Debates of April 11th, 2016

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Fayçal El-Khoury, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I did not talk about the unemployed because I ran out of time. The budget has a number of measures to help the unemployed, whether they are in Alberta or in eastern Canada. Workers who have lost their jobs in some regions, including Alberta, as a result of the drop in oil prices will receive five additional weeks of benefits. People who become—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am sorry, I said a short answer. We are out of time and must resume debate.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, I wish to advise the House that I will be splitting my time with the member for Perth—Wellington.

With the cameras rolling on the campaign trail, the Liberals promised they would provide revenue-neutral tax relief for the middle class by asking wealthy Canadians to pay more. We now know that this is not the case as taxpayers will have to dish out an additional $8.9 billion over the next six years, and hard-working middle-class Canadians will ultimately have to shoulder this massive burden.

The Liberals promised Canadians they would not run deficits of more than $10 billion a year, but now we see that they are borrowing almost $30 billion in 2016 and upwards of $120 billion over the next five years.

The Liberals promised to spend $10 billion per year on infrastructure, but if we add it up, infrastructure spending in this budget is far less than what they told Canadians in order to get elected.

The Liberals promised small business they would honour graduated tax relief previously passed in Parliament, but that promise has also been thrown out the window.

With no plan to return to balance, this budget simply increases the cost of government, does nothing to create jobs, and it is on track to make the employment insurance system the largest employer in Canada.

This is not what Canadians were told when they were being asked for their vote last October. Instead, Canadians were sold a bill of goods and, simply put, this budget was not as advertised. However, do not take my word for it. Many prominent Canadians in the know who are echoing these sentiments are also echoing their disappointment.

Kevin Page, the former parliamentary budget officer whom many members across the aisle quoted in the House on almost a daily basis when they sat in office, said, “Budgets are fiscal plans. A fiscal plan without a strategy to get back to balance and without sustainability analysis is not responsible or prudent. We are passing higher debt onto future generations”, he concluded.

A Globe and Mail editorial noted:

The Liberal Party’s electoral pitch was that Ottawa would run deficits to pay for infrastructure. But that’s mostly not what’s happening in Budget 2016. The vast majority of the planned new spending is not investment. It’s not building roads or bridges or public transit. It’s ongoing program spending, locked-in and permanent.

Canadian Federation of Independent Business president, Dan Kelly, said in his platform in a written letter to CFIB members, “...in campaign stops across the country, the new government promised to reduce the small business corporate tax rate to nine per cent by 2019. That promise was broken today as it announced the rate will remain at 10.5% after 2016.” This decision will cost small firms over $900 million more per year as of 2019.

Sadly, respected journalist Andrew Coyne who, for the record, publicly endorsed the Liberals led by Michael Ignatieff in 2011, probably put it best when he wrote that this budget “is one from the 1970s, to address problems of 1980s”.

This budget would hurt small business, offers nothing for Barrie manufacturers, and has no mention of the continued clean-up of Lake Simcoe. It also fails to offer any support for our agricultural producers in Innisfil, despite the agri-food sector and families that work on those farms, accounting for more than $100 billion in economic activity and employing more than two million Canadians. After being promised a tax cut and making plans based on that pledge, small and medium-sized businesses across my riding will not see that relief from the government in the foreseeable future.

I watched CTV's Question Period two weeks ago following the budget, and the comments made by the Minister of Small Business and Tourism were quite interesting to say the least. The interviewer questioned the minister on how much savings the treasury would realize by deferring the tax relief for SMEs earning less than $500,000. She did not answer the question and, quite frankly, I do not think she knew the answer to the question. As the host pressed the minister on why the government was deferring the tax cuts that were promised to small business owners in her very own mandate letter, she said, “I wouldn't say that it is being deferred”.

The budget makes it very clear in a statement regarding the about-face by the Liberals. It is right there in black and white on page 220 for all to see. It reads, “Budget 2016 proposes that further reductions in the small business income tax rate be deferred”. It is clear the minister had not read the text but in hindsight this surprise in the Liberals' own budget should not shock anyone.

The Prime Minister himself makes no bones about his dim views on small business, the very sector that is universally held as the backbone of our economy, the one that employs roughly two-thirds of all working Canadians. His perception of small business was particularly revealing during his pre-election interview with Peter Mansbridge when he declared a large percentage of small businesses were just ways for wealthier Canadians to save on their taxes.

However, this is not the story that I hear from hard-working constituents operating small business and farms in my riding. They are not wealthy Canadians trying to avoid taxes. Cancelling the promised tax rate cut or not renewing the tax credit for EI premiums paid for hiring youth in the first year hurts their bottom line.

