Debates of April 14th, 2016

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this budget reveals the government's real priorities. It shows not what the government said it would do, but what it is really willing to do and where it is really putting the money. The Bloc Québécois is taking this process very seriously.

We want to be absolutely sure that we are speaking on behalf of Quebeckers and that we understand their needs and support them in getting the tools they need to address the challenges they face. That is why we met with about a hundred groups of people from all walks of life, people from cities and the regions, people involved in social and environmental work, workers, students, seniors, and the unemployed. We cast a wide net so that we could accurately convey what Quebeckers want.

Not everyone agreed about everything, of course, but we were surprised at the strong consensus on one important thing: Quebec is not Canada. Our challenges are not the same, our economy is not the same, and our way of doing things is not the same either. Everyone agrees that Ottawa needs to take that into account.

We have identified four key priorities. The first one involves protecting our public services through transfers. Second, we need to rebuild our infrastructure through a flexible, effective program that allocates money quickly so that we can meet the needs and boost the economy. Third, we have to take care of people, particularly through employment insurance, which was systematically gutted in recent years. Lastly, we need to reinvest in the economy, but not in a foolish or haphazard manner. Those investments must meet the needs of the Quebec economy.

Since we are proactive, we even offered some suggestions for obtaining additional revenue: taxing banks and cracking down on tax havens. This budget is zero for four. It provides nothing for transfers, nothing meaningful for employment insurance, nothing to suggest that the infrastructure program will work quickly and effectively, and nothing to meet the needs of our economy. The budget does not meet any of Quebec's specific needs, either socially, economically, or fiscally. We will therefore be voting against this budget.

Of course, the budget does contain some interesting measures. Investments for indigenous communities are long overdue. The federal government's record when it comes to indigenous issues has become a disgrace. Many indigenous people are living in third world conditions. The needs in terms of housing, health care, education, and public safety are overwhelming.

The crisis in Attawapiskat in the past few days has brought to light the sense of abandonment that these people feel every day. Therefore, we applaud the investments that were announced in this budget. Clearly, putting money on the table is not enough. We must meet the needs of indigenous peoples and listen to them. They must be real partners.

It is in the Liberal DNA to centralize decision-making in Ottawa. Quebec knows a thing or two about that. The nation-to-nation approach that the government announced in its throne speech, and that it refuses to use in Quebec, I would add, should be more than just a slogan. Our indigenous brothers need more than money. They also need respect for their differences and their distinctiveness. Otherwise, things will not change. The Indian Act, with its colonial approach, treats them like minors. That law must go.

There is also the new child benefit, which is another attractive measure. We want to see the law before giving our full approval, but I find it attractive, more generous than former programs, non-taxable, and better targeted to those who need it. It remains to be seen how it will be harmonized with Quebec programs.

The OECD finds that Quebec has the best and most original family policy in North America. Our people do good things. A consistent family policy is an effective family policy. Financial assistance from both levels of government, child care services, and parental leave all have to be coordinated. No one should ever fall through the cracks because two government programs are poorly coordinated.

Now that the budget has been tabled and the government has to come up with a program, Ottawa needs to sit down soon with the Government of Quebec to adapt its program to our specific reality. Unfortunately, that is where the fine words end. For the rest, it is disappointment after disappointment.

First, let us talk about transfers. If there was one thing that became quite clear during the pre-budget consultations, it was the need to restore transfers to a level that ensures the viability of the Government of Quebec and the sustainability of the public services that depend on it.

Of all the governments, the federal government has the most room to manoeuvre. As it provides almost no services, it will not feel the impact of the aging population, particularly on health care. Unlike the provinces, whose deficits are recurring because they are structural, the federal government runs a deficit because of a temporary economic slowdown. Economic conditions aside, the trend is clear. The parliamentary budget officer, the Conference Board of Canada, and the Council of the Federation agree that in 20 years, Ottawa will be on track to pay off its debt, while the provinces will be in an untenable financial situation.

The scope of these financial problems goes beyond Quebec. It is the status of province that is not viable. These prospects are quite worrisome. In fact, unless there is harsher unending austerity, Quebec will all but implode.

Health care costs have increased by more than 5% a year, on average, in the past 10 years. By reorganizing services to increase efficiency, Quebec is hoping to limit this increase to 4.4% in the future. The 6% annual increase in federal health transfers was a start in helping Quebec get caught up. After hitting a low of 18% as a result of severe budget cuts by the Liberals at the end of the 1990s, Ottawa now contributes 22% of costs. We are very close to reaching the 25% target set by the Romanow commission, which was put in place by Ottawa. Unfortunately, the Conservatives put a stop to the increase as of next year. At the end of the plan, the federal government's share will have dropped to 18%, the same as it was during the worst years. However, things will be even worse, as a result of the aging population. Everyone in Quebec has been critical of this. We need to continue getting caught up. The government needs to continue increasing transfers by 6% a year, until Ottawa is once again responsible for one-quarter of the system costs. Since this is intended to cover health care costs, the allocation must also take needs into account. It does not make sense to allocate the funds automatically, on a per-capita basis. We need to take seniors into account. What is there for seniors in the budget? Nothing. The Liberals are maintaining the Conservatives' cuts. Quebeckers would be better off getting used to austerity and wait lists. This government just confirmed that those times are not over.

