Debates of March 26th, 2013

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, to follow up on the line of questioning from the previous questioner, it seems there is something artificial in the budget balancing here.

We have shovel-ready projects across the country for needed infrastructure. Yet, the funding for infrastructure has been loaded into the back. It would be decreased in the next couple of years and then it would increase quite a lot in the future. It seems artificial because it seems it is there so the budget can be balanced by 2015 and the government can go into an election saying, “We balanced the budget. Then, we have all this infrastructure spending. Then, we have all these tax credits going away. Then we have something that has not even been included, which are the promises in the last election campaign for further program spending that would depend upon the budget being balanced”.

I do not even know if the budget will actually be balanced because once it is balanced the government has promised to spend a whole bunch more. It is all very artificial, and it is all timed around the next election.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague to comment on that.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, year after year the government has talked about a balanced budget, saying that it will have a balanced budget in 2015. Sometimes it is 2014, depending upon whether we talk to the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance. We do not know when that balanced budget will be. All we hear is that it will be done sometime in the future.

The Conservatives are playing shell games with this budget. Not only are they playing shell games with the budget, they are playing with the future economy of Canada. They are playing with the future of the young people of Canada. They have created this huge deficit year after year, and yet they expect the young people in our country to pay for it in future.

They are delivering that money right now to their friends and insiders, the corporate world of the Canadian economy, who are sitting, and I want to highlight this, on $500 billion in cash. Where did that money come from? It came from deficits and from hard-working Canadians. It is time that they put that money to work and created some jobs that are needed in this country.

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by saying that I will be splitting my time today with the member for Okanagan—Coquihalla.

I rise today to speak about yet another excellent budget presented by the Minister of Finance. This is the ninth time that the minister has addressed the issues that were discussed in my pre-budget consultations in my great riding of Leeds—Grenville.

I know my constituents are pleased with what they have seen on the pages of the latest budget. In fact, the day after the budget was introduced, I received the following email from the warden of the United Counties of Leeds and Grenville. It said:

Great job on the budget. Congratulations to...all involved.

A great number of items that are addressed in this budget are important to my riding. Let me explain a few of them. Economic development is a key issue in my riding. We are always eager to welcome large plants and businesses to the riding. However, more often than not the businesses that are starting up and expanding in my riding are small businesses, and more often than not they need a hand up along the way.

That is where the Community Futures Development Corporation comes into play. This is the economic development arm of the federal government at work, on the ground, in ridings such as mine. Working with a volunteer board of directors that is made up of local people, these boards know what is needed in the communities they serve, and they clearly reflect community priorities in how they spend this money. Over the past few years they have received an additional shot in the arm through the eastern Ontario development program. This is a $10 million-a-year fund that is shared throughout rural eastern Ontario, and it has allowed a great deal more work to be undertaken to aid economic development.

From feasibility studies to direct aid, this funding is making a huge difference in my riding of Leeds—Grenville. I am pleased to say that the Minister of Finance is renewing the eastern Ontario development program for five years beyond 2014, through continued funding in FedDev Ontario.

While I am on this subject, I want to take this opportunity to thank the hard-working folks from the three CFDCs that serve my riding, namely the 1000 Islands Community Development Corporation that is based in Brockville; the Grenville Community Development Corporation, in Prescott; and the Valley Heartland Community Futures Development Corporation that is based in Smiths Falls. I know their work is greatly appreciated in their areas.

My riding is a border riding. The mighty Saint Lawrence River, the route that brought the explorers inland to discover what is now Canada, is a narrow boundary that separates my riding from the United States. Leeds—Grenville is fortunate to have two border crossings, one that is directly south of Ottawa, at Johnstown, and a second that is in the heart of the 1000 Islands, near Lansdowne.

Last spring I was pleased to be able to participate at the grand opening of the refurbished border crossing at Johnstown. That renewed facility has been received with great enthusiasm by businesses and residents in my riding. The question arose at the time about the refurbishment of the busy 1000 Islands crossing. More than two million vehicles, private and commercial, cross that bridge each year. By any measure, this is a very busy crossing. In fact, by the numbers, it is about the seventh busiest crossing in Canada today. I am pleased to see there is a commitment in the budget to upgrade the border facilities at the 1000 Islands crossing. I know this refurbishment will be well received and will provide better services for travellers and commercial operators returning to or entering into Canada.

