House of Commons Hansard #37 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was suicide.
The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan
I would like to bring to the attention of hon. members the presence in the gallery of His Excellency Sami Al-Araji, chairman of the National Investment Commission of Iraq, and His Excellency Ali Sindi, acting Minister of Industry and Trade of the Kurdistan Region of Iraq.
The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan
I would also like to draw to the attention of hon. members the presence in the gallery of the Right Honourable Tricia Marwick, M.S.P., Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament.
The House resumed consideration of the motion that this House approve in general the budgetary policy of the government, of the amendment, and of the amendment to the amendment.
The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan
Pursuant to an order made on Monday, April 11, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the subamendment of Motion No. 2 under Ways and Means proceedings.
Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders
Some hon. members
Agreed.
No.
(The House divided on the amendment to the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)
The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan
I declare the subamendment defeated.
I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded division, government orders will be extended by 10 minutes.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Outremont.
Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC
Mr. Speaker, governing is about priorities, and there is no better indicator of a government's true priorities than its budget choices.
Governing is about priorities and it is really in the budget choices that we see what a government is all about. After having promised to take care of the middle class, the very first budgetary measure brought in by the new Liberal government provided the highest tax break for families earning $200,000 a year and provided exactly zero dollars and zero cents for families earning $45,000 a year. What is interesting is that in many provinces across Canada, $45,000 a year is about the average of what a family earns, so it is a bit mystifying for most people to try to understand how the Liberals claim to have helped the middle class when in fact they were helping the richest.
Budgets are also part of the institutional life of this place. Unlike our American colleagues to the south who have endless additions once a budget is tabled, we have a system where a government's budget is presumed to be adopted. That is why we have a principle of budget secrecy, which is not very well respected by the new government by the way. I remember in particular the Minister of Small Business and Tourism standing up and quite excitedly announcing that there was going to be great news for small businesses in the budget, but we learned that in the budget, the government was cutting the tax break that had been scheduled for small businesses which are the job creators in this country.
There is also part of the institutional life of this Parliament which is reflected in the fact that all-party budget consultations have always been a tradition. I was Jack Layton's finance critic for many years and these consultations were very important. I and my colleagues would have a chance to listen to people and groups in different regions of Canada about their priorities and what they were hoping to see in the budget. The fact that it was all-party showed that the budget in and of itself often has to be half a notch above the usual partisanship here because it is going to have to be adopted and we are supposed to be listening to what Canadians' priorities are.
I was surprised, not to say shocked, when in January I heard that the new finance minister had taken it upon himself to hold his own budget consultations. It is not bad that a finance minister has consultations, but the tradition is to include the other parties. When that was pointed out to him, he just said that there was not enough time. That was pure bafflegab. That simply was false. He was making that up. He was not respecting tradition. Sunny ways have always promised us that it is going to be better, that the government is going to be more open, more transparent, but all of a sudden, we learned that sunny ways and sunny days also mean that the government does not have to listen to anybody else and it certainly does not have to bring the other recognized parties in Parliament to the consultations.
If we thought that was a one-off, we soon learned that the other budget tradition in the House, which is that the finance minister always addresses a letter to the leaders of the other parties asking them about their priorities, was not respected. We were getting so close to the budget; it was about 72 hours before the budget presentation when I took it upon myself to write that letter with our priorities to the finance minister, because he had not respected that parliamentary tradition either.
Both of those events pointed to something quite troubling for me: a new government that talks a good game, but we really have to watch what it actually does. It is not only about promising to help the middle class but instead doing nothing for the middle class and helping the wealthiest, it is also about important parliamentary traditions that allowed us in the past to get together to build budgets.
I took it upon myself to carry out my own tour, from Halifax to Victoria, from southwestern Ontario to northern Saskatchewan. I met with hard-hit resource workers in western Canada who worry that the employment insurance they thought they were going to get is not there. The Liberals will talk, as the Prime Minister did again today, about the changes to employment insurance in the budget, but all that changed was the number of unemployed people who are not eligible for EI from 850,000 to 800,000. Members heard that number right. Eight hundred thousand Canadians who have lost their jobs are not eligible for EI, despite a promise from the Liberals during the election campaign to bring in the 360-hour rule and to get rid of the unfair changes wrought by the Conservatives.
