Debates of April 13th, 2016

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Calgary Rocky Ridge for quite a detailed analysis. He has clearly read very carefully through the budget.

However, it is interesting that he failed to mention the Canada child benefit, which was clearly a promise and a very important part of what the Liberal government promised to do.

I wonder if he would comment, knowing that it would increase benefits to nine out of 10 families and raise 300,000 children out of poverty across the country. Would he not agree that this measure will have a significant impact on people in his riding and on their lifestyle and their quality of life going forward?

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would reiterate that the budget in total represents, for the most part, a litany of broken promises from the campaign. The hon. member across no doubt campaigned on the Liberal platform, which included a promise of a maximum deficit of $10 billion. I do not doubt the member, in door-to-door conversations, defended this promise and assured the voters of her constituency that the Liberals would not exceed a $10 billion deficit. This promise was completely abandoned immediately after the conclusion of the election along with a litany of other broken promises.

We could talk beyond the budget itself of broken promises when it comes to refugee policy and a number of other areas. The budget is built of broken promises that were committed by the Liberals during the 2015 election.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech.

One of the issues that the City of Sherbrooke in my riding is following very closely is obviously the infrastructure announcements. One has to admit that people had very high expectations before the budget was tabled. Many municipalities across the country were disappointed. Sherbrooke was no exception.

One of the problems that Quebec has with infrastructure investments is that there has to be an agreement between Canada and the province regarding infrastructure spending. The agreement was not signed when his party, the Conservative Party, was in power, and it has not been addressed by the Liberals either. As a result, the money is still not available, although large sums are being announced. That is what happened with the Conservatives. They were always announcing large investments. Now the Liberals are announcing large sums, but the money is not getting to the municipalities.

I would like my colleague to talk about this aspect of the problem with infrastructure. Does he think that the announcement that was made fell short of what municipalities expected, given the Liberals' election promises?

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member raises an important point. It is true that when our government was in office, we announced and approved projects that were unable to be completed. Yet, I am not sure what more our previous government could have done in some cases.

When a municipality requests funding for a project and that funding is approved and when the project is not built, I am not certain how to be accountable for some of the management or issues at the local level that has prevented a project from being completed.

I am very proud of the track record our party had in office with respect to approving infrastructure projects. We approved the funding for the Green Line in Calgary, which represented the largest federal investment in infrastructure in Calgary at that time.

[Ramesh Sangha, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

Today, I rise in this august House to recapitulate and review the promises made to Canadians six months back. We are in the process of a long journey whose milestone has been unfolded by this budget.

Canadians have struggled for the last 10 years to get ahead, but for most of them things were not getting better. The middle class remained stagnant for a very long time. Youth unemployment was eroding the faith of young Canadians and their parents. They were not able to move up the ladder, rather, some of them were sliding downward.

During our election campaign, we assured Canadians a new direction for our economy. We promised to invest in people and things that would make the lives of the middle class better. We all know that everyday lives can be better for people if they have good, long-term, and consistent jobs. They must have better modes to commute. They also need better child care, better schools, better hospitals, and better medical infrastructure. In addition to that, we all need clean water, fresh air, and green parks. All these things make the lives of common people better and livable.

I represent the riding of Brampton Centre. It is part of the GTA and comprises hard-working, middle-class Canadians. Quite a few of my constituents work in downtown Toronto and nearby areas. When we travel to downtown Toronto, or elsewhere around, we see the lifelines of commuting, the so-called Highways 401, 410, and 427. They look like parking lots. What a colossal waste of time and resources. This leads to loss of time for workers, which could be spent at work contributing to the economy, or quality time with their families.

That is why we assured Canadians that our government had plans to invest in better means of transit, social, and green infrastructure. Our economy will grow so Canadians move ahead.

Our government is open to working with provinces. The funding has been made flexible for municipalities to have a coordinated, need based and progressive improvement.

Investment in transit infrastructure would help to make a positive difference in our lives. It is the government's plan to quadruple federal investment in public transit to ensure that the projects actually get built. It would also give a boost to the economy.

