Debates of June 7th, 2016

Questions on the Order Paper

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed from June 6 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 amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this time on the budget implementation bill. I always call budget implementation the time when the tires hit the road, when we hit the pavement and decide what it we will implement over the next little while. In some cases our budget implementation bill will undo some of the things we did not agree with in the last administration and it will put forward what we put into our election platform. These are details by which we debate.

I would like to highlight a number of things. A lot of this has to do with my riding and by extension my province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I want to focus on two themes from the budget. A lot of it has to do with the individuals who I feel need a hand-up from the government, who need some help from the government to get by, through no fault of their own. It is one of the reasons why I ran for politics. It is one of the main reasons it has sustained me for the past 12 years. It gets me up in the morning and gets me to work every day. I feel that all 338 of us make a difference in our own sort of way, not just for our ridings but also in general, to further the dialogue of our country and enact elements of that dialogue into legislation.

The two themes I want to talk about are smart investments and a sense of fairness.

Smart investments come from the conversations we have had with people over the past couple of years. I remember when we were the smaller party in the House. There was a lot of discussion. There were good ideas from all parties at that time and there were great debates. I do not want to dwell on what happened in the last session too much, but I will dwell upon some of the things we looked at to create fairness within the taxation system. That is what we are talking about here.

As for fairness for the middle class, I know in many cases a lot of the tax credits we talked about earlier may seem like a wonderful thing by the day's end, things like the credits that the former government put in place. Some of them were for good reasons. They were good for fitness, for books and for many other things. However, we looked at all the credits and decided we needed to invest in the middle class. All of these could be encapsulated into fairness so we could invest in our middle class and so people could provide for their families. In turn, we could help create employment as a result of that.

Let me go back to my origin, to Newfoundland and Labrador. One of the best things we can invest in are the skills for people. Back in the early 1990s, when the cod moratorium was in place, one of the biggest lay-offs in the history of Newfoundland and Labrador occurred. Thousands upon thousands of communities were affected by the shutdown of the major fishery. The government of the day, under former prime minister Jean Chrétien, decided it would invest in people by allowing them to re-educate themselves, retool themselves for something down the road. It took a while to do that, but it got done in several ways.

First and foremost, we talk about seafood as being a great export. We talk about our minerals and mines as a great export. However, one of our greatest exports that we have right now in our neck of the woods is skilled trades. My constituents travel the world: Norway, North Africa, eastern Russia, the Middle East; and even in our country into Alberta, Saskatchewan, and British Columbia. Many of our people travel away for a period of time, return, and live in my province, in my riding and throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. Yet they find themselves going around the world making a living. The investments we made many years ago allowed that to happen. We were able to build the capacity by which we could educate people and by the same token we could create a post-secondary institution that was nimble and therefore able to adapt to the skills market it required. To dovetail that, we have cut taxes for the middle class. As a result of that, we also believe in the investment in the people and the structures by which they live.

One of the best things I found about this budget was that it would benefit the smallest of communities. There are about 140 communities in my riding and each of these communities is now able to invest in infrastructure in a way they could never before. How they do that is by allowing the flexibility within the system so they can invest with other levels of government, with provincial governments and the federal government.

We now can make substantial investments in community infrastructure regarding recreation, heritage, tourism, culture. Beyond the industries I mentioned earlier, we also have a burgeoning tourism market throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. Many have seen the commercials. They are enticing a lot of people to my area, but if there is nothing there for them, then it becomes very difficult to provide services and to create long-term employment as a result.

I also want to talk about some of the specifics when it comes to seasonal work, which is a big element for central Newfoundland in particular. Division 12 of part 4 of the bill would increase, until July 8, 2017, the maximum number of weeks for which benefits may be paid to certain claimants in certain regions, and my region is one of those. It certainly would benefit in a great way.

It would eliminate the category of claimants who are new entrants and re-entrants, so it would not perplex people who are new entrants into the EI system to acquire the hours to get into the system for the first time. Before, it was rather unfair. Double the amount of hours were required for people getting into the system for the first time. Therefore, we are scaling it back to what everyone else has to do.

It would reduce to one week the length of the waiting period during which claimants would not be entitled to benefits. It is not just about the one week; it is also about processing. In some cases, some people who apply for employment insurance have to wait not one to three weeks, but six weeks to receive that first cheque. That is two or three weeks beyond the late mortgage payment or the late payment for utilities. That certainly becomes onerous. Therefore, we are going to do that, plus we are going to enhance the system by which processing takes place in the public service.

