Debates of April 11th, 2016

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, aboriginal children are a wonderful reason to invest. The $8.4 billion will not be wasted. It is an investment in the personal futures of our fellow citizens.

The premise of the hon. member for Sturgeon River—Parkland is that this idea is a wasted investment, that indigenous children are a wasted investment, that lifting 300,000 children out of poverty is a waste.

I have spoken at many churches in Winnipeg, and they have the ideals of compassion. They have the ideals that collectively we have the responsibility to our fellow citizens and that indigenous people are not just pet causes. They are an integral part of Canada. They are Canadians who deserve not to be ignored but to be engaged.

Should we waste another generation of indigenous Canadians, or should we engage in the future of all Canadians together?

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member has our full support for programs that will result in benefits to young aboriginals. The concern is that there has been billions of dollars invested over many decades and that we continue to see problems like we saw today, with 11 kids trying to kill themselves.

Suicide rates with the young are on the rise. We have major health care problems on first nations. There are some very bright spots, do not get me wrong, but we need to hold those who are receiving the money to account.

The funding matters, and the funding is there. The concern is, why are we not seeing results? Why do kids continue to kill themselves on first nations? What are the results in terms of kids' education?

This is a concern for every single Canadian. My message back to the government is on accountability. Why did the Liberals remove transparency and accountability for the chiefs of first nations? Frankly, I am not interested in making first nations' chiefs happy. I am interested in seeing families on first nations—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Those leaders in our first nations need to be just as accountable as every leader in this House. That means that when they use taxpayer money, it should be transparent. Only then will families, women and children, get the support they need.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the NDP to begin the debate on the budget recently tabled by the new Liberal government.

The budget always turns out to be a huge document. We can support some of the measures it contains, because many of the commitments the Liberals made during the election campaign were poached from the NDP's platforms in 2015, 2011, and 2008. Obviously, we can only support those measures.

It also includes other measures, or half-measures, that do not live up to the commitments made during the election campaign or do not meet the needs expressed during and after the election campaign. In that respect, the government should have listened more closely, but it did the opposite. Contrary to what the government members may believe, many aspects of this budget are far from positive.

Let us begin with the good, the positive elements that, for the most part, were take from our platform. Let us start by talking about income splitting. When the previous Conservative government announced the measure, we immediately pointed out that it was extremely inequitable and would primarily benefit the wealthiest Canadians. In addition, it would decrease women's participation in the workforce. It would effectively be a tax incentive encouraging them to stay at home rather than contribute to society and participate in the workforce. We promised to immediately abolish this measure, and so did the Liberals. This is included here, so we applaud this initiative.

However, some of these measures cause consternation. We support the measures, but the government did not follow through with them to the extent it promised. I am talking about the tax credit for labour-sponsored funds. This has been an ongoing battle ever since the Conservatives announced the phasing out of this tax credit, which is extremely important for labour-sponsored funds, one of the country's biggest sources of venture capital.

This issue is especially important in Quebec, where the FTQ's Fonds de solidarité and the CSN's Fondaction work closely with private venture capital organizations to help businesses that would otherwise be left behind, ignored, or neglected by traditional funding bodies, such as banks. Their work has been recognized. Because of it, Quebec, which is mainly where this happens, ranks third behind Israel and the United States among OECD countries with the highest level of participation in venture capital.

When this tax credit was eliminated in Ontario, there was a significant drop in venture capital investments in Ontario, such that Quebec, which has a smaller population, now has roughly the same level of investment as Ontario when it comes to venture capital.

We promised to keep this tax credit and I personally fought to make it happen. The Liberals then made the same promise, but immediately after being elected, they promised to get rid of the tax credit. As a result, the tax credit is now down to 5%, when it was originally 15%. According to the definition of the word “immediately”, a 15% tax credit should have been in effect during the 2015 fiscal year. However, that 15% credit does not come into effect until 2017. We see that as a step backward. At a time when people were deciding where to put their savings, this created a lot of uncertainty.

Another thing that seems positive to me has to do with recreational and cultural infrastructure. This was an NDP proposal because we could not understand why the infrastructure budgets in the building Canada program did not include projects that not only stir communities into action, but also help stimulate the economies of those very communities.

