Wayne Long

[The Budget, April 11th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, government policy in good government is about governing for the many, not the few.

With respect to palliative care, I lost my father in palliative care not too long ago. It is something that is near and dear to my heart. There are places in St. John—Rothesay like Bobby's Hope House and other initiatives that offer great care for people in their last days.

A budget is one budget in a government's mandate of four years, so let us take one thing at a time. Our priorities are as wide ranging as possible. We have initially come up with a plan to give back to middle-class families and to families living in poverty. We have a great start with our budget.

[The Budget, April 11th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time today with the member for Yukon.

Madam Speaker, with this budget the Prime Minister and the finance minister have ushered in a new age of open and inclusive government. We said what we were going to do, we were elected with a strong majority, and with this budget, we delivered.

During the federal election, I developed a local platform based upon our federal platform. I called it my five-point plan for Saint John—Rothesay. With my team, I studied and took the promises of our federal Liberal platform and applied them to my riding of Saint John—Rothesay. I took those promises seriously.

I told my constituents that a Liberal government would tackle head-on the generational poverty that is gripping a large percentage of the city of Saint John through a child benefit that would lift 300,000 children out of poverty through investments and affordable housing and through increased funding for skills training.

I told my constituents that the Liberal Party would make historic investments in infrastructure as a long-term plan to grow our economy.

I told my constituents that a Liberal government would cut income taxes for nine million Canadians as a way of strengthening the middle class.

I told my constituents that a Liberal government would do more for seniors than previous governments, including a 10% increase in the GIS.

I told my constituents a Liberal government would invest in social infrastructure, such as tourist sites and recreation facilities. These types of investments are encouraged by top economists and are widely seen as crucial to growing our local economy.

With its first budget, the Liberal government delivered on its plan to tackle poverty head-on. The Canada child benefit will be a historic $23-billion investment in Canadians who need it the most. This program will help more Canadian families than any other social program since universal health care. Families with children under 18 will start receiving the benefit in July. The size of each cheque will depend upon the family, but nine out of 10 families will get more help than they do under the current existing program. A single mom with one child under the age of six, earning $30,000 a year, will receive an annual benefit of $6,400 tax-free. A family with two children, earning $90,000, will receive $5,650. That is an increase of $2,500 from the previous system the Conservatives put in place.

As the finance minister stated, that is money in the pockets of moms and dads, money that can go directly toward eating healthier food, paying the rent, and buying new clothes for going back to school.

Coming from the city with the highest rate of child poverty in Canada, I cannot express how happy I am for the priority wards in Saint John, such as ward 3, where one out of every two children lives in poverty.

It takes an important shift in social policy to move the needle on poverty. I believe this historic investment in Canadians will finally move the needle in Saint John. I look forward to seeing how many children we can lift out of poverty in my riding and in all ridings across the nation.

As well, $112 million will be given to anti-homeless initiatives across the country, including in my riding, which is good news to our local shelters and programs.

We would love to see a very successful at home/chez soi program that helps homeless participants get off the street and into a stable home. We would love to see what it can do for those experiencing homelessness in Saint John. We would love to see increased funding to Outflow and Coverdale, our men's and women's homeless shelters, to continue every day to do their excellent work in our community. We need to give these community leaders all the help we can.

For those experiencing unemployment in my riding, I am pleased that wait times for those in EI will be reduced from two weeks to one, making things easier on those who are experiencing financial difficulty. Even better, through labour development agreements and job fund agreements, 175 million additional dollars will go into skills training at places like the Saint John Learning Exchange, where Christina Fowler could use another full-time employee.

This funding will help underemployed and unemployed people in Saint John—Rothesay to get access to valuable job training and support. Giving someone a leg up beats giving them a handout.

The Liberal government has delivered on infrastructure with this budget. This year we will invest $11.9 billion to modernize and rehabilitate public transit, water systems, and waste-water systems, provide affordable housing, and protect infrastructure systems from the effects of climate change. This is good news for my riding of Saint John—Rothesay.

With a commitment of $3.4 billion to maintain and upgrade federal infrastructure assets, New Brunswick now has the opportunity for $61.3 million for federal infrastructure. In addition to that, this plan adds $8.7 million to municipal transit investment for New Brunswick, meaning significant new investment for transit infrastructure in Saint John—Rothesay.

