Debates of April 12th, 2016

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know everyone is proud of their budget. Budgets are what governments do, I guess.

It is interesting that they talk about the middle class, actually the middle-income group, which under our government was actually the wealthiest in not only the developed countries but one of the wealthiest in the world. What is interesting is that the Liberals are actually going to tax them $1.3 billion over this coming year and another $2.4 billion over the next year. It is going to increase the taxes on Lambton—Kent—Middlesex agriculture and small businesses. The Liberals will also increase the payroll taxes and EI, and they did not drop the small business tax as promised.

I have always believed that it is not what people say but what they do. The Liberals said they would have a modest $10 billion deficit; it is now $30 billion plus. They said the tax shift from the top to the middle class would be revenue neutral, but the biggest benefit is if someone makes just under $200,000, so I guess that is an indication of middle class. However, they were out by $2 billion a year. Then they said they would balance the budget. That is at least three within the first six months. If they cannot make any predictions come true in their budget, I am wondering why Canadians would believe them about finishing their mandate in the next year until the next budget comes along?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that some promises are going to be delivered right away. On July 1, 2017, the guaranteed income supplement is going to be increased by 10% for low-income seniors. The Canada child benefit and the tax cut for the middle class are measures that have already come into force.

This budget is about investing, growing the middle class, and putting Canada back on a path toward growth.

My colleagues on the other side tend to forget that the past 10 years saw some of the lowest growth in Canadian history since the Great Depression. We have a plan to get Canada back on track, to expand the middle class, and to expand opportunities for all of us so that we can all be stronger together.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for her speech and for her listing of priorities. Those priorities are the same as they are in my constituency. Sadly, though, the budget does not address those priorities.

I am happy to see that the green infrastructure is going to include an expansion of LRT. My mayor is certainly happy that there will be additional money, but in this budget, sadly, there will be no monies to actually extend the line. The decision was to base it on ridership, but ridership cannot be increased until the line is built.

I welcome an increase, and my mayor is happy. It will be 50% potential funding by the federal government, but it costs a billion dollars to build the line. We need more than $130 million.

Here is my big concern. The hon. member says that one of her top priorities is seniors. It is the same for me in my riding. The Liberal Party promised $3 billion over three years for health care, but it is not in the budget. The Liberals are not committed to renegotiating the cutting of $36 billion over 10 years in health care, and there is no money for pharmacare.

Could the member please speak to the matter? They promised additional action on providing health care to Canadians. Where are the dollars?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Edmonton for her question and for her concerns and for the issues that we share. They are issues that are relevant not only in Burlington but across Canada.

One of the things that is important to note is this is the first of four budgets in the cycle. We have an entire mandate. We have four years. Although the previous government tried to take Rome down in a day, it takes more than a day to build it back up.

We are working together. The Minister of Health is negotiating with and working with her provincial colleagues to see how we can renegotiate the Canada health accord and hopefully talk about issues that are important for my constituents, for me, and for everyone in the House, such as pharmacare and home care.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, since this is my first chance in the House to actually spend more than 60 seconds asking questions or doing S. O. 31s, I want to take the opportunity to thank my constituents for the opportunity to represent them again in Niagara West for the fifth straight time. I certainly want to thank all the volunteers who helped out and those who created donations, because we realize campaigns do not work unless we have the finances to make them happen.

I also want to indicate that I will be splitting my time with the member for Cariboo—Prince George.

My perspective in talking about the budget today will be around small business and confidence, as well as some other things.

I have a concern when I look at creating jobs. I realize that governments do not actually create jobs, but they create a set of circumstances that create a climate that gives businesses confidence to invest in the country.

In looking at some of the things that our government did in the last nine years, I will use the acronym TIRE to put in perspective all the things we did to try to give the economy confidence and give Canada a great reputation on the world stage as a place to invest. That has been borne out by a number of articles. As a matter of fact, in January, Forbes rated Canada as the number one country in the G20 to do business in.

Let us think about that. Considering what went on over the last number of years and the great economic meltdown around the world in 2008, Forbes Magazine is saying In 2016 that Canada is number one in the G20 as a place to do business. That is because of all the hard work our government did over the last 10 years.

Here is why I use the acronym TIRE.

The “T” in TIRE is because we reduced corporate taxes. One of the things I will talk about is not dealing with the small business tax reduction, which I think is important. There were also the trade deals that we fostered with over 51 countries, including the TPP, which is the most recent one. We can look at how we lowered taxes for corporations, which made us one of the lowest-taxing jurisdictions in the G7. When global companies are deciding where they are going to invest money, they take a lot of things into consideration, and that is certainly one of them.