It is not just health transfers. Quebec's future depends on its young people. Transfers for education and social programs have not even begun to catch up, as if education and child care services were not important. The government was asked to increase transfers by 6% per year until they got back to the same level as before the cuts that were made in the 1990s. That would represent nearly $900 million a year for Quebec. What is in the budget? Nothing.

As I said earlier, the federal government provides almost no services, and when it does, it does not manage them very well. What the Liberals and Conservatives have been doing with employment insurance for the past 20 years is outrageous. EI was supposed to be an insurance program, but it has turned into an employment tax. Rather than providing workers with insurance for when they fall on hard times, the government is charging them extra taxes. The government has let workers down. It has put women, young people, and seasonal workers in dire straits. They have had to go on welfare because they are not eligible for EI. Ottawa is treating seasonal workers like fraudsters. The government is forgetting that it is not the workers who are seasonal but the jobs. Like everyone else, these honest citizens still need to eat 12 months a year.

There is not a lot of tourism in the Gaspé in winter. Not a lot of construction either. Trying to pave a road in the middle of January is impossible. Trying to find a teaching position in July is impossible. These people are not fraudsters; they are the very people for whom employment insurance was created during the depression in the 1930s. People everywhere told us that they wanted the government to restore employment insurance, which has been gutted. That is what we asked for. Employment insurance must once again become what it should never have stopped being: insurance. The system must once again be accessible and independent. Ottawa must stop dipping into the fund as though that money were its own.

Is there something about this in the budget? Precious little. Ottawa reduced the waiting period, which is good. However, it did nothing to make the system more accessible or to extend the benefit period. What is worse, Ottawa is extending benefits in regions where the economy is tied to oil production, but not anywhere else. Montreal's unemployment rate is higher than Calgary's, but the government is extending benefits for Calgarians only. Seasonal workers in the regions are worried.

Benefits run out at this time of the year, yet there is nothing for them. We have gone from having a broken system to having a system that is broken and unfair. That is not what I would call an improvement.

Let me say a few words about infrastructure. The federal government is currently contributing roughly $1 billion to Quebec's infrastructure through the various building Canada plan programs. That funding represents only roughly 5% of public infrastructure spending in Quebec, while the Government of Quebec covers the other 95%, including for health, education, and the municipalities. Needless to say, the additional investments announced by Ottawa are welcome. However, it is not enough to just put money on the table. The money needs to be made available quickly and the programs need to be flexible enough to meet the needs on the ground, something that only the authorities in Quebec City and the municipalities can determine.

The experience with the 2009 infrastructure plan is instructive. Ottawa wanted to interfere in the choice of projects, which made the whole process unending: 27 months to conclude a framework agreement that opened the door to studying the first projects, followed by negotiations, project by project, for 15 months on average. It took three and a half years before money was released from the federal treasury, which meant the program had to be extended. The same thing happened with the 2014 program. The money was frozen in Ottawa because of federal-provincial squabbles caused by the federal government's attempts to interfere.

If the government really wants to have more money available to fight the economic downturn now, it must not repeat the same mistakes. The only federal infrastructure program that works well is the federal gas tax fund. The provinces receive block payments, and Quebec and the municipalities jointly select the projects to be funded. It is simple, quick, and effective.

What did the government present in its budget? In its new programs, the Liberal government decided to keep doing things the same old way, even though it is not working, rather than doing something that works. By all indications, the municipalities are once again victims of the bickering between Quebec and Ottawa that will have federal interference paralyzing the process for months, if not years, even though the needs are urgent now.

Worse still, the community infrastructure funds that will pay for projects like community centres, cultural infrastructure, and social housing were incorporated into the propaganda funding for the 150th anniversary. Will municipalities and community groups be forced to spread federalist propaganda in order to access funding? This feels just like the Liberal sponsorship scandal all over again. By all indications, these programs, as they are now, will be completely ineffective, and the municipalities will not see one red cent of the money promised for a very long time.

This brings me to economic policy. The government said that it wanted to reinvest in the economy, that it wanted a more sustainable economy. We agree. When the Conservatives were in power, all they cared about was oil and western Canada. Look where that got us. Now it is Ontario's turn to reap the benefits of federal largesse. Once again, Quebec is being ignored.

The Quebec economy is different than the Canadian economy. People often forget that. Canada has a subsidiary economy, particularly in the oil and auto sectors. Protecting head offices is not a Canadian priority. The country's economy is not terribly innovative, and its businesses do relatively little R & D.