After completing required upgrades to its waste and water systems and roads, a municipality that made it a priority to improve its citizens' quality of life and strengthen the community through its sports, recreation, and cultural infrastructure could not secure federal government funds because its requests were specifically excluded from the building Canada program.

Municipalities know best what they need and what their priorities are. In our opinion, it makes no sense for the federal government to establish their priorities, as was the case with the former Conservative government.

We support the initiative that will allow municipalities to secure federal funding for sports and cultural infrastructure.

However, there are several other elements to consider. Yes, there are investments for youth, but the amount is half of what was promised during the election campaign.

Yes, there are investments in public transport, and we agree with that. That was also part of our election platform. However, it falls shore of what the new Liberal government promised during the election campaign and, again, it could it difficult for municipalities to meet public transit needs, because a good part of this money is back-ended.

Now, let us get to the bad. I asked the opposition leader about one of the worst broken promises in this Liberal budget: reducing the tax rate on small and medium-sized businesses from 11% to 9%.

Back in 2008, the NDP recognized that SMEs are job creators and an important driver. We realized this and proposed reducing the tax rate from 11% to 9%. Other NDP governments, such as the Alberta government, have gone even further and completely eliminated taxes on SMEs, bringing the rate to 0%.

The Conservatives ignored this policy for a long time, but finally adopted it in their last budget in 2015. We welcomed this measure, although it was one of the rare times we could agree. We welcomed this initiative and were pleased that they had taken the NDP's idea.

This decrease from 11% to 9% was meant to be gradual, and the rate was set at 10.5% for 2015-16. Once the Liberals finally realized that the NDP and the Conservatives were right, they committed to lowering the SME tax rate from 11% to 9%.

[Hélène Laverdière]

It was about time.

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

Mr. Speaker, absolutely. It was about time they did that.

What did we see in the budget? The Liberals broke that promise. They reneged on the formal commitment that was made and put SMEs in an extremely difficult situation because they had planned around that decision, given that the three parties had reached a consensus. By freezing taxes at 10.5%, the government put many SMEs in a tight spot and is taking away their power to invest and hire, which is what they were previously proposing to do.

Another promise that the Liberals broke in this budget was their promise to eliminate the tax loophole for stock options as a method of compensation. This loophole mainly benefits the wealthiest members of our society, particularly CEOs and board members of major corporations.

Ninety per cent of this tax credit is used to finance stock options that are given to these people as compensation or income. However, that compensation is not subject to the Income Tax Act. Instead, it is subject to capital gains taxes when the shares are sold.

The negative impact of this measures is twofold. First, it costs the Canadian treasury nearly three-quarters of a billion dollars a year and, of course, it mainly benefits the wealthy. Second, this measure creates a perverse incentive for companies to take short-term measures to increase the value of their shares and thus allow CEOs, decision-makers, and managers to sell their shares at a higher price.

This negative and unintended consequence is widely recognized by economists and business analysts. The Liberal government followed the NDP's lead and promised to eliminate it, but there is no sign of that in the budget.

Other elements are conspicuously absent, such as credit card transaction fees, a major obstacle to growth and investment in business, particularly small business. A measure to address that would have cost the federal government nothing. Canada has some of the highest fees in the OECD, and businesses have to absorb that cost. The Liberal government has done nothing to address that.

Other countries in the world have actually addressed this question. We have seen movement by different means in Australia and in the European Union on this issue: in Australia the rate is regulated by the central bank, while in the European Union, it is set by regulation. They have recognized that credit card fees are a hindrance for the expansion of businesses, particularly for small and medium-sized businesses. There is nothing on this in the budget.

Try as we might, we will not find anything about forestry in this budget. We have major problems right now in forestry. We do not know where our relationship with the United States will go in terms of softwood lumber. We are at the end of the agreement, and there is lots of uncertainty right now.

We have a problem that is akin to the pine beetle in Quebec and in New Brunswick, a parasite that is creating or threatening to create lots of major losses for the industry. There is nothing in this budget for that.

The government is deaf to the demands and needs of this sector, as it has been for the aerospace industry.

During the election campaign, we put forward a concrete strategy to help not just one struggling company but an entire sector that is critical to Canada's economy. The Liberal Party had nothing to say about it during the campaign. Now it is trying to clean up the mess with piecemeal measures for urgent situations like Bombardier's. The government's decisions will be bad for a lot of people, such as Aveos workers, who thought they were being protected but who were suddenly thrown under the bus by the Liberal government for political reasons and incentives.

