Debates of Feb. 13th, 2014

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking my colleagues from the Standing Committee on Finance, the members for Parkdale—High Park and Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, for their constructive contribution to the deliberations we as members need to engage in today on the 2014 budget and its impacts.

Yesterday, on February 12, I heard the member for Kitchener—Conestoga say that high school students understood the budget better than members of the opposition. The members opposite should perhaps stop talking nonsense. The people of my riding are fed up with seeing their buying power melt like snow in the sunshine while the government fails to take any real action to kick-start the country's economy.

The first question that must be asked is who will be the new victims of this budget? The answer is public service retirees. The government is going to take $1.5 billion from the health care plan for retired public servants, and then require them to pay higher premiums. For example, based on retirees from my own riding who called and wrote to me, $42.76 per month will now being withheld, rather than the previous amount of $10.34 per month in June 2013. This is a difference of $32.42 per month or $389 per year, an increase of 413.5%. Why are the Conservatives attacking public service retirees?

The unemployed will also be victims of this budget. There are now 300,000 more unemployed workers than there were before the 2008 recession. This budget, however, is not making any significant investments to create good jobs for the middle class. The NDP has monitored this file closely.

In fact, our leader has said that employment insurance is the most important Canadian labour market program because it provides benefits to replace the income of those who are unemployed to help them and their families, and because it provides Canadians with training and other labour market support measures to help them find a new job. He also mentioned that in view of the fact that Canada's economy and labour market were in constant turmoil, the government needed to ensure that the program would be there for Canadians when they needed it. According to him, the government must also ensure that the program helps to create jobs and economic growth.

Since the changes announced in the 2012 budget, fewer people are now eligible for employment insurance benefits. More of them are now forced to accept low paying jobs and many are redirected to provincial social programs.

Under the Conservatives, access to employment insurance benefits has reached its lowest level ever with fewer than four out of every 10 unemployed workers eligible for benefits. The changes are also harmful to seasonal industries like tourism, fisheries, and the forest and agricultural sectors. Canadian workers and employers pay employment insurance premiums, and the government makes profits off their backs.

Workforce training will also be affected by the budget because it changes the workforce training rules. The federal government announced that the subsidies for workforce training will be in place on April 1, with or without the agreement of the provinces, even though workforce training is a provincial jurisdiction under an agreement that goes back to the previous century. Clearly they want to impose a new way of doing things. From now on, businesses rather than job seekers will receive support. How can the provinces be forced to be accountable when this is their jurisdiction?

A Canadian employment subsidy will be introduced in 2014. Who will be eligible? Businesses that have a training plan for unemployed and underemployed Canadians, to enable them to find a job or a better job. Every Canadian will be eligible for this subsidy, on one condition: there has to be a partnership with an employer. In other words, they need to find their own job.

In only a few sentences many changes have been introduced. At the moment, the provinces train workers who then re-enter the workforce. The process takes somewhat longer when the prospective worker needs orientation or training before returning to the workforce.

For example, if a 55-year-old worker loses his job after a company shuts down, a new job can be found for him if it is one that is in demand, for example a plumber. However, if the worker decides to shift to a field where demand is low, he will have to be trained for another job. The process will therefore take somewhat longer.

After 10 budgets, the Minister of Finance should make an effort to acquire a better understanding of the term "provincial jurisdiction".

The Minister of Finance complained that the government paid out:

...billions of dollars--not millions, billions--to the provinces to provide skills training to workers for available jobs. Some provinces do not even report the results. We don’t even know what they do with the money; so we’re going to do better than that, we will get results.

How tactless. I would like to take the liberty of telling the minister about what the provinces are doing in terms of skills training.

First of all, the whole process involves employers, management, unions and the education sector. They are all working toward integrating potential workers into the labour force. Targets are set for integrating those with disabilities, young people, immigrants and women. Older workers who must find a job and business services are also included.

If the minister really wants to know what is happening in terms of skills training in the provinces, I would strongly advise him to consult the Internet and use Google to look up “Emploi Quebec” or “Employment Ontario”. No private enterprise is as transparent. He can find regional action plans, guidelines and strategies used to meet the challenges and achieve results.

The victims of this budget are families. I would like to bring up the issue of income splitting for families with dependents under the age of 18. Keep in mind that it was one of the Conservatives’ promises in the last election.

The term “income splitting” describes the ability of spouses to divide their total taxable family income for tax purposes in order to reduce their total family income tax liability. Because of the progressive nature of the Canadian tax system, the higher-income spouse may be taxed at a higher marginal tax rate than the lower-income spouse. By splitting their total taxable income, some couples would benefit from a lower effective tax rate.

For instance, the average federal tax savings for two-parent families with children, earning less than $30,000 annually, and with one parent earning from 0% to 10% of family income, would total $120. On the other hand, if the family earns $90,000 or more, the couple would save $3,276.

In Canada, the gap between rich and poor is widening. If income splitting were to help narrow this gap, we might support it, but in reality, the rich will benefit more than the poor. The C.D. Howe Institute has stated that 85% of households would gain nothing from an income-splitting provision.

