House of Commons Hansard #406 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was seniors.
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-97, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2019 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.
The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan
I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded divisions, government orders will be extended by nine minutes.
Resuming debate. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to be able to rise and address the House on the important issues. There is nothing more important than the Government of Canada's budget agenda—
The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan
I apologize to the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader. Apparently, there was time remaining for questions and comments after a previous speech from another parliamentary secretary. However, since that is obviously not going to happen at the moment, I should be going to the hon. member for Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan. I again apologize to my hon. friend, the parliamentary secretary, who I hope will forgive me.
The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan
I appreciate that.
The hon. member for Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan.
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Winnipeg North for being so gracious in allowing me to participate in this debate today.
I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-97, the government's budget implementation act. It allows me the opportunity to examine in some detail why the Liberal government should not be re-elected this October. I say that because the government, if nothing else, has exhibited a litany of broken promises since 2015. Allow me to explain and highlight just a few of them.
As many Canadians may remember, during the election campaign in 2015, one of the many promises the Liberals made was to end what they called the undemocratic practice of introducing omnibus budget bills. What did we see this year? We saw another in a series of omnibus budget bills. In fact, the budget bill tabled this year is over 700 pages in length, making it the most lengthy budget bill ever introduced in parliamentary history. So much for stopping the practice of introducing omnibus budget bills.
I only note this as an example of one of the Liberals' broken promises. There are many more.
I will spend a little time on the second example, which is the most alarming of all the broken promises from the Liberals. This is the promise they made in 2015 to run, only for a three-year period, modest deficits of no more than $10 billion. They also promised that by the year 2019, the fourth year in their four-year mandate, they would return to balanced budgets. It is now 2019 and where are we? Do we have a balanced budget? We certainly do not. In fact, we have the furthest thing from it.
What is truly alarming is that on multiple occasions in committee, the finance minister of our country admitted that not only would we not return to balanced budgets in the foreseeable future, but he did not know when we might.
Let us think about that for just a second. I want all Canadians to think about that as well. The finance minister, who is arguably the second most influential person in Canada with respect to setting economic and fiscal policy, will not say when the budget will be balanced. More troubling is that he cannot because he does not know. The finance minister of Canada does not know when this country might return to balanced budgets. That is far more alarming to me than any pronouncement that any finance minister has made in recent history.
I could have understood if the finance minister would have said that he did not see the country returning to a balanced budget in the next five to 10 years or perhaps even in the next 15 years because of the economic and fiscal direction the government wished to pursue. However, it is more than just troubling for the finance minister to admit that he does not know when the country will return to a balanced budget because he cannot project that far into the future.
All Canadian taxpayers should think about that long and hard, and I hope they do. I hope that come October, they will remember this broken promise. Our country deserves better than a finance minister who does not know when his own budget might be balanced. It is almost unconscionable for a man in his position to admit that, yet that is the case before us.
It is not just the fact that the Liberals broke a promise on omnibus bills and their introduction in Parliament. It is not just the fact that they promised only modest deficits, and they have broken that promise. The Liberals have broken promises on things like electoral reform. They have broken promises on elements such as supporting the oil and gas sector in Canada, something on which the Liberals have deliberately, in my view, misled Canadians.
Let me give a couple of examples of what I say and what I mean by not supporting the oil and gas sector. Almost immediately upon forming government in 2015, the Liberal government killed northern gateway, a project that if it were up and running today, would be bringing untold billions of dollars to the Canadian economy and increasing the price of oil that we could have sold on the world market. However, the Liberal government unilaterally killed a project that had previously been approved by the National Energy Board.
In addition to that, the Liberal government, looking at the proposed energy east project, changed the regulatory provisions contained in the legislation and made upstream and downstream emissions something that had to be considered by the NEB, to the point where TransCanada pulled completely out of that project. That project, which could have been a nation-building project, delivering oil from western Canada to the east coast to their refineries to reduce our dependency on foreign oil, because of the Liberal government, was killed.
What is left? It is the infamous Trans Mountain Kinder Morgan project. The Liberal government has no intention, in my view, of following through on its promise to get that built. Right now, again in my opinion, the Liberal Party is simply doing electoral calculus on how many votes it can gain by not committing to completing this project before the next election. If the Liberals feel they can get more votes in British Columbia and Quebec by stopping this project, then that is what they are going to do.
