Debates of April 4th, 2017

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Madam Speaker, I would be pleased to share my thoughts. My colleague, the parliamentary secretary, is correct in recognizing that our government, beginning last year, made a significant investment in youth employment across the country.

That is extremely important in a rural riding like mine, where young people do not have the same job opportunities as in larger centres. It is important that the government provide funding to various non-profit organizations to allow them to hire young people who can get work experience in a field related to their education background.

We have come a long way in that area, and I am really pleased with the numbers we have reached. They are significant investments, and significant numbers of young people are being employed through that program.

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

Madam Speaker, I grew up in a rural area, and like the member for Avalon, rural issues are very important for me.

The town I grew up in has about 1,000 people. It is about an hour from Montreal. It is not a large town, and it lost its school more than 40 years ago. The school, of course, is the anchor of a small town. The school was lost before I was born, and with it went a small number of economically critical good jobs, as well as the social and cultural focal point of our community. A few years ago, we got a gas station. Life, it seemed, was starting to look up.

However, my hometown is one of the lucky ones in rural Canada. Our population is stable. Today I am a member of Parliament for my hometown and 42 other municipalities in the riding of Laurentides—Labelle. The riding is some 40 times the size of the Island of Montreal.

The trouble with big ridings like mine is to understand the different needs we have in rural areas, so I really appreciate that the budget is putting billions of dollars into rural needs, very specifically, especially into our biggest issue, which is Internet access. For me, Internet access is the core of all of our issues. We can invest billions and billions of dollars into rural infrastructure, but if we do not have the Internet to back it up, it is not going to help with the bigger problems that we have. We need to ensure that families can bring their kids back.

In my riding, we have people who finish high school and leave to go to college or CEGEP, because we do not have very much in our riding. They do not come back, ever, or they come back to retire many years later. When I ask the students at the end of high school who is planning to stay, none of them are. The issues, they say, are the lack of public transit in rural areas, the lack of post-secondary education, and the lack of Internet and cellphone service.

Therefore, for me, the addition of $2 billion in the fall economic update for infrastructure is very important. That was just for deep rural needs. The budget made this money available for rural Internet projects.

This is a really critical infrastructure program when added on top of the $500 million Connect to Innovate program from last year.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

If I could just interrupt the member for a second, there is a lot of feedback on the speaker. I would ask if he could be a little more mindful that the microphone is there.

The hon. member for Laurentides—Labelle.

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

Madam Speaker, I do not remember exactly what I was saying, but I was talking about the need for Internet in rural areas. Very often I see people who come to the riding, want to buy houses or set up businesses, look at beautiful properties, look at their phones, and see the famous red X because there is no signal. They ask the real estate agent if they can get online, and the answer is that they cannot get online here unless they want to use satellite, which has high latency and low reliability. People are looking for solutions, and I am really looking to solve these issues. The billions of dollars available for Internet will help that region.

My riding in the north has the MRC county of Antoine-Labelle with a population of approximately 35,000. It has 17 municipalities. It is a large and not very wealthy region. We did a study last year to find out who had access to Internet, and fewer than one in three households had theoretical access to 10-megabit service. Even fewer than that are actually connected.

What happens is that the kids finish high school, and they want to get online. They want to participate in the modern economy. They go to to the city and they simply do not come back. Then the parents want family to come visit, but they will not even come to visit as much as they used to. The cottage owners are having their grandchildren come less often than they used to because of this very serious problem.

Related to this is cellphone service. If people do not have both Internet and cellphone service, we are not going to solve the communications issues we have.

What do we do about all this? We have to invest. The federal government, provincial government, municipalities, and the CRTC have all committed large sums of money to grow the Internet, so I am very happy with that progress. The CRTC's statement just before Christmas that broadband has to be defined as 15-megabit service with unlimited data is a critical new threshold, because, quite frankly, nobody in my riding has that access.

I am really hoping we can build on the huge progress in our budget, which moves a whole lot of things forward very well, and move this file forward as quickly as possible. Internet is critical, and I would like to make sure we get there.

Another issue is public transit funding, which I think is terrific. I spent years, when I was living in Guelph, as a transit advocate. I believe that if we invest a lot of money in our transit systems, then we can get enough people out of their cars that we do not have to expand the highways infinitely.