In conclusion, I would like to say that I have rarely seen a budget that is as dull as this one and that provides no measures to help families and workers make the two ends meet.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on an issue that is very important out west, in particular to our prairie provinces, the issue of grain and the movement of grain.

A great number of wheat farmers were quite disappointed that the government did not recognize the fact we have piles of wheat sitting not only in steel bins but also in fields that need to get from the Prairies to the west coast where we have empty ships waiting to receive the wheat. The sense is that the government has failed them. The wheat farmers have not been able to ensure that infrastructure is there to transport that wheat. We have known about this for months.

Would the member want to comment on how important it is for the Minister of Finance in a budget to deal with crises in the nation? I use what is happening in the Prairies as one such crisis. We have a crisis in the Prairies dealing with tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions, of dollars worth of wheat product, and the government has dropped the ball on this particular issue. The member might want to comment.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member’s comment is completely accurate. You would think the budget came right out of a play by Ionesco.

In western Canada, grain needs to be moved and delivered, but the budget mentions pipelines, gas, the oil sands and natural gas, and ignores a huge part of the economy.

If the Conservatives were really taking care of the business economy, they would help these types of infrastructure. Instead, they are interfering in something that does not concern them and setting up an agency to provide funding for skills training, even though that is under provincial jurisdiction.

This is the government's area of jurisdiction, and its budget must provide for the possibility of taking action in these types of situations. That is what taxes are for.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, according to the budget, there is a surplus exceeding $6 billion in the employment insurance fund, yet the government is restricting access and preventing people who have no jobs from getting benefits.

Given that together, the Liberals and the Conservatives stole $57 billion from the employment insurance fund, I would like my colleague to comment on the fact that even though this arrogant government wrote in its own budget that the employment insurance fund has a surplus exceeding $6 billion, it is still restricting access to employment insurance for people who really need it and who have no jobs.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we know that the Liberals and the Conservatives diverted $57 billion from the fund. A few years ago, in 2012, there was a surplus of $3.1 billion. That money came from employer and employee contributions to employment insurance. Now we are talking about a $6 billion surplus. Once again, all of this money goes into the consolidated revenue fund. Honestly, that is what I call stealing. The government did it by restricting access to employment insurance. The fewer unemployed workers they have knocking on the door asking for benefits, the lower the unemployment rate is. The lower the unemployment rate in a particular region, the fewer weeks of benefits people can claim. It is all connected, and that is why the surplus is going up.

The government did not raise taxes, but it is collecting money from a specific segment of the population and funnelling that money into the consolidated revenue fund. Employers and employees are being fleeced.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and for International Human Rights]

Mr. Speaker, it is, indeed, a pleasure to rise on behalf of my constituency to speak on budget 2014.

Before I start, I will point out that I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour and for Western Economic Diversification.

As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and for International Human Rights, I travel a lot around the world representing Canada. Everywhere I go, I am always asked, “What did Canada do? How did you avoid the major ramifications of the recession that hit Europe, the Americans, and everyone?” It was because of the sound management this government provided under the leadership of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, as well as other cabinet members.

Let us look at the bigger picture since 2006. The Liberals and NDP keep complaining. All we hear from them is spend, spend, spend. It is nitpicking. The real picture is this. Since taking office in 2006, we made sure that the GST was cut from 7% to 5%, that taxes were reduced, that income splitting was established, and that we created a tax-free savings account. We worked to ensure that Canadians had more money in their pockets, because more money in the pockets of Canadians is of greater benefit to consumers and the economy than having fat government programs like the NDP and Liberals keep saying we need.

The other point is that the government went through the exercise of cutting unnecessary expenses. There were reductions in expenditure areas that it was felt were not doing anything necessary for the country.

The combination of both of these things is where we stand today. As the finance minister said, by 2015 we will have balanced the budget. This would not happen if none of these measures were taken. The balancing of the budget allows us to have more money for the programs that we consider important, like health care, social services, and other critically important programs that Canadians want. Today, we stand at a threshold where the budget is going to be balanced.

In all of the speeches that the NDP and Liberals have made, we have not heard anything about balancing the budget. I remember when I came here, the Liberals were touting that they were going to balance the budget. Mr. Martin tried to balance the budget by cutting transfers to the provinces, which we did not do. We provided the necessary atmosphere in the economy for the economy to move forward and to create over a million jobs.

We are also working hard to ensure that people are working. That is what Canadians want. Therefore, this budget, after all of this, is based on getting people to work. I just heard the NDP and Liberals over there talking about EI surpluses and that there will be cuts. The important thing is getting people to work, that the people who have finished their schooling and apprenticeships all go to work, so this government decided to do that. There is now more money given to people so they can become apprentices. There is no point in getting a lot of foreign workers to do these jobs when we can train Canadians to do them, including those graduating high school.

This budget, through the Minister of Employment and Social Development, is focused on how to get Canadians work. The more Canadians work, the more taxes they pay, and the more consumer spending there will be. It is better for the economy in the long run. It is simple mathematics and economics that the NDP should know.