The “I” in TIRE is with regard to infrastructure, investments, and immigration reforms. We did a number of things around infrastructure. The new government is committed to infrastructure as well, which I think is great, because these are important things, but our previous government had unprecedented investments in infrastructure around this country and certainly in my region of Niagara as well. We were able to accomplish a number of things over a short period of time that have made Niagara a much better place to be. Not only were there a number of infrastructure projects there, but work was also done at the border, which enhanced transportation and a number of different things.

The “R” in TIRE is for research and development and red tape reduction. I had the opportunity to sit on a red tape reduction round table, and one of the things we heard was that red tape continues to be an issue for businesses in terms of their confidence when they have to deal with a bunch of red tape issues in one country versus another. It is an important issue. It is something that I hope the new government will continue to pursue, because, quite frankly, we can look at red tape once and have a commission to deal with it, but one of the laws of government or bureaucracy is that red tape will always continue to creep back in. We need to be diligent on this issue, and the current government needs to be committed to pursuing it.

Last, the “E” in TIRE is for entrepreneurship and the economy. As I mentioned previously, Forbes said that the best place to invest within the G20 is Canada, and I think we need to focus on entrepreneurship and small business. One of my concerns is reflected in some of the commitments made earlier by the current government, which is that business needs to have the confidence to know that if they invest money and move forward with something, the rules are not going to change and they can count on the rules of engagement as they move forward. One of the things we need to continue to do in this country is nurture small business and entrepreneurs.

One of the things our previous government did was to set aside $400 million for a venture capital fund, which is a good start, but I do not think it goes nearly far enough to address one of the most serious issues that small business has in this country, which is access to capital.

One of the reasons why we have hotspots in the U.S., whether it is Boston or Silicon Valley, is that there is a lot of money there. Yes, there is a lot of other factors. There are very smart people, but we have very smart people Canada. Access to capital continues to be one of the things that we will need to change in our country if we are to be more effective and have a chance to attract the businesses. Businesses need grow.

What sometimes happens is we get a great idea, we move forward and then we lack the ability to raise additional funds, so businesses invariably go next door because there is a lot of cash and big private markets and equity markets down there. These are some of the things we need to do to move forward.

In light of that, one of the promises the Liberals made, and they campaigned on it before the election, was that they would continue to lower the small business tax. This is one of the underlying factors in confidence, where small businesses could decide, or SMEs in general, how they invest and how they grow. If things do not line up that make it easier for them to do these things, then they will either sit on their funds or they will have a lot of other opportunities.

A number of manufacturers in my riding said that they could not believe the offers they were getting from the southern U.S. to move there. We are not just talking about taxes, but other things like energy costs, which are crazy. I realize that is a provincial issue, but all governments need to be concerned about this. It troubles me when I hear manufacturers in my riding say that the only reason they are here is because they are committed to the community, that they have roots there because they grew up there. It is great for the individuals who do that, but we are competing in a global economy for dollars, for talent and all these other things that go into it.

The Liberals promised to reduce small business taxes to 9%. Now they have said that they will not do that, and that concerns me. Once again that undermines the confidence of small businesses to make a difference in moving forward.

Another challenge was challenge dealing with the whole issue of EI. It is great that we look out for the most vulnerable, but we need to be careful over time. Businesses have to pay those premiums.

We have talked about CPP expansion. On the surface, that is a great idea. The challenge, though, is there is only one taxpayer, and that is individuals and businesses. They have to bear the brunt of that.

The challenge I have from that point of view is that we continue to place more burdens on small businesses. We continue to not look at all the other things that affect what is going on. Then what happens? There is a lack of confidence and businesses may decide not to invest additional money here. They may decide to move to other countries such as the United States. That is troubling because the previous government worked very hard over the last nine years to instill that confidence.

As we saw in various articles written about our country over the last number of years, whether it was Forbes or Fortune, all indicated that Canada was on the right track.

I also want to talk a bit about the comments of the parliamentary budget officer in trying to determine the budget. It is interesting that the opposition gave us a hard time when we were in government. It talked about how we did not listen to the PBO, that we were not open, transparent, and all those things. Now the parliamentary budget officer is saying that there is no openness or transparency. Once again, whether it is changing or playing down forecasts of long-term spending plans, how can the public understand what is really going on? The Liberals campaigned on the ability to be open and transparent.

Unfortunately, 10 minutes is not nearly enough time to talk about all the issues that one would talk about in the budget. However, Canada is facing a number of issues right now, whether it is dealing with pipelines and our resource sector, or a whole bunch of other things.

As a government, the Liberals have to create confidence for businesses. My concern is with the number of broken promises already. No one forced the Liberals to campaign on those promises and now they are reneging on some of them. Ultimately, that creates instability among SME's and businesses in general and causes them to question whether the Liberals will keep their word, As a result, those funds can actually flow to other places. Businesses, as we know, are the ones that create jobs.