Things are different in Quebec. Quebec accounts for 45% of Canada's technology exports. Quebec entrepreneurs invest 50% more in research than their counterparts in Canada. That information is from Statistics Canada. Quebec has an aerospace sector and a multimedia industry. Quebec has renewable resources like hydroelectricity and forests. That is Quebec, and federal policies must reflect that.

I was surprised to see the level of support for an economic policy that meets our needs among all the people we heard from in the pre-budget consultations. On the left and on the right, in urban and rural areas, there must be support for business innovation. We must support investment, especially since the weak petrodollar makes production equipment more expensive. We need a real aerospace policy that supports our major players, who are world leaders. We cannot say it enough. We need programs that support our SMEs, which are also innovators. What we need is a real innovation strategy.

Quebec has a 21st-century economy. Our strengths lie in sectors that will grow in the future: technology, the environment, renewable resources, and culture. Quebeckers are creative.

The federal government's policy is unbelievably poorly adapted to our needs, and things are not improving under the new government. It wants to do more research itself. That is fine. It wants university researchers to do more research. That is fine as well.

However, at the end of the day, the government wants to make up for the fact that businesses elsewhere in Canada do not innovate much, and it is not proposing to support innovative Quebec companies. Its policies do not seem to take into account that Quebec is Canada's technology engine.

We are not asking for charity: $1 billion for Bombardier is 10 times less than the $10 billion invested in GM. All we are asking for is a policy that addresses our needs. That is all.

In that respect, this budget is downright disastrous. It does nothing for the sectors our economy is based on. There is nothing for Bombardier or the aerospace sector in general, nothing for the forestry sector, nothing for the farmers who were sacrificed in the negotiation of the agreements with Europe and Asia, and no sign of a plan for electric transportation.

What is worse, if the government uses our money to make up for low innovation spending by Canadian businesses outside Quebec, it could end up creating competitors for us west of the Ottawa River.

The budget allocates a significant amount of funding to government research concentrated in Ontario and university research that focuses on the needs of industry. The government intends to then turn over the findings of that research to industries that are not very innovative to help make up for their shortcomings.

There is nothing for our innovative Quebec industries. However, the government plans to allocate new funding to oil companies: $50 million to help them cause less pollution. The government has set aside money for the automotive industry and has extended the program that funds the industry's research until 2021.

There is nothing for Quebec. The Conservatives told Quebec no with a smirk. The Liberals are telling Quebec no with a smile, but when it comes right down to it, the answer is still no.

In the last election, for the first time in 30 years, Quebeckers elected a majority of government members. Quebeckers have tried everything to succeed in a country that is not their own.

Budget 2016 gives us an idea of what that has accomplished. The Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development is working to kill Bombardier, the Minister of Transport is working to dismantle Air Canada, the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour is working to starve unemployed workers and empty out the regions, the Minister of Finance is working to choke the government, and the Quebec Liberal caucus is applauding their efforts.

Obviously, we can draw only one conclusion from the federal budget, and that is that Quebeckers cannot count on a Canadian party to develop Quebec; Quebeckers cannot count on a Canadian government to develop Quebec; they can only count on themselves.

Taking charge of our destiny and relying on our own strengths has a name. It is called the emancipation of a people, of a nation. It is called independence.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for the work he does for his constituents.

My colleague spoke about employment insurance. The government believes that employment insurance should be available to those who have lost jobs and are looking to care for children or loved ones in a time of need. We have made great improvements to the EI system through budget 2016, improvements that will allow for changes for new entrants and re-entrants into the EI system.

We have also called for improved service delivery so processing times can be reduced and people can have access to money faster when they need it. We have reduced wait periods from two weeks to one week. We have extended the working while on claim. We have also made it easier and more flexible to access compassionate care.

Does my hon. colleague think these changes and investments will impact those not only across the country but those in the Quebec region as well?

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I said at the beginning, there are some good things in this budget. Not all of it is bad, but it does not take long to get through the good stuff and find out that the bad stuff is so bad it pretty much cancels out the good stuff.

For employment insurance, the extended benefit periods apply to 12 regions in Canada. The Minister of Finance was very careful not to include Quebec when designating those regions. I cannot list them all by heart, but they are in Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, northern Ontario and the Maritimes, New Brunswick, I believe. There is nothing for Quebec. The extensions apply only to regions whose economy has been affected by the oil crisis.

The petroleum economy is not viable. We all know that it is an energy source of the past. Quebec is turning to green energy. Not only is the government still investing in petroleum and handing over compensation for Alberta's losses, but it is also paying for problems related to the oil crisis through changes to employment insurance. That is nice, and I am sure the people who will benefit will be happy. I agree that it is a good measure.

However, it is good only for Canada. Quebec is getting nothing even though we are paying 25% of the cost of the system. Employed and unemployed workers in Quebec pay employment insurance premiums every week. The government is going to use their premiums to compensate regions that are struggling because of the oil crisis. We are dissatisfied and disappointed in this budget.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. He raised the issue of child services and the importance of ensuring that our young people are treated better.

