Debates of April 14th, 2016

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

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

He spoke a lot about the importance of fighting climate change. I completely agree with him that we need to address this issue. Unfortunately, in the budget, the Liberals presented the same targets and objectives as the Conservatives did. That is extremely disappointing.

I would like to talk today about another issue that is very important to people in the greater Drummond area and my rural region in particular, and that is supply management and the importation of diafiltered milk, which is currently throwing the market completely off balance, is totally unfair, and violates federal regulations.

Why have the Liberals not done anything about this? What are they waiting for? When will they take action?

This is very important to farmers, dairy producers, and my region, the greater Drummond area.

What are the Liberals waiting for? When will they take action? Why does the budget not address the diafiltered milk issue?

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

Mr. Speaker, as to the why, I am not sure I can answer that question, but it is a real disappointment. We have heard far less than satisfactory answers in the House from the Minister of Agriculture . They have been short, almost one sentence answers that gave no detail. As the member pointed out, farmers in the supply management business really do have some legitimate questions.

Supply management is an incredibly important tool for farmers. I have had the honour of meeting with several constituents who operate under the system in my riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. It gives them a sense that they know what their income is going to be. That quota is so important for making the farming industry a sustainable one. Many families that are engaged in the quota system can pass on their farm to the next generation because that next generation knows it can make a living. It is incredibly important for not only the House but for all provincial legislatures as well to stand up and be real champions for that and not roll over when imports masquerade as something else.

I appreciate my colleague's work on this issue, along with that of our agriculture critic. These two fine champions will bring this issue up time and time again and really hold the Liberal government to account.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour and a privilege for me to rise in the House, particularly to speak to the budget.

As everyone knows, the government's budget reflects its choices. Like all of my colleagues on this side of the House, I had a lot of hope for the first Liberal budget. We are quite disappointed because, this time, we were expecting real change. The members opposite are always saying that Canadians voted for real change on October 19, but we have yet to see any. The choices and priorities set out in the budget are rather disappointing.

I have a large riding with huge needs. My riding has always been neglected, forgotten, and underfunded by the federal government. Once again, I have no choice but to express my great disappointment with this budget.

During the election campaign, I spoke about my riding's priorities. For example, there are many seniors in my riding and they have always been one of my biggest priorities. However, the budget does very little for them.

The youth unemployment rate is about two times higher than the national unemployment rate. For many years, we have been proposing measures to help young people find jobs, including a $4,000 tax credit for small businesses that hire young people. This is a reasonable measure that would help young people. These are the kinds of things that concerned me during the election campaign and that still concern me today.

Furthermore, home mail delivery is another important issue in my riding. A northern, rural riding like mine needs this service. The government promised to restore this service, but as members on this side have pointed out many times, this budget does not even contain the words “Canada Post”.

Nonetheless, I think there are many measures in the budget that should be highlighted. For example, the budget talks about shelters for indigenous women. There are about 14 shelters for some 630 communities in Canada. We are all aware of the problems facing indigenous communities, and there are huge needs. However, the budget allocates about $500,000 per community for shelters, which is nowhere near enough.

As I mentioned, in the north, in a riding like mine, construction costs are very high. I do not think $500,000 will be enough. In addition, as the representative for the riding of Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, I must mention that the section in the budget on shelters does not apply to Nunavik or the James Bay area, which are also part of my riding. This is a concrete example of why I am so disappointed.

Forestry is one of the major industries in my riding. I have been bringing up this issue since I became a member of Parliament, nearly five years ago.

Forestry is a major industry in Quebec and in my riding. Tens of thousands of my constituents work in this industry.

Each year, every time I rise to talk about the government's budget, be it the former or the current government, I am disappointed by the lack of measures to provide direct assistance to this industry in my riding. For example, there is nothing here about the forest communities program or the investments in forest industry transformation program. One thing we know for sure is that it is important to invest in innovation and research and development in this industry. That is critical for the jobs in my riding that are tied to forestry.