I would like to speak for a few moments about infrastructure. Many communities along the St. Lawrence River in my riding are older communities, having had their start when the United Empire Loyalists arrived to settle eastern Ontario. Still others, such as Kemptville in North Grenville, are expanding rapidly. One common issue among them all is the need for infrastructure development and renewal. When I meet with municipal officials, this is a common theme. They appreciated it when our government made the gas tax permanent. This gave them a stable, predictable source of funding, and all municipalities have used this money wisely.

Just last week I was in Brockville celebrating the completion of a major project on that community's recreation centre, which was partially paid for by gas tax money. All of the communities in my riding are pleased with the renewed commitment to infrastructure funding in the budget.

The new long-term infrastructure program would provide $70 billion over 10 years, which we have already heard is the largest and longest commitment of infrastructure money in Canada. Of this money, $32.2 billion would go to the community improvement fund to build roads, public transit, recreational facilities and other community infrastructure. I know this fund would be well used by the communities in Leeds—Grenville.

There would be $14 billion for the renewed building Canada fund to support major economic projects of national and regional significance. During the last round of this type of funding, there were several major projects undertaken in my riding that have regional significance.

The Port of Prescott is an example where infrastructure was refurbished to ensure that area municipalities could continue to obtain salt for their roads without having to truck it from Sarnia and Goderich. Area farmers are able to drop off and store corn at the new facility, and this is just one example of where this fund was used previously. Municipalities in my riding are waiting for details on this fund.

I will also speak briefly about the new initiative for retraining, the Canada job grant. My riding was hit hard by the closure of manufacturing plants, and every community in my riding was affected as factories closed in the wake of the economic adjustment that has taken place over the last decade.

I am talking about plants that had been operating in communities in one form or another, and in some cases for close to or more than a century. These plants were where people growing up in these small towns knew they could get work when they graduated from high school, college or university. When these plants closed, many of these hard-working people did not know where to turn for another job. Thanks to programs instituted by our government, many were able to receive retraining and acquire new skills and move on to new jobs, but there are still some who have been left behind. Either they were trained for jobs that do not exist or do not meet their expectations, or they were unable to find a meaningful program.

The Canada job grant would help these folks and many others across Canada. Employers and employees will meet in the marketplace, and with the help of the Canada job grant outlined in our budget, employees would receive direct training for jobs that exist. They would know that when they finished their training, they would be able to get work and start earning money.

The Canada job grant would provide at least $15,000 for retraining, and we know that the average retraining cost is about $7,000 and takes well less than a year. In a minimal amount of time, there would be an employer with a job filled and a previously unemployed person in a productive job.

The budget also would strengthen the apprenticeship program, making it easier to get needed experience for journeyman status, and would provide tools for persons with disabilities, youth, aboriginals and recent immigrants to find work.

Businesses would be helped to succeed and grow with a two-year extension of the temporary accelerated capital cost allowance for new machinery and equipment, and an extension and the expansion of the temporary hiring credits for small businesses.

The increase in the lifetime capital gains exemption to $800,000 for small business owners, farmers and fishers, indexing the new exemption limit to inflation, is also very welcome news to the small business owners in my riding.

The government would continue with support for advanced research, supporting business innovation and enhancing Canada's venture capital system.

Families have not been forgotten in the new budget. New tax relief would be provided for families adopting a child, using home care services and purchasing a number of items such as baby clothing, sporting goods and exercise equipment that would have the import tariffs removed. These may seem like small things, but they make a big difference in the pocketbooks of most people in my riding.

A new consumer code would be developed for people using financial products, and the government would work with provinces to help protect the vulnerable who use payday loan services.

The government would also provide close to $1.9 billion over five years to create more affordable housing and to combat homelessness.

One of the items that is very important in my riding is the new super credit for those who are donating to a charity for the first time or who have not donated for more than five years. There are many charitable organizations in my riding, and I myself have been able to help support my local United Way through a charity hockey game each year. This new super credit would help encourage people to give to help others in their community.

I have two final points. First, the Minister of Finance has accomplished all of this without raising taxes and without cutting transfers to provinces for health care, education and other important services. Second, in 2013-14, most major transfers to Ontario would be $19.9 billion: almost $3.2 billion through equalization; almost $12 billion through the Canada health transfer; and $4.7 billion through the Canada social transfer.

The people of Leeds—Grenville are very happy with this budget, and I look forward to seeing it move through this Parliament as quickly as possible.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

To those who are saying that there were no tax increases, I think that Mouvement Desjardins in Quebec might have something to say about that. This budget does increase taxes on this important economic engine.

