Debates of April 14th, 2016

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have you in the chair as I speak today.

A local journalist from my riding always asks me what I like and what I do not like, so I am going to start off with a few positive notes of things that I saw in the budget that I do support.

I am pleased to see the increase in GIS for single-income seniors. I have seen, over my years, many seniors who find it difficult, so any way we can help a single senior I feel is very important.

I am pleased with the continuation in funding for broadband Internet, known as the connecting Canadians program. It is a great program that was introduced by the former government.

As the MP for Elgin—Middlesex—London, I am happy to see $3.1 million being invested to address phosphorous levels in Lake Erie. This is very important, especially since we have 80 km of Lake Erie along my riding.

However, today I stand as the official opposition critic for families, children, and social development. I would really like to focus on budget 2016 and the changes to the family benefits and their effects on Canadian families.

I would not want to do this to the House, but I would have liked to bring in my beautiful pencil that my husband bought me, so I could do all these calculations. It is a brand new pencil and eraser, so I can complete, review, and compare the new Canada child benefit to the previous government's family tax cuts.

Let us look at the facts. The government has said it would assist more middle-class families than the current plan assists. The biggest issue is that the numbers just do not add up. Reviewing the average family income using numbers provided by the most recent Statistics Can data, when I do these calculations, I see that six out of nine families, which are of average income for families, benefit from the current plan put forward by the Conservative government. This is better than under the new plan that would now be offered. Therefore, when we look at a simple tax return, it is truly clear that the headlines from the government mislead Canadian families.

I will give a simple scenario. John and Mary have two children. Their son Jack participates in programs at a local recreation centre and plays on the house league soccer team. His sister Grace, age 4, loves to dance and swim and participates twice a week in programs. Both Jack and Grace play the piano and take lessons once a week. Mary works as a mechanic and John as a school bus driver. To me, those are very middle class incomes and values.

With my new mechanical pencil, the federal tax form, and the family tax cut forms, using the previous tax rates, I calculated the following. The federal income tax forms for both John and Mary are based on the 15% and 22% respectively. I used the child tax credits for both Jack and Grace, as well as the arts tax credits. Finally, I used the income splitting for families, which increases the tax credit up to an additional $2,000.

Now, to make things simple, because I did not want to get into a whole bunch of things, I did not use the CPP, I did not use the EI contributions, and I did not use the employment credits that are given, because both governments agree that these are things that are on a federal tax return.

The bottom line is that the middle-class family has more money in its pocket through the Conservative government's family tax cuts. Also, because my new pencil had lots of lead, I completed more than 80 tax returns using the Liberal middle-class tax cuts with the new Canada child benefit, and I compared the scenarios.

As I stated, when looking at the average income for Canadian families, six out of nine families did better under the Conservative plan. With this budget there would also be the removal of the textbook and education credit. That is before families would start paying directly out their pockets for the national carbon tax and the carbon tax being introduced by different provinces throughout the country.

These same families I speak of include the same small business owners and the people who run our family farms. Employers would be paying more taxes in the future. The current government would cancel the small business tax rate. It would also be introducing increased contributions into public pension plans, by both employers and employees, after consultations. However, it also cancelled contributions into people's own personal tax-free savings accounts in December, and it has cancelled the hiring tax credit. These are tax increases to small businesses.

I would be remiss if I did not talk about our local agricultural producers and farms. Ninety-eight per cent of farms are owned by families. During his speech, the Minister of Finance encouraged farmers to produce energy if commodity prices have dropped. Although I appreciate that some communities may feel this is a great option, I live in Elgin—Middlesex—London, where this has become a big issue, especially at the provincial level.

I come from an agricultural community, and I have had the opportunity to talk with our grain and oilseeds farmers, as well as our beef, hog, tobacco, bean, lentil, apple, strawberry, pumpkin, and the many other producers. Farmers have really diversified. They have clearly stated to me that they need new markets and support for their industry.

As the industry moves forward, we must support science-based research not only in Ottawa centres, but in the fields, and with the agricultural producers and agribusinesses. Over the next six years, we will see a $30-million investment into agricultural research in Ottawa. However, that is just a start, or I hope that it is just a start. We need to do more for our farmers.

