Debates of June 8th, 2016

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am so glad the hon. member brought that point up in the House of Commons. It is a very valid and important one to be able to have benchmarks and measures against which we can actually take a look to see if the budget did what it said it would do. I think that is an excellent example of something that the government should be measuring, and I am sure that we will be asking questions about it in the future.

I would say as well that there is another example of data that I personally would like to see. I have raised this in the chamber before. It has to do with the percentage of women in the workforce. Those numbers are gathered by Statistics Canada and by Labour Canada as well. I would very much like to see whether there is going to be any change or movement in those numbers as a result of this new child care benefit that the government has introduced.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her great speech. I know the member is from Atlantic Canada, and I certainly respect her contribution to the House.

I want to focus on the member's comments about how the Conservative Party was such a great steward of the economy, on the balanced budgets, and that members on the other side and our party knows nothing about the economy. I take exception to that.

I went door to door in my campaign and the Conservatives' so-called balanced budget was a shell game. A balanced budget to me is not a balanced budget when it throws in the EI fund, the rainy day fund, and the sale of GM stocks. That budget was balanced on the backs of veterans, the middle class, and those living in poverty. Canadians know that, and they spoke on October 19 about that.

I have asked this question several times to the party opposite, but I never get a straight answer. I want to focus on the tax-free savings account, and that only 7% of Canadians maximize it. It does not make sense that the party opposite would double something that only 7% of Canadians maximize. Therefore, can the member opposite give me a straight answer as to why, because it is something that was going to double, that was going to cost this country billions and billions of dollars, that the finance minister himself said that the ex-prime minister's grandchildren would pay for? I would like to understand the member's philosophy on doubling the tax-free savings account when 7% of Canadians maximize it.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would refer the hon. member to his own Minister of Finance, because he wrote in his book The Real Retirement that the TFSA actually was a good start, and that was at $5,000, and that he looked forward to it increasing over time, because it made sense as a vehicle for people to save.

A real place where Canadians can save money these days and build equity is in the housing market. However, as members in the House are aware, it is becoming more and more difficult for young Canadians to enter into that market because of the costs associated with housing.

The TFSA is a great vehicle to help Canadians save for that first down payment, and having it at $10,000, if we understand what real estate prices are, we will know that this is a great way to save after-tax dollars so that people can get into another vehicle of savings, which is a house here in Canada.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the first thing I want to say at third reading of this bill is that the more things change, the more they stay the same.

The Conservatives introduced omnibus bills that were around 175 pages in length and sometimes 500 or 600 pages. Now, we have a 179-page omnibus bill that amends or eliminates 35 acts.

The Conservative government systematically refused to accept any of the amendments proposed in the Standing Committee on Finance. Now, the Liberal government is systematically refusing to accept any of the amendments proposed in the Standing Committee on Finance. It is just more of the same.

I think this bill clearly shows why Canadians are so cynical about politics. The Liberals promised to do things differently, but they introduced this massive bill. If we had had the time to study it carefully, we could perhaps have gotten through it all and thoroughly analyzed it to identify its shortcomings.

However, we had only two committee meetings to hear from witnesses and examine the Liberals' 179-page budget bill. We were able to hear from only 17 witnesses in committee to discuss the various aspects of the bill. That is only one witness per 10 pages of legislation. I commend the Liberals for this so-called comprehensive study.

Some extremely important aspects of this bill were dealt with in a very cursory manner. I am thinking about the entire chapter on the mechanism for bank recapitalization in the event that our key or systemically important institutions break down.

First of all, I am not fundamentally opposed to that provision. However, it completely changes the way our banking system can get help when it might be in trouble, which we hope will never happen. It changes the way our banking system works.

When we requested a more comprehensive study, the Liberals told us that it was unnecessary because a department official had explained to them how it works. Yes, that is what they said. If we follow that logic, why bother hearing from witnesses in committee at all? Let us just ask department officials to explain the measures on which we we have to vote and then just vote on them already.

I see that my colleague does not agree, and I am sorry, but that is the reality. The official in question, Glenn Campbell, did a good job explaining the technical underpinnings of the bill. However, the fact remains that we did not have a chance to hear a single witness talk about this important provision.

The other part of this bill that warranted closer attention is the issue of compensation for veterans. First of all, that should have been in a separate bill, but the Liberals decided to include it in the budget implementation bill. We heard from only one witness on that, the veterans ombudsman. That was it.

If it had been examined more thoroughly, first of all, it would not have been in the Standing Committee on Finance, but rather in the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, and second, at least two or three meetings would have been dedicated to examining precisely those points. Ultimately, we heard from only one witness in committee on something that should have been in its own bill.