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

Mr. Speaker, I tend to disagree with the concluding remarks of the member. Maybe I will put it in a different perspective.

I want to refer specifically to the tax break the middle class will be receiving. Hundreds and millions of dollars will go directly into the pockets of the middle class. With that additional disposal income, that will help invest in small businesses. An increase in disposable income means more consumer spending. When there is more consumer spending, businesses hopefully will hire more people.

We are adding more value to the economy. By investing in the middle class, we are investing in Canada's economy. A healthier middle class means a healthier economy.

All the other stuff aside, would the member not at the very least agree that if the middle class has more money, there is more money to spend and it helps small businesses, no matter what region of the country they are in?

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, once again, this is one of the issues we have. Individuals who have more money to spend does something.

We have to understand that with a population of 35 million people, and I know the member across the way understands this, for us to increase our GDP, we need to sell goods outside the country.

One of the greatest challenges we have is free trade deals. I did not actually mention TPP. We have heard mixed signals from the government on where it stands, and the compensation it will provide agriculture groups, which we negotiated.

One of the most important ways we increase the GDP in our country is by ensuring we have places for our businesses to sell goods. There is certainly a benefit to selling goods locally, and we need that to happen. However, for businesses to really grow, we need to sell those goods outside our country.

With an almost $2 trillion economy, we know 35 million people are not actually driving that as much as businesses and exports. This is one of the things I believe will help improve the standard of living for all Canadians and will create more jobs in the future.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my hon. colleague. Living in northern Ontario, we are resource-dependent. Many of us have small businesses, but our small businesses are dependent on the fact that if we do not have the resource economy, we do not have the small business.

I am looking at the FedNor portfolio. I know the member is not from the north, but FedNor is where money is reinvested so we can create economic development opportunities. All the resource shares go to Queen's Park in Ontario, and we get very little back from the Wynne government. There is no augmenting in the FedNor budget.

Second, there is no action on the Ring of Fire. For the last 10 years, the Wynne government has sat on the sidelines. This project will bring generational economic change to all the regions and the indigenous communities of the north. However, we see no action on it.

The previous government did not move on it. The present government has not moved on it. Does my hon. colleague not agree that if we are to build this economy, we have to maintain that balance and we have to ensure that small businesses in our resource-dependent regions actually have the economic development dollars they need to diversify the economy?

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member did not intend to debate the job that Ms. Wynne has been doing in Ontario. We would need another full day on that one and on the disastrous legacy of her government.

The member's question was around the Ring of Fire and resource development. Once again, I look at programs like FedNor, FedDev, and some of the regional agencies, and they do have their place. These are important.

For development in the north, I do not think there is anything more important than getting the Ring of Fire right. It has been a lost opportunity, as far as I can see. We could do a much better job of coordinating efforts there. There is a whole bunch of assets there and resources that, quite frankly, if we could get our act together, we could do a great job at not only extracting those resources, but creating jobs for our north and for indigenous communities as well.

That was a great question. My concern is that there is more to be done in Ontario. If we could get that right, we would have a thriving economy in the north.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am here on behalf of hard-working families and friends of Cariboo—Prince George. We have some concerns with the budget released by the government three weeks ago.

Historically speaking, budgets are presented once a year. They identify planned government spending and expected government revenue, and provide a plan for job growth and a road back for when borrowed money will eventually be paid back. More important, they provide hope.

In releasing the national budget, governments send a message to Canadians that they have a sound fiscal plan. The budget serves to build confidence with investors, business, and political allies throughout the world that Canada remains stable, that our country is sound, and that it will continue to be a leading country for investment, growth, and partnership.

Budget 2016 did one thing extremely well. It confirmed that we were in for another era of broken Liberal promises. A few of these broken promises include tripling the modest $10 billion deficit projection, backing away from the Liberals' pledge to balance the budget by 2019, and a broken promise to bring the debt-to-GDP ratio down every year of their mandate. That is not even touching their spending promises. I most certainly need more than 10 minutes to get into that.

The price tag is $29.4 billion for 2016 alone. That is a broken promise in the magnitude of almost 300%. I am not sure about anyone else, but I cannot run my finances off of credit, and the government is doing just that: maxing out Canada's corporate credit card.

Over the years, I was fortunate to have been part of a few incredibly talented teams tasked with building business plans, long-term budgets, and strategic forecasting, where our vulnerability as an industry and as an organization lay. I can say with complete sincerity that no way would a budget with no plan to make a company flush, let alone turn a profit, ever have been accepted. Why should we ask Canadians to approve such a plan, especially when they are the ones who will be left footing the bill for years to come?

