Debates of June 7th, 2016

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures, as reported with amendments from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands has four minutes left in her speech.

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

Mr. Speaker, resuming more or less where I left off, I am speaking to Bill C-15 at report stage.

I had earlier canvassed a couple of key points. One is that this is not an improper use of an omnibus bill, but it certainly is an omnibus bill. It does stay and pertain to one central theme, which is implementing budget 2016. I do remain concerned, however, that we should have spent more time on it.

I mentioned one item in particular where I think the current Liberal government may be flirting with the accusation of it being improper. We did spend some time on this one item in finance committee, but not enough, and that is clause 38, which adds section 135.2 in relation to tax-deferred treatment for transactions under the continuation of the Canadian Wheat Board.

It would have been good to have had this in a separate piece of legislation. The chair of our finance committee pursued the matter of what happened to the assets of the Canadian Wheat Board with some departmental officials. There were billions of dollars there. Where did that money go? How do we find out where it it went?

We know that, in respect of the tax consequences of the trust created in connection with the continuation of the Canadian Wheat Board, the debt of the Wheat Board acquired by the trust is not included in the trust income, but we do not know what happened to the assets of the Canadian Wheat Board, which is a rather substantial question, and whether they were transferred to prairie farmers, as was expected. It appears that they were not.

That is an item that would have been better handled had this part of the budget bill been separated out so it could be properly studied.

There are other aspects that I did not have enough time to address before we stopped for members' statements and question period. I want to revisit one of them in particular that I described as egregious moments ago. Let me explain why.

That is found in the budget, and also, of course, the funds are provided in Bill C-15. On the face of it, if we did not know this issue well, we would think that it was great that the government is providing funding for the improved process under the National Energy Board for looking at environmental assessments.

I found it egregious, and I will read from the budget, at page 166. It says:

Budget 2016 proposes to provide $14.2 million over four years...to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency to support the Agency in fulfilling its responsibilities under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012.

Further up on the same page, there is a similar suggestion that money will be provided:

...$16.5 million over three years...to [support] the National Energy Board...to implement the interim approach.

That was announced earlier this year by the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and the Minister of Natural Resources.

What must not be lost in this discussion of environmental assessment is that the current state of Canadian environmental assessment law is unacceptable, full stop. It is a failure. It is a process that does not work. It does not examine all parts of the environment, nor does it allow the right agency to do the reviews.

Having the National Energy Board do environmental assessments at all is a departure from Canadian environmental law, it is a departure from the National Energy Board's area of expertise, and it is completely unworkable.

We need to go back and revisit the changes that were made in Bill C-38 and repair the Environmental Assessment Act for good, not based on interim measures being spread out for a further three to four years with funding to operate under interim measures to fix a broken process.

It would be far better for all concerned, including industry stakeholders. I was speaking the other day with the Mining Association of Canada leadership. They said they had never wanted the changes that happened in Bill C-38. They do not find the process better.

We need to fix the process, not fund a kind of Rube Goldberg device to try to make something unfixable slightly better.

Those are main concerns with the budget. I find that, although I like this budget a lot more than anything I have read in the last 10 years, I cannot vote for it, because of the continuation of fossil fuel subsidies and the continuation of funding a broken EA process.

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

Mr. Speaker, I just want to congratulate my friend from Saanich—Gulf Islands for an honest and passionate speech, as she always gives.

I wonder if she could talk a little about what changes she would want to see in order to support it. I am curious about her opinions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I feel as though this budget suffered from the fact that, when input went into Finance Canada to draft this, ministers were just beginning to establish their staff, just getting briefed up.

I am hoping that this is like a budget with training wheels, and the Minister of Finance will get it better next year.

This does not meet the expectations of proper funding for infrastructure. For instance, having announced $100 million for infrastructure in the first 10 years, only 10% of that funding is in the first five years.

We are talking about the need for economic stimulus. The Liberal government got elected on a pledge to use deficit spending to stimulate our economy and specifically to help infrastructure. It does not adequately help infrastructure. It is too little.