According to a UNICEF publication, Canada is one of the wealthiest countries with the most inequalities when it comes to how children are treated. UNICEF ranks Canada 26th out of 35 countries when it comes to education, health, income, and a fourth category that I do not recall. UNICEF is urging Canada to reinvest in family incomes and child services.

When we know that the Liberals made new investments to reduce taxes for the wealthiest Canadians and did nothing about the taxes for those who earn less than $45,000, meaning the majority of Canadians and Quebeckers, it makes us wonder about their strategy to reduce inequality, especially for children.

When we know that inequality carries over throughout a lifetime, beginning with young children, it is a little more difficult. We also know that health transfers did not go up, even though the Liberals promised during the election campaign that they would review the Conservatives' cuts. This has a big impact on the quality of life of our children and their chance to flourish.

What are my colleague's thoughts on this?

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Salaberry—Suroît for her question.

I agree with her, and I think it is terrible. We in the Bloc Québécois believe in free education for children, and that begins with early childhood centres. We believe in social equity, and that begins with the taxes that we pay.

This evening my colleague from Joliette will be moving a motion on tax havens. That is where it begins. Rather than taking money from workers who make $30,000 or $40,000 a year, why not eliminate tax havens and recover billions of dollars? Why not raise the tax rate for banks? There is no reason not to, and yet the government refuses. The people wind up paying for that.

As for family benefits, yes, the Prime Minister did announce during the election campaign that those benefits would be tax free, but that does not go into effect until next year. Benefits paid out last year are taxable this spring.

These are nasty surprises for taxpayers in Quebec and across Canada. We are very disappointed in how this government is managing the education file and treating young Quebeckers and young Canadians and the parents watching over them.

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank my Quebec colleague for his passionate yet flawed speech. I would like to say to him that there are 40 Quebec MPs in the government party who advocate for Quebeckers every day. We have a government that is led by a Prime Minister from Quebec.

If my colleague has read the budget, he has misread it. I doubt that he has read it, or the Constitution, because he should be bringing many of his concerns to the Quebec government.

With respect to the budget, the member has expressed concerns that are not specific to Quebec. They apply to all of Canada. However, he made no mention of the Canada child benefit, which is truly revolutionary for transfers to Quebec and the rest of Canada for Canadian and Quebec families. In Quebec, 80,000 children will benefit, and their lives will change drastically. Nine out of 10 Quebec families will benefit thanks to this budget. We have not had this kind of reform to our allowance system for 30 years. I would like to hear what he has to say about that, because families that will benefit would like to know. That is something he forgot in his speech, and it is in the budget.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague opposite. I want to thank him for thanking me for a flawed speech. I look forward to giving a speech that is more to his liking and hearing the Liberals applaud.

That being said, I sympathize with what my colleague said about the 40 Liberal members who are part of the Liberal caucus. I sympathize with them because, from what I understood from the member's comments, their government made all the decisions about the budget, not them. They have to live with that. That is unfortunate. I sympathize with them, but what can we do? They are the ones who are in power.

If our Prime Minister wants us to form a government, perhaps we could think about it and come to an agreement with him, but for now, the budget is a Liberal budget produced by a federal Liberal government. That is what I was criticizing.

[Ramez Ayoub, Liberal, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. I would like to ask a question because it seems obvious that we are not always all on the same planet.

Your party has very clear intentions. However, with regard to how Quebec fits into the federal budget, I would like to quote a comment made by someone who should know what she is talking about. I come from the municipal sector, and Suzanne Roy, president of the UMQ said that the federal budget was a good budget. She said:

We can say that we have been heard. The government responded to the municipal sector's main expectations. What is more, the Government of Canada is sending the message that it wants to build a solid partnership with the municipalities for the benefit of all members of our communities.

I would like to hear what you have to say about that.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The hon. member for Rivière-du-Nord will have 30 seconds to respond, but before I turn the floor over to him, I would like to remind members to speak through the Speaker, not to the Speaker.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, for the information of my colleague, my neighbour from Thérèse-De Blainville, Rivière-du-Nord is in Quebec, on planet Earth.

My colleagues from Joliette and Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères met with the UMQ. Its demands are the same as the Bloc's. We were calling for clear budgets that do not cause endless squabbles between Quebec and Ottawa, which we unfortunately did not get.

I am sorry to tell my colleague that his interpretation of the UMQ's position does not seem to match what we took away from our tour of Quebec.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased and proud to stand here and support this budget.

I know everybody is listening to thousands of pieces of information about programs here and there, but the big thing about the budget is that it invests in two important things. It invests in the economy and creating jobs, and it invests in people, helping Canadians have more money in their pockets spend, to afford to do things they need, and to cope. For me, these two key issues are very important.