Not only is the government saddling Canadians with enormous debt, it backed away from the promise of an open and transparent model of government. Even a report from the independent parliamentary budget officer found that Liberals were hiding information from Canadians, creating their own economic growth projections, and exaggerating job growth expectations. Debt just does not go away no matter how hard the Liberals try to wish it away. Borrowed money is not free money.

Over the last 20 years, my wife and I have been small business owners, and we know first hand how challenging it can be to make ends meet. Instead of falling through on their election promise to lower the small business tax from 10.5% to the scheduled 9%, the Liberals have left it at the current level. However, should this surprise us?

The Prime Minister had this to say on this matter during the campaign, “We have to know that a large percentage of small businesses are actually just ways for wealthier Canadians to save on their taxes”, to hide money, “and we want to reward the people who are actually creating jobs, and contributing in concrete ways.” We all know the Prime Minister has never had to worry about choosing between putting food on the table for his family or making payroll for his employees at the end of the month, but the constituents in my riding of Cariboo—Prince George have.

I would like to relay a recent conversation I had with local farming families. There are over 4,000 beef producers in B.C., employing roughly 8,800 people directly and indirectly. Beef producers contribute approximately $25 billion to Canada's economy, $35 million of that alone from one of the communities in Cariboo—Prince George. There are over 68,000 beef producers Canada-wide, yet there is not one mention of hard-working farm families in this budget.

The message I was asked to deliver is this. The hard-working farm families, many of which have worked their operations for generations, are small business owners. Their businesses are run 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The money they make is not spent on fancy cars, condos, or vacations. That money is spent directly in the communities in which they live.

The current government failed the hard-working farm families in its Speech from the Throne and, once again, in its first budget speech. The government failed rural Canada. This is simply unacceptable. Our farm families have faced increasingly challenging times in the last six months due to market volatility stemming from the current government's lack of recognition of the importance of this vital industry.

Now that the Prime Minister has approved his first budget, I think he is just figuring out that budgets do not balance themselves. That is why the Liberal government has chosen to raise taxes on our job creators by ending the hiring credit for small businesses. I can only assume, based on his words, that the Prime Minister believes that these are the wealthy Canadians who can afford to take the hit. Dan Kelly, president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business said this:

...the new government promised to reduce the small business corporate tax rate to nine per cent by 2019. That promise was broken...[when they] announced the rate will remain at 10.5 per cent.... This decision will cost small firms over $900 million more per year as of 2019.

One does not need to be an economist to realize that job creators in this country, be they the hard-working entrepreneurs, the local farmers, or the neighbourhood grocery stores, will find it harder to operate in light of these Liberal tax hikes.

The current Liberal government was elected on a promise to address a perceived infrastructure deficit. To do so, it is borrowing $12 billion over the next five years. However, the majority of this money would not go toward roads, bridges, and public transportation, the infrastructure promises on which the current government was elected. The Liberals had the perfect opportunity to invest in projects that would provide concrete, long-term benefits in the form of jobs and increased economic activity.

The review of the Canada Transportation Act, released in December, pointed out a need for a national transportation strategy, saying it will be fundamental for Canada's economic development, moving forward. Canada is a trading nation. We need trade agreements that give our producers the ability to compete in global markets. We need secure and seamless movement of these commodities and access for business to and from our country and our communities. This is critical for Canada to remain competitive. I may have missed it, but I did not see any money set aside in the budget for our ports and our airports, Canada's vital transportation gateways. While investment in green infrastructure is commendable and remains important, the current Liberal government is so blindsided by its own buzz words and pet projects that it is failing to invest in the crucial projects that are the foundation of our regional and national economies.

I too was elected on a promise to fight for my hard-working constituents of Cariboo—Prince George, to keep taxes low, be a strong voice in Ottawa for the people who do not feel they are being heard, and to bring the priorities of Cariboo—Prince George to Ottawa. I look at budget 2016 and I see nothing for rural Canada, nothing for the mills, mines, farmers, or small businesses. Investment in high-speed transit in major centres would not create jobs or opportunities in the industries that fuel the economies of Cariboo—Prince George, where people have been hit hard by the downturn in the resource sector. Giving them an additional five weeks on EI is nice, but they need jobs.

We are still waiting for a softwood lumber agreement. We are still waiting for the trans-Pacific partnership agreement to be ratified. We are still left with higher taxes, a large national deficit, no additional resources for our police forces, and measures that actually do more harm than good for small businesses that are the backbone of our economy.

For my colleagues across the floor, I would say that Canadians did not give the Liberals a mandate to borrow beyond our means, they did not give them a mandate for a pile of broken promises, and they most certainly did not give them a mandate for higher taxes that would be passed on for future generations.