Over the next year, our budget further commits $51.9 million to the continued operation of three ferries in my province.

In Saint John, we have 1,400 people on waiting lists for affordable housing. This is simply unacceptable.

We have many projects that are shovel-ready. As an example, the Rothesay waste water facility has applied for necessary funding, along with the Saint John Field House.

We have developed a green transit initiative that will re-establish recently discontinued transit routes that have been eliminated because of costs. We plan to reopen these routes through a green initiative: propane-powered feeder buses. While the rest of the country is expanding transit, we cannot be moving away from it.

The Liberal government is also investing $3.4 billion over five years to help maintain and upgrade national parks, harbours, federal airports, and border infrastructure, and to support the cleanup of contaminated federal sites across the country. This is particularly good news for Saint John's Partridge Island, an important and neglected historic site on federal land that would be a great boom to the region if it were to become a national park or come under Parks Canada.

This is also great news for our airport, which needs a longer runway.

With around 30,000 households in New Brunswick living in poor housing, we need about 12,000 renter households for people who are spending more than 50% of their income on shelter. Studies show that New Brunswick, specifically Saint John, is suffering from chronic homelessness. This budget addresses these issues head-on with a $2.3 billion investment over the next two years. This will effectively double the investments in the affordable housing initiative, adding $262 million this year alone.

Budget 2016 addresses key areas of affordable housing by investing $100 million a year in seniors' housing, $210 million in affordable rental housing, $90 million in victims' shelters, and $112 million to address homelessness.

Seniors make up a large percentage of our population in Saint John—Rothesay and in the province of New Brunswick. We will help the most vulnerable seniors by increasing the guaranteed income supplement for single seniors by up to $947 annually. This enhancement more than doubles the current maximum top-up and represents a 10% increase in maximum benefits, an increase that will improve the financial security of about 900,000 single seniors across Canada.

As we said during the election, we will restore eligibility for old age security and the GIS to 65 years of age. We are also committed to creating a new seniors price index so that old age security and GIS will accommodate rising costs.

Studies consistently show that when there is slack in the economy and interest rates are low, for every dollar a government spends on infrastructure, substantially more than one dollar of economic activity is generated. According to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, every one dollar spent on infrastructure yields $1.20 in GDP growth.

To conclude, our first budget is a monumental piece of legislation that will kick-start this economy after 10 years of cuts from the Conservative government. Major investments in my riding, including the upgrades to EI, the Canada child benefit, infrastructure, and affordable housing, prove that budget 2016 is working for Canadians and Saint Johners in my riding of Saint John—Rothesay.

[The Budget, April 11th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, again, the party opposite has it wrong. It has the facts wrong. Once again, it stands and holds itself as stewards of the economy, and says that it is the best thing to happen for the economy.

Let us look at the facts: seven deficits, two recessions, the shell game of a surplus. Let us throw in the EI premium fund. Let us throw in the rainy day fund. Let us throw in the GM stocks. Perhaps that rainy day fund could have been used to help people in Alberta. No, the party opposite used it again to create a false surplus and to put itself up as stewards of the economy.

Again, good government, like our government, is coming up with policies in a budget that is for the many, not the few.

Does the member opposite not agree that Canadians spoke with a strong voice on October 19, voting for change and a government that was going to reflect that?

[The Budget, April 11th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to be back in the House after our break. I certainly appreciate a lot of the member's points, his passion, and his delivery.

Let us be clear. Good governments govern and come up with policies for the many, not the few. Let us backtrack a bit to the election campaign that just happened and the NDP platform. Canadians did not buy a big part of its platform. At one point, the NDP platform was to have 30 to 40 more seats to form government. Canadians listened and gave it 30 to 40 seats.

The New Democrats talked about things such as a $15-an-hour minimum wage, which was only for a very small percentage of Canadians, and $15-a-day daycare that was not costed out in a lot of provinces, which were not going to buy in anyway. They preach austerity and balanced budgets and now they ask why we have not added this or not added that.

I have asked the party opposite many times about its insistence on the universal child care benefit and why it continues to push for equal payments to people who are making $25,000 or people who are making hundreds of thousands of dollars. Liberals came forth with the Canada child benefit. Could the member opposite explain why the New Democrats continue to back the UCCB instead of the Canada child benefit?

