I have had the opportunity to meet with residents across southern Alberta to discuss our family tax credits, financial assistance for students, seniors and veterans, enhancing the tax-free savings account, extending the compassionate care benefits and our small business tax reductions.

The response I have had from Canadians could not be clearer. They are ecstatic with the programs our government is implementing and it helps them to cover the costs of raising a family.

I must admit I am disappointed with the opposition members and how they have misrepresented some of these tax credits. For example, they have called enhancing the tax-free savings account and reducing taxes to small business as gifts for the wealthy and tax handouts. I want to make this very clear. The benefits of budget 2015 are not rhetoric. As much as they like to deny it, they are a reality.

Since 2006 our government has implemented changes that will provide tax relief and increased benefits of up to $6,600 in 2015 for a typical two-earner family of four. These are a result of initiatives such as the family tax cut, universal child care benefit and the cut in the GST, which have reduced the federal tax burden on Canadians to its lowest level in 50 years.

Canadians at all income levels are benefiting from the tax relief introduced by our government with low and middle-income Canadians receiving proportionately greater relief.

For example, in this budget, we have increased the limit for the tax-free savings account from $5,500 to $10,000.

There are 11 million Canadians who have a tax-free savings account and 60% of those who had maxed out their TFSA were earning $60,000 or less per year and of those almost 25% earning between $20,000 and $40,000 annually. Do we really consider that a gift for the wealthy?

On the contrary, I see that as making a choice. I look at that as saving for my first house, maybe putting some money away for my child's education or ensuring I have funds set aside for my retirement. It is their money. It is not the government's money. They should be able to spend it or save it.

It was taxed when they earned it and unlike the opposition, I do not believe we should be taxing them again when they choose to save it.

Simply, I urge all hon. members of the House to support economic action plan 2015. It is built on sound financial planning which will allow Canadians to keep more money in their pockets, right where it belongs, right where it will help drive our economy, create jobs and ensure continued growth and prosperity for all Canadians.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

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

I would like to correct one thing. He said that 60% of people have maxed out their TFSAs, but the real number is 16%. That is important, because it shows that just 16% of those who currently contribute will be able to contribute beyond the current $5,500 limit. I think we should be accurate here. I am sure he said what he did in good faith, but 60% of people do not max out their TFSAs right now; it is just 16%.

Furthermore, my colleague from Macleod, like most Conservative members, obviously boasts about having balanced the budget. However, it should be noted that this was largely achieved by selling GM shares and using the surplus in the EI fund.

I would like to quote the current Minister of Finance's predecessor, Jim Flaherty. This is what he said in The Globe and Mail and other media outlets in 2013:

We do not take EI funds and use them to balance the budget. That's what the Liberals did.

Why is the government now using the EI fund surplus to actually balance the budget?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, first, I will clarify the TFSA. There are 11 million Canadians who have invested in a TFSA and of those 11 million, 60% of them have maxed out their TFSAs or 60% are making $60,000 or less. I want to ensure that is very clear. That is definitely not something that is going to benefit just the wealthy. If we are talking about wealthy families as those making $60,000 or less, that is quite disingenuous.

We balanced this budget by making smart choices. We made long-term, prudent financial decisions. We decreased discretionary spending between 5% and 8%. Those are the things we have done to make these decisions possible, not only by balancing a budget but also being able to provide these critical tax credits to Canadian families, tax credits that are going to benefit 100% of Canadian families with children, a tax reduction for small businesses that will create jobs and ensure long-term prosperity for Canadians and Canadian businesses, and continue to drive our economy.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, Winnipeg North is a very hard-working, middle class community and many aspire to get into the middle class. The member made reference to the TFSA and there is one question that I believe many of my constituents would put to the member based on his comments. There may be one individual making $45,000 to $50,000 and a second person in the same home may be making $30,000. They would not have $10,000 at the end of the year to put into a TFSA.