Budget 2016 certainly takes an essential step to grow the middle class. It puts people first and delivers the help Canadians need now, not in a decade from now. In the last session of Parliament, the emphasis was on the investment that was on the back end, as some people like to call it, meaning the latter part of the span got most of that money. We felt that investment had to be done now in many cases, certainly for Newfoundland and Labrador. In my particular situation, that had to be done soon.

One of the examples I can use is that soon there will be harder regulations regarding waste water, for environmental reasons and for all the right reasons. In 2020, we are looking at some very onerous regulations for the smallest of communities, not just the largest cities. As a result, we have to help bring these communities up to a standard by which they can satisfy those regulations. That is very important to us and to Newfoundland and Labrador.

I want to turn to the main text of the budget for a moment, because there are several areas I would like to touch upon. I mentioned small town recreation. Page 102 talks about investing in cultural and recreational infrastructure. Some of the best investments we have made are in things like playgrounds and ball fields. Recreational areas create jobs, yes, but more important, they allow communities to invest in themselves, and we want to be a part of that.

Our 150-year celebration is just around the corner and the local and regional economic development agency, more commonly known as ACOA, or Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, provides an essential service for the smallest of communities. It tells communities that the Government of Canada believes in them and will be there. That is why I love this budget. I will vote for it, and I hope all members do.

Rural broadband is absolutely an essential service. When I first arrived in the House, Internet capability was something for those who could afford it. Now it has become absolutely essential. Building a road to reach a community now is as essential as the reach of broadband Internet as well.

I believe in tourism and investments in it.

Finally, I want to talk about the Manolis L, and the $6 million to come up with an assessment. It is a sunken ship off the coast of my riding. It had to be addressed, and was addressed in this budget.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about what the Liberals would implement with this budget. What are they implementing with the huge deficit they have budgeted for, with no plans to balance the budget? These are serious things to implement upon the Canadian public.

What is more concerning to me is on page 235 of this year's budget. It is the GST revenue projections. If we take note of these numbers, the GST revenue is projected to rise by 21% over the next five years. The government is certainly not predicting, nor are any of the economic indicators suggesting, that our economic growth is going to grow by anywhere near 21%.

I am concerned the government is planning to implement a GST increase. Is that the case?

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's enthusiasm. During the campaign, there was never a commitment to talk about the GST or to increase it. I do not think—

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

I'm not talking about the campaign.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

I am sorry if my answer is interrupting his heckling, Mr. Speaker, but I will try to keep going.

These are projections based on the economic growth. I mentioned the investment in our communities, and how that would benefit us. I certainly believe the projections are there. Our debt-to-GDP ratio allows us to eliminate this deficit a few years from now.

I would like to remind the member that this is nothing new. The idea of injecting money, investing in the economy, and investing for the sake of a stimulus measure is not new. Being in a deficit situation for a period of time was also talked about by the former finance minister, Hon. Jim Flaherty, God rest his soul. He said the same thing.

When the other side says that this is a rather wasteful way of spending, that is not what they used to say, as we get into a hashtag disingenuous conversation.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when I go door to door in Trois-Rivières, there is one question I am dying to ask every person I see. I want to know whether they are satisfied with the tax cuts. Most times, people ask me what tax cut I am talking about.

There is a big difference between the definition of middle class that I had in my mind and what we see in the budget.

The median salary in Quebec is around $31,500 a year. As we all know, everyone who earns $45,000 and under will not receive a tax cut.

Is my colleague truly proud of a budget in which the middle class, or those striving to join it, do not have access to the tax cuts? Is he proud of a measure that is supposed to be revenue neutral but that will actually cost hundreds of millions of dollars?

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I have been in the House 12 years. I do not often get to hear the NDP members advocate for tax cuts, but nevertheless I will address it.

We are looking at the tax cut for the middle class, but we are also investing, the child tax benefit being a big factor of that. That is what a lot of people have asked for, and that is what we are delivering.

I know both parties are on us about this idea of spending. We call it investment for all the right reasons. If members have been here as I long as I have, they would realize that these investments are crucial for all communities, including Trois-Rivières and the other communities he has mentioned.

I would suggest the member hang on and look at how these investments will benefit his riding, and maybe he will take credit for it. They are solid investments in the middle class, such as the child tax benefit for those raising families. This is what it is about. The tax cut is there to help them. Compared to what has been done, it is a substantial tax cut.

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share my thoughts on Bill C-15, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures.