To sum up, to study Bill C-15, we had two days of debate and a time allocation motion in the House at second reading, before it went to committee. It was so urgent that the committee began examining it before it even passed second reading. Regardless, we still only invited witnesses to two of the six committee meetings. The minister and other officials attended some of the other meetings.

On top of that, the Liberals rejected all the amendments proposed by the opposition. It is not as though we went too far. We proposed 15 substantial amendments to a 179-page bill. The Conservatives proposed three, and I know the Green Party and the Bloc Québécois also proposed some. One of the amendments proposed by the Conservatives came from a member who does not sit on the committee.

I will digress for a moment. Once again, this shows that the Liberals operate much like the Conservatives did before them. They even moved the same motion at a Standing Committee on Finance meeting to force independent MPs from parties not recognized in the House to present their amendments in committee so that they could be discussed for a minute instead of using their rights as independent members to move those amendments in the House. They did exactly what the Conservatives used to do.

We studied the amendments, and the Liberals listened to them. They are perfectly happy to listen to the opposition, but when it comes to really hearing, analyzing, and actually using what the opposition says, forget it.

I mentioned an interesting fact in the question I asked the member for Milton, who is the official opposition finance critic. The Liberal side was totally disorganized during the committee's work. Take, for example, the employment insurance provisions that the government included in the bill. Once again, the Standing Committee on Finance should not have been the one studying that issue. It should have been the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. Nevertheless, it was included in the budget bill.

The Liberals decided that only 12 regions in the country would benefit from the extended EI benefits. What is the formula? The formula seems somewhat flexible, but 12 regions are going to be included, mostly in western Canada and Newfoundland. We realize that these regions have been hit especially hard by falling oil and commodity prices. However, the random nature of the criteria that allowed those regions to be included on the list was never really formally explained to us.

In mid-May, the Prime Minister himself announced that three new regions would also qualify for the extension: Southern Saskatchewan, Southern Interior British Columbia, and Edmonton. In committee, we tried to explain that instead of having a random formula, perhaps all regions should be included in the formula. That was declared out of order, so I cannot blame the parties for that. However, I do not think the government would have been very receptive to that measure.

We decided to include only the regions that were benefiting from this five-week extension to fill what is called the black hole before the Conservatives and before 2012. The black hole is the period of time between the end of EI benefits and a return to work, for those who work in seasonal industries. Again, the government was not really listening and this was declared out of order.

Finally, we proposed our third amendment. This one sought to remind the government that it promised to include these three regions. In the House, I cannot explain succinctly the level of confusion that reigned on the Liberal side on this aspect because they seemed to have forgotten that promise. They did not seem to understand that this amendment needed to be added in committee. The Liberal Party made no proposal on the matter. Finally, we ended the clause-by-clause review without any such amendment. The Liberal government was forced to correct its mistake by introducing a motion here at report stage.

I should point out that the committee accepted just one amendment during its study. It was a Liberal amendment to fix a mistake that the Liberal government introduced into this bill. This was nothing new to me, since I saw this kind of thing go on for five years with the Conservatives' omnibus budgets. They would realize after the fact that the bill was poorly thought out and needed to be fixed. Conservative amendments would be accepted, but the opposition's amendments never were.

What we have here is a series of measures. I just talked about veterans and bank recapitalization. These issues should have been dealt with separately. I also talked about employment insurance. In fact, many measures should have been dealt with separately, or there should at least have been a more careful study than just 17 witnesses for 179 pages of text.

Since the start of debate, I have been listening to the government side claim that this is not an omnibus bill since all of the measures were in the budget. Indeed, there are lots of things in the budget, because in a 500-page document, you can have one little line about a forestry program, another line about the TFSA, and another line about a post-secondary education program for indigenous communities.

The government can include pretty much anything in a budget or a budget implementation bill by arguing that it appeared in the previous budget. That is not how things work. The Liberal members who were here during the previous Parliament completely agreed with our definition of an omnibus budget bill. I would like to quote a few of them.

At the beginning of this Parliament, in April 2016, the member for Malpeque, who is now the chair of the Standing Committee on Finance, indicated that the Department of Finance had gotten into the habit of putting a lot of things in a budget bill. He said that his concern was that there could be an area in a bill that really required giving MPs the opportunity to debate that issue in the House, not as part of a budget bill, but as part of a separate bill.

We completely agree with him. That is the whole point of my argument. Let us look at what the member for Kings—Hants, who is now the President of the Treasury Board, said in 2015, in the previous Parliament. He said:

For years, the Conservatives have crossed the line in what is acceptable in a functioning democracy as a government in the area of respect for Parliament. It is not only how they have now normalized the use of massive omnibus bills, they regularly shut down debate in the House...

Lo and behold, the Liberals cut short debate in the House and introduced massive bills that we were not able to study in detail.

Do members want other examples? The current Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and member for Charlottetown said:

...the government's use of omnibus legislation has degraded the committee review process and hidden important legal changes from public scrutiny.