This is nothing more than a political exercise, but the collateral damage is Canadians, particularly in western Canada, in my province of Saskatchewan and my neighbouring province of Alberta. The energy-producing provinces of the country are the collateral damage of the Liberal government's refusal to honour a promise.
Last but certainly not least, I would point out for all Canadians who may be listening to this debate what the Liberals did with the SNC scandal, as it is now known. The budget implementation bill included, buried deep within that bill, a provision that would allow the government, should it so wish, to introduce something called a DPA, a deferred prosecution agreement. The Liberals did that because the government had been lobbied extensively by SNC-Lavalin and they thought that by introducing it in the bill, it would allow the prosecutors office an opportunity to offer a DPA to SNC-Lavalin. That did not happen, and we know what the results were: the biggest scandal in Canadian political history in the last three decades, which resulted in the former attorney general of Canada resigning, because of the inappropriate pressure put on her by the government, and in the former Treasury Board president resigning in protest over the government's handling of that very key element of the budget implementation bill.
I could go on for quite some considerable time, but I have limited time before me. Let me just conclude by going back to my opening remarks when I said that in my opinion the government did not deserve to be re-elected. I can assure the House and anyone else who may be listening to this debate that in slightly less than six months, Canadians will be able to prove my prediction to be quite accurate.
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am trying to follow the thread toward the budget and his thoughts on the budget, in particular the investments we are making as a government in social infrastructure and in taking people out of poverty. People in his riding are now in a better position than they were in 2015 by $2,200, on average. Our cuts on taxes to the middle class and the Canada child benefit we have put forward are benefiting the people in his community.
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question, but the answer, quite simply, is no, it is not benefiting any members of my constituency. By contrast, rather than making life more affordable for the middle class, life is getting more expensive for the middle class.
Recent reports have indicated that the average Canadian family will be paying $800 more in taxes now than they did in 2015, before the implementation of the Liberals' first budget. Not only that, the imposition of a carbon tax will ensure that every Canadian family will be paying more money on virtually everything than they did prior. Another report indicated that according to a recent survey, the majority of Canadian families said that they are within $200 of insolvency each and every month. This is truly alarming, and the Liberal government has only itself to blame.
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear my friend speak. Only in Ottawa could politicians talk about a deficit of $10 billion being a modest deficit. To most Canadians, the notion that 10 billion of anything as modest, especially dollars, is alarming. The fact that the Liberals campaigned that way was, I suppose, symbolic, but it became a factual representation of their alleged progressiveness.
The member listed a number of the promises that were made, and one was around omnibus legislation. Just recently, my colleague from Vancouver East tried to hive off some immigration changes that are buried at the tail end of this budget, which is something the Liberals clearly promised Canadians they would not do. That kitchen-sink approach to legislation forces members of Parliament to vote en masse for a whole group of different ideas. I do wish, for transparency's sake, that my friend had had more of an allergy to omnibus budget bills when he was on the government benches. The constant repetition of this is what worries me.
My kids recently watched the movie Back to the Future. I believe the future date in that movie was 2015, and they had hoverboards flying everywhere. I watched that movie with my kids, realizing that those promises were just a little overstretched. The Liberals made a promise in 2015 that 2019 would be it. In 2019, the country would return to balance within our federal books.
I wonder if the member can ascribe that same sort of fantasy level of thinking the Liberals applied when talking about fiscal matters that the creators of that excellent movie, starring a great Canadian, made when trying to anticipate a future far off, leading Canadians down that same sort of fantasy path to nowhere and to years upon years of increasing deficits that, of course, will weigh on future generations.
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend, my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley, for the many years he has put into this place. We have known each other since 2004, when we were both elected. I can only say that I will miss him and the contributions he has made to this place. I wish him nothing but the best of success in all his future endeavours, and I mean that quite sincerely.
With respect to my colleague's comments about the Liberals' prognostications back in 2015 about omnibus budgets being a thing of the past, I can assure my friend, in relation to his comments on watching Back to the Future with his children, that clearly, the finance minister is no Michael J. Fox.