Let us talk about infrastructure, one of the points my colleague focused on. I find it intriguing that the government is investing $53 billion in a supposedly new fund, the building Canada fund, even though the country's infrastructure deficit is $123 billion. I think it will be hard to get this deficit under control with so little money, over the course of 10 years, no less.

The Fédération québécoise des municipalités, whose board of directors includes mayors from my riding, opposed this budget for exactly those reasons. Urban sprawl is a significant issue where I come from. People are leaving Montreal and moving to the suburbs. We are desperately in need here, and the budget does not do enough.

I would like to hear what my colleague thinks about this issue. How will the government try to eliminate the deficit with so little investment?

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member bringing up this question because I am very proud of what our government has done on infrastructure. I have been a member of Parliament here for almost nine years, and I can say that in my riding the two key things people want our government to do are, first, invest in infrastructure and, second, invest in economic development. These are the things they see as priorities.

This government has invested more money in my riding and in Canada since we formed government back in 2006 than had ever been invested in infrastructure before. We heard from so many municipal groups across the country. The FCM said that this “...budget delivers significant gains for Canada's cities and communities”. This is what I heard from my mayors and my constituents in the last week since the budget was delivered. They are very happy that there would be long-term predictable funding for infrastructure. It is something that would serve the communities of Leeds—Grenville very well.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I was quite surprised to hear the member say that all of these measures would be brought in without any increase in taxes. I am looking at page 292 of the budget. Perhaps he has not had a chance to look at it, but on page 292 it shows that the projected premium rate for EI premiums for employees and employers would be increasing and would continue to increase over the next four years. Perhaps what he meant to say is that there would be no increases in taxes unless one is an employee or an employer. I invite the member to correct that statement.

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been an employer and my family has employed many hundreds of people over the years in my community of Gananoque. I know a lot about the issue of employment insurance.

The fact is that the member got up and talked about employment insurance, but in fact it was the former government that took $56 billion out of the fund that it raided and took out of the pockets of employees and employers and hurt businesses in this country. It was our government that stopped that, and it has changed the program so that we now have a more equitable program. I know that the employers and employees in Canada are very happy about that not going up to the rate that it would have been under the former government.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, this member referred to the eastern Ontario development program. I know this member has been very strong in his support for that and community futures. Could he talk about the importance of this program to his community and communities throughout eastern Ontario?

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's question because this member, the member for Peterborough, has been a staunch supporter of this program and a strong advocate because he knows and I know and all of the people in rural eastern Ontario know how important this program is to support economic development in our communities. It supports projects and businesses that otherwise would not be supported. There are many jobs today in rural eastern Ontario because of this fund, and I am delighted that the Minister of Finance would make this a five-year commitment, the longest we have ever had.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona, Government Contracts; the hon. member for Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, Foreign Affairs; the hon. member for Ahuntsic, Public Safety.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Okanagan—Coquihalla.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House to speak to the 2013 economic action plan and what it means for my riding of Okanagan—Coquihalla. There are many reasons why I am in full support of the budget that are unique to my riding. However, there are initiatives that are in our national interest and I would like to briefly speak to those.

There are times when as Canadians we must rise above partisan interests and recognize areas that are of Canadian concern. I am not alone when I say that many of my constituents are concerned when they see temporary foreign workers taking jobs that many of us agree Canadians should be working. Let us also recognize that the program originates back to the early 1970s. It was always intended to be temporary and yet, nearly 40 years later, the program is now older than many members of the House. In fact, the origins of the program are older than I am.

What has changed over the past 40 years is that today the temporary foreign worker program is increasingly being accessed because of the lack of skilled workers available in local markets. Let us also recognize that there are massive amounts of provincial and federal tax dollars spent on post-secondary education. At a time when many of Canada's higher paying employers cannot find enough skilled workers, there are students graduating with degrees in fields in which they can find no employment. The reality is that academia has in many cases been slow to respond to the needs of local employers. That is unacceptable.

The economic action plan for 2013 is the first budget in close to 40 years to propose significant measures that would provide Canadians with the skills they need in our new economy. I commend the Minister of Finance for his vision in this area. It is one of the reasons why I am supporting the budget.

One thing I do with great frequency in Okanagan—Coquihalla is to meet with our private sector employers. They are the wealth providers and the true engines of our Canadian economy. Let us never forget that without a vibrant and prosperous private sector there would be no funds to pay for the public sector.