I also want to raise the subject of employment insurance. This is a particularly tricky issue for my riding. Employment insurance figures and statistics for a riding like mine are pretty complicated and hard to understand. There is no logic to how this works in my riding. The statistics are compiled for three different regions: Nunavik, James Bay, and Abitibi-Témiscamingue. It is crazy because the situation is so different in each of these three regions of northern Quebec, which are part of my riding, that there is no logical way to approach employment insurance there. We should also condemn the government's ongoing tendency to dip into the employment insurance fund. We have condemned that repeatedly, actually.

We need to talk about the parts of this budget that affect indigenous peoples. Once again, disappointment. We have talked about issues facing indigenous peoples a lot in the past few days, but people seem to forget that the needs in this country are so great. It is disappointing to see that the government did not bother to come up with a comprehensive approach to the needs of Canada's first nations. For example, as I pointed out earlier, the budget for housing breaks down to about $300,000 per community per year for the next two years.

Building a house in Nunavik or James Bay costs about $200,000. How can we continue to mitigate the effects of the housing crisis on communities when this budget provides enough funding for just one and half houses per community for the next two years? The fact that the government is not taking a holistic approach to indigenous issues is troubling.

There are many points I wanted to raise. Indigenous languages are once again being ignored. Out of the 52 indigenous languages that are still spoken today, only three will survive and flourish, and mine is one of them. I am privileged that I can say that. Again, we all know the importance of language in indigenous communities and the importance of cultural continuity among aboriginal youth. That is one reason why the suicide rate is so high in those communities. Our indigenous youth have become lost between two worlds, between the indigenous world on the one hand, and the western world on the other hand. One way to help them would be to address the language issues that are so important to our communities.

I wish I could go on, for I am just getting started, but I will take any question members may have.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have heard a number of New Democrats talk about the things they would like to see in the budget, and that is okay. We have seen the most progressive budget in the last decade-plus.

Initiatives in this budget will lift children out of poverty, 300,000-plus with the Canada child benefit program. Many progressive measures are being taken in the budget.

I like to believe that some members are progressive thinkers when it comes to how we can help society, whether it is our children through the Canada child benefit program, or our seniors through the guaranteed income supplement, which is getting a dramatic increase of up to $950 on an annual basis depending on one's income. There are so many good reasons to vote for the budge, because it is progressive.

Does the member believe the NDP would run a larger deficit, or would it still advocate for a balanced budget, something the New Democrats committed to in the last federal election?

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to be across the aisle after October 19, but here we are.

The Liberals have a responsibility. They made promises and they need to keep those promises. That is not what is happening. For example, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission made 94 calls to action, but there is no money in the budget to address that. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission recommends, for example, that the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples serve as a framework for reconciliation.

How are we going to achieve this reconciliation with the very little money announced for first nations in this budget? The Canadian Human Rights Commission tribunal ordered them to resolve the problem at the first reasonable opportunity. The first reasonable opportunity the CHRC is talking about was on March 22.

What did the Liberals do? They chose to ignore the CHRC order. They chose to defy that order. There is a word for that in our legal jargon. I think I am making myself clear. That is what is missing.

The Liberals know it. They are the ones who set the 2% cap in 1996. That 2% cap for first nations programs and services lasted 20 years. Imagine how far behind we fell in 20 years because of the cap they themselves imposed.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to give my colleague an opportunity to elaborate on what he would like to see happen in this place in support of first nations and Métis communities of Canada.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have been talking about these issues over the last couple of days, and they are important issues.

If there is one important issue in the country, it is the condition in which the first peoples of our country live. It is a shame for a country as rich as Canada, one of the richest in the world.

There is no lack of examples that we can use to tackle these issues. One of them is in my riding. We signed the first modern treaty in the country in 1975. It is a global approach to housing, education, police services, justice, economic development, health and social services, even maintaining the Cree way of life if a Cree chooses that way of life. Therefore, it is a global approach, and it seems to be working.

