Debates of April 14th, 2016

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Mr. Speaker, what is correct has been put in a historic context, which is to live within one's means.

I will explain to the member that for the last 20 years when previous governments overspent, we had to fight to bring it back. Then after that, we managed to reduce the tax. It was our government, with that kind of management, that reduced the GST to 5%, putting more money into the pockets of Canadians. More money in the pockets of Canadians is what moved the economy.

We all know that it is the consumers who move the economy and not the planners or economists. Therefore, this is a critical aspect. While reducing the GST to 5%, I would remind the member that in 2008, Canada was not in a recession at that time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech. I cannot ignore what he said, which is rather surprising coming from a Conservative member.

I would like to come back to the matter of deficits. In his speech, my colleague mentioned the late Mr. Flaherty. In 2007-08, Mr. Flaherty listened to the advice of economists, who said that significant government investments would stimulate the economy, and he did exactly that. At the time, the government was proud to say that it was making investments to stimulate the economy. It even called those investments its economic action plan.

Why then is my colleague today denying the validity of this economic theory when his own government used the same strategy in 2008?

How does he explain the fact that he is completely opposed to that theory today?

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the problem with this budget is that it has no plan to meet the deficits made through the government's spending.

I agree with the hon. member about Mr. Flaherty during the 2008 recession, which I stated in my speech, but I do not think he listened. We spent the infrastructure money because that was what the G20 had agreed to. However, we then immediately had a plan on how to balance the books, which is what we did. Subsequent to balancing those books, we were able to give assistance to families, provide tax credits, invest in social services, and reduce the tax burden. Therefore, I say yes, but there has to be a plan.

Under the 2016 budget, there is absolutely no plan on how to reach that. It is just motherhood statements that the Prime Minister has been making, known to be the fluffy statements that he makes that somehow we will balance the budget, or like he said in—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We have time for just a very short question and response.

The hon. member for Barrie—Innisfil.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his comments. One of the things he talked about was a lack of a jobs plan.

I would remind the House that 1.3 million net new jobs were created, and the current government, with this plan, is on track to make the employment insurance system the largest employer in this country.

Given the member's history in the House, what would he suggest that the government do to create a jobs plan for this country to get Canadians to work?

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, what anyone would do is work towards balancing the budget. Once we work toward living within our means, we will have the money to spend where we want to spend it. We will create an environment in which there is more investment, where more businesses are attracted, which would then generate the economy. Most importantly, what generates the economy are small businesses, medium-sized business, and the middle class, not high government.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today as the member of Parliament for Durham to speak in this important budget debate. What is most important about this debate is it is the first budget for the new Liberal government. It shows areas that it will focus on and as an opposition member, it shows areas that I am concerned about for our economic future. My remarks will be about that.

I will start off in a manner that my mother always taught me to do. She used to tell me that if I did not have anything nice to say, then I should not say anything at all. However, I will say something.

I was proud to see the government continue the legacy of Jim Flaherty, who recognized the unique strain placed on families dealing with young children with disabilities. I applaud the government for continuing the practice he started and for including extra support in its new child benefit for families with disabilities. I know first hand the late Jim Flaherty's passion on that subject and the impact it has had on families. The Liberals will continue that tradition and I salute them for it.

However, with that out of the way, the budget is built on a house of cards. When the Prime Minister was the leader of the third party, he did not support running a deficit. We have heard speeches from some of his brand new Liberal MPs, and I congratulate them on being here, but they do not know the position the Prime Minister took previously. For many years, he indicated the importance of a balanced budget. That was his position. That was the legacy he tried to take from Paul Martin and people like David Dodge. Members will hear them mentioned a lot. His position was that it was the responsibility of a government to keep a balanced budget.

In the middle of an election campaign, really to take advantage of a weak position of a party on the left, the Liberals started saying that they would run a modest deficit of no more than $10 billion. In reality, there will not be a deficit lower than $10 billion over the course of four years. In the first two years, the deficit will be roughly $30 billion and around $14 billion in the final year. Not only does this break his promise about no more than $10 billion; it also breaks the promise about balancing the budget within his four year term. My remarks will show that some of that spending will have no long-term job creation impact on Canada at a time when that has to be a priority.

