Debates of April 11th, 2016

The House resumed consideration of the motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government, and of the amendment, and of the amendment to the amendment.

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 have a question for the member. I listened to her speech, and one of the things I found amazing is that the member does not seem to recognize that the Liberal government made a commitment to provide a tax cut for the middle class. True to form, the Liberal government under the Prime Minister delivered on that commitment to cut the middle-class tax. In fact, as part of the budget implementation, it was necessary to bring legislation through the House.

What I think most Canadians would find surprising is that the Conservative Party voted against a tax break to Canada's middle class. My question for the member is this. Can she please elaborate for Canadians as to why the Conservative Party voted against giving middle-class Canadians the opportunity to have a tax break? This is something that the middle class needs. It helps our economy. A healthy, stronger middle-class delivers a healthier and stronger Canadian economy. Liberals understand that. Why does the Conservative Party not understand that?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question and his attention to my speech. I do appreciate that.

Within that legislation there are two pieces, and within the first piece about the tax cut there was an implicit promise. The promise was that any tax changes would be revenue neutral. We now know it will cost Canadian taxpayers $1.4 billion, so it will come back at the end of the day in the form of another tax.

However, the other reason that it was very important to stand our ground with respect to the passing of this legislation was because the Liberal government sought to lower the limits of the tax-free savings accounts within that same piece. That is a very important vehicle for Canadians to save money. As well, I do not think the Liberals understand that it also substitutes as pools of capital for small start-ups in this country.

I think the Minister of Finance understood it, though, because he clearly said in his book, The Real Retirement, the following: “TFSAs, introduced in 2009, are currently too new and the contribution limits too low...”. They were too low at $5,000 at that point. However, he went on to say, Most likely, they will grow in popularity as appreciation for their specific advantages grows..”.

The member should maybe ask his Minister of Finance why he suddenly changed his advice.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I too listened to the speech from the hon. member for Milton, and one of the things that concerned me in the budget was the removal of universality for child care benefits for families. I know in Chilliwack—Hope, for instance, a nurse and a dairy farmer, or a firefighter and a teacher, are working-class people and their combined incomes would make them ineligible for any of the new child benefits.

With the Conservative government, the benefits were universal. Every child was supported and valued no matter what situation those children were in. I wonder if the member for Milton could talk about some of the examples she has heard of in her riding where middle-class families and blue-collar workers are being excluded from child care benefits because of the arbitrary nature of the current government's program.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his great work on this file, along with the member for Elgin—Middlesex—London.

I have read Hansard, going back to when the government first introduced the universal child care benefits and the importance of universality at the time. What members said in the 1960s and what we say today is exactly the same thing, and that is every child in Canada deserves to have the support of their government. That is exactly the reason why we chose to introduce universality.

One thing we can take from this budget is the following. In 2006, the Liberals at the time campaigned vigorously against our introduction of the universal child care benefit, going to the point where they said that we could not give money to parents or families because the would spend it on beer and popcorn.

The Liberals have seen the light. Not only have they brought it back, and increased it in some cases, they have taken away universality, which is a great difficulty for a lot of Canadians who simply do not understand that if their family income is $92,000 a year, they will not benefit from any of these new plans.

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

Mr. Speaker, today is an important day to debate the 2016 budget because a lot of what was said by the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister during the election have now become broken promises.

The Liberals asked for a mandate to run a very modest short-term deficit in order to make some very specific investments that they claimed would be focused on growing the economy. They made specific promises to Canadians. I learned a long time ago, along with a lot of other parliamentarians, that actions speak louder than words. Let me be clear. Canadians did not give the government a blank cheque to borrow and spend as it wished and as it wanted to. They did not vote for reckless spending without a fiscal plan.

Then the Minister of Finance decided that all of these fiscal promises and commitments really did not matter. He decided that it would be a lot easier to interpret the election results as a mandate to spend as much as he wanted, for as long as he wanted, on whatever he wanted. He is obliterating all of the party's fiscal anchors and betraying his promises to Canadians.

Let us look at what has actually happened.

The $10 billion deficit that was promised has become a $30 billion deficit. The plan to borrow $25 billion over four years is now a plan to borrow over $100 billion over four years, and counting. The debt-to-GDP ratio will rise, not fall, and the pledge for a balanced budget has been completely abandoned. The Prime Minister did not even bother trying to come up with a plan to return to balance.