Most importantly, Canada is a resource-rich country. We are a trading nation. We have some of the best practices for mining and resource extraction. People from across the world come here to see how we do these things.

When I travel overseas, I go to newly developed countries like Mongolia and Tanzania, countries whose extractive sectors are now coming in. They look to us, and we tell them to come to Canada and look at our regulations, which they can then apply back in their countries so that they can have the benefit of natural resources for their citizens.

This is the key message that we give out. Countries listen to us. I just returned from Ethiopia. Its mining sector is interested in seeing Canada's best practices, because it has identified Canada as one of the best places where the resource sector is properly utilized to the benefit of its people.

The resource sector needs to be developed. We find it very strange that the same people on the other side who are getting up and saying that they want this expenditure and that expenditure, and that things are bad and everything, are the ones who oppose the pipeline, which would take our resources to markets around the world.

Canada is one of the best places. Yes, there is always room for improvement. The NDP members are usually stopping things from happening. They are getting up and saying no on trade deals. They say no on resource extraction. They say no on everything. I do not know where they think the money comes from. Only the NDP members know where this money will come from to meet all the needs of the excellent programs we have.

It is important to note that our government has not cut critical programs that are needed. We will refocus the resources we have to the areas where they will be productive, where Canadians will get the most benefit. That is what responsible government is all about. Responsible government is not about standing up and throwing money here and there, as the NDP would do.

At the same time, the government is very proud of having signed trade deals around the world, FIPA agreements and trade deals. This will allow our companies to go out and do what they are best at doing: sell their products and services, which are very good.

The free trade agreement with the European Union and the NAFTA, these are all beneficial to businesses. They are all excited. This is the economy expanding, and an expanding economy means better jobs for Canadians; and better jobs for Canadians mean more money in the economy, which all goes towards ensuring a better future for Canadians, young and old. Let us not forget the seniors who rely on many of the programs we have.

I give full credit to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance for this budget. They have chosen this path and we are now standing proudly to say that we will balance the budget in 2015. What more could people want?

The criticism we are hearing is that we are doing this because an election year is coming, or that it is a no-show budget, or that it is a boring budget. I would rather have a boring budget if it means we are staying on track and that by 2015 we will have a balanced budget with a surplus. We have worked for that since forming government in 2006.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have to point out a couple of things in the parliamentary secretary's comments.

The previous government used to have a parlour trick, in which it would look at the estimates and say that the surplus was going to be x, and it would be y. Of course it would be a lot more than it had initially predicted.

We put the Parliamentary Budget Officer in place, and we worked with the government to do that.

Now there is a new parlour trick, and actually Kevin Page identified it. It goes like this: the government does not actually spend the money that Parliament assigns. So we have $300 million in foreign affairs that was not spent, to help things like the START program to help South Sudan. We have programs that were actually needed for Canadians, and money for them is not being spent. Then the government invites us to see how well it is doing.

We have $7 billion booked in this budget that is coming out of the pockets of public servants here in Ottawa. This is some magical, great financial wizardry.

The government cannot even procure defence equipment, so it has to kick the can of $3 billion ahead.

What I am laying out here is the basis for the question to my colleague. There is no great financial management here. This budget had a lot of references to the previous budget.

How can the parliamentary secretary stand there and actually look people in the eye and say the government did a good job of managing when it cannot even fulfill the promises and expectations of the last budget, and when it cannot procure defence equipment, and when it is doing the budget savings, surplus, and deficit on the backs of everyday people?

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, let me look at the member directly and tell him that I am absolutely proud of what we have done and what we are going to achieve. He said I should feel ashamed. Absolutely not; I am absolutely happy to say that.

Now, let us go back to the other question and see how they twist things. He is talking about the $3 billion for defence. This is a capital expenditure. Does he really think that the planes we want to buy are just sitting there, that we just need to write a cheque and the planes will come in? They need to be built. After they have been built, then the money is allocated. Therefore, that money is sitting there, waiting to be allocated. When those capital expenditures are ready, we will buy them. Look at how they are twisting the facts, saying that it is a mistake.

As for all the other ones, he needs to recognize that there was a recession in 2008.

By the way, the budget officer was appointed by this government. It is this government that went ahead and appointed him.

We have nothing to be ashamed of. We are as transparent as anything.

Let us celebrate the fact that by 2015 we will have a balanced budget.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have just a general question because I know my hon. colleague has been in this House for a while. In reading the budget document, the book that is about this thick, I find it hard to sort out what is new and what is old.

I wonder why the government does not make it a bit clearer in the document, so that average Canadians reading it can see what is new and what was already announced a year ago.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, let us look at the bigger picture. Let me tell members that I am very glad that we have a skinny little booklet to say these things. We used to get fancy books over there. This way, at least we do not need to spend too much money on this thing.

To the point, let me say that since coming into power, gradually working it out, the bottom line is that, today, we have matching programs for jobs. Most important, we will be able to balance the budget in 2015. We have been giving tax breaks of almost $3,000 to every Canadian family in this country over that period of time. If that is not sound management, I have not the foggiest idea what this guy thinks sound management is.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will address the question to the hon. parliamentary secretary that I have been trying to put to previous speakers, so I hope he will bear with me.

