Debates of March 20th, 2018

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

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

Madam Speaker, I will ask the same question that I asked earlier. First of all, did the member knock on doors, like many of his colleagues, saying that he would run two deficit budgets of $10 billion and then return back to balance by 2019? This budget clearly shows that there is no plan. In fact, the reason for borrowing was originally for infrastructure. The parliamentary budget office has said that 25% of the funds that the government proposes are going to lapse and that there is no plan.

Does the member feel that he has honoured his constituents? Does he feel that the government needs to do a better job in this area?

[Fayçal El-Khoury, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to assure my colleague about the following. When someone needs to buy a house, if he does not have the money, he takes out a mortgage in order to have a better life for his wife and children. That is exactly what we are doing. We are borrowing money in order to invest in our infrastructure, our environment, families, students, science, our research. We keep investing in order to pay the debt left to us by the previous government.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to share my time with my hon. colleague from Sarnia—Lambton today.

There are many names that have been used to describe this budget. One I have heard is the Peter Pan budget. Another one calls it the Seinfeld budget because it is about nothing. I have a few other names myself for it, perhaps the Led Zeppelin budget because it would leave one dazed and confused in reading it.

Here is a quote about the budget from the Minister of Status of Women: “The lens applied to the budget has been an intersectional gendered lens because our brand of feminism is based on the belief that feminism is a diverse as Canada itself.” At the same time, the budget itself says that men and boys also have gender intersecting identities, experience inequality, and are not a homogenous group. This work will recognize that this gender is not synonymous with women, dazed and confused.

We could call it the budget of broken promises. We heard earlier today about the broken promise of small deficits. Remember, the Liberals originally promised just $24 billion in deficit and then balancing the budget in 2019. Instead, we are going to be looking at $83 billion in new debt by 2019 and no balance in sight. In fact, numbers from the Finance department show that we will not be in balance until 2045, which is 27 years from now.

The finance minister and the Prime Minister refuse repeatedly to answer the question of when the budget will be balanced. The mandate tracker that the Liberal government launched to great fanfare says on the budget, and remember that the mandate was to balance the budget by 2019, that it is under way, with challenges.

We could call it “Dude, where is my infrastructure?” There is $24 billion of infrastructure spending on the original debt and a promise, but so much has been reprofiled and lapsed that even the Parliamentary Budget Officer cannot track it.

The Senate did a study on the infrastructure spending. Remember, this infrastructure spending was supposed to be the golden bullet. It was going to improve productivity, get us home to our families faster because of a shorter commute, make us happier, make the Maple Leafs win the Stanley Cup. The Senate said in its study that the only metric for success for outcomes for infrastructure spending is that the money was spent. It was not that it would increase productivity, not that Canadians were getting good value for the money. The Senate dominated by Liberals and independent Liberals, stated that their only measure of success is that they spent the money itself.

Now these are all good names, but I want to go with a different name. It will be a sequel to the Rick Moranis film, Honey, I Shrunk the Kids, except we will call this budget the “honey, I sunk the kids budget”, because it sells out our children and our grandchildren. It sticks them with billions and billions of added debt and interest.

How bad is it? There will be $98 billion added over the next five years. That is $3,800 for every single Canadian taxpayer over five years. A husband and wife with one of their children working has three taxpayers. That is $10,000 of added debt for that one family in just five years.

Over the next five years, we are going to be spending $175 billion in interest payments. Think about that $175 billion. That is $6,730 for every single taxpayer for five years. Now, if people have kids graduating from high school or in their first year of university, when they enter the workforce around 2022-23, in that one year, they are going to be on the hook for $1,300 in taxes just to cover interest rates.

What could that $175 billion in interest that we are paying to foreign banks and Bay Street billionaires buy? It could get us 700,000 trips for the Prime Minister for his trip to billionaire island; 22,000 hockey rinks on Parliament Hill; 525 sole-sourced Super Hornets from Boeing, which we could cancel because we do not like Boeing, and then go to Australia to buy Boeing Hornets. We could do 470 bailouts for Bombardier, and almost two million Twitter accounts for the Minister of Health to do her two tweets a day.

Seriously though, what could that money do? With that $175 billion, we could build 15 brand new hospitals, in Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Edmonton, Ottawa, and Calgary. The Misericordia hospital in west Edmonton, where my oldest son was born, needs to be replaced. They say it is a billion dollar price tag. We could replace that 15 times. With the other money, we could build a brand new hospital in every single town or city in Canada that has a population of 20,000 or more.