Actions speak louder than words. Promises made, promises broken has become the hallmark of the Liberal government, all because it just cannot resist borrowing and spending not its money but taxpayer money.

Why exactly are we borrowing $30 billion? What we have before us is a budget that brings Canada from a balanced budget to a $30 billion hole for no clear reason or benefit.

There is no plan in the budget to create jobs. Almost eliminated from the budget is the mention of job creation. The Minister of Finance's job numbers from the budget have already been completely debunked by the PBO.

There is no plan to get businesses investing or to get private projects and sectors moving forward.

Only a small fraction of the $30 billion deficit, about $3 billion, will be spent on infrastructure, and only about half of that funding will not be spent on roads, highways and public infrastructure. The Liberals have said that they had to go into deficit to spend on infrastructure. However, $25.4 billion of the deficit cannot be attributed to new infrastructure spending.

This budget is not about growing the economy; it is about growing the size of government. It is all about satisfying Liberal interests.

Let me quote from Mr. Charles Lammam and Hugh MacIntyre at the Fraser Institute, who stated:

The Liberals [have given] the impression that infrastructure would be a key driver of their deficit spending and that such spending would help drive long-term economic growth. Yet it turns out infrastructure spending is a surprisingly small share of the projected deficit for 2016/17. Moreover, claims that the deficit will drive future economic growth are dubious....$25.4 billion of the deficit cannot be attributed to new infrastructure spending.

Not only does this budget fall short on the Liberal promises to grow the economy, it actually takes steps that will kill thousands of well-paying jobs. The choices made by the Minister of Finance in his first budget are very telling. Of course, the CBC saw its funding increase. Another billion dollars will be set aside every year to increase the benefits for public servants. These are some of the promises he chose to keep.

What promises did he decide to break? The promises he made to job-creating businesses.

Canadians understand that borrowed money has to be paid back, and that the Liberals will have to raises taxes to pay for this spending spree. Small businesses have been the first of one of those targets.

Let us talk for a bit about small businesses and the fact that they are the true job creators of the country. Small businesses employ 95% of our population.

Dan Kelly at the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, CFIB said that this was a “brutal” budget for small businesses. He said:

Small business owners...are deeply troubled by the ballooning deficit. What was proposed to Canadians as a short-term $10 billion deficit plan to invest in critical infrastructure is now $29 billion with no plan to get back to balance...Most of the deficit is to cover a massive 7.6 per cent increase in program spending, which will do next to nothing to grow the economy.

He also said, “Small business owners know that today’s deficits are tomorrow’s taxes.”

The budget cancels, or puts to an end, the small business credit for hiring people.

The budget abandons the Liberal promise of lowering the small business tax rate to 9%. Instead, small businesses will pay 10.5% in taxes. Quantified, that is $900 million more per year than what was promised.

There is no plan in the budget to get businesses investing in the economy again. In particular right now, we look to the downturn in the oil and gas sector, and the over 100,000 people who have lost their jobs in the sector. We are looking at, this year alone, $35 billion of planned projects that have been cancelled or postponed. This kind of investment creates well-paying jobs.

There is no plan in the budget to invest in the economy. If anything, the budget creates huge levels of uncertainty in the economy because Liberal spending is out of control, and the government is already raising taxes to help pay for it.

Out of the entire $30 billion borrowing plan, only $137 million is earmarked for business growth and innovation.

This budget is not about growing the economy; it is about growing the size of government. Canadians did not vote for that. At the outset, I said that actions spoke louder than words. When actions do not match words and promises, then Canadians expect their government to explain in detail why we must have a different path to take. They expect government to adjust to new realities. They expect the government to maintain the core promises.

Remember those core promises, those fiscal anchors that the Prime Minister actually said to his Minister of Finance. He said that we would only spend $10 billion on infrastructure for a short period of time, that the anchors would be locked into, returning us to balance within the term of the government and reducing the debt to GDP ratio every year during its mandate of four years.

Canadians did not vote for that and that is not what is best for Canadians. I urge all members in the House to vote against the government's reckless spending in its budget.

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

Madam Speaker, again, the party opposite has it wrong. It has the facts wrong. Once again, it stands and holds itself as stewards of the economy, and says that it is the best thing to happen for the economy.