I will start with this quote, “...perhaps the greatest threat to confront the future of humanity today”, describing climate change. That is a quote from the Prime Minister, in 2007.

Another quote is from the Secretary General to the World Commission on Environment and Development, Jim MacNeill, a Canadian, a global diplomat, who said the single “most important environmental...statement” from any government is its budget.

Here we are in 2014. The Prime Minister said it was the single biggest threat to confront the future of humanity today. He said that seven years ago. Environment Canada now reports that, against the Copenhagen target—a commitment to reduce by 130 megatonnes of greenhouse gases by 2020—we will reduce by three megatons. This target was not taken on by a previous Liberal government, but taken on by the Prime Minister in Copenhagen in 2009. That is a complete failure.

Would the parliamentary secretary explain how the government can put forward a document, in 2014, that does not use the words “climate change”, “carbon”, or “greenhouse gases” and has no measures to reduce them?

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will not agree with the Green Party to say that we are going to put a carbon tax out here. No, we are not.

However, the Minister of the Environment has stated quite clearly on many occasions that, yes, we are addressing the issue of climate change. We always attend all the conferences where climate change is on the agenda.

However, it is a global issue that everybody should be part and parcel of it, not just Canada. So, we will continue working with our allies, the rest of the countries, to address the issue of climate change.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour and for Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to stand up here today and speak to our economic action plan 2014. I also want to congratulate the Minister of Finance on again having a budget that is absolutely right for Canada in these times.

Today I will talk about the context, because I think it is important. People are hearing about the measures that are in the budget, but I need to set the stage for the debate in terms of the context, going back to 2009.

I do want to make one comment. Certainly our approach is not the NDP approach of raising taxes and having myriad programs for which it wants to use the money of everyday Canadians.

Unlike the Liberals, we know we need a long-term plan. We need a plan. The budget does not actually balance itself by magic, but it balances itself through a lot of hard work, a lot of thinking, and creating a plan.

I will demonstrate where we are today and why this plan is working; so throughout my speech, I will take very liberally from some of the past budget speeches given by the Minister of Finance, because as we go from 2009 to 2010, we will see the very dramatic things that were happening in our history, and indeed, the global recession impacting the entire world.

First, I go back to January 27, 2009. I was a newly elected MP at the time. I was elected in 2008. The government previous to that had been paying down the debt, and to give the Liberals their due, they had paid down some debt, and we continued on that path. We paid down, I believe, close to $39 billion in debt in the first two years.

In 2008-2009 we recognized we were heading into some very challenging times across the world. These are some quotes from the speech of January 27, 2009.

Since last fall, the global economic situation has deteriorated further and faster than anyone predicted.... Canadians are feeling the effects of the global recession, and they are concerned. They are concerned about their jobs and their savings. They are concerned about their families, their businesses, and their communities.......we must do what it takes to keep our economy moving and to protect Canadians during this extraordinary time.

Back in 2009, in response to the global recession, it was the industrialized countries that agreed they needed to take unprecedented action.

I often hear, again, the opposition members talking out of both sides of their mouths, because I remember at that time they were saying we should spend more, spend more. Then they would say we had a debt. They cannot have it both ways. They cannot say to spend more and then criticize the debt.

It truly was a very difficult time, and so the Government of Canada and the Minister of Finance made the deliberate choice to run a substantial, short-term deficit. It was a temporary deficit, and it was an investment that was to stimulate our economy and to meet the short-term needs while serving the long-term goals.

It is also important to note that Canada, unlike the United States and Europe, did not enter this very difficult time with a heavy deficit, like the other countries; so we really had more capacity within Canada to respond to the risk we were facing.

We also said at that time that we would not be running a permanent deficit, that as the economy recovered, we fully expected to emerge from deficit and return to surplus. It was also said that Canadians regretted the need to run a deficit in order to invest in our economy and the government also shared that regret.

That sets the stage for 2009, a very difficult time, and a purposeful decision was made.

A year and a couple of months later—again I will take liberally from the speech at the time—the minister rose in the House and said:

...our nation is at a crossroads. We have passed through steep and rocky terrain. Much of the territory was uncharted. We were prepared and we protected ourselves. We are making our way through, and our compass has not failed us.The way forward remains challenging. Some would urge us to turn at this crossroads. Experience tells us that this would eventually lead us backward. We need to keep helping those who need a hand up. We need to stay on course. We can see our destination on the horizon.

It is important to note that there were many international institutions that were failing at that time, but they were not failing in Canada. Stock markets around the world had plunged deeply, and for a time the whole global financial system was at risk of shutting down. However, we worked in partnership with the G7 and G20 in terms of an effective coordinated response.

These numbers are going to be important as I go through my comments. In July 2009, Canada had generated 135,000 net new jobs, and at the same time the U.S. was continuing to lose jobs. Let us go another year, to March 22, 2011, and Canada was emerging from this recession as one of the world's top performing economies. Compared to other countries, Canada's economy was performing very well, but our continued recovery was by no means assured. We had a plan. It was working. We needed to stay on the track.