Granted, it is not the perfect solution, but at least that global approach is working in northern Quebec. I would suggest that we take inspiration from that example for the future of first nations in our country.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The Chair has received notice of a question of privilege and we will hear on that question now.

The hon. House Leader of the Official Opposition.

Alleged Premature Disclosure of Contents of Bill C-14

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege regarding the premature disclosure of the contents of Bill C-14, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to other Acts (medical assistance in dying) introduced earlier today.

On the same day the bill was put on notice, details of the bill were reported in The Globe and Mail. The article begins:

The Liberal government is set to introduce its much-anticipated physician-assisted-dying law on Thursday, a bill that will exclude those who only experience mental suffering, such as people with psychiatric conditions, according to a source familiar with the legislation.

This is not a case of journalistic speculation. The reporter identified someone in the know who provided to her specifics of the bill. The journalist continues to refer to this source later in the article:

The bill also won’t allow for advance consent, a request to end one’s life in the future, for those suffering with debilitating conditions such as dementia. In addition, there will be no exceptions for “mature minors” who have not yet reached 18 but wish to end their own lives.

Those three issues, however, will be alluded to in the legislation for further study, according to the source, who is not authorized to speak publicly about the bill.

These are very specific elements of the legislation. The CBC The National gave similar details last night, and it too referenced sources.

Now that Bill C-14 has been introduced and we now know the details, we also know that those details were reported in The Globe and Mail and elsewhere in the media prior to its introduction.

On March 15, 2001, the Speaker ruled on a question of privilege regarding an incident whereby the media was briefed on a justice bill, Bill C-15, before members of Parliament. The Speaker indicated that there were two important issues in that case: the matter of the embargoed briefing to the media and the issue of members' access to information required to fulfill their duties.

In his ruling, the Speaker said:

In preparing legislation, the government may wish to hold extensive consultations and such consultations may be held entirely at the government’s discretion. However, with respect to material to be placed before parliament, the House must take precedence....The convention of the confidentiality of bills on notice is necessary, not only so that members themselves may be well informed, but also because of the pre-eminent rule which the House plays and must play in the legislative affairs of the nation. To deny...information concerning business that is about to come before the House, while at the same time providing such information to media that will likely be questioning members about that business, is a situation that the Chair cannot condone.

That matter was referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. The committee concluded:

...the protocol of the Department of Justice whereby no briefings or briefing materials should be provided with respect to a bill on notice until its introduction in the House of Commons should be adopted as a standard policy by all government departments. We believe that such a policy is respectful of the House of Commons and its Members. It recognizes the legislative role of Parliament, and is consistent with parliamentary privilege and the conventions of Parliament.

The committee went on to say:

This incident highlights a concern shared by all members of the Committee: apparent departmental ignorance of or disrespect for the role of House of Commons and its Members. Even if the result is unintended, the House should not tolerate such ignorance within the government administration to undermine the perception of Parliament’s constitutional role in legislating. The rights of the House and its Members in this role are central to our constitutional and democratic government.

On October 15, 2001, the content of another justice bill, Bill C-36 was leaked to the media. The Liberal government House leader at the time, Don Boudria, rose in his place and did, in my opinion, the right thing. He stated:

Last Friday afternoon I received a copy of Bill C-36. As is my role as Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, I do what is known as a review of the bill. I took precautions then and earlier with the minister and all of her staff to ensure that the bill was not in any way given to the media or otherwise. I was given that assurance by everyone I spoke to.

On Saturday I saw extracts from the bill in the media. They were not all factually correct but enough of them were that it caused me to be as concerned as the hon. member when raising this question in the House.

I cannot say much more other than to apologize on behalf of whoever is guilty of this. I use the word guilty because that is what comes to mind, given the respect that I have for this institution. Anyone who breaches that respect is guilty of an offence in my book. The problem is that we do not know who it is.

The situation here before us is identical. We do not know who leaked the contents of the bill. The article refers to "a source familiar with the legislation”.