I always wanted to know if there is a line beyond which we do not need to pave any further. I have always been curious if we can find that line. We can build highways and roads in every direction as far we want, as long we want, as often as we want, but at some point we have to ask if we have enough, if there is a better way of getting around. Our budget and platform have committed large quantities of money over a long period of time to improving our public transit infrastructure. I really believe this is the direction we need to be going as a country.

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

Madam Speaker, I was pleased to hear about the importance of rural communities. Right across the country we are all affiliated with rural communities.

I would like to ask the member for his thoughts about the almost 300 jobs from the rural community of Vegreville being removed to go into an urban centre, Edmonton; the $15 billion from communities, including rural communities, being pulled out of infrastructure to go into an infrastructure bank; and of course the removal of the credit for public transit that would help seniors and youth get around his community. Perhaps the member could comment on those items.

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

Madam Speaker, I am not sure that the public transit credit did a whole lot in my community, where public transit is essentially non-existent. We have a system that I believe uses six retired school buses on a one-off fare system with no passes, so there is nothing that worked for the actual credit. Those six buses try to service 35 communities about four times a day. It is not a realistic system, so we need to figure out ways to move this forward and to better invest in rural areas. Rural is a rather large portion of this country, as my colleagues will definitely relate to. Rural needs are really important, and I always look forward to new investment in rural areas.

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

Madam Speaker, one of the things on which my colleague is very consistent is advocating for rural Canada.

I have had the opportunity to witness first hand a very strong sense of passion in wanting, for lack of a better word, urbanites to better understand the importance of rural Canada, so I do applaud him for his efforts to make it a little bit easier for us to understand.

The issue he talked about today was the Internet and the impact that it is not having in some areas of Canada. It is because of limitations, and that is one of the reasons why the government does need to invest in Internet.

I am wondering if the member could just continue to provide a sense of why Internet is so important. When I listen to the member, I cannot help but think about the lost opportunities because of lack of access to the Internet in our rural communities. Could he maybe just add a few more thoughts with respect to that?

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

It is true, Madam Speaker. Had I stayed at the end of school in the town where I grew up and which I now represent, I would not have the career that I had. I found really interesting work, on contract, working on the Internet from 2000, for almost a decade, as an editor for an online high-tech news website. With all my education, all my experiences having been the same, had I stayed at home I simply could not have done that.

The economic opportunity loss for our youth in rural areas is very serious. The Internet file is the number one issue that people speak to me about in my riding. There are so many other issues that come up, but there are none that come up more often or more firmly than the lack of Internet access in our region.

When I toured the 43 municipalities in my riding, all 43 of them, every one of them, said that their number one priority in the community was Internet. A town of 400 people spent $100,000 of their municipal budget on getting Internet access when it had a boil water advisory in its small aqueduct downtown for more than 10 years.

If that does not tell members how important this file is for us, there is no way of expressing it well enough.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, if I understood the member correctly, he is saying that the elimination of the tax credit for Montreal metro passes, for example, does not affect him because he does not live there.

I would like to remind him that he lives just one hour from Montreal and that, if fewer people take the metro in Montreal because this tax credit has been eliminated, the pollution will affect his community.

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

Madam Speaker, obviously, it is important to look at all of the policies surrounding tax credits. I do not fully agree with my colleague.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Speaker, today, I will be sharing my time with the member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola. I apologize to the people who reside in Similkameen because I probably said it wrong. In any event, I am honoured to be here today to discuss the budget with all parliamentarians and with Canadians.

Specifically, there are a lot of things in the budget that may be good for Canadians and may be good in 10 to 20 years, but I have a lot of concerns and I heard many concerns from our local residents of Elgin—Middlesex—London during our break week. However, I am actually going to start off with some positive things that I did see in the budget that I can actually applaud the government on, some good initiatives. Initiatives are one thing, but it is the implementation that is going to be the biggest hazzard here.

I would like to applaud the government for the caregiver employment insurance. Over my time as an assistant, working many times with families who had critically ill children or critically ill parents or a family member who had been in a terrible car accident and was in the hospital, I saw that a lot of times that would create a lot of chaos for people in their homes. Having the opportunity to have this employment insurance allowing people up to 15 weeks so they could take care of a loved one is very important, especially when it is not compassionate care but we are looking at people who will indeed be better in a few months. I do applaud the government on this.