We were looking at additional targeted investments to support jobs and growth, but we also committed to tackle government spending and eliminate the deficit. We also indicated that we were not going to do that like the Liberals did, through cuts to transfers for health care and education and imposing massive tax increases. We now had 480,000 net new jobs, more than were lost in the recession.

It was at that time that the opposition decided that we did not have a plan that was working. We took it to the Canadian public. The Canadian public gave us a strong, stable Conservative majority government because they believed in this plan to move forward. We then introduced a very similar budget, I believe it was almost word-for-word, on June 6, 2011.

I have to note, again, in the few short months between when the budget was presented and the election was called and the next budget was presented, we were at 540,000 jobs that had been created since July 2009. That was the height of the recession. And, we had seven quarters of positive GDP growth.

Heading into March 2012, of course, Canadians had every reason to be confident. Other western countries faced the risk of long-term economic decline. Our goal was to strengthen the financial security of Canadian workers and families, and to help create good jobs and prosperity in every region of the country. We also looked toward positioning our country as dynamic, moving forward, and able to compete. We were then at 610,000 net new jobs. Again, this was a year later. We saw very important improvements.

At this point, we were looking for innovation. We needed to plan for a rapidly aging population to secure our long-term prosperity. Again, that does not sound like magical wishful thinking. We have an aging populations and we needed to create a plan to help our country move through the challenges that it faces

At that time, we were on track. We had cut the deficit in half. We did this by doing exactly what the finance minister said when he introduced the economic action plan: the stimulus spending.

He then ended it. I know it is often very difficult to end stimulus measures because it is very popular. However, it was temporary, and he did take the steps necessary to look at controlling the growth of new spending. We made the commitment to implement some moderate restraint in government spending, with the vast majority coming from eliminating waste in the internal operation of the government to make it leaner and more efficient.

Finally, at that time we were looking at ambitious trade expansion. I only have a minute left, and this is such a great story. On March 20, 2013, we were at 950,000 new jobs. We were taking strong decisive action, which was required, but we were moving forward as per the plan.

I would suggest to the opposition members that if they look at that history, what our finance minister indicated was going to happen has moved along directly. Obviously, there were some twists and turns along the way because there were factors outside of our control, but we have been at the reins. We have been guiding things.

I am proud of our record. I am proud to see that we are approaching a balanced budget, and I look forward to a balanced budget in 2015-16.

The measures that we see in the budget this year are targeted toward those important strategic investments that would continue to leave Canada prosperous and in the great position it has in the world.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, to begin, I would like to thank the hon. member opposite for her speech.

I would like to ask her why there is no mention of climate change in the budget. Climate change and sustainable development are a priority for the NDP. In that regard, I hope that tomorrow everyone will tune in to the second hour of debate on Bill C-481 at second reading, which will put sustainable development in the spotlight in the House of Commons.

On that note, I would like to quote the Conservative member for Kitchener—Waterloo. On January 6, on CBC, he said: “We are seeing the effects, the impacts of climate change. With climate change comes extreme weather events. We saw that through the floods in southern Alberta, we’re now seeing that with the ice storms in Kitchener-Waterloo and Toronto”.

Those are wise words. We need to take urgent action because, simply put, we have only one planet Earth. It is all well and good to balance the budget and have election strategies, as some are saying, but we need to protect our planet.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I find it ironic that in past budgets we have had measures around climate change and navigable waters, yet we had been heavily criticized by the opposition members who said the budget should be about the budget and that these were omnibus budgets.

Now that we have a budget that is focused on some important budgetary measures, I would suggest that the hon. member go to the Government of Canada's website on the environment. He would see that there is an important and strategic plan. The goals are there. We are looking at how we would go ahead in terms of our environmental commitment to Canadians.

Again, I must point out the dichotomy of the two different positions. In one minute we are criticized for having it in, and now we are criticized for not having it in.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my Conservative colleague for her review of the government's stimulus of the economy during and following the 2008-09 great recession. However, I am reminded of an article in The Globe and Mail this past weekend that talked about how billions of dollars were wasted in that stimulus.

This is not meant as a criticism. However, given the member's recounting of the history, I want to ask whether she thinks it would be a good idea to do what was suggested by Martin Shubik, an economist in the United States, and also by Michael Mackenzie here in Canada, which is to have an independent panel that maintains a list of pre-evaluated public works projects. Therefore, if a recession hits and we need to provide stimulus, we would have a list of quality, non-partisan, economically viable projects that are ready for stimulus. Would that be a good way to avoid wasting billions of dollars in the hurried stimulus of the next economic recession?

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would point out that Canada was not alone. We were with the G20 nations in terms of this economic action plan.

I would also point out that the Auditor General gave an incredibly favourable report. It was unprecedented in the history of Canada to have such a positive response to our economic action plan and economic stimulus.

When I look at the important projects in my riding, not only did they create jobs, they have created valuable infrastructure for the citizens of those communities.