We have not seen anything quite like this in some time. Yes, it is true that the Liberals did not introduce the concept of omnibus bills, which have been done for some time now, but they have taken it to the next level. They have ratcheted it up. We have never seen in parliamentary history a 700-plus-page omnibus bill introduced except by the current government. I agree wholeheartedly with my colleague and my friend that, yes, the appropriate thing would be to hive off so many of the elements contained under one bill into separate pieces of legislation.
As an example, my colleague and friend would agree with me that had the Liberals hived off the provision about deferred prosecution agreements, at least the committee on justice would have been able to further examine why they wanted to introduce that provision and whether it would be something that would benefit the majority of Canadians. They did not. They hid it, and they hid it for one particular reason, which was to try to make sure that they got their friends in corporate Canada, specifically SNC-Lavalin, a special deal. We all know how that has ended. It has blown up in their faces. It did not have to be this way, had they done the right thing and introduced it as a separate, singular piece of legislation.
John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for this opportunity today to speak to Bill C-97, the budget implementation act.
With budget 2019, our government would continue to invest in the middle class and in communities across Canada, such as Langley City, the Township of Langley and the city of Surrey, all located within the riding I represent, Cloverdale—Langley City.
Whether it is helping Canadians buy their first home or investing in clean energy and public transit, budget 2019 focuses on the current challenges faced by everyday Canadians and would address them in meaningful ways that would give help where people needed it the most. I will be speaking on measures that would address those issues today.
Budget 2019 is our government's fourth budget and would build on the work and progress our government has in made these past four years.
Today Canada's economy is one of the fastest growing in the G7. Since 2015, Canadians have created more than 900,000 new jobs. Thanks to the middle-class tax cut and the tax-free Canada child benefit, families in the riding of Cloverdale—Langley City have more money in their pockets to help make ends meet. However, it is important to recognize that there is still more work to do, and we need to get on it now. Budget 2019 is a good next step that would help ensure that all Canadians share in this growing prosperity.
The biggest issue I hear about at doors in Cloverdale—Langley City is housing. Everyone needs a safe and affordable place to call home, but today too many Canadians are being priced out of the housing market. This budget would help address this issue in several ways.
To start, budget 2019 proposes to invest $300 million to launch a new housing supply challenge. The housing supply challenge would invite municipalities and Canadians across the country to propose new ways to break down barriers that limit the creation of new housing.
We would also expand the rental construction financing initiative, helping to build more affordable rental options for Canadians so they can live near where they work or study, and we are tackling homelessness across the country through the reaching home strategy.
A new rental building project in my riding, with 100 units, had more than 2,000 people apply for those units, demonstrating the need for significantly more rental options in Cloverdale—Langley City.
Budget 2019 proposes an additional $10 billion over nine years, extending this program until 2027-28. This would help create 42,500 new rental units across Canada, with a particular focus in areas of low rental supply.
To address the difficulty young families may have buying their first home, through Bill C-97, budget 2019 proposes a new first-time homebuyer incentive. With this extra help in the shape of a shared equity mortgage through the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Canadians could lower their monthly mortgage payments, making home ownership more affordable. The incentive would provide funding of 5% or 10% of the home purchase price for existing or new homes respectively, with no ongoing monthly payments required. The program is expected to help approximately 100,000 Canadians buy homes they can afford.
Additionally, budget 2019 proposes to increase the home buyers' plan withdrawal limit to $35,000 from $25,000. The home buyers' plan allows first-time home buyers to withdraw from their registered retirement savings plans to purchase or build a home without having to pay tax on the withdrawal.
I am excited about what our investments in infrastructure through budget 2019 would mean for communities across the country that need funding to get local projects done. Through budget 2019, we would ensure that infrastructure funding would get to those who have shown that they are willing and able to get projects done: our local and municipal governments.
We would invest a one-time top-up of $2.2 billion, through the federal gas tax fund, to get infrastructure funding in the hands of those who would ensure that it was invested in jobs to build our communities. This funding would address short-term priorities in municipalities and first nation communities. Cloverdale—Langley City would receive an additional top-up of approximately $2,041,652.03. With 95% of this money going toward TransLink, our regional transit infrastructure, it would help deal with a much-needed expansion in support of a growing network for our growing population.
Working with provinces and territories, the government has approved more than 33,000 infrastructure projects for communities across Canada, supported by federal investments of approximately $19.9 billion. In my riding, these investments will mean better highways, cleaner parks and new community centres. In fact, just last week I welcomed the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities to my region for a joint funding announcement with the provincial and municipal governments for major improvements to the Trans-Canada Highway.