Finally, for all Canadian families, agricultural and small business owners, a huge deficit has been tabled. It will be these families and small businesses that will be footing the bill. For many Canadians, it is truly hard to fathom amounts like $10 billion, $20 billion, and $30 billion, as most Canadians only understand their own household debt. The government is treating Canadian tax dollars like Monopoly money. I like to play The Game of Life. My son always makes me play it. However, this is not a game. This is real money, and what we need is a vision, not just spending. Often when we speak in Parliament we use figures, formulas, and numbers that Canadians just are not in touch with.

I believe there is a time for governments to participate in stimulus programs to grow the economy, as we saw with the stimulus spending programs of the previous government. We had shovels in the ground to build new roads, bridges, recreation centres, and much more, as well as an incredible investment into programs such as KIP, the knowledge infrastructure program. We saw universities like Western University, in the city of London, Ontario, improve the facilities for the Ivey Business School. This was great infrastructure spending at a time when it was needed most. At that time, across Canada, and especially in my riding where over 6,500 jobs had been lost just in the city of St. Thomas, investments were made that truly stimulated the economy and got people back to work. However, this is really not the time. We need viable options and opportunities to get people back to work. We need to spend wisely.

As I said, I do see some positive things in the budget. However, first and foremost, the Liberal government is misleading Canadians. Important programs and tax incentives, like a fitness tax credit, do not just help families by giving them tax breaks, but they also help promote physical fitness. Although sports might not be everyone's cup of tea, the ability to compete and improve oneself is hard to challenge. My children have participated in sports, from swimming and getting their Bronze Cross to playing in house league soccer teams. Sports and physical fitness programs improve people physically and mentally. Why would the government cancel programs that encourage participation? If anything, I would have loved to see increases to these credits, especially for seniors. What the Liberal government calls boutique tax credits help seniors who are worried about their physical fitness purchase a gym membership or participate in activities. At the end of the day, these types of tax credits may help our health care system because there would be fewer people needing to use it.

The arts credit is another excellent example. Music and arts programs are built on creativity and are linked to learning. The government likes to use the term “boutique tax credits“ when discussing these credits. We need to see not only how these credits improve people and put money in their pockets but also what they do for communities when people get involved with local recreation or sports teams. Sometimes small businesses also benefit. It is not only families that benefit but organizations as well.

These are great programs and initiatives that help members of our communities participate, and I do believe it is important to support all families. The government's approach is not exactly what I would have hoped for, but I will say that some families will be helped. However, it was six out of nine times under the Conservatives, and only three out of nine times under the Liberal government.

I do support helping single parents and families with disabled children. However, this budget is very misleading. I would suggest a universal approach with the universal child care benefit, fitness tax credit, arts credit, and income splitting. I think they are the best approach.

I am truly concerned with the debt which seems to help families today, but in the long run it will be what they have to deal with tomorrow. These debts are as a result of the current spending. What happens when we get the bill? We need to look at these deficits.

I look forward to the further discussion on the budget in the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, John, Mary, Jack, and Grace came into my constituency office last week. They are living in poverty. In fact, they are having trouble making ends meet. They are on a wait-list for affordable housing. They line up at the food bank. What John, Mary, Jack, and Grace want is a budget like the one we delivered last month. They want a budget that has progressive ideas. They said to me that after 10 years of cutbacks and regressive policies, they need a change.

They are very pleased about the Canada child benefit, which is better for nine out of 10 families, which will lift thousands of people in my province and in my riding out of poverty.

They asked me about the tax-free savings account. They asked why the Conservative government would double a tax-free savings account that only 4% of Canadians maximized.

I will say that John, Mary, Jack, and Grace were thrilled with our budget. They were thrilled with the progressive nature of it.

Will the member opposite not concede that the Canada child benefit is a transformational program, a government program that is going to be good for the many and not the few as under the UCCB?

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

Mr. Speaker, Grace is a smart four-year-old. It is great that Grace came to visit the member.

As I said, we have to look at everything here. We are talking about, as the member indicated, a full transformation.

With this budget, great programs, like the fitness tax credit, have been removed. The arts credit has been removed. Income splitting has been removed.