We have a list of infrastructure projects from our municipalities right now, which we know very well will keep us going for a long time in terms of what we need to do moving forward.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before I start, I would like to indicate that I will be sharing my time with the excellent member for Montcalm.

When I first looked at the budget, I did so from a local and regional perspective. The first thing I noticed was that there was nothing for the Quebec City region or my riding of Louis-Hébert in the budget. None of the federal government's sectors of activity had anything for the Quebec Bridge, the episodes of red dust in Limoilou or the Davie shipyard or anything to reassure our city's seniors, who should continue having door-to-door postal delivery instead of having to go out in winter. There was nothing for pension plans, even though our society has a growing population of seniors.

My riding has a university and two other post-secondary institutions. There was nothing for post-secondary education in the way of provincial transfers. There was nothing about that. There was nothing for basic research. There was mention of applied research and industrial research. However, basic research is the basis for the wealth of our future society. I saw nothing about that.

I would like to talk a little about the Quebec Bridge, which is in my riding. Over the past nine years, this government has spent more than $400,000 on legal expenses. However, I did not see anything in the budget about that. In 2005, the Prime Minister gave a speech to the Quebec City chamber of commerce. He promised to take the paint brush away from the Liberals in order to get the bridge painted. Nine years and four ministers later, they are still looking for the brush.

The Conservatives have cloned the Liberals' incompetence. One might say that the older the government gets, the more it likes to copy the Liberals. That is how it goes.

I would remind members that, during the last election, the government's slogan was “Our region in power”. What have the Conservative members from the greater Quebec City area done for the area in the budget? The answer is nothing.

Let us get back to the budget. We were told that the deficit is $2.9 billion. That is a false deficit because there is a $3 billion provision on the books. We are seeing once again the ploy used by Paul Martin when he was the finance minister. By underestimating the ability to have a budget surplus, all of a sudden, at the end of the year, they look like good managers. It is going to happen.

The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness has said in a television interview that we already had a virtual balanced budget. It is in fact quite real. I hope the Minister of Finance will not needlessly borrow that $3 billion from the reserve fund to make taxpayers needlessly pay interest. I hope he does not do that.

The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness said something else that was interesting. He said that a government should serve only to create wealth. I am sorry, but it should serve its citizens, first and foremost. Creating wealth is part of serving the people.

As a final point, I would like to draw the attention of the House to another aspect of this budget. As my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles said, many people are paying so that this government can achieve a balanced budget. Retired public servants are one example. Taking $1.5 billion away from people who are no longer working is rather meanspirited. It is petty and it is shameful. There are no words strong enough, not even unparliamentary ones, to describe how meanspirited that is. When you have reached the point of stealing from people on a fixed income, whose incomes are actually going down, when you achieve a surplus on the backs of people like that, that is petty.

In my riding alone, there are 679 retired public servants.

In the greater Quebec City area, 7,200 retirees will get a taste of this shameful plan; in Quebec, the total is 34,000 and, in Canada, 186,000.

Is this how the government treats those who have made our federal public service an international model? When you work and you have a pension plan, a portion of your salary is deferred for your pension, meaning that you will get the money later. Is the government's idea to have an agreement with workers and then turn around and say that the agreement no longer applies? What is this way of thinking?

The government's attitude toward job training is equally shameful. The government made an announcement on this matter in last year's budget, but it did not follow through with it. In fact, the provinces are opposed to it. The government has needlessly spent $2.5 million of taxpayers' money on a program that does not exist. Now it says that it will have constructive discussions for six weeks and that it will still move forward with the program on April 1st.

Actually, this is what the Minister of Finance had to say about it:

Job training in Canada is not provincial tax money; it's federal tax money. And it's not for a provincial government to tell the federal government how to spend federal tax money.

However, this is an area of provincial jurisdiction. This government has always boasted about respecting jurisdictions, but now it jumps in with both feet for the sake of its ideology. That is completely unacceptable.

That is why the NDP stated, in the Sherbrooke declaration, that any province can opt out of a program with full compensation in those types of situations. I therefore urge this government to uphold the principles set out in the Sherbrooke declaration. It is important for us and for everyone.

For the Liberals, a budget writes itself. For the Conservatives, it is an accounting exercise in which figures that must balance are compared. This cold-blooded accounting exercise could not care less about the consequences for Canadians.

While it is true that they are balancing the budget, people are going to have to pay. This is not being done properly. A budget should benefit ordinary people. It should help people, help companies grow, help create jobs and help young people study and achieve their full potential. It should support seniors and help farmers.

Is there anything like that in this budget? Not at all. It is nothing more than an unfeeling accounting exercise. No one studied the consequences or thought about the people who will pay the price or the purpose of the budget.

The parliamentary secretary spoke about history just now, and I would like to do the same. As part of the cuts made to the various departments, 300 food inspection jobs were eliminated. What is more, we witnesses the largest food recall in Canada's history.

Today, the government solves problems by simply making announcements. It makes cuts randomly and haphazardly without looking at the consequences and then transforms that into a budget announcement. This is unacceptable.