The $235.5-million investment will upgrade the stretch of highway between 216th Street and 264th Street and will include new high occupancy vehicle lanes, a new underpass and a new truck parking lot. This is an important step in addressing a significant pinch point in the regional transportation network in the Lower Mainland and the Fraser Valley.
Through Bill C-97, budget 2019 proposes measures that would make life more affordable for Canadian seniors and that would empower those who want to stay active and involved in their communities. Our government would increase the GIS exemption from $3,500 to $5,000 per year to give more of our fixed-income seniors the choice to continue to work without being penalized. We would begin proactive CPP enrolment at age 70 to ensure that no seniors missed out on benefits they were entitled to.
We would increase transparency and launch an initiative to change corporate laws to increase oversight and grant the courts a greater ability to review payments made to executives in the lead-up to insolvency, protecting workplace pensions from predatory practices.
Budget 2019 proposes significant additional funding of $100 million over five years, with $20 million per year ongoing, for the new horizons for seniors program so that it can continue to improve seniors' quality of life and better promote their active participation in the community. Many organizations and seniors have benefited from the new horizons for seniors program in Cloverdale—Langley City. With these enhancements, even more seniors would benefit from additional programs.
I would also like to highlight the work we are doing to address the opioid crisis. Through budget 2018, we provided $231.4 million over five years for measures to help address the growing problem, such as one-time emergency funding of $150 million for provinces and territories for multi-year projects to improve access to evidence-based treatment services.
Budget 2019 would build on this work and proposes to provide additional funding of $30.5 million over five years, starting in 2019-20, with $1 million in ongoing funding, for targeted measures to address persistent gaps in harm reduction and treatment. This funding would support efforts to expand access to a safe supply of prescription opioids, protecting people with problematic opioid use from the risk of overdose and death. It would also support better access to opioid overdose response training and to naloxone, a life-saving medication that can stop or reverse an opioid overdose, in underserved communities.
I recently spoke with the hard-working members of the Langley City Fire Rescue Service, who battle this opioid crisis on a daily basis. They agree that continued investments in the fight to end opioid overdoses and deaths is needed.
Budget 2019 is a budget that would work for everyone. Through this budget, we would implement new programs that would help Canadians progress in their careers, address the growing price of medication and advance our plan to grow a clean economy. I would like to go over these briefly.
First, budget 2019 would introduce a new Canada training benefit, a personalized, portable training benefit to help people plan for and get the training they need. Through this measure, Canadians would get four weeks of training every four years, up to $1,000 to help pay for training, income support to help with everyday expenses and the security of knowing that they would have a job to come back to when their training was done. At a recent meeting with the Greater Langley Chamber of Commerce the need for a well-trained workforce with relevant skills was discussed. The Canada training benefit would help address this need of business.
Through budget 2019, we would lay the foundation for the implementation of a national pharmacare program while we await the final report of our advisory council on its full implementation. We would do so by creating the Canadian drug agency, a national formulary, and a national strategy for high-cost drugs for rare diseases.
Finally, budget 2019 would take the next steps in our plan to grow a clean economy and make life more affordable for Canadians. These steps would include deploying new recharging and refuelling stations and working with manufacturers to secure voluntary zero-emission vehicle sales targets to ensure that vehicle supply meets increased demand.
We would also introduce a new federal purchase incentive of up to $5,000 for electric battery or hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. This would help make zero-emission vehicles a realistic option for more Canadians by making them up to $5,000 cheaper, by building the infrastructure to support them and by encouraging new investments in zero-emission vehicle manufacturing here in Canada. To support businesses' adoption of zero-emission vehicles, budget 2019 proposes that these vehicles be eligible for a full tax write-off in the year they are put to use.
Our government has a plan, and that plan is working. Through budget 2019, we would invest in our communities and support those who need it the most. While there is still more work that needs to be done, budget 2019 would be another step in the right direction. This is a budget that I am proud to stand behind, and I urge every member of this chamber to do exactly the same.
Erin O'Toole Conservative Durham, ON
Mr. Speaker, my question is going to zero in specifically on the Canada training benefit. As I said in my speech earlier today, my research into this benefit showed that it was planned on the back of a napkin and is more of an advertisement for the election than it is anything of substance.
