Debates of April 11th, 2016

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member and I appreciate the manner in which he presents his thoughts on the budget. It was very powerful.

I look at it in terms of some of the social programs he makes reference to. In particular, could the member provide some comments in regard to the Canada child benefit program? This will in fact have a very profound impact on all Canadians, either directly or indirectly. It is a major part of the budget. Would the member like to provide his thoughts on that aspect?

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

Mr. Speaker, while knocking on so many doors, I met families that want to provide those opportunities for their children to be able to achieve higher education and to be able to participate in a sport or extracurricular activities.

The average family in my riding makes about $70,000. This budget will provide a family with two kids with about $3,000 more tax-free per year. That will make a world of a difference. That is transformational for generations to come.

I have heard the Minister of Finance talk about the Canada child benefit. In the same way that we all embrace universal health care here in our country, this Canada child benefit will be something that will be talked about for generations to come. The impacts will be positive for our nation.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the question from my colleague opposite about unspent infrastructure money, which we know is a significant problem.

For the last two years, most of the major cities in this country, Vancouver, Calgary, Regina, Winnipeg, Ottawa, Mississauga, Montreal, and Halifax, have received no dollars in new federal infrastructure commitments. The money was largely unspent. It is one of the ways in which the faux balancing process of the previous government was achieved. One-time money from the sale of GM, unspent infrastructure money, and voila, there is a balanced budget in October, but come March, it does not quite work out.

Is my colleague aware that unspent infrastructure money in this budget will be flowed directly back to municipalities through the gas tax? This is a unique achievement in so far as the money committed now must be spent. Those provinces that are not stepping up to the plate and partnering will see their cities funded instead as a result of their lack of co-operation or lack of progress on these files.

It is a unique component in infrastructure funding. It will top up the gas tax money on a one-time basis, and will really be a game changer for municipalities across this country which will no longer have money promised and not delivered, as was the previous government's practice.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member has been a tremendous advocate for public transit. He is quite right. This government has made a commitment. We know how well the gas tax transfer has worked with municipalities for public transit. They all applaud this. I have spoken with our mayor, Bonnie Crombie, and members of council, and they think it is the right thing to do.

We want to make sure that all of those precious dollars go into our public transit and are invested in our communities.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, 10 minutes is really not enough time to respond to the budget. There are so many things to say. However, to ensure that as many members of the House as possible have the opportunity to participate in the debate and discussion, I have agreed to share my time with the member for Vancouver East.

As members know, all budgets are important, but the first budget of a new government should propose practical measures for making that government's election promises a reality.

When reading this budget, here is the image that comes to mind. Imagine that, during the election campaign, students, seniors and members of the middle class, who were the topic of much discussion, were asked to go to the store and buy a 1,000-piece puzzle. Everyone knows that it takes a lot of time to put a puzzle like that together. Now, imagine how disappointed those people would be when they discovered that there were pieces missing and that the picture on the puzzle did not match the picture on the box. That is kind of how I feel about this budget.

I will focus on two aspects of the budget. First, I will speak about issues that affect my riding and then I will talk about those that relate to my portfolio as a critic.

The pyrrhotite problem is definitely a crucial issue for Trois-Rivières and the entire Mauricie region. Throughout the four-year tenure of the previous government, I spoke out many times on this issue in order to have the federal government acknowledge its share of responsibility in this monumental catastrophe. For four and a half years, the Conservatives went out of their way to try to make us believe that they did not shoulder any of the responsibility. The Liberals remained silent the entire time, despite the fact that they had an MP from the area. While passing through Trois-Rivières, the future prime minister was suddenly gripped by compassion, we hoped, and recognized, when asked by a journalist, that there was an important human and economic tragedy in the Mauricie region and in Trois-Rivières in particular, and that his government would tackle it after the election, if indeed Canadians voted him into office.

I must admit that at first we had a glimmer of hope when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance was at the table. There was also $30 million in the budget. The initial reaction in Trois-Rivières was that we were finally headed in the right direction. Unfortunately, this is not a step in the right direction because we quickly understood that it was the only step.

