Debates of April 4th, 2017

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Emmanuel Dubourg, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague who talked about a passionate speech in his intervention.

Before addressing the revenue component that my colleague spoke of, let me say that as a fellow Quebecker, he clearly sees these investments in his riding. When it comes to summer jobs in his riding, there are two, or three or four times as many jobs that he can announce. There is also the millions of dollars that have been allocated to middle class families in his riding through the Canada child benefit. More specifically, I told him earlier that the government is investing $595 million in the Canada Revenue Agency to fight tax evasion and avoidance. That is just one of the sources of revenue that we will have.

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

Madam Speaker, I noticed throughout the budget that it is to build a strong middle class, and it has “middle class” right through it. I am not a proponent of defining people within class systems. However, would the member define for us exactly what the middle class is, and who those are who are trying to join it?

[Emmanuel Dubourg, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question.

What I can tell him is that the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada has been talking about the middle class for a long time. There are certainly some factors that come into play with regard to revenues. However, one thing is for certain, and that is that we have long been talking about the middle class. We campaigned on the middle class. We are in government today with more than 180 MPs because people in the middle class understood that they had to elect a Liberal government to get help, new jobs, and a better situation.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak here today. I will be sharing my time with my colleague from South Surrey—White Rock. I am starting to learn the names of all the ridings.

It is a great honour and a great privilege to rise in the House today, because it is my birthday. I am 31 years old, and this is probably the best gift I have ever received in my life, namely, to be able to deliver a speech in this democratic chamber on my birthday.

My colleagues likely knew what I was getting at when I asked my friends from Richmond Hill and Bourassa how much of the $80 billion allocated for infrastructure would be invested this year. The reason I asked the question is that, in fact, of the $80 billion that was supposed to be invested in infrastructure as announced by this Liberal government in 2016, almost nothing has been invested. In my mind, then, budget 2017 is a vote-seeking sham, and that will be more or less the subject of my speech today.

In fact, this budget is a false budget, a chimera. According to the dictionary, a chimera is defined as a thing that is hoped for or wished for but in fact is illusory or impossible to achieve. This budget is nothing more than an ideological agenda. It is filled with endless meaningless rhetoric. For instance, on page 11, it talks about keeping Canada’s promise of progress. That is rather interesting. I do not really understand exactly what that means. It talks about innovation on nearly every page, and it also talks about a feminist budget and a green budget.

Today, in rather exceptional fashion, my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent said that even though they called it a feminist budget and a green budget, the Liberals nonetheless eliminated the public transit tax credit in their budget. He also rightly pointed out that 60% of the people who claim this credit are women, in particular elderly women. Thus, the Liberals are not walking the talk.

In terms of procurement, no significant investments have been made. Nothing has been said about balancing the budget. In fact, there are reports that we will be in a deficit position until 2051, which is shocking considering that Canadian families cannot be in the red at year's end.

Expenditures for National Defence alone are deplorable. Just in budget 2016, the Liberals deferred $3.7 billion in spending until 2020-21. This $3.7 billion was included in our Canada first program, which was inspired by the Conservative Party of Canada's plan, under the leadership of the Right Honourable Stephen Harper, to bring Canada out of the decades of darkness of the Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin governments in the 1990s, and to revitalize the army, ensure that military infrastructure returns to good working condition, and to make significant acquisitions to meet all military needs. Instead of getting back on track, the Liberals announced in the 2017 budget the deferral of $8.4 billion in spending to 2035-36.

As I mentioned at the beginning, almost nothing has been spent on infrastructure to date. I suspect that the Liberals will invest the entire $80 billion in 2019 so that there will be construction cranes right across the country. We are going to be tripping over cranes and Canadians will think that this government is incredible.

The Liberals also broke their promise. They said that they would run a small deficit of $10 billion when they are actually running a deficit of about $30 billion a year. What is more, they have no plan to balance the budget, and they did not lower taxes for small and medium-sized businesses as promised during the 2015 election campaign.

Budget 2017 also significantly raises taxes.

When we, the Conservatives, had the opportunity and honour to govern the country, we were the advocates and defenders of taxpayers. We lowered taxes in many ways, first by decreasing the GST from 7% to 5%. We then created the universal child care benefit, the children's fitness tax credit, the children's arts tax credit, and the post-secondary education and textbook tax credit. We instituted income splitting for families, which the Liberals unfortunately did away with. We did all of that with the exceptional result of making taxes lower for Canadian families than they had been since the 1960s. That means that, under our government, after 10 years under a Conservative government, Canadian families were paying about $7,000 less in taxes a year than they were prior to 2004. That is not to mention the fact that we created 1.2 million jobs in 10 years, with the best employment rate of all OECD countries.