Our government has also planned to invest in social infrastructure, on things like affordable and social housing, child care spaces, community centres, and also in youth and seniors. The government also plans to invest in green infrastructure.

These would all create greener energy, cleaner land, and more good jobs for Canadians, leading to a stronger economy and a cleaner environment. This would help the middle classes and those who are striving hard to join the middle class.

Our government is in the process of sending families a tax-free, monthly Canada child benefit worth up to $533 a month for one child. Nine out of ten families will get more money from this plan. Middle-class Canadians can now save up to $670 per person each year, with a maximum benefit of nearly $1,350 for a couple.

When middle-class Canadians have more money in their pockets to save, invest, and grow, the economy is bound to benefit.

Our government has cut the middle income tax bracket to 20.5% from 22%. Canadians with taxable annual income between $44,700 and $89,401 have seen their income tax rate fall.

To pay for this tax cut, the wealthy 1% of Canadians are giving a little more. This government has introduced a new tax bracket of 33% for individuals earning more than $200,000 each year.

Our government has already assured Canadians that we will lower the pensionable age to 65, thereby reducing the insecurity of old age created by the previous government.

Our government is taking direct action and working with provinces and territories to provide Canadians with a more secure retirement. Therefore, the quality of the lives of seniors is a major concern for our government.

In pursuit of goals for widespread prosperity, our government is also in the process of improving access to the employment insurance benefits. We all know that Canada is a country of small and medium-sized enterprises. These enterprises are the back bone of our economy. Our prosperity is embodied in entrepreneurs who take chances.

It is imperative that businesses reduce costs and improve productivity if they have to survive the global competition over mid and long term. Hence “innovation” is our mantra.

This government has been encouraging and has also been planning to invest in innovations in all and every field. The previous government ignored the people who did most of the heavy lifting. Canadians were working harder and longer, but some of them were sliding downwards. The persistent lack of opportunities for youth was having a far-reaching impact on struggling classes.

Developmental plans were not managed with a vision. Too many eggs were put in one basket, which has not worked well for the overall economy. The temporary foreign workers program started by the previous government proved to be counterproductive. These programs were filling jobs which could have been filled by qualified Canadians. Therefore, there is a need to streamline this process.

I was fortunate that the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship announced proposed progressive measures in my riding for implementing the vision of immigration. These will encourage pathways to reunification of families and citizenship to those who come to Canada to work, and will also review the temporary foreign workers program on needs-based criteria.

The Minister of Finance has presented his maiden budget. Canadians can see for themselves that a new hope is getting translated into reality. This budget has ushered in an era of implementation for what we had been promising to Canadians, and that is real change.

Spending on the infrastructure is realistic, keeping in view the long term goals. Canada needs fiscal measures that will boost productive capacity. We see in this budget growth, a friendly tax policy, an openness to trade, competition and supportive reforms. This budget lays out a credible plan for fiscal sustainability. It also aims to ensure Canadians that the federal government is dealing with economic challenges with prudence.

I compliment the Minister of Finance and his team for their vision, efforts and hard work in this regard.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member talked about a lot of things in his speech, a lot of promises, which we now know as broken Liberal promises. One was with respect to the middle-class tax cut. He said that the Liberals were going to lower taxes on the middle class and ask the top 1% to pay a little more. It turns out that all Canadians will be paying a lot more because, according to the figures of the parliamentary budget officer, there is a $1.3-billion deficit for this year alone, which means Canadian taxpayers will have to pay that, and $8.9 billion over six years.

I would ask the hon. member how he explains that broken campaign promise to the people in his riding.