I had a lot of people coming through. It might be someone's wife who is suffering from cancer, who needed to go to the cancer clinic, and so, being able to be there to support a family member is really important. I believe a lot of times we expect others to do it, but it is very important for families to have that opportunity. So I, too, would like to commend the government on the caregiver EI.

Parental leave is another thing that we actually had in our 2015 budget, as well, extending it to 18 months. This is going to be a really tricky one, though, I believe, for the government. Although it is a really good, honourable thing to do, we have to recognize that there is a cost to extending it to 18 months to allow families to be able to nurture and raise a child for the first 18 months. We know that those persons taking off time to raise a child would have 33% of their income for the period of 18 months. A lot of times when we are dealing with that, we hear people say employment insurance at 55% is not enough and it is very difficult to get by. Therefore, we have to recognize that, for 18 months at 33%, there are going to be struggles as well.

By no means am I saying that the government should be increasing or decreasing those amounts. I am just saying the government might end up in a real pickle and it should be very aware of that.

I actually sit on the status of women committee. Just a few weeks ago, when we were talking about employment insurance, we were talking about men getting involved in the caregiving of their children. I believe the uptake currently on parental leave is 2% for men, meaning 98% for women. We really talked about equality and things of that sort. One of the things that I heard from witnesses was, “Well, they're going to have to have employers top up the employment insurance”.

One of my biggest concerns is, when it is a government and these people are working for taxpayer dollars, there may be programs available to them in the public service that might top them up to 90%. I know that my sisters, as school teachers, were able to have that. They received the 55%, and then an additional 35% that topped them up to 90% of their actual earnings. We have to understand the effect and the impact that this may have on those people employed in the private sector. We have to be aware that, at the end of the day, it might end up costing employers more.

Those are some concerns that I have in the long run. I believe the idea is very good, but at the same time, we have to see what we are going to be doing to private employers, people who work for non-taxpayer dollars who may not have those benefits available, because I do know that there are advocates out there saying it should be the employers. I think anytime we are discussing those things, we need to really take that into consideration.

We talked a lot about the gender lens and the fact that this entire budget was looked at through the gender lens. I know there was an entire chapter in the 2016 budget. However, when we are talking about the gender lens in this one, I do not see it actually applied because I do not think that the government is taking into consideration what would happen. Is it going to be mothers who are going to be taking off those 18 months and then going back to a job?

We also have to recognize that the Canada Labour Code has to be addressed, as well, because currently we can only take one year off; so that is another thing, as well. There are a lot of Canadians who are pleased with that but, at the same time, are extremely concerned, and it could cause a lot of issues.

Finally, another positive thing is the targeted funding for housing. There is some funding that I saw in a little note talking about housing for persons who are leaving domestic violence. I would once again applaud that.

During my time, during my work not only as an assistant but as a member of Parliament and within my own community, I recognize there are not the financial resources available to help victims of violence. One of the greatest things is the need for shelters. Having targeted funding that is going to help people escape violence and get into a safe home that is going to be assisted through the federal government, that is very positive.

However, we also need to make sure that it is going to hit all 338 ridings. Domestic violence is not a rural issue. It is not an urban issue. It is not a first nations issue. It is an issue for all Canadians. We know that one in four young women are part of a sexual assault within their first eight weeks of post-secondary schooling.

We have to be aware of all of these situations before we target this funding. We need to make sure it is available to everybody, and not just going to urban centres.

We know some of the key issues. When we are looking at housing in rural areas, we may see the resources very limited. Just last week I was in the municipality of West Elgin, where we were looking at the Canadian index of well-being and discussing some of the resources or lack of resources that communities have.

It was interesting because they were talking about all of the resources available to them in southwestern Ontario. One of the biggest and most important, crucial impacts that they have is the fact that there is no transportation to many of these services. They are not actually located in the municipality of West Elgin and the transportation for them is limited, because there is no busing other than that from West Elgin to Glencoe.