I was the regional manager for the ministry of environment back in my riding of Kootenay—Columbia. In total, I spent 32½ years with provincial governments in British Columbia and Manitoba, working with provincial budgets. I was also mayor of the City of Cranbrook for three years and responsible for municipal government budgets.

As anyone who has worked for government at the federal, provincial, or municipal level will know, governments always have money. This will not be news to anyone who pays taxes, which pretty much includes all of us except, perhaps, for the very wealthy putting money away into tax havens.

Since governments always have money, it always comes down to priorities and how government chooses to spend our money. While this budget does some things right it, unfortunately, falls short in a number of very important areas. Let us start with the good news: what this budget does right.

The bill contains some positive measures that were led and/or supported by the NDP, as follows: restoring the tax credit for labour-sponsored funds, adding feminine hygiene products to the list of zero-rated products for taxation purposes, raising the guaranteed income supplement for single seniors, and repealing the legislation to raise the age of retirement from 65 to 67 years of age.

I have also heard from my constituents that they were pleased to see the increase in Canada student grant amounts by 50%, to a maximum of $3,000 per year for low-income families and ensuring that no student will have to repay their Canada student loan until they are earning at least $25,000 a year.

At the same time, they are not happy with Liberal cuts that eliminated the education tax credit and the textbook tax credit. For students, with one hand, the Liberals giveth and, with the other hand, they take away.

This is also true for the Liberals' Canada child benefit. While families will benefit with an increase in child benefit, the government is eliminating two very important tax credits, the children's fitness tax benefit and the children's arts tax credits. Both of these were important for helping to build physically healthy kids and to encourage our young artists. They will be sadly missed.

While the tourism industry will benefit with the provision of $50 million over two years, dedicated to Destination Canada for marketing initiatives, the rest of small businesses have been betrayed by the Liberal government. During the 2015 election, I participated in 12 community debates throughout Kootenay—Columbia. At every debate, the Liberals said, as did I, representing the NDP, that if we were elected, we would decrease small businesses taxes from 10.5% to 9%. This was not a “We will consider”, or “We will consult with Canadians” election promise. This was black and white. My Liberal colleague promised that if they were elected, they would reduce business taxes to 9%.

What happened to the Liberal mantra, “That's what we told Canadians we'd do and that is what we will do” on this one?

As I said, there were some good things in the budget, but I have to say that after 10 years of Conservative cutbacks that hurt so many aspects of our lives in Canada, it is not hard for any government that followed to look at least sort of good to Canadians. This is especially true if we do not mind spending an additional $30 billion a year over and above the revenue that we are taking in; $30 billion a year in added debt that will fall to our children and grandchildren to pay back. This is a concern I hear over and over again from my constituents.

I even heard it from school kids at the Kootenay Christian Academy in Cranbrook and the Crawford Bay School in Crawford Bay. They both asked the same question, “How will we ever pay back almost $700 billion in debt?”

I have to say I did not have a good answer for them, other than to say, “Perhaps we should be learning from countries like Norway, where its federal government petroleum fund has $500 billion in surplus money, and is expected to grow to $1 trillion by 2020.” Being half Norwegian, I have to say that is a rainy day fund and a budget process to aspire to and be proud of.

What do my constituents say they find most disappointing about the Liberal government? How much time do I have left? Possibly not enough time, but let me get started.

We are feeling left out in Kootenay—Columbia when it comes to employment insurance. The Liberal government's regionally based enhancements to employment insurance do nothing for my constituents, even though a number of them worked in the oil and gas industry in Fort McMurray. This discriminatory approach to EI must end and be replaced by a universal 360-hour eligibility threshold, and extended benefits should apply to all Canadians.

Too many seniors in my riding live in poverty. Seniors should not have to choose between food and prescription drugs. The government needs to keep its promise to immediately enhance the CPP and the QPP. Our seniors helped to build this great country of ours, and they deserve to be treated better.

On taxation, my constituents believe in tax fairness, which means that the Liberal tax cuts should have included Canadians who make from $20,000 to $45,000. It also means that the richest people in Canada should pay their fair share, which means closing tax loopholes, including offshore tax havens, and punishing tax cheats even if they are wealthy tax cheats.

Infrastructure funding is a major concern. Municipalities in rural areas of Canada expect to get their fair share of infrastructure dollars. As a former mayor of Cranbrook, a city with just under 20,000 residents, keeping up with replacing 50-year-old sewer and water pipes, and fixing failing roads was a constant challenge.