What am I to tell these people and so many other business owners across Barrie—Innisfil? Have they been forgotten? Are they being taken for granted? Or is it both?

On infrastructure, the Liberal infrastructure plan in the days and months leading up to the October 19 vote was also not as advertised in this budget. Most Canadians see infrastructure as building roads and bridges. They think of things that reduce gridlock and make it easier to get our products to market, and easier to get people where they need to go.

During the campaign, the Prime Minister announced with fanfare and fervour that his infrastructure plan would kick start the economy and create jobs for Canadians. The airwaves were bombarded with TV commercials, and countless photo ops were staged showing the Prime Minister with seemingly every backhoe, every dump truck and every heavy crane from St. John's to Victoria.

However, what was advertised and what is in this budget outline two very different things. I believe a recent editorial in The Globe and Mail captured this sleight of hand, this shell game, quite succinctly. It read:

What the budget calls “Phase I of Canada’s New Infrastructure Plan” involves $11.9-billion in new infrastructure investments – spread over five years. In a big-budget bucket, it’s a relatively small drop. The remaining infrastructure spending, which, based on previous Liberal promises, should involve another $48-billion over the next 10 years, is nowhere to be seen.

Infrastructure, to the Liberals, is divided into three main project pots: transit, green, and what they refer to as social infrastructure. For transit, the budget allocates $3.4 billion over three years but just $852 million for 2016-17. Their green infrastructure fund accounts for $5 billion over five years but only $650 million is to be spent this year. The Liberals also claim they will spend $3.4 billion on social infrastructure over the next five years. That is a far cry from $10 billion a year pledged to "kick start the economy" while the Liberals were stumping for votes.

Listening to the Minister of Finance in the House on March 22, I was struck by a sense of déjà vu, hearing a similar tone and common language from a budget speech delivered at Queen's Park five weeks earlier by Ontario's finance minister, Charles Sousa.

In spite of the finance ministers using over 9,000 combined words to unveil their respective budgets, the term auto industry was not mentioned in either speech. Mr. Sousa failed to make any reference to farming, and Canada's Minister of Finance only referenced farming once, but it was not in the context of growing crops or raising livestock. Instead he seemed to suggest that farmers transition their operations to become wind and solar power producers.

The term 'small business' was virtually non-existent in either remarks. The word “employers” did not make Canada's Minister of Finance's final speech cut. Mr. Sousa's lone reference to the word “employers” was a note that the Liberals were implementing ORPP in Ontario.

Neither speech recognized the oil industry, and manufacturing was, at best, a second thought.

Budget 2016 also abandons our military by deferring $3.7 billion in spending that was set to take place over the next five years. This past weekend, I was at the Vimy ceremony at Base Borden commemorating the 99th anniversary of that historic battle when Canadian soldiers, heroes of our great nation, fought together forming Canada into a nation from a colony.

There is concern from those who serve proudly today that we are returning to the shameful decade of darkness the military suffered under the Liberals during the 1990s.

In closing, I would like to quote former finance minister Jim Flaherty in his budget speech delivered to the House in 2014. He had a warning for Canadians, and I believe his words are very appropriate today. He said:

When governments run prolonged deficits, they are spending money that belongs to future generations. Deficit spending endangers social programs we benefit from and that our children will soon depend on.

Today's deficits are tomorrow's taxes, and the budget presented by the government points to a future wherein our kids and grandkids will spend their lives paying for the past.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Conservative member rambled on about the deficit as if his party has any expertise on the topic of solving the problem.

The deficit exists. It exists in the budget or it exists in the infrastructure that brings our country together. The deficit is there.

The Conservatives managed to score a twofer, ensuring that not only would the deficit add up to somewhere around $150 billion newly borrowed dollars, but that the infrastructure deficit—which includes the social infrastructure deficit, the road infrastructure deficit, the transit infrastructure deficit, the first nations infrastructure deficit, the digital infrastructure deficit, the rural infrastructure deficit, the educational infrastructure deficit—would also be left in place while growing the fiscal deficit without anything to show for it.

The deficit exists, no matter what. We can let the infrastructure deficit fester or we can invest in our future. I choose investment.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am not sure there was a question there, but I will show the member the due respect that should be shown in the House for each individual member and not ramble on with my answer.

However, I will say that what Canadians voted for was not the plan that the Liberals are putting forward. The Liberals have put forward a $10 billion plan. Granted, that was their plan and it was not the Conservative plan, but they exceeded that by almost three times. I would suggest that what the Liberals propose is not what was sold to Canadians, as I said in my statement.