Going forward, let us look at the future. Both the budget and the PBO talk about upward and downward risks of the budget, and risks of the economy being higher or lower than they are forecasting. On the upward side, they state that we could have higher growth globally. We could have economic activity driven by unsustainable consumer debt, or higher oil prices. However, we know we cannot get the oil to market under the Liberal government, so it is massively discounted. The only good news, the only way things could get better is to rely on the world economy, higher oil, even though we cannot get our oil to market, or more consumer spending.

On the downside, we could have NAFTA crashing, and there is nothing in the budget that addresses the possibility. We could have higher interest rates or higher debt. We do not have a lot of upside, but there is a lot of downside on this.

What does this budget do for Alberta? Well, let us see: nothing. It does nothing for Alberta. We realize that the Liberals do not care about Alberta. They only have two or three MPs left, depending on the scandal of the week. That being said, when I look at the wanted infrastructure from the government, what do we get? The Minister of Infrastructure and Communities is from Alberta. Alberta has about 12% of the population of Canada, but we get 9.5% of the infrastructure that has been spent so far. Even with the Minister of Infrastructure based in Edmonton, we are underfunded by 18% per capita. Keeping in mind that Alberta overcontributes because of a higher wealth to equalization, we are underfunded by 18% per capita.

What have we had from the spending so far that we have heard so much about? We have garbage and cigarette disposal units for our bus stops. Thanks to the minister. We have five passenger shelters purchased for Alberta. We have a review of transit feasibility and bus stop upgrades. From Edmonton to Fort McMurray, there is Highway 63, and it is called the highway of death because there have been 150 people who have lost their lives. I used to work in Fort McMurray and have driven that highway several times. Of all this historic infrastructure spending, with the infrastructure minister based in Edmonton, what do we get? We get $29 million for upgrades for Highway 63. It is an absolute disgrace what is going on with this budget. It provides almost nothing for Alberta. All it does for this country is drown us in debt.

I want to summarize what it does. In good times, the government is spending like there is no tomorrow and driving up debt when it should be putting away money for the future for our aging population, the possible downturn of the global economy, and higher interest rates. When times are good, with a strong global economy, the government is racking up the debt and leaving us with nothing in the bank for when things go down.

This diverts massive amounts of taxpayers' dollars out of needed resources for hospitals, the military, and infrastructure, and drives it into interest payments to foreign bankers and Bay Street elites. This is a budget for Bay Street elites and foreign financiers. It is not a budget for Canada or Albertans.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, I was remiss when I heard some of the comments by the hon. colleague from Alberta about how this is a budget for certain groups; this is a budget for all Canadians coast to coast to coast. This is a budget that indexes the Canada child benefit two years in advance. This is a budget that introduces a Canada workers benefit.

I am wondering if my colleague across the aisle would comment on how the Canada child benefit helps the residents of his riding, whether it is a single mother, individuals with two or three kids who may be staying home for a certain time, or somebody who has recently moved to his riding from another part of the country or immigrated recently. Can he comment about what the Canada child benefit is doing for residents of his riding in Alberta?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is funny that the member brings up the benefit and indexation. He only brings it up because the government forgot to add indexing when it first introduced it. It probably knowingly left it out so it could reduce the amount of payments. It only brought it up to detract from all the scandal that the government has been involved in.

Regarding the example of paying single mothers, I would love for the member to come to my constituency office and listen to the amount of single mothers who cannot access this because of the bizarre rules that the government has set up. We have mothers who have come in with their identification, letters from their ex-husbands stating that they have given full custody to the mothers. They have brought the children in. There are letters from the school saying that the children exist. However, what do we get from the CRA and deafness from the government? We are told that it needs more proof. I would like to see the government step up, do its job, and help single mothers, not just talk about it in this House.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague and friend from Edmonton West for raising the concerns and asking where this money is going.

We have heard the government talk about its record amount of investments in infrastructure and job creation, but I can tell members that my community in the Alberni Valley has the highest poverty rate in British Columbia, and we know that comes at a huge cost to our criminal justice system and health care system.

We have put forward some really good proposals. One is for coastal restoration to bring our salmon back, which is really important to our economy and food security. We have put forward proposals for port infrastructure to create a good, strong marine economy where we can refit boats. We have put forward proposals for a firefighting school of excellence and return-to-work policies through Pacific Coast University to help unlock the potential of 1.2 million Canadians who are injured in the workplace. None of those proposals got any funding.