That is not all. The Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board and member for Vancouver Quadra said:

Liberals will end the abuse of omnibus bills, which result in poorly reviewed laws.

I challenge any Liberal member to state in the House that they kept their promises concerning transparency and are allowing this Parliament and this committee to carry out an exhaustive and thorough review and, ultimately, letting us fulfill our responsibilities as MPs on the committee.

If that is what the Liberal members are interested in doing, I urge them to explain how holding two committee meetings with witnesses qualifies as a comprehensive study of thirty or so acts in this 179-page bill. I urge them to explain why, in June 2015, they said they would put an end to these massive bills because they are not conducive to thorough and transparent study, yet now, they have introduced just such a bill. I challenge any Liberal member to tell me to my face that there was no time allocation, something the Liberals strongly criticized back then.

Today, with this first budget implementation bill, this government is showing what the next four years will look like. It seems to have no remorse for breaking its promises. I am thinking of promises such as reducing the tax from 11% to 9%. The government swore that it would reduce the small business tax. That is not the only broken promise. It also said that it would fix Parliament so that it could do what it should do: analyze legislation and even help the government address deficiencies in these bills. Obviously, the government has its own idea of how things should be, but it may miss some things.

We do not expect the Liberals to accept or adopt all the recommendations or amendments that we propose, but we do expect them to listen carefully, to be able to realize that they may have been wrong or they may have forgotten something and, ultimately, to make changes.

I mentioned three parliamentary secretaries. I have other examples of Liberal members who, in the previous Parliament, said similar things. I think it is a huge shame that the government is acting in a way that it does not even seem to regret or repudiate.

If the government wants to change its tune and introduce omnibus bills to get legislation passed faster, like the Conservatives did, will it at least own that?

Whenever we bring up certain incidents, the government, in defiance of truth and logic, denies them.

Earlier, in response to a question about cutting small business taxes from 11% to 9%, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance asked why the government should keep that promise seeing as it kept others. He did not even attempt to answer the question.

He said that nine million Canadians will benefit from the tax cut, but he left out the part about how it will do nothing for 18 million Canadians.

He talked about the Canada child tax benefit even though the question was about small businesses. That benefit does not have much to do with investing in businesses, particularly if the owners of those businesses do not have children.

There is a group mentality, that this is the Liberals' theme and they can do no wrong. That despite what they said during the last electoral campaign, they are in government and totally justified in doing whatever they want, and that the opposition cannot say a word, especially with a majority government. I see some heads shaking no. This was the Liberal Party's thinking in the last Parliament when it was the third party, and now it is no longer good.

When we sit in Parliament, we represent all Canadians. I am proud to represent my riding. How can I go back to my riding and say that all the shiny promises that Parliament will work better and that committees will actually be able to do the work that they are supposed to be doing are no longer any good? I cannot, in good conscience, say that the government is respecting its promises.

The government boasts about all the nice measures in the budget. There are some interesting measures that New Democrats are glad the government is implementing, such as the elimination of the GST on feminine hygiene products, which is something we fought for in the last Parliament. There are some interesting measures, but there are some measures that would have deserved significant study and were not. We are in breach of our responsibilities in this Parliament.

Can any MP in the House explain to me what the 25 pages on bank bail-in provisions actually mean or will entail? I suspect not. Can any Liberal MPs in the House explain to me the mechanisms of the changes in compensation for veterans? Some questions have been asked on that specific point because it is not clear to everyone. It is not clear that it will actually achieve what the Liberal government says it will achieve.

Can anyone explain to me what formula was used to define the 12 regions that will have access to the extension of EI benefits? Before voting yes or no, members should think about what they know in this budget bill. If they do not know a lot, then I suspect members are victims of the group theme mentality of their team telling them to vote in this way or vote blindly, and trusting their team.

In the end, I expect and forecast that there will be some disappointments on the Liberal side. There will be some disappointments because more and more, maybe not right now, maybe not in two months, maybe not next year, people will eventually realize where the government has respected its promises and where it has broken them.

We have seen that this type of attitude toward the fundamental duties that opposition members have in committee and in the House has led to an atmosphere of mistrust, which led to the very tense situation that we witnessed a few weeks ago.

New Democrats are happy that there has been some co-operation on some of the files; namely, the committee on electoral reform, but that cannot be the only instance where there will be such co-operation. We need to work together and ensure that committees will be able to fulfill their duties of examining government bills and keeping government to account. We have not seen that in committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat disappointed with the general approach the member has chosen to criticize the government. I would invite him to go to a university, whether in Winnipeg or in Ottawa. I would love opportunity to debate the member on many of the assertions he has made.