The other thing I would suggest, which I know Liberals want to deny, is that clearly the independent finance department shows that there was a surplus—a surplus—in the month of January of close to $4.3 billion. They continue to deny this. The fact is that they have taken that surplus and have now made it vanish. That is the unfortunate reality, and those are the terms that the Liberals will have to come to live by.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak and I thank my colleague for his presentation.

Obviously, all members of Parliament are here to represent their ridings and they face issues specific to each constituency. In Longueuil, for example, everyone was of course very disappointed that there was nothing for the aerospace sector. Small businesses were even more disappointed, since they are part of the important industrial clusters that support our large industries. Similarly, my colleague talked about problems in the automotive sector and in agriculture.

Can we not agree that the Liberals' main theme during the election campaign was the middle class, in the broadest sense of the term?

Would my colleague agree that, basically, if this is brought in before Christmas to ensure tax refunds for the middle class, but people who earn less than $45,000 are not affected, that is a mistake?

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, I wish I was at a point where I could answer in French. I am working very hard on it and will get to that point, but I will answer in English.

The question that the hon. member asked is an important one. What we have seen with this so-called middle-class tax break is a real shell game. The hon. member talks about the $40,000 range. In fact, there is evidence to suggest that the ones who will benefit the most from the middle-class tax break are actually upper-middle-class Canadians. In my response to the middle-class tax break, I used a figure from the Centre for Policy Alternatives that showed that members of Parliament actually receive more of a tax break, a more significant amount of money, than those making $40,000, so it is, in fact, a shell game.

Liberals are talking about the middle-class tax cuts but are taking away programs such as the children's fitness tax credit and the arts tax credit. Canadians have been benefiting from those tax credits to the tune of $1.9 billion. It is the same thing with income splitting for families, something that I was able to take advantage of. Canadians have benefited from that tax break in the amount of $1.9 billion.

What the Liberals are giving, the Liberals are taking away. What the Liberals are taking away and adding more onto are what our kids and grandkids, middle-class Canadians, will be paying for going forward in the long term.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House today to participate in the debate on the first budget of the 42nd Parliament. However, I stand here disappointed with the budget that the Liberal government has decided to present. Not only is the budget out of balance, but it is out of touch with the people of Perth—Wellington and the people of Canada.

In fact, earlier this winter I undertook pre-budget consultations with key stakeholder groups in my riding. I reached out to economic and business organizations, charities, service clubs, and municipal officials in all 11 municipalities in my riding of Perth—Wellington. I carefully reviewed their feedback, and a number of common themes emerged right off the bat. I forwarded those concerns to the hon. Minister of Finance. Unfortunately, the concerns of my constituents and the communities in my riding are not reflected in this Liberal budget.

In the responses I received, there was a key theme. The people of Perth—Wellington expected their government to operate within its own means. They did not want to see runaway spending and they did not want to see spending for the sake of spending, yet today we see massive deficits and a long-term plan that does not include returning to balanced budgets.

In fact, in this year alone, $30 billion of new deficit spending is occurring, and it will be $113 billion over the next five years. Rather than choosing to pay down the national debt, the Liberals are mortgaging Canadians for generations to come.

It is one thing for the Liberals to deny the fact that they were left with a surplus, but it is quite another thing for them to break their own promise and create deficits three times larger than they clearly promised in the election campaign.

The current government says time and time again that because interest rates are low, now is the time to spend, but what the Liberals fail to realize is that it is possible to invest without spending into unnecessary deficits. Wise spending means making targeted investments to bring about long-term economic growth, as our government did over the past decade; in fact, since the depths of the global economic recession, under the leadership of our former Conservative government we saw the private sector create nearly 1.3 million net new jobs, the largest per capita job creation in the G7. However, now the current Liberal government is spending for the sake of spending rather than to stimulate the economy.

Simply put, we cannot invest in the needs and priorities of Canadians by saddling them with future debt from the reckless spending of the current Liberal government.

I am troubled by the fact that the budget includes a number of commitments that are lacking in detail. The budget does not say how much the Prime Minister's youth council will cost, how much it will cost to implement the proposed changes, or how much the government will spend to study flexible work arrangements for workers in federally regulated sectors. The government should be more forthcoming with its estimates for these things.

It goes without saying that the energy sector is struggling right now. Under the circumstances, a responsible government should have a plan to support this crucial sector and the millions of Canadians who depend on it. The government has not come forward with any such plan, and there is nothing in the budget to drive investment.

We have all seen the statistics and the reports on layoffs in western Canada's oil sector. Several MPs have talked about this issue in detail. I would remind all hon. members that the decline of the energy sector has a negative impact on other sectors of our economy. Businesses across the country are losing clients and consumers tied to the energy sector. Now those businesses, including some in Perth—Wellington, are laying people off too.