Let us hope that 2017 really addresses the infrastructure crisis and removes fossil fuel subsidies and commits to a revised environmental assessment act, one similar to what we had up until Bill C-38 in the spring of 2012.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands for her speech.

We nod our heads whenever someone talks about environmental issues. She is right about how so many issues have been put off. I am sure she is very aware of the burden of being so few in number and, as a result, seeing governments ignore so many of the measures they could include in an omnibus bill.

Would my colleague like to comment on the fact that the Liberal Party was elected for its bold promises? I like her image of training wheels that a young cyclist uses when learning to ride a bike and the fact that this does not meet people's expectations, including those of the party's own backbenchers, the MPs who are not in cabinet.

That is what is kind of sad about an omnibus bill, is it not? The fact that it silences everyone, not just opposition members, but also anyone whose opinion differs from that of cabinet ministers.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert for his question.

I think that this budget implementation bill really is an omnibus bill. However, it is not at all like the omnibus budget bills introduced by the previous government. At least this bill does not contain changes to laws that have nothing to do with the budget, as was the case with omnibus Bill C-38 in the spring of 2012. It was really terrible and gutted certain laws meant to protect the environment.

I think the bill before us would be better if the government would examine certain projects, particularly the one that pertains to the Canadian Wheat Board. I would agree that it is an omnibus bill, but it is not all that terrible.

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise on behalf of my constituents in Saint-Boniface—Saint-Vital to speak to these important issues in the House.

It is a great honour to rise today on behalf of the citizens of Saint Boniface—Saint Vital who, on October 19, voted for change, change in leadership, in direction, and in priorities for our country. I am very happy to say that budget 2016 delivers on those promises of change.

As a former city councillor for many years, I am proud to say that this budget delivers on our commitment to rebuild our communities, both rural and urban, as well as rebuilding our cities.

Just this last weekend I had the pleasure to attend the Federation of Canadian Municipalities annual general meeting in Winnipeg, Canada. There, cities and municipalities from coast to coast to coast met in Winnipeg and they collectively sent the message that they had been sending for the last 20 years to little avail. That message is that cities are in desperate need of the most basic of infrastructure. Whether it is regional roads, residential streets, back lanes, sidewalks, bridges, community centres, libraries, pools, day cares, and more, all need the help and the investment of the federal government.

Let me give members a little real-time example. The City of Winnipeg currently spends $1 billion a year on infrastructure, above ground infrastructure only, and the heavy construction industry of Manitoba commissioned a study about six years ago that said that the City of Winnipeg should actually be spending an extra $300 million per year on above ground infrastructure, just to maintain the current infrastructure at its current level. That bears repeating. This would not actually improve our infrastructure; it would only maintain it to the level that it is currently at today. I daresay that cities cannot do this alone, and the time has never been better for federal investment into our infrastructure.

This weekend, I spoke to a councillor from the great ward of St. Boniface, Mathieu Allard. I also spoke with a councillor from Transcona, Mr. Russ Wyatt, who spoke about the absolute need of the federal government to partner with municipalities to construct transportation infrastructure on the east side of the city of Winnipeg, which is one of the fastest-growing segments of the entire city. Whether it is Woodvale-Lagimodiere, whether it is Marion Street, whether it is Archibald Street, the city is crying out for partnerships from the federal government to get the traffic moving on the east side of the city.

Those very same councillors spoke of the need for the federal government to also partner with Transcona on the Transcona outdoor pool project, as well as the Taché Boulevard walkway project in St. Boniface.

The councillor for St. Boniface spoke to me about the importance of the Tache Boulevard walkway project in front of the St. Boniface Cathedral. It is a wonderful project, one that is extremely important to the people of St. Boniface. It is supported not only by the City of St. Boniface, but also by the Winnipeg Foundation. The only thing missing is infrastructure funding from the federal government.

Both of these are very worthy projects that will be eligible under our green and our social infrastructure programs, which will be rolled out in the future.