On the same day that the question of privilege was raised, the Speaker ruled and said:

I have to say at once this appears to be similar to the issue raised earlier before me with respect to Bill C-15. In my opinion it appears that there has been again a breach of the privileges of the House in relation to this piece of legislation.

The hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona in his remarks tried to assist the Chair by suggesting that it was for the Chair to investigate the matter and come up with the name of the culprit and so on. I respect his opinion of course in all matters, but in this matter I think his view is perhaps wrong. There is a body that is well equipped to commit acts of inquisition, and that is the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs....

Accordingly, in my view this is a matter which ought to be sent to the committee.

In my opinion, we clearly have a breach of privilege. The contents of Bill C-14 were leaked to The Globe and Mail and perhaps others, and we do not know who the culprit is.

We in the opposition are very concerned about this dismissive view of the role of the House. I trust that members of the government are equally concerned and would want to get to the bottom of it, as Mr. Boudria did in 2001.

I have no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that you too would be concerned, and that is why I ask that you do as your predecessors have done and refer this matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

In conclusion, if you would permit me to speculate here for a moment, Mr. Speaker, I suspect that Mr. Boudria had the usual struggles that House leaders and their staff have with ministers' communication directors who like to preposition the government's message on a bill. However, they did not understand the role that the House played then, and perhaps they do not now, but members of Parliament certainly do. I do not think any member, regardless of what side of the House he or she sits on, wants to have their independence taken over by staff in ministers' or departmental offices.

[Andrew Leslie, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the intervention of my hon. colleague from the Conservative Party concerning the troubling suggestion that someone from the government prematurely disclosed the contents of Bill C-14, the bill concerning medical assistance in dying, which was introduced earlier today.

I am not aware of the details surrounding the media report referred to by the member, but I want to assure the House that our government takes any breach of the privilege of members and of the House very seriously.

I can tell the House that at no point was anyone authorized to publicly discuss the specific details of the bill prior to introduction.

On behalf of the government, I unreservedly apologize to the House and to members. Our government will work to ensure that this does not happen again.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, with his vast knowledge of procedure and practices here in the House of Commons, raising the point. I appreciate the chief government whip's apology.

I want to get on the record that it is indeed a very serious case in the case of Bill C-14. There is no doubt about this.

I want to cite the current government House leader when he was faced with a similar situation, not in government but in opposition, around the case of Bill C-52. The member for Beauséjour, now the government House leader, said the following on information coming out prior to disclosure of the bill in Parliament:

We believe this situation constitutes a fundamentally unfair contempt of Parliament, and we would ask you to rule on this very serious matter.

He went on to say, in the case of Bill C-52, that:

Before the opposition received an embargoed copy or before the bill was actually tabled in the House of Commons, some of us were responding to very specific media questions following...[disclosure of the bill].

He then said there is no doubt that this was a very serious breach of privilege.

Therefore, I think it is important to note the concerns of both the Conservative official opposition and the NDP opposition. We certainly look forward to the follow-up that the government will be doing in this regard.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I thank the hon. opposition House leader, the chief government whip, and the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby for their interventions on this matter.

We will look at the question, obviously, and get back to the House in due course.

We will carry on at this point, if there are no other interventions. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge Park.

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

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am sharing my time with the member for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak this morning in support of our government's budget. I want to start by congratulating our finance minister and our Prime Minister for delivering not only on our election promises, but on building a visionary budget, one which I am confident will irreversibly change the lives of millions of Canadians for the better.

This budget represents a significant shift in the direction of our country. We are asking top income earners in Canada to pay a bit more so that the majority of Canadians will have more money to spend on important staples, such as food, shelter, and child care. This will greatly benefit those on the lowest end of the income ladder.

This is all the more important, as budget 2016 sets the groundwork to bring in a group of people who have suffered generations of failed government policies and neglect toward equal opportunity in government services. Of course, I speak of Canada's indigenous population.