There is nothing for agriculture either even though there are some major problems right now, such as protecting supply management. We will see what the Liberals do during negotiations. Dairy and cheese producers were promised compensation in connection with the EU treaty, which is not yet in force, as well as the trans-Pacific partnership, the TPP. There is nothing about that in this budget, no mention of the compensation that was promised and that is vital to helping producers adapt to the new normal if the agreement is ratified.

There is also nothing in the budget on diafiltered milk, a serious situation that currently affects all dairy producers and farmers. There is absolutely nothing. The budget is far more than just a series of fiscal measures. This becomes clear when you really look at the entire document. It is also a statement of priorities, similar to a throne speech. The fact that there is no mention of some current issues that are crucial to the future of Canada's agricultural sector is extremely troubling.

Let us talk about employment insurance. Of course, the NDP has traditionally led the charge. I clearly remember my colleague Yvon Godin, who was well known as one of the greatest critics of Liberal and Conservative measures that restricted access to employment insurance. We promised to reverse the misguided reform brought in by the Conservative government in 2012.

The Liberals later realized that that might be a good idea and they said the same thing. In fact, when the Prime Minister was leader of the Liberal Party, during the election campaign, he was quoted in New Brunswick as saying that a Liberal government would reverse the unfair changes the Conservatives had made to the employment insurance system. The Liberals said they believed that the irresponsible changes made to EI punished workers and unfairly targeted seasonal workers.

I agree completely. That is exactly what we have been saying since 2012. What happened, then, in this budget? It contains only half-measures. Of course, certain elements have been reversed, and obviously we agree with that. One such measure forced unemployed workers to accept a job that paid only 70% of what they were earning before, regardless of their qualifications, and finally, we welcome the elimination of the obligation for unemployed workers to accept a job that is up to 100 km away from their home. These measures undermined and reduced accessibility and did a great disservice to rural regions, which obviously have suffered a demographic shock. If there is no work where they live, these people will have to move to where the jobs are.

That is pretty much everything.

One of the main measures in the budget, beside this one, is that 12 regions in the country will be given the possibility of an extension of five weeks in EI benefits. However, this measure existed prior to 2011. It was a pilot project that, depending on the rate of unemployment, allowed workers to have a five-week extension.

This closed what was called, in Quebec especially, the black hole, the period of time between the end of employment insurance benefits and a return to work, which is quite often the case for seasonal workers. Why is the government targeting 12 regions when this program, which was clearly part of the Conservatives' EI reform, was not applied to the whole country?

Atlantic Canada was shafted by this measure; there is no other word.

Quebec was also hurt by this measure. It applies only to northern Ontario and a few specific regions. There are even people in Alberta and Saskatchewan, depending on the community they live in, who are suffering the impact of the economic crisis. They are also being ignored and neglected.

I cannot conclude my speech without talking quickly about first nations.

The Liberals fall short of many of their financial promises to first nations. For education, they spread $2.6 billion over five years instead of what they promised, which was over four years. This means $800 million less for education among first nations. For child welfare, and as Cindy Blackstock has said, the budget is $130 million short of meeting the legal commitment set out by the human rights tribunal ruling that this program racially discriminated against indigenous children. There is a lack of money compared to the promises for post secondary education.

Therefore, this budget, by and large, falls short of what the Liberals promised during the campaign.

That is why I am moving, seconded by the hon. member for Hochelaga, the following subamendment:

That the amendment be amended by deleting all the words after the words “because it:” and substituting the following:

“chooses to keep tax loopholes for CEOs and giveaways to profitable corporations over providing immediate help to struggling Canadians, fails to honour the government’s promises to invest in health care, seniors, youth, and First Nations children, does not meaningfully improve access to Employment Insurance or close the black hole for seasonal workers, and lacks transparency; and is of the opinion that the Minister of Finance should amend his budgetary policy so that it actually delivers on the government’s promises, and addresses income inequality in this country.”

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The amendment to the amendment is in order.

We will now move to questions and comments. The hon. member for Saint John—Rothesay.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to be back in the House after our break. I certainly appreciate a lot of the member's points, his passion, and his delivery.