They are giving us $30 million, $10 million a year for three years, to deal with a situation costing in the hundreds of millions. The government is telling a few hundred people that if they are lucky enough to be among the first to submit their compensation claims, they may get some money. However, if they are among the 2,000 people who have exactly the same problem but who are too slow, they will get nothing because that avenue is closed.

During a recent visit to the region, both the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister said that this was the final offer, which makes no sense. If this human and economic tragedy arouses their sympathy, they should come up with a measure that will help all of the victims, not just some of them.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance said that he talks about pyrrhotite every day with his colleagues and is in weekly contact with the pyrrhotite victims' coalition. Unfortunately, this statement by Alain Gélinas, president of the Coalition d'aide aux victimes de la pyrrhotite, belies his assertion:

I leave him [the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance] messages, but he never calls back. He told the media that he talks to people from the coalition every week, but that is not at all true.

This is far from a comprehensive solution, so, unfortunately, the House can be sure that I will continue to talk about pyrrhotite often.

I also want to talk about employment insurance. This is an issue that affects people in my riding and across the country. There are some good measures here, such as reducing the waiting period from two weeks to one.

I am delighted to learn that the 36% of Canadians who have access to the EI system will have one less week to wait before they receive their benefits. How does this solve anything for everyone else, that is, the 60% of Canadians who do not qualify for benefits when they need EI? The universal eligibility threshold of 360 hours should have been the first measure on the list, but we do not see that anywhere in the budget.

These two examples and others that will follow show that this budget throws money around indiscriminately. It announces some interesting measures in certain areas, but nothing that can really solve any problems. It is as though the Liberals want to give a little bit to everyone, but there is not enough to really make a difference anywhere.

We could also talk about our seniors. In Trois-Rivières, seniors make up 20% of the population. Of that 20%, 60% receive the guaranteed income supplement. This gives some idea of the middle class, for example. The average annual income of those seniors is roughly $18,702. What was the first measure the Liberals introduced? It was a tax break for the wealthy. As we all know, anyone who earns $45,000 a year or less will not benefit from that tax cut.

The median salary in Quebec is around $31,500. That is nowhere near the $85,000 needed to get the highest benefit from these measures. Imagine, then, the reality facing seniors whose annual income is $18,000. Seniors are amongst the most needy people in our society, and they are the ones who built it. They are being told that this is all coming in July, but that is a long way away. The Liberals promised to make this an immediate priority during their campaign.

I could also mention SMEs. Back home, and elsewhere in Quebec and Canada, SMEs are key to job creation. In fact, 78% of jobs are created by SMEs. During the last Parliament, in a rare moment of unanimity, all parties in the House agreed to lower the tax rate for SMEs from 11% to 9%.

The Conservatives wanted to make the change in small increments and drag it out over four years. The Liberals said they wanted to move more quickly. We had the best plan. However, now we are left with the status quo. In the new budget, we see that there is no movement on this. Imagine all the small businesses, such as Volflex back home, which I visited and which is in full expansion, that were counting on this tax cut and now have to completely redo their budgets because of a broken promise.

Let us talk about young people, whose unemployment rate is almost twice as high as the national rate. The budget offers them precious little, except for less money than was announced during the election campaign. There is a shortfall of $365 million over the first two years of the budget, compared to the announcements made during the election campaign.

In Trois-Rivières, the forestry and aerospace industries were also seriously affected. There is nothing in the budget to kick-start the forestry industry.

My time is quickly running out and I would be remiss if I did not spend a minute on international development, because I am the critic for that portfolio. Although we can take some comfort in the budget increase, we must still recognize that it is not enough to make up for the $350 million slashed by the previous government. In other words, we are nowhere near the 0.7% of GDP that would allow us to actively contribute to achieving the 2030 sustainable development goals.

We are encouraged by the government's intention to review all Canadian aid programs. However, we hope that this aid will help reduce poverty, the first objective, that it will be aligned with local poverty reduction strategies, that the government will stop tying international aid to commercial objectives, and that we will finally consider international aid not as a donation to charity, but as an international obligation that we must fulfill.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question related to the bigger picture. Within the federal budget, we have witnessed a number of initiatives that would have a very profound and positive impact on Canadians, no matter what region of the country they live in.