Yes, I believe that we must continue to invest in affordable housing because not all Canadians are moving forward. That is why we need to have excellent job-creating opportunities, so that we can get parents back to work, so that when our youth are looking for their first part-time job, they find a job, that we have an economy that provides these.

It is important to have things when we need to give a hand up, but we do not always need to give a hand-out. We need to focus on job creation. We need to focus on these things.

When we talk about that fitness tax credit, that is just looking at it very simply. Jack and Grace are probably getting those lessons from our 16-year-old or 17-year-old sons or daughters. Those are the great things because those are the people out there, volunteering, making our community a better place, and giving our youth their first-time jobs.

Let us not forget about those important things, as well.

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

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

Since she comes from a manufacturing region, I would like to know what she thinks of the comments made by the Prime Minister, who basically dismissed the manufacturing industry just before the election campaign. He did not seem to think that it was very important. He even said that it was not an industry of the future.

I would like the member to talk to us about the industry in her part of the country.

What can we do to help these people whom the government has abandoned?

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

Mr. Speaker, truly, that is something that is absolutely on my radar. We need to ensure that we have manufacturing incentives. We need to ensure that we are investing in new technologies. We need to ensure that there are going to be jobs for Canadians. I agree 100% with the member. It is very important.

When the leader of that party at that time was campaigning, he said, in my own community, that southwestern Ontario should stop manufacturing and diversify. I will tell members that the majority of people in Elgin—Middlesex—London stepped back and choked. That is not what grows our economy.

I come from agriculture and manufacturing. It is extremely important that we continue to invest in those things. I will continue to support the manufacturing in my community. We have lots of automotive in our community. Lots of different things are always occurring. Any time we can help manufacturing, we are helping families and we are helping the Canadian economy.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I finally get to ask a question of an hon. member in this House.

I remember what got me motivated to get into politics. I remember my wife and I making decisions for our family. We had one person stay at home to raise our children. We thought that was what was best. I remember the policies of the day of the former Chrétien and Martin governments were absolutely disastrous for my family. I was absolutely thrilled in the last 10 years, as a member of Parliament on the governing side, to bring forward many great policies that helped families in my constituency who are all telling me that they oppose what the Liberal government is doing to them, getting rid of all of these benefits that help them,

I wonder if the hon. member would reiterate just how positive the environment was for families under the former prime minister and how terrible they are now under the current Prime Minister.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the member asked this question. Just the other day, I was talking to my sister about income splitting. Unfortunately, her husband suffered a severe concussion and has been off work for the last two years, and therefore, he does not have the income he used to have. However, because of the income-splitting opportunities, they would have been able to put more money in their pockets. What would have been great about that is they have two kids currently in university. Things like the textbook credits and all those important things would have helped my sister and brother-in-law, Ann and Scott, as they go through this journey and difficult time.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to share my time with the member for Winnipeg South.

I am very proud to speak to budget 2016.

Members talk about the reasons they get into politics. This budget is certainly a reflection of one of the reasons I got into politics; it is about reaching out to all Canadians, in a fair and balanced way, ensuring that they all have opportunities in this country. That applies to everyone, from the east to the west. This evening we will hear some interesting perspectives on the budget and how it is going to help Canadians from one end of the country to the other.

I have spent a number of years in politics, and I can guarantee that in representing people in my riding, and before that in my district at the provincial level, it has not always been easy. It is not always easy to advocate for people, especially in times when governments are not tuned in, not listening to the needs of the people, and when they do not always see the big picture, a vision for the country.

In the last number of years, people in ridings like mine that are remote, rural, northern, and indigenous, have not been listened to. When we look at the infrastructure deficit that we carry today, it is because there were governments in the country in the last 10 years that did not believe in many of these communities and many of these regions. These are regions that are northern, indigenous, remote, rural.

I am very pleased to see a budget like we have today that is reflecting those needs and looking at the reality of what investments it will take to be able to meet some of those demands.

Today as we speak, there is a budget coming down in Newfoundland and Labrador. I do not envy the job of the premier and his government, but I certainly have confidence in them to know that they will make the right decisions for the people in their province. They are carrying a huge deficit, and they have to make tough decisions. I am happy to say that I am part of a national government that recognizes this, and that has reached out in this budget to help provinces, like Newfoundland and Labrador, when it comes to creating jobs and new opportunities, to help provinces like Saskatchewan, Alberta, and many others.