I also spoke with a councillor from Point Douglas, Mike Pagtakhan, who emphasized the necessity for a new Arlington Street Bridge, which connects central Winnipeg to the north end of Winnipeg. I spoke to the councillor from Elmwood, Jason Schreyer, who advocated strongly for a new Louise Bridge, a piece of infrastructure that should have been renewed long ago but fell by the wayside because of a lack of funding by all levels of government.

I spoke to the councillor from Old Kildonan, Devi Sharma, who advocated on the merits of completing the ring road project called Chief Peguis Trail, which would link Main Street to the CentrePort project, an initiative not only important to alleviate traffic congestion in Winnipeg but also to enhance economic development opportunities at CentrePort Canada, Winnipeg's very own inland port located near the airport.

Winnipeg needs to catch up on its rapid transit obligations. The future of cities is closely connected to managing traffic, getting rid of gridlock, and getting traffic moving again, and nothing does that better than getting people out of their cars and getting them to use rapid transit. Winnipeg has ambitious plans for rapid transit and what it needs is a federal government that is equally interested.

I am equally proud that our first slice of infrastructure spending will be on what is arguably the most important of all, our underground infrastructure: water systems and wastewater treatment systems.

People have to understand that for many years federal and provincial governments have been extremely reluctant to invest in our underground systems for a simple and cynical reason, because we do not often get to cut ribbons when pipe is placed underground. It is not a play structure that would be immediately utilized by hundreds of children in any park or schoolyard. It is not a bridge that would benefit thousands of citizens as they commute back and forth. Nonetheless it is probably the most important of all because nothing is more important than clean water and a clean environment.

That is why I am proud that budget 2016 makes green infrastructure its first priority. It is filling a void that previous federal and provincial governments have created, because make no mistake about it, cities cannot do it by themselves and budget 2016 recognizes this.

We will also be giving families more money to help with the high cost of raising their children. We will be introducing a more generous, simplified, and tax-free Canada child benefit to give families more money to raise their children. Our Canada child benefit is geared to income. Those who need the help the most will receive the help, single- and low-income families. Our plan will raise 300,000 children out of poverty. This is an important measure that will give children a better opportunity at a brighter future. Families in Manitoba alone will receive $490 million more next year than the previous year. That is incredibly significant.

Another part of our plan is to raise the guaranteed income supplement for low-income seniors by 10%. This would give one million of our most vulnerable seniors, often women, almost $1,000 more per year.

The budget includes a $675-million investment in CBC/Radio-Canada, a national institution that is crucial to official language minority communities. In Saint Boniface, Radio-Canada Manitoba, which broadcasts on radio and television, is an important member of the Franco-Manitoban community that supports and promotes our culture.

The federal budget recognizes the contribution of cultural industries to the Canadian economy by committing $1.9 billion to arts and culture over five years. These investments will support major national institutions, protect both official languages, and support industries that showcase Canadian culture, including the Canada Council for the Arts, Telefilm Canada, and the National Film Board of Canada.

Recently a round table was held at the Barbara Mitchell Family Resource Centre. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and I met with community organizations to discuss poverty and housing issues. Stakeholders discussed the urgent need for affordable housing and that such housing needs to be part of a larger community plan in mixed neighbourhoods, creating an ecosystem of community housing that supports people through training programs and other services.

Budget 2016 proposes to double the current federal funding under the investment in affordable housing initiative, create an affordable rental housing initiative fund to test innovative business approaches, such as housing models with a mix of rental and home ownership, and invest in renovations to existing social housing.

Budget 2016 will lift 300,000 children out of poverty. It will offer nine million Canadians a middle-income tax cut, which I really have not spoken of today. It will improve the living conditions of one million seniors through a 10% increase in the guaranteed income supplement. There is $8.4 billion of new funding for indigenous infrastructure and education, $2 billion for arts and culture over five years, and Canada's largest-ever infrastructure program is being introduced in this budget. I am very proud to support this budget.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to hear the hon. member for Saint Boniface—Saint Vital underline the need to replace the Louise Bridge in his speech. It is indeed a project long overdue.

