Madam Speaker, over the course of the debate on Bill C-30, there have been many points of view shared. Many of my colleagues on this side of the House have justifiably raised concerns about the deficits and levels of debt the current government is accumulating, and the impact this debt will have on Canadians for generations to come. They have skilfully illustrated that, despite the Minister of Finance's description of her budget as a plan for jobs, growth and resilience, it falls dreadfully short of a real plan for economic growth that will create jobs for Canadians.
One of my colleagues has sounded the alarm about the impact of the government's inflation-inducing borrowing and spending plan and the real impacts this has on the daily lives of Canadians, whether they are trying to buy a home or pay for groceries. Of course, we cannot ignore the vast body of evidence confirming that the current government has proven itself very skilled at convincing Canadians of their grand promises of action on priorities like rural Internet, infrastructure spending and housing. The lack of meaningful results is, at worst, a betrayal of the Canadians who trusted this Prime Minister; or, at best, the vacuous panderings of an individual whose life experiences prepared him only for being famous.
While all of these issues are important and have yet to be addressed by the government, I intend to focus my comments particularly on what would appear to be the centrepiece of this budget for the Minister of Finance: a national child care program. There can be no doubt that access to affordable child care and early childhood education is a wise investment in our economy and can help ensure all Canadians are able to realize their full potential in the workforce. Personally, I believe a system designed to respect the choices of parents in the best child care options for them makes more sense than a massive government program, which, by the way, would cost $30 billion over the next five years, then roughly $9 billion annually thereafter. This proposal highlights yet another example of the federal government making a commitment in an area of provincial jurisdiction without the corresponding commitment of dollars needed to fund a program that most provinces simply cannot afford.
Here is a brief history, that I am sure all of us know. One of the primary reasons for Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick federating to form the Dominion of Canada in 1867 was the desire to fund the transcontinental rail link and to build a common market that would spur economic opportunities for the provinces and lessen the impact of any adverse economic policies of the United States. The new federal government was also designed to stabilize public credit. That was one of the first items of business in 1867 when the new Dominion of Canada assumed $72.1 million of the $88.6 million of existing provincial debt.
The British North America Act assigned the big expenses of settling, building and defending this new country to the federal government, and the provincial governments were responsible for, at the time, the less expensive services like education, hospitals and municipal institutions. Despite this original design, immediately after Confederation, the provinces had spending commitments higher than their revenue. This led to the creation of the dominion subsidy from the federal government, which was calculated at 80¢ per capita and, including other transfers in support of specific legislation, cost the federal treasury about $2.8 million or over 16% of total federal spending. This country was born into debt and the national government was established, in part, to manage that debt.
Now, fast-forward through those early nation-building years of World War I, the Great Depression, World War II, all eras where the federal government borrowed heavily to grow the economy, win a war, save the economy and win another war. Following the end of World War II, the economy expanded exponentially as did the level of government intervention in the daily lives of Canadians. New programs were introduced by the federal government, including unemployment insurance in 1940, the family allowance in 1945, old age security in 1952, the Canada pension plan in 1965 and the guaranteed income supplement in 1967. During this period, the dominion subsidy program evolved into the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act in 1957, which was due in part to the federal government's desire to promise nationwide health and social programs, all made possible because of a 50% cost-sharing commitment from the federal government.
By the 1970s, the federal government had established an outrageously complex cost-sharing system with the provinces to partner in the costs for expanded health services, education and income security programs. All of this and a program of equalization payments to poorer provinces was funded by debt, which was funded by an exponentially growing economy. Then, 1973 hit and an already-slowing economy and increasing inflation were compounded by a quadrupling of oil prices. Government debt grew faster than ever, without the corresponding economic growth to pay for it.
Interest rates skyrocketed, unemployment soared and Canada was in trouble. While tax reform in the eighties, the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement and significant deregulation of key sectors of the economy certainly helped spur economic growth, by the 1990s Canada was in a fiscal crisis with growing debt-servicing costs and an economy not growing fast enough to pay for it. Between 1995 and 1997, the Chrétien government was forced to cut spending to save Canada's finances. In that time period, the government cut direct program spending by almost 10%, but it cut provincial transfers by 22%.
While the fiscal imbalance in our Confederation existed from the very beginning, federal expansion and intervention in provincial jurisdictions exacerbated that imbalance. While the federal government failed to ever really fully meet those original commitments made to provinces, the debt crisis culminated in the 1990s with the federal government solving its debt problems by abandoning the provinces and also the municipalities. By 2007, with federal finances back under control, a new formula for provincial transfers was established that increased transfers, but not nearly enough to meet the demands on provincial services that the federal government helped create and agreed to pay half the cost of.
In the Parliamentary Budget Officer's most recent fiscal sustainability report, he noted, “subnational governments will face ever-increasing health care costs”. He also continued to say, “For the subnational government sector as a whole, current fiscal policy is not sustainable over the long term. We estimate that permanent tax increases or spending reductions amounting to 0.8 per cent of GDP...would be required to stabilize the consolidated subnational...net debt-to-GDP ratio at its current level of 25.7 per cent of GDP”.
In his report on budget 2021, the Parliamentary Budget Officer cautioned that the government's $100-billion stimulus spending could be miscalibrated, meaning that based on the current recovery it is not likely necessary, while he cautioned that the government's plan to continue borrowing could exhaust its fiscal flexibility in the medium to long term.
We have provincial governments, many of which are drowning in debt and a federal government borrowing and spending wastefully, all while advocating its responsibility to fully fund its share of provincial programs like health care, and now the federal government offers to add a new child care program to the provincial balance sheets with a promise to cover half the costs.
How could the premiers ever trust the government to live up to this latest promise, when the broken promises of the past are threatening the financial future of almost every province in the country? Clearly, German philosopher Georg Hegel was correct when he wrote, “What experience and history teaches us is that people and governments have never learned anything from history, or acted on principles deduced from it.”
This budget is a buffet of spending, paid for with massive debts and designed to perpetuate the government's promises of being all things to all people. The government is not only ignoring the financial struggles of the provinces, struggles created in part by federal interference; budget 2021 seeks to push the provinces even further into debt.
We need a real plan that manages public debt and invests strategically to stimulate real economic growth that will create jobs. We need a plan that will restore fiscal balance to our Confederation. Restoring that balance will better prepare the federal treasury to manage the impending fiscal problems, grow our economy and build a stronger and more prosperous Canada.