Let us be clear. Good governments govern and come up with policies for the many, not the few. Let us backtrack a bit to the election campaign that just happened and the NDP platform. Canadians did not buy a big part of its platform. At one point, the NDP platform was to have 30 to 40 more seats to form government. Canadians listened and gave it 30 to 40 seats.

The New Democrats talked about things such as a $15-an-hour minimum wage, which was only for a very small percentage of Canadians, and $15-a-day daycare that was not costed out in a lot of provinces, which were not going to buy in anyway. They preach austerity and balanced budgets and now they ask why we have not added this or not added that.

I have asked the party opposite many times about its insistence on the universal child care benefit and why it continues to push for equal payments to people who are making $25,000 or people who are making hundreds of thousands of dollars. Liberals came forth with the Canada child benefit. Could the member opposite explain why the New Democrats continue to back the UCCB instead of the Canada child benefit?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the member actually sees the irony in the question he has just asked. He said that we should be governing for the many and not the few. That is exactly what I said in my speech. I said that the changes to employment insurance, especially the five-week extension, should apply to all regions where there are high levels of unemployment, as was the case before. The Liberal government chose to select 12 regions across the country, without knowing why these specific regions and not others. It does not make sense.

The Liberals, during the campaign, promised so much to everyone, especially Atlantic Canada. Why would they choose to reopen, which we welcome, the Coast Guard station in Kitsilano and not say anything about St. John's? Why do the members who come from Atlantic Canada not promote, as was promised, the reopening of the station in St. John's?

Because there are so many promises that have not been delivered on by the Liberal government after the election, I do not know where to start.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have many disagreements with the NDP with respect to aspects of budgetary policy, but I appreciate that we both at least agree that it has to be paid for eventually. We have different ways of doing that, but the government seems to think it can keep borrowing and borrowing.

I want to ask the member specifically about income splitting, because this budget does away with income splitting, which is something I regard as a basic tax fairness measure. If two families make the same income, except the people earning the income are different, they should pay the same rate of tax.

I want to hear what the member thinks about income splitting. Is it not a basic tax fairness measure, that if two families have the same income, the same amount of tax should be paid?

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

Mr. Speaker, that was actually at the heart of the debate on this issue in the last Parliament. While I recognize his point of view, I do not agree with it.

This measure is a regressive measure. If there are two spouses, one with a very high income and one with a low income, for example because he or she stays at home, and most of the time it is she who is at home, there is no incentive to actually work.

Moreover, this measure does nothing for couples or families needing that fiscal help. For example, for a couple where each member is earning $25,000 or $30,000 that is not a lot. It is at the lower end of what I would argue is the middle class. That couple would get nothing from this measure because it is not income splitting when people have basically the same wage. However, if only one of the two members of that household were working, it would definitely not be enough to make ends meet, especially with children. A couple without children would get nothing through the measure that was adopted by the Conservatives, and which is eliminated right now.

The measure was so regressive that had major implications for the fiscal health of the country. For that reason, we could do nothing but oppose it.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his analysis of the budget and what was in it and what was missing.

When we talk about child care, that money is fantastic for families because they need it, but it will do nothing to provide quality, affordable, accessible child care in their communities, particularly for people who work, or who have shift work or who need to cover those long periods of time when they are away from their children.

My colleague spoke eloquently about the things that were completely missing from the budget, such as agriculture, many of the commitments that were made around some of the trade agreements we faced, and the money that was simply not there for the supply managed sectors in our communities.

The other thing my colleague touched on was EI and how there were choices made about Canadians, about which Canadians deserved to be helped when they were at their most vulnerable and which did not. We were sent a clear message by the government about which communities in Canada would receive that money and the rest were left out.

I would like to ask my colleague about health care, which was left out completely from this budget. We talk about seniors and families at their most vulnerable needing access to health care, being able to get to health care, and having it be affordable. Could the member please speak about the absolute lack in this budget of the promises the government made during the campaign with respect to health care?

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

Mr. Speaker, the question of my colleague from Essex is an excellent one. One of the commitments of the government during the campaign was that it would renegotiate a health accord with the provinces, which the previous government failed to do. It just implemented an end to the 6% escalator for transfers to the provinces on health, a transfer the provinces need, especially at a time when health care costs are increasing.