Many Canadians do not realize that for every dollar collected in taxes, 50¢ goes to the federal government, 42¢ to provincial governments, and 8¢ goes to municipalities. Meanwhile, municipalities are responsible for almost 70% of all infrastructure in Canada. While it is heartening to see additional money for infrastructure in this 2016-17 budget, we have yet to see when or how that money will be rolled out.

I can tell members that in 2014, the former Conservative government announced, with great fanfare, its build Canada fund. The reality is that virtually no money made it to municipalities in my region of British Columbia that year. My Conservative member of Parliament at the time put the blame on the B.C. Liberal government for dragging its feet on getting the program under way.

The approach to funding in infrastructure at that time was a one-third, one-third, one-third split, with each level of government having to come up with its share. I can tell members that it is extremely difficult for small rural communities to come up with their one-third. One cannot even get into the game without having the one-third, and having shelf-ready plans in place. Many small municipalities have a very difficult time having staff or contract money to even create shelf-ready plans.

Therefore, while it is good to see more money for infrastructure in the budget, in order for it to be effective, the government needs to ensure a number of things.

First, that there is money and a process in place to help small rural communities develop shelf-ready plans.

Second, the one-third, one-third, one-third funding formula needs to change. Based on the taxes collected, it would be more appropriate if the formula for infrastructure funding would be 10% municipalities, 40% provincial governments, and 50% federal government, and as much of the infrastructure as possible should go directly from the federal government to municipalities with an appropriate funding formula.

Third, the funding should be multi-year, with a minimum of four years to reflect the four-year term of a ruling party. This would give municipalities the opportunity to plan ahead.

High-speed Internet, sometimes called dark fibre, needs to be considered basic municipal infrastructure in the future, along with roads, sewer, water, and storm drains, and it should be eligible for annual infrastructure funding. My major dream is that aging infrastructure funding should come out of politics and just be a line item every year in the Infrastructure and Communities ministry's budget.

In conclusion, I would like to be able to support this 179-page omnibus-like bill, but it falls short of what my constituents in Kootenay—Columbia expected from the Liberal government, and I am unable to support it at report stage.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments on this particular budget and the debate we are having today.

I heard with great interest the discussion he mentioned about being with children and talking about the debt, and them questioning how we get out of so much debt. I hope he also took the opportunity to explain to them what taking on this debt could do for our country in terms of our ability to invest in infrastructure and get the economy moving again and getting things properly working.

He was very critical of the debt we are taking on, but at the same time, also made comments about the fact that we were not able to balance the budget. I am wondering if he could provide some input. Given the fact that the NDP had made a commitment to balancing the budget, how would he have worked with his party? What would he specifically have cut in order to balance the budget, while at the same time providing these tax breaks that he spoke about for small businesses? Can he give us some insight as to how he would cut the taxes for small businesses and balance the budget? What specifically would he have cut or promoted to cut to add up to the $30 billion?

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, our approach to the budget was to increase corporate taxes, to increase the amount of revenue coming in. That, of course, is another aspect that is missing from the budget and from our approach to Canada.

Increasing corporate taxes would bring in additional revenue. There was a bit of an expectation that corporations would do the right thing and reinvest the money that they saved on taxes in Canada. That has not happened and it was one of the things we really wanted to see happen.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I found it interesting that my colleague was comparing Canada and Norway, and the rainy day fund that Norway has.

I would just like to point out, Norway does not have equalization payments to the provinces. Being from Alberta, I know exactly the impact that has had on our province; $10 billion has left our province.

Is the hon. member saying we should eliminate equalization payments to the provinces? I am sure people in Alberta would have no problem with that.

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, equalization payments, of course, are part of Canada and have been for a long time. I am not suggesting that we get rid of equalization payments. I am suggesting that perhaps we take a different approach to how we deal with oil and gas revenues, similar to how they do it in Norway.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me add to that point. Where did Norway get the brilliant idea of setting aside royalties that were priced appropriately to the value of the resource, for the benefit of their public? They got it from Peter Lougheed, the former premier of Alberta whose brilliant idea was trashed by his successor, Ralph Klein.

It is not the money that would be in Alberta and Alberta would be awash in cash if only it was not for equalization payments. Alberta would have a heritage fund with money for its citizens if not for the policies of Ralph Klein, and equalization payments have nothing to do with it.

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely agree with the hon. member.

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

Mr. Speaker, stupid is as stupid does. The reality is, the leader of the Green Party and the member who just spoke clearly do not understand how equalization works.

If the member who just spoke says that we need to rethink equalization the way Norway does, that is nationalization of the energy that Norway has, and that is the difference.