Let us look at the facts: seven deficits, two recessions, the shell game of a surplus. Let us throw in the EI premium fund. Let us throw in the rainy day fund. Let us throw in the GM stocks. Perhaps that rainy day fund could have been used to help people in Alberta. No, the party opposite used it again to create a false surplus and to put itself up as stewards of the economy.

Again, good government, like our government, is coming up with policies in a budget that is for the many, not the few.

Does the member opposite not agree that Canadians spoke with a strong voice on October 19, voting for change and a government that was going to reflect that?

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

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed the question and the preamble, because I was here during those times of the global economic meltdown and saw his party and the other party across the way ask the government, plead with the government, to spend more in terms of deficit spending to make sure our economy stayed afloat.

Then we decided to have a plan and tell Canadians that we would return to balance, which is exactly what we did. I am very proud to own the record of that government on saying what we would do and then doing it.

The Liberals have done the opposite. During the election campaign, they promised basic items of economic health for this country: limiting the deficit, making sure we would return to balance, keeping our debt ratio appropriate and keeping it declining, which means health to this country. They have done the opposite. They have broken every one of those promises to the Canadians who voted for them, and they sit here today smugly saying they have a mandate to do whatever they want.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Madam Speaker, I was pleased to listen to the hon. member's speech and I want him to expand a little bit on the fact that while we were away working in our constituencies, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, an independent officer of this place, essentially declared that the Liberal job numbers in the budget were completed fabricated. What the Liberals presented was 40% overblown, and they would only present two years of financial data, not the five years that our government and all governments had done for the last number of decades. They were forced to release that data on a Friday afternoon.

The PBO indicated there was purposeful action to frustrate legislators in this place from being able to scrutinize the spending plans of the government.

Perhaps the hon. member could expand on what the PBO said about the budget and, quite frankly, how disappointed he might be, as I am, with the Liberals' lack of transparency in presenting it.

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

Madam Speaker, the question really drives at the credibility of promising Canadians something and then doing something very different.

It is political manoeuvring at its best when someone says they will do something and be open and transparent. In the case of the PBO, the PBO drilled down into asking the real questions behind the numbers. What the PBO found, and what we have found in looking at those numbers, is that the time horizons that formed the backdrop to how the numbers would come up were actually done over a two-year time frame instead of the more appropriate time frame of five years that every government of all political stripes prior to this one had used. When the PBO asked if the information over the five-year timeframe could be provided, the Liberals refused to give it.

The hon. member can tell me if that is open and transparent.

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

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time today with the member for Yukon.

Madam Speaker, with this budget the Prime Minister and the finance minister have ushered in a new age of open and inclusive government. We said what we were going to do, we were elected with a strong majority, and with this budget, we delivered.

During the federal election, I developed a local platform based upon our federal platform. I called it my five-point plan for Saint John—Rothesay. With my team, I studied and took the promises of our federal LIberal platform and applied them to my riding of Saint John—Rothesay. I took those promises seriously.

I told my constituents that a Liberal government would tackle head-on the generational poverty that is gripping a large percentage of the city of Saint John through a child benefit that would lift 300,000 children out of poverty through investments and affordable housing and through increased funding for skills training.

I told my constituents that the Liberal Party would make historic investments in infrastructure as a long-term plan to grow our economy.

I told my constituents that a Liberal government would cut income taxes for nine million Canadians as a way of strengthening the middle class.

I told my constituents that a Liberal government would do more for seniors than previous governments, including a 10% increase in the GIS.

I told my constituents a Liberal government would invest in social infrastructure, such as tourist sites and recreation facilities. These types of investments are encouraged by top economists and are widely seen as crucial to growing our local economy.

With its first budget, the Liberal government delivered on its plan to tackle poverty head-on. The Canada child benefit will be a historic $23-billion investment in Canadians who need it the most. This program will help more Canadian families than any other social program since universal health care. Families with children under 18 will start receiving the benefit in July. The size of each cheque will depend upon the family, but nine out of 10 families will get more help than they do under the current existing program. A single mom with one child under the age of six, earning $30,000 a year, will receive an annual benefit of $6,400 tax-free. A family with two children, earning $90,000, will receive $5,650. That is an increase of $2,500 from the previous system the Conservatives put in place.

As the finance ministerstated, that is money in the pockets of moms and dads, money that can go directly toward eating healthier food, paying the rent, and buying new clothes for going back to school.