I will leave with a quote from the late Jim Flaherty, regarded as the world's best finance minister, who shepherded us through the world's worst economic recession since the Great Depression while having the strongest job growth in the G7, keeping taxes low, and balancing the budget. He said,

...nearly 150 years ago, Canada was founded with fiscal responsibility as its cornerstone. The men and women who carved this great country out of the wilderness simply called it “good government”.

That is what minister of finance John Rose was talking about when he stood before this assembly to deliver Canada's first budget speech in 1868. He said, “...I say that we ought to be most careful in our outlay, and consider well every shilling we expend”.

Canadians deserve a responsible government that is thinking about the long-term interests of this country. Simply put, Canadians deserve better.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

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

I would like to ask some questions about the budget. People in my riding have a lot of questions about social housing. Municipal housing office representatives in Drummondville have asked me what is holding the government back from investing in social housing.

The federal government promised to invest $520 million over four years to build new affordable rental housing. However, the budget seems to suggest that promise will not be kept.

What does my hon. colleague think of that? There are probably social housing needs in his riding too. It is extremely important to invest so that our neediest citizens can thrive and become productive members of their communities once again.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, without a doubt we need to do everything in our power to look after those who are most vulnerable. In my riding of Cariboo—Prince George, we indeed do have a necessity for affordable housing, but these are questions I am getting. How is the money going to be rolled out, being a provincial responsibility? Who is the government talking to? How do people get in line for these dollars to be doled out?

There has been no plan. Again, there are more vague answers, more in the coming weeks and months. There is a concern over whether the money that has been allocated will make it to rural Canada or simply go to the major cities across Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I know we will disagree—the Green Party's point of view looking to a colleague in the Conservative Party. The previous 10 years' budgets left me devastated in terms of the things that did not get attention. When I look at this budget, my heartbreak is that the words are there, but the commitment is not sufficient to meet the promises.

For instance, I agree that we need to see infrastructure dollars in those parts of the country, because we know that the infrastructure deficit is massive. One of the things that I am glad is preserved by the government from the previous administration is the $3 billion a year gas tax for infrastructure.

Does my hon. colleague agree that we need more investment in infrastructure, particularly for public transit that right now has $3.4 billion in the budget over three years, which is quite insufficient to the need?

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, while we may differ on many issues, we do agree and share our passion for our communities and for Canada and for doing the best we can in representing our regions and ridings.

My concern is that rural Canada has seemingly been forgotten in the budget. Whether it is high-speed transit or any transit, it does nothing in my riding. If I go to my municipalities and say they have to choose between a transit program and a road infrastructure program, where is that balance or that priority is going to be?

Again, high-speed transit does nothing in our riding. We are okay with our transit program. We need investment in infrastructure. We need investment in jobs and creating an environment so that we have investment in our region. We need a softwood lumber agreement to bring confidence to our softwood lumber industry, to our forestry industry. We need a trans-Pacific partnership so that our producers from across Canada can have some confidence that they will be able to access new markets to compete on the global stage.

[Rémi Massé, Liberal, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Toronto—Danforth.

I am delighted to rise in the House this morning to speak to the budget tabled by our government a few weeks ago. While we were in our respective ridings recently, I had the opportunity to present our budget to some of the chambers of commerce in my region. I met with just over 200 people to share the budget's main points with them.

To answer my colleague across the aisle, I would like to talk about what the budget will do for our regions and our communities. This budget includes some very positive things for our rural communities and regions like mine, such as eastern Quebec and the Gaspé. That is what I want to talk about here in the House this morning.

First I would like to paint a picture of my region's socio-economic situation. My riding covers an area of about 16,000 square kilometres and has 57 municipalities and as many elected representatives. As for population density, one of the counties has about 6.5 people per square kilometre and therefore has a vast expanse of land. The population is relatively evenly distributed in terms of age. There are about 2,500 people aged zero to 14, 2,000 people aged 15 to 24, and 4,000 aged 25 to 44.

My region has a negative migration flow, which means that it is slowly losing its population, and this saddens me. The same is true for three of the four municipalities in my riding. In addition, the population is aging, and the employment rate is 69%.

In my riding, per capita disposable income is $23,000. It is one of the lowest average disposable incomes in Canada, if not the lowest. It is a particularly tough economic situation. When the budget was brought down, I was very proud of the tangible measures that the Minister of Finance and our government put in place to help those in great need who are having a hard time making ends meet. Solid commitments were presented and announced in the budget to address this. We also talked about lowering taxes for the middle class. It is quite an achievement.