Would the member agree that if we are going to spend money, we should put it in places where there is a high amount of poverty, unlock that potential and empower people? Instead, the government is making it a lost opportunity.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I used to live on Vancouver Island. I have been to the member's area plenty of times. It is a beautiful part of the country and it is a shame what is going on there.

The member is very right with respect to the misguided use of resources. There is a lot that should be used there and in the rest of the country. Instead, where do we see our money going? We see the government investing millions upon millions in the Chinese infrastructure bank to build pipelines in China but not in Canada. We see billions and billions being given to foreigners for interest payments. This is money that should be used to help alleviate poverty not only in Port Alberni and elsewhere on Vancouver Island, but also in the rest of Canada.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, my colleague has been involved in business in the past and he knows a lot about small businesses. I wonder if he saw anything in this budget that was of any value or any detriment to the small businesses of Canada.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, what we see with this budget is the continual betrayal of small businesses. Dan Kelly from the CFIB has continually called out the attacks on small business. Also, we are uncompetitive now with the U.S. Despite everything we like to say, the U.S. is still our greatest friend and biggest trading partner, and will be for the foreseeable future. We are going to get crushed with this budget because of the changes that are being made in the U.S. Whether we like Trump or not, we are being made uncompetitive by the government and the Liberals do not seem to care.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, to get 10 minutes to talk about budget 2018, when I first got elected, I would have thought was a long time, but now it just does not seem to be that much time.

This budget was not well received by most Canadians. I am going to talk about health care, infrastructure, and some of the spending. I was always told that when one is bringing a critical message it is good to make a sandwich and say something nice at the beginning and something nice at the end. Therefore, I am going to say something nice at the beginning and something nice at the end.

The thing I will say at the beginning is that I was pleased to see that the response for science to the Naylor report was a good one. As the former science critic for our party, that was something I was looking for. I do not have anything bad to say about that, but now I will turn to the other issues.

The first topic of discussion of course has to do with palliative care. I was surprised that the word “palliative” does not appear once in this budget. After seeing the word “palliative" in budget 2017, and considering the unanimous support of the House of Commons and the Senate for my bill, Bill C-277, regarding palliative care, I was surprised that the word was not mentioned in this budget.

In 2017, the federal government proposed investing $6 billion over 10 years for home and palliative care, as well as $5 billion over 10 years to support mental health initiatives. These investments included improving home care services in Canada, as well as palliative care. In other words, there was $11 billion for mental health, home care, and palliative care. However, budget 2018 announced different investments, specifically $11 billion over 10 years for provincial and territorial governments to support home care and mental health, but not palliative care. There is no mention of palliative care.

Palliative care is a necessary but extremely underfunded service in our country. By leaving palliative care out of the budget, the government is ignoring the needs of many desperate Canadians who need financial support not only to improve their living conditions, but also to help ease the burden on our health care system.

The second issue has to do with mental health, dementia, and PTSD. As with palliative care, budget 2018 fails to make investments in mental health care. As I mentioned earlier, only $11 billion was earmarked for mental health, including home care. That is not enough. Canada is still in crisis, and we must do everything we can for all those in need.

To make matters worse, the federal government is investing only $20 million over five years and only $4 million a year after that for Canadians with dementia. Over 400 million Canadians have dementia, including Alzheimer's, and this disease disproportionately affects elderly women. That amount is simply not enough. Given our aging population, we need to prepare and invest in quality programs.

I would like to thank my colleague on this side of the House for all of the work he has done regarding injuries and post-traumatic stress. I believe that it is thanks to him and his efforts that investments were made in this area. However, the government is proposing to invest only $10 million over five years to create a pilot project. Research and pilot projects are important, but so are services for all those who are living with PTSD. I believe that this is a step in the right direction but that the government needs to do a lot more.

Another point worth noting is the $20-million investment, and $6 million a year going forward, to improve mental health supports for offenders in federal correctional facilities. Those funds are intended specifically to enhance supports for women inmates in those institutions.

Despite those small investments, the government is also proposing to provide $10 million over five years for the Mental Health Commission of Canada to assess the effects of cannabis use on Canadians' mental health.

The Liberal government is doing everything it can to control and limit cigarette use, yet it wants to legalize marijuana as soon as possible, despite knowing the mental damage it can cause to users. This $10-million investment proves that the government recognizes the dangers associated with cannabis, yet it is going ahead with full legalization anyway.