This year we were able to increase the transfer dollars to Newfoundland and Labrador, and we were able to ensure that there were increases in health transfers over those of previous years. We were able to see increases in social transfers over those of previous years. We were able to ensure that there was proper fiscal stabilization investments that would be transferred to Newfoundland and Labrador.

It means partnering with provinces and territories. When a province is strong and its economy is strong, we all benefit. Our government is recognizing that. We are recognizing that, and we are partnering with provinces and territories to help them do the things they need to do to move infrastructure forward.

The other thing we are doing is we are recognizing that the challenges they have need to be dealt with.

Two years ago in my riding, under the former government, hundreds of people were laid off when the iron ore industry started to collapse. I saw four mines close in my region. At one point I saw a community with nearly 400 for sale signs on houses.

When I listen to the members opposite ask about what we are doing to help people who are unemployed, it is ironic. There were thousands of people in this country laid off and unemployed under the former government, people who received absolutely no support, absolutely zero support.

We have been able to work with communities like Wabush and Labrador West so we can ensure that we have better employment insurance benefits for them to help them through the transition. We have been able to work with them in their communities and in the province to secure new investors and new opportunity. We have been able to put more money into investing in skills training and diversifying skill levels. We have been reaching out to communities in this way all across the country.

We know that when we build stronger communities and when families have financial security, everyone contributes more to our country. That is why in our budget our government was adamant about raising the middle class, about allowing families to have opportunities and save for their children's future, to save for their retirement, and to be able to own a home.

This is the kind of balance that our government has had to tackle. We have done a great job in targeting so many middle-income families and low-income families that really need the government to give them a hand up in society.

That is why things like our child tax benefit program and our reformed income tax program will make a difference. In addition to that, we also realize that not all people live equally. We recognize that in northern regions the cost of living is much higher. That is why we included special initiatives within the budget to help. We have added more money to programs like nutrition north so families can look at providing more affordable food to their children.

We are also committed to doing a full review of the nutrition north program, to work with the communities that are impacted and to look at how we can expand this program so they have better quality food but, most important, affordable food when they need it.

We have also made changes to tax deductions for northern regions. For the first time in many years, we have given substantial increases under the northern tax reduction program, which will allow more families to have more money in their pocket to deal with the higher cost of living that they have to live with on a regular basis.

For the first time ever, I listened to a budget that referenced not just indigenous people, or first nations, or Métis, but actually referenced Inuit people and referenced areas like Nunavut, Nunatsiavut, Nunavik, all of those areas about which we never hear much. They are referenced in the context of investment, in investing money into critical programs across northern regions. I represent a large area of northern Inuit people and for the first time we will get investments in housing. We will be able to provide better housing, better support programs, and a better foundation to help them build their communities.

We have talked about suicide a lot in the House in the last few days. The Inuit regions of Canada have a suicide rate that is 10 times the national average. We have to get to the root causes of these problems. That is why this government is making one of the largest investments ever, more than $8 billion, for indigenous communities and indigenous people across the north.

We are prepared to tackle the most challenging issues that we face as a country. We are prepared to resolve those issues in collaboration with those who are impacted. We know in doing so all Canadians do better.

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

Mr. Speaker, I find it curious that the member started off her statement with a reference to the Newfoundland and Labrador budget today, and that she expressed her extreme confidence in that government do the right thing.

In the statement today in the Newfound legislature, this is what the premier's finance minister said, “The previous government’s willingness to mortgage our future has left our province facing the biggest deficit and highest net debt ever recorded in our history.” I will remind the House and the hon. members on the opposite side that we in fact did leave a budget surplus, as evidenced by the “Fiscal Monitor”.

When the member speaks of confidence, these were the measures in today's budget: 16.5¢ a litre increase in the gas tax in Newfoundland as of June; $900 income-based levy on all taxpayers ; HST, up by 2%; average families paying $3,000 more in tax; income tax brackets going up in every income level; corporate tax rates increasing up to 15%; and class sizes also increasing in Newfoundland and Labrador in grades four to twelve.

Is that confidence in the government that the member spoke about an example of the foreshadowing that all Canadians will see with future budgets?