If people need to have services in the city of London, the city of St. Thomas, or the city of Chatham, things like that are not available to them. It is not just the domestic violence piece, but it also has to do with mental wellness and mental illness. We have to understand that when we are doing targeted funding, we need to think of all Canadians and not just punt the money into government-held ridings. That is something I am very concerned with: we have to make sure we are looking at this as a broad issue and not specifically in one riding or another. It is something we all have to deal with.

As I continue with this, I am going to look at some of the other concerns I have. I have talked many times about helping our youth. One thing we saw last year was that the tax credit for textbooks was removed, and this year we are seeing that the tax credit for transit is being removed. A few minutes ago I heard the member from Quebec say that it was not helping his riding.

I live in the city of St. Thomas, actually the municipality of Central Elgin. We do not have a municipal bus there. I have a son who goes to school in Toronto, and because of the cost of living in Toronto, he is looking at living outside of Toronto proper. He will be moving into a community outside. Therefore, we really looked into transit, to make sure there was public transit available to him.

Last week we heard the member of Parliament for Milton talk about the fact that those people using GO Transit will no longer be able to get those passes and credits that will help with those costs. It is not just for those people who are using GO Transit, but it is families like my own, families like most Canadians. A child leaving and going to post-secondary education is not going with a car. Therefore, important things like public education and transit credits are very important when people are living outside a large city and trying to travel in to their schools. This is just another cost to the student.

We saw that the tax credits for tools are also gone. Anyone working in apprenticeships or the trades programs are kind of being nickle-and-dimed. They are not going to be able to take some of those initial expenditures and use them as tax credits.

I am going to shift away from that and look more at Elgin—Middlesex—London. Last week I was speaking to some of our mayors. Immediately, they brought up the SWIFT program. It was interesting, because we speak a lot about the infrastructure and the need for Internet. What we saw in budget 2016 was a $2 billion amount to be spent on infrastructure for rural Canada. All we have seen in the 2017 budget is the money that was not spent in 2016 being transferred to the 2017 budget and still not getting out to Canadian rural municipalities.

When I spoke to the mayors, the mayor from Central Elgin and the mayor from Southwold, I asked them specifically about the budget. These are people who would be very honest with me. If they were very happy with the budget, they would say, “Karen, it is a great budget.” Instead they said, “Karen, there is nothing in it for us.” As mayors, they found there was nothing for their municipalities. There was nothing in it for the farmers. Worrying about rural infrastructure, worrying about Internet, we are not seeing that.

Just six months ago the Minister of Innovation announced the SWIFT program that was put forward by our Western Ontario Warden's Caucus. We do not see it mentioned in the budget. The caucus is concerned this program will not be supported.

As a person from rural Canada, as a person representing many municipalities with populations of 300 and 400, I am concerned that much of our money will go to larger municipalities and not to rural Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments by the member across the way, but I do not necessarily agree with all of them.

There is a great deal for mayors, reeves and all Canadians to be happy about with respect to this budget. We see an ongoing commitment toward infrastructure. For example, just the other day an announcement was made of around 200 proposed projects just in the province of Ontario alone. Substantial projects are taking place in many different municipalities.

The feedback I am receiving has been overwhelmingly positive on this government's decision to invest in Canada's infrastructure.

Would the member not acknowledge that investment in virtually every region of our country is being well received for the simple reason that, generally speaking, Canadians understand and appreciate the importance of our infrastructure?

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member has to remember that our critic for infrastructure brought up the fact that infrastructure dollars were not rolling. We showed that last year when we talked about how much was going to be invested, how much actually went out the door, and how many shovels were in the ground.

My mayors are looking for something that is not Ontario. They are looking for something for their communities.

It is going to be very difficult for members of Parliament in this area to tell Ontario rural MPs and MPPs that they are getting a fair share. Unfortunately, as a rural resident, I do not see that throughout Ontario. It is very focused on the city of Toronto. I am not against Toronto by any means, but I am pro my community. Those are some of our concerns.

The government has to start rolling out the infrastructure dollars rather than keeping the money in its coffers. If the federal government tells the province of Ontario that it is going to give it money, make sure it is not just going to the city of Toronto, but going to all municipalities throughout Ontario.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Elgin—Middlesex—London for raising concern about the money for affordable housing being delayed getting out the door.