The other house of cards is this. The budget is built upon an election document. All senior civil servants have essentially been given their marching orders from an election document. The Liberal government brought in a senior member to the Privy Council who wrote the election document. Had the last government done any of that, there would have been riots on the streets of Ottawa, but it seems to be acceptable by the Liberal team. The other fallacy was that Canada was in a recession and that was why the government needed to do it. That was not true.

We saw that just a few weeks ago when job numbers and GDP numbers were announced. We would all like to see more jobs, particularly in Alberta and Saskatchewan, and Newfoundland and Labrador, provinces that have been impacted by resource prices. The economy is growing modestly so the whole premise for running that no more than $10 billion deficit was also false. Why is that so important? Because it is building an economic plan for the new government that is built on a house of cards. The Liberal government is putting my children's future at risk by making poor economic decisions.

A deficit in the midst of a global recession with a plan to get back to balance is prudent. A massive deficit during a time when the economy is growing with no real emphasis on job creation is reckless. In fact, very little of the infrastructure money will stimulate job creation. Most observers have been profoundly disappointed.

I am happy there is some infrastructure spending, building upon the build Canada plan of the last government. However, virtually none of that spending will be stimulative, so there will be no jobs from it. There is no extension of the auto innovation fund or the parts innovation fund brought forward by the previous government to help Southern Ontario, to help areas in Oshawa and my riding of Durham, working with industry to modernize, to increase productivity, and to create jobs. There is none of that.

That is a broken promise on the job front to small business by reversing their position on the small business tax rate, another broken promise, in fact almost the unheralded or unheard of position of not meeting with the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and getting direct budgetary input amid the consultations the Liberals claim to have, I guess on Facebook, to help the hundreds of thousands of independent and small businesses in Canada.

In fact, leading economists will say that amid those tough global years of the recession, it was small to medium-sized employers that helped us make it through, which was why the previous government had a strategic plan to do away with some regulation and red tape for small business, but, more important, make their tax rates competitive and incent them to hire. If every small business hired two people, that is equal to a new shift at a plant in Oshawa or Windsor, or more. Therefore, letting down small business and having no plan for jobs is a profound concern when running billions upon billions of dollars in deficit financing for Canada.

I will now speak for a few minutes about a few areas of particular concern. I am the public safety critic. It was shocking to have a budget delivered the day of the terrible terror attacks in Brussels. The finance minister was gracious enough to acknowledge that terrible attack on our friend and ally at the beginning of his speech, but with $30 billion in new spending, how much is there for front-line public safety and security? There is zero, nothing.

There has been some talk about a few good initiatives such countering radicalization, those sorts of things, which the Conservatives support, even though we have not heard anything from the minister. However, there is nothing for front-line members of the RCMP, CSIS, CSC to keep us safe. That was very concerning, and the minister has not explained why.

Now I will move to the Canadian Armed Forces. I am proudly wearing my RCAF pin. There was an RCAF reception on the Hill this week and I was proud that a lot of members attended. We have entered another decade of darkness. I had dinner last night with some friends of mine who I went to military college with and we called it “decade of darkness II”, like the sequel we never wanted to be made.

Why is it as bad as the 1990s? Because there is a $3.7 billion cut to the procurement budget. One of the members from Winnipeg is laughing. The aerospace industry in Winnipeg is looking to him and the government for some leadership. The F-35—

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the member is trying to impute motives of mine when he indicated that I was laughing at what is a very important industry to my province. I was not laughing. I asked the member how many F-35s or jets the member got for the Canadian Forces, but he should not be imputing motives.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It is not a point of order. There are opportunities for members, when the times comes in question and comments, to perhaps challenge things they have heard in the House. I am sure the hon. member is no stranger to doing that when the need arises. I am sure he will have an occasion to perhaps address that point at another time.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, having served in Winnipeg, and knowing the tremendous history of aviation and of the jobs in that province, it is not something to heckle about. Rather, it is something to support. I believe the F-35 the member references is being cancelled. However, that decade of darkness, is the sequel of the F-35 replacing the old Sea King that Jean Chrétien cancelled, which I flew on and which put lives at risk. That ill-timed decision to cancel cost $500 million in penalties, and we still needed a new helicopter. Those are the types of decisions that the $3.7 billion cut to new equipment will mean for our men and women.