We could talk about the Canada child benefit program. We could talk about the cutback on taxes for the middle class, from which nine million Canadians would benefit. We could talk about the investment for infrastructure that is so badly needed. By improving our infrastructure we would give more life to many of our communities that are in need.

There is so much in terms of benefit through the passage of this budget. When the member takes a look at the many different types of social programming that are incorporated in the budget, would the member not agree that overall it would be very difficult for New Democrats, who have a progressive nature, not to support a budget that would do so much in taking children out of poverty, in improving our communities? Would he not agree that it would be a challenge not to support the budget?

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my distinguished colleague for his question. I will respond very simply by saying that, no, it would not be difficult because there are many measures in this budget that are light years away from the interests of the New Democrats, who really do not have the same definition of the middle class as the Liberals do. When a person who makes less than $45,000 a year does not benefit from tax cuts, it shows that the government is already having problems putting the people in greatest need first. We are being told that the child benefit program will compensate for that, but for people who dream of joining the middle class and are not even getting a tax cut, how will the Liberal budget help them, if they have no children? Once again, there are good things in the budget. I mentioned a few of them. I do not have time to mention others, but the budget does not make Canadians a priority, far from it. Once again, the government is taking a piecemeal approach rather than really solving problems.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. His constituents are lucky to have someone who is so in tune with their biggest concerns, whether they have to do with local, Quebec, or Canadian issues. I commend him for that.

He called this a budget that throws money around indiscriminately. I found that funny. They throw money around indiscriminately and still manage to triple the projected deficit. What does he think about that?

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my seatmate for his very important question.

This is a fundamental problem. So many things were promised during the election campaign. I realize that it would have been difficult to draft a budget that met every commitment. However, that is why people are cynical about politics. When politicians promise something, it is because they have considered the commitments they should make. I imagine that they have also considered what kind of revenue would be needed to implement these measures. Members of the current government start many of their speeches by blaming the previous government. That is exactly the kind of thing that Canadians are sick of hearing. The government should make promises that it is able to keep. Politics will be better for it.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise to speak to budget 2016. I would like to start by acknowledging the people of Vancouver East for their long-standing commitment to economic, social, and environmental justice.

In Vancouver East, we have a strong history of activism. We yearn for a society where everyone can live with dignity, including those who live in the margins of life. We want a society where everyone has a chance to succeed. Therefore, after 10 long years of a Conservative government, I, like so many of my constituents, had high hopes for change.

Like the Liberal government, this is my inaugural federal budget. I wanted so much to see a budget that would demonstrate the government's determination to make real changes through budgetary commitments that matched the slogans and election promises made to Canadians. After all, this is not just child's play. Real lives, real people are impacted by these very real decisions.

Over the last 30 years, workers have helped grow our economy by over 50%. However, those same workers have seen their wages stagnant and retirement security vanish. At the same time, they have watched shareholders and executives walk away with enormous bonuses and payouts. The gap between the rich and everyone else is growing wider and faster here than in most of the developed countries.

It was estimated that by 12:18 p.m. on the first official working day of the year, the average top 100 executives in Canada had already earned what the average full-time employee in Canada would earn this entire year. Those same CEOs often have access to stock option loopholes, loopholes that were set up since 1984 and have been in place ever since. To my astonishment, budget 2016 shows that the Liberals backed off on a previous pledge to close that loophole.

We know that most stock options go to executives of large corporations. The result is that over 90% of the benefit goes to the top 1% of income earners. Tax loopholes cost Canada at least $10 billion every year.

I had braced myself for the last decade, knowing that this was what I should expect from the previous Conservative and even Liberal governments. What I did not expect was that the current Liberal government's real change in 2016 meant no change for stock option loopholes. Today, the top 100 richest Canadians now hold as much wealth as the bottom 10 million combined. How is that for real change?

An independent analysis has shown that families that will reap the largest benefits from the Liberal government's tax cut are those earning over $160,000. Who would have known that the definition of poverty, in the Liberal world, would have meant those earning over $160,000. In my world, and in the world of East Vancouver, those on income assistance and those who make minimum wages are folks living in poverty. B.C., by the way, has the distinction of having the lowest minimum wage in the country, no less.