Is the new position of the NDP nationalizing our natural resources like oil and gas?

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what I was agreeing with was that Alberta used to have a good, solid approach to having a heritage fund and having money in the bank, and that got squandered by governments that followed Mr. Lougheed. That is the point.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have many reasons to be proud of budget 2016.

First, I am proud of the process that led to this budget. Budget 2016 is the result of an extensive, inclusive consultation during which we heard from a wide range of Canadians in big and small communities across the country, and Sudbury was no exception.

In fact, Sudbury was one of the very first ridings to hold a pre-budget consultation. During our pre-budget town hall, we heard from individual business leaders; representatives of sectors as varied as mining, health care, and arts and culture; and concerned individual citizens. Each of them provided thoughtful, progressive, and insightful advice.

I would like to thank them all for their important contributions to the budget. These stakeholders, and thousands more like them across Canada, are at the heart of the budget. Budget 2016 puts people first.

I am originally from northern Ontario, and I can say unequivocally that budget 2016 is good for the people of the north. I grew up in a small community where the pulp and paper mill is still the biggest employer and a pillar of the local economy.

Today, I am proud to represent a northern city known the world over for its exceptional mining sector. Anyone who has worked in a mill or a mine knows the meaning and the value of a hard day's work.

They also know, and so does the government, that when local industries suffer, workers, their families, and entire communities suffer as well.

Over the past few years, too many hard-working Canadians have faced tough times. Northerners know that when times are hard, families and communities must stand together and help each other to overcome adversity.

When a business that has fed a family for generations disappears, when the mill, the mine, or the factory closes its doors, when people lose their jobs and have to swallow their pride and ask for help, the last thing they need is to get tangled in a web of bureaucracy that prevents them from getting the help that is essential for their families.

The budget eases that burden by improving employment insurance and extending benefits in a dozen regions that have been particularly hard hit, including my riding of Sudbury. It is an important measure that will help Canadians when they need it most.

I am delighted that the budget commits $150 million in new funding through regional economic development agencies, such as FedNor for northern Ontario, to renovate, expand, and improve existing community and cultural infrastructure.

Sudbury is home to 15 housing co-ops, and access to affordable housing is an ever-growing challenge in our community, as it is throughout the country. Budget 2016 includes $1.5 billion to improve access to safe, adequate, and affordable housing, including shelters for victims of violence. It also includes support for the construction of up to 4,000 new affordable housing rental units.

Throughout the country, close to 700,000 seniors' households face a housing availability challenge, and affordable options for seniors are extremely limited. That is why I am proud that budget 2016 commits more than $200 million to boost funds for the construction, repair, and adaptation of affordable housing for seniors. Our government will give Canadian seniors greater access to safe and affordable housing and a better quality of life.

I am also proud to see that budget 2016 makes significant investments to improve the quality of life of indigenous communities, including $1.2 billion for housing, early learning and child care, health, and cultural and recreational infrastructure on reserve. These are significant, meaningful investments and mark an important step toward improving the lives of those who have, all too often, been overlooked by previous governments.

We need to make sure that the economy works for everyone and to make sure that our tax system is fair for all Canadians. That is why, as one of its first actions, our government introduced a middle-class tax cut and raised taxes on the wealthiest 1% of Canadians. These changes give middle-class Canadians more money on their paycheques and increase the fairness of our tax system.

I am proud that budget 2016 will take action to prevent tax evasion at home and abroad. In particular, though they have been largely ignored over the past 10 years, this budget commits to tackling tax havens head on. As part of a coordinated multilateral effort, our government is acting to address international tax planning arrangements undertaken by multinational enterprises to inappropriately minimize their taxes. These efforts will also increase transparency through the automatic exchange of financial account information between various international tax authorities.

In order to crack down on tax evasion and tax avoidance, budget 2016 increases the Canada Revenue Agency's funding by $444 million and provides $351.6 million for the CRA to improve its ability to collect outstanding tax debts.

As a tax lawyer, I am well positioned to attest to the fact that these measures improve the fairness and integrity of our tax system and contribute to fiscal sustainability over the long term.

A few weeks ago, I joined the right hon. Prime Minister and my hon. colleague, the member for Nickel Belt, to announce a $27-million investment for the Maley Drive extension, a new road in Sudbury.

This kind of infrastructure investment, which responds to a priority identified by the municipality and involves support from all three levels of government, will create good jobs, make it easier for people and goods to get around, and contribute to economic growth for years.