A budget should give hope to Canadians. We should be able to live a healthy life, teach our young people, think about the future and invest in research so that our companies can innovate and prosper. A government is not a publicly traded corporation that has to balance the books at the end of the fiscal year.

A government should take a sustainable development approach to society in all its aspects and have an employment strategy, rather than simply an exercise to fill vacant positions. That is why I deplore the fact that this government has chosen the path of confrontation and come up with a budget that is just laying the groundwork for the next election.

On behalf of the people of Louis-Hébert, I deplore the fact that in this budget no mention is made of the landmark that is the Quebec Bridge.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent and very passionate speech.

A few words from his speech stood out for me. He said that the budget is an obsession with an accounting exercise that is void of emotion. Balancing the budget is indeed an obsession for our friends opposite.

We in the NDP propose to make life as affordable as possible for consumers and Canadians.

Can my colleague explain how the NDP will make life more affordable in 2015?

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question. That is what my speech was actually all about.

In addition to passing legislation, the budget is a significant part of the work that we do in the House. It is supposed to be a tool that helps people grow. Among other things, this means that, for life to be affordable, we do not want interest rates to be exorbitant.

We know that Canadians have too much debt. It is important to support them in paying off their personal debts. We hear about the government's debt, but the debt of Canadians is conveniently forgotten. The NDP is proposing a whole host of measures.

For instance, I am thinking about the fees that seniors have to pay just to receive paper invoices or to use a bank machine. These are all simple, inexpensive measures that allow people to get value for their money.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on one aspect of the budget that the government has unfortunately not addressed, and that is the issue of citizenship.

It is going to become more difficult for an individual to get Canadian citizenship. It is also going to become much more costly. There are 1.5 million landed immigrants here in Canada. Ultimately we want them to become citizens of Canada, but they are going to pay a lot more money to get their citizenship as a direct result of the Conservative government. They will have to pay somewhere in the neighbourhood of $300 or $400. As well, they will have to get IELTS testing done, and the government is expanding the age for this testing from 54 to 60. The Conservatives seem to have missed the mark.

There has been a huge increase in the backlog. Even after someone qualifies for Canadian citizenship, he or she has to wait another two or three years. It seems to me that the government should be speeding up the process so that when individuals qualify for citizenship, they will not have to wait for two or three years, and possibly far longer, to acquire it.

I wonder if the member could comment on that.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, which points to a major issue: the way the public administration is managed.

The public administration plays an important role in service delivery. However, the government has made significant spending cuts in the past few years. It would seem that the Conservatives are so obsessed with making cuts in order to make government leaner and more nimble that they have forgotten the purpose of service delivery.

With regard to the immigration backlog, it is important to point out that those people are living in hope, because they want to make a positive contribution to our society. They encounter obstacles not because of malice, but because the government does not know how to manage the process properly. In fact, it is really a question of incompetence in case management.

If the government had its priorities in the right place, it would be able to help those people contribute to our society much more quickly.

[Manon Perreault, NDP, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying something that seems obvious to me. This budget, which is supposed to represent Canada’s economic action plan for 2014, does not give me any hope that the people in the Montcalm riding will be making any progress. In fact, it seems to me rather that it is condemning my region to inertia and postponing its economic health until next year. The Conservatives did not even bother to hide their vote-seeking intentions.

Unfortunately, under the Conservatives we have become used to these kinds of schemes that are detrimental to the working men and women who are propping up our economy and families that are more in debt than ever and that ignore regions that do not hold much political influence. They are fostering political cynicism and backroom wrangling, at the expense of the democratic debate on which Canada’s traditions are based. Canadians deserve better—it is as simple as that. The Conservatives' attitude is irresponsible, and the government is clearly showing that its re-election is by far the number one priority on its agenda. Recently, we heard a throne speech that was based on the government’s alleged desire to better protect consumers and serve their interests.

In light of the ever more stringent requirements of the business and corporate sectors, Canadians expect to be properly represented in Ottawa. The least we can say is that the government is still a long way from meeting the minimum needs of Canadian consumers. To protect consumers, more than hot air is needed.

First of all, there must be an environmental protection agency that has the power to act. Second, there must be a monitoring agency for food products that has both the power and the staff to guarantee Canadians that what they are eating is fit for human consumption. Third, there must be researchers and scientists who write reports on the impact of industrial development and the best way of ensuring that the future will be as profitable as current and past endeavours have been. The machinery of government must serve each and every Canadian objectively and without ideological fanaticism.

Are the Conservatives afraid of the machinery of government? Do they not understand how things are supposed to work?

With this budget, the Conservatives have an opportunity to correct a number of problems, problems that they themselves caused. If they are so concerned about being re-elected, they should make a sincere effort to implement effective measures that will make the voters happy.

Do I have to repeat this? The NDP has put forward numerous appropriate solutions to the daily struggles Canadian families face. The NDP has repeatedly offered to work with the government to alleviate the economic burden on Canadians.