One of the connected projects and an important infrastructure need that is adjacent to where the new Louise Bridge would go is the Columbus housing co-op. The riverbank around the co-op has been eroding and is now actually quite close to the housing complex and risks the housing on that land. It is City of Winnipeg land.

I am wondering if the member and his government would agree with me that federal infrastructure money should be able to be applied to riverbank reinforcement projects, especially when doing so could help save housing in Winnipeg.

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I did have the opportunity to also speak to the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona about the Louise Bridge earlier in the year and I know he is a big proponent for that, as is the councillor for Elmwood, I believe.

Having been a councillor for many years, I understand the problem is that there are simply too many priorities and not enough funding resources at the city to take care of all the priorities. That is why it is so very important for the federal government to make good on its infrastructure commitments. We have introduced the largest infrastructure program ever, $120 billion over the course of 10 years.

Certainly I know a huge liability in the city of Winnipeg is riverbank protection and I believe that we would be willing to sit down and discuss those options with our provincial government, as well as our municipal government, to see what is achievable and what can be done.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member from Saint-Boniface—Saint-Vital on his speech.

I would like him to know that one of his predecessors, Ronald J. Duhamel, profoundly influenced my political career at a very early age.

Could my colleague elaborate a little on the impact of the measures on infrastructure and youth in his riding? How will they help his community?

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB]

As I have mentioned before, Mr. Speaker, Saint Boniface and the whole of Winnipeg have serious infrastructure problems.

As a former city councillor for several years, I know that several projects are in greater need of assistance than money. The government of Canada must work hand in hand with the City of Winnipeg and provincial authorities on all sorts of projects, from roads to alleys, and bridges to bicycle paths. That is how we will create jobs.

I want to make sure that, as we create jobs to restore our infrastructure, we hire young people from the community so they may gain experience and put food on the table.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I also want to ask him about the definition of middle class, which the government has yet to clarify.

The government refuses to say what it considers to be the middle class, for the purposes of the so-called tax cut for the middle class. Some of my colleagues already mentioned that someone would have to earn $23 an hour and work full time in order to be eligible for a tax cut under the Liberals' tax plan. Could the member at least tell us what he considers to be the middle class? If someone earns $21 an hour and works full time, would they be in the middle class?

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB]

Mr. Speaker, what is very clear is that, if a Canadian earns between $44,000 and $90,000 a year, he or she will receive a property-tax cut. That is very clear and this measure will apply to more than nine million Canadians in our great country. This will be a real benefit to nine million Canadians.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be here with all members of Parliament.

It is an honour for me to rise on behalf of the citizens of Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola.

Today I will focus on Bill C-15.

The title of the bill is an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures.

There are a number of items in the bill. Again, previous members have pointed out that the budget implementation act, like most budget implementation acts, tries to amend multiple different bills, and there are 35 different pieces of legislation in the bill.

I would first like to thank the government for hosting a technical briefing that went through each section. I also want to thank the government for ensuring it was not in a small hot room, as it has been in previous years. Those technical briefings are very important when we talk about larger pieces of legislation.

I will be critiquing the legislation and speaking directly to items that are in it. Hopefully, on the particular argument I will be making today, the government will have the ears to listen and consider some of the things this member of Parliament has to say on behalf of his constituents.

I would first like to start with the bail-in legislation.

Division 5 of part 4 amends the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act to, among other things, broaden the corporation's powers to temporarily control or own a domestic systemically important bank and to convert certain shares and liabilities of such a bank into common shares.

It also amends the Bank Act to allow the designation of domestic systemically important banks by the Superintendent of Financial Institutions and to require such banks to maintain a minimum capacity to absorb losses.

Specifically on the bail-in legislation, the idea arose in Pittsburgh as part of the G7 discussions on how best for us to tackle the issue of failing banks. In 2007-08, Canada was very fortunate that all of our banks were sufficiently stable. Our country should be very proud of that. However, we have heard that things can always be made better, and I am a big believer in that. The prime minister of the day had suggested that we look at bail-in legislation.