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is dealing with tremendous challenges left behind by a former Progressive Conservative government, not unlike what we are dealing with regarding the challenges on debt and deficit that were left to us by the former Conservative government opposite.

However, do we govern in a country and do we bill our way back, or do we allow the country and that province to go bankrupt?

The people opposite may be prepared to run large deficits, run the people's country and the people's province into the ground, leaving nothing to rebuild from. The Liberals do not work that way. We look for a path forward, and sometimes that path is painful. However, Canadians will always have security, they will always have a government to depend upon, and they will not be left to their own devices.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am the health critic for the New Democratic Party, so I read this budget with a particular interest in the provisions around health care. We know that during the last election, there were some very clear promises by the Liberals to the Canadian people. One was that they would allocate $3 billion over four years to home care, which we all agree is very important need in our country.

The Liberals also, without promising it explicitly, left a clear impression that when they renegotiated the health accord, they would address some of the deficiencies that had been put in place by the previous health accord. Yet in this budget, not a penny is allocated or budgeted for $3 billion in home care either this year or in any year, and there is not a single dollar allocated in this budget that would indicate that the health accord would be repaired after 2017 when the 6% escalator is scheduled to drop to 3%.

Would my hon. colleague tell Canadians why there is no money in this budget for home care or a new renewed health accord when that is what her party promised Canadians just six months ago?

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that we are very committed to home care. Looking at home care for Canadians today, we announced the initiatives that we would undertake around palliative care as well.

The other part is with regard to the health accord. We are looking to the provinces and territories. We will be working with them to develop a new health accord. That health accord will reflect the modern demands of the health care system, whether that be around mental health services or other health services. However, I can guarantee that these are priorities for us, and priorities that we will address in this mandate.

Message from the Senate

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bill to which the concurrence of the House is desired: Bill S-201, An Act to prohibit and prevent genetic discrimination.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that this House approve in general the budgetary policy of the government.

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege and honour for me to rise and speak today in the House on the subject of our government's 2016 budget.

It is not an exaggeration to say that we have the good fortune to live in one of the world's great democracies. Canadian democracy as we know it has been evolving over 250 years. If one considers the consensus-style government long practised by our first nations, then our democratic tradition has in fact been in place even longer than that. Therefore, for me to have this opportunity to add my voice to the long list of those who have gone before me in this continuing story of democracy is a truly humbling experience.

I must also add that my sense of pride today is felt in double measure because of the constituency I represent. Winnipeg South is a community that epitomizes and crystalizes the very idea of what it means to be Canadian. From pre-contact times, the mighty Red River that flows through Winnipeg South was a trade route for Canada's first people. Our riding became a place where French explorers and indigenous people met, traded, and settled together, and French continues to thrive as a language of our daily life.

Our part of Canada, in fact, created key pieces of a whole new culture unique to the world. The Métis people and Louis Riel's house, the site of national historic importance, is situated in Winnipeg South. Our community has, since those earlier days, welcomed immigrants from around the world, and continues to this day to embrace the spirit and the fact of Canadian multiculturalism.

When I recently visited Fort Richmond High School in my riding, I was astounded to learn that the students attending that school could trace their roots back to 170 different countries. It is amazing.

Winnipeg South is what Canada is all about, and I could not be more proud to be its member of Parliament. I thank the voters of Winnipeg South for the trust they have placed in me, and I pledge here that I will serve them faithfully.

I am a Liberal because I believe government has a role to play in improving the lives of Canadians. In the election, the Liberals promised that, if elected, we would play that role in building our economy and our country. Now, with our new budget, the Liberal government is keeping the election promises we made to build Canada and make it a better place for all.

For me, and particularly as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development, I am especially looking forward to helping implement the investments in social infrastructure we will make to ensure all Canadians have a chance to succeed. A key component of this approach is the investments we will make in affordable housing that were announced in this budget in the social infrastructure fund.

Canada is a federation, as members know, and all levels of government need to examine how they can work together to best serve the interests of their constituents. I believe the federal government has a strong leadership role to play in ensuring that all Canadians have a home and a safe place to live. This budget provides that leadership. I am pleased to say that, through budget 2016 investments, we will work with our partners and the provinces, territories, and indigenous communities to address the most pressing housing needs in the short term.