Recently, I toured a value-added lumber mill in my riding. My host, Mr. Nick Arkle of Gorman Bros., gave me a tremendous amount of insight into the many value-added wood products that his company ships to over 28 different countries worldwide. It was truly an impressive and innovative operation by any measure.

One of the things I learned is that if the company was not in the top 10% of the lumber industry for efficiency, it would be shutting the doors during the inevitable down cycles of the economy. In this industry, every cut of lumber is carefully analyzed. Any waste is considered lost revenue. Therefore, the many large-scale investments the company makes has made it a leader in its industry. The specialized machinery to make these cuts is very expensive. That is why tax relief measures in our economic action plan for new manufacturing equipment is critically important for this and other lumber mills' survival.

Let us also not forget that this new machinery requires skilled workers to operate and maintain it. I spoke with members of Mr. Arkle's saw technician team. In many cases, they will work up to a hundred saws in a single shift to minimize the loss of valuable wood to sawdust, while increasing safety and also prolonging the life of the equipment. It was remarked that at starting wages a saw technician is well compensated and it is a great opportunity for young people to stay in the southern interior of British Columbia, while providing for their families. They just need the required training and a desire to put those skills to work.

That creates new jobs and is another reason why I am supporting the budget, because job creation is as important for my riding as it is for our great nation.

Let us also recognize that lumber mills not only provide hundreds of well-paying jobs that help drive the economy of an entire region but also pay a very significant amount of property tax to local governments. As a former municipal councillor, I know all too well of the importance of industry tax revenues and well-paying jobs to the fabric of a community.

That brings me to my next point. The economic action plan would continue to provide support for both the community improvement fund and a new building Canada fund. This is long-term stable funding that helps communities plan their infrastructure needs in a manner that they can afford.

In the past, we have seen federal governments that have reduced funding to the provinces, which in turn leads to downloading onto municipalities. I hope that all members will join me in recognizing that the budget would maintain support for our communities and our provinces, and that is another reason why I will be supporting it.

Although I could easily go on for several hours on the many reasons why I support the budget, in the interests of time, I would like to draw attention to a final point. Many have overlooked this point but I think it is very important. The economic action plan has many measures that would support job creators. One is the 15% mineral exploration tax credit. When many people think of Okanagan—Coquihalla, they think of the beautiful vineyards and some of Canada's finest wines. On a side note, people can buy some of those fine wines directly if they happen to live in Manitoba and soon Nova Scotia. Hopefully, Ontario will be next.

What many do not realize is how critically important mining is to my riding of Okanagan—Coquihalla. Logan Lake has one of Canada's largest open pit copper mines. The Highland Valley Copper Mine directly supports 900 families and thousands more indirectly. For those who do not support responsible resource development, which is basically the entire opposition caucus and the opposition leader, Teck Resources Ltd., the operator of that mine, was recently named Canada's most sustainable company.

From speaking to Mayor Marlon Dosch, this mine plays a major role in the Logan Lake economy, both as a driver for local employment and a large contributor to the local tax base. It is my understanding that due to a number of retirements, it will soon be looking for more skilled workers. This is something that they welcome as a community, as it means new development and more families moving to Logan Lake and enrolling in their schools. All of this adds vitality to this rural community.

In Merritt, there is also a relatively new Huldra Silver copper mine. Although smaller, it has a workforce close to 60 people, including local first nations, and injects roughly $15 million annually into the local economy. President Sharp has made the employment of local first nations a priority. The measures in this year's economic action plan would support these goals and would thus support the area of Merritt and the Nicola Valley.

In Okanagan Falls, Unit Electrical Engineering is a specialty manufacturer of equipment that includes specialized mining components. UEE is the largest employer in that region and has produced equipment for some of Canada's largest mines.

Supporting the mineral exploration tax credit is important to many families in Okanagan—Coquihalla, who depend on these highly paid jobs within this important industry. That is another reason why I am supportive of the 2013 economic action plan.

Let us also not forget that the economic action plan continues to keep Canada on track for a balanced budget in 2015-16. It also builds on the principles that allow Canada to keep its AAA credit rating and it secures our internationally respected financial position as a leader among the G7 countries.

The opposition says we should increase spending and raise taxes, but let us not forget that other countries went down that road and they are still paying the price. In my opinion, Canadian values would have us live within our means.

Our country was not built on handouts, high taxes and a host of expensive social programs.

I appreciate the opportunity to rise in the House and show support for the Minister of Finance's economic action plan 2013.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my Conservative colleague's speech, and I would like to ask him a question.