The government failed to set a budget that will grow the economy and create good, high-paying jobs in the private sector. If the Liberal government had a sensible plan to support small businesses, it would have invested in programs and initiatives that have proven to be successful over the past decade. It would have invested in the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario or committed to maintaining the hiring credit for small business.

Instead, it chose to bring down a budget that cancels useful tax credits and cuts effective federal investments.

Another way to help small business thrive is to cut red tape. I hear this time and time again as I speak with local businesses in my riding of Perth—Wellington. In fact, just last week I spoke with the owner of a food processing facility in my riding in the town of St. Marys. This local facility has enjoyed great success commercially across this country and its products are now on the shelves at Costco and supermarkets across this great country. He had an interesting statistic for me. He told me that in the past year he has had more government auditors, inspectors, and government employees go through his plant than he has employees.

If we want to help small businesses, we need to address the burdensome regulation that they face, not add to it. What is more, the Liberal government has already broken its promise to small businesses. The president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business said that the promise related to lowering the income tax rate

..was broken in today's budget, as [it was announced] the rate will remain at 10.5% after 2016. This is expected to cost small firms over $900 million more per year by 2019.

In my riding of Perth—Wellington, agriculture is the main economic driver. In fact, it is one of the largest industries in Canada. In Perth—Wellington it is a multi-billion-dollar industry. Perth—Wellington has more dairy farmers than any other riding in the country. Wellington County has more chicken farmers than any other county in Ontario. Our pork and beef farmers are second to none, and since Perth—Wellington has some of the most fertile farmland in the country, our grain farmers are second to none.

The farmers in my riding are disappointed with the Liberal government. Not only was agriculture completely left out of the Speech from the Throne, but in the entire 269-page budget document, agriculture enjoyed two pages. The first page was simply reaffirming Growing Forward 2, which our former Conservative government helped to implement with the support of the provinces, and the second page was simply referring to genomics projects undertaken in Ottawa. There was no support for Canadian farmers or Canadian farm families. The backbone of our rural economy was completely left out in the cold by the Liberal government. If the Liberal government wants to completely ignore our rural communities and our farmers, it should simply say so.

Another thing I want to touch on very briefly is the idea of rural infrastructure. It is disappointing that despite all the promises that were made during the election campaign, there is very little new money for the traditional infrastructure of rural communities, such as roads and bridges.

In fact, Perth—Wellington has a number of significant infrastructure needs as they relate to roads and bridges. As a former municipal councillor myself, I saw that need first-hand and saw the challenges faced by provinces such as Ontario when we put undue regulations and restrictions on the funding of rural infrastructure projects. We need to allow municipalities more flexibility in choosing priorities that they see fit and work with them from that measure.

Finally, I want to address briefly the idea of skills and the need to invest in skills in a well-trained economy.

In my riding of Perth—Wellington we have a skills shortage. We have a labour shortage. We actually need more people to fill the needs of certain skilled trades and unskilled trades in my riding of Perth—Wellington, yet the budget does not address many rural concerns, such as transportation options in communities or targeted investments in skills training, such as apprenticeship loans and the Canada job grant. As well, the hiring credits that the Liberal government cancelled will do nothing to help these small businesses continue to function.

On behalf of the people of Perth—Wellington, I will be unable to support the budget. It simply does not support or even respect our rural communities, our manufacturers, our tradespeople, our farmers and farm families, or the hard-working families who struggle to make ends meet on a weekly basis.

I will be voting against the budget.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Intergovernmental Affairs)]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague across the way.

I wonder if he would like to comment on a report that has been waved quite often today in the House of Commons. It is the Department of Finance report that was released from the “Fiscal Monitor” in January 2016. Would he care to comment on this paragraph?

There can be significant volatility in monthly results due to the timing of revenue receipts and expense recognition. For instance, a large share of government spending is typically reported in the March Fiscal Monitor. For fiscal year 2015-16, while a surplus is expected for February, Budget 2016 projects that the cumulative budgetary balance will deteriorate to reach a year-end deficit of $5.4 billion.

In light of the fact that the Conservative government was the architect of this fiscal year, in light of the fact that the Conservatives never balanced the budget, not once in the last 10 years, is the member opposite prepared to resign from his party and join our side, a party that has balanced the budget?

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, certainly not. I am proud to be part of the party of the late Jim Flaherty, who had some wise and sage advice when he advised government that simply because there is a surplus does not mean that we should spend it.

Since the hon. member for Spadina—Fort York wants to quote the Fiscal Monitor, let me quote another paragraph from it. It states “the Government posted a budgetary surplus of $4.3 billion, compared to a surplus of $1.3 billion” in the previous fiscal year.