One of the things I have been fortunate to learn in the finance committee, through the officials who were there and through the technical briefing the government gave, is there are some unintended consequences. Although it has been thought of, and this was confirmed by government officials, it has not been thought of in the legislation. New instruments will be sold in secondary markets. What that means is some people will hold short or long positions on the viability of our banks. The question is whether they are bailed-in or not.

This happens all the time. These kinds of instruments are traded by very sophisticated people, and that is par for the course. However, on the same token, more and more Canadians are heavily invested, whether through mutual funds or pension funds, because the stock market offers a better rate of return oftentimes, given our considerably low interest rates. Obviously, the more money there is in the stock market, whether through mutual funds, RRSPs, tax-free savings accounts, etc., the more risk there can be.

The government has time and again, and quite rightly, said that depositors should not worry if there is an issue with a bail-in, and I would like to reaffirm that. However, because more and more people are going to be trading these new instruments, shorting and taking long positions, and because more people, and particularly pension funds, are investing in them, it is important for the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions to start publicly tabling the stress tests. The reason for that is simple. We understand there will be these actions in the secondary market. We understand that people and pension funds, which are a larger part of that capital asset allocation, should be able to have that information. It should be transparent. I believe if the government looks at it, it would find that would work.

I would also like to speak about section 9.

Division 9 of part 4 amends the Old Age Security Act to increase the single rate of the guaranteed income supplement for the lowest-income pensioners by up to $947 annually and to repeal section 2.2 of that act, which increases the age of eligibility to receive a benefit.

The reason I would like to talk about those two things is, as a Conservative, I believe there is a direction the government is going in. I also like to say from time to time that good politics is a destination, but good policy often, though, is a direction. While the government campaigned on a promise to restore old age security eligibility from 67 to 65, it was good politics and, therefore, a destination. I do not believe it is good policy for our country.

The reason I say this is that in the last Parliament, there was much ado about a parliamentary budget office report, when the parliamentary budget officer said that with the changes the previous government had made to the health accord, instead of continuing on a 6% escalator until forever, it was affordable for not bumping old age security up to 67. The Liberal government has reversed that, so in 2023 or 2029, when it was originally to take place, that will not happen. People will continue to be eligible at age 65. Contrary to what other countries, such as Japan and the United States, are doing, eventually we are going to have to tackle our demographics.

Previous prime ministers, such as Mulroney, Chrétien, and Martin, all put forward ideas on how to address the coming demographics, particularly vis-à-vis old age security. The previous government took action in a way that allowed people to change their behaviours over a period of time. That will be reversed in this budget implementation act, and that is the wrong place to go. We want people thinking about saving. No one likes the idea of having to work longer, but we are living longer, so there should be some adjustment.

On the topic of the guaranteed income supplement, I am not a big fan of deficits. In fact, will be voting against budgets like this, but I will give some credit. Helping those who are most in need, particularly widowed female seniors, will be a big help. It may undercut the finance minister's discussion on enhancing the CPP, because people in that area, the academic reports had shown, were the most at risk. That undercuts the need to make further reforms, at least on that premise.

Lastly, in the budget document there was some talk about credit unions, particularly when it came to international FATCA rules. FATCA was a big issue in the last Parliament. However, more or less, Canadian institutions, all shapes and sizes, have been able to follow up with it. Now the government is talking with other governments about offshore tax evasion, bringing international FATCA regulations, a different regime, to Canada, whether a small institution has sufficient foreign nationals investing their money and a large percentage is not.

I am afraid we will end up with an administratively burdensome system, one that does not actually reflect the needs. There is a very small credit union in Summerland. It has a very small staff and is compliant in all things, but a proper risk assessment should be taken when we talk about these international FATCA rules.

I hope the government reflects upon some of my criticisms and, hopefully, in future legislation, some of my concerns will be dealt with. With regard to things like old age security, we all want a great system, where people can retire with dignity, but we have to ensure it is sustainable for the long term.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola on his speech and on his efforts to speak French. I commend him for that.