[Ramesh Sangha, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, this budget is one that gives hope to Canadians, mostly the middle class and those who are striving hard to join the middle class. It is the hope that this budget will give them more jobs and more benefits. Our government has decided to cut taxes to 20.5% from 22%, and give that back to Canadians. When Canadians get money back into their pockets, they are in a better position, and Canada will be in a better position.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, this budget would have been the perfect opportunity to announce the restoration of home mail delivery, which got a lot of air time during the election campaign. The Prime Minister actually promised to restore home mail delivery. The budget would have been a great opportunity to make an announcement about that and keep the promise that the Prime Minister himself made. Now people have to check the Liberal Party's website to see the real promise, even though the Prime Minister said something else.

Can my colleague tell us whether his community is also calling for the restoration of home mail delivery, particularly in downtown communities, which are often home to seniors and people with reduced mobility?

What are his thoughts on that? Does he think that the Prime Minister should keep the promise he himself made to restore home mail delivery?

[Ramesh Sangha, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member's comment is not really a question. The Liberal Party has already agreed to restore home delivery.

This budget is providing all of the aspects of government spending which is for the middle-class people. That spending will be long-term spending for a better future. It will be spent to create good jobs and a cleaner environment for Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, the member highlighted a very important aspect of the budget that has not been given that much attention, which is the issue of the processing of spouses from abroad. This budget does incorporate additional financing that will ultimately see families being reunited that much quicker. I wonder if the member might want to talk a bit more about how important it is that the Canadian government speed up the processing so that we can get those spouses to Canada that much sooner.

[Ramesh Sangha, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, the amendments to the Immigration Act that were announced by the hon. minister clearly indicate that there will be a reunification process and that families will be very happy.

In my previous profession I was an immigration lawyer. I have seen people cry because they could not have their parents reunited with them. It was very hard because the laws, which were being amended day by day, were very harsh and did not provide them that privilege. This budget provides the opportunity for the reunification of families.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, Indigenous Affairs; the hon. member for Windsor West, Gasoline Prices; and the hon. member for Victoria, Justice.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Brampton Centre for sharing his time with me. It is such an honour for me to speak to budget 2016 this afternoon.

I am going to divide the 10 minutes that I have into three general categories: first, the overall quality of the budgetary information; second, a quick review of those things that are pretty good, but not good enough; and third, concerns about the environmental content of the budget.

First, on the quality of the budget, there is something that I think parliamentarians need to spend a lot more time talking about and demanding of Finance Canada. It has been a number of years since I have been able to find in the budget of Canada something that I think most Canadians would expect us to find, something called a budget: a statement of revenues, a statement of expenses, a bottom line, clear information.

I started saying with the previous government that we should really stop calling it the budget and call it the annual spring thick brochure so we would know what we were talking about. I expected more clarity of information, frankly, from the new finance minister, but as we have seen in the information from the parliamentary budget office in its review of this document, we still do not have detailed tables to identify the impacts of changes. Budget 2016 has actually shortened the time horizon on cost estimates from five years to two years, and it is going to be increasingly difficult to reconcile the program information with the budgetary information with our main estimates and supplementary estimates. I urge the new government to make sure that 2016 is the last budget that is not really a budget.

In addition to the things that the PBO has asked for, I would like to see a return to budget documents that include a statement of the budgets that are comparable from the previous year to the next year, department by department. Quite often in the budgets over the last number of years, we can see an announcement that there is money for a department to do whatever, but we cannot figure out for months, if we ever can, whether that is new money, re-profiled money, or whether it is a real commitment. I would like to see that.

Another thing I would like the Minister of Finance to do before next year, and as a matter of fact as quickly as possible, is present legislation to enshrine the parliamentary budget office and the parliamentary budget officer as independent officers of Parliament, properly funded and not subsumed in the budget of the Library of Parliament. The PBO does an amazing job for us as parliamentarians. It should not have to fight tooth and claw for information from Finance Canada. It should be as available to them as it is to us, and we are not seeing that change yet.

This budget is clearly much more welcome to the Green Party of Canada than the ones over the last 10 years. I do not open it and cringe and fear weeping at every page. Therefore, let me go through those things that are good, but not good enough.