A man who goes by the name of Elvis lives in my riding. Elvis is an alcoholic. For years Elvis would get intoxicated to the point where the community would have to call for an ambulance to take him to the hospital or he would have run-ins with the law, which cost the criminal justice system money. This literally cost us thousands of dollars a day and hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to provincial, federal, and municipal governments. The Port Alberni Shelter Society has secured a unit for Elvis. For five years Elvis has been living in this shelter for $500 a month, or $6,000 a year. He is provided with a home, but it saves taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars.

In this budget, the government has announced over $10 billion in money for housing, but only $20 million of that will get out the door this year. That is about 20 houses in Toronto and Vancouver. That is not going to do a lot for people in rural communities.

Maybe the member could talk about the cost savings in ensuring that people who need help have roofs over their heads and about those single parents who might even make the worst decision and who do not have a home.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

We have seen that all over Canada, Mr. Speaker. As part of a HUMA tour we took with respect to poverty reduction strategies, I remember going to a place where 80 people were living. It had four walls and 80 cots. There was no food. There was nothing to help those people. We do not have resources available for them. We also do not have resources available for addictions.

I really appreciate the story of Elvis, because everybody in this room has an Elvis in their community. A lot of times it is about stopping it before it gets too far. The St. Thomas Psychiatric Network is in my community and it has seen decreases in its funding. It takes people off the streets and gets them into housing first, which is a great positive strategy. Could we do more? Yes, we absolutely could do more. There are some strategies that we could use, like the housing first project.

We have an issue when it comes to shelters. It is not just people from violence, as I spoke about, but people with addictions, or a variety of issues. We need to ensure the money gets out the door because the federal government has not invested in that. We need to ensure that money goes all over the country as well. Poverty is not just in urban areas but in rural areas as well.

We need to create opportunities for housing as well as create opportunities for employment, which to me is number one.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin my comments this afternoon in this debate by pointing out I have some very serious concerns with the budget. I would like to take a few moments to explain exactly why.

My concern is that I am seeing an alarming pattern. All governments and all elected officials will try to add a little pizzazz to their words, try to add a little flavour to their rhetoric so they sound like they are addressing the needs of the day. All governments will do that but, as we know, the current government is a big fan of buzzwords. In fact, it was humorous to read punditry columns the morning after the budget as they were all virtually united in expressing how boring and overused buzzwords had become with the Liberal government. In many respects, this was a buzzword budget.

Getting back to my point, in last year's budget the go-to buzzword was “infrastructure”. Here is the thing. The Liberal government threw out a massive number of over $186 billion in infrastructure spending. However, when we look at the fine print, that is $186 billion over 12 years. Only $13 billion and change was proposed to be spent over the first two years.

I mention that because we know the parliamentary budget officer could only identify just over $4 billion in infrastructure projects currently under way. Why do I mention that? Because in the budget presented a few weeks ago, we learned that over those same two years the Liberals would run up deficits totalling over $50 billion.

To recap, the Parliamentary Budget Office finds over $4 billion being spent on actual infrastructure, yet the Liberal government is adding over $50 billion in new debt. This basically means the whole infrastructure theme was a carefully designed sham, as the vast majority of that promised infrastructure spending has been punted down the road. That is the same problem we see in this year's budget for 2017. Yes, the buzzwords have changed, but the pattern of making big promises that are in effect kicked down the road has not.

Let me give a few examples of this from the budget. “Helping working adults upgrade their skills” is something people would be very supportive of. How much new money did the Liberals actually budget for that in the 2017 budget? Absolutely zero, but $151 million in the 2019 election year.

The next is “Investing in skills Innovation”. How much new money did the Liberals budget in the 2017 budget? Once again, the answer is zero, but guess what? The Liberals have budgeted $50 million in the 2019 election year. What a coincidence.

How about “Expanding the Youth Employment Strategy”. Guess how much new money is budgeted in 2017? Once again, the Liberals budget zero for that in this year's budget. However, wait for it, the Liberals budget $96 million, but in which year? That is right, the 2019 election year because unemployed youth who need jobs today should have to wait around until Liberals need to be re-elected.

The budget is simply playing politics with the lives of Canadians. I can cite many more examples where there are items in the budget that are not actually budgeted in 2017. In every case, surprise, surprise, there is money for these things in the 2019 election budget. Again, the budget is playing politics with the lives of people lives.