What percentage of individuals does he believe is going to be able to take full advantage of this tax option in this current budget who have incomes of less than $45,000 a year? How many does he believe will? What percentage? What is his best guesstimate? I am telling him it is a very low percentage who will be taking advantage of it the 2015 tax year.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the Liberals keep bringing up the TFSA and continue to make the argument that this will be a benefit just for the wealthy, but the statistics are quite obvious. Close to half of the 11 million Canadians who have TFSAs are making less than $60,000 a year. This is an option for them. Whether every Canadian takes advantage of it or not, the fact is that the option is there for them to make this investment.

Like I said, we have taxed these dollars on people's incomes. Why should we be taxing again when they are trying to save these dollars? This is an opportunity for them to put money away for their first home, a car, their child's education or to ensure that their retirement is going to be as comfortable as possible.

This gives Canadians the option and unlike what the opposition is saying, that this is just for the wealthy, the stats show that this is something that all Canadians are taking advantage of.

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member of Parliament for York South—Weston.

I begin my speech on the Conservative budget, my critique of the Conservative budget, by highlighting the fact that there are only five mentions of Newfoundland and Labrador in the entire 518-page document. As a representative of St. John's South—Mount Pearl, one of Newfoundland and Labrador's seven ridings, my priority is my riding and my province, and five mentions, one in a graph of crude oil prices, another in a statistic about pensions and the other three off-hand mentions is not near good enough.

My critique is both good and bad, but make no mistake, there is more bad. There always is with these Conservatives.

Not so much bad news as wrong Conservative priorities that are wrong for Canada. They are Conservative priorities that are changing the face of Canada. These are the Conservative priorities that put the wealthy first, the more affluent and influential first, and that is not who we are. It is not who we are as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. It is not who we are as Canadians. It is not who are, but it is who the current Conservative government wants us to become. We cannot let that happen. We will not let that happen.

First, I will go to a piece of good news for Newfoundland and Labrador, or what would appear on the surface to be good news.

In its budget, the Conservative government announced $5.7 million over five years to help secure new markets for Canadian seal products. That is good news. It is welcome news on the surface. Let me put that news in the context of where the sealing industry is today.

We have a $5.7 million pot to help secure new markets for seal products when, under the current Conservative government, we have seen the biggest collapse of world seal markets in our history. Under the current Conservative government, seal products have been banned in Russia, the European Union, Belarus, Taiwan and Kazakhstan. Therefore, that $5.7 million for seal marketing is just a little late coming.

That money is also a little late coming when we consider Carino, a Newfoundland and Labrador company that is the largest buyer of seal pelts in Canada. Carino is not buying any seal pelts this year. Instead, it is going to rely on its inventory.

That $5.7 million is also a little late coming when we consider that the Canadian Sealers Association shut the doors of its St. John's office recently to reorganize because it was broke.

Better late than never with the $5.7 million for the sealing industry, I suppose. However, it is clear that the current Conservative government has no right to bill itself as a champion of the seal hunt because the facts do not support it.

Moving on, the Conservative budget is also incredibly worrisome from Newfoundland and Labrador's perspective because of what it does not mention. Red flags waved all across Newfoundland and Labrador in February when the government released the main estimates. As members know, the main estimates lay out the expected spending of the federal government in the coming fiscal year. The red flags were raised because the subsidy for Marine Atlantic, the crown corporation that runs the ferry link between Newfoundland and mainland Canada, has had its budget slashed.

Marine Atlantic's budget for the this fiscal year, according to those main estimates, has been set at $19.3 million, which is a massive drop from the $127 million last year and $154 million the year before that.

I asked the minister in this House before the budget was announced whether Marine Atlantic would receive full funding. The minister's response was to wait for the budget, only there was not a word mentioned about Marine Atlantic in the budget. There was not a whisper.

A gulf ferry link is guaranteed in Newfoundland's Terms of Union with Canada. If Marine Atlantic's budget is indeed set at $19.3 million for this fiscal year, it will amount to the lowest amount of funding the corporation has received from the federal government going back at least 15 years.

If Marine Atlantic's budget is indeed slashed, ferry rates are sure to rise. Why is that incredibly bad news, besides the obvious? It is incredibly bad news because 60% of all freight going into or out of my province does so on a Marine Atlantic ferry. Slashing the federal subsidy will jack up the rates, and increasing the ferry rates will drive up the price of everything.