This budget takes the first steps in healing old wounds and bringing about true reconciliation in our country. It is a statement that restores a promise that generations of Canadians have known: that no matter who we are or where we came from, if we work hard, we will get ahead.

Today I want to devote my time to focus on two sets of policies of which I am particularly proud.

This budget announced historic investment in infrastructure and our indigenous peoples, programs that will create a more equitable and prosperous country.

First, with regard to infrastructure, Canada lags behind in investment to our infrastructure. Investment in infrastructure is an investment in our collective future. I compare infrastructure investments to a personal decision that I had to make many years ago. I recall the time that I was accepted into law school. Like most students, I had no money to go to school. However, I looked at it as an investment. I borrowed money. I went to law school, built a successful practice, and paid the money back. I had a more stable career. I put a great deal of money back into the tax system, and I created jobs.

The investment we make in our infrastructure today is analogous to the decisions that individuals and families routinely make. Many Canadian cities are currently experiencing infrastructure backlogs. With the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio of any G7 country, there has never been a better time to invest in building roads and institutions that will keep our economy strong. We have historically low interest rates, currently hovering around 2.5%. This compares with 6%, 15 years ago; 10%, 25 years ago; and 18%, 35 years ago.

Equally important is the need to boost our economy. We know that in many parts of this country there is a dire need to infuse capital to kick-start the economy. Our current commitment to infrastructure does just that. It takes advantage of historically low interest rates, infuses capital into our economy, creates jobs, and secures important, much-needed infrastructure projects for our future. We are allocating $11.9 billion to build infrastructure that we need now, and to make long overdue repairs to aging systems.

On public transit, we are putting $3.4 billion toward phase one of our government's plan to improve public transit in Canada. Public transit opens doors to employment and educational opportunities that are not possible without it. Investment in public transit not only provides a quicker way for people to get around, it helps to equalize the playing field for urban Canadians.

I represent a riding with high youth unemployment. I know that improvement in our public transit system will pay dividends over the coming years to our youth and our community.

In addition to these historic investments, our government has committed $3.4 billion for affordable housing, community centres, and child care centres. These funds will ensure our communities are better places to live and provide more low-income Canadians of all ages with peace of mind.

All of these investments will start to provide an immediate boost to our economy and will better the lives of Canadians in my riding of Scarborough—Rouge Park and across this country.

I am particularly proud of our post-secondary institutions strategic investment fund. Budget 2016 plays a major role in supporting post-secondary institutions in Canada. We have allocated $2 billion in additional funding that will be matched by the provinces and territories, to build and update research labs, training facilities, and on-campus incubators. These investments will ensure that Canadian post-secondary institutions remain leaders in innovation and research.

I am proud to say that my riding is home to the University of Toronto, Scarborough campus, and to Centennial College, both hubs of learning in Scarborough. I am pleased that our Minister of Science was at Centennial College in Scarborough last week to announce the post-secondary institutions strategic investment fund. Many university and college presidents, student groups, and community members were in attendance. We were mesmerized by the incredible demonstrations of talent by Centennial College students, who have the key to the collective future in new technology, the new jobs that we often speak of.

The University of Toronto Scarborough campus has a master plan, which principal Bruce Kidd and members of the Scarborough team shared with the members of this House. The master plan supports the renewal of Scarborough as a region. I believe the post-secondary institutions strategic investment fund will greatly support UTSC in our region and escalate the much-needed development that will lead to a more educated workforce, more equipped scientists, incubation of new businesses and technology, and ultimately more jobs.

As an example, this January 29, I had the privilege of taking part in the opening of the new environmental science and chemistry building at the University of Toronto. It is a magnificent structure. It uses 40% less energy for a building of that size and meets the coveted LEED gold standard. This building houses world-class researchers, and Ph.D. and other graduate students. They are looking to help us. As countries address issues such as global warming and greenhouse gas emissions, the output from this building will help us develop the technologies, policies, and workforce to build the green economy of the future, an economy that can grow and help the middle class.