There is also a cut between the estimates of 2015-16 and the next main estimates of $400 million in operational spending. That means the Canadian Armed Forces will go through the exact same thing as it did when the Liberal government came in under Prime Minister Chrétien. Then there was a defence white paper of 1994. We now have a defence review. It was the same sort of window dressing to cut and slash.

With respect to old age security, rolling back the modest reforms to ensure this program, which is not a pension but a program financed by the government, addresses demographic change is the best example of no plan at all. Our allies have made similar reforms, as have most of the countries in Europe. In the U.K. it is age 67, In Australia it is age 70. This is a responsible and sensible, evidence-based decision.

David Dodge, the former governor of the Bank of Canada who was quoted today, called this move in the government's budget “a backwards step.”

In a book called, The Real Retirement, it states, “Canada will not have enough workers in the years ahead, and various incentives, government policies, and employment practices to encourage early retirement will make little sense.” Who wrote that? The finance minister. He is not even following his own advice.

Governing is hard. It is about making decisions in the long term. It is ensuring there are job opportunities for everyone in Canada, for all families. It is about not burdening our children with debts piled up with overspending. We have seen that in Ontario with the McGuinty and Wynne governments. The federal Liberal government needs to recognize this and change its course before subsequent budgets put us on the economic shoals and put our future at risk.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member might want to reflect more on some basic sense of commitment.

We were both here at this time last year when the leader of the Liberal Party, the now Prime Minister, talked a great deal about the importance of Canada's middle class and that we needed to invest in it. It ultimately became a part of the election platform for the Liberal Party. Then, if we read the throne speech from last December, two highlights came out of that: the significant cutbacks to taxes for the middle class, with millions of dollars going back into their pockets; and, the Canada child benefit program, with millions of dollars being invested in our children. These are two initiatives that really helped Canada's middle class. It was an election commitment, it was part of the platform.

I always thought the Conservatives would support tax cuts, especially to Canada's middle class. Yet the Conservatives voted against those tax cuts. Could the member please explain why the Conservative Party voted against the tax cuts, and why it does not support increasing child benefits that will lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty? Why do the Conservatives not support those two initiatives?

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will explain how this is another area where the Liberal Party is misleading Canadians in how it defines and reaches out to the middle class.

The Prime Minister is a little older than I am. However, both our families were recipients of the baby bonus, as were all members of the House. It was a universal program that recognized the universality and importance of children and family. That is what our universal child care benefit did. It was for everyone.

There were also benefits to families for income splitting, for children's fitness, and for children's arts. The Liberals are removing all of these programs that apply to all families and they do not want to tell people the result. In Ontario, if there is a family with a nurse, firefighter or police officer in the GTA, it is likely worse off under this new plan. Certainly, those families took advantage of the tax credits for university, books, arts and fitness.

This is what is happening. There is a lot of talk and window dressing by the Liberal government. However, when we search for the reality, it is not there. That is why the parliamentary budget officer said that this budget was the least open and transparent in 15 years.

The member and his colleagues should tell their constituents why they have kept elements out of the budget. That is very concerning.

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

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

In his comments, my colleague spoke about the budget of the Department of National Defence and said that the Liberals were neglecting that department.

I would like to hear more about a negative aspect of the budget that was raised and criticized by the parliamentary budget officer, and that is the lack of transparency in the document and the figures.

A lot of spending will go on until 2021-22. That is the case for the Department of National Defence. Some expenditures are even planned for 2021-22. That is basically two elections from now.

Could my colleague talk about the government's approach of announcing figures when those amounts will not be spent until two elections from now?

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, all members of the House know the passion I have for the men and women who serve us in the military and the RCMP. This is an area of profound concern because, as the member said, they have already outlined a number of figures for the military that allow a comparison with the decade of darkness.

The main estimates that we now see before the House show an operational cut of $400 million and an almost $4 billion procurement cut or delay. If we combine the procurement cancellations alongside the operational cuts, they amounts to cuts that are actually larger than what we saw in total in the 1990s.