First and foremost is the economy. We need to invest in the economy now. We have had a stagnant economy and not very good job creation over the past 10 years. Everything has stayed steady because we have depended on one commodity only to float the economy and jobs, and we have seen what has happened. We have no control over global markets, and oil prices have gone down.

We are trying to diversify the economy, not only by investing in natural resources, of which we have a lot, but also by investing in the 21st century economy, creativity, and innovation. To do that, we have to reinvest in those areas that have been ignored for quite some time.

We want to kick start the economy now so it can start moving and then develop a long-term economy. Therefore, we are investing immediately in infrastructure.

As members well know, we are investing $11.9 billion in infrastructure, which is phase one. I want to point out that this budget is not the only and final budget this government will bring in. This is our phase one budget. When we invest in infrastructure, we are investing in green infrastructure, looking at waste water, encouraging electric vehicles, simple things like that which will move us forward.

We know that infrastructure brings jobs and gets people working immediately. Therefore, we are building roads and bridges. Road and bridges have to take our people, goods, and services across the country to ports and areas in which we can move them around the world. It is an important investment. For public transit alone, we are talking about $3.4 billion over three years.

Also, what most people do not understand is that from coast to coast to coast, ferries are important points of transportation. British Columbia will benefit from the 25% tariff being taken off of ferries. This will allow us to have bigger and better ferries, and to fix the ones we have right now. Again, when we can move our goods and services, that puts us into the competitive arena.

We are also investing in is social infrastructure. We are investing in housing, which is the first part. Building new housing and renovating old housing is real work for real people, which will continue over the next five years and into the future. As the economy grows, we will see more building going on.

We are talking about the spectrum of housing. It is not only low-income and social housing in which rent is geared to income, but we are also looking at building home care for seniors. We are looking at how we can work with provinces and municipalities to build affordable housing. Because of that, the affordable housing budget of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation has been doubled.

When the Liberals first brought in a national housing strategy back under Lester Pearson, CMHC was created. However, CMHC seemed to have lost its way in the last 10 years. Now we have now brought it back to do what it was supposed, which is to invest in affordable housing.

Many Canadians and their children cannot afford to buy houses, and may be living farther away. However, investing both in housing and transit closes that loop. In other words, we can get them to work and back home in a faster period of time.

We are also investing in the new 21st century economy. We are looking at investing in research and development, and science. We are looking at investing in areas such as commercializing our technology, which is a huge. We have universities that are second to none. They are coming up with important new discoveries, and the ability to commercialize some of that work is very important.

We developed the ebola vaccine here and we sold it, gave it away to a big company. We now have to buy it when we want it. That is not the kind of industry. We want to be a place where people can come here and talk about how we can develop good pharmaceuticals.

Over the years, we have shown excellence in environmental medical technology. This is where good, well-paying, solid, environmentally friendly green jobs will come from and it will give Canada a name in the world as a niche market and a place when looking for this envrionmental technology.

I do not know if many people know this, but we happen to be best for sound and special effects in film, not just in North America but in the world. Everyone is beating a path to our door because of our new ability to deliver sound and special effects. This creates jobs. These jobs start at $63,000 a year. We are not churning out people in film school fast enough to fill those jobs. Canada can excel in communications technology, film, arts and culture and be the place the world looks to when it wants to find excellence.

We are looking at our ability to develop communications technologies, green technology and translational technologies. We are actually able to develop innovations in health care that we can commercialize to the rest of the world. Therefore, that translational research is very important. That is the kind of technology, the kind of new economy about which we are talking. That is where Canada can begin to excel.

With regard to aerospace, we have McDonnell-Detweiler, the Canadarm, the ability to bring in things like CASSIOPE that can download and upload enormous amounts of information and time. RADARSAT, which Google and all of the world now uses to tell us who is on what street and how to get from A to B, is Canadian, developed in my province of British Columbia with McDonnell-Detweiler. Let us go back and gear to be excellent in certain things. When we talk about investment, this is an example.

I am just reminded, Mr. Speaker, that I may be splitting my time with the member for Parkdale—High Park.

We are talking about that kind of investment in the economy, but the economy is not just an abstract thing. The economy is people. People are the ones who work, who produce, who make Canada competitive. Therefore, we are looking at how we invest in people so Canada can once again become a more productive nation and be competitive in a global economy. We have not been doing that very well.

We are reinvesting in skills so people can transition from economies that are not doing particularly well to the new economies. Re-training people is a huge investment, and is an important for people in the workforce.

Let us look at the young people coming into the workforce. We are now doubling the Canada student summer job program, with apprenticeship programs. By doubling it, every year 35,000 new students in university will be able to learn and train for these new jobs. This had been severely cut under the last government. We are bringing this back. We are telling students who come out of university that until they find a job that will pay them $25,000, they do not have to repay their loans.

We are bringing in grants for students to go to university and stay in university, up to a thousand new dollars a year.