We also committed to presenting tangible measures for families, young people, and seniors. I would like to quickly mention those. The first pillar of budget 2016 is the Canada child benefit. Many families in our region need this benefit. It will allow families with children under six to receive up to $6,400 per child. Families with children between six and 17 will receive up to $5,400 per child. That is a lot of money for families in our regions who need extra money to make ends meet. We clearly indicated in the budget that these benefits would not be taxable, which is very important.

As far as young people and students are concerned, we announced a 50% increase in student grants, meaning an extra $1,000 for students from low-income families. We are also very proud of this measure.

We also announced a student loan repayment exemption for students who earn less than $25,000 when they enter the labour market. In other words, students will not have to repay their student loan until they are earning at least $25,000 a year. That is an increase of $5,000. It is very important for them to have a small financial cushion before they have to start paying off their student debt.

We announced the creation of many student jobs under the Canada summer jobs program. We committed to increasing the number of jobs in the regions. We estimate that this could represent 350 more jobs for students in my riding. We are very proud of that.

Obviously, we did not forget about our seniors. These individuals are proud, active members of our community who do volunteer work. We announced a 10% increase in the guaranteed income supplement for single seniors. Our government's excellent approach in this regard seeks to recognize the financial difficulty that some members of our population are experiencing. These are practical measures that will affect our communities.

Other measures have also been put in place, including improvements to the employment insurance program. That is important in my riding. Unfortunately, people sometimes may need to rely on employment insurance, whether it be on a temporary or a periodic basis. Significant improvements have been made to the program, including the reduction of the two-week waiting period to one week and a decrease in the number of hours required to be eligible for EI benefits. New entrants and re-entrants to the labour market had to accumulate up to 910 hours of employment to be eligible for EI benefits. We recognized that that was a problem and now, in our region, they will have to accumulate only 420 hours to qualify. We are very proud of that measure.

We are eliminating the requirements that forced claimants to accept jobs at lower rates of pay and with longer commuting times. That was a very obvious problem in my riding. These sorts of measures, which were brought in by the Conservatives in 2012, have been eliminated. That is a promise that we made during the election campaign, and I am proud to see it in the budget. The people in my riding are very happy that these types of changes have been made.

We have also undertaken to extend the working while on claim pilot project to August 2018. That is very important to us. We have also decided to continue and increase investments in skills training, and we have increased that budget to $675 million. Obviously, I am also very proud of the fact that we are reinstating the 15% tax credit for labour-sponsored funds. That is another important element of our platform that is being implemented with this budget.

There has been a lot of talk about infrastructure. We believe these investments are important because they can benefit our communities. For example, we have allocated $1.5 billion over two years for affordable housing. It is very important to be able to access such housing in our communities. Another example is the $342-million investment over two years for cultural and recreational infrastructure. It is important for our communities to have cultural and recreational infrastructure.

We will be investing $2 billion over four years to immediately improve water treatment and distribution infrastructure. We are even committing to paying 50% of eligible costs.

Different measures for infrastructure are very important to us. Once again, we are very proud and we believe that investments in Quebec could total up to or over $700 million.

There were some big announcements in the budget for arts and culture, such as increased funding for CBC/Radio-Canada. There was also more funding for the Canada Council for the Arts, Telefilm Canada, the National Film Board of Canada, and Showcasing Canada's Cultural Industries to the World. Cultural organizations in our region welcomed these reinvestments in arts and culture. We are very proud that these measures are in the budget.

We have heard a lot about SMEs. We obviously want to support them with technology and help them improve and modernize their organizations and businesses. These SMEs also want contracts, to help keep their businesses going. By investing in infrastructure, we think we will be in a position to create jobs that will generate economic spinoffs in our regions and encourage people there to spend and invest. For example, they may buy a pair of skis or a bike this summer, which will have a direct impact on our regional businesses.

We also promised to invest $197 million over five years in Fisheries and Oceans Canada to increase monitoring and research activities. That is very important to us. The Maurice Lamontagne Institute is in my riding and is one of the top francophone research centres in the world. We are very proud of this institute, and we obviously hope that this measure will benefit the Maurice Lamontagne Institute.

In conclusion, I am very proud of the budget that was presented. This budget will help my community and our municipalities develop economically and create jobs. Once again, this is a step forward for us.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the member across the way provided a laundry list of measures in the budget for employment insurance, not all of which will come into effect until 2017. Despite those measures, the budget projects keeping spending on EI benefits below EI premium revenues for four of the next five years. Therefore, I would ask the member whether there is enough money there to make some further improvements to EI, such as including oil and gas-producing regions like Edmonton, Regina, and southern Saskatchewan in the temporary extension of EI benefits, which was supposedly intended as a response to the downturn in oil and gas.