Let me now turn to our historic investment into indigenous communities. The Prime Minister has made it abundantly clear that there is no relationship more important to him, this government, or our country than the one with our first nations, Métis, and Inuit peoples. I note that this morning the Supreme Court of Canada expanded the definition of Indian under the Indian Act to include the Métis nation and non-status Indians, in the Daniels v. Canada decision. In effect, our investment in indigenous communities is even more pressing today.

Two days ago, our House debated the most recent suicides in Attawapiskat, and the broader issue of suicide in indigenous communities. This is yet another tragedy, but sadly not unfamiliar to those who live in these communities. We know there is no easy fix, and we know that money alone will not fix this problem. However, we know that the long-term solutions exist if government puts its energy and resources to it. Five hundred years of colonization, oppression, and failed policies cannot be undone overnight. The devastating news that we hear from many indigenous communities is a reflection of this history.

Budget 2016 will move forward with the goal of renewing the relationship with our indigenous peoples. I believe this budget will serve as a down payment to resetting the relationship. Though programs announced in budget 2016 will not solve the long-standing problems overnight, it is the first step to ensuring that some day soon all indigenous children will be able to have the same hopes, aspirations, and opportunities as any other child in Canada. To this end, budget 2016 proposes an investment of $8.4 billion over five years, beginning in 2016-17, to improve socio-economic conditions, education outcomes, and the well-being of our indigenous population. This investment is a significant increase over funding that would have been made available under the Kelowna Accord.

Of this funding, $2.6 billion is earmarked for improving on-reserve education, including funds for special education and first nations language education. There is $634 million earmarked to improve child welfare, and $1.2 billion is to be allocated toward social infrastructure, with a focus on health and housing. These are investments that our indigenous communities desperately need right now. They will provide youth with the opportunity to build their communities.

Boil water advisories are common in many first nations communities, and we are earmarking $2.24 billion in water and waste water infrastructure.

The spending cap, as mentioned earlier, is a very important challenge that has faced first nations communities. We will remove the spending cap after a number of years where this has stagnated the growth and the needs of indigenous communities.

In conclusion, this budget is one that we should all be incredibly proud of. It invests in our future and the future of our children. It is a statement on who we are as a people, and it opens a new chapter in the relations with our indigenous population. Budget 2016 is a truly inclusive approach to governing Canada, and it will pave the way for the prosperity of all Canadians well into the future.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a very important question concerning the legislation that was just introduced today by the government on assisted suicide and euthanasia.

We know that the government announced $3 billion over four years in its platform to directly fund palliative care. In the legislation that has been introduced, it is a critical part of that formula to have palliative care funded by that $3 billion. My question to the hon. member is this. Why does the budget not include that $3 billion? Why was it just on a platform? Was it just aspirational? Why is the government not funding palliative care in this budget as it promised it would? The situation has been highlighted by the legislation it has just introduced on assisted suicide.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe we are now six months into a four-year government. This is the first budget we have introduced. There are a number of commitments our government made during the election, and I am confident that we will fulfill those commitments over the coming years.

With respect to health care in general, we have a very able Minister of Health who is working with our provincial counterparts to reset the arrangement on health care across the country. I believe she will be meeting with her provincial counterparts shortly. Over the next year, I am hoping we will have a new accord that will ensure long-term stable funding for the required health care needs of Canadians.

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech and comments, and particularly for the emphasis he put on the importance of first nations people in Canada—the first people of Canada. Therefore, like many of us on this side, I am surprised that the promise and the reality between election and becoming government meant that there was a shortchange for education. Although we saw a promise during the election of $2.6 billion over four years for first nations education, post-secondary education, and skills training, what we see is a shortchange. As budgets are about choices, I am wondering why the government decided to make that choice for this budget.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we know that education is at the centre of any type of renewal with our indigenous population. It is a very important tool and the ultimate equalizer in our society. From our experience around the world, we know the value of education and what it allows people to become when they grow up. I am personally invested in it, and I know it is important to our indigenous communities.