Coming from the city with the highest rate of child poverty in Canada, I cannot express how happy I am for the priority wards in Saint John, such as ward 3, where one out of every two children lives in poverty.

It takes an important shift in social policy to move the needle on poverty. I believe this historic investment in Canadians will finally move the needle in Saint John. I look forward to seeing how many children we can lift out of poverty in my riding and in all ridings across the nation.

As well, $112 million will be given to anti-homeless initiatives across the country, including in my riding, which is good news to our local shelters and programs.

We would love to see a very successful at home/chez soi program that helps homeless participants get off the street and into a stable home. We would love to see what it can do for those experiencing homelessness in Saint John. We would love to see increased funding to Outflow and Coverdale, our men's and women's homeless shelters, to continue every day to do their excellent work in our community. We need to give these community leaders all the help we can.

For those experiencing unemployment in my riding, I am pleased that wait times for those in EI will be reduced from two weeks to one, making things easier on those who are experiencing financial difficulty. Even better, through labour development agreements and job fund agreements, 175 million additional dollars will go into skills training at places like the Saint John Learning Exchange, where Christina Fowler could use another full-time employee.

This funding will help underemployed and unemployed people in Saint John—Rothesay to get access to valuable job training and support. Giving someone a leg up beats giving them a handout.

The Liberal government has delivered on infrastructure with this budget. This year we will invest $11.9 billion to modernize and rehabilitate public transit, water systems, and waste-water systems, provide affordable housing, and protect infrastructure systems from the effects of climate change. This is good news for my riding of Saint John—Rothesay.

With a commitment of $3.4 billion to maintain and upgrade federal infrastructure assets, New Brunswick now has the opportunity for $61.3 million for federal infrastructure. In addition to that, this plan adds $8.7 million to municipal transit investment for New Brunswick, meaning significant new investment for transit infrastructure in Saint John—Rothesay.

Over the next year, our budget further commits $51.9 million to the continued operation of three ferries in my province.

In Saint John, we have 1,400 people on waiting lists for affordable housing. This is simply unacceptable.

We have many projects that are shovel-ready. As an example, the Rothesay waste water facility has applied for necessary funding, along with the Saint John Field House.

We have developed a green transit initiative that will re-establish recently discontinued transit routes that have been eliminated because of costs. We plan to reopen these routes through a green initiative: propane-powered feeder buses. While the rest of the country is expanding transit, we cannot be moving away from it.

The Liberal government is also investing $3.4 billion over five years to help maintain and upgrade national parks, harbours, federal airports, and border infrastructure, and to support the cleanup of contaminated federal sites across the country. This is particularly good news for Saint John's Partridge Island, an important and neglected historic site on federal land that would be a great boom to the region if it were to become a national park or come under Parks Canada.

This is also great news for our airport, which needs a longer runway.

With around 30,000 households in New Brunswick living in poor housing, we need about 12,000 renter households for people who are spending more than 50% of their income on shelter. Studies show that New Brunswick, specifically Saint John, is suffering from chronic homelessness. This budget addresses these issues head-on with a $2.3 billion investment over the next two years. This will effectively double the investments in the affordable housing initiative, adding $262 million this year alone.

Budget 2016 addresses key areas of affordable housing by investing $100 million a year in seniors' housing, $210 million in affordable rental housing, $90 million in victims' shelters, and $112 million to address homelessness.

Seniors make up a large percent of our population in Saint John—Rothesay and in the province of New Brunswick. We will help the most vulnerable seniors by increasing the guaranteed income supplement for single seniors by up to $947 annually. This enhancement more than doubles the current maximum top-up and represents a 10% increase in maximum benefits, an increase that will improve the financial security of about 900,000 single seniors across Canada.

As we said during the election, we will restore eligibility for old age security and the GIS to 65 years of age. We are also committed to creating a new seniors price index so that old age security and GIS will accommodate rising costs.

Studies consistently show that when there is slack in the economy and interest rates are low, for every dollar a government spends on infrastructure, substantially more than one dollar of economic activity is generated. According to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, every one dollar spent on infrastructure yields $1.20 in GDP growth.