Unlike us, the Liberals are raising taxes for families, small businesses, and children. In budget 2016, they already increased taxes on gas and heating, increased taxes on Canadians' savings accounts, increased payroll taxes for businesses, and cancelled many of the tax cuts that I mentioned earlier.

Canadians, thinking it was going to stop there, were very saddened last month to see that the tax increases would actually start all over again. The government is going to tax public transit users by eliminating the public transit tax credit, Uber and ride-sharing, beer and wine, which basically comes down to introducing a weekend tax, as my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent so aptly put it. Donated medicine will be taxed, as will childcare, and small business owners will be saddled with an increase in payroll taxes. Oil and gas companies will be taxed, and so will tourism. In short, this is a disgrace.

I am an elected official from Quebec City, from Beauport—Limoilou. We can see that there is nothing in this budget for Quebec City, which is as surprising as it is appalling; there is nothing there for the Port of Québec, which needs $60 million to attract private investment and launch the Beauport 2020 project. There is nothing for the Institut nordique du Québec for political, social and anthropological research on northern Canada, research that remains very important. There is nothing for the National Optics Institute, a technology innovator in the heart of the Parc technologique du Québec. There is nothing for the Quebec Bridge, which was supposed to be dealt with before June 30, 2016. Finally, there is nothing about the SRB, the bus rapid transit system and there is nothing about the third link.

Conversely, in the last 10 years, the Conservative government, under the fantastic leadership of the Right Hon. Stephen Harper, invested almost $1 billion for the Quebec City region alone: in Gilmour Hill, in community infrastructure, in the Port of Québec, in l'Anse au Foulon and in the Ross Gaudreault terminal. A number of investments were made then, to be sure.

In closing, I would like to say that the government should focus on what will really give Canadians a vision and help them 100 years from now by balancing the budget, eliminating the deficit by the end of the year, and paying off the debt. How can we be one of the richest countries in the world and still have so much debt? We need to cut Canadians' taxes, not raise them.

If the economy were going well, MPs could take care of the important things, the things that help us all get along. We could talk about the Constitution, community, and Canadians' rights, but because of this government, we keep talking about the economy when we should be talking about other issues.

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

Madam Speaker, the member says that we should be supporting tax cuts. All we need to do is take a look at one of the most significant, sizable tax cuts given on personal income tax in decades. It was just last year. Hundreds of millions of dollars were put back into the pockets of Canada's middle class. Millions of people were affected.

How did the Conservatives vote on that? They voted no. They did not want that middle class to get a tax break.

Then we can take a look at what the government has done additionally, which the Conservatives are criticizing. The government chose to work with the provinces and got all the provinces to agree that we should invest in workers' retirement. What did the Conservatives do? Completely out of touch with Canadians, they voted against that too. They know no limits.

Why does the member not recognize that it is time to start listening to what Canadians want and investing in Canadians, and recognize that there were a lot of good things they could in fact have voted for, including something else Conservatives voted against—putting a special tax on Canada's wealthiest 1%?

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, any academic could tell us that the whole concept of the 1% is false. This is incredible. It is demagoguery.

We did not vote against a tax cut. We voted against a fake tax cut. It was nothing but a vote-seeking ploy, just like this budget and the whole Liberal agenda.

When I go door to door every week, I listen to Canadians. I would like to know if my colleague ever does that, ever listens to Canadians. He wants to take away our right to speak in the House now. They have been doing this for two months now.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

He raised an obvious and very important issue, namely the deficit. When the Liberals tell us they are handing out money left and right, to the rich and the poor, they fail to mention that they are doing so at the expense of future generations. They are putting us into an incredible amount of debt. They have lost complete control of spending. That is the Liberal reality.

During the election campaign, the Liberals clearly stated that they would run two small deficits of $10 billion each. The deficit has already reached $60 billion and will reach between $100 billion and $125 billion by the next election. As my colleague said, it is a complete sham.

I would like my colleague to take this opportunity and continue talking about this issue, because it is important.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I fully agree with my colleague. It is an appalling sham.

