Finance Committee on June 2nd, 2015

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

So—

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

If I may finish: they may impact more directly on the first quarter.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Right, so when BMO says Canada is experiencing the worst economic growth outside of recession in three decades, you blow that off and say it's the fault of the global economy and the Americans, and say your plan is working when it's not.

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

I object to what you just said.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I'm sure you do.

Last year, 2014-15, you ran a deficit of approximately $2 billion. Is that correct?

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Well, the final number isn't out yet.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Was it more or less than that?

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

It isn't out yet. We're anticipating a small, not a huge—

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Well, about $2 billion is what your department has estimated, yet you're backdating and spending $2 billion on income splitting, which does nothing for 85% of Canadian families. Do you think it's right to borrow money to help out the wealthiest 15% of Canadian families?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Minister, could we have just a brief response on that?

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

You're mixing up the years. You're talking about a policy that's going to affect next year, and you're talking about your forecast, not the department's forecast, for last year's deficit. I don't know what to make of the question, so I guess I just can't answer it.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Cullen.

Mr. Saxton, go ahead, please.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to the Minister of Finance and his officials for being here today.

First of all, through the chair, Minister, I want to congratulate you on presenting a balanced budget.

As the minister said, this was a promise made and a promise kept. This makes us one of the few western countries to have a balanced budget, and what's even more remarkable is that this was done without raising taxes. Most countries, when they want to balance their books, have to raise taxes, but in this case it was quite the contrary. In fact taxes in Canada are at a 50-year low. So I want to congratulate the minister on balancing the books as well as keeping taxes at a 50-year low.

Now, can the minister tell us the key reasons for balancing the budget and why it's important for our future?

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Thank you very much for the question. I would just say that I believe that the balancing of the budget was even more remarkable given the collapse in the price of oil, the fact that we have unprecedented infrastructure investments, and the fact that our taxes are now, as you said, at the personal level, below what they were 50 years ago.

There are five key reasons that a balanced budget is important. It will keep taxes low. It will protect our top credit rating, our AAA credit rating, with a stable outlook, which very few countries in the world have. It will preserve our health care and education system rather than paying more debt. It will respond to international shocks, the unavoidable, and the unexpected, such as war and international disasters, and it will not saddle our children with mountains of debt that we incurred. This is a path to recovery, and of course there's the other path of spending hikes, tax hikes, an out-of-control deficit, and unaffordable debt.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Thank you.

Can you tell us what the possible consequences would be if the opposition were to come to power, heaven forbid, and they weren't able to balance the budget? What would the consequences for the government be if they were to go back into structural deficits for long periods of time?

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

All the benefits and protections that are afforded by balanced budgets would be jeopardized. They would presumably have to increase taxes. We know, for example, that the inchoate Liberal plan started with a $2 billion shortage. We discovered a rather rudimentary error that would add another $2 billion, and then there's the very significant amount by which they overestimated how much they could get from the tax hike. So what are their alternatives, and what are the alternatives from the NDP, who would have massive spending as well? How are they going to get that money? Raising taxes is one way. Cancelling some of our cherished programs is another, as is going into more debt.

I think our Triple-A credit rating would be jeopardized. Our critical social programs would be put in doubt, and we have made commitments to increase those amounts. As I mentioned, they've gone up 62% since we got into office, 88% here in the province of Ontario. That situation wouldn't continue, and the ability to respond to international shocks would be jeopardized, and then of course there's the moral imperative of not saddling our children with mountains of debt that would also be in play.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Just briefly, in this budget you've also lowered taxes for middle-class families, consumers, manufacturers, and small businesses. Can you share with us why it's important to keep taxes low for the economy?

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Well, the first thing is that it makes life more affordable for Canadians. We've provided Canadian families, every single one of four million Canadian families, with benefits, because they have additional expenditures, important expenditures, because they're responsible for bringing up their children. We've cut taxes over 180 times and brought them down to their lowest level in 50 years. In addition, of course, corporate taxes, small business taxes, which will be 46% lower in many cases, will allow businesses to create jobs and to spur economic growth.

You know, this is a budget that is balanced fiscally but also balanced socially. The families who will benefit are those particularly in the low- and middle-income brackets. The average family of four will receive $6,600 this year alone from our government's generous benefits. Of course, we've increased the amount that Canadians can save by almost doubling the TFSA.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Saxton.

Mr. Brison, please.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, you say that this budget breaks new ground. Bill C-59 does break new ground, because it retroactively makes legal an act that was illegal in the past when it was committed.

With regard to division 18 and the retroactive changes to the long-gun registry, effectively in 2012, when Parliament passed a law to destroy certain records in the long-gun registry, the law when it was passed made no mention of the Access to Information Act. Because of that omission, the records in question actually can't be destroyed until after any pre-existing access to information cases were closed. Now, the law was perhaps badly written, but it has been the law since April 2012.

In May 2012 the public safety minister's head of the RCMP promised that the RCMP would abide by the access to information law in this matter, yet six months later the RCMP actually broke the law and destroyed those records.

Who ordered the RCMP to break the law and destroy those records? Was it the public safety minister or the Prime Minister?

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Chairman, our government has fulfilled its commitment to end the wasteful and ineffective long-gun registry once and for all. It's still possible to access outdated copies of the long-gun registry through access to information legislation. The will of Parliament has been clear, and all copies of the registry were to be destroyed. This technical amendment will address this.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Minister, the legislation to end the long-gun registry doesn't obviate the need for the government to obey the law. The reality is that orders were given to the RCMP to break the law by ignoring pre-existing access to information cases.

Does it bother you that this budget bill actually retroactively makes legal what was illegal at the time? Isn't that at best unusual, but certainly disrespectful of the law, which we're supposed to be defending as parliamentarians?

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

As I said, our government was pleased to end this ineffective and wasteful registry once and for all. Due to a bureaucratic loophole, it was still possible to access outdated copies of the long-gun registry through the access to information legislation. That clearly goes against the will of Parliament that all copies of the registry should be destroyed, and—

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

But Mr. Minister—

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

—the technical amendment reinforces this.