In my community we are looking at auto workers, like those from GM, who are potentially in transition, yet the current government announced a benefit that it has not even consulted the provinces on. The member is probably aware that the provinces control skilled trades and college-based training. In fact, the provinces run most of the retraining programs offered around the country, yet the government announced an initiative in the budget without any consultation with the provinces or territories.
I would ask the member how we can have confidence in a training benefit when the very organizations and jurisdictions that fulfill and deliver that training mandate for Canadians who need new skills to plug into job opportunities in the economy have not even been consulted ahead of this budget. Does that bother the member?
John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
Mr. Speaker, the question from the member opposite raises really good questions about how we have a timely and well-trained workforce in today's society.
As I noted in my comments, I had discussions with local business groups, such as the Greater Langley Chamber of Commerce. The members there indicated that they struggle with a workforce that is keeping track and on top of the current job requirements. There are existing training programs, many of them delivered through the provinces and territories, as my colleague noted.
However, federal funding flows through to the provinces and territories and supports much of this retraining. The program we are discussing is another example of that. It is an opportunity for the federal government to support businesses and Canadians in order to keep their skills relevant. Instead of having to take time off, not knowing if they will be coming back to an employer, this provides support for those skills through the employment insurance program.
The business community was also very interested to hear that there will be employment insurance relief for small businesses to support this new program. I think everybody will be very delighted as more details become available.
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend and colleague from British Columbia. We work together on tourism-related issues. He knows full well the impact the chinook closures are having on coastal communities and fishers in our communities, especially the troll fleet and sport, indigenous and recreational fishers. The minister made this announcement and showed up empty-handed. He had a tool in his toolbox to help support fishers by extending EI and providing compensation to the commercial fleets, which are getting nothing.
The government has been sitting on $17 million of Pacific salmon treaty money, which was meant to compensate area G trollers. That still has not rolled out the door. They have not received the restoration and enhancement money the government promised through the coastal restoration fund. It was a drop in the bucket. The government announced funding for southern resident killer whales. It made announcements in the fall economic update for enhancement and restoration funds.
We are not seeing that money. In fact, the government has not spent the $63 million that was scheduled to be spent in the oceans protection plan in 2017-18. It is not getting the money out the door. Communities do not have confidence that the government has their backs and is in their corner.
What is the member going to do to help get this money out the door, support these communities and encourage the minister to use every tool he has to help support the communities that are being affected by these closures?
The Liberals talk about the balance of the environment and the economy. They have spent $4.5 billion on a leaky pipeline and $1.6 billion subsidizing oil and gas. It is time they invested in coastal communities and in our salmon. As a British Columbian, I hope he will step up and make sure he puts pressure on the Prime Minister and cabinet to do something urgently.
John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from B.C. for his advocacy for our west coast fisheries.
I note that the member discussed many of the great programs our government has funded and rolled out. It is a level of investment that has been needed for many years.
Yes, there is always a frustration with programs not being designed and implemented as quickly as possible, so I would offer this in response to his question.
All members in this House want to see the west coast fishery and fish stocks survive for the long term. Therefore, we will work with our government to make sure these programs and their funding are delivered to those who could make a difference with respect to these very important issues in British Columbia and for Canadians.
Sean Casey LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to Bill C-97, the budget implementation act. I had hoped to have an opportunity to speak to the budget itself, but that of course was denied as a result of the filibuster by the member for Carleton.
It is a very good budget for Prince Edward Island, and it is a long time coming.
During the Harper years, we were particularly hard done by in our province and in our region. Throughout the Harper years, we saw disproportionate cuts to the civil service. We saw cuts to the employment insurance program, which is so very important in seasonal economies such as the one in Prince Edward Island.
We saw the closure of Veterans Affairs district offices, and this is something near and dear to my heart as the member of Parliament for Charlottetown. Charlottetown is the only place outside the national capital region that has a national headquarters of a federal government department. We are immensely proud that the national headquarters of the Department of Veterans Affairs is in Charlottetown, so it was particularly troubling to see that district office close. However, we fixed that.