What really struck me in this budget is where the government put the priorities in terms of health. There is $80 million in the budget to get people to stop smoking, but there is $800 million in the budget to get people to start smoking marijuana. That seems like the wrong priority. At the same time, while people are dying across the country in the opioid crisis, there is $40 million a year being put toward that crisis. Again, in comparison to the legalization of marijuana, it just does not seem to be the right priority at all.

I talked about my disappointment that palliative care was not even mentioned in this budget. I had approached the minister with a plan for once the framework was put together to build palliative care infrastructure across Canada. When we talk about the infrastructure spending that was promised by the government at the beginning, that was the whole reason for going into deficit. However, it does not seem that the money is flowing to the municipalities. What could be a better example than my riding?

Most members know that on January 11, the Canadian Coast Guard decided not to close the channel, which it normally does when ice floes are heavy, and the resulting push from the icebreakers crushed the Sombra ferry causeway. That border has been shut since January. The Minister of Public Safety is in charge of the CBSA, which makes $3.3 million in duties from that crossing every year. I approached the minister to get the repair money to put that back together. At first there was no response, but then a denial. I approached the Minister of Transport, who has the responsibility for the trade corridor funding. Again, there was a refusal. I approached the infrastructure minister, who seems to be looking for somewhere to spend $186 billion. I only need $2.5 million. Certainly, he could spend it on the restoration of the Sombra ferry crossing, but again, that was refused.

Combat engineers in my riding said that if the Minister of National Defence decides that it is in the national interest, he could send them to repair the bridge. They had done that in Laval and Guelph, and they could do it elsewhere. Again, there was a great opportunity, but the Minister of National Defence turned me down. I have escalated this to the Prime Minister's Office, but nothing has been done. When the government states that it wants to spend money on infrastructure and the municipalities, it falls on deaf ears for me and my constituents, who feel that there is no infrastructure money for the Sombra ferry restoration in Sarnia—Lambton.

That said, at the beginning of my speech I gave some commentary about the things I thought were missing in the budget, and said that I would say something nice at the end. I have a couple of nice things to say.

I was glad to see a reference to the thalidomide issue. We know there are people who did not qualify for their thalidomide claims because they could not produce the paperwork. I have brought this to the attention of the Minister of Health, and I am pleased to see that this has been put into the budget. No dollars were associated with it, but I am trusting that money will be parcelled out to those people who deserve compensation.

Other than that, the only other happy news is that most of the spending has been pushed out into the years after the Liberal government will have been defeated.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is good to see my colleague on her feet, which is not an unusual thing to see here in the House.

It was great to hear your comments, and it was nice to hear you mention some positives, because there are lots of positives—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Order. I just want to remind the member to address her questions and comments through the Speaker.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, there are lots of positives, and I am glad that the member decided to single out one or two of them.

I know the interests of my colleagues in the House with respect to women entrepreneurship and the steps that have been taken on that particular file in the budget. Therefore, I would be interested to hear my colleague's comments on whether she agrees that is going to be very helpful to the women of Canada.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, when I was the chair of the status of women committee, we were working on a study of the economic status of women and the barriers that prevent women from becoming entrepreneurs and from going into some of the higher-paying positions in the trades or STEM. The key barriers came down to available child care and travel. As members can appreciate, people who work in construction sometimes have to start at 7:30 in the morning or work overtime. The day cares that exist today are not available during those hours. That can be problematic. In other kinds of entrepreneurial careers, the necessity for travel can be a real barrier. I do not think the government has come up with a solution that meets the need for the child care support that people would want.

Another thing I would say is we continue to see an inequity in pay and the awarding of funds. I was pleased to see some additional funding for women entrepreneurs, but there is more that needs to be done.

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

Madam Speaker, the Liberals made a promise in 2015 that they were going to close the stock option loophole for CEOs. We now know that 92% of the benefit of the stock option loophole goes to the 1%. Both parliamentarians and the Canadian public are being misled that this is good for business. In fact, I have met business leaders in the tech industry, and I have asked them if this incentive would make or break whether they are going to do business in Canada. They said no, that it is about recruitment, affordable housing, and making things more business-friendly. The environment is really a priority. The stock option loophole is not going to make it or break it.

Does the member support closing the stock option loophole, where 92% of the benefit goes to the top 1%?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member is correct that the government is not at all good at keeping its promises. We saw the Liberals break the promise about running only a $10-billion deficit, the promise to balance the budget in the four-year term, the promise to restore home mail delivery, the promise that this would be the last election under first past the post, and we could go on.

With respect to the 1%, the government has actually reduced taxes on the 1% and increased taxes on the middle class, the very people it claims it is trying to help. Certainly, I do not think the government has done what people were looking for about the 1%.