This measure by the Conservatives had a major impact on the fiscal capacity of provinces to deliver those services as well as other services. The Parliamentary Budget Officer recognized that the federal government was giving itself a large margin for its own long-term sustainability that was impeding and threatening the fiscal sustainability of the provinces. That is a major problem, and I have not even talked about the delivery of services.

How can this budget be silent on the reduction of the escalator, which will be applied next year, and not say anything about the situation that will make the provincial finances very uncertain and will also threaten to diminish and decrease the quality of the health care services that Canadians have paid for and that they have the right to expect?

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

Mr. Speaker, the budget that we tabled a few weeks ago will help those most in need, seniors, the regions, and education. It will improve infrastructure and invest in Internet access and indigenous communities. It includes hundreds of pages of large and small changes that will benefit the country, which the former government simply turned its back on. We have begun to resolve the problems left by the Conservative government, but we are not finished yet, because the Conservatives did a great deal of damage.

Does the member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques not find that the budget is an improvement? Even though the changes do not go as far as he would like, does he not support the investment programs, the changes, and the improvements that will help the poorest Canadians, our seniors, our young people, our infrastructure, and our indigenous communities?

There is still work to be done, but in the meantime, does the member think that opposing these progressive changes will help Canadians?

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

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

I hope he is not trying to say that the previous Conservative budgets set the bar for this budget. Obviously, it is an improvement over the budgets tabled by the Conservatives. We cannot deny that.

However, as the progressive opposition, our role is to ensure that this government, which made so many commitments and promises and created such high expectations among Canadians, keeps those promises in its major policies, particularly its budgets.

I took 20 minutes of my time to explain how the government failed to keep its promises to Canadians. I hope that the member will take note and change his list in order to take into consideration everything his party promised during the election campaign and everything it did not deliver in this budget.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Malpeque.

Although this is not my first time standing in the House, it is the first formal speech I have the honour of delivering. I am very proud to do it in support of budget 2016, “Growing the Middle Class”, our government's plan to deliver real change.

However, before I speak to the budget, I do have some general comments to make and some thanks to extend.

Let me say first what an honour it is to serve in the House. This body brings together so many people who have contributed to the framework of our great country. Over the next four years I look forward to what I know will be a new and more positive tone in the House.

In this vein, we need to work together, both sides of the House, to make those who sent us here proud that they did. Collectively, we need to earn back voters' trust and respect. We need to move away from the nasty habit of judging ideas based simply on who came up with them. We need to engage in meaningful discussions and make sure that ideas are considered on the basis of being good or bad, better or worse. Ideas can be judged right or wrong, but they should never be judged right or left.

Please do not misunderstand me. Like my colleagues in the House, I will not hesitate to speak up when I think an idea is wrong, and I should say at this point that I think the budget is right.

The list of people I need to thank is long, and I am going to miss many who have helped me get here today. Any success I have had in life is due more to the efforts of others than to my own. I need to thank my family, my campaign team, and my office staff, both here in Ottawa and, most importantly, back home in Etobicoke—Lakeshore.

I owe a debt of gratitude to my predecessors who have held this seat before me. They have all played a role in my success, and I would like to thank them.

The Hon. Jean Augustine occupied the Etobicoke—Lakeshore seat from 1993 until 2005. She did so with distinction and continues to be a mentor and role model for me. For some time, actually, she occupied your seat, Mr. Speaker, as deputy speaker, and just to be clear, I do not ever expect to be sitting in your seat.

From 2006 until 2011 the seat was occupied by Michael Ignatieff. He too served with distinction, honour, and integrity. Actually, he sat over there, and for the record, I do not ever want to sit over there.

Finally, during the last Parliament the seat was held by Bernard Trottier. I want to thank him for his service to our community, and although I am sincere in my gratitude and appreciation, I hope that neither he nor anyone else occupies this seat again at any time in the near future.

There is no chance at all that I would be standing here today were it not for my parents. They are the ones who taught me the value of public service and the importance of giving back to the community. They were the best role models a son could have.