When I returned to my riding on Friday after the budget was tabled, I met with some very angry people. They were angry because, with the elimination of the labour-sponsored funds tax credit, $800 a year is being taken away from people who are trying to plan for their retirement, people who are trying to save some money and invest in a fund. They are losing $800 a month. That is a very hard blow for a family that is planning for the retirement of one of its members.

I would like the hon. member to tell me why the government eliminated this tax credit when he himself said that it is very important to invest and to plan for one's retirement. This seems rather contradictory to me.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, one of the challenges we have before us is to take a look at all of the things we can take advantage of, bearing in mind that there is an uncertain economy throughout the world. The government has been very forthcoming in saying that we need increased productivity and in putting out plans for new venture capital, including the funding of that.

I would simply point out to the member that there are many things in this budget to support. I would ask for her support of the budget, simply due to the number of comprehensive parts that will help our country grow its economy from coast to coast to coast.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to reference the Experimental Lakes Area, an area that the government has seen fit to ultimately take apart and decommission. The cost of doing so is well into the millions of dollars. In order to continue with the ELA, the government would be able to fund it somewhere in the neighbourhood of $300,000 to $400,000 annually. It is costing it more to decommission the ELA than to allow it to continue for the next number of years. The scientific work done there to protect our fresh waters, not only in Canada but around the world, is second to no other. It is a first-class research facility and desperately needed.

Today I asked a question of the government about Lake Winnipeg. Lake Winnipeg is dying. Can the member please explain to me how the government justifies decommissioning the ELA when there are lakes in dire need of research to ensure their longevity going forward?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, simply put, this government has provided millions of dollars to the investment in Lake Winnipeg and continues to work with local stakeholders to get the most out of that investment.

I would like to take a moment, though, to talk about my riding of Okanagan—Coquihalla. The Dominion Radio Astrophysical Observatory is considered to be a world-class facility. Millions of dollars have gone into it over the years and it has provided a tremendous amount of research and pride on behalf of Okanagan—Coquihalla.

I would say that no government supports science more than this government. I would invite the member to see DRAO at some point because it is something that all members in the House should be aware of and support.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, since the member was elected to this place, he has made considerable contributions. One thing he did was to seek to take down tariffs and allow for wine produced in British Columbia to be sold in places such as Ontario and elsewhere in the country. The government has further picked up on that and reduced tariffs on things such as sports equipment and clothing for infants.

Can the member speak about the importance of bringing down tariffs and making products more affordable for Canadians?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there has been no government that has worked as hard as ours on lowering tariffs. One of the things manufacturers have spoken most in favour of is how out of all the countries in the G7 we went tariff free on the importation of manufacturing goods.

When we talk about our national interests, it is important for the federal government to lead the way. When we talk about getting rid of old 1928 Importation of Intoxicating Liquors legislation that prevented provinces from shipping their wine to other provinces to many of the things in the economic action plan such as job skills training, it is important that the federal government take that leadership role and continue to make our local and provincial economies or our national economy as a whole better. To take the lead is important.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak in the debate. I certainly was listening carefully to the comments of the previous speakers and I have some comments to make about what has been said.

Last week I said in a scrum that if the Minister of Finance was William Tell, I am very glad that I did not have an apple on my head.

I would like to document the gross inaccuracy of the predictions that have been made by the minister before the members opposite start congratulating themselves too much on their alleged record of economic management. Let us have a look at that record.

In 2006, in his first budget, the Minister of Finance predicted 3% growth. The actual growth was 2.8%. In 2007 he predicted 2.3%. He missed that target as well. In 2008 he predicted 1.7% growth and actual growth was 0.7%. In 2009 the minister had to admit that there was going to be a contraction in the economy of 0.8%. The actual contraction was 2.8%. In 2011 he predicted 2.9% growth and the actual growth was 2.5%. Last year he predicted 2.1% growth and the actual was roughly 1.8%.

If the annual real GDP growth experienced under every prime minister were averaged, only one prime minister in the living memory of some members, R.B. Bennett, had a worse economic growth record than that of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister's average annual growth during the time of his prime ministership has been 1.4% over his seven years.

When the Minister of Finance announced the economic action plan in budget 2009, he promised a temporary deficit that would be eliminated in 2013-14, which by the way, begins six days from now. Instead, we have an $18.7-billion deficit predicted for 2013-14. Based on his previous record, that is not going to be an easy target to reach.