With procurement in particular, the longer we wait to acquire these aircraft, the higher the cost will be. The Sea King was cancelled while I was an officer cadet at the Royal Military College. I served my military time. I became a lawyer. I practised law. I was elected to Parliament. Then, in my first time on Power & Politics, what was I talking about? The Liberals' screwed-up Sea King procurement.

If we delay or screw up procurement, we are delaying it for 25 years. It will raise the cost to Canadians. Worse, it will potentially put the lives of the people we ask to serve this country at risk. I ask the Liberals to stop that.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

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 Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, Indigenous Affairs; the hon. member for Saskatoon West, Health; the hon. member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, Indigenous Affairs.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Newmarket—Aurora.

[Kyle Peterson, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the brilliant and fantastic member for St. Catharines.

I rise today to speak in favour of budget 2016. At the outset, I want to let the House know how proud I am of this budget and how proud I am to be part of a government that believes in Canada, believes in Canadians, and believes in restoring hope and rewarding hard work.

Budget 2016 focuses on growth, not austerity. It includes many measures that will grow the economy for the benefit of every Canadian. Investment is desperately needed, and it is needed now.

Members need not take my word for it alone. The International Monetary Fund and the OECD have called on countries to make use of available fiscal room as an effective lever to support long-term growth.

The strategic and smart investments in budget 2016 will strengthen and expand our middle class. They will reduce inequality among Canadians and, what I think is especially important, they will position Canada for sustained economic growth for years and years to come.

The Canadian economy is bearing witness to dramatic shifts in the global economy, but these shifts present opportunities both for Canadians and for our economy. This is why we need a long-term plan for growth. There are no quick fixes, and significant investment is required. We will make these investments.

This government listened to Canadians and took their input to heart. This budget was designed in part through extensive consultation with Canadians. I was pleased to participate in pre-budget consultations with my constituents in Newmarket—Aurora.

There are many elements of this budget that I am particularly proud of and will be speaking about today. I want to highlight four components of budget 2016: infrastructure investment, the Canada child benefit, support for seniors, and investing in arts and culture.

Canada's middle class will benefit from the immediate help provided by budget 2016, but ongoing growth is equally important. By investing in infrastructure now, this government is delivering on its promise to support the middle class and to secure a future of economic growth.

Infrastructure is crucial to our everyday lives. My riding has seen considerable growth recently, and the municipalities there need infrastructure investment. Without these investments now, economic growth is ultimately undermined. Congestion in Canadian communities makes life more difficult for busy families and has a negative effect on the economy.

Together, investments in infrastructure and innovation will form the foundation of a more inclusive society. Through strategic investment, this government is working to help facilitate and create good, well-paying jobs that can help the middle class grow and prosper today and well into the future.

Canadian businesses can only succeed when they have the tools to succeed. Budget 2016, by investing in infrastructure, goes a long way to support businesses across this nation. This means having better infrastructure to move products and get to work. It means having faster and more reliable broadband to communicate and reach customers, and it means having access to experts who can advise on how to develop businesses, including how to grow businesses globally.

Another important component of this budget, of course, is the Canada child benefit. It is essential for Canada to invest in its children. Canada's existing child benefit system is complicated and is neither tax free nor income tested. This system is inadequate for meeting the demands of so many Canadian families, and it is not efficiently targeted to those who need help the most.

Budget 2016 gives Canadian families more money to help with the high cost of raising their children by replacing the current complicated child benefit system with the new Canada child benefit. The CCB will provide a maximum annual benefit of up to $6,400 per child under the age of six and up to $5,400 per child for those aged 6 to 17. Families with less than $30,000 in net income will receive the maximum benefit.

With the introduction of a much better-targeted Canada child benefit, about 300,000 fewer children would be living in poverty by 2017. Let us think about that: 300,000 more Canadians who would have greater opportunity and, most importantly, more hope.

The budget also has a good component for seniors. The government has made a clear commitment to improving the lives of all Canadians, and a key element of this commitment is improving the quality of life for seniors through strengthening public pensions and increasing social infrastructure funding for seniors' living.

Canada's retirement income system has been successful in reducing the incidence of poverty among Canadian seniors. However, many seniors continue to be at risk of living in poverty. The budget has committed to increasing the guaranteed income supplement top-up benefit by up to $947 annually for the most vulnerable single seniors. It supports those seniors who rely almost exclusively on old age security and guaranteed income supplement benefits.