My father was a member of the legal profession for over 50 years, first as a lawyer and later as a trial judge. His common sense, wisdom, and sense of fairness left a lasting impression on me. My mother, the late Marian Maloney, dedicated her life to community service and the advancement of women in society. She took her seat down the hall in the Senate chamber in 1999, where she continued her fight on the same issues she had dealt with for her entire life. She was a role model to me and to many women who have sat in the House. My mother, although she would never claim to be a pioneer, fought hard for what she believed in. She started the Judy LaMarsh Fund and ran it for 30 years. This was an organization dedicated to supporting women in politics and ensuring that they were given an equal opportunity to run.

I have a vivid memory of asking her, when I was much younger, why she worked so hard for the advancement of women's issues. She said something like “because it's 1985”. She was clearly ahead of her time.

Of course I have to thank the voters of Etobicoke—Lakeshore for putting their trust in me last October. It is because of them that I stand here today to speak in support of budget 2016. I do so as I believe it sets an agenda for our government, and Canada, that is consistent with the goals and priorities of my community. It sets a course for growing the middle class.

The government promised to lower taxes for those who need it most, a promise that we have now kept. This budget will help the middle class in this country get ahead and make it easier for others to join it.

I have lived in my riding for 40 years. Etobicoke—Lakeshore, like many communities in this country, is very diverse economically, culturally, and socially. It is home to middle-class families and those seeking to join it. It is home to Humber College, one of the great and flourishing post-secondary institutions in Canada. It is home to a significant and thriving manufacturing sector, including such companies as Fiat Chrysler—an industry with a large footprint in our riding—the Campbell's soup company, and the Canadian film industry, which I am very proud to represent.

All of these organizations provide employment and opportunity not only for the residents of Etobicoke—Lakeshore but also for people throughout the greater Toronto area. Ours is a riding with strong local identities in Alderwood, New Toronto, Long Branch, The Kingsway, and Mimico, which I should note is home to four recent Stanley Cups, although I have to point out none of them was won by the Toronto Maple Leafs.

Etobicoke—Lakeshore is a vibrant community, but there exists a major infrastructure deficit that needs to be addressed. For a short time, I was a member of Toronto City Council and saw first-hand the challenges faced by this municipality. I would like to pause at this point and voice my condolences to the family of Rob Ford. He was a vocal and principled advocate whom I had a chance to work with, as I mentioned, and he will be missed.

My riding is home to some of the most significant development seen in the past century. In the south part of the riding is the community of Humber Bay Shores. The population of this neighbourhood will reach upwards of 40,000 within the next few years, and 20 years ago it did not exist. Although this community has grown rapidly, the infrastructure has not kept pace. This is why I am so proud to be part of a government that is making an unprecedented commitment to new infrastructure.

Budget 2016 launches our commitment to spend the unprecedented amount of $120 billion in support of such things as public transit and housing infrastructure. This will help communities like Humber Bay Shores reach their potential. When I moved to Toronto 40 years ago, the transit map looked almost identical to what we see now. This is unacceptable. The Humber Bay Shores community is the equivalent of dropping the city of North Bay into a six-block radius without offering any new transit solutions. This is completely unacceptable.

This is why I will remain steadfast as an advocate on transit issues, including a transit hub in this emerging neighbourhood. I am very proud that with budget 2016, this government has made bold infrastructure commitments while also investing in building a stronger, greener, and more prosperous country.

In my riding, housing prices have risen exponentially. Values have risen to 15 or 20 times over what they were 40 years ago. The people living in these houses are not making 15 or 20 times what they were then. The government should always encourage growth, but with a measure of fairness and equality. That is what this government is doing. The government cannot wave a magic wand and fix all the problems, but I believe we are here to give Canadians a break and an opportunity to help them not only to keep up but to get ahead.

One goal I have is to work closely with the other levels of government. My job is to get things done, not take credit for things others have done. In the past few months I have met with and talked to many constituents. I have taken part in pre-budget consultations, town hall meetings, and office drop-ins. Whether it was tax cuts, support for the environment, or the settlement of refugees, without exception they all expressed views that are 100% consistent with this budget.

To conclude, there are many people elected to the House with far more compelling stories than mine. Mine is quite simple. When I was a child, first in Thunder Bay where I was born—and I would like to add that I am very pleased to see two new MPs on this side of the House from Thunder Bay—and later in my current home of Etobicoke—Lakeshore, where I have lived for 40 years, life was much simpler. It was a time when lawyers or politicians were assumed to be honest and honourable members of society. Sadly, I am not sure we can still say that. I say that as a member of both professions.