I want to go back over the ground because members keep saying “Let's pretend we don't have a memory of any of these things”. The problem is we do have a memory and we do have a record.

In 2008 the minister predicted a surplus of $2.3 billion. That became a deficit of $5.8 billion, an $8.1-billion difference. In 2009 he predicted a deficit of $33.7 billion, which became a deficit of $55.6 billion, a $21.9-billion difference. In 2012 he predicted a deficit of $21.1 billion, which has become a deficit of $25.9 billion, a $4.8 billion-difference.

Perhaps the most famous inaccuracy of the Minister of Finance, and the bow and arrow is looking a bit shaky in his hands right now, was the 2008 fall economic update, which is perhaps his most infamous economic prediction. We all remember that because it was the one where he predicted no recession for Canada, a series of future budget balances that came in at a $0.1-billion surplus and the balance would be achieved from the future sale of government assets.

It is worth recalling that we reached our lowest point in terms of our debt at $458 billion six years ago. This budget predicts that by the end of this fiscal year it will be $627 billion, an increase of $169 billion.

This is the same Minister of Finance who, as he is delivering his budget speech, stands up and waxes full of pieties saying governments cannot spend their way out of a recession and then, looking meaningfully over at the opposition, says some people might disagree with this statement, but nevertheless the government is standing by its record of economic management and fiscal prudence. A $170-billion increase in the national debt and the government has the nerve to say that it is some kind of an example of fiscal prudence. It is preposterous.

It is also preposterous to say that it is a government that has somehow embraced restraint. Program spending has gone from $175 billion in 2005-06 to $253 billion today, which is a 45% increase. That is far greater than the rate of inflation and the rate of growth in the real economy.

Let us look at the fact that Canada is a federation. One cannot just take the federal programs and the federal approach in isolation. What I would like to see in this budget is not only a statement of the federal government's plans and hopes for the future, which is allegedly what we had in the budget statement. I, and I think most Canadians, would like to see how the federation is doing. How are Canadians doing? Where is the unemployment rate? Where is the job-creation rate? How indebted are Canadians? Have they fallen behind or are they moving ahead? How are the provinces doing? How are the municipalities doing?

Let us look at simple facts. Since 2007-08, the provincial debt, the debt of all the provinces, has gone from $321 billion to $534 billion, which is a $230-billion increase. This year, 2012-13, only Saskatchewan and the three territories that are largely supported by the federal government are now expected to run a surplus. Therefore, when we look at the actual condition of the federation, it is far more serious than the government is prepared to tell us. It is far more problematic than the government is prepared to admit.

However, we have a government that nevertheless is eager to pat itself on the back. I heard this in the statements of my colleagues for Leeds—Grenville and Okanagan—Coquihalla, who said that this was such a wonderful budget because for the first time in 40 years the government had identified the skills challenge as a problem facing Canada. What?

This is not the first time in 40 years that a problem with job training has been identified. There is obviously a problem. Everyone is well aware of this and recognizes the problem. However, acknowledging that there is a problem and proposing a solution are two completely different things.

Let us take a moment to talk about job training. Six years ago, the government signed a number of agreements with the provinces whereby it handed over complete authority for training to the provinces. The government gave them money and told them to do their best to solve the job training problem.

It seems that the Prime Minister became angry recently when he learned that there was a problem. He was the last to notice and to realize what was happening.

The Prime Minister went slightly overboard six years ago. Now he is getting back to work and is saying that he has a solution. He has announced that the government will allow young students and workers to receive $15,000. The government will take care of all the advertising for this wonderful program and will take back responsibility for training.

The Prime Minister said that his government would solve this problem that no one else had addressed before. What an exaggeration, what arrogance on the part of the federal government and the Conservative Party.

The provinces had actually started working on it. Not everyone wanted the government to create a $15,000 program because the Prime Minister would then announce that everyone—including the federal and provincial governments and the private sector—would have to contribute $5,000.

Today, the Prime Minister is saying that he is prepared to sit down and to negotiate with the provinces. It is not a good idea to announce a program before you have conducted negotiations. In fact, that is contrary to what should be done. Better yet, the government should say that it has things to discuss with the provinces and that it wants to do that.

They had an opportunity. Just six months ago, the premiers made an unprecedented decision to tell the Prime Minister that they would like to have a meeting to discuss the economy. They wanted to have a chance to discuss the issues that concern them and concern the government, because running a modern economy or running a federation is not the exclusive property of the Government of Canada. It is not the exclusive jurisdiction of the Conservative Party. It is a concern of every political party, a concern of every region, and a concern of every government.