This government has in fact been very open and transparent with respect to accountability. Most of the things the member has said are meant to mislead the viewers into something that is just not true. I understand the member might have a difficult time voting against a budget that is very progressive in its nature, and which delivers for our seniors and young people, for Canada's infrastructure, and for our middle class. This is a progressive budget that will have a very positive impact on Canadians.

It appears that the member's only justification is the issue of time allocation. I will debate the issue of time allocation with this member anywhere in Ottawa or Winnipeg, and possibly, if I can make arrangements, in his own riding. The NDP members need to refocus their attention on what we are debating, which is this budget.

This is a progressive budget. Why does the member feel the NDP cannot support and vote for a progressive budget, one that has been more progressive than we have seen in the last decade plus? How does he justify that to his constituents?

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to remind the member for Winnipeg North that we have a university in Rimouski. Therefore, he could come there and debate me. I would be more than happy to go to Winnipeg to do it as well.

What is quite interesting is that rather than giving us facts, he is replying with talking points. I stated the facts. It is a 179-page budget with over 30 laws that are either being added, amended or eliminated. We had two committee meetings with witnesses out of six committee meetings. We had 17 witnesses for 179 pages of legislation. We had time allocation, which the Liberals actually denounced at the last election.

Therefore, the Liberals cannot say that this bill has been fully debated in the House. It has not been fully debated in the House. It has not been fully debated in committee. The government is actually breaking any promise with respect to transparency. Transparency is not just showing us bill and saying that we can read it, that this is what they are offering us. It is also about having the time to go through very technical details to ensure that everything is right, that there are no perverse effects, and that there is no negative impacts with respect to what we vote on. This is the way the Liberals have presented this. The way they have forced us to work in committee makes us derelict of our duty of examining it carefully and clearly.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech, which was very interesting and instructive as usual.

The Conservative Party and the NDP are worlds apart, but we must admit that sometimes we have the same vision and we think alike. For example, in the last election campaign, during the debate on refugees, the current ruling party said that Canada had to welcome 25,000 refugees by Christmas. That made no sense. The NDP said that it made no sense. We said that it made no sense. In actuality, it made no sense. Therefore, our party and the NDP were in agreement.

When it came time to debate public finances, we said that a deficit made no sense. The NDP, which is on the far left, said that it made no sense. The Liberal party said that it would ring up a $10-billion deficit, which turned into a $30-billion deficit.

My question for the member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques is the following: why, as a left-leaning progressive, does he believe that a deficit is a bad thing for the Canadian economy?

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague form Louis-Saint-Laurent for his question.

I want to respond to what he said about refugees, because it is also important. It is an excellent example. The NDP was the first to talk about the need to welcome between 10,000 and 15,000 government-sponsored refugees. The Liberals promised to welcome 25,000. We regarded that as a bit of one-upmanship during the election campaign. They are claiming that they kept their promise in that regard, but I would remind the House that they said those 25,000 refugees would be government sponsored. We are now dealing with 25,000 privately sponsored refugees. This means they did not keep their promise, but at least we are helping refugees, which is good. The fact is, their commitments were unrealistic from the beginning.

I am an economist by training. I realize that a deficit can be a good thing. It all depends how the deficit is used. There is no denying that one of the Liberal Party election promises was to have a $10-billion deficit the first year, an $8-billion deficit the second year, and a $5-billion deficit the third year; in the fourth year, we would magically have a balanced budget.

We asked repeatedly during the election campaign how the Liberals were going to balance the budget, but we never got an answer. Now we are in a completely different situation, because now we have no idea when we will return to a balanced budget. The government seems to be improvising on this issue, which is extremely unfortunate.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the eloquence and the depth of the member's speech on the budget.

The member for Winnipeg North said just a few minutes ago that it was a progressive budget. We look at some of the things the Conservatives did, like stripping the Canadian Wheat Board. The Liberals said that they would not do when they campaigned last year, which seems like a long time ago. However, in the budget, the Liberals are enabling the Conservatives' stripping away of the Canadian Wheat Board and a whole host of other measures, and not just the omnibus nature and the closure the government has brought in. The government mimics all the bad practices that we saw under Conservative government for 10 years. Canadians wanted a change, but they are getting very much more of the same.

The budget would not address some of the major concerns. As we know, the debt load of the average Canadian family, which was at record levels under the Conservatives, has now gone up under the Liberals. The first eight months have been disastrous. The average Canadian family now is carrying a larger debt load. We have seen an erosion, even worse than the Conservatives, in manufacturing jobs, good-quality jobs.

I would like my colleague to comment on how the Liberal economic policy seems so close to the Conservative economic policies. The result for the average Canadian family is higher debt load, lower income, and of fewer job prospects.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague.

We are indeed seeing similarities in the Liberal government's practices, in how this bill was studied, and in other measures that have been brought forward as well.

