Mr. Speaker, thank you for calling me to order. It appears that I addressed another member using the informal form “tu”. I am quite embarrassed and must apologize. I have been an elected official for 17 years and yet I made this mistake. Even in my private life I tend to address everyone with the formal “vous”. Well, it happens to everyone.
It is Thursday evening. It has been a good day, and I am in a good mood, so I want to start this speech, my response to the budget speech, on the right foot. There is one thing in this budget that makes me very happy, and that is page 82.
On page 82 of the budget, there is a box, a separate bit of text, that very clearly defines the political philosophy that inspires me here in the House. It addresses the idea of “one project, one review”, meaning one environmental review.
My colleagues will recall that, a little over two years ago, I introduced Bill C-375 in the House. After eight years in the House of Commons, this was the first time I had the opportunity to introduce a private member's bill that would be debated in the House. There is a lottery, and those who win get to introduce a bill.
Before I go any further, I wish to say that I will be sharing my time with the member for Regina—Wascana.
About two years ago, I introduced Bill C‑375, which aimed to do exactly what is found word for word in the budget speech on page 82, specifically, “one project, one review”.
The purpose of that bill was to speed up the process and make it much more efficient and pragmatic so that projects could get done. Now more than ever, we need to unlock our full potential in terms of energy, natural resources and green projects. We know that in the past, a project had to undergo a provincial assessment and then a federal assessment. Sometimes, these assessments contradicted each other and, ultimately, everything had to start over from scratch. It was completely inefficient.
The purpose of Bill C‑375 was to move projects forward in a positive and constructive manner. The goal was not to take away accountability, but rather to eliminate the consecutive and often conflicting assessments. The objective was to work together to cover all the environmental aspects of a project by requiring one assessment, not two, to get to the bottom of the matter immediately.
I am very pleased that the government has adopted my proposal. However, I would like to point out that the bill was introduced on February 12, 2024. There was a debate in the House on March 18 of that year and a vote on May 8 of the same year.
What happened? Obviously, we Conservatives voted in favour. Since the bill was at second reading stage and the vote was on the principle of the bill, the Bloc Québécois members at the time supported the essence or spirit of Bill C-375. They had some reservations, of course. That is perfectly fine. That is how democracy works. There were 150 votes in favour of the bill, but unfortunately, this bill to create a single environmental assessment was defeated by 177 votes from the NDP and the Liberal government.
I see members opposite who remember that situation. At the time, they insulted us for wanting to axe the carbon tax. In the end, they axed it themselves. They were against the “one project, one review” principle back then, but now it is reproduced word for word on page 82 of the budget. I just wanted to point that out.
That is one of the only things in this budget that I see as positive. The government keeps referring to this budget as “generational”, saying that it is truly a turning point in the history of the country and that generations of Canadians will be able to benefit from it.
Well, it is not. Generations of Canadians will pay the price because we are living beyond our means. We are living on credit. It is a credit card budget.
There will be a $78.3‑billion deficit. That is twice as much as Prime Minister Trudeau's deficit. The man had many fine qualities—really, I mean that sincerely—but there is no denying that he was spendthrift.
No one could have ever believed that a Prime Minister with such international prestige, a banker who is highly regarded around the world, would do worse than Mr. Trudeau, but that is what happened.
I would like to remind members that the Liberals were elected on a promise to run a deficit $19 billion lower than what they are now saying. Members should also recall that the deficit is twice as high now as it was last year at around the same time.
What is even more shocking about this budget is that there is no timeline for getting spending under control and balancing the budget. There is no timeline at all. On the contrary, deficits will pile up: $78.3 billion this year, $65.4 billion next year, $63.5 billion the year after that, $57.9 billion the year after that, and finally $56.6 billion. There is no plan to get back on track, and $321 billion is being added to the debt. Again, what this current Prime Minister is doing is twice as much as Mr. Trudeau planned to do. These people did not get elected by saying that they would do twice as badly as Justin Trudeau, yet that is exactly what they have done.
It is our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren who will have to pay for this. I am blessed by the gods and very privileged in life. I am a father, and for the past five years, I have been a grandfather. That is why, even though I cannot show it, I am wearing a little bracelet made by my three-year-old granddaughter. I try to wear it as often as possible in the House because I have always believed that we are here thanks to our parents, but that we are here for our children and grandchildren. This belief has been a driving force for me throughout my 17 years in politics. More than ever, that is how I see it and that is what I want.
Debt is a bill that we pass on to our children. Debt has to be paid off at some point. Interest on debt has to be paid every year. That interest amounts to $55.6 billion that we are going to pay. The people watching at home need to know that every dollar and cent of the GST we pay is not used to improve services or make transfers to the provinces to improve health care services or other things. It is used solely and exclusively to pay the interest on the debt. Every penny of the GST will be used for that instead of investing more in health care. The government is investing $54.7 billion in health care, while GST revenues total $54.4 billion. That is why it is imperative for the government to get the finances under control, to get the deficit and debt reduction under control and, above all, to have a timeline for returning to a balanced budget.
Allow me to remind the House that, yes, a balanced budget is possible. Here in the House, we have an experienced man who was once elected to the National Assembly and who now serves all of Canada as a member of the House of Commons. On March 11, 2015, he said, “Balancing the budget...is a way to cement the credibility of the province and the financial stability of the province.” Who said that? It was the current Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry. I had the pleasure of serving alongside him in the National Assembly in another life. The current parliamentary secretary to the current government's Minister of Industry balanced Quebec's budget. That means that yes, it can be done. As a Quebecker, I am very pleased to have had that man around at the precise moment when he was the finance minister because, thanks to him and the government he belonged to, including the member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, Quebec was able to balance its budget. Where there is a will, there is a way.
Unfortunately, this man who sits here in the House could serve Canada much better if he were in cabinet. Since he is not, could the Prime Minister at least consult him on how to tackle the deficit issues? This is a very heavy burden that will have far-reaching consequences for the future of our children and our great-grandchildren.
I just want to say in the House of Commons that, in my mind, this budget is good for one aspect, one project, one evaluation. We have that definition on page 96 of this budget. This is very interesting. This is exactly what we proposed two years ago here in the House, but unfortunately, the Liberals voted against it at that time. Today, they are doing what we were asking them to do two years ago.