I am proud of our government's commitment of $8.4 billion over five years toward a number of very important things, $2.6 billion of which is earmarked for education. Of that number, we will also be investing in special needs, which is a very important aspect in some of the communities with which I have engaged.

As I said earlier, it is a down payment. I believe that over the years we will do the right thing.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech and for representing his riding as well as he does. He spoke quite eloquently about our government's investment into infrastructure and post-secondary education.

I have two post-secondary institutes in my riding, Durham College and the University of Ontario Institute of Technology. I am wondering if my colleague could speak further to how that investment into post-secondary education, along with the doubling of grants and the ability of students to not have to pay back their loans until they earn a threshold of $25,000, opens up possibilities for the students in his riding, who are probably from marginalized communities, as I know his riding well. How does that help those students?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my friend and I share very similar values and very similar demographics in terms of whom we represent.

There are a number of very important initiatives for young people. I believe the number one incentive for young people to go to university is what they will get out of it. I believe our investment into jobs, job training, the 35,000 new jobs under the Canada summer jobs program, and our commitment to co-op placements are very important indicators—

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to stand today before the House to speak to budget 2016. This budget is extremely important to allow growth and prosperity to the middle class.

My speech will touch on three major areas: investment in the middle class; our relationship with indigenous people, which is extremely important; and of course the historic investment in infrastructure, which would see growth and prosperity in the near future.

During the campaign, I met a gentleman named Tyler in my riding of Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, and in talking with him, I realized the challenges he had. He was making a modest income, he had three young kids, and his wife was a stay-at-home mom, supporting the children. With that income, it is quite challenging for families. When we look at how items in the budget could support Tyler's family, it is quite impressive.

By that I mean that the Canada child benefit program would see $1,116 per month going toward the support of his family and some of the challenges of the costs. That represents $13,400 of tax-free money. There is no question that this budget would make a big difference to his family and many young families across the country.

There are many families out there, some who are even more vulnerable and have even more challenges, and this budget would support more than 300,000 families and pull them out of poverty. We would also see nine out of 10 families benefiting from this budget.

It is very obvious that this is a major investment in the middle class. Studies have shown in the past that, when we invest in young families early, it reduces the costs to government in the future. That is the type of government we have here.

The second point I would make is about our indigenous people.

I would like to talk about indigenous people and the challenges they have been facing for far too long. What is really impressive is that this government is going to invest in these communities because they have enormous challenges. Past governments of all stripes did not really invest as much as they should have, and that is why this budget is important.

What kind of investments do we have here? The government is going to invest $8.4 billion to support indigenous people. Furthermore, I am pleased that it will invest $2.6 billion in education. This is vital for primary and secondary education on reserves.

It is very important to note that only 36% of indigenous youth graduate from high school, compared to 72% for the general population. As we can see, this is a very serious situation that must be addressed. That is what this government intends to do. There is also a great need for renovations to school infrastructure in indigenous communities. This money will also be used for that purpose. Furthermore, an investment will be made to provide access to clean drinking water and improve health services and the quality of education. As we know, education is probably the most important thing we can give young people. This investment will help them develop their skills and also help them return to their communities to make a contribution, which is key for any group of individuals.

I would also like to talk about the tax credit for teachers, which is extremely important. Many teachers use their own personal money so that they can add equipment or material to their classrooms. I see this happening often. I have personal experience. I am a teacher, my wife is a teacher, and my two daughters are teachers. This tax credit of 15% would be a big piece to support this initiative, up to $1,000 of course. It recognizes the investment made by teachers and the hard work they do for students across Canada.

For the last part of my speech I would like to talk about the infrastructure investment. When we talk about infrastructure, people think right away about bridges and roads, but the investment in infrastructure by this government is about more than that. It is about social investment, digital investment, and environmental investment. These are much larger categories and would help a greater number of people.