I was thinking about another Liberal promise, the one to reinstate the tax credit for labour-sponsored funds immediately after the election. They did indeed reinstate it in this budget bill, but only effective next year and after lowering it to 5%.

The way the Liberals are currently operating, they might end up being just like the Conservative government. Hon. members will recall that in the 1990s, despite the promises made in one of the most progressive platforms I had seen at the time, the Liberal Party's 1993 red book, the government spent 10 years adopting a series of measures that truly went against what they promised they would do. This eventually led to extremely significant cuts in the name of achieving a balanced budget.

We hope that all these promises are going to work for the Canadian economy. If they do not work, we are going to end up with a very large deficit, few results, and a call for a return to balanced budgets that could undermine the economy, a bit like what the Conservatives did between 2006 and 2015, and specifically in 2009.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am sharing my time with the member for Labrador.

I am happy to rise today in the House to speak again to the 2016 federal budget, Bill C-15.

During the 2015 federal election, I was an unelected candidate, I was consistently down 10 points in the polls, I had to trust my party's platform. My party's platform was my road map and I came to know my road map very well. I came to trust it, I sought to inspire that same trust from the people of Saint John—Rothesay.

I told my constituents that a Liberal government would tackle head-on the generational poverty that was gripping Saint John through the enhanced child benefit that would lift 300,000 children out of poverty. I told my constituents that a Liberal government would make investments in affordable housing. I told my constituents that we would increase funding for skills training and social enterprises, finding innovative ways of teaching people who needed the skills to succeed. I said that we would provide better support than previous governments for community-based initiatives like the Saint John community loan fund and the Saint John learning exchange.

I told my constituents that the Liberal Party would take social development seriously and provide better support to the excellent work done by people like Randy Hatfield at the Human Development Council, and provide better resources for the homeless through our local women's shelter Coverdale, our men's shelter Outflow, and our youth shelter Safe Harbour, which after some tough times I hope will be reopening very soon.

I told my constituents that the Liberal Party would make historic investments in necessary and overdue infrastructure upgrades, such as Rothesay waste water, as a long-term plan to grow our economy.

I told my constituents that a Liberal government would support major upgrades to economic drivers such as the port of Saint John and the Saint John City Market.

I told my constituents that a Liberal government would cut income taxes for nine million Canadians as a way of strengthening the middle class and putting money in the pockets to those who spend and those who drive our economy.

I told my constituents that a Liberal government would do more for seniors than previous governments, especially the past government opposite. We would increase the GIS by 10% for seniors living in poverty.

I told my constituents that a Liberal government would invest in social infrastructure such as tourist sites like Carleton Martello Tower and recreation facilities like the Saint John field house and the Rothesay Arena.

I told my constituents all these things. Our party platform was my road map and that map did not steer me or the Liberal Party wrong. That map steered me and my constituents toward a new government, a government that rather than cynically catering to a small strategic base, that made and followed a plan that looked out for all Canadians.

Good government governs for the many, not the few, no matter who they are or what party colours they fly. We govern for the homeless, the middle class, veterans, disabled, rich, indigenous, ill. Everyone ended up in a better place because of this map, our party platform of 2015.

How can I prove this? Let us talk about the budget Bill C-15. This budget was endorsed and accepted by the majority of Canadians. Even critics are forced to fall silent when the real judges, the Canadian people, weigh in. The budget has been a resounding success with Canadians. Everything I told my constituents has either been delivered or the way has been paved for delivery in future years and in future budgets of this government's mandate.

With its first budget, the Liberal government delivered on its plan to tackle poverty head-on. I come from Saint John—Rothesay. I am so proud of my riding, but my riding leads the country in child poverty. Our Canada child benefit is transformational. It is a historic, $23 billion investment in Canadians and, most important, Canadians who need it the most. This program will help more Canadian families than any other social program since universal health care.

I am excited about July, and not only because of Canada Day, not only because of summer, which is my favourite season. I am excited this year for the new Canada child benefit and what it will do for disadvantaged people in my riding of Saint John—Rothesay.

Nine out of 10 families will get more help than they do under existing programs. A single mother with one child under the age of six and earning $30,000 a year will receive an annual benefit of $6,400 a year, tax free. Coming from a city with the highest rate of child poverty in Canada, I cannot express how happy I am for the priority wards in Saint John, such as ward 3 where one out of every two children live in poverty, 50%. That is a higher rate of poverty than is experienced by people in many developing countries. This cannot be allowed to continue, and I am proud to be a part of this historic change.

Coupled with our local poverty reduction strategy, I am proud to say that we are finally set to change things for the better in the priority wards of my riding.

It takes an important shift in social policy to move the needle on poverty. I believe this is a historic investment in Canadians, and we will finally move the needle in Saint John—Rothesay. I look forward to seeing how many children we can lift out of poverty across our great nation. This act, the Canada child benefit, is transformational and will make us a greater country.