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

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives often close their eyes about the past. A good example of that is the member making reference to infrastructure spending. Our government has done more in terms of making a commitment to communities, in every region of the country, to invest in infrastructure. That means we also have to work with other levels of government in order to get some of those infrastructure projects off the ground.

I wonder if the member could comment on why she is critical of the government for infrastructure spending. What would she have said if she was in opposition when Stephen Harper was the prime minister and he got virtually nothing off the ground on infrastructure?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to correct the misinformation there, because under the Harper government there was a lot of infrastructure money spent, and I certainly received a large portion of that when I was a citizen of Sarnia—Lambton. However, as I always like to say, we cannot change the past; we can only change the future.

I look to my own riding. There is an opportunity in my riding for an oversized load corridor that would create 3,000 well-paying jobs. This has been on the Liberal government's radar since I first got elected. I need $6 million federally. The rest has been given by the province and the municipality. I have yet to get this money approved. Once again, there is no infrastructure money coming out of the Liberal government.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Port Moody—Coquitlam, Fisheries and Oceans; the hon. member for Perth—Wellington, Interprovincial Trade.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Parkdale—High Park.

I am pleased to have a moment to reference some of the good things in this budget.

I am proud of budget 2018, entitled “Equality + Growth: A Strong Middle Class”.

This budget takes a people-centred approach. By making substantial investments and real progress for the middle class, our government is demonstrating its commitment to all Canadians, especially those in need, in most of our communities here in Canada. My riding of Humber River—Black Creek is no different.

The government's plan to strengthen the middle class and grow the economy is clearly working. Since November 2015, our economy has created nearly 600,000 jobs, most of which are full-time jobs, not part-time jobs. The unemployment rate, thank goodness, is near historic lows, and that is something we can all be grateful for, because it means that many people in Canada who wanted to work are working.

Canada has the fastest growing economy among the G7 countries, and Canadians are feeling far more optimistic about their future and their children's future. That is what I am hearing from my constituents every single day.

The introduction of initiatives like the Canada workers benefit puts more money in the pockets of low-income workers.

Members have heard me talk about my riding and the challenges I have. I represent a lot of fine people who are new immigrants to Canada and are struggling to finish their education, get their children into a good spot, and find a decent job and some decent housing. They struggle with that every day.

Low-income workers can no longer live paycheque to paycheque. We are trying to help correct that. The Canada workers benefit will raise approximately 70,000 Canadians out of poverty by 2020. Encouraging more Canadians to join the workforce is of the utmost importance, especially in Humber River—Black Creek.

I cannot tell the House how many people have come to me looking for employment opportunities over the many years I have been here. I really disagree with the idea some people have that people do not want to work. All people want to work, if they are physically able and mentally well. It gives them a feeling of satisfaction to know that they are trying to build their own families and communities. Job creation is really important for so many reasons.

There is even more good news, other than the 70,000 Canadians who will be out of poverty by 2020.

For example, a single mom of two children aged five and eight with a net income of $35,000, and I have many in my riding, is receiving $11,125 in tax-free Canada child care benefit payments in 2017-18. That is like a million dollars to many of the single moms in Humber River—Black Creek. That is an enormous amount of money for them to be able to make a difference in their lives and the lives of their children. That is $3,535 more than she would ever have received under the previous benefit system. The child care benefit is making a significant difference in the lives of mothers and families in my riding of Humber River—Black Creek.

During a recent visit to the Yorkdale mall, I was stopped by a new mother, who thanked me for the support she was getting from our government. She told me about the difference it was going to make at the end of the month in her ability to pay for the rental housing, put food on the table, and maybe just allow her children to be more involved in some of the sports activities that they want to do. It meant that she was able to pay for things like better food, the sports programs that I mentioned, music lessons, and school supplies for her children.

There is nothing better than hearing directly from my constituents about how the work we are doing here in the House is making life easier for them. It is stories like this that allow me the opportunity to be so confident that our government is making the right decisions through budget 2018.

Overall across the country, single mothers are receiving roughly $1.8 billion more in benefits under the Canada child benefit. That is a lot of money going into the pockets of thousands of families across Canada. That is an incredible investment. Most families in Humber River—Black Creek are benefiting from the Canada child benefit. They receive about $6,800 in child care benefits annually. Last fall, the government proposed to make the Canada child benefit even stronger so that it keeps pace with the rising cost of living. As of July this year, two years ahead of schedule, the government will have it tied to the cost of living.