What is even more galling is that the government does not even have a plan to return to balanced budgets. It has five years of runaway budget deficits with no planned return to balance. When we went into deficit in the worst economic downturn of a generation, we had a plan, and we returned to surplus a year ahead of schedule.

[An hon. member]

You never did it.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I want to remind hon. members that they do have times to speak, and screaming across is not really going to help anyone.

The hon. member for Hochelaga.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be very respectful.

The Conservatives and the NDP made a list of the many promises that were broken in this budget. These are things that were promised during the election campaign and that are nowhere to be seen in the budget.

What does my colleague think about the Liberals promising, hands on their hearts, to restore home mail delivery, but failing to do so?

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question.

During the election campaign, I went to homes in every corner of Perth—Wellington. In Perth—Wellington, some homes have home mail delivery and others have Canada Post community mailboxes.

In Perth—Wellington, we have both types of delivery. I personally have never had home delivery in my community. We have had community mailboxes or a post office box. In the community of Stratford, we have heard some concerns about the movement to community mailboxes, since it has never had these before.

It is important that Canada Post address these concerns. Whether we can say as a blanket statement that it should return to home delivery, I do not think that is wise, especially since Canada Post is an arm's-length crown corporation and should be dealt with as such. It should be making the decision in the best interests of all Canadians, not something that is going to tax them unduly going forward.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have been here throughout the debate today, and I have heard a lot from the other side about how they have not forgotten their pet projects in the budget. Well, the budget has forgotten the agricultural sector, the oil industry, the energy sector, and small business.

I am wondering if the member would be prepared to expand on those and how they might interrelate.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to see the sectors that the Liberal government has chosen to leave out of the budget. Whether it is the oil and gas sector or the agricultural industry, it is simply unacceptable. These important industries form the backbone of our rural economy, though in many Conservative-held ridings, mind. It seems that the Liberal government has been focusing on its pet projects rather than on the needs of all Canadians. When we look at agriculture in particular, which I am acutely aware of, it has left it out to dry.

However, there is one thing that the Liberal government could do that would assist the agriculture industry and would assist it quickly. That would be to ratify the trans-Pacific partnership. The Liberals can go on all they like about consultations, but at the end of the day, the Canadian public supports the TPP, agriculture supports the TPP, and they should get on with ratifying it.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Mississauga East—Cooksville.

It is with great pleasure that I stand once again in this venerable House to speak in favour of the budget that our Liberal government introduced last month. As the proud member of Parliament for Davenport, I was pleased to read through the entire budget and to appreciate how it would help the residents in my riding.

This is a good budget. It fulfills many of the promises we made during the election last year. This budget is about strengthening our middle class, supporting our children, seniors and families, investing in our economy by building a more innovative Canada, crafting an environmentally sustainable nation, and creating a more inclusive and fair country.

There are also a lot of other gold nuggets in the budget that are wonderful, and I will be highlighting them during the short time I have here this afternoon.

Let me begin with what I call the heart and soul of the budget, the Canada child benefit. The families of Davenport have told me time and time again that the current cost of living is very expensive and costs never seemed to stop increasing, that child care costs are too high, and that they are hard pressed to save for their futures. In addition, too many of our children, not only in Davenport but across the Canada, live in poverty and this is unacceptable.

This government made a firm commitment to grow the middle class and to help support them. Therefore, we introduced the Canada child benefit. It is the most significant social policy innovation in a generation. The Canada child benefit will be a simpler, tax-free, better targeted and more generous way to support Canadian families. It will replace many of the small benefits and credits that currently exist and ultimately provide more support to families. Indeed, nine out of ten families will receive more in child benefits under the current system. It is set up to provide help to those who need it the most. This is the fundamental principle behind this program and an important one for our government.

All families with a combined net income of $150,000 or less will end up with more money in their pockets than under the previous program. The benefit takes into account the overall family income and is reduced progressively as the combined family income goes up. Families with less than $30,000 in net income will receive the maximum benefit, 300,000 children will be lifted out of poverty, and the new benefit will come into effect in July of this year.

The budget contains many other significant programs that will support the middle class. I am only going to run through three of them because I think they are important to mention.

We are doubling the number of student jobs so we can give our youth the work experience they so want and need. That is in addition to the increase in co-ops and work placements. We are providing significantly more support for students who want to attend post-secondary universities because we know we cannot compete in the global economy of the 21st century if we do not have a high level of knowledge and skills. Finally, we are enhancing investments in skills, retraining, and apprenticeships for those who want to qualify or transition into better paying jobs.

There are many in my riding of Davenport who want better paying jobs, who want to transition from their current job to another one that gives them and their families a better future.