The Liberals had told Canadians that they would run a deficit to invest in infrastructure. By the way, we, the Conservatives, had created the largest infrastructure program in Canadian history, worth $120 billion. The Liberals told Canadians that they would run a deficit of only $10 billion, when it is now $28.5 billion.

They also said that it was to invest in infrastructure, but two years after their election, almost zero dollars have been invested in infrastructure. It is a vote-seeking sham. They want to dole out the money in 2019.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Madam Speaker, the member mentioned it was their party that brought in such a wonderful Canada child benefit program.

I would like to ask him if he is still as proud of it today as he was before, taxing the benefits that were going to families who needed them while allowing millionaires who did not need it to keep their cheques. Could you please explain that, if you are so proud?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind the member that he is to address questions to the Chair and not directly to the member.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I remain very proud of the benefit we created because it was reasonable. Yes, it was taxed, but that was so that people would be responsible. I am very proud of it.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Give it with one hand, take it back with the other.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I just want to remind the member that he had his time to ask the question. Please allow for the answer.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, it was universal. We knew how to do the calculations, and we knew how to index it. The Liberals, though, have not been able to get the math right. They will have to spend another $4 billion on an ill-conceived benefit.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Before we go on, I want to wish the hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou a happy birthday.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for South Surrey—White Rock.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased that the drama lessons on this side of the House are paying off.

I am pleased to rise and speak to the 2017 budget that was tabled in the House on Wednesday, March 22.

During the election—and everybody knows this, including members on this side of the House—the Liberals went door to door promising they would run a small temporary deficit of $10 billion for two years and would then balance the budget in 2019. In 18 months, the Liberals have given Canadians a debt of $100 billion and no plan to balance the budget. Even if they started to try right now, they would not balance the budget until 2055. They have missed the target by 38 years.

Since budget 2016 was tabled, the Liberals have failed to deliver on a majority of the allocated infrastructure funds. Ninety-five per cent of the announced infrastructure projects are still not under construction.

As the critic for infrastructure, communities, and urban affairs, I had hope and optimism for budget 2017. I really thought the government had a chance to introduce a new infrastructure plan, a plan that would actually get infrastructure projects built instead of just announcing and reannouncing them; a plan that included transparency measures to ensure Canadians could clearly see where the infrastructure funds were going and how their tax dollars were being spent; a plan that included performance measures, a framework to measure progress and to ensure that the promised announcements were actually creating jobs and growing the economy; a plan that included clear funding commitments for Canadian municipalities; a plan that was transparent and accountable. After two parliamentary budget officer reports that identified these shortfalls, a Senate committee report that identified these shortfalls, two independent reports that identified these shortfalls, we see budget 2017 has included none of these measures. What we have is a back-ended budget. Canadians must wait. They must wait for child care dollars, housing, and transit projects.

The Liberal government is the government of announcements and reannouncements.

Several initiatives that support the most vulnerable will not start this year. They will not start next year. In some cases, they will not start until after 2022, well after the next election.

Let us just leave that piece for now.

I would like to switch gears for a moment and discuss infrastructure banks. Both the Prime Minister and the minister stated that we needed desperately to set up an infrastructure bank. Why? It was to leverage private sector dollars.

In 2009, the Conservative government set up PPP Canada specifically to leverage private sector dollars for infrastructure, and it worked. We leveraged almost $7 billion. The infrastructure is in place, the expertise is in place, and there is a proven record of success. Why does the government need to take $15 billion from Canadian communities, from rural communities, from projects that have already been announced and reannounced? In fact, $1.3 billion in committed funds from PPP Canada was already leveraged in public infrastructure.

As well, last August, during the Prime Minister's visit to China, he announced that Canada intended to join the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. This is an institution, backed by the Chinese government, is based out of Beijing, and it is specifically designed to build infrastructure projects in Asia. Upon its inception in 2014, both the Conservative government and the Obama administration decided that this bank was not the best way to use taxpayers' dollars, and both administrations decided to decline joining the bank.

Fast-forward to 2017, and it is clear that times have changed. This clearly shows where the Liberal government's priority is, so it was no surprise that this budget included $256 million committed from Canada for the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. However, what the budget conveniently left out is that Canadians will actually be on the hook for approximately $1.3 billion if the projects default, not just the $256 million that had been promised. Nowhere in the budget is this mentioned.