With new funding commitments of $2.3 billion over the next two years, budget 2016 represents a huge step in providing affordable housing for Canadians who need it most. Of the significant investments we will make in housing over the next two years, close to $1.5 billion of it will be delivered by the provinces and territories under the investment in affordable housing program, also known as the IAH. This will provide an immediate response to the most pressing housing needs in communities all across Canada.

It is important to note that these new investments are only a first step. A more permanent, longer-term approach is needed to develop an effective and made-in-Canada housing strategy. As these shorter-term measures are being implemented, we will carefully develop a comprehensive, forward-looking strategy that supports innovative approaches to affordable housing and improved housing outcomes for all Canadians and for all types of housing.

To that end, we will consult with the provinces and territories, indigenous people, and other stakeholders in the coming year to develop a national housing strategy. More details on these consultations will be shared later this spring.

Another one of the promises we made during the election campaign was to create a new Canada child benefit, and I am so pleased to note that budget 2016 keeps this promise and proposes to replace the current complicated child benefit system with the new Canada child benefit in order to give Canadian families more money to help with the high cost of raising their children.

This new benefit would 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 six through 17. Families with less than $30,000 in income would receive the maximum benefit. Families would receive approximately $9.8 billion more in child benefits during the 2016-2018 period than they do now, and nine out of ten families would receive more in child benefits than under the current system.

In my province of Manitoba, families would receive $490 million more in child benefits during the 2016-2018 period, and as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development, I am gratified to say that the new CCB, as my hon. friend from New Brunswick has said, will lift some 300,000 Canadian children out of poverty and set them on the road to success. This is an example of the positive work that government can do to improve our society, and I am proud to play a part in it.

In the last election, the voters in Winnipeg South had a clear choice between a Conservative government, which they believed represented the status quo and felt that the status quo was good enough, and a Liberal Party, led by Justin Trudeau, that believed the middle class deserves better.

My apologies, Mr. Speaker.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I know the hon. member realizes that at this point he can, of course, substitute “the Prime Minister” or his riding.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the alternative was a Liberal Party, led by the Prime Minister, that believed the middle class deserves better. Voters saw that while the wealthiest 1% of society had seen their incomes more than double in the last 30 years, middle-class incomes had stagnated.

Middle-class Canadians were doing all the right things—studying hard, working hard, and making a real contribution to the Canadian economy—but their hard work was not paying off in higher incomes. We in the Liberal Party said that was not fair. Canadians agreed and voted in favour of our promise to give a tax break for the middle class.

I am happy to note that we have already kept this promise and lowered the middle-class income tax rates, saving the average middle-class family in Winnipeg South and across Canada hundreds of dollars per year. Middle-class voters gave us their trust, and we have lived up to it.

Budget 2016 will literally help build Canada and prepare it for the future. Our budget proposes to invest up to $11.9 billion over the next five years on a cash basis to maintain and upgrade federal infrastructure assets that provide services all Canadians can rely on. These assets include things like public transit, cultural and recreational facilities, green infrastructure that represents the economy of the future, universities and community colleges, as well as things like roads and bridges. A robust infrastructure is the backbone of a strong economy, and budget 2016's new spending will continue to build the things that Canadians want and need.

This new spending will also create tens of thousands of jobs.

I have mentioned only a few of the many things that our new budget will do to improve the lives of Canadians. These are first steps, but they are important steps and ones that set us on a bold new path compared to the recent past.

I began my remarks by saying how proud I am to serve as the member of Parliament for Winnipeg South and how proud I am to serve as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development. This new budget reaffirms the values of our party and our government. It is only the beginning. In the coming weeks and months, we will continue to take steps to strengthen families, build our infrastructure for the future, and support the middle class.

I would like to conclude by saying that none of these initiatives or new programs would mean anything without the help and hard work of Canadians from coast to coast to coast. As a Liberal, I believe that governments and the people who elect them work together to make society a better place. Governments can provide leadership, to be sure, but it is the people who create the co-operative spirit required to build great societies.

As we move forward from this first budget, I know that my constituents in Winnipeg South are ready to face the future with a new optimism and a new hope for the great things that we will achieve together.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the new member for Winnipeg South on his election to this place and I wish him well during his time here.