Under budget 2016, those families on income assistance and those making minimum wage would not benefit from the child tax benefit. In fact, anyone making $21 an hour or less would not qualify for this tax cut. What this means is that all those who are living in real poverty, wanting real change, would not benefit from the child tax benefit at all.

Without significant action from the government, income inequality will continue as precarious part-time, temporary, and contract work continues to become the norm. These positions are disproportionately held by visible minorities, new Canadians, and women.

Also, if one should be so unfortunate as to lose one's job, access to EI is at historic lows, with fewer than four in ten unemployed Canadians able to access benefits when they need it. Eliminating the new entrant and re-entrant rule would only give an additional 50,000 people access to benefits, but there are currently nearly 850,000 unemployed Canadians not receiving EI benefits. Eight hundred thousand Canadians are still waiting.

Budget 2016 could have created a universal qualifying threshold of 360 hours for EI, but it did not. Budget 2016 could have repealed the Conservatives' harmful reforms to EI, but it did not. Instead, budget 2016 once again uses EI as a slush fund and takes $6.9 billion of contributions from workers and businesses over three years.

For families who are struggling with sky-high costs for child care, I am afraid that budget 2016 will only serve to disappoint, for there is no funding for child care this year. An iconic international leader, former UN ambassador Stephen Lewis said, “feminism is a vacant construct without a [national] child care program...”.

The Liberals promised a poverty reduction strategy in budget 2016, yet they did not even allocate any money toward developing one. Central to the issue of poverty reduction is the need for a national affordable housing program. In Vancouver East, we have many families in dire need of safe, secure, affordable housing. Since 1993, previous Liberal governments have cancelled Canada's national affordable housing program. As a result, more than half a million units of affordable housing or co-op housing that would otherwise have been built with federal money have been lost. Across the country, almost 119,000 families are living on the street or are on the verge of becoming homeless.

Real change in budget 2016 would have realized what anti-poverty advocates and housing providers have called for, which is a $3.2 billion investment to renovate old units and to build 100,000 new units of affordable housing and co-op housing nationwide to reverse the years of decline in federal spending on affordable housing. Instead, budget 2016 falls way short of this. A long-term operating agreement for federal housing is not even fully restored. That is something, by the way, that many Liberal candidates promised during the election. There are 34 housing co-ops in East Vancouver with a total of 1,669 units. If the government does not fully renew operating agreements and ensure support is in place for rent subsidies for low-income families classified as what we call “poor need”, those families or individuals, I fear, will become homeless. They will lose their homes. This cannot happen and must not happen, not in 2016.

The disappointments of budget 2016 do not stop there. It is shocking to see that the Liberals are failing to invest in a public health care system, an iconic system that makes us proud here in Canada and, I would say, the envy of the world. Even worse, the Liberals are doing nothing concrete to reverse the unilateral cuts of the Conservatives to transfers to provinces and territories. No new money has been set aside for a new health accord. The Liberals have also abandoned their promise to invest $3 billion over four years for home care deeply needed with Canada's increasingly aging population. There is nothing in the budget for mental health, for palliative care, or for long-term care for seniors. The real change promise was an investment of $3 billion over the next four years in home care. I have seen seniors whose home care has been reduced to one hour a week. All they can get is a bath a week. This is not real change. This is not how we should treat our seniors. Budget 2016 promised more and it failed to deliver.

There is so much to talk about in this budget. There is so much expectation, so much hope for the government to deliver. That is what the Liberals said they would do. They promised Canadians that they would do better, but I am afraid budget 2016 serves to disappoint.

I hope the government will do better. I hope the Liberals will honour their commitments and make real what they said to Canadians in this last election.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

International Trade

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question to the Liberal government back in February centred on the continued lack of an economic impact study regarding the proposed trans-Pacific partnership. Such a study would provide greater clarity for Canadians on how this massive investment trade deal would impact workers, our communities, and our economy as a whole. It would also help guide the work of the Standing Committee on International Trade, which will embark on a trip across western Canada next week to hear from a select few witnesses about the impacts of the TPP.

There are some studies we can look to now for guidance. An independent study from Tufts University estimates that the TPP would cost 58,000 jobs in Canada while increasing inequality. The study finds the deal would make a negligible difference on GDP: just 0.28% after 10 years.