Going back to Canadian infrastructure, 95% of the announced infrastructure projects in Canada have not started construction. Instead of focusing on building projects here at home, the government is spending billions of dollars to build roads and bridges in Asia. Canadians need a government that is focused on their needs first, not spending their hard-earned taxpayer dollars overseas. Note that Liberal commitment spending outside Canada has exceeded $9 billion. The Liberal government members excel at telling Canadians how much they are spending on infrastructure, how they are creating jobs, how they are growing the economy, and how they are growing the middle class. Words are only words if there are no actions to back them up.

Furthermore, budget 2017 announced that the public transit tax credit will be eliminated starting July 1, 2017, Canada's 150th birthday. This common sense tax credit makes public transit more affordable for low-income workers, for students, and for seniors. In the budget, the Liberals have taken away the public transit tax credit that helps make public transit more affordable for Canada's most vulnerable. Their argument was that this tax did not help low-income Canadians because those who make less than $12,000 per year could not use the credit. Today we heard from another parliamentary secretary that the tax credit was for the rich. This is astounding, because I have never seen billionaires take a bus.

The rationale for slashing the tax-free savings account was that it was only for rich people. In my riding, seniors, the disabled, and youth are the ones using the TFSA and transit passes.

The Liberals took away income splitting, which allowed parents to stay home with their children, because it was only for the rich. This is a similar Liberal brain trust that believes “budgets will balance themselves”.

I now want to go back to my earlier point. There is a significant disconnect between Liberal announcements and reality, and let me give some examples. Page 120 of the budget lists five upcoming transit projects across Canada. On the list is the Vancouver Broadway subway project in the Lower Mainland, which I would note has no dollar figures attached, nor do any of the five transit projects. Just two hours after the budget was announced, the mayors said that the federal government had told them that $2.2 billion is committed toward their projects. Where did they get the information, and where are the funds coming from?

The budget states there is no new public transit spending this year, and most of the new public transit dollars will not flow until 2018-19. It is funny; that is just in time for the next federal election. The truth is that the Liberals will use existing Conservative infrastructure programs and the stacking of other green infrastructure programs to fund these projects, which is to the detriment of other promises they have made to Canadians.

Furthermore, this “announce now but delay funding” budget is not just related to public transit but also social infrastructure. When it comes to day care, billions of dollars were announced in the budget, but none of these new dollars will be forthcoming this year and 70% of the new money will not be spent until after 2022. The same thing goes for affordable housing.

As I am running out of time, I would also like to point out that there is no new funding in the 2017-18 budget for early childhood learning and child care, homelessness, home care infrastructure, housing research, northern housing, or indigenous programs, and there is no mention of funding for the RCMP or the Canada Border Services Agency at all.

I note that the Liberal government has allowed nearly $1 billion in infrastructure funding in 2016 to lapse. That means the government is unable to fund announced projects.

I could go on, because the budget is very thick, and on each and every page there is something missing, but I have run out of time.

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

Mr. Speaker, one thing with which I do concur with the member across the way is that there is just not enough time to talk about the budget in terms of the things we would like to talk about. For me, it is full of wonderful things that will make a huge difference in the lives of all Canadians.

I want to go to the tax credit issue that the member made reference to and, if I may, put it in the form of a question. Hundreds of millions of dollars have actually been allocated to build transit infrastructure, including everything from buying buses to extending routes, which are significant investments that will improve the number of people actually riding on public transit, and that is something we all want to see.

Could the member across the way give us any sort of indication that the tax credit the Conservatives brought in had anything to do with increasing the amount of ridership? In other words, is it better to have the tax credit or to spend the types of money necessary in order to expand the transit to all individuals, even individuals who do not get the monthly passes or the weekly passes, who buy and purchase the daily tokens or put the change in the meter itself?

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

Mr. Speaker, clearly fairyland is going on over here, because the budget clearly states that transit infrastructure is going to be built according to ridership. If we have a community that is fast-growing, there is no ridership because there is no transportation. Therefore, the funding does not go to the growing communities.

Second, if we actually look at the budget, we see that 95% of the transit projects are not under way, they are not under construction, and they are not even going to be under construction until past the next election.