Also, $112 million will be given to anti-homelessness initiatives across the country, which is good news for our local shelters and our programs. We would love to see what the very successful At Home-Chez Soi program, which helps homeless participants get off the street and into a stable home, can do for those experiencing homelessness in Saint John. We would love to see increased funding to Outflow and Coverdale, our men's and women's homeless shelters, to continue every day to do their excellent work in our community, helping those who need help. We need to give these community leaders all the help we can.

One thing both our men's and women's homeless shelters desperately need is transition housing. This is a crucial step in the process of getting Canadians off the street and into stable homes. Transition housing makes it so that those people who are getting back on their feet can move out of the shelter and into their own room.

As a government, we need to look after all of our people, not just the ones who we think will vote for us.

With this budget, the Liberal government is delivering on infrastructure. This year we will invest $11.9 billion to modernize and rehabilitate public transit, water and waste-water systems, provide affordable housing, and protect infrastructure systems from the effects of climate change.

This is good news for my riding of Saint John—Rothesay. In Saint John, we have 1,400 people on the waiting list for affordable housing, and we have many projects that are shovel ready. This budget is good news for them. Rothesay waste water has applied for necessary funding, along with the Saint John field house. Both projects make a strong case, and I am confident they will move forward.

The Liberal government is also investing $3.4 billion over five years to maintain our national parks, harbours, federal airports, and border infrastructure, and to support the cleanup of federal contaminated sites across the country.

There has been great news recently for Carleton Martello Tower, the first line of defence in guarding Saint John since 1813. Parks Canada has undertaken a massive restoration of one of Canada's most significant historical fortifications. It is the oldest structure in our city. This funding is also great news for Partridge Island, an important and neglected historical site on federal land.

I told my constituents that a Liberal government would implement a middle-class tax cut from 22% to 20.5%. We were able to do this even before the first budget. A strong economy needs a strong middle class.

Seniors make up a large percentage of our population in Saint John—Rothesay. We will help the most vulnerable seniors by increasing the guaranteed income supplement for single seniors by up to $947 annually.

In our election campaign, we promised real change. I am proud to stand here today speaking to my constituents, speaking to all Canadians. I am proud to stand here and say that my road map, our party platform of 2015, was a success. I am proud of our government. I am proud of the budget we delivered. It is progressive. It is innovative. It will be a change for our country for the better.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoy working with my friend from Saint John—Rothesay on committee. I appreciate his contribution there.

I listened very carefully and the member spoke about campaigning door to door and how he expressed to his constituents the faith that he has in his party and his party's platform. I wonder what the member is going to do when he runs for re-election and he has to go back to those same voters and explain to them how his government introduced a budget that contained a litany of broken promises on everything from lowering the tax rate for small business, to limiting a $10-billion deficit, to returning to a balanced budget within its mandate. There is a litany of broken promises here that have compromised the credibility of anybody who went door to door with that platform and delivered this budget.

Would the member care to comment?

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

Mr. Speaker, I too have enjoyed getting to know my friend opposite and working with him on our committee.

Going door to door in Saint John—Rothesay was an eye opener for me. Although members opposite talk about fiscal prudence and how they were the stewards of the economy, what was resoundingly clear to me was that those living in poverty, those living in need, the middle class, our veterans, were forgotten by the previous government. It is one thing to preach austerity and balanced budgets, but not on the backs of middle class Canadians or those in need. Those in need were forgotten by the party opposite when it was in government. Canadians spoke loud and clear on October 19 and changed the government.

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

Mr. Speaker, during the election campaign, I think that every single candidate in the country talked about the middle class. The vast majority of my constituents were happy to be heard and to see that something would be done for them.

How can we reconcile that with the tax cuts that will not benefit six out of 10 Canadians? People who earn $200,000 and over will be the ones who benefit the most. I am sick of hearing about the middle class, when the government has no respect for the middle class. Furthermore, the government is telling the six out of 10 people who will not have access to the tax cut to wait, since there is also the Canada child benefit.

Does someone absolutely have to have children to be part of the middle class? Can the member recognize that the choice to have a family and the desire to be part of the middle class are two completely different things?

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

Mr. Speaker, in all transparency, that is a little rich coming from the NDP member opposite. Those members ran in the election on balanced budgets and on austerity. Everybody across this country, including the PBO, thought their platform was so full of holes it was Swiss cheese.

The NDP cannot have it both ways. Those members cannot stand up and say we forgot this and we did not spend enough on that, when they themselves ran on austerity and a balanced budget. Canadians saw right through that.

I am proud of our budget. There are cuts in it for the middle class. There are programs and funding for those who need it, people living in poverty, through the Canada child benefit. I stand proud today to endorse our budget and most Canadians do also.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the eloquent, passionate speech that he made and for the tireless efforts he puts in representing his constituents of Saint John—Rothesay.