There is nothing in here to help families buried in household debt. Canadians have the highest household debt of the G20. Skyrocketing child care costs are not addressed either. It still costs over $2,000 a month to have an infant in child care in Toronto. That makes no sense, and of course, it is women who pay the price.
I listened attentively when the Prime Minister described himself as a feminist. Well, someone who is a feminist would be trying to put in place programs to help women. It is in fact women who often have to make the tough choices and the sacrifices in their careers when affordable quality child care is not available.
I will never forget Kathleen Wynne chiming in to fight affordable, quality child care during the last election campaign. If she ever again tries to style herself as a progressive, I will be there, front and centre, to remind Ontarians that she fought quality, affordable child care.
That would be the same Kathleen Wynne with the big progressive budget, where she is now proposing to privatize Ontario's Hydro One. She just forgot to mention that when she was selling herself as a progressive during the last campaign.
I also met call centre and airport workers who work their full 40 hours a week and still live in poverty because we do not have a decent federal minimum wage. We wanted to bring the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour. I will never forget the current Prime Minister during the campaign saying it does not apply to people in big box stores. No, the federal government does not regulate big box stores, but it does regulate airport workers, call centre workers, and hundreds of thousands of Canadians could have gotten a raise with a $15 an hour federal minimum wage.
I listened to those indigenous communities that suffer boil water advisories, systematically underfunded schools and health, and a mental health crisis few can imagine, and that we will be debating on an emergency basis here in the House tonight. I am so proud of my colleagues who brought that forward so we can finally have a full airing of the issue here.
Many Canadians get a sense that the deck is stacked against them, and they want their government to be there to help them. We in the NDP have always considered that as social democrats our prime responsibility is to reduce inequality in our society. We have always understood that the best way to assure perennity of anything that the government does is to make sure that we have fully funded universal social programs, like child care and pharmacare. We will continue to reduce inequality in our society by proposing that we bring in universal, fair, social programs across the country.
I remember, the signals came very early. The new families minister gave an interview very early and warned people that things were going to have to wait. However, what did not have to wait was for CEOs to keep their stock option tax loophole.
During the campaign, the Liberals many a time mimicked NDP undertakings, so when we said that we simply could not accept that in a country as wealthy as Canada one million children were going to school hungry, and we were going to do away with the $800 million gift we were making to CEOs who do not pay their fair share of taxes because they are allowed to have stock options tax loopholes, the Liberals imitated that promise word for word. They said they were going to do away with it. Then about eight weeks before the budget, they started backing away from it. That is their new theme song, like a truck backing up. We can hear the beep, beep, beep.
There it was. All of a sudden, for what was promised, they said maybe they would do half in this budget. Lo and behold, the budget arrived and there was not a single line on removing the CEO stock option tax loophole.
Canada's economy has grown by 50% in the past 30 years. It was workers who were responsible for this 50% increase in a single generation. However, these workers' incomes are stagnating, and many of their jobs are being outsourced.
Inequality is growing faster in Canada than in any other G20 country. Today, the 100 richest Canadians, at the upper end of the scale, have more wealth than the 10 million Canadians at the lower end of the scale. That is unacceptable.
In Canada, the average CEO earns 200 times more than a worker. The rich are earning more and more, while middle-class workers are losing their good jobs. The number of precarious, part-time, and temporary jobs is on the rise.
I want to get back to the progressive Ontario government, whose members have come up with my favourite euphemisms.
The euphemism factory that is the Kathleen Wynne Ontario Liberal government came up with my favourite. Instead of talking about part-time, precarious, temporary jobs, it calls them CMEs, contemporary mobile employment—what normal people would call lousy jobs. In fact, the CIBC put out a study recently that proved that it these are the worst-quality jobs that we have seen in a full generation.