We in Davenport are also so excited about the infrastructure investment that is contained in budget 2016. Davenport is an urban riding. We depend on transit and increasingly on bike infrastructure to help us get around. We need more transit, more affordable transit, more dependable transit, and we need it now. Therefore, the $3.4 billion over three years to upgrade and improve public transit will go a long way to moving people more effectively. In addition, we are building the solid transit infrastructure that Toronto needs for a prosperous 21st century economy.

I would be remiss if I did not mention that we in Davenport are also very excited to see the federal government back at the table playing a significant role in affordable housing. Budget 2016 will invest $2.3 billion over two years to give Canadians greater access to more affordable housing. Most of this money is going to the provinces and municipalities to be allocated by them. They know where the need is the greatest. One of our city councillors, Ana Bailão, the head of affordable housing efforts in the city, is delighted to see this investment. It is a long time coming and it will make a difference.

I do not want our seniors to think that we have forgotten them with respect to housing. We have not. We know that many in our aging population are finding it difficult to continue to maintain and live in their homes and they are looking for affordable alternatives in their communities. The budget provides over $200 million over two years to support the construction, repair, and adaptation of affordable housing for seniors. All these dollars will not be required to be cost matched and will help thousands and thousands of seniors live in affordable homes across Canada.

In total, our Liberal government will almost double the current level of infrastructure investment over 10 years. This is a bold, significant commitment, and a necessary one. This historic infrastructure investment is meant to immediately create more jobs and better paying jobs. It is meant to create some of the much-needed infrastructure that will not only serve our current population but will also create the foundation from which to build a future prosperous economy. It influences the short term but sets us up for the long term. I laud and applaud our courage in making these investments.

When I talk of our future, my mind also turns to the environment. For 10 years, the previous administration took no leadership on the environment. We wasted precious time, and this budget aims to make up for lost time. I do not have time to go through all of the amazing green items we have in the budget. However, I am proud of our ambition and our immediate torpedo-like action.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, and Catherine McKenna, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, are working hard with the provinces, territories, and aboriginal leaders to create a pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change. Budget 2016 has allocated $2 billion over two years, beginning in 2017-18, to establish a low carbon economy fund. The budget has also allocated significant dollars for green infrastructure, clean technology, and numerous programs that impact transportation, renewable energy, pollution, water, ecosystems, and parks. All of that will lead to a cleaner and more sustainable environment for all Canadians.

We in Davenport are long-time environmentalists, since the days of former long-time Liberal member of Parliament, Charles Caccia, the first MP to put the environment on the table at the federal level. We are delighted at the serious focus and the remarkable investment on the environment. Our government knows that we have to lead on preparing for climate change to create a sustainable environment, and to move to a low carbon future in order to take care of Canada's ecosystems, biodiversity, water, air, and our future.

My time is coming to an end, so I would like to quickly list a few more gold nuggets in the budget that we in Davenport are proud of and that are important to mention.

The first is the investment into arts and culture. There are many talented artists in my riding. We are overjoyed at the $1.9 billion investment over five years to support the CBC, the Canada Council for the Arts, Telefilm Canada, the National Film Board of Canada, and many other institutions. It is said that artists show us the soul of the nation through their work. I, for one, want us to do all that we can to support them.

We in Davenport are also proud of our commitment to Canada's indigenous people. Budget 2016 commits $8.4 billion over five years for education, so that we can finally spend the same amount of money on an aboriginal child as we do on the rest of Canadian children. There will also be $8.4 billion allocated to build first nations' schools, and invest in desperately needed clean water infrastructure to finally end on reserve boil water advisories. As a nation, we have taken too long to right the wrongs of our past treatment of first nations. I am proud of the commitment we made in this budget to forge a new relationship and to ensure that first nations too will share in the future prosperity of Canada.

I have two other quick things to mention.

Immigration is the number one issue, for me, in my community. I know it is the same for most ridings across this country. We are spending $25 million to support faster, more predictable processing times for family sponsorship, and $56 million over three years for processing times of new permanent residents and increased settlement programming.

Also close to my heart is the investment for women and families who are experiencing domestic violence. This will mean $90 million over two years for the construction and renovation of shelters and transition houses for victims of family violence.

I will end by recognizing that budget 2016 can at times sound like all we are doing is spending. However, this budget is about investing, and we are making our investments responsibly: a $30-billion deficit in a $2-trillion economy. We have low interest rates and we have the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio of all G7 countries. If there is a time to invest, it is now, and we are doing so both boldly and responsibly.

Budget 2016 illustrates that this government is proudly stepping up to the plate with a bold vision and plan for Canada moving forward. Canadians deserve no less from their government and their political leaders.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Before we proceed, I want to remind hon. members that we do not refer to members in the House, whether it be the Prime Minister or any of the ministers, by their name, but only by their title or riding.