As of late, we have heard a lot about the Canada summer jobs program. I would like to focus on the positives that are assisting the youth in my riding who are being hired for the first time through many organizations, businesses, and non-profits throughout the riding. For many people, this is their first job and without this first experience, I am afraid some of these young people would end up going in the wrong direction and end up on the streets, getting involved in criminal activity, and so on. The Canada summer jobs program is doubled from what it previously was, and it is employing thousands of young people in their first jobs. At the end of the summer, when I often try to meet many of them, they tell me that it completely changed their ideas of what work was going to be like, that having that paycheque at the end of each week really made them feel good, and that they want to make sure they go back to school and improve their education.

Through budget 2018, students would benefit from more job placements for youth through the Canada summer jobs program, and women would have better financial support to access apprenticeships that are male-dominated and better paid, doing red seal trades like plumbing, welding, and gas fitting. There are lots of women who want to do these jobs, but they have to be encouraged and we have to remove the barriers that have prevented women from doing that.

We have made investments specifically in Ontario to create 100,000 new child care spaces, as we work with our province by transferring funds between governments and working in co-operation with our provincial government. That is how we create those opportunities when we know that there is a big need for this. This is a positive, not a negative. The youth of today are our future, and it is vital that we support them now.

There are still problems that have to be solved. For example, despite significant efforts by the government and many others, the number of opioid-related deaths unfortunately continues to rise. Through budget 2018, the government would make further investments to address this crisis, which has had a significant effect on many communities, including my own. Key measures include providing one-time emergency funding for provinces and territories to improve access to treatment services, a very important opportunity to give people a helping hand; launching a public education campaign to address the stigma that creates barriers for those seeking treatment; and equipping border agents with detection and identification tools to intercept fentanyl and other substances at ports of entry.

In addition, we as a government are also taking steps to keep cannabis out of the hands of youth and to keep profits out of the hands of criminals. The government is working with the provinces and territories on a coordinated approach to taxing cannabis, keeping taxes low, and driving out the illicit market.

As I said, there are many good things in this budget. It is part of our plan of building Canada, making Canada stronger, and ensuring that the middle class has the support that is required to make Canada strong.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, at one point in time the riding of my friend from Humber River—Black Creek was actually a part of rural Canada, but it is no longer. I wonder how she can comment on this budget when there is not a single word in this budget about agriculture. We were dealing with 40% tariffs on chickpeas to India and 20% tariffs on canola to India, and after the Prime Minister went to India and came back, all of a sudden it is 60% tariffs on chickpeas. That does not do our rural Canadians any favours. There is not a word in this document about agriculture. Could the member comment on how that would have affected her riding when it was a rural part of Canada?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, in my many years here as an urban member, my colleagues from the rural part of our caucus and our staff, including my previous employee who was with me for 16 years, constantly made sure that I as an urban member was sensitive to the issues that the rural areas experience.

In terms of the many things we did in last year's budget as well, in expanding the broadband and the opportunities, our rural caucus and rural members speak of them very passionately and care very much. It is important that we make sure as we go through with a balanced budget that we do not forget anyone and do not leave anyone behind.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague said that the Canada summer jobs program has offered many more jobs for young people. Yes, many more groups received funding, but just this morning, I noticed that we were giving six weeks of work to groups that had applied for jobs for the entire summer, 15 or 16 weeks.

A six-week summer job is a month and a half for a student. This is not a quality job. Yes, perhaps more students will get jobs, but a six-week job will not allow them to pay for university tuition. Actually, it will not help them pay for much.

So when people are told that the jobs offered through the Canada summer jobs program have been improved by increasing the number of people receiving a job, it is not true, because the quality of the jobs has greatly diminished.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, it depends on the applications from the various organizations. Some are doing summer programs and they are simply hiring for a six-week plan. Others are doing it for 14 or 16 weeks. It all depends at the end of the day on the companies that are offering the employment opportunities for these students.

I was going through my summer job applications this morning and there are a lot of them that are offering 12 and 14 weeks, tying in with many of the university students who are seeking employment opportunities. Therefore, the application put in seeking a partner is what matters and how they match up the funds.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague and friend has been a very strong advocate for people age 55-plus. I have seen first-hand how effective she can be on that.

In part of this budget we talk about putting together a committee or advisory group to look at the whole issue of pharmacare, something I suspect my colleague has given a great deal of thought to. Could she share with the House her feelings in regard to that? For many seniors the cost of medications is fairly high and is one of the reasons they have a difficult time making ends meet.