So it has been promise after promise.
Sixty billion dollars in tax giveaways provided nothing to stimulate the economy. Last year the banks made $35 billion in profit and paid their directors $12 billion in bonuses while at the same time shipping thousands of good-paying Canadian jobs out of the country.
The stock option tax loophole should have been gotten rid of. Small businesses should have been given a break because they do create the majority of jobs in this country, but we know that when the Liberals talk about helping workers, they are most often helping the richest.
With respect to employment insurance, the Liberals and Conservatives managed to divert more than $55 billion from the employment insurance fund. Workers and their employers contribute to this fund so that they have access to assistance when the economy is struggling and more people lose their jobs, as is the case right now.
The Liberals called out the Conservatives when they locked the EI fund up tight, but the Liberals are the ones who invented the idea of dipping into the EI fund. Imagine our surprise when the government proposed taking another $7 billion from the fund in this budget. Canadians and first nations communities deserve better.
On the weekend, Cindy Blackstock explained that in light of the Human Rights Tribunal's decision, $230 million was missing from the budget.
That is worth explaining.
We have a decision of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal requiring the government to stop racial discrimination against first nations youth. There is $130 million missing in the budget for child welfare and $230 million missing for education. This is not a question of personal choice. This is not a question of opinion. The courts have ruled this is a case of racial discrimination. When it is a case of racial discrimination, we have to remove the discrimination. The Liberals did not do that. It is shameful.
There is not a single mention of the 94 recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in the budget.
For anybody who thought there might be a little bit of breathing room given when the Liberals promised to reinvest $3 billion in home care, there was not one dollar. That would have taken some pressure off our severely taxed health and social service system—notably, the hospitals across this country.
Only half of the promised money was there for transit. More and more, we are going to see tolls and user fees coming in.
Now I have to spend a minute talking about my favourite broken promise on the part of the Liberals.
Members might recall that I asked thePrime Minister if he was going to respect his personal solemn promise to restore door-to-door mail delivery. I hope members remember his answer, because I will never forget it. He said the seniors, the mobility-reduced seniors living in our downtown cores who believed him when he promised to restore door-to-door mail delivery, should have actually gone online, and if they had consulted the platform of the Liberal Party, they would have noticed that it was slightly different from what he promised when he was standing beside Mayor Coderre of Montreal when he wanted to win some votes.
There is a message there from the Prime Minister, the same person who always laments how cynical it has become in politics. What could be more cynical than looking at that mobility-reduced senior and saying, “Sorry, sucker. You should have read the fine print. You should never have believed a word I said”?
If we took the money needed to pay for the life cycle of one F-35, we could pay the tuition of 100,000 young people.
Members heard that right.
Over the life cycle of each F-35—the ones they cancelled in the middle of the campaign but are sort of not really cancelled anymore—each one is going to cost well over $1 billion. We know how much that is: it is enough to help pay the tuition for 100,000 Canadian youth. We find that is also shameful. The Liberals are spending money on F-35s when we have the greatest student indebtedness ever in the history of Canada.
There is also a total lack of any credible climate change program. It is mind-boggling. I get to sit here in front of the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, and her answers on greenhouse gas reductions in Canada are so spectacularly vapid that it defies understanding. She stands day after day and talks about a regulatory approach in which somehow the province is responsible. It was Canada that signed. Remember “Canada is back”? Unfortunately, Canada came back with the Conservatives' timelines and their program.
The Liberals have no plan whatsoever. It is a complete and utter fraud when the Liberals talk about reducing greenhouse gases in Canada. Yes, it is 2016; unfortunately, in 2017 we are going to produce more greenhouse gases, and when it is 2018, we are going to produce even more. We have no plan whatsoever from our federal government to reduce greenhouse gases. Canada is not doing its share to combat global warming.
That is why New Democrats were clear. The only way to judge this budget is not on what the Liberals said but what they have actually done.
Did they take practical steps to reduce inequality in Canada, yes or no? They did nothing.