I am very proud that our government is prioritizing investments like this one. I am also proud that one of the first of these infrastructure investments is for Sudbury.

It is a well-known fact that mining has been at the heart of Sudbury's economy for almost 130 years. Sudbury continues to be one of the largest integrated mining complexes in the world. However, Sudbury's economy is not just about pulling resources from the ground. It is one of the world's leading clusters of mining research and innovation.

Local businesses continue to find new ways to increase their global competitive edge while becoming safer, more cost-effective, and more environmentally sound. That is why I am particularly pleased that budget 2016 sets out a new vision for Canada to stand as a global leader in innovation. Expanding Canada's network of innovative, globally connected firms will drive clean economic growth and will help grow our middle class for years to come.

Sudburians know that investing in research and development is also imperative for sustaining long-term innovation, renewal, and growth. Budget 2016 will strengthen Canada's research excellence by investing in infrastructure and post-secondary institutions and by funding innovative research.

Sudbury is also an important cultural hub, and given the tremendous range of artists and arts and cultural organizations that contribute to the local economy and raise the quality of life in Sudbury and across Canada, I am truly proud to say that the budget is great for arts and culture.

Over the next five years, our government will invest over $1.9 billion to support this country's great cultural institutions, including the Canada Council for the Arts, Telefilm Canada, and the National Film Board of Canada.

These investments will have a positive impact on hundreds of communities across the country and will enable Canadian artists to continue making their mark as leading lights on the international scene.

I am also delighted that our government is investing an additional $675 million in CBC/Radio-Canada. This investment will ensure that both of our official languages are heard on public airwaves from coast to coast. The arts and culture community has been waiting for these investments for a decade. These investments will create jobs, strengthen the economy, and enable Canadian culture to shine here at home and around the world.

We have every reason to be proud of our Canadian creators, and these investments make it clear that we support the good work they are doing.

Budget 2016 is good for families, good for hard-working Canadians, good for businesses, good for innovators, and good for our cultural sector.

The budget is good for Sudbury and good for the north, and it will be good for Canada.

We are investing today to ensure a better, more prosperous future for our children.

This will be our legacy. It marks the way to a brighter and more hopeful future for all Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my Liberal colleague across the way a question specifically about veterans.

As he may know, Bill C-12 was on the Order Paper. It dealt with increasing compensation to veterans. That is something the NDP supports. The budget implementation bill would swallow Bill C-12 and incorporate it among the many different acts that would be changed by this giant omnibus legislation.

In light of the recent horrible news coverage the Liberals have been getting with respect to veterans, veterans groups have been tossing out words like “disgrace” and “shameful betrayal”. In light of those facts, why did the Liberal government not leave Bill C-12 alone so it could at least have gone to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs for further study? The committee would have heard from expert witnesses, and we could have debated things like increasing mental health support services and increasing support for veterans' spouses? Why was Bill C-12 swallowed up by this omnibus bill?

Why are veterans not getting the proper care and treatment they need?

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my grandfather was a veteran of World War II. One of the reasons I sought office was the treatment of veterans over the last few years.

It was clear in our election platform that we wanted to help veterans by refinancing and bringing back the Veterans Affairs offices across Canada. Reinvesting in veterans was a key section of our platform. That is something our Minister of Veterans Affairs is working hard toward, and I am proud to support him in that endeavour.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on what is one of the greatest initiatives in the budget, and that is the Canada child benefit program. My colleague is aware of the fact that we will be lifting literally thousands of children out of poverty in every region of our country. Years from now, we will reflect back on this budget, and that will be one of the issues that will really stand out, at least for me, and I am sure many people.

From the member's perspective, what does he believe is the most significant aspect of the budget for his constituents and himself personally?

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is so much in the budget we could talk about that would help my region in northern Ontario. The Canada child tax benefit is a very important one, as well as the significant investments in infrastructure. There is a huge infrastructure deficit in northern Ontario from years of cutting back by the previous government.

The budget goes such a long way. We are already starting to see the fruits of the budget in investments. Those are long term. They will be creating jobs and helping out the middle class, as well, in northern Ontario.

Social housing is also a big investment we would be making through our infrastructure projects. That would have a great effect in my community.

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

Mr. Speaker, it was interesting to hear the previous question about the Canada child benefit program. We could better refer to the budget as the Canada child deficit program, with the continuing long-term deficits being brought in.

I asked a question earlier today regarding the GST increases that are projected to be 21% over the next five years. That is far more than any increase in the economy is predicted to be. Where is the 21% increase in GST revenues coming from? Is it coming from a tax increase?