[Parks Canada, March 21st, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, my home, Saint John, New Brunswick, Canada's first incorporated city, established in 1783, deserves to have its story told, about its place in our nation's proud history. Unfortunately, national historic monuments like Martello Tower, Fort La Tour, Fort Howe, and Partridge Island are falling into ruin and have been ignored by previous governments. Projects like the restoration of Partridge Island would be transformative for my community by celebrating our past and promoting our future.

What is the government's plan for reinvestment in our national parks and historic monuments?

[Income Tax Act, March 11th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, let us get one thing straight. Members of the party opposite hold themselves up as the stewards of the economy. They have all the economic answers for Canada, and nobody else in the country knows what they are doing with respect to economics and the economy.

Let us look at the facts: seven straight deficits, two recessions, the country in deficit. Yes, members opposite like to play the shell game. They say let us throw in the EI surplus, let us sell the GM stocks, let us use the rainy day fund, let us take money from the Veterans Affairs and put it into our budget, so we can pretend we have a balanced budget and we can show a surplus.

Canadians do not believe it. Canadians were tired of it. Let us talk about the tax-free savings account very quickly. As some members may know, I am a business person. I have a hockey background. If we had a program with the Saint John Sea Dogs that 6.7% of Canadians maximized, would we take that program and double it? What kind of economics is that?

I ask if the member opposite would not concede that Canadians made a choice on October 19 for a progressive party. There is not a progressive bone left in that party. They should call them the regressive Conservative Party.

Would the member not agree that Canadians chose real change for the middle class with the tax cut and the Canada child benefit? Would he not agree that is the change Canadians wanted?

[Income Tax Act, March 11th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's passion on the subject. However, in all honesty, I think there are some things that we need to clarify for the record.

The NDP ran on smoke and mirrors. A lot of the things in the NDP platform quite simply were not embraced or trusted by Canadians. I will go back and talk about the $15-a-day affordable day care plan, which was not costed out and which many provinces across this country were not going to buy into.

Let us talk about the $15 an hour minimum wage. Originally that was presented as a minimum wage for all working Canadians, but after clearing the smoke, it was apparent that only a very small percentage of Canadians would have benefited from a $15 a day minimum wage.

The biggest question I have for the NDP, which I have asked several times during this debate, is if the New Democrats are so passionate about protecting working-class Canadians and low-income families, why did they support the UCCB along with the party opposite, the Conservatives? The universal child care benefit gave the same benefits to those earning hundreds of thousands of dollars as to families who needed it. Why did they support that? Why did they support the UCCB as a party, when the Liberals are putting forth the Canada child benefit, a program that would benefit nine out of ten Canadian families and lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty? No, the NDP did not support it, but the UCCB. My question for the NDP is why?

[Income Tax Act, March 11th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, there is a clear difference between all three parties in this House. New Democrats ran their campaign and their platform on really two or three main things. It was a $15-a-day day care that was clearly not costed out, and a $15-an-hour minimum wage they proposed that was for less than 1% of Canadian workers.

What the Liberal plan offers is real change in tax relief for middle-class Canadians, with a tax cut. More important, the Canada child benefit would put money back in the pockets and hands of families that need it the most, not like the universal child care benefit that the NDP and the Conservatives both supported, which gave the same cheques to millionaires equal to those who needed it.

There is no question that the Canada child benefit would be better for nine out of ten Canadian families. I ask my hon. colleague if he could talk about the impact that the Canada child benefit would have on his riding.

[Income Tax Act, March 11th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, where do I start my defence against that? Some 6.7% of Canadians maxed out their TFSAs, yet the party opposite deemed it proper to double the contribution amount. What will that do?

The rhetoric from the party and the member opposite, quite frankly, is unbelievable. Canadians made a decision on October 19 to throw out a party that was tired and outdated. The Conservative Party was asked to take a back seat, and people moved forward with a Liberal government.

Would the member not agree that Canadians made the right choice on October 19?

[Income Tax Act, March 11th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, as per usual, the NDP is long on thought and short on detail. Those members started first in the election campaign and fell quickly to third, because Canadians did not buy what they were saying. Canadians did not buy their platform or their policies. As parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page said, the NDP policy was like Swiss cheese because it had so many holes.

My question to the member opposite is this. Why did you support the UCCB that gave the same amount of money to millionaires and people who need it? Why did you support that policy?