What about the people now? What about the people who need to function and live now without all of the taxes that the Liberals have put into this budget and into the lives of everyday Canadians? They need help now. They need help now when it comes to homelessness. They need help now when it comes to affordable housing. They need help now when they need to get to work. They need it now when they are struggling from paycheque to paycheque. They need those tax credits now.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I represent a community that felt the double hit of the cancellation of the public transit tax rebate. On the marine side, ferry fares have gone through the roof in my province over the last 12 years of a user pay philosophy around public transit. Commuters were able to apply for a 15% tax rebate. Public transit commuters also use buses and so on. The working poor who rely on this transit rebate are very disappointed. It is all over social media how many people are disappointed about this.

I would like to hear more from the member, from her local government leadership experience, on her perspective on whether the transit tax program was sufficiently communicated and what the government might have chosen to do to increase ridership and increase take-up of this tax rebate.

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

Mr. Speaker, as a former mayor, in dealing with the community and dealing with public transit, I heard very clearly. When we have students who need to get to school or to university, when we have people who do not have vehicles, who cannot afford vehicles, taking public transit when that is their only option, I find it absolutely outrageous that the members on this side of the House have categorically stated that the tax credit was only for the rich and that is why it was taken away. I find it outrageous. I have disabled people in my community who have depended on that tax credit and who have used it.

In fact, I go back to the tax-free savings account. There are several disabled people in my community and several seniors in my community who were depending on that. When I hear that all of these tax credits are gone because only the rich get them, I do not know what their definition of rich is, but I think they had better redefine what rich is and redefine what the middle class is, because they are clearly out of touch.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour and gives me pleasure to talk about budget 2017, as this is our government's next ambitious step toward investments that will create jobs, grow our economy, and provide more opportunities for the middle class and those working hard to join it.

Budget 2017 is focused on fairness for families, workers, and taxpayers. It is critical that we continue to invest in affordable housing, infrastructure, high-skilled job training, and the economy as a whole. Particularly, budget 2017 brings a lot of good news for my riding of Brampton North and the city of Brampton itself.

I have received numerous messages from many of my friends who are about my age, who have young families or families on the way, who were really excited to hear about the maternity leave plan. They were excited to learn that they can claim up to 12 weeks now before their due date, and that is up from the current eight weeks. This provides a lot of flexibility for a lot of women who may work in dangerous jobs, may have different health conditions, and need to take time off before their due date.

Budget 2017 also provides an extended leave beyond the 12-month parental leave. This provides a lot of families with flexibility. Now one can claim up to 18 months, with job security. I know that the overall amount is not different, but that is because we need to factor in many things. We need to factor in how this affects small to medium businesses, and we also need to provide families with the capability of staying at home with a loved one. In budget 2017, we were able to reach a good, comfortable position where families can take advantage of the extra time when child care costs are very high, before 18 months. After 18 months, they can have that job security, go back to work, and go back to growing our economy.

Also, as co-chair for the entrepreneur caucus, I have been hearing from a lot of business people who were worried at first, but are now relieved that they will be able to provide their workers with leave, be able to secure good workers, and allow them to have leave without it costing them a whole lot more. I commend budget 2017 for taking those steps, because it really is helping parents who are in the workforce and also have families. We do not have to sacrifice family for work.

There are many other changes that came in budget 2017, and tax fairness is one of them. Our government has continued to improve tax fairness for Canadian families by closing loopholes, eliminating measures that disproportionately favour the wealthy, and cracking down on tax evasion so that every Canadian has a real and fair chance at success.

The government's plan in budget 2017 is to close tax loopholes that result in unfair tax advantages at the expense of others. It has also invested $524 million to support the CRA in its continued efforts to crack down on tax cheats. It has taken steps toward eliminating tax measures that disproportionately benefit the wealthy.

Many taxi drivers in my riding have come to my office and shown their appreciation for the tax on the ride-sharing program. I know that it may be unpopular, but tax fairness is what we are talking about. If taxi drivers have to pay HST to the government, so should Uber drivers. It is only fair that those who provide equal services pay their fair share. I am very pleased to say that a big group of taxi drivers will be coming tomorrow for the budget vote, a group of 40 to 50 people who want to show the government their support because finally someone has listened to them, looked at our tax regulations, and figured out that there were those who were evading taxes, who should not have been. I applaud budget 2017 for doing that.

The EI caregiver benefit is another wonderful thing budget 2017 would give Canadians. It would provide up to 15 weeks for individuals to provide care for adult family members who require significant support as they recover from critical illnesses or injuries. Previously, one had to have a medical note from a doctor stating that a family member was at the near-death stage. In many cultural communities and in many places, it is very difficult for people to declare that family members are near death, even if they are. There are a lot of superstitions around doing so. Budget 2017 has struck the right chord again by providing flexibility.