We are investing in the fastest growing population in our country, which is the aboriginal people. If we recall, there was something called the Kelowna accord under a past Liberal prime minister, Paul Martin. It would have invested $5 billion over five years into housing, education and health. It would be administered by aboriginal people for aboriginal people in partnership with the provincial and federal governments.

As soon as the last government came in, it was cancelled. That meant there were 10 years in which none of those programs were used, and aboriginal communities were 10 years behind in being able to participate fully in the economic, social and political life of our country. We have now brought it back. Ten years is almost a lost generation.

We had an emotional debate in the House about what was happening in Attawapiskat. This is not a new. It is because despair and hopelessness. Communities need to participate fully in the economic life of their country and know there is hope that their next generation will do better, that they can find meaningful work in which they can find dignity. This is important. Working with indigenous people on a nation-to-nation basis is very important.

I could go into arts and culture, which creates 1.1 million jobs in this country and brings about $37 billion a year into our GDP.

These are the things we are investing in, people, the economy, jobs, and putting Canada back on the world stage.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there are a few things the member opposite did not mention in her speech. I have heard other members from the government speak about how they are proud of this budget, but what I have not heard them speak about and what I am wondering if they are equally proud of are the cuts that are made in this budget to the textbook tax credit, the children fitness tax credit, and the arts tax credit, and the cuts that were promised but were not made to the small business tax credit.

Perhaps the member would like to comment on whether she is proud of those cuts.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, one can call it what one wishes, but the point is that those tax credits did not achieve the goals they set out to achieve. Those boutique tax credits, as we call them, supported only high-income families or high middle-income families who had the money to put their children into sports, or to put their children into arts and music, and at the end of the year, they got the money back in tax credits.

We are talking about families who cannot afford to do that now, so they cannot afford to wait a year. Many families do not pay that much in taxes to be able to get back that money.

What we are trying to do is level the playing field by bringing in the child benefit. The additional money that families in the low-income and middle-income brackets are going to get will allow them to do those things for their children, enrol their children in sports, buy their children sports equipment and musical equipment now, today, and not wait for the end of the year, or never being able to afford it because they do not qualify for a tax credit.

The important thing to remember is that the money we are giving is going to benefit nine out of 10 families in this country, low-income and middle-income families, and it will be tax-free. I would like to point out that the tax credits before were not tax-free. The child benefit was a taxable benefit. This is money that will be in people's hands now so they can participate today.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as a fellow British Columbian, I am very interested to hear the comments of my colleague, the member for Vancouver Centre, on BC Ferries.

It was noted in a news article last year that Atlantic Canada's ferries are subsidized to the rate of 350 times more than BC Ferries, and BC Ferries is, arguably, the largest ferry system in the world.

Also, the Liberal government is removing the 25% tariff on ferry imports.

I wonder, as a fellow British Columbian who has probably used the ferry system, why she is standing against local manufacturers for ferries and why there is nothing in the budget to help BC Ferries.

Will you not stand with us on this side, with your fellow members of Parliament from British Columbia, for BC Ferries? They do need some federal help.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I want to remind the member that I will not be standing with anyone. I think who he meant was the hon. member for Vancouver Centre.

The hon. member for Vancouver Centre.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, actually, I am standing with BC Ferries.

We heard from BC Ferries. We heard from the ferry system in British Columbia. What they need to help them is significant reinvestment in ferries and the ferry system. I might also note that this government has just announced huge investments in British Columbia itself into shipbuilding and into helping build some of these. At the moment, we do not have the capacity to build new ferries and the problem is that ferries had to be imported and that 25% tariff hurt them.

They told us specifically what they wanted. We listen to what people tell us they need. We do not decide that we know better than they do.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, very briefly, I want to congratulate the member on the milestone she achieved this week of being the longest-serving female member in the history of this House. I think it is a very important marker for her and I think she should be recognized for her 23 years of selfless service here.

She talked about the benefits of this budget for our country. I want to hear more about how it is going to help in her riding.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in my riding we have a huge arts and culture sector, a huge film sector. This is a new economy. These are the new jobs. We can help by pushing for those. They are already in this budget. By voting for the budget, the hon. member will be helping not only my riding, but a very strong industry in British Columbia.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the 2016 budget. The document was created after listening to what thousands of Canadians wanted to see from their government. It reflects the priorities of Canadians and embodies the real change that the people of Parkdale—High Park voted for on October 19 last year.

Today, I want to organize my thoughts around three central themes that infuse the core of this document: first, our government's commitment to a fair and more inclusive society; second, our objective of helping Canadian children thrive; and third, the goal of creating a long-term vision for Canada.

On the first theme, I came to this country as a Ugandan refugee in 1972. I was 10 months old at the time. My father, my mother, my four-year-old sister, and I arrived with nothing more than a couple of suitcases. However, we lived in a society where my sister and I, the children of working-class parents, had access to the same opportunities as everyone else. We were treated with respect and dignity. We were shown that no matter where we came from or how limited our means, we lived in a country where our success was limited only by our imagination and our capacity to work hard.