[Rémi Massé, Liberal, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what our workers need is jobs. They want to work 52 weeks a year. People in my region need that. They do not want to resort to employment insurance, but they have to periodically or temporarily because they lose their jobs or their industry is seasonal. Once again, we are very proud of the improvements we announced, such as investments to speed up employment insurance claims processing.

When I was campaigning, people told me that getting their first cheque took a long time. I am very proud that, in this budget, our government decided to invest in speeding up employment insurance claims processing.

[Kate Young, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, like my colleague, I have had the opportunity over the past number of weeks to discuss the budget with stakeholders in my area of London, and I was pleased with the response. We had a number of round table discussions with employment groups, high-tech companies, and aboriginal citizens, who feel that we are on the right track.

Would the member agree that the reception in his constituency has been as positive as I have found it to be?

[Rémi Massé, Liberal, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. I would say the response has been extremely positive. I met with a number of stakeholders and elected officials during the two weeks I spent in my riding. Once again, the response was very positive. Some of the people I talked to called our measures historic. We have covered a whole range of important issues, including employment insurance, infrastructure, arts and culture, and our indigenous communities.

I have three indigenous communities in my riding, and they are delighted with the investments we are making to help them. They were satisfied with the way we handled consultations both before and after the budget to arrive at the major initiatives we announced. The response has been very positive.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals campaigned on a number of promises that have been broken over the last six months. Could my colleague tell me if they misled Canadians or if they simply do not have a plan.

[Rémi Massé, Liberal, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am always surprised to hear this kind of negative attitude from the other side of the House. As I said, the people I met were extremely proud of the budget presented to them. They see the concrete measures that will help them make ends meet.

We talked about the Canada child benefit. That is a promise we made during the election campaign and a promise kept. This promise will give families in our respective regions extra money that they can use to make ends meet. That is the kind of promise we made and what we committed to Canadians. I am very proud of that.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to budget 2016. This budget aims to help Canadians put themselves on the best footing to build for the future.

We talk a great deal about building infrastructure, but this budget goes further. It is about building communities and a strong base for the future of our country.

It will be no surprise to many of those assembled today to hear me say that I am an advocate for better food policy. I am going to talk about how this budget would impact food security and families across our country.

Food policy covers a wide range of issues. It concerns agriculture and how we maintain and sustain our local agriculture. It also concerns the impact of climate change on agriculture. Food policy considers how we process our food and the impact of processed foods on our health.

I have asked questions in the House about reducing sodium and eliminating trans fats in our processed foods. These are important health issues. Another issue related to that is how we label our foods so that consumers can make proper decisions about the foods they eat.

Perhaps most importantly, we need to consider food security as a part of food policy. We need to ensure that people have access to healthy food, because we all need healthy food to thrive.

Budget 2016 takes many important steps forward on the food policy issues that I have mentioned.

Children do better in school when they are properly nourished, and people work harder and get sick less often when they eat fresh, nutritious, unprocessed food.

Our local farmers and the economy as a whole do better when Canadians purchase locally grown food. This budget will bring us closer to achieving these objectives.

I would like to begin by addressing food security, because this issue comes up a lot in discussions with people in my riding.

A key issue when we discuss access to healthy food is poverty. We have many food banks and nutrition programs in my riding. The reason we have them is poverty.

On the occasion of National Volunteer Week, I would like to thank the people who work so hard to run these food banks and nutrition programs. They do tremendous work in our community, and we need to take a moment to thank them.

However, budget 2016 will take steps to help people so they may be able to move beyond dependence upon such nutrition programs and food banks. That is important.

The most significant impact for families with children will come from the Canada child benefit. During the election campaign, I spoke with parents across my riding. The common issue for many of these families is the high cost of raising happy, healthy children in Toronto. The Canada child benefit will help families with children who have the greatest need.

The previous system treated all families alike, but we know that not all families are alike. They do not all have the same needs. Our government believes in helping those Canadians who need the help the most. The effect of the Canada child benefit is to raise over 300,000 children out of poverty. It will increase benefits to nine out of 10 families. It is akin to creating a guaranteed annual income for children. When we raise children out of poverty, we increase their food security.

That is what the benefit will do. Its impact on family budgets will be almost immediate. It will be tax free, unlike benefits under the previous regime. Canadian parents will therefore be able to plan their finances without having to worry about paying taxes on the money they receive for their family.

This targeted benefit will enable those less fortunate to provide their children with the same opportunities as wealthier families. This program will have a huge impact. Not only will it help poor children and their families, but it will also help make our society fairer and more prosperous, which is what we all want.

Another part of the budget that will provide help for families and people in need is the guaranteed income supplement.