My colleague spoke of the political implications of increasing the retirement age from 65 to 67 and of bringing it back to 65. Yesterday, one of his colleagues told me that, if we keep the age of retirement at 67, the provinces will take care of our seniors from the time they are 65 until they turn 67. If you ask me, this is just another way to download costs onto the provinces. I believe it is very important to keep the retirement age at 65, protect our seniors, and prevent them from slipping into poverty.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we cannot run away from our demographics. I appreciate the seriousness of the question. This is actually unfolding the way a debate should; we are talking about important issues.

When it comes to our demographics, we are living longer and living healthier. We should celebrate that fact. However, we should also be making sure that our government institutions are moving in lockstep with that. Many advanced countries, such as Japan and the United States, have already tackled this issue. In some cases, they have actually pegged it so that when the average lifespan increases, so does the retirement age. If the current government does not like the form of the change that was proposed by the previous government, I hope the member opposite will say that he believes that we also need to tackle these demographics, especially given low growth and low interest rates. We have to be able to show that we can move with the times and make sure that all seniors, whether current seniors or seniors 50 years or 100 years from now, can retire with dignity.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

I thank my colleague for his speech, Mr. Speaker.

Despite having closely followed the debates in the House these last two days, I have not heard a single, clear answer as to why the Liberals broke their campaign promise to lower taxes for small and medium-sized businesses.

Has my colleague heard a satisfactory answer or does he believe the government simply backed out hoping no one would notice?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the government has clearly made it a non-priority. That speaks volumes. It does not matter what other members have to say about it. The government's non-action speaks louder. I would simply suggest that the government does not feel that the lowering of that tax rate from 11% to 8% that was promised by all parties needs to be honoured. I am not sure if it feels that this constituency is doing well enough or if it does not believe that it should follow up on its promises, but governing involves making decisions, and the Liberals have made theirs.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like get back to old age security, to which the member devoted much of his speech.

I have not heard my colleague mention a single study showing that the Canada pension plan would be in trouble if we did not raise the age of eligibility for OAS. By contrast, several studies have shown that keeping the retirement age at 65 would not jeopardize the CPP.

I would like my colleague to identify at least one study showing that the government had an obligation to raise the age of eligibility to old age security in order for the system to be sustainable.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was not sure if the member was speaking specifically to the Canada pension plan or old age security. What I will say, and what I did mention in my speech, is that the parliamentary budget officer put out a statement saying that the changes to the health accord allow for the age of retirement to stay at 65 on a long-term basis. Stephen Gordon, who is a professor at Laval University, did a blog post on that particular subject and found that if the parliamentary budget officer's assumptions were off by 0.01%, so we are talking about less than 1%, then the whole rationale would be off.

Now the Liberals are speaking about a new health accord, which increases costs. They are talking about bringing old age security back to its original age. On top of that, we see things like wildfires in Alberta and flooding in Alberta, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan, and so forth. These unforeseen events have a real cost for the government. Obviously, the federal government is the only government agency that is able to span those losses and come to the table to help those provinces. It is a delicate balance when we are talking about these razor thin margins. I think the government is playing too loose a game.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, Health; the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, Railway Transportation; the hon. member for Vancouver East, Transport.

[Deb Schulte, Liberal, King—Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to talk about the federal budget 2016.

This being my first speech in the House, I would like to begin by thanking the wonderful people of King—Vaughan for placing their trust in me. Serving as their representative is an honour, one I take very seriously. I also want to thank my supporters, who worked so hard through my nomination and the long election campaign. It was during this campaign that I came to fully appreciate the challenges and opportunities across my large and diverse new riding. Finally, I need to publicly thank my family members for their support, patience, and understanding. They have made this challenging transition to life in two locations manageable. As everyone ever elected to this House knows, the unsung heroes of parliamentary life are our families, who shoulder additional burdens maintaining a home and family while we immerse ourselves in becoming effective representatives.

From my seat in the far corner, in a spot where I look out upon everyone in this chamber, a new MP cannot help but quickly gain perspective, perspective on the formidable but resolvable challenges facing the country, perspective on the impressive talents and breadth of experience members from all parties bring to the national debate. Let us not forget that our time here is brief. Serious issues are confronting Canadians. Let us be bold enough, wise enough, and selfless enough to do what is right rather than what appears to be politically opportune.