Many have raised concerns over the TPP's impact on key areas of Canadian public interest, including the auto industry, supply-managed agricultural sectors, intellectual property rights, foreign takeovers of Canadian companies, privacy rights and Internet freedoms, and the affordability of prescription medications.

While some sectors may benefit from lowered tariffs and greater access to certain markets, the TPP's negative impacts on Canadian industry are evidenced by the Conservative government offering $5 billion in compensation to the auto and dairy sectors for the losses they are expected to suffer; compensation on which the Liberal government has so far turned its back.

The fact of the matter is that the TPP is a bad deal. Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz went so far as to call it the worst trade deal ever. As I outlined earlier today in question period, Mr. Stiglitz warns that the TPP would erode the rights of workers, kill Canadian jobs, and reverse the principle of polluter pays, making governments pay billions for any attempt to protect the environment.

The Conservatives negotiated the deal under an unprecedented veil of secrecy, and they concluded the deal in the dying days of their government, just two weeks before Canadians voted the Conservatives out of office.

When the Liberals were in opposition, they demanded that the government produce an analysis of the costs and benefits of the agreement on each sector. No such economic impact study has ever been produced, not for the TPP, and I would also point out, not for CETA. The fact that this did not happen before Canada signed onto this deal is ludicrous.

Therefore, I rise in this place tonight to ask this. Will the Liberals live up to their own standards and present an economic impact study of the TPP?

The government must release an analysis of the deal's impacts and come clean with Canadians about the costs of signing onto the Conservatives' TPP.

[David Lametti, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question as well as for her ongoing hard work on the international trade committee.

On October 5, right smack in the middle of a Canadian general election campaign, Canada and 11 other countries in the Asia-Pacific announced the conclusion of the TPP negotiations. This is a complex agreement made up of 30 chapters, tariff schedules and market access outcomes on services, investment, and government procurement involving 12 countries. The agreement was signed by the previous government without consulting Canadians and without truly studying the impacts.

Our new government is taking the responsible approach and consulting with Canadians to hear their views on Canada's participation in the TPP. We will also engage Parliament. In fact, the House Standing Committee on International Trade is currently studying the TPP and holding consultations with Canadians across the country. The committee has already met several stakeholders, and next week it will start travelling to meet with Canadians. The Committee will have hearings next week in Vancouver, Calgary, Regina, and Winnipeg.

With respect to the economic impact study, the government is carrying out a study of the economic impact of the TPP. However, given the scope and breadth of the TPP agreement, with over 100,000 tariff lines and service obligations among 12 countries, this will take some time. The government is continuing to work on that, and once completed, it will be made public.

The government is also reviewing the economic analysis of academics such as the study that my hon. friend has mentioned, think tanks, and other organizations that are looking at the TPP.

The government has made a commitment to a robust study of the TPP, and work is ongoing in this regard. The government takes this commitment seriously and is following the Prime Minister's instructions carefully. Specifically, the government is collaborating closely with colleagues and the government is facilitating constructive dialogues with Canadians.

Since November, the Government of Canada has held over 200 interactions with over 400 different stakeholders, which includes all provinces and territories, industry, civil society organizations, think tanks, academics, first nations, and the general public. Global Affairs Canada has also received over 15,000 letters and emails through this consultation process.

SeveraI town halls have taken place. Just two weeks ago I participated in a town hall in Fredericton and in another in Charlottetown, and more are to come. Indeed, on April 27 I will be participating in a town hall in Guelph, in this case organized by the Council of Canadians, and the Minister of International Trade will participate in one in Toronto on May 25 and one in Montreal on June 6.

As our consultations continue, I invite Canadians to share their views with the government, whether it is through the House of Commons international trade committee's consultations, or participating in a town hall with the Minister of International Trade, or sending their views in writing via the TPP website.

The government will continue to be open and transparent with Canadians and Parliament on this issue, an issue that is very important to all Canadians across the country.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for his work as well on this particular file. He has done some great work throughout our committee, and I know that we will be working strongly together.

The parliamentary secretary mentioned the complexity of this deal, which proves even more the need, the really desperate need, for this economic impact study.