Also during the Harper years, we saw the closure of the citizenship office. Prince Edward Island was left as the only province in Canada without a citizenship and immigration office at a very time when immigration levels in our province were increasing to the point where we now have the highest per capita immigration in the country. However, we fixed that closure of the immigration office.
We went through a period in the Harper years of the slowest economic growth since R. B. Bennett. We fixed that. We saw an accumulation of $160 billion in new debt during the Harper years, and high unemployment.
In Prince Edward Island, there is an old adage that our economy is somewhat different. We are not subject to the swings we see in the rest of Canada. Therefore, when the economy goes in the tank, it does not dip as far in Prince Edward Island, and when the economy is on fire, it does not excel as much as it does in the rest of the country. Part of that could be because of the seasonal economy. Part of that could be because, until recently, there has not been a lot of industry outside of the seasonal economy. The government sector is quite important. The university sector has been quite important. We have seen that change.
This economic boom, this period of unprecedented growth that we have not seen since the pre-Harper years and that we are experiencing right now, is different. Prince Edward Island is not only sharing in that growth; in many categories we are leading the country. We are leading the country with respect to increases in retail sales. We are leading the country with respect to economic growth. We are leading the country with respect to immigration growth. It has been said that the Prince Edward Island economy is on a tear. That is due in no small part to the economic policies of this government.
Immediately upon being elected, this government brought in the Canada child benefit. I mentioned earlier the pride we have over the fact that there is a national headquarters for a federal government department in Prince Edward Island. The payroll at the national headquarters of the Department of Veterans Affairs is $100 million a year, and $100 million a year is very important to the economy of Prince Edward Island.
Just to get a sense of the importance of the Canada child benefit, which was introduced immediately after our election, the amount of money that is brought into Prince Edward Island through the Canada child benefit is $100 million a year, the same as the payroll at the national headquarters. The difference between the Canada child benefit and the payroll at Veterans Affairs is that the Canada child benefit is tax free. That is one factor. There are multiple factors in the success of the P.E.I. economy in recent years, but one of them is the economic policies of this government.
In a certain sense, we have also become victims of our own success. We share in the national housing crunch. The vacancy rate in the riding I am proud to represent is 0.3%. That is in part because of our growing population and the proliferation of Airbnbs. It is in part because there is so much construction happening around Prince Edward Island that it is very difficult to get tradespeople, in part because of our sky-high tourism numbers and in part because of the seasonal economy, which makes Airbnb particularly attractive.
I indicated that we have in a sense become a victim of our own success. That is also the case with respect to labour shortages, which is why programs like the Atlantic growth strategy and the Atlantic immigration pilot have been so very important. It is also why programs like the Canada training benefit, included in this budget, will be very important to us.
That success has also exerted a strain on our health care system, where it has become harder to get a family doctor. Fortunately, this budget also includes increases to the Canada health and social transfer, which will go some way to alleviating that pressure.
This budget will allow Prince Edward Island to continue its impressive record. As I indicated, with respect to housing there is a 0.3% vacancy rate. There are substantial initiatives in the budget to address the housing crunch in this country, including measures to make housing more affordable for first-time homebuyers, including the retail finance initiative. These are all measures that are welcome and necessary, and for once they are measures that are important for a province that is sharing in the economic success we have seen.
Under the reaching home strategy, a $3-million award, administered through the John Howard Society, was recently announced to tackle homelessness in Prince Edward Island. As I indicated with the rock-bottom vacancy rate in our fair province, this is desperately needed. The good people at the John Howard Society and the board that examines the proposals to attack homelessness are to be commended and supported. This investment will no doubt lift them up.
The other thing I want to mention with respect to housing is something that was specifically mentioned in the budget. It is not very often that Prince Edward Island gets a specific mention in the budget, but there were at least a couple. One was with respect to new ferries for the passage from P.E.I. to Îles de la Madeleine and for the passage from Caribou Island in Nova Scotia to Wood Islands in Prince Edward Island. This is something that really has been the life's work of the hon. member for Cardigan.
On the housing front, there was specific mention of a $50.8-million public housing project in Prince Edward Island. This public housing project is designed for people with complex multiple needs: social, medical and psychological needs. In part, this investment will replace the aging Hillsborough Hospital, but it will be much broader than that. It is an indication of where the government's heart and head are in supporting those who are most vulnerable and providing for those battling mental health, addictions and complicated problems.