To conclude, our first budget is a monumental piece of legislation that will kick-start this economy after 10 years of cuts from the Conservative government. Major investments in my riding, including the upgrades to EI, the Canada child benefit, infrastructure, and affordable housing, prove that budget 2016 is working for Canadians and Saint Johners in my riding of Saint John—Rothesay.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague across the way and to some of the promises he made to his constituents. I want to remind him that he and his party made a number of promises to constituents all across Canada, including reducing the small business tax rate, running a deficit of no more than $10 billion, and an immediate commitment to invest $3 billion over the next four years to deliver more and better home care services for all Canadians. This would include more access to high-quality in-home caregivers, financial support for family care, and when necessary, palliative care.

I do not need to remind my colleagues in the House that we need to do far better in providing palliative care for Canadians, especially at this point when we are looking at the possibility of introducing Canada to physician-assisted suicide. If we cannot offer good-quality, accessible palliative care, we should not be entering the debate.

I want to ask this, for my colleague. Where is the immediate $3 billion investment? If he is going to say it is coming next year, then really our deficit is not $30 billion but $33 billion. I want my colleague to answer that question.

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

Madam Speaker, government policy in good government is about governing for the many, not the few.

With respect to palliative care, I lost my father in palliative care not too long ago. It is something that is near and dear to my heart. There are places in St. John—Rothesay like Bobby's Hope House and other initiatives that offer great care for people in their last days.

A budget is one budget in a government's mandate of four years, so let us take one thing at a time. Our priorities are as wide ranging as possible. We have initially come up with a plan to give back to middle-class families and to families living in poverty. We have a great start with our budget.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is incredibly unfortunate that the member across rises and says that seniors can wait, that people in his riding of Saint John—Rothesay can wait for the palliative care that he himself promised.

I am pleased that he references his five-point plan. It is available on the Internet for all of us to see.

During the election campaign, the member made the following commitment to seniors in his own five-point plan. Number 4, which is seniors, says, “We need to take better care of our seniors”. Point 5 f) says specifically, “We will invest $3 billion in home care, long term, and palliative care”.

The Liberals have abandoned that promise to invest $3 billion over four years for home care, which is deeply needed in our aging population. There is also nothing in the budget for mental health, palliative care, or long-term care. Therefore, could the member for Saint John—Rothesay tell the House how he will explain to seniors, and all those constituents in his riding whom he told he would provide that money for palliative care, that he broke his word to them?

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

Madam Speaker, I find this a bit rich coming from the NDP, a party that actually ran on austerity and was going to balance the budget at any cost. Now all of a sudden the NDP simply is asking where is this and where is that.

I am absolutely proud to stand up and say what we did for seniors. There is a 10% increase to the GIS for single seniors living in poverty. There is a price index for seniors.

It is one budget in a mandate, and I am very proud of our commitment. I know seniors across Canada are very proud of our Liberal government and the budget that we put forth a few weeks ago.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, it is impossible to overestimate how delighted I am with the understanding of and service to the north of the Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister, and the other ministers.

A few summers ago, the Prime Minister spent the better part of a week in my riding, attending AFN meetings and meeting Yukon chiefs and hundreds of Yukoners to better understand our northern views and issues and the people of the north. This is respect for the north.

Shortly after Parliament started sitting, my staff said I was invited to talk to the Minister of Finance about our issues in the north. I was astounded that I, from the nation's farthest riding from Ottawa, in the remote northwest, Yukon, would be one of the first people that the Minister of Finance consulted. It was such a gratifying indication of his respect for rural and northern Canada; and he listened, as I will outline later in my speech. For so many issues from the north and for the poor of the country being in the budget, I can only express my deepest gratification.

In our inspiring election platform, we made many promises to implement in the next four years. Many people have approached me and said how delighted they are that so many of those promises have already been kept by the Prime Minister and cabinet, and we are just starting the four years.

Today I will concentrate on items related primarily to the north and also to poverty.

Our northern strategy is about the people of the north, first and foremost, and the Minister of Finance and government came through in spades. The very large increase in the northern allowance, 33%, bringing $10.2 million to Yukoners over two years, is a huge reflection of the government's understanding of the high cost of survival and just making ends meet in the north.

I and my colleagues from NWT and Labrador and the Minister of Fisheries from Nunavut lobbied hard for this, and we are excited that the biggest increase for individual northerners in recent memory has come to fruition. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce also lobbied for this to help employers retain employees in the north. If this were the only benefit done for the north in this budget, then this budget would still be a huge win for those living in the north and the Arctic, but this is not all we received.