When the Liberals refuse to ask big banks, profitable corporations, and wealthy CEOs to pay their fair share of taxes, we are left without the fiscal capacity to invest responsibly. As usual in tough economic times, struggling Canadians and the most vulnerable, like first nations youth, are told they have to wait for help, wait for improved employment insurance, wait for a more secure retirement, wait for better health care, and wait for more affordable child care. Canadians have waited long enough.
As the progressive opposition, our New Democrat team will keep fighting to ensure everyone pays their fair share, everyone is taken care of, and no one is left behind.
Thank you. Merci. On continue.
Robert-Falcon Ouellette Liberal Winnipeg Centre, MB
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Outremont for his passion for democracy.
This is a historic budget for investment in children. In 2011 there were 392,105 indigenous children in Canada. The child benefit would do a lot to ensure that these families and single mothers and single fathers will have the means to support and look after their children. Six thousand dollars a year would be going to young mothers who are going to school and living in a one-bedroom apartment, like my friend Melanie. I am proud of Melanie and I hope this child benefit will allow her to complete her education and support her young son.
There is a problem. We need to ensure, though, that provincial governments do not roll back these supports, especially for families on social assistance. Is the NDP willing to work to ensure that provinces make a difference in the lives of our most vulnerable citizens and do not claw back these benefits?
Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.
I thank him, but I do not understand why he referred to me as “membre” in French. However, I will proceed.
He knows that the suicide rates among indigenous youth are many times higher than the national average, and so are levels of unemployment. That is why I am disappointed that the Liberals have failed to live up to their promises to first nations youth.
Despite a ruling from the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ordering the government to end its discriminatory underfunding of child welfare services on reserves, this budget would shortchange first nations education by $230 million and first nations child welfare by $130 million this year alone.
Instead of asking us what provinces are doing, why does the member not assume the responsibilities of his government at the federal level, which is to meet the requirements set down by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal?
The Liberals are all talk and no action.
Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
Mr. Speaker, first, allow me to express my respect for the dignified conduct of the leader of the second opposition party on Sunday in Edmonton. He is truly an inspiration to everyone in politics.
I have had the pleasure of knowing the leader of the second opposition party for years. Many issues divide us. However, during the last election campaign, one thing that united our two parties, the Conservative Party and the NDP, was the fact that we did not want Canada to end up with another deficit.
This government was voted in on an election promise that it would run a very small deficit of $10 billion. Now reality is catching up to the government. The deficit is three times greater than planned.
I would like to hear what the hon. member for Outremont has to say about that situation. Is he pleased to see that this government, which was elected on a promise to run a small deficit, is now planning to run a deficit that is three time greater?
Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC
Mr. Speaker, with thanks to my colleague, I would like to say that the biggest deficit lies in their credibility. They spoke a great deal during the election campaign about helping people out. That is what I find myself focusing on every time I speak on this issue.
It is not as if we had a narrow vision on this subject. We have always said that in times of economic difficulty, it is necessary to spend to avoid chaos. I said so during the campaign, and we were the first to say so in 2008. If people are going to be suffering, people who have lost their jobs, the government has to help them out, instead of stealing $7 billion from the employment insurance fund.
That is what we would have done, and that is what is sadly missing with the Liberals, who tend to leave people out in the cold, instead of reducing the inequalities in our society.
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Mr. Speaker, I too would like to thank the hon. member for Outremont and leader of the NDP for the tireless work he has done and all the energy he has invested since becoming party leader after the death of Jack Layton.
I am happy that he talked about the credibility deficit, because the government has given ample evidence of this on the employment insurance issue, as was mentioned by the leader of the NDP. While there are a few satisfactory measures that we support, the budget falls short on reversing the employment insurance reform that was implemented by the previous government in 2012.
The current government promised to reverse that reform, not just some parts of it. Among other things, it is talking about extending benefits by five weeks for certain regions, not for the whole country. The previous government eliminated what was called the pilot project, which put an end to the black-hole period between the end of benefits and the start of employment income for seasonal workers. Benefit extensions are being granted for 12 regions of the country, but there is nothing for Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, and the parts of Quebec and Ontario that are suffering.