I could not agree more with his statements as far as the efforts that our budget is putting forward to create growth, to lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty with the Canada child benefit, to invest in social infrastructure, and to provide a tax cut that would benefit the middle class.

Could the hon. member tell me how he sees the Canada child benefit specifically benefiting his riding of Saint John—Rothesay?

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

Mr. Speaker, one thing that was resoundingly clear as I went door to door during the election campaign was that those living in poverty, especially, felt forgotten. I remember one lady in Crescent Valley who asked why someone making $150,000 a year should get the same cheque that she got making $20,000 a year.

The Canada child benefit will be better for nine out of 10 Canadian families. It would put money back in the pockets of those who desperately need it. It would lift 300,000-plus children out of poverty. Movement on poverty will happen by national initiatives, and the Canada child benefit is a transformational program for our country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have listened very attentively to colleagues who have spoken in the House, and I want to thank my colleague from Saint John—Rothesay, who is sharing his time with me today, for his speech. He is one of our colleagues who has continued to champion many issues, and certainly the issue of poverty, which he speaks very passionately about.

I also listened attentively to members on the other side. Let me say that I was somewhat disappointed by my colleague from the NDP, the member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques. I found the condescending way he spoke somewhat offensive, because to indicate that members on the government side would not be attentive to bills and legislation and fully informed about what we are debating in this House is offensive to all of us as hon. members.

I was very proud of my colleague from Winnipeg Centre, who has offered to have that debate and to do so in Winnipeg. I hope that will happen, because I think it is important to have the facts before the public and real information people can understand.

I want to speak to a few of the things raised here today. First, we talked about transparency and accountability. Our government has led the way on transparency. In fact, we led the way on transparency when we were the third party in the House of Commons. We were among the first MPs in the House of Commons to make transparent a lot of the financial investments we were making within our ridings. New Democrats were one of the groups that did not want to make transparent many of their finances at that time. Members need to be reminded of who started the trend toward transparency and who continues to build and lead on transparency, reform, change, and accountability in the House of Commons. Not only that, we are leading on change and on reform in terms of how we deal with Canadians. I think that has been obvious.

Our government listens to Canadians and understands Canadians and is working hard to meet the goals and objectives they have laid out for us.

I can say for certain that we have responded to great needs in this country in this budget, needs that have been left behind for a very long time. When I hear the former government members speak, I am only reminded of how history continues to try to rewrite itself.

The facts also speak for themselves. We live in a country where, under the former government, many people were left behind. A lot of those people left behind were the very people who sent me here to represent them. That is what I will do.

I am very proud of the budget we have laid out for Canadians, because it not only responds to those who are the loudest or those who may be the most affluent, it responds to the needs of all Canadians, even those who have been left behind and left in poverty.

It responds to the needs of first Canadians, our indigenous peoples. I can read off a whole list of stats with regard to Inuit people, of which I am a descendant. They show that 39% of them live in crowded homes. We have a budget this year, for the first time, that invests in housing for Inuit people. I say to members opposite that they may want to stand in this place and vote against that, but I certainly will not be standing in this place and voting against it, not with those statistics. Compare that with 4% of Canadians who live in crowded housing. It is quite substantially different. However, we do not want anyone in this country living in unsubstantial situations, and that is why we are investing in all aspects.

Let us look at the fact that the unemployment rate for Inuit people in this country is 45%, as opposed to other sectors.

That did not get created in the last seven months, I want to remind hon. members. Those are gaps that had been left there because former governments and members did not address those gaps. These are investments that we have made, putting more money into the assets program and ensuring better targets for employment of people who are left behind. Again, I will continue to say that we are living up to our commitment, and yes we are. We are living up to the commitment and the promises that we have made to Canadians. We have a full mandate to fulfill those promises and commitments, and I can say that this government will do so over the course of that time.

In the last seven months, I have seen a transformation in this country that I have not seen in the last 10 years. I have seen a government that has responded to the very basic needs for infrastructure across communities in this country. Who in this House of Commons wants to vote against that? I have seen the government make historic investments in indigenous communities. I challenge people to stand and vote against that. I have seen this government invest millions more in student jobs. Even in my own riding, this year, I am seeing record numbers of summer jobs, more than I ever have. I am seeing more investments in summer jobs going to both indigenous and non-indigenous communities.

When I look at this budget, I am not only seeing the targets to the middle class and how we are helping raise people up and helping people rise up out of poverty. I am seeing new investments for the first time in our country in housing for northern regions and Inuit people. I am seeing infrastructure investments in highways, transit, and schools, which we have not had for a long time. People cannot forget that we are not going to fix in seven months what was created in decades. However, we are making the greatest attempt to do so and to honour our commitment to the people of this country.