In any case, we will continue with questions and comments. The hon. member for Kitchener—Conestoga.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her comments about the budget. Certainly, she articulated many of the expenditures and she did say something like it might seem like spending. Well, it is actually spending. It is really a poor investment.

Here are some of the promises the Liberals made that were definitely broken.

There was reducing the small business tax. We have heard from many small businesses and from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business that this has been a huge disappointment for our small business community.

There was running a deficit of no more than $10 billion. A $30 billion deficit in the first year of this budget is really quite crippling to our economy.

Finally, there was a clear commitment to immediately invest $3 billion over the next four years to deliver more and better home care services for all Canadians. This includes more access to high-quality in-home caregivers, financial supports for family care, and when necessary, palliative care. There was nothing in the budget that dealt with this $3 billion commitment. Therefore, either it is not going to be funded or it simply needs to be added to the existing $10 billion deficit. I would like to ask my colleague which it is.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are indeed investing in our economy, investing in today and investing in tomorrow.

In terms of the small business tax, we believe that the investment we are making in terms of the cut to the middle-class taxes and in the Canada child benefit will also benefit our small business owners right across the country. We also believe that our innovation plan and investment in infrastructure will also benefit small businesses across the country. A better economy is good for all of our businesses, small and big.

In terms of home care, it is one of my key concerns as well, because I talked a lot about that during the election campaign last year. I have spoken to our Minister of Health and she has said that, indeed, it is still a very strong commitment and promise of our government. Right now, she is consulting with provincial and territorial leaders across the country. It is something they are working on as we speak.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for her passionate speech. It was very well done.

I would like to ask my colleague from Davenport about the Liberal promises made to seniors at election time.

We in the NDP welcome the commitment to return the age of eligibility to 65 for old age security and for the guaranteed income supplement. We also welcome the Liberals' commitment to increase the guaranteed income supplement for all seniors.

The Liberals campaigned on promises to boost the guaranteed income supplement for low-income seniors immediately. That was the promise: immediately. They would also index the OAS and the GIS benefits to a new seniors price index.

Can I ask why seniors are now waiting until July, nine months after the election, for an increase to the GIS, and why the budget fails to mention the indexing of the benefits?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe we have taken immediate action on the guaranteed income supplement. It is currently in the budget. We are moving as quickly as possible. We have introduced it, and we are trying to move it through the House as quickly as possible. When it actually reaches our seniors, it is about as immediate and as quick as possible.

I would also like to say that I have so many wonderful seniors in my riding, and my heart goes out them. I talk a lot to them about how we also have dollars in our budget for affordable housing for our seniors. We are continuing to work on our health care system, because that will also benefit them.

There are a lot of wonderful things in our budget that are going to help our seniors in Canada today. I know that, in the years and months to come, we will be doing more things that will continue to help our seniors, moving forward.

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am profoundly honoured and grateful for this opportunity to speak to this transformational budget 2016. Budget 2016 puts people first and delivers the help that Canadians need now, not a decade from now. It is an essential step to restoring prosperity for the middle class.

I was glad to hear that our Prime Minister has made it clear that our number one job as members of Parliament, in his words, “is to be a strong voice in the service of the people who sent [us] here from [our] constituencies.” I could not agree more. This is why my Mississauga colleagues and I conducted extensive pre-budget consultations and meetings with constituents and stakeholders. They were loud and clear about needs that needed to be addressed: investments in infrastructure, opportunity and jobs for our young people, providing supports for our seniors and veterans so they can live with dignity and respect, and building a creative and innovative economy to best compete in the 21st century. The minister heard our voices, and the budget reflected what the people of Mississauga were looking for.

We conducted a post-budget meeting just this past week. The sentiments from the private sector, the City of Mississauga, the not-for-profit sector, our university, our college, were all extremely positive.

My greatest thanks and gratitude will always go to the voters of Mississauga East—Cooksville. I have committed to serve them to the best of my ability, with integrity, humility, and hard work, and to deliver on the commitments that I and our party made throughout the election. I am so proud to represent the kind and wonderful people of my riding and I am proud that budget 2016 delivers for them by investing in their sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, and grandparents.

My constituency has a rich history. We owe a debt of gratitude to the Mississauga First Nation which first settled these lands. Mississauga was formed on August 2, 1805, when officials purchased 84,000 acres of land from the Mississauga. The crown gave much of that land to our first immigrants, the United Empire Loyalists, who fled from the Thirteen Colonies during and after the American Revolution.

I am proud that budget 2016 is addressing generations of injustices by providing a better quality of life for our indigenous peoples and building a stronger, more unified, and prosperous Canada.