Once again, I am proud that budget 2016 is supporting Canadians who need it the most.

The challenges in affordable housing are something I hear from constituents in my riding, and it is an increasingly difficult barrier facing seniors. Through budget 2016, the government has committed to new social infrastructure investments that would be instrumental in increasing the quality of life for very many seniors. With real investments in construction, repair, and adaption of affordable housing for seniors, the government has committed over $200 million over two years to help provide this vulnerable population with access to the affordable housing that they need so desperately. Our senior population is growing, and our government understands that every individual deserves housing that is safe, affordable, and ultimately sustainable.

In 2017, Canada and all Canadians will be celebrating the 150th anniversary of Confederation. Budget 2016 would ensure that our country's heritage is celebrated and shared.

As many know, our cultural industries represent a key driver in our economy. Investing in the Canadian cultural sector helps to create jobs, strengthens the economy, and ensures that our unique Canadian stories are shared with the world. By investing $1.9 billion in arts and culture, budget 2016 would offer support to national institutions, safeguarding of our two official languages, and promotion of industries that highlight Canada's culture.

Another announcement made in budget 2016 to celebrate this important time is the enhancement to the national historic sites cost-sharing program. This enhancement would include expanding the program to include heritage lighthouses and railways through the provision of $20 million over two years. Improving and restoring Canada's very important historical sites is something that is important to many communities across Canada.

The government will work with our partners to ensure that all Canadians will have the opportunity to participate in local, regional, national, and international celebrations. This celebration is an exciting opportunity for everyone to get involved and to showcase Canada's heritage, which has been shaped through one of the strongest pillars of our great nation, our diversity.

I am proud to support the budget, and I encourage all members of the House to support budget 2016. By investing in communities, in our children, in our seniors, and in our arts and culture, budget 2016 is a clear step toward a prosperous future. It offers immediate help to those who need it most and lays the groundwork for sustained, inclusive economic growth that will benefit Canadian families for years to come. When Canadians have more money to save, invest, and grow the economy, everyone benefits.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, today the government brought forward legislation that has to do with medically assisted dying. One of the things I noticed when it presented the budget was that even though we knew this type of legislation was going to be coming to the House, because there is a court-ordered deadline, there was no money in the budget for palliative care.

Regardless of what side of the issue members in the House ultimately end up falling on, there is some agreement across party lines that the new legislation, whatever form it takes, has to be accompanied by a meaningful strategy for palliative care across Canada.

There was not so much as a dime to even hire an analyst, or even seed money to start creating a strategy for how to roll out better palliative care across Canada. I wonder what the member's thoughts are on that and if he would be willing to advocate to his own government to get that money in as soon as possible, instead of having to wait for next year's budget.

[Kyle Peterson, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me first thank the member for Elmwood—Transcona for that question, and let me advise him that palliative care is something very near and dear to my heart.

I was once the president of our local hospice, Doane House Hospice in Newmarket—Aurora. I have been committed to palliative care throughout my volunteer work in our community, and I remain committed to palliative care. I think palliative care is an important component of any end-of-life program in a civilized and moral society, and I will advocate of course to continue my commitment to palliative care and to do what I can to ensure palliative care remains a priority for this government.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Newmarket—Aurora made several references to the heritage budget that would increase by $1.9 billion in the next five years or so. We should remind members of the House that the CBC, a public institution, would get $675 million over this term, starting this year with $75 million.

However, I should also say that, while encouraging our kids to sit on the couch and watch television, the Liberals would do away with the sports tax credit and the arts tax credit, a part of heritage in this country where families coast to coast to coast could put their kids into dance or music. For heaven's sake, in sports, families could try two or three options instead of just one during the year.

My question for the hon. member is this. You have talked about what you would do in the heritage file, $1.9 billion. However, on this side of the House we are hearing the other as families are disturbed that these two very basic institutions that we have had over the years when we were on that side of the House would be now vaporized with this budget.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I just remind the hon. member to address questions through the Chair.

The hon. member for Newmarket—Aurora.

[Kyle Peterson, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend for that great question. The dynamic the member sets up in choosing between culture and arts and sports I do not think is a fair dynamic. I do not think investing in arts and culture makes couch potatoes out of our kids.