Is it any wonder why one columnist describes the budget as being an empty wrapped gift box. All that is missing is the do not open until 2019 credit card.

I mention the latter part because we know despite all these unbudgeted items, the Liberal government will be running a deficit in excess of $25 billion this year alone. We all know the Liberal government promised Canadians modest deficits of $10 billion per year, much as the Liberals promised to lower the debt-to-GDP ratio annually and, of course, to balance the budget in 2019.

On this last promise, the Prime Minister went on CBC, looked Canadians right in the eyes and said that the promise to return to a balanced budget in 2019 was set in stone. Today, the words “balanced budget” are dirty to the Liberal finance minister. A few weeks ago, the finance minister embarrassed himself, I would allege, by refusing to answer a very simple question from Peter Mansbridge as to when his plan would return Canada to a balanced budget.

The fact is that the finance minister does not have a plan to return to a balanced budget. However, his department does. It told us that, at a minimum, having a balanced budget again would be somewhere in 2050. What did the finance minister do when he saw the report from his own department last October? He intentionally punted and hid this information from Canadians until it was posted on Friday, December 23 of last year.

Why did he do that? Here is the most alarming part of it all. If we look at what the Liberal government said about real GDP growth in last year's budget and compare it to what it is forecasting in this year's budget, for every year the Liberals are in power, they have now downgraded real GDP growth expectations. In fact, the Liberals even show that real GDP growth in 2019 will actually be lower than it is today. In other words, even the Liberals own budget factually shows they know their own fiscal plan is failing.

Keep in mind that we also know that business investment in Canada has declined every quarterly reporting period since the Liberal government came to power, and we all know why. Simply, it has made Canada less competitive. How? Because the Liberals increased costs on employers and job creators. Even when told by their own Department of Finance that increasing CPP would harm jobs and the Canadian economy for over 20 years, the Liberals did not care and did so anyway. Establishing a national carbon tax, when none of our major trading partners are implementing one also, makes us less competitive. Again, it is no surprise why Canadian business investment is in decline. It is actually at the lowest level since 1981.

Now we have the Liberal government deciding to borrow money and picking the winners and losers for investment. All this has to be paid for, but the finance minister refuses to say how. We may have the first finance minister in Canadian history who believes that balanced budgets are bad, or that balanced budgets are dirty words. I will challenge the finance minister to prove me wrong, to come to this place and tell Canadians when and how he will balance the budget.

That leaves me with my final thought.

If the Liberals are clearly so opposed to a balanced budget, because, let us not forget that the Parliamentary Budget Office caught and exposed them for trying to manipulate the balanced budget they inherited from the former Conservative government, why did the Prime Minister promise Canadians they would return to a balanced budget in 2019? I would submit that the Liberal Prime Minister knew this was what Canadians wanted to hear. In fact, there are growing examples, almost by the day, of a Prime Minister who is willing to promise anything in order to get elected. Today we have this budget, much like budgets that do not deliver what the Prime Minister has promised, promises set in stone.

Nobody forced the Prime Minister into promising a return to a balanced budget in 2019. He made the decision to look Canadians right in the eyes and make that promise. While I cannot force the Prime Minister to keep his promise to Canadians, I will certainly vote against this budget. It breaks the very word the Prime Minister set in stone.

If members on the government side wanted to truly make a difference and become part of history, they could do the same, if only to send a message. When someone looks Canadians in the eyes and makes a promise that is set in stone, Canadians deserve and expect to have that promise honoured.

I ask members to please join me in voting against this budget, never mind the Prime Minister and his inner circle, who are really running things. Canadians deserve and expect the Prime Minister to honour his word.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs (Consular Affairs)]

Mr. Speaker, ideally, we must always balance our budgets. There are times when, in order to serve Canadians, we need to borrow a little money to invest in Canadians, to invest in our economy.

What I find fascinating is how my hon. colleague wants to forget that the largest deficit in Canada's history was incurred by the previous government. A total of $160 billion was added to our debt by the previous government. Yes, there are times for a deficit, but the difference is that deficit was used for signs, fake lakes, and gazebos, while our deficit is being invested for Canadians in the economy, in infrastructure, and in jobs.

Can the hon. member explain to me why he did not say a word when the previous government added $160 billion to our debt?