I want to close by mentioning two other specific things in the budget. There was specific mention of the Confederation Centre of the Arts. The Confederation Centre of the Arts was built as a monument to the Fathers of Confederation back in 1967. This budget included a $500-million annual increase to the operating budget of the Confederation Centre of the Arts.
The cultural industries are so important to my province, so important to my riding and so important to this country. I am proud, as a Prince Edward Islander, to be able to support this budget.
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard recently announced a chinook salmon closure all around Vancouver Island. Depending on who one listens to, that closure, which seeks to change the return rate of chinook salmon in the Fraser River from 90% to 96%—a very marginal increase in return, and one that was not necessarily needed—is going to result in anywhere from $200 million to $500 million in economic damage to fishers and those who depend on the sport fishing industry around Vancouver Island.
I am wondering if the parliamentary secretary can point to some place in the budget where these people, some of whom are about to lose their livelihoods some of whom about to lose a whole summer's worth of work, can see what compensation they will be getting.
Sean Casey Liberal Charlottetown, PE
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his excellent work on the fisheries committee.
The challenge around chinook salmon is certainly a vexing one for this government. We are constantly trying to ensure the protection of our oceans and our biodiversity and the protection of aquatic species at risk while trying to minimize the economic impacts on marine industries.
Protecting the species is a responsibility that is shared by all Canadians. Protection of the stocks in British Columbia is a priority for our government. We recognize the declining status of these populations and their importance. That is why these measures are necessary. They are responsible and science-based, and they are done in consultation with all of the stakeholders involved.
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
Mr. Speaker, I think the member can agree that there has been mismanagement of our fish stock by consecutive governments, and as a result they have had to make bold decisions around the closure of the chinook salmon stock.
We have not talked enough about the commercial fleet. In fact, the salmon trawlers are deeply affected by this closure. The closure for them will be extended longer than the closure of the sport sector, all the way until August 20. That is a long period of time without EI or any compensation. The minister has not—
The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota
The hon. member for Calgary Shepard is rising on a point of order.
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
Mr. Speaker, I hate to interrupt the member for Courtenay—Alberni, but he has an important question, and there is so much noise from the antechamber around us from people speaking very loudly that I cannot hear the member speaking in the House. I am interested in hearing both the question and the answer.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota
That is a very good point. It just suddenly started, as it was quiet earlier. The Sergeant-at-Arms is now looking into the noise to make sure that it stops. I would venture a guess that those outside the chamber can hear our voices, so I will ask them not to talk as loudly or to whisper.
I thank the hon. member for Calgary Shepard for bringing that up.
The hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni.
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
Mr. Speaker, I will start again.
I want to bring the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard back to the conversation around chinook salmon and the announced closures, the difficult and bold decision that the government had to make because of mismanagement by consecutive Conservative and Liberal governments, especially a decade under the Harper government, which gutted fisheries protections, cut jobs for science and muzzled scientists. This has had a huge impact on the chinook salmon fishery.
I want to focus on the commercial fleet. The commercial fleet has not been getting any sort of compensation or help from the government since the announcement of the closure for the commercial fleet, which continues until August 20. That is a long time without any support for families to trying to make their mortgage payments or keep their boats afloat. There was money put aside, $17 million, that is still sitting in the Pacific salmon treaty fund that has not been used to compensation Area G trawlers specifically.
We are looking for the parliamentary secretary to tell coastal people what Liberals are going to do in terms of their tool box. Are they going to go to communities and my riding, look fishers in the eye and tell them that they are not going to do anything for them, that they are just going to leave them high and dry for the summer, or are they going to make sure they show up and help them get through this very difficult time?
I urge him to do that.
Sean Casey Liberal Charlottetown, PE
Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier, we know that the closure of any commercial or recreational fishery has a direct impact on communities.
The member was quite right when he talked about the cuts to science under the Harper Conservatives. We have hired 29 new scientists in the Pacific region, and starting this year we will invest over $100 million over five years, and $17 million per year in ongoing support for fisheries stock assessments and rebuilding provisions. Substantial investments are being made.
This is a challenge. It is one on which we are getting the best science advice, and one on which we are doing our level best to consult with all of those who are impacted, including the fishers, indigenous communities, and provincial and territorial governments.