With that perspective, I want to use my maiden speech to reflect upon the government's budget as it relates to my constituents, the diverse, compassionate, and hard-working people of King—Vaughan. Succinctly, this budget is about people. It is a transformative plan for investments in our families, communities, and Canada.

My riding is both urban and rural. In the south, there is a rapidly growing suburb transitioning to a more urban context. The northern portion has small towns in an agricultural setting. However, some of those small towns are now transitioning to a suburban context. It is a multi-ethnic mix, and overall, it has been a story of success, with native-born Canadians and immigrants together striving for and achieving prosperity and security and growing desirable communities.

Overshadowing the success stories, however, is a looming challenge. Housing affordability has become precarious, especially for young families and seniors. Without solid economic growth bringing high-quality jobs and good rates of return on investments, many will have trouble meeting the high cost of home ownership in my riding in the years to come.

During the campaign, when I knocked on doors, parents told me that they need more money in their pockets. Seniors told me that they could not keep up with the rising cost of living in their homes. They wanted to stay in their homes but were worried that the money was not going to last. Youth told me that rising university and college costs were making it difficult to invest in their futures, and the lack of good-paying jobs made it difficult to pay off their student debt. Everywhere in King and Vaughan, people were concerned about the congestion on the roads and the lack of accessible transit options.

However, I believe that the government's priorities will help address my constituents' concerns, both in the near and long term. This budget builds on our campaign promises. We promised to strengthen the middle class. When we have a strong middle class contributing to our economy and communities, everyone benefits. With our tax cut, we will put money back into the pockets of middle-class Canadians. It is well understood that the majority of those benefiting will spend it right back in their communities, supporting local businesses and their families, fuelling growth.

With the new Canada child benefit, nine out of ten families will get more help than they do under existing programs, and that benefit will be tax-free. This program is the most significant social policy innovation in a generation and will lift hundreds of thousands of kids out of poverty.

As important as those tax cuts and the new child benefit will be for my riding, ensuring future prosperity and quality of life will largely depend on wise public infrastructure investments in roads, transit, housing, water and waste water services, and communications. It is the smart thing to do, and it is a two-birds-with-one-stone initiative. Good middle-class jobs, necessary to support a family, will flow as major projects move forward. These improved services will further attract employers and more investment.

However, this is not just spending to create jobs. This spending is long overdue. Woefully inadequate infrastructure in my riding already hampers economic activity and decreases quality of life. Ask any of my constituents about traffic congestion and one will get an earful, and rightly so.

Before becoming a member of Parliament, I was a regional councillor in the City of Vaughan and York Region. I was well aware of how important it was for York Region to have strong representatives and a good partnerships with both provincial and federal governments to help invest in infrastructure solutions. We asked the federal government to be a true partner, invest a third, and lift restrictions that did not work in the best interests of municipalities.

I am delighted to see the government listening to the needs of municipalities and committing to invest as an equal partner and lift the P3 restriction. I am now privileged to be one of those strong voices in Ottawa, and I am pleased to see funding being committed for important transformative projects, not just in my riding but across the country.

Helping to protect the local environment first drew me to becoming involved in public affairs. I am honoured to be the chair of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development and have the opportunity to work with experienced and knowledgeable colleagues as we transition towards a more sustainable, clean, and green economy while protecting our environment and our health.

Those of us living in quickly growing suburban communities, areas that are facing pressure to expand and consume ever more farm land, areas where everyday life often seems centred around our automobiles, have a particular challenge in helping Canada get on with the transition to a more sustainable future. When we envision a sustainable future and plan for that future, and take concrete steps to make it happen, we reduce the economic burden our grandchildren will have to bear.

The good news is that people within my community will benefit at every turn from this transition. When we move to new, innovative forms of energy, high-skilled jobs will come. When we build efficient transportation mechanisms, we will get cars off the road and shorten commute times, benefiting everyone trying to get home to see their kids' soccer games or to just spend more quality time at home with family and friends.