I would like to hear the comments of the hon. member for Outremont on the Liberal government's double standard.
Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
Indeed, we have only to consider the hon. member for Beauséjour, who is today the House leader of the new Liberal government, to see all the promises that were made and the gap that has opened up when it comes to keeping those promises.
He is a member from New Brunswick, where people are suffering a great deal. Not only is there a real, endemic budgetary problem in that province, but the difficulties in western Canada have had a boomerang effect, because a great many New Brunswickers earned their salary out there and then brought it back home to their families in New Brunswick.
This is an extremely serious problem, and the Liberals have managed to invent a system where, even in places with a huge increase in unemployment, they are doing nothing for people because people are not recognized as being part of a specific category. It is all pure theory. Everyone who loses a job has an equal need for assistance. It is absurd to start dividing things up as they are doing.
Instead of defending ministers who are scheming for their funding, I want to hear him stand up one day and tell us that, finally, the Liberals are going to keep their promises on employment insurance. In saying this I am thinking of my friend and former colleague, Yvon Godin. Employment insurance should be there for everyone when they lose their job.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, I also want to begin by telling my hon. colleague, the leader of the New Democratic Party, how much I respect his dignity, his perseverance, and his being in the House today to present a very important speech on this budget.
I find the budget deeply disappointing and perplexing. I know the hon. leader dedicated much of his speech to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the important priorities and promises that were made to first nations. It is too easy to condemn what is in the budget. There are $8.4 billion for first nations, but there is, undoubtedly, a failure to meet the requirements for the care and protection of first nations children. That part is still a gap.
I want to ask a question for the member. There is a gap on environmental protection. In this place, all opposition parties in 2012 fought hard against the omnibus budget bill, Bill C-38, which destroyed habitat protection under the Fisheries Act and destroyed the Environmental Assessment Act. Those devastating changes are not being reversed.
Will the hon. leader of the New Democratic Party agree with me and join in a call that the current Liberal government reverse immediately the destruction of habitat protection for our fisheries?
Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC
Mr. Speaker, I will also add that the Navigable Waters Protection Act, a piece of legislation that is over 100 years old, was a precursor for the world in how to protect the environment. It was also gutted by the Conservatives, and the Liberals have not given the slightest indication that they are going to bring it back, despite the fact that they promised 25 times that they would do just that.
I was with the member in Paris, so she knows as well as I do that the Liberals perpetrated a fraud on Canadians when they claimed they were doing something about climate change. It is completely false. They have no plan whatsoever. Canada is going to be increasing its greenhouse gas emissions every single year of the current government. That is a failure. It is a failure for future generations. It is a failure to follow through on a key promise it was making.
Therefore, yes, I could not agree more with my colleague from the Green Party that, on matters of the environment, like many other areas, the Liberals talk a good game; but actions speak louder than words, and they completely fall short on these crucial issues. There is nothing more important for the future of the planet than for us to start doing something about climate change.
In Canada, for 20 years, there have been successive Liberal and Conservative governments. The Liberals signed it the last time and went on to have one of the worst records in the world. The Conservatives were climate change deniers. Now the Liberals are back in power, arms wide open in Paris, saying Canada is back. Yes, we are back with the Conservative plan, the Conservative timeline, the Conservative targets, and they will not even meet those.
John Oliver Liberal Oakville, ON
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Scarborough Centre.
It is an honour to rise in the House today and speak in favour of budget 2016. During the last election and through extensive pre-budget consultations, I heard personally from many people in Oakville. Oakvillians shared their concerns about jobs and job security. Many felt trapped in poor-quality jobs or had family members who were struggling in a sluggish economy.
Young families expressed concerns about the cost of day care and their struggles to make ends meet. Many seniors and young Canadians said they also were having difficulty making ends meet. The root causes were different, and different solutions will be required, but if we do not act to help, the outcome is the same: people trapped in poverty or people trapped in underemployment.