It is certainly welcome to see $8.4 billion allocated to first nations, Métis, and Inuit communities. It is good, but not good enough, because it neglected where we really need to see some increased spending, which is on the care of children in those communities. Specific child care dollars were missed. We need more attention on those key areas. It is certainly welcome, but falls a bit short there. Actually, it is more than a bit short. It completely omits, as Cindy Blackstock has pointed out, money for first nations children and to make sure we act on all the commitments under the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

I was pleased to see action to assist young Canadians or any students with student debt in making that more manageable, but when one reads very carefully, one finds that there is no new money for that. It is re-profiled in ways that will help students carry student debt and ensure they do not have to start paying student debt back until they are making more money. It is encouraging, but not good enough.

There is more money for international development for Global Affairs Canada, but not nearly enough to catch up to where Canada should be. I want to see a reinstatement of our goal as a nation to 0.7% of our GDP into international development assistance. We are far short of that, even with the modest increase to spending in this budget.

It was very welcome to see money for housing and the federal government being involved again in housing. It is very important that we do that, but I was very disappointed not to see money in this budget for energy retrofits. I will return to that.

It is also welcome to see a return to the funding of basic science and away from the notion that we will not fund anything unless it has an immediate commercial application. It is very welcome to see a return to basic science research and more money for hiring scientists, such as the $40 million that was recently announced for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to start rehiring scientists. Parks and marine protected areas also get funding.

One of Canada's greatest environmental thought leaders passed away earlier this year. I would like to take a moment to note that Jim MacNeill's passing is devastating to the whole policy community that has done any work on sustainable development. Jim MacNeill always said that the single most important environmental statement from any government is its budget. After analyzing this budget for the environmental promises, that is where we find the deepest disappointment.

First, on infrastructure, during the election campaign the Liberals promised to spend enough on infrastructure to stimulate our economy to hire a great deal more people to ensure that we have a strong and vibrant economy that could get us out of the deficit. That was the premise of the Liberals' election campaign. I have to say I do not quibble with that. The Green Party platform was a balanced budget, but I am easily persuaded that in a weak, stagnant economy, when the cost of borrowing is as low as it is today, it is not a bad idea to go into deficit to kick-start the economy. It is a good idea. However, the Liberals fell far short of what needs to be done to create the investments that we need in infrastructure and green infrastructure to create that vibrant economy.

In a nutshell, we read in this budget that over the next 10 years there will be $120 billion invested in infrastructure. That is a big number and it sounds great, until we realize that part one is the next five years, past the next election, in which less than 10% of that money, $11.9 billion, will be spent. The 90% of $120 billion will come to us in the second five-year period. That is important to note, because it means that for public transit money, which is desperately needed, there is only $3.4 billion over three years. It is not enough to significantly reduce greenhouse gases by moving us to public transit. A key piece of stimulus spending that would have put tens of thousands of Canadians to work quickly is to fund eco-energy projects.

With the previous Liberal government, under former prime minister Paul Martin who created the program, it was wildly successful. It delivered on greenhouse gas reductions. Homeowners loved it. Contractors loved it. Building supply companies loved it. It worked. It should have come back in this budget and it should have been expanded to include institutions like universities, schools, and hospitals, to replace inefficient furnaces, to bring in heat pumps, and to employ an army of carpenters, electricians, and plumbers who could go to work to deliver. It is missing and that is a shame. I hope it will get serious consideration before the 2017 budget so that we can actually attack the 30% of greenhouse gases that come from leaky buildings in Canada.

However, I have to say the most despairing part in reading the budget was when I came to a section which has the heading, “Restoring trust in environmental assessment”. This is at page 165 in the budget. Restoring trust in environmental assessment requires fixing the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, brought in originally in 1993, was repealed in 2012 in the spring omnibus budget bill, Bill C-38.

This section of the budget suggests we are going to keep the broken, bogus, useless Environmental Assessment Act that was brought in under Bill C-38, and that we are going to keep it for four more years. There is a specific reference to it getting funded for four more years. This is an enormous mistake, and it must be reversed. Similarly, we must get rid of what Bill C-38 did to our Fisheries Act, to the Navigable Waters Protection Act, which was in the fall omnibus budget bill, Bill C-45.