When the government puts forward its new innovation agenda, which will outline a new vision for Canada's economy as a centre of global innovation, King—Vaughan will be ready to take advantage of these opportunities, and it has the workforce ready to play its part. All that makes sense in King—Vaughan, a region dedicated to providing good opportunities and a good quality of life for current and future generations.

Canada's future depends on ensuring that our children get the education and skills necessary for their success. However, post-secondary education is becoming increasingly expensive. The government recognizes that it must do its part to make post-secondary education more accessible. I am very proud of the program so far to help our youth, and I look forward to more in the future.

At the opposite end of the age spectrum, too many Canadians find it impossible to save enough before reaching retirement age. Too many of our seniors live in poverty, particularly our single seniors. The minister is committed to working with his provincial and territorial counterparts to enhance the Canada pension plan before the end of the year, which will go a long way to improving the future for seniors.

In this budget, the government is increasing the guaranteed income supplement for single seniors, and this will improve the financial security of about 900,000 of our most vulnerable single seniors in Canada. We will see investments in social infrastructure funding for seniors housing and affordable housing.

I want to touch on what the government has committed to for small business.

Budget 2016 supports Canada's innovators and entrepreneurs. It gives them the help they need to access expertise, identify new markets, and scale up for future growth.

Small businesses are the backbone of my riding. What I have heard from small business owners is that they need customers with money in their pockets. This is what will drive our economy. The middle-class tax cut and the Canada child benefit will do just that. It will ultimately put more money in the hands of small business.

If members spend any time at all in King—Vaughan, they will see that people from right across the world have settled there. It is as microcosm of Canada. My constituents come from just about every country and speak about 100 different languages. We obviously have many different backgrounds, but we share this in common: we came to Canada at some time in our family history for peace and opportunity.

The riding demonstrates what I think is one of the fundamental truths about our country: we are stronger because of our diversity. The diversity King—Vaughan offers Canada is also offered to the rest of the world. My constituents have the requisite contacts, language skills, business interests, religious associations, and most of all, desire to weigh in and contribute.

The government's action in seeking to address past wrongs and current shortcomings with our first nations communities, working in equal partnership with them, is perhaps the most crucial step in celebrating and maximizing the potential Canada's diversity brings in growing our economy.

Like all members of this House, I am extremely proud of my community. Some members will know of our attractions: Canada's Wonderland, the Canadian McMichael Art Collection, and the villages of Schomberg and Kleinburg. However, I am especially proud of our people. I am not sure if there is a more generous community in Canada. I cannot keep up with all the fundraising and volunteering efforts going on every week.

I will conclude by reiterating that I am proud of this budget and believe that it is an important step in putting Canada on a path to a bright and sustainable future. We have seized the opportunity to invest in our people, offered immediate help to those who need it most, and invested in future growth that will benefit all Canadians.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this is a question I have asked before in the House to members of the government and members of the government caucus, as well.

In the budget implementation act and the budget document, in annex 1, on page 240, when we look at the child benefit program and the total amount the government will spend on this over the timeline presented in the budget, the numbers actually begin to go down after fiscal year 2017-18 and drop every single year until 2020-21. I would like to hear from the member an explanation for why that is.

Is it because the government intends not to adjust for inflation? Does it intend to lower the benefit, or does it simply believe that Canadian families will be making a higher income and therefore will not qualify for the child benefit program being proposed in the budget?

I would like to hear the member's explanation for these numbers.

[Deb Schulte, Liberal, King—Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as members know, we are are trying to consolidate quite a few programs that have been available, and it is a very disparate, disjointed support network for families. We are trying to put them all in one, make it more simplified, and make it tax-free, because that is another challenge that I found, especially, when I was out campaigning. The previous government ended up providing the benefit and then taxing it back. Many families, when they were ready to do their taxes at the end of the year, were surprised to find they had to find money that they did not have.

We are trying to simplify it. I think part of the process is looking at how we will go forward and make sure that we simplify all the initiatives that are there to support families.