The Town of Oakville, Halton Region, and many business owners talked about failing infrastructure and problems with road congestion. Owners of small and medium-sized businesses spoke about their concerns with access to trained workforces and support for the innovation and entrepreneurship that has been a staple of the Canadian economy. They are also worried about the slow economy and the need for revitalization and stimulus.
Social agencies expressed concerns about housing, poverty, inadequate shelters from violence, and care for the elderly. Green advocates like the Halton Environmental Network and Oakvillegreen raised concerns about reliance on greenhouse gases and the need to move our economy from a carbon dependency.
Many residents of Oakville were concerned about the loss of federal investments in arts and culture, and particularly the reduction in funding to the CBC.
The reason I am so honoured to rise and speak today is my confidence that this budget will begin to address these myriad concerns and many others that I have not specifically addressed. Let me speak to some of the specific budget provisions.
For young families, budget 2016 would introduce the Canada child benefit. This would provide families with a maximum benefit of up to $6,400 per child under the age of six, and up to $5,400 per child aged six through 17. With the Canada child benefit, more than three million families would receive more benefits than before—on average, $2,300 more per year, tax free. This would lift almost 300,000 children out of poverty.
For young Canadians, budget 2016 would ensure that students graduating from college or university would not have to start paying back their student loans until they make at least $25,000 in annual income. Budget 2016 would boost grants to low- and middle-income college and university students by as much as $1,000 per year. This measure would put more money in the pockets of 360,000 students a year.
The introduction of a flat-rate student contribution to determine eligibility for Canada student grants and loans would encourage students to work and gain valuable labour market experience while studying. This measure would provide assistance of $268 million over four years. Employment opportunities for youth are also planned through an investment of an additional $165 million in 2016-17 for the youth employment strategy, and $300 million over three years for the Canada summer jobs program to create 35,000 additional youth jobs each year.
When I met with young Canadians who were progressing after post-secondary education with jobs and low debt, many had benefited from co-op placements. Co-op placements provide essential networks and in-year funding to help with educational costs. Support for new co-op placements and work-integrated learning opportunities for young Canadians is planned in the budget through an investment of $73 million over four years for the post-secondary partnership and co-op placement initiative.
To help universities and colleges develop highly skilled workers, to act as engines of discovery and support the growth of innovative firms, budget 2016 would provide up to $2 billion over three years for strategic projects to improve research and innovation infrastructure.
For seniors, the budget would increase the guaranteed income supplement benefit for single seniors up to $947 annually to help lift low-income single seniors out of poverty. This measure represents an investment of $670 million per year and would improve the financial security of about 900,000 single seniors across Canada.
The government would restore the eligibility age for old age security and guaranteed income supplement benefits to 65, which would put thousands of dollars back in the pockets of Canadians as they become seniors.
Budget 2016 provides infrastructure support for the construction, repair and adaption of affordable housing for seniors through an investment of $201 million over two years to help the many seniors facing challenges in accessing affordable housing.
To improve the retirement income security for all working Canadians, the government has begun discussions with the provinces and territories to enhance the Canada pension plan, a portable, low-cost and defined benefit pension.
To grow the economy and create jobs, phase 1 of the infrastructure plan invests $11.9 billion to build roads, bridges, improve public transit, improve water and waste water facilities, and refurbish affordable housing. This will create tens of thousands of jobs and boost the economy. Specifically, the government will invest $3.4 billion over the next three years to upgrade and improve public transit; $5 billion over five years for investments in water, waste water, and green infrastructure projects; and $3.4 billion over five years for social infrastructure, including affordable housing, early learning and child care, and cultural and recreational infrastructure.
In addition to the new funding announced in budget 2016, the government will continue to make available approximately $3 billion each year in dedicated funding for municipal infrastructure projects through the gas tax fund and incremental goods and service tax rebates for municipalities.
To help businesses and manufacturers of all sizes, budget 2016 makes available up to $800 million over four years, starting in 2017-18, to support innovation, networks and clusters.