Single seniors are nearly three times more likely to live with lower incomes than seniors generally across the population. Our elders have contributed so much to our country, and we need to support them when they need it.

Budget 2016 more than doubles the current maximum GIS top-up benefit. It is expected that this initiative alone will improve the financial security of almost one million single seniors.

Increased financial security, as I mentioned when I was talking about the Canada child benefit, means increased food security. This measure will help our most vulnerable seniors get access to healthy food.

This benefit will have a direct impact in my riding, where many seniors make their home and struggle against the rising costs of living in downtown Toronto. As I meet them in coffee shops across the riding or talk with them at their doorsteps to discuss the work we are doing in Ottawa, I hear about their difficulties. Now that we have released this budget, they are telling me that they appreciate the GIS increase. They believe there will be a felt benefit, that it will improve their lives.

In talking about access to healthy food, I am mindful of the needs of the people who live in our far north.

The budget also proposes another important investment: $64.5 million over five years to enhance nutrition north Canada, a program that helps northern and isolated communities obtain nutritious and perishable foods at a reduced cost.

We must support that program. I do not need to tell members how costly it is to ship fresh food to those communities.

In my own riding of Toronto—Danforth, another issue that impacts good security is housing. Being in downtown Toronto, residents of my riding feel acutely the impact of high housing costs. Too many people need to make a choice between having a roof over their heads or food on their table.

Budget 2016 invests in affordable housing. The government will develop a national housing strategy. The budget sets out measures to invest in the construction of new affordable housing units, the renovation and repair of existing affordable housing, and measures to support housing affordability. The measures include designing an affordable rental housing financing initiative. I am personally particularly happy to see included in the budget specific funding proposed for the construction and renovation of shelters and transition homes for victims of domestic violence.

These are all important steps to address helping people in need by giving them the building blocks to build their future.

I have spent most of my time talking about food security and the budget's impact on this issue, but at the beginning, I raised the question about food processing and labelling. The budget supports a strengthening of the food safety system. It also sets out that the government will take steps over the next year to improve food labels to give more information on added sugars and artificial dyes in processed foods.

What Canadians eat is an important aspect of health outcomes in the short term and the long term. The ongoing conversation Canadians are having regarding sugar, obesity, and diet-linked illnesses like diabetes is indicative of the very serious health consequences of not being able to get healthy fresh food on the table.

My constituents often talk to me about food insecurity and the associated health risks. They are concerned, as are most Canadians, about the amount of sugar and artificial substances found in the processed foods that fill the shelves and freezers of our supermarkets.

The budget's commitment that the government take steps over the next year to improve food labels is very important.

As well, this morning I had breakfast with members of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. They were so happy to hear about the investments we will be making in science for agriculture.

All of these aspects are covered in the budget. I believe it is a great step toward better food policy.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, according to the debt clock that has been running on my desk, since the member started speaking the Liberals have managed to add at least $500,000 on to the debt.

She mentioned the children's benefit. In annex 1 on page 240 of the budget under “Outlook For Program Expenses”, it shows that they would be spending less on child benefits starting in 2017-18. It actually starts going down. Are they planning to start cutting the child benefit? If so, why did they not provide further fiscal information on the next page where it explains what is happening with the numbers, except for the child benefit plan, for which there is no explanation? I would like the member to comment on why the government chose not to provide that information in the budget document.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for expressing concern and interest in the Canada child benefit and the need to support our families across the country, because that is what the budget is about.

We have been quite clear about the fact that the Canada child benefit is going to be a steady source of money for families in greater need. Indeed, what we will see is some people will be receiving less, but they are the people who have less need for it. What we have created is a targeted benefit that will have the best impact on families who truly need it to help put food on their tables.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that the Liberals' budget is full of half-measures. We are disappointed at how many election promises were broken.

For example, my colleague across the way talked about buying local and agriculture. However, with this budget, even the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food had little to say about investments. There is no mention in the budget of compensation for farmers whose livelihood is being threatened by trade agreements.

Farmers in my riding are quite upset to see no mention of the diafiltered milk that goes through the U.S. before it enters Canada. As far as job creation and public transit are concerned, the budget has only half the money that was previously announced.

In Salaberry—Suroît, small municipalities are waiting to find out whether they will have guaranteed access to their fair share of infrastructure. There is a public transit problem. People want to go to work, but do not know how to go about getting to town to access quality, lasting jobs. They are a bit stuck because they live in rural areas. They want to find jobs so they can feed their families. The budget offers only half-measures for public transit.

I could go on about small businesses. The Liberals promised to lower the tax rate from 11% to 9%, but that did not happen in the budget. Small and medium-sized businesses are the biggest job creators in the country. People are very disappointed.

What does my colleague have to say about that?