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

Mr. Speaker, I came here in 2011, and I worked hard to encourage the government to meet its balanced budget commitment by 2015, something the Conservatives did without cutting health care, unlike the previous Liberals in the 1990s.

I would also say that when the Conservatives first came to power, Mr. Harper and Mr. Flaherty put down $50-plus billion to pay down the debt ahead of time. When the largest dip in demand, the largest recession since the Great Depression came along, along with the G20, people made the decision to stimulate the economy. We built real infrastructure. We created net new jobs in this country. We exited the recession faster than everyone else. When we Conservatives say that we will take care of business, and we look Canadians in the eye, we mean it.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, one thing that happened in the election which was very rare is that the NDP, the Conservative Party, and the Liberal Party all agreed on one thing, which was to lower taxes for small business people from 11% to 9%. In the last budget, the Liberals broke that promise. Then in this budget, the Liberals broke that promise. In fact, the minister said that it is a great sound bite and makes great headlines but it is not practical and not a priority for the Liberal government. There is nothing in this budget for small business. The only thing that was in the budget is the Liberals will double down on small businesses and focus on attacking them through their taxes.

As a fellow British Columbian, the member knows how important small business is in British Columbia. Small businesses are the economic generators and job creators in our communities. Maybe the member could talk about how it is affecting business people in his community, and indicate if it is an important issue for him and his community.

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

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the member's work, particularly with respect to small business. Obviously, small businesses are the backbone of the Canadian economy. They build jobs. They are very responsive to changes in taxes or policy because they have to be. They are not like large businesses that can take on costs and pass them on to the consumer.

I would simply say that many people in my riding would like to see money set aside for endangered species, like Liberal promises. The fact of the matter is the Liberals said that they would do one thing, then changed that with respect to balanced budgets and tax policies on small business. Now private campgrounds and shared business practices, such as lawyers and doctors, are all paying more. In fact, billable hours are being changed in this budget. This is all being done without consultation, all without saying what they are doing, other than just to raise the money so that they can somehow be able to scrape two cents together to say that they can pay for these things.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment]

Mr. Speaker, I have the greatest respect for my friend and colleague across the way. However, of the throngs of people who are watching this debate today, I am sure most are sitting there with their laptop, iPad or phone, and can do something as simple as search on Google for past deficits by Canadian governments. They would see that certainly when the Conservatives came into power in 2006-07, they inherited about a $14-billion surplus from the previous Paul Martin government. Then in 2008-09, the Conservatives went on to add $5.8 billion to the debt. An outstanding year was 2009-10, as my colleague said, with a whopping addition of $55.6 billion. In 2010-11, there was another $33.4 billion, and $26.3 billion in 2011-12, and then $18.4 billion, for a grand total of $150 billion.

I wonder if my friend and colleague managed to google that before he put the words of his speech together today.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite must have been looking at his BlackBerry when his other colleague asked me pretty much the same question.

When we Conservatives said that we would spend money, we spent it on infrastructure. It was during the time of the greatest recession since the Great Depression and all the G20 countries decided to do it together.

The Liberal government is going it alone. It is not spending the money on infrastructure. At some point we need to have someone credible present a plan to return us back to balance. If the government cannot reduce and curb spending when the economy is not bad, what happens when we have another recession that is even greater? We will not have the money to pay for it.

When we Conservatives make promises, we keep them with Canadians and we actually build infrastructure and jobs. With the Liberal government, it is all lip service.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Winnipeg South.

I must say that I am extremely pleased and excited with budget 2017. This budget focuses on the middle class. With this budget, Canadians will benefit. Nova Scotians will benefit. The people from Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook will benefit as well.

This budget is a framework around many groups: seniors, youth, veterans. This budget is really one that is comprehensive and helps many Canadians. We will see that throughout the year, of course, but I want to talk about three main areas. The first one is family. The second one is seniors. The third one is veterans. It is very obvious we will talk a lot longer about veterans, because there are a lot of good things there. We have been working with veterans across Canada for a number of years.