The member from Saskatchewan has probably lured more children to stay on the couch in his past career when his wonderful baritone voice covered sports throughout the province of Saskatchewan. Children were probably thrilled and waited every night to hear his sports report, and that kept them on the couch, I am sure. I appreciate the member's affinity for sports and his affinity for culture. Believe me, they are not opposed; they can work in conjunction.

On the sports credits, I agree. Tax credits perhaps encourage people to try different sports. However, answer me this if you will. Think of a family whose parents cannot afford to put the child into sports. A tax credit does nothing for people who cannot afford to pay for sports in the first place. We would be taking that tax credit and putting it into the Canada child benefit so every child in Canada, including in Saskatchewan, can play sports and can play three, four, or five sports a year. That is what this budget would do. That is not what the former government did.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I would ask the hon. members to direct their comments to and address the Chair in their questions and comments.

We are resuming debate. The hon. member for St. Catharines.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague from Newmarket—Aurora for sharing his time with me today. I am honoured to rise in this place and speak on behalf of my constituents from St. Catharines, Ontario.

I would like to begin today by saying that the provisions contained in budget 2016 would, without a doubt, deliver positive results for the people of my riding, the region of Niagara, and in fact all of southern and southwestern Ontario.

St. Catharines is a vibrant and dynamic community, located on the shores of Lake Ontario in the north end of the Niagara region. The Niagara region itself is uniquely located within close proximity to four border crossings to the United States. For much of Niagara's recent history, this proximity to the United States has allowed for a sizable manufacturing industry to grow and flourish, providing many good-paying jobs and a healthy middle class.

However, the last 20 years, and in particular the last 10 years, have not been kind to the region. As the world economy shifted away from heavy manufacturing, our region saw much of this industry close and move elsewhere. Thousands of Niagara residents lost their jobs or found new work at significantly lower wages, often in precarious employment. In my humble opinion, the economic policies of the last 10 years did nothing to help the people of Niagara. In fact, they made things worse.

Yet, there is in fact light at the end of the tunnel for the people of St. Catharines, Niagara, and all of Canada. On March 22, the hon. Minister of Finance presented to this House our government's first budget, a forward-looking, progressive economic plan that would finally put the focus of the national economy back on the middle class and putting Canadians to work.

Throughout the election campaign, the Prime Minister was clear that we must refocus our national interest to the middle class that truly drives the economy and creates jobs. I am extremely happy to say that this budget would do just that and more for the people of my riding and the people of Canada.

I was honoured to have the opportunity to rise on the first day of this 42nd Parliament to ask a question of my good friend, the hon. member for Brampton North. This question was on child poverty. I rose that day, having read in the newspaper that 24% of the children in my riding lived in poverty. That was a shocking statistic.

What was even more shocking was when I went back to the riding and met with members of the non-profit community and was advised that it was a conservative estimate, and the number was probably closer to one-third.

We are one of the wealthiest countries on earth, and this is not acceptable. Children in our country deserve to live without fear or wondering where their next meal will come from or where they will lay their head at night. Child poverty is a national issue, and must be front and centre in our national debate.

This is why I am extremely pleased to see the Minister of Finance announce the creation of the new Canada child benefit. I can say without hesitation that this improved benefit would most certainly help families in St. Catharines.

The Canada child benefit would provide the residents of my riding and across Canada with a tax-free benefit that, on average, would give families an additional $2,300 to help make things easier. Our government committed to raising more than 300,000 children out of poverty with this new tax-free benefit. I believe with the passage of this budget, we would succeed in meeting our goal.

However, combatting child poverty is only one of the key matters our government has committed to fighting. We have also committed to creating jobs and putting Canadians back to work. Our government committed to the largest infrastructure investment in Canadian history, and when the Minister of Finance tabled the budget, phase one of this investment was included.

The minister conducted consultations right across the country, as I did in my riding. He met with municipalities, community groups, and everyday Canadians. The message was clear: now is the time to invest in our communities.

However, as I have said locally to my constituents, infrastructure projects are no longer just buildings for politicians to cut ribbons in front of. The infrastructure spending that my riding needs and that we would deliver to Canadians goes much deeper than that.