I come from the legal profession and I have now entered this world. My goal is this: when I leave this place, hopefully many years from now, people will look more favourably on those in this House and this profession because we debated issues based on their merit, not their source. If that happens, I will feel that I have accomplished my goal.

I believe that budget 2016 is a big first step in accomplishing this goal.

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

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member on his first speech in this House. It was very well done.

I would like to ask a very simple question. What is he most proud of in this budget?

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

I would say fairness, Mr. Speaker. The budget does exactly what this government promised to do during the course of the election. We promised to support the people who needed the support the most. We needed to help people get ahead. Governments are not there to fix all problems, as I said, but they are there to give people who need help the breaks they need to get ahead. That is what this budget does in the form of tax cuts and infrastructure spending. This is an investment that is going to pay off long down the road.

Governments for too long have been thinking four years ahead instead of 40 years ahead. In my opinion, this budget changes that course. We are looking down the road. We are thinking of the future of Canadians, not the future of the people sitting in this room.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to congratulate the member on his election and his first speech in this House.

There are a few areas on which I would like to hear him speak a bit further.

He talked about this budget delivering what the Liberals promised. When he was on the campaign trail, did he tell his constituents that it was going to be a $10-billion deficit? Did he tell his constituents that this was going to be a short-term deficit and they were going to get back to a balanced budget? Did he tell his constituents that the middle class was in desperate straits but not allude to the fact that between 2005 to the current day the middle class is actually doing much better than it has done throughout Canadian history?

He talks about the credibility of politicians, but I have to ask him, did he tell his constituents that those were the commitments of his party? How is he going to explain to his constituents now how the Liberal Party broke so many important fiscal promises?

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what I told my constituents when I was on the campaign trail last year were the facts, the truth, and the information we were provided. We told the voters that we were going to be delivering a budget that included a deficit. We told them what we were going to do based upon the facts and evidence that we were provided going into the election campaign. Sadly, some of those facts turned out to be inaccurate. We inherited a fiscal situation that was drastically different from that which was presented by the now opposition party, the former government.

We have been transparent, which is why in the first several months of this administration we opened the books and let the public know exactly what the fiscal situation was so there would no longer be any surprises.

I am very proud to stand here and say that I told my constituents, the voters in Etobicoke—Lakeshore, the truth.

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the hon. member that the Liberals broke a promise to invest $3 billion over four years in health care. There is no mention of that in this budget.

I would like to hear what the actual commitments are now, if there is indeed a different story from when he was campaigning on facts until now. Why is he now abandoning the concept of health care that was campaigned on and which resonated with Canadians?

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we spoke about health care during the campaign. We have talked about health care since the election. What we have done is we have had a first ministers conference to talk to the provinces about delivering better health care in this country, something which has not been done for a decade.

People on this side of the House are very proud of their record on health care in this country. We are going to work very hard. Canadians had our commitment during the election and they have our commitment now to continue working with the provinces and the first ministers across the country to deliver better health care. So, we are actually on agreement on that.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to speak to the budget entitled “Growing the Middle Class”.

Let me start with a quote from the Minister of Finance himself. He really summed it all up in his opening remarks. He said:

Today, we begin to restore hope for the middle class. Today, we begin to revitalize the economy. Today, we begin a long-term plan that will use smart investments and an unwavering belief that progress is possible to ensure that Canada's best days lie ahead.

As I said, that really sums up what this budget is all about. It sums up the objective of the budget. However, the budget is made all the more difficult by what the previous government has left us, or has left us without. Program after program was cut by the previous government. Earlier, the Leader of the Opposition talked about how the Conservative government had a surplus. No it did not. That was a surplus on a monthly basis, but accounting is usually done over the long term. The Conservatives left this country with $160 billion of added debt imposed on every citizen in this country. Not only did they leave us with debt, as I said, but they also cut programs and services. Even worse, they created disunity in the country.

If we are going to bring Canada ahead as a federation, we need to have a government that is willing to work with the provinces, to work together to grow the economy, to put in programs that we can utilize together to create growth in the economy and jobs for Canadians.