The Prime Minister declined. The Prime Minister of Canada refused to attend. If we compare Canada to every other federation in the world, no other federation would be in a situation in which the leader of its federal government would refuse to sit down with the premiers who had specifically asked for a meeting to discuss the economy. It is unbelievable.

After the last 48 hours, I have a suggestion for the premiers: they should rent themselves panda costumes and get together and tell the Prime Minister there is going to be a fantastic photo opportunity. They will not even be behind glass. They will be out in public and willing to sit down. That is the only way I think we can get this Prime Minister to sit down and talk to the premiers.

Instead of having a meeting and a serious discussion, what does the Government of Canada do? On health care, the Minister of Finance walked into a luncheon meeting of the ministers of finance and said, “I am too busy to have lunch. By the way, I want to tell you what the transfers for health care are going to be for the next 10 years.”

The member for Peterborough is saying “Hear, hear”. Maybe that goes down well where he comes from, but having sat at a premiers' table and at a ministers of finance table, I can say it is ridiculous to have a federal government walk in and in five minutes describe what the program for transfers is going to be.

There has to be a discussion. The government cannot have a take it or leave it approach. The take it or leave it approach is even being rejected by the members of the Conservative Party opposite.

Even now, even at this late hour in the life of the government, we are beginning to see signs of life, signs of people wanting to speak up, signs of members of the blue army chorus saying they want to wear something different and come out today and have a voice of their own. However, even that is being stamped down by the leadership of the Conservative Party.

This budget does so much less than what it pretends to do. In the dialogue between the member for Okanagan—Coquihalla and the member for Peterborough, the member for Peterborough was saying, “Isn't it a wonderful thing? We have discovered that if you reduce tariffs, it is going to have a positive effect on the economy.”

The Conservatives raised tariff revenues for the federal government in this budget by $300 million, but the two items upon which they reduced them magically leaped out—magically.

John Ivison from the National Post magically picked the items out of all the possibilities of items that the government would either reduce or increase, and he said that the reporters from The Globe and Mail had the same magic information. How did that happen? How would they have suddenly landed on baby clothes and hockey equipment? Of all the items that are there, those are the items they picked.

I do not think so. I do not think it was a lucky guess. I know my friends in the New Democratic Party have written to the RCMP and are going to launch an investigation. I wish the investigators well in their search for this difficult piece of information.

The government has raised tariffs by $300 million. I would love to be a fly on the wall listening to the Minister of Finance talking to our Asian friends and saying, “We really want to lower tariffs and we really want to engage with you in the Pacific negotiations, but by the way, we are taking a $300-million cash grab before we sit down and have a serious discussion about tariffs.”

It is ridiculous. The range of things the government is doing, not to improve the budget but to simply sell the budget, is unbelievable to me.

I have to hand it to the government. It knows how to orchestrate leaks. It knows how to feed little pieces of gruel to the press the week before and say, "Here is a little item. You might want to nibble on this. You might want to nibble on that." Suddenly and magically, the press knew that skills training and infrastructure were going to be the focus of the budget. Every single speech given by a member opposite, dutifully prepared by the Prime Minister's Office, expressed it.

That is what we know. We know the Conservatives know how to orchestrate. We know that after they have orchestrated, as the member for Cape Breton—Canso would have said, they also know how to sell.

He is not even here to listen to what I have to say. This is what happens to an interim leader. He says to mention his riding, but when I go to the length and trouble of bringing him into the story, he walks out. I cannot understand it.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

The member for Toronto Centre is a very experienced parliamentarian. He would know that it is improper to refer to a member not being present.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one forgets after years of experience. It happens.

The point is that it is very clear that they know how to orchestrate and they know how to sell.

This weekend, the advertising started. I would defy any journalist or any analyst of those ads to tell me the information that is being conveyed. What are the facts that are being conveyed? These are not facts. This is not information. They are pure and simple travelogues, pictures of people putting things together, waterfalls falling down, ships going down a river, blah, blah, blah. It has got nothing to do with information or with facts. It is propaganda in its most classic form, and it is sell, sell, sell.

That is what the Conservatives have. They have a very tiny product to sell. It is not very good. If we actually look at it, it is less than what it appears to be. The infrastructure money is actually down, not up. Sure, they can announce it for 10 years. They say that it is a stable announcement for 10 years. They must think they are going to be in government for 10 years, but they are not. What kind of arrogance is this?