The major funding for our regional development agency, CanNor, was expiring. The SINED funding was expiring last March 31. I, our northern colleagues, and organizations like chambers of commerce and the Yukon College, who have benefited from CanNor funding, lobbied hard to have the funding reinstated, and indeed it was. The minister listened, and there is $40 million over the next two years.

The two biggest sectors in my economy in the Yukon are mining and infrastructure. Again, the government came through. Last summer, I exhorted that the mineral exploration tax credit not be ruled out in our platform, and indeed, that came true. I am sure that the chambers of mines in the Yukon, in the north, and even nationally talked to the Minister of Natural Resources and the Minister of Finance about this important exploration tax credit at a time when mining is down. Again, the Minister of Finance listened.

Tourism, often the biggest employer in my economy, has the biggest sector of RDP of probably any riding in the country. Therefore, more than anyone, we were delighted with the $50 million going to Destination Canada to market Canada. Again, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce also lobbied for an increase in Destination Canada funds.

Another huge sector in the Canadian economy is culture, bigger in our economy than most ridings in the country. Therefore, the cultural sector was delighted with the increase or reinstatement of programming in the Yukon and across the country.

Also, the IT sector is a huge economic sector in my riding. The sector appreciates the major investments in this budget in IT, science, research, and clean technologies.

When the food mail program changed to nutrition north in 2010-11, I lobbied hard that it would be devastating, and obviously it has been. The people of the Arctic have been so devastated, those who can least afford it in Canada. Certainly, we all appreciate the increases to the nutrition north program in this budget.

Paul Martin made a sea change in dealing with aboriginal people in this country; listening to them and coming up with a huge amount, bigger than any government at any level in the history of Canada, with $5 billion in the Kelowna accord for projects that first nations, Inuit, and Métis had come up with. It was bottom-up. People dreamed, after that had been cancelled by subsequent governments, that this huge amount might come back again.

Many people never thought that huge amount of $8.4 billion of the budget increase would actually come. Whether it is for aboriginal languages, water and sewer, aboriginal skills, or court worker programs, it all is a sign that the government is trying to reduce the disparity in the lives of aboriginal people and other Canadians.

Of course, our people spoke passionately at meetings about a national inquiry into missing aboriginal people, and we are all so moved that the inquiry into missing and murdered aboriginal women and girls has been started.

As I have been saying for over a decade, climate change affects the north more than any other place in the world, and we are delighted that there are many items related to that in the budget, but especially that we in the north can do our own part, with $10.7 million for renewable projects in northern and aboriginal Canada and communities that are presently on diesel.

The benefits for the north in my riding go on and on: $8 million to Yukoners for affordable housing; up to $850,000 for transit for Whitehorse; increased services to northern veterans; large increases in social and green infrastructure; a $23.2 million increase in the Yukon government's transfer payments; an infrastructure bank; $500 million over five years for rural and remote Internet; $10 million to improve the major northern projects regulatory review; investments in northern national parks; millions for research and traditional knowledge in the north before resources develop, such as drilling in the fragile Arctic waters; increased EI benefits for the Whitehorse region; funding for adult education like that presently delivered by Yukon College; $6.4 for northern cultural and recreational facilities; up to $13.1 million to upgrade the federal infrastructure; and middle-class tax cuts for so many Canadians.

I see my colleagues in the House are beginning to think this is the greatest gold rush since the Klondike in 1898, and they all want to move to the Yukon. They can see why I am so delighted in the budget.

When I left Parliament in 2011, there were at least three of us who were very passionate about fighting poverty: Tony Martin, a wonderful human being from the NDP, and Mike Savage who is now mayor of Halifax, who both spoke so passionately about fighting poverty. It is certainly what I believe, and I am delighted to be able to come back to a government that holds that as one of its highest principles. That is $118 million over two years for a national homelessness strategy; more money for affordable housing, for women's shelters; a 10% increase in the GIS for Canada's poorest seniors, which will help 900,000 seniors; child tax benefits.

This is the biggest transformation of social programs since national health care. It is probably my biggest priority. Imagine a low-income mother getting $6,400 for a child whom she is having a hard time supporting. With that, how much nutritious food could she buy? How much clothing, how many sports programs and arts programs, how much for supplies and funding for school trips out of $6,400, tax-free, to make her life so much easier and let her feel she could deliver what a mother should be able to deliver to her children?