However, over the last 10 years, the previous government systematically eroded the foundation of that fair and inclusive society, putting in place barriers to success and limiting rather than empowering people to reach their full potential.

I am proud that our new government is doing things differently. We are committed to restoring a fair and inclusive society

First and foremost, as part of that commitment is repairing our relationship with indigenous peoples. Over the generations, that relationship has suffered from both passive neglect and active hostility. First nations, the Métis nation, and the Inuit do not enjoy anywhere near the same quality of life as other Canadians. With the 2016 budget, our hope is that this relationship can begin anew. Our government is taking its first steps by launching a national inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women. Coupled with this, we are investing $8.4 billion over five years to create opportunities and improve the socio-economic conditions of indigenous people. Correcting this relationship and improving the plight of our first peoples is not only beneficial for the collective, it is also a moral imperative. I know that the residents of my riding know this as well.

Organizations in Parkdale—High Park have already been taking action. I am proud of the work that Wigwamen has been doing in my riding to rebuild this relationship. Wigwamen is Ontario's oldest and largest urban indigenous housing provider, with 214 units throughout Toronto, including in Parkdale—High Park.

Our commitment in this budget to fostering a fair and more inclusive society extends to protecting many of our most vulnerable. We are working toward lifting seniors out of poverty. Our government is restoring the retirement age from 67 to 65, and increasing the GIS that is provided for single low-income seniors by nearly $1,000.

Budget 2016 also targets housing and homelessness. Our social infrastructure investments include $504 million over the next two years alone to construct affordable housing units, and $573 million to address repair backlogs in social housing.

More importantly, this budget dedicates $112 million in the next two years alone to homelessness, which also includes much needed support for things that relate to mental health and addiction.

Budget 2016 also strengthens protections for the survivors of domestic violence. Our infrastructure plan will allocate $90 million over two years for the construction and renovation of shelters and transition houses for victims of violence. Unfortunately, my riding is no stranger to this issue. For 23 years, the excellent staff at The Redwood shelter in Parkdale—High Park have been providing a safe and empowering space for women and children fleeing domestic violence. Notwithstanding its incredible work in our community, the need for safe spaces for women fleeing domestic violence in Toronto and other cities around Canada persists. This budget acknowledges that and works toward fulfilling that need.

A fair and inclusive Canada is one that promotes access. Budget 2016 will also make the objective of post-secondary education more attainable by doubling the size of the Canada student grant for youth from low-income and middle-income families.

We also know that helping people afford an education alone is not enough. We are committed to helping our youth transition from the classroom to the workforce by investing $495 million next year alone in the youth employment strategy. Again, the task of preparing our youth to succeed involves the community, and West Neighbourhood House in my riding has been contributing to this task for decades. Through the Toronto Youth Job Corps program, West Neighbourhood House in Parkdale connects youth to the workplace through employment, school, or training for young people between the ages of 16 and 29. It is helping kids who are out of school and out of work develop important life and employment skills that will help promote future success.

This budget's commitment to enhanced funding for youth employment reflects the fact that we value the work being done by entities like West Neighbourhood House.

Helping our children thrive is the second thematic point. The task of positioning our youth to succeed and contribute to our collective well-being begins much earlier than the post-secondary education that I just referenced. Evidence shows that children who have a strong start at the beginning of their lives have a greater chance of success later on.

Time and again at the doorstep, young families in my community of Parkdale—High Park told me about how difficult it is to raise kids in today's economy. I have two young boys of my own: Zakir is age five and Nitin will be two tomorrow. If I could be permitted a brief indulgence, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say happy birthday to my little guy and that I will see him tomorrow.

More importantly, as a father of a young family, I know that it is rewarding raising a family, but it is very challenging in this economy. Enter budget 2016. It will give Canadian families more money to help with the high cost of raising their children by replacing the current complicated system of child benefits with a single CCB, the Canada child benefit. It is simpler and it is more generous.

Gone are the days of the previous government's universal benefits cheques sent to persons with seven-digit salaries who frankly do not need government help in raising their families. Gone also are the days when the previous government would issue a cheque, only for it to be clawed back by the taxman the following April.

This new child tax benefit is tax-free, and it is targeted so that low-income and middle-income families will receive more benefits than those with the highest incomes.

We campaigned on a very specific promise to deliver assistance to those that need it the most. This targeted Canada child benefit coupled with the middle-class tax cut that we passed on January 1 this year will do exactly that.

Turning to the third point, we have a long-term vision for Canada that is encapsulated in this budget. Some of the aspects of that vision have already been articulated from the day we assumed office.

We believe in equality; hence, we have a gender equal cabinet.

We believe in evidence-based policy; hence, there is the immediate reinstatement of the long-form census.

We believe in daring to name the danger of climate change; hence, we renamed the ministry, led in Paris at the COP21 summit, and invested $3.4 billion in this budget alone, for the next five years, to address climate change.