There have been approximately 300,000 jobs lost in Canada since before the recession, and this budget gives us very little hope that the trend can be reversed. The Conservative government has missed a golden opportunity to alleviate some of the burden on Canadian families, and its action plan does not address the situation of the most vulnerable Canadians. In fact, the budget does not contain any new investment to create high-quality jobs and lets the increase in the number of precarious jobs help Canada’s employment statistics look better than they really are. In light of the record youth unemployment rate, the government has missed an opportunity to correct the situation and give young Canadians a brighter future. As shameful as this might be, the budget does not contain a single measure to help the vast majority of young Canadians.

The NDP will not leave anyone out. We prefer to spread hope rather than the Conservative ideology, which keeps on digging an ever deeper hole for the prospect of a better future for thousands of people who are turned off by cheap partisan politics.

The Conservatives are suggesting to Canadians that they hang in there. They seem to be less and less able to understand the issues people face. When they claim that they do, they rarely put their money where their mouth is. We were happy that the government seemed open to the measures put forward by the NDP, such as banning exorbitant fees for bank transactions and lowering the disproportionate interest rates charged by some credit companies, that is, saving Canadians money by limiting unreasonable practices.

It is not just the tax system that has an impact on Canadians’ assets. Sound management is always welcome. However, the government has to do more and do better. The government is promising to act, but it is very difficult for us to trust the government after so many broken promises. As usual, we will keep a very close eye on it. We will force it to be accountable, if it does not keep its word again.

Let us face it, this year’s budget is nothing but window dressing. It is more style than substance for individuals.

I am still wondering how they can possibly think they will be able to tackle the 25% difference in prices between products sold here and those sold in the United States. It is a nice thought, but they do not say how they are going to pull off this coup. It seems to be just smoke and mirrors.

The government has brought down a typically Conservative budget, a budget that is to its own advantage and that, despite its repeated failures in this regard, again focuses on reducing the deficit and the debt, even though it is one of the lowest in the developed world.

In fueling this obsession, the Conservatives have forgotten that the main goal is to allow taxpayers to keep as much money as they can. In addition, they do not seem to understand that it is money from ordinary Canadians that has made Canada one of the richest countries in the world. It is not the banks or natural resource development or huge financial corporations that contribute the most to our communal pot, but rather individuals, people like us.

It would have been a good time to loosen the reins a bit; it would have been a good idea to shelve their ideology and use some common sense. The simple, effective and inexpensive measures proposed by the NDP would have been well received, but apparently this government thinks electoral imperatives are more important than sound governance.

Balance as a concept implies that a number of elements must be balanced. Even though they say this budget is balanced, I am puzzled to see that it has shelved a number of policies that could have helped offset a number of the inequities that are irritants for Canadians.

Allow me to say that the residents of Mascouche will not be very happy with this budget. The people of Saint-Lin—Laurentides, Saint-Jacques, Sainte-Julienne, Saint-Calixte, Saint-Roch, Saint-Esprit, Saint-Alexis, Saint-Liguori and Sainte-Marie-Salomé, all these residents in the great riding of Montcalm will be left in limbo. They were expecting something better, but this budget has disappointment written all over it. The government is letting down people who had confidence in it, and they will not soon forget the sacrifices that the government has forced them to make.

I will use my remaining two minutes to talk about my file on disability issues.

The pile of complaints in my office from agencies working with the disabled is growing. These agencies do not have the same funding capabilities as other organizations for able-bodied professionals, that is, universities and health centres, primarily because their clients are some of the poorest and the most marginalized people in Canadian society.

Nevertheless, because of their structure and the funds they receive, these agencies attach great importance to providing services to the disabled and to making fundamental changes.

The changes made by the federal government to the funding formulas for national organizations working with the disabled have put real pressure on these agencies. This will have a direct impact on services and assistance for the disabled. Less support will be given to their network, and jobs held by the disabled will be lost, support services will be eliminated and there will less help for the disabled and for those who are the most vulnerable and underserved people in the disabled community.

I think I still have a little bit of time. I will just say a word about our veterans. After getting rid of some regional points of service for veterans throughout the country, the government is persisting in offering them online services. This is not what the veterans need. They need to speak to a real person. There is no new money for the veterans and there is no commitment to reopen Veterans Affairs regional offices.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Before continuing with questions and comments, it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that questions to be raised at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou, Health; the hon. member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, Rail Transportation; the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, Library and Archives Canada.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on the member's comments on disabilities because a fairly important issue affecting all Canadians was recently decided upon. Canada Post now wants to make significant changes, for example, ending door-to-door letter carrier services. It is interesting; the CEO at the time said it allows people to get exercise, as if that is a justification for ending it.

When the member referred to individuals with disabilities, the other component that came to my mind right away was seniors. There are many vulnerable people within society and the cancellation of door-to-door delivery services will have an even more profound impact on them. Allowing Canada Post to do this is something the government seems bent on supporting, when in fact Canada Post over the last decade has made hundreds of millions of dollars. It has been an outstanding corporation and there really is no need to make that change.

Perhaps the member could bring a disability perspective concerning Canada Post’s decision to end this important service to Canadians.