We need to fix our environmental laws if we are going to have a hope of restoring public trust in the environmental assessment process. This must be fixed and it is a budgetary issue. However, it is an urgent parliamentary concern that we undo the damage that every single member of the opposition fought against in 2012. Every New Democrat, every Liberal, and every Green MP fought that. We need to pay attention to the mistakes in this budget and fix them immediately.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands for her thoughtful speech and for her engagement on budget 2016.

Over the past few weeks we have heard a lot of discussion in this House on Canada's oil and gas resources. For our friends in the Conservative caucus, it cannot happen fast enough that resources get to tidewater, even though in the last 10 years they have not achieved one pipeline that has actually reached tidewater.

The Liberal government has committed to a more robust, transparent environmental assessment process in which Canadians can trust and have confidence. I wonder if the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands could elaborate in a bit more detail what the conditions are for her, under which Canada's oil and gas resources would be able to reach tidewater?

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

Madam Speaker, I neglected to observe that I stand on the traditional territory of the Algonquin First Nation and do so with gratitude.

The name of my riding derives from the name Saanich of the W_SÁNEC people of southern Vancouver Island, who have unceded treaty rights, and in fact Douglas treaty rights to the use and occupation of the territory, Saanich, on which I live.

There is no circumstance in which I am the least bit interested in seeing unprocessed resources reach tidewater. It is an inanity—in large letters. When did Canadians ever think it was a smart use of our resources to ship them out raw as fast as possible?

We do that with forest products. On Vancouver Island, we deeply regret every raw log shipped offshore. Value-added processing of resources, whether forest resources, fishery resources, or bitumen resources, makes sense. Building pipelines no one wants for tankers that are dangerous to ship raw products to other countries makes no sense.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I too was quite struck by the budget when the documents were tabled.

The information was not forthcoming, literally. We actually cannot find the information in terms of what the budgetary items are, in terms of the actual spending in comparison to previous years.

On top of that, I was quite struck by the process, the budget being debated in committee, and in most instances, the minister only being at committee for one hour. We are talking about billions of dollars of spending, and to scrutinize the budgets, MPs will only get one hour in committee to do this work.

I would certainly love to see change in that regard. I wonder if the member could comment on that and share her view around that as well.

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

Madam Speaker, that is one of the critical things that we are entrusted with here as members of Parliament.

The fundamental principle is that Parliament controls the public purse. That means it is incumbent on each and every one of us, as members of Parliament, to have access to proper information and be able to study it properly.

There have been a lot of sloppy practices developed over time. It is not new. I certainly cannot lay it at the door of the new government. However, I expect it to do more to clean it up.

We have billions of dollars of spending in supplementary estimates, approved and deemed to have been studied. This has to stop. I completely agree with my friend from Vancouver East. We need access to information. It needs to be clear. We need time to properly question not just the minister but those officials in Finance Canada who can provide proper answers quickly.

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

Madam Speaker, what are the member's thoughts, specifically with respect to the Canada child benefit program, which we believe would lift literally hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty in every region of our country?

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

Madam Speaker, it is hard to give a brief response.

I want to see universal child care back in this country. We do not get to it with the child care benefit. However, I do agree that it makes sense to target child care needs to parents who need the help.

I also support getting rid of the boutique tax cuts. The current government just got started. I hope it will do more to clean up the tax code. In general, I support public spending for community recreational facilities more than private reimbursement of wealthy families who had their kids in sports anyway.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Laurentides—Labelle.

I am very pleased today to speak in support of budget 2016. This is a budget that invests in Canadians; it invests in people.

The greatest assets in any democratic country are the combined knowledge, experiences, ideas, and creativity of the people. When we invest in those ideas, when we give every Canadian a real and fair chance to succeed, when we make sure that everyone has the opportunities they need to contribute to growing our economy, then we all do better. This is a budget that would create growth that is inclusive for all.