I can say that when I stand to vote on this budget, I will be standing to vote very proudly. For the first time in many years that I have been lobbying, fighting, representing, and challenging governments to do more for people in rural and northern Canada, I am finally seeing some real action. Even more than that, I am seeing action for all my colleagues as well, who come here to lobby hard for the people who sent them, who talk about the growing numbers in the cities across our country and the need for new transit, infrastructure, and co-op housing, and other housing programs. I must say I am very happy to see the investments that are going in those directions.

On the child benefit program, the feedback I have been getting from people in our province of Newfoundland and Labrador is amazing. They like the new child benefit program. It is putting more money into their families and into their pockets. Despite what everyone on the other side may be saying or thinking, they can just read through the comments I get. I am amazed. “I have gained this amount of money”; “My family has gained this amount of money”. Those are the real facts and where we are seeing the real transitions that are being made.

Many people would love to rewrite history. They would love to rewrite the fact that they did not support investments. The New Democrats and the Conservatives campaigned on balancing the budget, and my challenge to them today would be this. Which of those investments would they cut? Would they stop trying to help children out of poverty in this country? Would they cut record and historic funding to indigenous people in this country? Would they not address the problems with transit and overcrowding in our cities? I would challenge the members to tell me today which pieces of this budget in infrastructure and spending and social and economic development they would not support. If Canadians had voted in their direction, they would not be seeing this change, they would not see the investments that are going into their communities.

Again, when one continues to do the same thing, one gets the same result. We are doing things differently, and we are getting a better result.

[Dianne Lynn Watts, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was just riveted hearing about all of the programs and everything. However, I find missing from the budget the $3.4 billion for palliative care that was in the election plan. Palliative care was supposed to be one of the cornerstones of the Liberal platform.

I wonder if the member would inform us as to where that money is coming from, why it was not in the budget, and why they broke their promise to Canadians?

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, palliative care is one of the priorities for our government. We have continued to talk about it. We are doing the work we need to do to build a better system of palliative care around the country. The Minister of Health has discussed this with a number of regional health authorities and other Canadians, as well as her colleagues. We are going to continue to move forward with this.

What I would say to the member opposite is that in seven months, we have already moved the dial immensely, in terms of the service that we are able to provide to Canadians and the discussion that we have had around palliative care. We have not taken 10 years to talk about it, with no action.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague across for her passionate speech. She mentioned being different and doing things differently. If by that she means breaking promises to Canadians, then I am quite proud to not be different and to not be going down that road.

One of the promises that has been broken in this budget to Canadians is the promise that was made to small business. Small business was promised a cut. We know that without this cut, small businesses will be desperately hurt. We are looking at over $2.2 billion over the next years. It could lead to job losses of 1,240 jobs.

How can the member defend the government's position on breaking a promise to small business?

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, we have been able to invest for small business in many ways throughout the budget. In fact, the more we spend on infrastructure, the more it benefits small businesses. The more we invest in industries like tourism, forestry, and mining, all of these small businesses that supply these sectors in the communities and regions across the country are benefiting. The more money we put into employment and training programs to help people who work in small business, the more it is helping them.

I say to the member opposite, there are many facets of the budget that are going to enhance, improve, and build up small businesses in this country. We are committed to small business. We believe it is an important and sustainable piece in our economy. We are going to keep working with them so that they can build and enhance their businesses in the way they need to.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to commend my colleague on her speech and her sensitivity toward the most disadvantaged members of our society. It is very commendable.

I would like to ask her a question in that regard, more specifically regarding the health care and social services available to the less fortunate. When I am out and about and run into people from my riding and elsewhere in Quebec, that is what they talk to me about. The health care and social services available, particularly to the less fortunate, are no longer up to snuff, both in terms of quality and quantity. One of the main reasons for that is the fact that the federal government is providing less and less funding for these services every year. I expected the budget and Bill C-15 to include increased transfers for these services, but I did not see anything like that.

Why did the government not at least undo the most recent cuts made by the Conservatives?

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, we certainly realize, understand, and support the need for further social equity investment across Canada, especially in programs around health and health care and in the area of mental health. Those are all areas that are being looked at by the government. There have been extensive discussions among the provinces and territories, something that has not occurred for a long time. They are anxious to work with the federal government to ensure that we can improve health care programs for all Canadians, and we are eager to work with them to make sure that we get those outcomes.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we go to resuming debate and the hon. member for Elgin—Middlesex—London, I will let her know that there are only about six and a half minutes remaining in the time provided for government orders at this point in the afternoon, but we will get started and I will give her the usual indication when her time gets near the end. Of course, she will have the remaining time when the House next resumes debate on the bill.

The hon. member for Elgin—Middlesex—London.