We will invest in the social infrastructure of our society. Of the $11.9 billion we have committed to spend in phase one of our infrastructure plan, we would dedicate $3.4 billion to help low-income and middle-class families. This includes a firm commitment to expand access to affordable housing throughout Canada.

In St. Catharines and throughout the Niagara region, there is a clear lack of accessible and affordable housing. Low-income families can wait upwards of seven years for housing that is suited to their needs. Again, this is not acceptable.

I am pleased to be a member of the governing party that will finally do something about this. It is unbelievable that the Regional Municipality of Niagara alone has an infrastructure deficit of approximately $235 million. If the federal government does not invest in our local communities, the region and municipalities will have to obtain funding on their own. Far too often, this will fall on local taxpayers to fund that infrastructure gap. We recognize that the federal government can do more to help municipalities and be a true partner for infrastructure renewal.

I am incredibly proud to be part of a party and a government that is willing to invest significantly in public transit. As mentioned previously, Niagara is uniquely situated in southern Ontario. However, it may surprise members of the House to know that there is a fragmented and sometimes non-existent transit system in the region, with limited public transportation options to Toronto. I had an opportunity to meet with the president of the Niagara College student union, who advised me that he has to negotiate with eight or nine separate transit commissions in order to help move the students of Niagara College around the region.

While there is some inter-municipal transit in urban areas in Niagara, there is still no concrete solution to help service the entire region equally, mainly due to the unique urban-rural makeup of Niagara. That is why I am excited to see this commitment by the finance minister to invest in public transit.

It is also very interesting that, through the tenure of the previous government, much of our government-owned and managed infrastructure was left to fall into disrepair. Take, for example, small craft harbours. These small craft harbours are essential to the livelihood of many east coast Canadians. However, St. Catharines has a small craft harbour of its own in Port Dalhousie. While no longer an active commercial harbour, the piers that remain have significant historical value for the riding and the people. They pay tribute to the Welland Canal and the St. Lawrence Seaway, upon which the very city built its economy. For 100 years, they have provided a scenic haven for residents and tourists alike to enjoy a walk along Lake Ontario. However, they are now closed, shuttered from public access, because of the lack of needed investment by the previous government.

I am very much looking forward to working with my friend and colleague, the hon. Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, as well as the hon. Minister of Infrastructure and Communities, to ensure that the piers are given the consideration they deserve. The people of my riding and tourists alike deserve to have those piers restored in the manner they deserve.

Historic investments would not be made just in our children, but in our seniors. Throughout the election campaign, I heard from constituents across the riding that we need to do more for our aging population. We would keep our commitment to maintain the OAS and GIS eligibility at age 65, cancelling the planned Conservative increase to age 67.

Furthermore, the increased funding to the GIS would help 900,000 seniors in need. The minister was clear that we must do everything possible for our most vulnerable, and the increase of $975 annually would be welcomed by seniors in my riding.

Contrast all of this to the last 10 years, when the government shied away from investing in Canadians and did nothing to expand the middle class. In fact, that government abandoned the middle class and focused our economy on the 1%. However, on October 19 Canadians made a choice to invest in jobs, grow the economy, and return focus to the middle class and those working hard to join it.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for St. Catharines talked in various ways about how we have to help Canadians who need help the most, and yet his government has proposed tax changes that would not help almost two-thirds of Canadians. Instead of helping those who need help the most, Canadians who get the biggest benefit out of these tax changes are those making $200,000 a year. When I ask my constituents who is in the middle class, everybody put up their hands, but hardly anybody would say that people making $200,000 a year are the middle class.

I want to know why he can say his government made those decisions, when it could have made tax changes to help people who make less than $45,000 a year.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this government campaigned on the fact that our first act would be to cut taxes for the middle class, and it is a promise delivered.

We delivered tax relief to nine million Canadians as this government's first act in office. In addition, this budget provides for, as I mentioned, the Canada child benefit, which will help nine out of 10 families in this country with a tax-free, simplified benefit that will provide upwards of $2,300 more for families who need it the most.

This government is determined to help the middle class, and those who are working hard and want to be part of that middle class but have been left behind for the past 10 years.

This budget is going to deliver on those promises.