Recent graduates in my riding of Ottawa West—Nepean are looking for good jobs where they can use their skills. New immigrants are eager to start businesses and find jobs so that they can give something back to the country that welcomed them.

In my riding, there are many highly educated and skilled workers who lost their jobs when Nortel collapsed and who are looking for venture capital, so they can take their good ideas to market. By focusing our budget on growing the economy rather than on cuts or austerity, we would ensure that they all have their chance to build their dreams. Every dollar we invest in Canadians would come back to us over and over again in the future.

Budget 2016 would invest in research, innovation, and commercialization of new ideas. This includes an additional $95 million a year to the granting councils: SSHRC, NSERC, and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

Budget 2016 would also provide $800 million for innovation networks and clusters, as well as measures to scale up businesses, help small and medium enterprises to grow, and provide support for accelerators and incubators.

Many residents of Ottawa West—Nepean are public servants. After many years of job cuts and lack of respect for federal scientists, researchers, diplomats, experts, and professionals, our government wants to hear about public servants' experiences and good ideas.

Budget 2016 promises to enhance the public service, which is one of the best in the world, and provide the space and opportunity for public servants to give advice based on solid evidence. We are committed to negotiating in good faith and never making unilateral changes to collective agreements.

My parents immigrated to Canada in the 1960s, and if I may say, today is the 50th anniversary of the day my mother first landed in Canada as a 19-year-old young woman immigrating to Canada by herself. This is a shout-out to my mother, Maria.

Being the daughters of immigrants, my sister and I had the opportunity to go to university. We had the opportunity to get good jobs and succeed in life. This is my wish for every single child in Canada.

The new Canada child benefit would give nine out of 10 families more money in their pockets to help with the cost of raising children. It would raise hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty. It is income tested, so that those making less money would receive more. The average family would see $2,300 more every year because of this benefit, and we would not tax it back. Therefore, all of the money would stay in their pockets. This is in addition to the middle-class tax cut that we have already put into place, which would benefit nine million Canadians.

Many of the most vulnerable in my riding of Ottawa West—Nepean are seniors. In Canada today, there are more people over the age of 65 than there are children under 15. I have a constituency with more seniors than most others in the country. Many of them are single seniors and single women living in poverty.

Budget 2016 commits to increasing the guaranteed income supplement for single seniors by 10%. This would benefit 900,000 seniors. We would also work with the provinces to enhance the Canada pension plan and reset the age of retirement for OAS from age 67 back to age 65.

In addition, we would provide more than $200 million over the next two years for affordable housing specifically for seniors, which would benefit 5,000 low-income seniors. This is part of an infrastructure program that would invest $3.4 billion in social infrastructure over the next two years, including $2.3 billion for affordable housing, which would upgrade or build 100,000 affordable housing units for the most vulnerable.

One of the most important parts of ensuring that every Canadian has a real and fair chance to succeed is access to education.

In budget 2016, we would provide students with up to $1,000 more per year in the Canada student grants, which would help 247,000 low-income students. Budget 2016 would put an additional $165 million into the youth employment strategy, which includes doubling the Canada summer jobs program. That program would do much to help students find meaningful employment, but it would also benefit many non-profit organizations and small businesses by giving them more staff support over the summer.

In addition, we would provide support for co-op programs for students, particularly those in the STEM professions. Even with these job programs, some students still have trouble finding well-paying full-time jobs after graduation. That is why budget 2016 makes a commitment to students that they would not have to repay their student loans until they are making at least $25,000 a year.

In investing in Canadians, we must recognize that not all Canadians have the same advantages. Women in Canada still earn 73¢ for every dollar earned by a man. Women have greater caregiving responsibilities, and are under-represented in the upper echelons of business and politics. They are also more likely to face violence.

That is why this budget would invest almost $90 million to build 3,000 new shelter spaces for victims of violence. The budget also includes $23 million for the Status of Women, which would allow it to expand its programs.