What is the score? Is the government preparing to punish Newfoundlanders and Labradorians? Is the government preparing to ignore the spirit of the terms of union?

The leader of the government once described Atlantic Canada as having a culture of defeat, but it is the present government that has a defeatist attitude toward Atlantic Canada. The government has turned its back on Atlantic Canada, but not before spitting in the eye of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is maybe payback for Danny Williams' “Anyone but Conservative” campaign. It is like we do not matter. We are only 32 seats in Atlantic Canada.

The Conservative government is not good for Atlantic Canada. The Conservative government is not good for the country.

Canadians who will most benefit from this budget are the wealthiest 15%. The wealthiest 15% are the ones who will qualify for income splitting. They are also the ones who will be able to put $10,000, cash, into a tax free savings account, which the Conservatives would almost double from $5,500 to $10,000 in their budget. What typical family will benefit from the Conservative budget?

The typical family, as outlined on page 6 of the budget document, is a family of four, a couple with two children. The man, according to the example, earns $84,000 a year, while the woman earns $36,000, for a total household income of $120,000 a year, which puts that typical Conservative family in the top 15% in terms of income. That is the Conservatives' example. It is not my example. There is nothing typical about that household income. That tells us who the Conservative target group is. It is the wealthy.

The difference between a typical family in this Conservative budget and a typical family in previous Conservative budgets is that the man of the family now makes a lot more. In all previous years, all previous Conservative examples, the woman was the biggest breadwinner. In the income-splitting year, this year, the man suddenly has the biggest income. It sounds like the old boys' club.

Let me quote my party's finance critic, the MP for Skeena—Bulkley Valley. He said that this Conservative budget's family example is all about politics. It is not about fairly illustrating tax policy.

The Conservatives' imaginary “typical family” doesn't reflect the reality of Canadian families: they make almost twice as much as the real average Canadian family.

They benefit from boutique tax credits that most real families don't make enough to qualify for....

There is an expression worth repeating: boutique tax credit. I would go so far as to call this a boutique budget, only most Canadians, most Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, cannot afford to shop at boutiques. If I can cut to the chase and summarize what Canadians, what Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, should take away from this Conservative budget is that we cannot afford to vote Conservative in the next election.

As for the Conservatives' boast that this is a balanced budget written in black ink, I disagree. This budget is written in Conservative blue ink, whereby balancing the budget means raiding the EI fund and robbing the emergency contingency fund. Balancing a budget by creating such an imbalance in incomes and directed tax breaks is nothing to boast about. It is shameful.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to raise something that troubles me about this budget. Unfortunately, I was not able to present a full speech on the 2015 budget due to the difficulty of finding a speaking slot that did not interfere with the national Holocaust remembrance.

Had I had the opportunity, what I wanted to say was that we have lost track of a fundamental principle of parliamentary democracy, which is that Parliament must control the public purse. Increasingly, budgets have become big thick brochures for a government in power, particularly under the current Conservative administration. We no longer have the index at the back of a budget that actually shows us what each department gets to spend, how it compares to the previous year, and how it compares to years going forward.

We have absolutely no idea for this budget what the funding would be for international development assistance, what the funding would be for Fisheries and Oceans, or what the funding would be for Parks Canada. Indeed, no departmental spending is detailed here, so parliamentarians are essentially voting on a pig in a poke.

If we respected the principle that Parliament controls the public purse, none of us should vote, because none of us have accurate information.

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, before I became the member of Parliament for St. John's South—Mount Pearl, I was a journalist. I was an editor of a newspaper. At one time I was a political reporter. I was locked up in more than one budget lock-up analyzing provincial government budgets in Newfoundland and Labrador.

What I find different about this budget and the 518-page document we have with this Conservative budget, versus budgets I covered as a journalist in the past, is exactly what this member pointed out. It is the absence of detail.

Marine Atlantic is an example. I was told, as I outlined in my speech, that we would find out what was going on with Marine Atlantic's budget in the budget document. It is nowhere to be found. I was told today by the minister that it may be included in some estimates that will be released in May. That is not good enough. There should be more detail.