We also believe in compassion. A subject near and dear to my heart, we have accepted 26,000 and counting Syrian refugees into this country.

With this budget, another part of our vision becomes clear. We believe in Canadian culture. The support in this budget for the CBC and other organizations that promote Canadian culture illustrates this.

The residents of my riding include a large number of artists, writers, filmmakers, TV producers, musicians, actors and editors. They contribute to the culture of Toronto, and they are a huge economic engine for our country. We believe in cultivating that creative and economic engine, not impeding it. That is why this budget includes an investment of $1.3 billion over five years to support arts and culture organizations, including $550 million alone for the Canada Council for the Arts.

Our plan is not simply about promoting Canadian creative output, it is also about preserving Canadian cultural icons. Time and time again on the campaign trail and thereafter, the residents of Parkdale—High Park told me that, after a decade of neglect, to save the CBC. We have listened, and we have responded. Budget 2016 commits $675 million to the CBC over the next five years as a reaffirmation of the vital voice that CBC/Radio-Canada plays in our public discourse in promoting our two official languages and supporting our shared culture and values.

In conclusion, this budget is transformative. After 10 years of neglect, this budget signals to Canadians that they finally have a government that is willing to invest in this country, in its people, in its institutions, and in its infrastructure.

Most importantly, the budget illustrates our government's commitment to creating a more fair and inclusive society, and helping all Canadian children get the best start in life possible.

Budget 2016 crafts a long-term vision for this country that reflects our shared values, values like equality, compassion, and a commitment to evidence-based policy. I am proud of this budget, and I will be wholeheartedly supporting it. I urge all members of this House to do the same.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that was a very detailed overview of the budget. Anyone can read it in the book.

With a very expensive budget for money we do not have, could the member opposite advise us of how many jobs the $30 billion first-year deficit will generate in the Canadian economy?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the short answer is that countless jobs can be created with this kind of investment. It takes a bold vision to agree to invest in infrastructure, to invest in the economy and to stimulate it, but it is actually not that bold a decision. It is quite facile when we have extremely low interest rates and a debt-to-GDP ratio that is the envy of the G7.

It is a prime opportunity to invest in the economy. It is something that we campaigned on during the election. It is something we are fulfilling with this budget and will continue to fulfill as we meet our overall infrastructure investment targets of $60 billion over the next 10 years.

The statistics are already coming in from Stats Canada apropos my friend's question in respect to the job creation, which is already occurring and will continue to occur in this country because we finally have a government that is daring to invest in the economy when it is sorely needed.

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I noticed in my colleague's speech that he spoke about the importance of helping those who need it most. I would like to hear his comments on a particular choice that the Liberals made in the budget, which was to keep $800 million in stock option loopholes open for very wealthy CEOs while shortchanging on first nations education.

The Liberals say they are investing $2.6 billion, but this is over five years, not four years, which is a reduction of $800 million, and it is back-loaded in the last two years. On top of that, we know that the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has again told the government that we are discriminating against indigenous children on child welfare.

I would like the member to comment on those choices that were made in the budget.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her question and her concerns on these very pressing issues.

The budget involves choices. Any legislative policy, any government initiative obviously relates to choices. Balances are struck and certain issues will come to the fore and be prioritized.

First nations are a commitment that cannot be understated by this government. I urge the hon. member opposite to consult the two things that are in common among all of the mandate letters issued by the Prime Minister to all 30 ministers of this government. The only thing that is in common, other than the Prime Minister's signature, is to repair the relationship we have with our first nations communities. No one should underestimate or discount the level of commitment and prioritization that has been made in this regard.

Just a few days ago, we had a very robust debate initiated by one the hon. colleague's members, the member for Timmins—James Bay, about the deplorable conditions in which our first nations exist. We acknowledge that. We are working as quickly as possible to remedy that situation.

Can more be done? Absolutely, more can be done, and we are working to address these issues as quickly as possible. We are trying to make this as non-partisan an issue as possible.

I have no doubt about my friend's conviction in assisting in that regard. Obviously, addressing the needs of first nation communities continues to be a priority, and I hope to work with her on it going forward.

[Frank Baylis, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in the last election when I was knocking on doors, some of the households had received a cheque from the previous government's child benefit plan. The problem was that they had spent that cheque, and I felt bad when I had to inform them that actually they would be paying tax back on that cheque.

The new Canada child benefit, I understand, is tax free, and I would like to hear from my colleague how that will have a better impact for middle-class families.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it will have a better impact because it is more honest, open, and transparent. We will be giving people something that they can rely upon and spend, knowing full well that it is not going to be clawed back later.

A tactic like that is actually the politicization of a benefit, and it was used by the previous government to give with the one hand and take back with the other. That is not the kind of politics we practise on this side of the House and it is not the kind of politics we are endorsing with the budget. To the contrary, we are endorsing a plan that will put more money in people's hands and make sure that it stays there so they can make decisions about it going forward.