I wish to make a special note that the budget includes funding to restore the court challenges program. This vital program allowed Canadians, who would otherwise not have been able to afford legal fees, to bring cases forward based on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This program, until it was cancelled by the previous government, was vital to many of the advances that have been made for women and other groups based on the charter.

I was personally very proud to receive messages from my former UN colleagues about the strength of Canada's delegation to the Commission on the Status of Women last month.

The Prime Minister has shown a true commitment to gender equality in Canada and around the world. As a result, Canada earned a place on the Commission. I could not be more pleased.

I am also pleased that the budget would commit an additional $256 million over two years to increasing international assistance. I have seen first-hand the need to invest in development of democratic institutions, pluralism, civil society, and peacekeeping around the world, especially in failed and fragile states.

I also look forward to Canada once again leading the world when it comes to peacekeeping and implementation of Security Council Resolution 1325, which says that women must be involved in all levels of peace negotiation and peacekeeping operations. Canada is uniquely positioned in the world to make a real difference, to lead responsibly, and to bring true conviction to our foreign policy.

One in three residents in my constituency were not born in Canada. The proudest moments I have had since becoming a member of Parliament have been when I have seen the generosity of spirit of the many Canadians who have come forward to help the Syrian refugees.

This is why I am very supportive of measures in the budget that would allow 10,000 more privately sponsored refugees from Syria and increase the number of permanent residents by 7%, allowing for 300,000 new permanent residents. I also fully support measures to facilitate family reunification, including 20,000 parents and grandparents. To ensure that families do not have to be separated for long periods of time, we would spend $25 million more to reduce processing times and handle the backlog of people waiting for their cases to be resolved.

I look forward to many happy reunions in the near future. There are many more measures in budget 2016 that would benefit Canadians. This is a budget that is truly inclusive of all Canadians.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have one main concern, and that is we continue to use the word “average”. Statistics Canada has changed what the average family makes. What is the member's definition of average? Could she please give me an actual number?

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, in the case I was referring to was just the average of the families. My colleague might be referring to who we consider middle class Canadians. The middle-class tax cut applies to the tax bracket between $45,000 and $90,000. In terms of just simple math, those are the people we would be referring to.

Most of us, me included, rely on a paycheque. We worry about whether we can pay off our mortgage if we lose our job. We do not live off our investments. Most people probably understand us to be average Canadians. However, I prefer to think of nobody as average.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate the member's mother on her arrival here 50 years ago.

The member talked a lot about the importance of immigration and the immigrant community in her riding. There is an injection of $25 million in this budget to process family class applications. In the last five years, from 2010 to 2015, the Conservative government cut $350 million out of processing on the immigration file. During the campaign, the Liberals promised a one time injection of $25 million, plus an ongoing $50 million each year after that. That is nowhere to be found in the budget.

Would the member stand with me and call on her government to keep that promise to inject the additional $50 million each year so we can get the backlog and the processing done?

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, since being elected, this is probably the number one issue I am getting calls about in my constituency office. There are heartbreaking stories of mothers leaving their children behind to come to Canada. They have to make terrible choices. That is a legacy of the cuts that were made over the last 10 years.

This is why our government has committed to restoring the funding to ensure we deal with those backlogs and decrease the processing times, particularly for family class immigrants. Keeping families apart, especially mothers and fathers with children, is even more difficult if they have been apart for a number of years. Why on earth would we want to do that?

This issue is a priority for the people in my riding. It is a priority for the Minister of Immigration, who has been doing a wonderful job so far in trying to fix what has happened over the last 10 years in that department.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on her speech, which was eloquent as usual. She gave a very complete overview of all the benefits of this budget.

I would like to hear more from the member about investments in the national capital region. We are both active members of the national capital of Canada caucus. I am certain that, like me, she noted the infrastructure investments in federal assets that will total some $700 million or more in the region, or the public transit investments in her city of Ottawa.

Could she tell us more about this?