In his speech he cited completely misleading statistics to support the central premise of this big-spending, big-borrowing, big-taxing budget when he said that the top 1% of income earners had benefited from all of the income growth in the past 35 years.

It is very interesting that he would replicate the Minister of Finance's statistical jiggery-pokery of choosing the 35-year time frame. That statistic is true if we start from 1982, from the period of the Trudeau administration, but interestingly, during the administration of the previous Conservative government, the average growth in real family income for the top 1% income earners from 2005 to 2014 actually shrank, while real average median after-tax incomes for the average middle income family went up by 11%. The actual picture of income distribution and growth between 2006 and 2015 looks radically different from what it does if we go back to 1982.

I have a very simple question. Why is he presenting misleading figures in order to justify his budget? Why does it not stand on its own?

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think the record is clear. We have had 10 years of stagnation in this country, 10 years of low growth under the previous government, and this budget makes historical investment with which we will stimulate our economy, create jobs, and lift children out of poverty.

The hon. member should not take my word for it. He should take the words of the IMF and national and international economists that our Minister of Finance has cited many times.

The Minister of Families, Children and Social Development and I have met with all manner of social development groups. They agree that this is a good budget because we are investing in the Canadian people.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we talk a lot about pipelines in the House, and of course that topic is definitely related to this matter today. I have seen an article in the National Post saying that the Prime Minister has told his senior lieutenants to draw up plans to make Kinder Morgan's Trans Mountain expansion a reality.

A lot of times I hear in this House that the government believes in a new process, but it seems that now it is overriding the process and approving this pipeline before the application has even been filed.

Can the parliamentary secretary tell me if a decision has already been made? Will they build Kinder Morgan, or will he stand with me in this House today and oppose this pipeline?

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I forgot to thank the previous hon. member for his question, so I will do that now.

I had the very good fortune to be the environment commissioner for the Province of Manitoba, the home province of the member for Elmwood—Transcona, and I know the importance of good process.

Members have heard the Minister of Natural Resources and the Minister of Environment and Climate Change talk about the good process that we intend to follow. We believe that the environment and the economy can go together and must go together, and we will follow due process in assessing all of these pipelines.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by congratulating my new colleague on his comments and on the very active work he is doing here to advance our government's agenda.

When it comes to the issue of university tuition and post-secondary school, we have much in common between Winnipeg South and Humber River—Black Creek in terms of our population base and the issues that are important to all of us.

I would be interested in comments from my hon. colleague on the investments that our government is making to allow many more people to be able to afford post-secondary education.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member from Toronto for her question.

Indeed, we do share much in common. My riding is the home of the University of Manitoba, our major research university. We have enhanced grants, particularly for low-income families, as well as loans. Student will now have to make at least $25,000 before having to begin paying back their student loan. They will get that extra time to get a good job before they have to start paying back their loan.

I would also point out that there have been other major investments in our universities. There is a $2 billion knowledge infrastructure fund that will be administered by the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science, and there are major investments in research, CIHR, Genome Canada, and CFI. As well, we have formally ended the war on science.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Durham.

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour and privilege to stand to speak to the budget. As this is approximately the seventeenth or eighteenth budget that I have debated, I will give my perspective on all the years that I have been in this House talking about budgets.

First let me say that on the other side, there are a considerable number of new members of Parliament. I welcome them all into this House. I am sure they will have a great time in this House over the next four years. We will debate many issues, many of which we will agree on and many of which we will not.

For the new members of Parliament, let me give them a little history. I came here about 18 years ago. From that time, until October last year, every government had been fighting to balance the books. The previous Liberal government, under this Prime Minister's father, created huge deficits, and every government, including the Liberal government that preceded us, fought to balance the budget, to bring the books back into shape. We can all remember that the former prime minister, when he was the finance minister, cut transfers to the provinces to balance the budget, which no province has forgotten.

Under the leadership of former prime minister Harper and finance ministers Jim Flaherty and Joe Oliver, we worked very hard to bring the finances back into shape.

During the recession of 2008, when I travelled all over the world, wherever I went, I was asked all the time how Canada had not suffered from the world recession. It was because the policies we had were sound. We were not recklessly spending the money that we now see the present government doing in the budget of 2016.