We did receive a report from Global Affairs that they were working on a study, but I think that its importance needs to be stressed and that the timeline needs to be moved up on this particular study so that we can further the efforts that we are making in this particular deal. The consultations and the work of the trade committee cannot be a substitute for the economic impact study. It has to be a part of the work that we are doing together.

As far as public involvement is concerned, I do hope for and look forward to our continued efforts in the trade committee and the consultations that the member across mentioned will take place. In the spirit of transparency, I hope that the 15,000 emails submitted to Global Affairs will also be made public so that all Canadians can see the concerns that Canadians have with the Trans-Pacific Partnership and so that we can have a full, open, transparent debate around whether this trade deal is good or not for Canada.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member once again for her additional comments.

Our responsibility to Canadians is founded on a commitment to be transparent with all government decisions, and this includes an open dialogue on the merits of the TPP for business, for workers, and for Canadians writ large.

It is our responsibility to ensure the right decision is made on whether or not Canada participates in the TPP. The government believes in the merit of impact analyses from various sources with respect to trade agreements. In the Minister of International Trade's recent consultations on the TPP, she has encouraged various groups that have conducted analyses on Canada's trade agreements to share these with the government.

Mr. Speaker, as you can see, much work has been done, and there is a significant amount of work that remains.

The government looks forward to the coming weeks and months as these conversations continue.

Finance

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on February 18, I asked the finance minister why he was betraying the spending promises he made during the election campaign, which are the same promises that he was explicitly instructed by the Prime Minister to keep: to lower the debt-to-GDP ratio every year and return Canada to a balanced budget in 2019. Unfortunately, he provided the House with no explanation whatsoever.

During the election, the Liberals' plans to borrow money were very specific. They asked for a mandate to borrow $10 billion this year and $25 billion in total over the course of their first mandate. Canadian voters accepted this very specific plan, and they did so under the understanding that this spending would be kept within a clear financial framework. This is very important, because as parliamentarians we must understand that Canadians do not give the finance minister a blank cheque to borrow as much money as he wants without any limits.

The Prime Minister could have asked Canadian voters for a mandate to spend whatever he thought was necessary to achieve his goals for Canada, but that is not what he did. Instead, the Prime Minister took great efforts to promise Canadians that his government would have clear financial targets and a clear plan to balance the books. The Prime Minister went further, giving the finance minister very clear instructions to deliver on those promises. He wrote in the very first point of the finance minister's mandate letter that he expects the minister to meet the government's fiscal anchors, including a balanced budget by 2019. Now we know that the Prime Minister's mandate letters are his marching orders to cabinet.

Many Canadians thought the Prime Minister was signalling that the contents of these mandate letters actually meant something, because he took the unusual step of posting them publicly on his website. The Prime Minister wrote very clearly that the Minister of Finance and the entire cabinet were supposed to achieve their goals within the framework of balancing the federal budget by 2019. However, just a few months ago, the finance minister signalled that he would ignore his mandate letter, and we began hearing rumours of massive open-ended spending. The finance minister will say that unexpected things had happened and that is why he abandoned his financial promises and ignored his mandate letter. However, does that mean that all of the Prime Minister's instructions to cabinet are conditional? If that is the case, I think this would come as a big surprise to many Canadians.

Of course, circumstances will change over a four-year government mandate, but when a Canadian reads the Prime Minister's mandate letter to his ministers, they rightfully believe that the ministers will do whatever he or she can to achieve what the Prime Minister asked of them, even when unexpected challenges arise. If that is not the case, and these mandate letters were simply an outline of things that would be nice to achieve but not truly necessary, then Canadians deserve to know that.

On February 18, I asked the following question: “Will the finance minister confirm that he will do as the Prime Minister has directed him and balance the budget in this term? If not, what was the point of the mandate letter?”

We have now seen the budget, which shows that the finance minister will fall short of the Prime Minister's expectations. His mandate letter instructed him to continue to reduce the debt-to-GDP ratio throughout his mandate. His mandate letter also instructed him to meet the financial anchor of balancing the budget by 2019. Instead, he wrote a budget plan that will accomplish neither of these fundamental goals that the Prime Minister directed him to achieve.