First, let us talk a little about the 2016 budget. The 2016 budget started the good work of our government, and it is a four-year plan. I want to talk about two major areas where budget 2016 is powerful. The first one is the CCB, the Canada child benefit. When I was campaigning from one area to the other across my large riding, people were very concerned. Young families were concerned about how they could continue to provide what their kids need. They were not able to. They were struggling. The CCB contribution benefit that our government put forward is extremely impressive. In my riding of Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, over 15,000 children benefited since it started in July 2016.

Let us focus on the month of October 2016. Believe it or not, 15,000 children benefited. The government paid $5.2 million in that month alone to support families in my riding of Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook. That in itself is impressive, but it is not only in my riding. There are 338 ridings, and they are all benefiting. Families in all those ridings are benefiting. That was a major help.

The second one in budget 2016 that is extremely important to mention is the 7% tax reduction on the middle class. The middle class had been struggling for over 10 years with the former government without seeing the light at the end of the tunnel. In our first year in government we were able to bring forward a 7% reduction in taxes to help the middle class. Throughout the last six months I have been chatting with my constituents, and it is clear that is a major help.

Also our government is the only government that was willing and able to put a 1% tax increase on the wealthiest Canadians. Our party was the only party that supported that.

Budget 2016 puts a nice framework on what we have done. Let us look now at budget 2017 and focus on families.

For a long time everyone in this House has heard over and over again the necessity to create child care spaces for young kids, preschool children. Back in 2005-06, it was the government under Paul Martin, and I believe the minister of the day was Ken Dryden, the famous goaltender for the Montreal Canadiens. If I did not mention that, I would be—

[Kevin Sorenson]

He was a better goalie than an MP.

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

That being said, at that time the Liberal Party of Canada was getting ready to approve a child care plan, but the Liberals did not win the election. The Tories did, and then they went back to sleep. For 20 to 30 years, we had been talking about how important child care is, but it was forgotten. At that time, we had committed $5 billion over five years. That is quite impressive.

What do we have this year, this time around? There is $500 million this year, but $7 billion over the next 10 years for child care in this country. There is not one riding in the country that would not definitely benefit from that investment. That is impressive.

The second thing under the family concept in the budget, which I am extremely proud of, is a national housing strategy. We have talked about it on and on in the House for years. They talked about it before I got here, and after I leave they will still be talking about it. Our government is putting forward a strong national strategy on homelessness and a strategy to support families that are less fortunate and to support seniors who want to stay and live in their communities.

Those are major benefits. We are going to see all kinds of investments to repair and renovate housing and investments for new housing, which is so important. I know that my community would benefit from that investment.

The third point relates to the issue of rural Internet access. People with low incomes often have a hard time paying for Internet service. Our government has allocated funding to address this problem. Cable companies will be able to create packages for lower-income families.

The next category in the budget I want to talk about is seniors. Seniors have been talking about health care and the cost of prescription drugs. They have told me that they have to make tough choices between food, lodging, and prescription drugs. Our government is coming forward to invest in Health Canada to help reduce the cost of prescription drugs.

The second piece I want to talk about is the compassionate care EI benefit. We would invest in those individuals and families who want to help those who are gravely ill. That would be over and above the 35 weeks already granted to support the terminally ill. That is another clear sign of our strength in that area.

In the short time I have left, I want to move to veterans affairs. Quickly, 20% of the new money invested in the budget would go toward veterans. That is extremely important. These men and women have risked their lives for Canadians and democracy and continue to do so, and we need to recognize that. In Sackville—Preston, 23% of the people in my riding are veterans or military.

The lifetime pension option is something I have heard about over and over again. That is being done, and it is extremely important.

Transitioning from being in the military to being a veteran and how we can help in that transition is also very important. Already Veterans Affairs and DND are working together to simplify and streamline the process.

Another one is the military family resource centres. We propose expanding the centres and providing outreach to make sure we help as many Canadians as we can.

The emergency fund and the family well-being fund are things they have been asking the government for over and over again. They asked the last government for that support, and they were ignored, but our government is coming through.

Just yesterday, I read that VIA Rail, for the 150th anniversary, will provide a 25% reduction for travel for veterans and military families. There is investment as well in the family wellness program. We will see VIA Rail start hiring up to 10% of its workforce from retired military members.

In closing, I want to say that seniors, veterans, young people, Canadians, Nova Scotia, and the people of Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook will continue to prosper under budget 2017.