In reality, the budget builds on the measures introduced in December which provided a middle-class tax cut. We are dealing with that now with Bill C-2. Really what that did is bring better balance to the taxation system by giving those in the middle class a tax break and balancing that by taking a little more from those who can afford it. This budget builds on that commitment.

One of the key parts of this budget is looking to the future. That is done with the Canada child benefit, assisting those families in raising their children, giving them better opportunities to spend money where it is needed. The Canada child benefit will replace the current complicated child benefit system.

The Canada child benefit will provide a maximum annual benefit of up to $6,400 per child under the age of six, and up to $5,400 per child for those ages six through 17. Families with less than $30,000 in net income will receive the maximum benefit. Nine out of 10 families will receive more child benefits under this program than under the current system. Specifically in my own province of Prince Edward Island, they will receive $47 million more in child benefits during the 2016-17 and 2017-18 period. That is a benefit to families. It is putting the money where the resources should be put.

Not only are we dealing with families, but we are also dealing with the education of students so that we build for the future down the road. We are making post-secondary education more affordable through this budget. We are enhancing Canada student grants to give young people the opportunity to be able to afford to go to university and college.

Budget 2016 proposes to increase Canada student grants by 50%, from $2,000 to $3,000 per year for students from low-income families, from $800 to $1,200 per year for students from middle-income families, and from $1,200 to $1,800 per year for part-time students. We are not only building on the very young people, but we are building the education system as well for all Canadians.

I know this area is a little controversial, but for all Canadians we are improving the safety net for those who find themselves in difficult times as a result of being out of work. We are improving the employment insurance system after the disastrous way it was handled by the previous government.

We are expanding access to new entrants and re-entrants by dropping the 910 hours' entrance requirement to whatever the regional rate is. We are reducing the two-week waiting period to one week. We are improving the program for working while on claim. That is extremely controversial. It was extremely controversial in my area, because under the previous government's system, a person was penalized for going to work. Even people who were on maternity leave were penalized for going to work and keeping up their skills, especially those who worked in a hospital setting for one day a week while on maternity leave.

I do not mind admitting that there is some controversy around the next point I will make, and that is extending the five-week pilot project to those areas that were hardest hit by the downturn in the economy. I would say there is some controversy in my own region over that because that five weeks was not applied in that particular region, but it is targeted to those areas which have been greatly impacted by the downturn in some of the commodities in the marketplace.

The minister has committed to look at that into the future. The minister has committed to review the employment insurance system and those measures going down the road. I look forward to that review, to ensure that we get fairness and equity throughout the total measures around employment insurance in this country.

We improved the safety net for those finding themselves out of work. I do not have the time available to go into it, but we do look beyond employment insurance and we are investing in skills and training. We are enhancing the investments in training itself, strengthening the union-based apprenticeship training, supporting flexible work arrangements, and improving labour market information for Canadians. We are trying to put that workforce in a place where their skills will be needed in the future and expand on those skills to grow the economy.

However, it is not enough to deal with today's reality. We are looking at the long-term future. During the election campaign we talked a lot about investment in infrastructure. While we are looking at $11.9 billion over five years starting right away, budget 2016 puts this plan into action with an immediate down payment on this plan: $3.4 billion over three years to upgrade and improve public transit systems across Canada; $5 billion over five years for investments in water, waste-water, and green infrastructure; $3.4 billion over five years for social infrastructure, including affordable housing, early learning and child care, cultural and recreational infrastructure, and community health care facilities.

We are investing in the future. Specifically in my comments I should make this point: Major transfers to Prince Edward Island will total $582 million in 2016-17, an increase of $29 million from the previous year; $380 million through equalization, an increase of $19 million from last year; $147 million through the Canada health transfer, an increase of $8 million from the previous year; $54 million through the Canada social transfer, an increase of $1.6 million from the previous year.

My point is, my province benefits from this budget in terms of the transfers, in terms of the programs, and Canada as a whole can look to the future with opportunity and excitement because of what this budget does.

It addresses the problems created by the previous government and puts in place investments in families, infrastructure, education, and skills training, which is what Canadians really need to grow, with opportunity and the hope for prosperity in the future. That is what the Minister of Finance has done in this budget. I ask everyone in this House to be supportive of that to help build Canada's future.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands is rising on a point of order.