To support an innovative automotive sector, budget 2016 announces the extension of the automotive innovation fund through to the end of 2021. The government will also examine approaches to maximize the impact of federal support offered to the automotive sector, including assessing the terms of the fund.
To assist the transition to lower carbon transportation fuels, budget 2016 provides $62 million over two years to support the deployment of electric vehicles and alternative transportation fuels infrastructure.
Building on Canada's proud history in space and to create employment opportunities for the space industry sector, budget 2016 proposes to provide up to $379 million over eight years for the Canadian Space Agency to extend Canada's participation in the international space station to 2024.
For small and medium-sized enterprises that are receiving advice and project financing through the industrial research assistance program, budget 2016 proposes to provide the program with a further $50 million in 2016-17.
Budget 2016 invests in the Canadian cultural sector to create jobs and ensure that our unique Canadian perspective is shared with the world. Included in this allocation are $1.3 billion in support for long-standing arts and cultural organizations, such as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Radio-Canada, the Canada Council for the Arts, Telefilm Canada, and the National Film Board.
Canada will also be able to showcase Canadian artists and cultural industries abroad with an investment of $35 million over two years, which will immediately help Canadian foreign missions promote Canadian culture and creativity on the world stage, particularly in the lead-up to the Canada 150 celebrations.
As I said at the outset, I am proud to rise and speak to the benefits of this budget for the people of Oakville, for Canadians and for our economy. This budget specifically addresses the concerns I have heard in my community. It puts us on a course for economic growth, expands opportunities for the middle class, and for those striving to be in the middle class.
Finally, this budget allows the government to reach out with help for those most in need in our communities.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, I have to admit that I am more torn than I want to be with respect to this budget. I was expecting so much more. I really did believe we would see the kinds of investments into infrastructure that would stimulate our economy, thus justifying the deep deficit. I find myself so deeply disappointed that the $120 billion for infrastructure spending is 90% tilted to after the next election. We see $11.9 billion in infrastructure, but that is for phase one, which is five years long. The other 90% of what is promised for infrastructure is supposed to come mostly in years seven, eight, nine and ten.
As a Liberal member of Parliament, does he believe this budget is like training wheels on a bike and next year we will see the real budget? This falls so far short of what we had been led to believe we would see for the environment, for first nations, and for infrastructure. I feel as though there is another shoe about to drop somewhere.
John Oliver Liberal Oakville, ON
Mr. Speaker, this budget is about an inclusive and fair Canada. It is about families, and I did not mention the tax cut for the middle class. It is about supporting families through the Canada child benefit. It is about growing a robust economy.
The infrastructure investments that I recited are there, and they are significant investments. What I like best about them is that those dollars go directly to the communities to make decisions on what is most important to their communities. Therefore, we have spending decisions being made very close to where the dollars are needed, and that maximizes the federal investment.
I am very proud of this budget. I believe it fulfills the commitments that were made during the election period.
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
Mr. Speaker, during question period today, I asked about what the government is really doing to help small and medium-sized businesses, which are the real job creators in Canada. The government broke another one of its promises, the one about cutting the small business tax rate from 11% to 9%.
That drew a reaction from the president of the local chamber of commerce in my region. He was concerned about the size of the deficit in the latest budget and the fact that our grandchildren will be forced to foot the bill.
The government is making all kinds of announcements and promising to do all kinds of things, but it is not really creating jobs and it does not really have a plan for economic growth. Basically, this budget is more about putting out press releases than actually doing something.
When will we find out what the government really plans to do? I would like the member to comment on that.
What will this budget do for small and medium-sized businesses? It is clear to us and to regional stakeholders that this budget contains nothing for them.
John Oliver Liberal Oakville, ON
Mr. Speaker, perhaps the member was not listening during my 10-minute address, but I recited many examples of the investments that we were making in small and medium-sized businesses to ensure they prospered in Canada. I will not recite them again. Most important, we are investing in the middle class, in families, and in infrastructure to create thousands of new jobs.
Small and medium-sized businesses need customers. We need a strong and robust middle class to ensure this economy grows and supports those businesses to which the member referred.