This will raise more than 300,000 children out of poverty. This is what the government I believe in is all about, and this is why I am so proud of this budget and want to support it. I thank the finance minister for delivering for the north.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's comments with regard to the budget, which really fell short of the mark in delivering their promises. I would like the member to expand on some information about the nutrition north program, because with accuracy in numbers, we do see that the program is actually receiving a $2.5 million cut compared to last year. I would like to understand how we are going to achieve this equality with all these Liberal broken promises.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, first of all, there are not “all these Liberal broken promises”. I am not sure what the member is referring to. However, in nutrition north, there are two types of funding increases, which I think the member will appreciate. When the program first started, the funding subsidy was for transportation. It was more easily accountable. It was changed to the retailers, and the people in the Arctic, even the normally very quiet Inuit people, rose up. They were so devastated.

There are increases for two things. First is to increase the funding pot; second is to increase the amount. There were a number of communities that were left out of the program, and one of the criteria, unbelievably, was that if people had applied before to the food mail program, they would be eligible for nutrition north. So what if they had not applied? What if we did not apply for our pension? Would we be no longer eligible? Therefore, there is money to include those communities as well.

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

Madam Speaker, in response to the last question, my colleague was not sure to which broken promises my colleague was referring, so I would like to remind him of just a few. I do not have time, by any means, to go into all of them.

Reducing the business tax rate is a clear broken promise. Small businesses are really devastated by this broken promise. Running a deficit of no more than $10 billion is a broken promise. There is quite a bit of difference between $30 billion and $10 billion. I think my colleague would agree with that. As I commented a few minutes ago, there is the broken promise on extending palliative care and home care services.

However, I have a different question that I would like to ask. In relation to the finance department's report, April 2015 to January 2016, it clearly indicates a budgetary surplus of $4.3 billion. It states, “For the April 2015 to January 2016 period of the 2015–16 fiscal year, the Government posted a budgetary surplus of $4.3 billion...”. This is from the finance department of the Government of Canada.

Does my colleague agree that the report from the Government of Canada's finance department is accurate?

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, I would like to address those four issues.

There is one more comment on Nutrition North that I did not have time for, and that is we are reviewing the whole system and looking for ways to help people with food in the north.

On small businesses, the member mentioned a number of promises. He probably was not listening to the first part of my speech when I reminded people that a number of the promises were for four years, and we have barely started the first year. Everyone should stay tuned.

Obviously, palliative care, home care, these types of things, are in negotiation with the provinces. They are not done overnight. I do not think there is any disagreement on the priority.

I am also delighted that all the money from the programs that would go to very poor and needy people will be put right back into businesses, which will help them out immensely.

Finally, there have been a lot of discussions about the deficit and how much we are investing. It is very similar to what was in our platform. However, as the member knows, when the ultimate deficit figures came out, due to the reduction in the economy and the decrease in oil prices, our investments were added to other factors beyond the government's control.

[Kerry Diotte, Conservative, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, today I will be splitting my time with the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

I stand in the House today as the voice of taxpayers for Edmonton Griesbach. As a fiscal watchdog, it is important for me to stand up to our out-of-control Liberal spending that will lead to waste, more debt and higher taxes.

In fact, the last economic outlook showed that government revenues were holding up better than expected. GDP growth in the last quarter of 2015 was also higher than expected. Because of good Conservative economic management, the Liberal government inherited a surplus of $3.2 billion. That is a fact that has been confirmed by Finance Canada in case anybody is wondering about it. However, the Liberals squandered that in less than 100 days.

During the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, Canada had the best job creation and economic growth record among G7 countries. Across the country, especially in my riding, hard-working Canadians are worried about keeping their jobs.

The budget clearly shows that the government has no plan for jobs. For my constituents who are struggling to find employment, the disappointment continues. The budget extends the duration of EI benefits for areas hard hit by slowdown in the economy, but it overlooks my constituents. Canadians living in Calgary, northern Alberta, southern Alberta are getting these new benefits, but Edmontonians are being snubbed, and that is just not right.

I have heard from many of my constituents on this. They are outraged, and demand that they get the same treatment, and rightly so. This is simply not fair. What is worse, the Liberals' plan to raise taxes on job creating businesses will only make it harder for out-of-work Canadians to find employment.

In their platform and throughout the Liberal election campaign, they promised Canadians they would reduce the small business tax to 9% by 2019, but now they will not do that. This is a costly broken promise. Canadians did not vote for broken promises. Canadians want a plan that delivers jobs and economic growth.