Therefore, I will ask it again: What was the point of the finance minister's mandate letter?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I would like first to thank my hon. colleague for his interest in the budget, and also for his great work on the finance committee.

In electing a new government, millions of Canadians signalled their desire for change. Our government was elected in part because we took that desire seriously. We offered Canadians an ambitious new plan for a strong middle class and promised that we would do all we could to help every Canadian succeed.

Budget 2016 is an important part of fulfilling that promise. It offers immediate help to those who need it most, and lays the groundwork for sustained, inclusive economic growth that will benefit Canada's middle class and those working hard to join it.

In particular, this budget is about Canadian families. We have with met them, we have heard their stories, and we share their concerns. This budget is about the things that matter most to them.

For generations, Canadians have worked hard, secure in the belief that their hard work would be rewarded. They trusted that in exchange for their honest efforts, they would realize greater opportunities for themselves and for their families. This sense of optimism, paired with government policies that strengthened the middle class, help to make Canada the country it is today.

In recent years, however, the benefits of economic growth have been shared by fewer and fewer Canadians. Although household costs continue to rise, the income of most families has barely risen over the past 30 years, making it harder to make ends meet. Some families have responded to this pressure by taking on more debt. However, the more a family owes, the more difficult it is for it to save for the future. As the ability to pay for the their kids' education, their aging parents' care, and for their own retirement diminishes, Canadians are questioning whether the promise of Canadian progress has passed.

However, this is not true for all Canadians. Members of Canada's wealthiest 0.01% have seen their incomes more than double over the past 30 years. The net result is that even though there has been economic growth over the past three decades, too often the benefits have been felt only by already wealthy Canadians, while the middle class and those working hard to join it continue to struggle.

The need for more inclusive growth is not new. It has long been understood that a strong economy starts with a strong middle class. When middle-class Canadians have more money to save, invest and grow the economy, everyone benefits. With budget 2016, our government seeks to help more Canadians, and restore Canadians' confidence in a brighter, more prosperous future.

To do that, budget 2016 focuses on growth not austerity. It includes measures that will grow the economy for the benefit of every Canadian. By making smart investments now, we can help strengthen and expand the middle class, reduce inequality among Canadians, and position Canada for sustained economic growth in the years to come. Of course, the decisions we make cannot be made in isolation. Here at home and across the world, dramatic shifts are taking place that represent both challenges to, and opportunities for, the Canadian economy.

Managing Canada's ongoing demographic shift means that we must do more to invest in young Canadians, in post-secondary education, and in training and innovation. Global shifts in trade will allow us to strengthen economic ties with other regions and countries, but may make us more vulnerable to external economic shocks.

Finally, shifts in technology toward cleaner economies and more digitally connected ones cannot be ignored. Canada can either take advantage of these opportunities or be left behind.

We have listened to Canadians. That is why budget 2016 answers two issues: helping Canadians and their families, and growing the economy. This answers the needs of Canadian families.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I must say that was not an answer to the very specific question that I put to the minister as to what was the meaning of publicly showing his mandate letter from the Prime Minister, which was very specific.

I will remind the member what the question was. Why is the Minister of Finance, in his budget, not meeting the fiscal targets and anchors that were set out by the Prime Minister to him and what Canadians voted for when they voted the Liberal Party into power?

The response continues to be some kind of platitudes about this is what Canadians wanted. Canadians were offered a very specific proposition, and the member is still not answering this question. What purpose does the mandate letter serve if the government is not going to follow through on the promises made to Canadians?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would respectfully disagree with the hon. member. I heard his question, but this government was elected on October 19 in order to deliver for Canadian families and the middle class.

People have been saying two things to us: help them and their families, and grow the economy. That is exactly what we have proposed in budget 2016. We reduced taxes for the middle class, which is helping nine million Canadians. We introduced the Canada child benefit, which is going to benefit nine families out of ten. We are also making historic investments in infrastructure, innovation, and in science.

The mandate letter was the charter that the Prime Minister gave to the finance minister, but one thing that was clear was that we wanted to hear from Canadians and to make sure we grew the economy. That is what Canadians have been asking from us and that is what we are delivering by historic investments in infrastructure, in science and technology, and having a growth agenda. This is exactly what we will continue to do.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:50 p.m.)