Let me talk about social infrastructure. Many communities in my riding require affordable senior housing. This would ensure that seniors stayed in their own communities where they could see their children and their grandchildren grow. That is important. Statistics Canada has indicated that Nova Scotia has one of the oldest populations in the country. The needs in my riding of Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook are extremely important.

As well, we are seeing investments for veterans. Our government would reopen the nine veteran offices that were closed by the past government. We owe a deep debt of gratitude and appreciation to all veterans for their service. This is one small step, but we are going in the right direction.

Also, with respect to digital infrastructure, rural broadband access is important in my riding and across Canada. I have participated in the rural community caucus, which has clearly announced that broadband is a top priority. Our government would invest $500 million over five years in this budget for high-speed Internet, which would allow small rural and remote communities to thrive and provide people with the necessary equipment for the challenges of the 21st century.

I am working on many major projects in my community: for example, the Burnside-Sackville expressway, the dredging of the inlet in Eastern Passage, the Aerotech Business Park, and so forth. What I like about this budget is that the categories would be set now for us to take advantage of and get these jobs done. It is extremely important that every member in the House, not just Liberal members, has access to these types of categories to help the people in their ridings.

It is a nice feeling to stand here today and know that we are seeing steps toward what we promised to our constituents in this budget, and many of the things we promised are going to get done. Over the next four years, we will see many more great things happen to help and support all Canadians.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I too am a teacher and I understand the significance of the extra costs associated with making sure classrooms are adequately supplied.

The member mentioned a specific group of people who would gain a tax credit, but the tax credit for the group he mentioned has been taken away. The tax credit for families with children involved in sports and music lessons has disappeared. This tax credit was something for the entire population.

The member also mentioned young families and the extra dollars they will have. I am curious to know whether the Liberals have taken the time to see the significance of income splitting for families. No tax would have been paid under those circumstances either.

I am just curious as to whether or not the member heard both sides of the argument during the campaign.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for asking the important questions and the two points in reference.

There is no question that the budget is a comprehensive and impressive one, because not only does it help taxpayers with a 7% tax reduction, which is a very importance piece, but it also invests in the Canada child benefit program, which is tax-free money. That tax-free money is a lot more, almost $3,000 more, than any family was receiving. Those monies will enable families to invest in different types of sports programs and have support for the costs of these items.

The income-splitting question is a good one, because the individuals the member is speaking of would be making a lot more money. Of course, we have income splitting available for seniors, and that is what is important.

This is a very comprehensive budget that supports many Canadians across Canada.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech and comments. I really enjoy working with him on the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

Speaking of which, I am wondering why the budget does not contain additional efforts to promote linguistic duality. For example, the budget of the Commissioner of Official Languages is still frozen and so is the budget for the ACFA under the roadmap. Those budgets have not been indexed for nearly 10 years. That is very worrisome.

Another thing that really worries me about this budget is that it does not really include many measures to combat climate change, even though such measures are necessary.

Unfortunately, as members know, the Liberals went to Paris with the same targets as the Conservatives, when everyone, even the Liberals, were saying that the Conservative targets were minuscule and that the Conservatives were certainly not doing what was needed to combat climate change.

We are still waiting for the Liberals to present a serious plan. Unfortunately, greenhouse gas emissions will increase in the coming years. As a result, we need to make a clear and drastic shift toward green energy.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague. Not only is he a member in this House, but he also sits on the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

I am happy that he asked this question, since it is an extremely important one.

We are certainly in the process of examining the roadmap. We have started fast-tracking some major consultations to ensure that the roadmap better meets the needs of our communities and organizations.

There are two important notes, here. I think that the minister has already made some excellent changes. There were some serious problems in the past, and I experienced this myself when I was the superintendent of the Conseil scolaire acadien provincial. First of all, the various organizations had to wait a very long time before getting funding guarantees, and as a result they lost some very good employees. They could not keep them because they did not have guaranteed funding. This has been fixed. Furthermore, there were no multi-year funding agreements. The minister just announced this change.

These are two excellent and major changes made by this government.