If they want to make the program sound bigger, why not make it a 20-year program or a 40-year program? Why would they be such pikers and say it is the biggest investment ever announced? Anyone can announce something and then go and take out ads for it, but what has this got to do with a real program?

It does not have much to do with a real program. There is less on infrastructure. When it comes to skills formation, the Conservatives are actually spending less. They are taking the money out of 2007 and extrapolating it into the years ahead. They say there is a crisis, and then they say that in two or three years, they will have the program in place. That is a real crisis. The crisis was so great that the Prime Minister could go and see the pandas, but he could not go and see the premiers.

We have a Prime Minister who is not too busy to go and see two pandas that are not even allowed out of quarantine, but he is too busy to see 12 premiers. He is a Prime Minister who is too preoccupied with the health of the economy to sit down and talk about it with the first ministers of the country, but he has time to visit and to welcome two pandas coming to the country.

Rather than pandering, it is time for real discussion. This is actually not a serious budget. It is not a budget that really addresses the state we are in. It is not a budget that tells the truth about how wrong the government has been about our current economic state. It is not a budget that talks about where we really are on inequality, on health care, on poverty, or on the condition of the people. It is a budget that is about selling something. It is about orchestrating something rather than doing something.

That is the reason the Liberal Party will be voting against the budget.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, you mentioned that the hon. leader of the Liberal Party has tenure. He has served in public office for some time. Indeed, at one point he served as the premier of Ontario.

He talked about first ministers' meetings. I wonder if he would let us in the room and allow us to understand how the Liberal Party handled it when it determined that it was going to cut transfers to the provinces by $26 billion.

He was upset that our finance minister went in with good news, the good news that we would be increasing education transfers and health transfers to record levels and that each and every year we would not touch transfers. In fact, we guarantee them for 10 years.

However, when he was premier of Ontario, the then Liberal government cut the knees right out from under him. I would love for him to let us inside the walls of that first ministers' meeting.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we had first ministers' meetings.

I am glad to see the member for Peterborough up on his feet again in the House. He has been a retiring, shy flower the last few weeks, and I am very glad to see him up. If the member would like to be, metaphorically, a fly on the wall, I will tell him.

We met regularly with Brian Mulroney. We met regularly with Jean Chrétien. Did we always agree? Was there enthusiastic embrace of the fact that there were cuts? Of course not. Of course they were tough discussions, but we had the discussions. We had the discussions and the debates, and around that table everybody knew what was at stake.

Yes, collectively, we did make some very tough decisions. We collectively decided and determined that Canada was going to turn the corner in 1993-1994. None of us liked the consequences for each one of us, and some of us would have liked to have seen it done in a slightly different way. However, I have to say that when all things are considered, this country began to turn some very important corners as we were facing the crisis we were facing in the early 1990s, and I am very proud of the fact that the premiers did it together, with the Prime Minister of Canada.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I get the sense that we just witnessed history in the making by listening to the speech by the hon. member for Toronto Centre for whom I have a great deal of sympathy. We have taken similar paths.

We are like two sides of the same coin, in the sense that he was an NDP member who went to the Liberal Party and helped it become the third party of opposition, and I was a Liberal who became a member of the NDP, which is now the official opposition.

I always enjoy listening to any speech that the hon. member for Toronto Centre makes, because he is definitely an inspiring and inspired person.

I am tempted to ask him a question, but I would rather end on an extremely positive note. It would be too easy to go back to the infamous 1990s. The member for Peterborough asked what the federal-provincial conferences were like at the time. I was a radio host at the time and if memory serves me correctly, it was not easy to have such collaborative conversations.

That being said, I will leave it up to my colleague from Toronto Centre to continue, if he wants to add anything to his speech.

I simply want to thank him for often making the debate in the House so interesting.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I heard a question. All I can say to the hon. member is I appreciated the nice things she had to say and did not appreciate the other thing she had to say.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member for Toronto Centre and his speech. Certainly it is good to have a thorough discussion about the issues that face our country.

The member seems to be critical about the changes to the tariffs, which amount to about $330 million, I believe. Many of these tariffs have not been looked at in 40 years. I believe it was in 1974, before I was born.

The original reason the tariffs were struck at a preferential rate was to help many of the countries that were under that classification to grow their economies. Many of these countries' economies have grown and developed greatly. Some examples are China, Brazil, Russia and India.

If not now, when?