Let us remember this. It is the private sector that creates job and drives economic growth, and there are so many commercially viable projects all over our great country that are just raring to go. I am talking about the energy east pipeline. I am talking about upgrades to telecommunications networks. How about extending the Billy Bishop Airport runway? Instead of borrowing more money with no jobs plan, why will the Liberals not take steps to make these projects happen?

However, as shown in the budget, job creation is just not the priority of the Liberals. Clearly, Liberal spending is out of control. It is enough to make this fiscal watchdog howl.

The Liberals had more than $3 billion in the bank at the end of last year. I do not think we can remind people enough about that. The Liberals have blown through that money and now they are breaking yet another election promise.

The Liberals told Canadians that they would only borrow $10 billion in 2016, but in fact the budget reveals they are borrowing about $30 billion from taxpayers. Now that is real change, is it not? Whereas they told Canadians they would balance the books in 2019, there is no balanced budgets in sight. That is real change too, sadly.

Moving forward, the Liberals will continue to borrow billions of dollars to pay for their spending promises. The Liberal plan does not create jobs and it does not control spending. The fact is that no matter how much money we borrow, average Canadians know that we always have to pay it back.

Under our former Conservative government, the federal tax burden was at its lowest level in 50 years. We lowered taxes 180 times, saving the average family of four almost $7,000 per year.

According to a report from the Parliamentary Budget Office, lower and middle-income Canadians have benefited the most from our tax plan, which is contrary to what the Liberals have said.

The Liberal government is now digging into the pockets of Canadians once again. Already, it is raising taxes on personal savings, workers, and small businesses. The Liberals' ballooning deficit means higher taxes for hard-working Canadians, job-creating businesses, and future generations. Canadians just cannot afford to have their pockets picked any further.

This budget is a real disappointment for Canadians who are looking for real action to create jobs and long-term economic prosperity. It has no plan for job creation, it borrows about $30 billion, and it takes hard-earned money out of the pockets of my constituents and Canadians right across the country.

On this side of the House, we know that this is not the recipe for long-term prosperity. That is why we demand a real plan to create jobs. We will fight to keep more money in the pockets of hard-working Canadians, including those in my riding of Edmonton Griesbach. We will push the Liberals to live within their means and not borrow billions of dollars that will have to be paid back by hard-working Canadians and future generations. I will fight hard for Canadians on these fronts, and I know my colleagues will as well.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Madam Speaker, our government is looking to invest in Canadians. I think we have learned over the last decade that we cannot cut our way to growth. Rather, we need to invest our way to growth. That means investing in innovation, in public transit, in increased productivity, and in digital infrastructure. However, most important, it means putting more money into the pockets of people so they can spend that money to generate that growth in our economy, to help those small businesses, and to help all of our communities.

The Canada child benefit would do just that. On average, it would put $2,300 into the pockets of nine out of ten Canadian families. Surely, the member would agree that the middle-class tax cut will put money into the pockets of people and that this money will help generate that growth in our local communities. Surely, the member can agree that this budget will do exactly that, put money into the pockets of people who need it the most so they can spend it in our local economies to generate that economic growth and to help our small businesses.

[Kerry Diotte, Conservative, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, when most people go looking for investments, they go to a bank or their stockbroker, they buy something, and they realize a profit. With respect to these investments, the government is taking triple the money it said it would from the taxpayer, out of the pockets of hard-working Canadians. What is the payoff? It is more debt. That is not an investment and it is simply wrong.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like my colleague to comment on the fact that the Liberals have already introduced a bill on tax breaks that will not help the least wealthy 60% of the population.

In this budget, the Liberals also broke their promise to eliminate the tax loophole for CEO stock options, which is, again, good for the richest people.

They said they would increase the guaranteed income supplement for the poorest people, seniors, but they will not do it until July. They are doing all kinds of things for the rich now, but seniors and the poor will have to wait.

What does my colleague think about that?

[Kerry Diotte, Conservative, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, certainly the Liberals' budget is full of broken promises and that is the problem. If I had been a Liberal voter in this past election, I would be deeply disappointed to see that what I voted for is not at all what the Liberals have delivered. It is shameful. I cannot imagine there is one Liberal on that side of the House who in his or her heart honestly feels this budget is anything but a deception of the Liberals' electoral campaign.