Budget 2016 is the first budget in the 18 years that I have been here where there is absolutely no control on spending, no control on any kind of transparency or accountability for Canadian tax dollars. What we have in this budget is a deficit. It started with a $10-billion deficit. Now it is a $30-billion deficit, with no plan as to when we are going to pay it. As it continues with the unplanned expenditures, we do not know where this deficit is going to end up.

In 2008, when the world faced a recession, the G20 countries came out with spending on infrastructure to stimulate the economy. At that time, the Conservative government also went into deficit.

For the present government to now say that it is bringing in infrastructure spending and all these things is something that the world economy has done. However, we are done with the plan, a plan to bring back and balance our books.

The present government, despite the fact there it is very clear that when we left government there was a surplus, tends to mislead Canadians. It misled Canadians by saying that there will only be a deficit of $10 billion. It is misleading again to say there was a deficit when it came into power. It is utter nonsense.

During the period that we were the government, I remember very clearly taking control of our expenses. We gave the departments and everybody an opportunity to see how they would reduce expenses to make it balance. That allowed us to cut taxes. We moved the taxes from early July to the middle of June for Canadian taxpayers. We reduced the GST to 5%. Now, with all this massive spending by the government, many people are asking whether the GST is going to go up. “Are they going to raise the GST?” It is a question that many Canadians are asking. Based on the past experience of the Liberals, we cannot trust what they are saying. It may go up.

Of course, we are facing a crisis right now of low oil prices, but everybody tries to say it is a regionalized issue in Alberta or Newfoundland. Today budgets are being presented both in Newfoundland and in Alberta. In all of them, they are talking about massive deficits. The oil prices are world-controlled, but let us make it very clear that everyone benefits from the energy industry. It is not only the few provinces of Saskatchewan, Alberta, or Newfoundland; it is everyone, including Ontario, and most importantly Quebec.

Because everybody benefits, it is important that this energy sector now be given assistance, as we did when the automobile industry was under pressure. We came out with a program to help the auto industry in Ontario. It is the same thing, and today the energy sector requires assistance.

However, what do we have to do? It is very simple. We need to move our oil resources to tidewater, as everybody keeps saying. What is interesting is that the NDP government in Alberta has recognized that this is a vital thing for the economy of the country. The Alberta government is changing its tune and saying it needs pipelines to take oil to tidewater.

The latest opinion poll shows that most Canadians agree that pipelines are the safest way to take oil. What do we get from the other side? We get nothing. We get statements saying that they know it has to go there, and yes they will do all this. They put in all these rules and regulations that can delay for years and years the project of making pipelines.

The rhetoric that the other side is giving is that the current government streamlined the environmental regulatory process so that it would be a balanced process, not a process taken over by special interest groups, which the government seems to be representing all the time. We need to have the pipelines and the natural resources that this country is blessed with go to foreign markets. That is the key element of where prosperity would fly all across Canada for more jobs. Yes, we have infrastructure in the budget. We did that too, but there is no plan on that side. The parliamentary secretary was just talking about it.

Canadians are extremely worried by this huge spending budget of 2016. They do not know where it will lead them. I can say that all of us will have to pay for this deficit. As I have said, in the last 20 years we have been fighting to ensure that the overspending of the previous Liberal government was brought under control. The generations to come will be paying for the current government. It is not going to pay. It is the generations to come that will be paying. Our young children will be paying for all of this deficit.

There are some economists talking about this being a good thing, but I know from history that all economists have different views. However, the simple, straightforward logic that everybody knows and that everybody's parents and grandparents taught them is to live within our means. That is what the current government should be doing, and not spending money as if it is somebody else's money.

I will conclude by saying this to the Liberal government: respect the taxpayers' dollars.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talked about spending, but Canadians know the difference between spending and investment. When we invest in Canadians, we create growth in the economy. In fact, just this week the Governor of the Bank of Canada said that our budget would have a positive impact on growth. Christine Lagarde, the head of the IMF, singled out Canada to say that if other countries have the capacity to do so, they should follow Canada's lead. In fact, she said that the slower growth due to the energy sector is going to be offset by an increase in public investment.

Does the hon. member think that the head of the IMF and the Governor of the Bank of Canada are incorrect?