Today Mississauga has grown to become Canada's sixth-largest city, with the same challenges and opportunities of any large urban centre. More than 750,000 people call Mississauga home. These are people from all parts of the world, from every faith, and that number is growing. We are a shining example of the diversity that makes our country strong and unique. This growth has come from waves of new Canadians of Portuguese, British, Polish, Filipino, Italian, black, Chinese, South Asian, and Ukrainian descent, people from every other country and region around the world, to make up our colourful and cultural mosaic.

I am proud that our government is committed to bringing in over 300,000 new Canadians for this year.

Mississauga East—Cooksville is my home. It is where my wife Christine and I raise our family. I am a father or two amazing 10-year-old twin boys, Sebastien and Alexander, and like any parent, I want the best for them. They remain at the heart of my desire to serve here. I am proud of our government's belief that every child deserves an opportunity to realize their full potential.

Our new Canada child benefit will lift 300,000 kids out of poverty. It will be simpler, tax-free, more generous, and better targeted. About nine out of 10 families will receive higher benefits under this new system, and hundreds of thousands of children will have a better opportunity to succeed.

Youth will also have more opportunity to go to college and university and begin their career path.

Budget 2016 reflects our values of inclusiveness and fairness.

My family's story reflects the story of Canada, one of diversity, hope, and hard work. In 1967, my father left Portugal. He fled a fascist, dictatorial regime because he wanted his family to be free and to find a better life. He came here seeking a better life and he never looked back. He then sponsored my mom and me to join him. At that time, spousal sponsorship and family reunification was taking less than six months. My family is proud of its Portuguese heritage, and we love Canada.

I am proud that this budget is committed to lowering those times for spousal sponsorship and family reunification. It has been atrocious to hear from my constituents that they have been waiting for their spouses for two, three, and four years. They are waiting for family members for four years. This is tearing families apart, and we are going to address this now.

I am fortunate that my parents chose Canada and I am grateful that Canada accepted us. My father's deep desire for social justice, freedom, and democracy today formed the basis of my political engagement. His love and passion for Canada was never stronger than when he watched Canada on the world stage as a peacekeeper, a builder of the world's tallest tower, or the winner of the 1972 series. This budget allocates $586.5 million over the next three years for peacekeeping and security.

My dad was patriotic to the core. After watching Nancy Greene win the gold for Canada in the 1968 Olympics, he named my sister Nancy.

We Canadians welcome refugees. We Canadians believe we need to tackle climate change. We Canadians are honest brokers and consensus builders on the world stage, with our greatest trading partner and friend, the United States. When we work together to accomplish shared goals, we are unstoppable. Budget 2016 would get us back on track to a brighter future for all.

Like training for the Olympics, in which I had an opportunity to participate and proudly wear the Canadian maple leaf, this budget was built by planning, preparing, and building partnerships. Our government has an ambitious agenda for making real change happen. Budget 2016 is a bold move to growing the middle class, and it takes giant steps to revitalize our Canadian economy. We are stronger together, and that is why we are delivering on our agenda in a collaborative and respectful way with our municipal, provincial, territorial, and indigenous partners.

I look forward to serving and working in the same respectful and collaborative way here in the House with all members, on both sides of the aisle, as we strive to do the best we can for the people of Canada. Our government has Olympic-like ambition. There is $120 billion to be invested in infrastructure: green infrastructure, social infrastructure, transit infrastructure.

I want to share a quick story. On July 8, 2013, my riding of Mississauga East—Cooksville was hit by the biggest flood it has ever experienced. It is the worst natural disaster in Ontario's history, costing $1 billion. Budget 2016 addresses the need for major infrastructure investments, flood mitigation, clean technology, and addressing climate change. Many families in my riding will be very delighted with this.

There is also the issue of affordable housing. The wait list right now in my area runs from 12 years to 21 years. Affordable housing is being addressed in this budget. These are the needs of my community, and this budget addresses those needs. I am pleased to support budget 2016.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is actually money for affordable housing in this budget. However, one thing that concerns us is that most of those investments have to be matched by the provinces and territories.

What will happen to this budget if the provinces and territories do not have the funds to match the federal investments? Will the government simply keep the money in its coffers? What will happen to that money if it is not spent?

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the approach of our government is very different from that of the previous government. It is one of collaboration. It is one of respect.

We understand our municipal, provincial, and indigenous partners are at the table with us. We are rolling up our sleeves and working together to make sure that we move our country forward.

This is the approach that our Prime Minister has taken. It is the approach of all of our ministers. When I say that in my words and remarks to budget 2016, it is the approach we are taking with all members of this House on both sides of the aisle.