Mr. Speaker, I forgot to mention at the beginning of my speech that I will be splitting my time with the member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel.

As I was saying, there is more flexibility for families. Parents of critically ill children would continue to have access to up to 35 weeks of benefits, with added flexibility for other family members as well. This is fantastic news, because after all, this is what our government is about. It is about supporting families while growing our economy.

I am very excited about budget 2017, because Brampton will soon have a university, and this will help our city greatly. Seven hundred and forty-one million dollars is proposed for investments to accelerate infrastructure projects for universities and colleges through the post-secondary institutions strategic investment fund. This is a key tool for my city of Brampton, as we are looking to expand Ryerson to our city. We have a very young, vibrant community. The average age is 34.5. We have a very smart workforce in Brampton, and this university is going to allow us to develop our innovation. There are going to be a lot more businesses brought into our city because of this. The funding would also help the university progress.

Budget 2017 would also provide health care relief that is long overdue in my riding of Brampton North. I cannot tell members the number of conversations I have had with people who are seeking mental health support. Mental health is a serious issue in Canada today. Mental health has been underfunded for years. I know that our provinces understand the need for mental illness funding, but they have not always had the means to fund that area. More than $6 billion over 10 years would be provided for home care, and more than $5 billion over 10 years would be provided specifically for mental health.

We have been underserved in Brampton for a long time. We have a population of 600,000, but we have very few support workers in this area. Budget 2017 would give us the relief we need.

Also, I am very excited to say that budget 2017 has announcements about AI, artificial intelligence. We had the Prime Minister in Brampton just recently making AI announcements. These are jobs of the future, and they are jobs of today. We are allowing current companies and manufacturers to advance their skills and technologies and to be leaders in the world. They can provide the types of jobs our youth are craving.

I am also very happy to announce that today the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship and the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour are in Brampton to announce that there will be a lot of help provided through budget 2017 to help internationally trained newcomers to Canada, who often face challenges in getting their credentials recognized so they can find work.

People come to my office all the time who are working in labour jobs, and we are losing those skills. We are losing the skills we can use and benefit from in Canada.

I am thankful for the opportunity to highlight some of the key issues for my city and how budget 2017 is going to improve the lives of Canadians and Bramptonians.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member seems to be very proud of this budget, and she is hearing things from her constituents. I am also hearing things from my constituents, especially when I mention the fact that GST revenues are projected to increase by 24% over the next five years. There will be 24% more in GST that the government expects to draw from taxpayers.

I would ask the member opposite how her constituents are reacting when she gives them that news. Has she given them that news? I highly doubt it.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the answer, quite simply, is that our government's top priority is to strengthen the middle class and grow our economy, and we are doing exactly that. That is what the residents of Brampton talk about as they open their newspapers daily to see reports showing them that we have the best fiscal position among the G7 countries currently. We are also seeing positive signs of the government's plan working for Canadians. In the last seven months, the Canadian economy has created a quarter of a million new jobs. Since December 2015, Canada's unemployment rate has dropped from 7.1% to 6.6%. This is what the residents of Brampton are proud of.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to touch on a couple of the parental and family issues the member mentioned in her speech.

I give them credit for the new employment insurance caregiver benefit. That is something New Democrats also promised in the election, but we are discouraged that the Liberals are committing less than they campaigned on. I am pleased to see the extended parental leave, but I am discouraged that there is no new money for families. People would have to be pretty well off to live on one-third of their salaries for a year and a half. It would be nice if they could do it, but it is not a way to bring more people out of poverty.

The most disappointing part, and I would like to hear from the member on this, is that during the election campaign, Liberals said that the New Democrats' child care plan was inadequately funded. Had New Democrats had the honour of forming government, there would have been $1.2 billion for new child care spaces. In fact, last year's Liberal budget and this year's Liberal budget have zero for new child care spaces. Why?

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this budget has provided flexibility for families. We have continued the Canada child benefit, and it will continue throughout our mandate. This provides families with the opportunity to use that money as they see fit. There have been investments in child care spaces as well. This combination provides families with flexibility in all types of situations. The child care benefit also no longer goes to the wealthiest Canadians and millionaires. It is given proportionately to those in need. Families with young children are receiving up to $2,500 more a year under our plan. It is providing relief for families in Canada.