Debates of April 28th, 2015

Business of the House

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

(Motion agreed to)

Before we resume debate, 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 Ottawa—Vanier, National Anthem; the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, la Francophonie.

Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that this House approve in general the budgetary policy of the government and of the amendment.

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Fleetwood—Port Kells.

It is an honour today to rise to speak to economic action plan 2015, a balanced budget and low-tax plan for jobs, growth and security. Our budget builds upon the government's strong record of job creation while keeping taxes low for all Canadians. This is a record that I am proud of and it is a record that all Canadians should be proud of. This is also a record of promises made and promises kept.

Since coming into office, our Conservative government's top priority has been to create jobs, growth and long-term prosperity. This is a priority shared by the citizens of my riding in Mississauga as well as by all Canadians. All the jobs lost during the recession have been recovered, and in addition, more than 1.2 million net new jobs have been created since the depths of the downturn, but we need to do even more to create jobs in a tough global economy. In economic action plan 2015, we are doing exactly that.

The Province of Ontario will receive a record high transfer payment to support health care, education and social programs. Ontario will receive $20.4 billion in federal transfers this year. That is an increase of $9.6 billion from under the old Liberal government. This is an increase of 88% since the last Liberal government, prior to 2006. Ontario's share of all federal transfers to other governments is now at 35%. That is up from 30% 10 years ago.

Canadians want to be reassured that their government is spending their money wisely and responsibly. In other words, Canadians have an expectation that we will live within our means. What better way to demonstrate this principle than by balancing the budget. Families in Mississauga have to balance their budgets and they expect governments to do likewise. Furthermore, beyond illustrating fiscal prudence, balancing the budget results in a number of other positive fiscal outcomes. A balanced budget means that our government can keep taxes low and ensure that taxpayer dollars are used to support the programs that Canadians depend on, rather than paying interest costs.

Canada's federal debt to GDP ratio is expected to fall to 27.9% in 2017-18, below its pre-recession low. A balanced budget means that Canada's total government net debt burden is the lowest of any G7 country and among the lowest of the advanced G20 countries. This contrasts with the comparatively poor fiscal performance of the Liberal Government of Ontario. While the federal debt to GDP ratio is at a pre-recession low and going lower, the Ontario debt to GDP ratio is at a record level of 40% and is forecast to increase even further.

I would now like to discuss some of the specific measures in this budget that would directly assist the people living in my riding.

Economic action plan 2015 delivers on our 2011 election platform promises with a low-tax plan to help families make ends meet. The family tax cut or income splitting for families plan provides a tax credit of up to $2,000 for couples with children under the age of 18. This is effective for the 2014 taxation year, and Canadians have just a few more days to take advantage of this. This will be very helpful to the many hard-working young families who are struggling with expensive mortgages and the high cost of raising and educating children in the GTA. I am so pleased that our government is able to deliver on this promise.

In addition, the current universal child care benefit, which has been so helpful to families with young children, will be increased to $160 per month per child for children under the age of six, and a new benefit of $60 per child per month for children age six through seventeen will be added, again effective January 1, 2015. This government is putting taxpayers' money back in their pockets so they can spend it on the priorities of their families.

In addition, the budget includes a $1,000 increase in each of the maximum dollar amounts that can be claimed under the child care expense deduction. We are also following through on our promise to double to $10,000 the maximum annual amount that Canadians can contribute to their tax-free savings accounts. These are so popular that 11 million Canadians, or almost one-third of the population, have opened tax-free savings accounts.

We have also doubled the maximum amount of expenses that may be claimed on the child fitness tax credit to $1,000 as of 2014. We have made that credit refundable for the 2015 and subsequent taxation years.

As we are all aware, small businesses are the engine of the Canadian economy. They represent 90% of all businesses in the country and employ half of Canada's working men and women in the private sector. That is why I was pleased to see that economic action plan 2015 proposes to cut the small business tax rate to 9% by 2019. Our government previously reduced this rate to 11% in 2008. Now, we would go even further. Once the budget is fully implemented, our government would have cut small business taxes by almost 50%. That is 50% more of their earnings that small businesses could use to invest in their companies and create jobs.

Many new Canadians in Mississauga and across Canada create and operate small businesses, and this tax rate reduction would be welcome news for them. For many citizens in Mississauga, removing barriers to foreign credential recognition is important in order to get highly skilled workers back into the workforce. That is why our Conservative budget proposes to reallocate up to $35 million over five years to make the foreign credential recognition loans pilot project permanent, to support internationally trained workers in their pursuit of foreign credential recognition. Under the first two years of the pilot project, nearly 1,500 loans totalling $9 million were dispersed, with average loan amounts of approximately $6,000 nationwide. I know that many residents in Mississauga have taken advantage of this loan program, and many more will be happy to see that this program would be extended over the next five years.

With economic action plan 2015, our government continues to demonstrate its support for the manufacturing sector. To support the continued investment in machinery and equipment, and to help bolster productivity, economic action plan 2015 proposes to provide manufacturers with an accelerated capital cost allowance at a rate of 50% on a declining balance basis for eligible assets acquired after 2015 and before 2026. Providing this new incentive for this extended period of time would help to provide businesses with planning certainty for larger projects where the investments may not be completed until several years after the original investment decision is made, and for longer term investments with multiple phases.

Mississauga is a fast-paced, vibrant, and growing city, and I was happy to see that this budget would provide additional funding that would allow our city to maintain and update its current infrastructure. I was especially pleased to see the commitment of an additional $750 million over two years and $1 billion per year ongoing thereafter for a new and innovative public transit fund. To clarify, this is new, additional money that could be added to existing funds for transit infrastructure projects under the robust $5.35 billion per year new building Canada plan. This is the largest and longest infrastructure investment plan in Canadian history.

In the time available, I have only been able to highlight a small percentage of the benefits that would be derived by the hard-working people of Mississauga from economic action plan 2015. However, what is abundantly clear is that, while we are focused on creating jobs and keeping taxes low, the Liberals would adopt their same old high-tax, high-debt agenda that would threaten jobs and set working families back.

People do not have to take my word for it. There were two budgets introduced in Canada last week, the federal budget of Canada and the budget of the Liberal Government of Ontario. They can compare and contrast those two budgets. They will see a balanced budget at the federal level and a budget at the provincial level that is seriously in deficit, mortgaging the futures of our children and grandchildren.

Only our Conservative government can be trusted to manage Canada's economy and keep taxes low for the people of Mississauga and all Canadians across the country. I strongly encourage all hon. members to support budget 2015.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice for his speech.

I would like to talk about TFSAs. As we know, the Conservatives do not seem to know what they are trying to accomplish with this measure. We saw that at the Standing Committee on Finance. The assistant parliamentary budget officer, Mostafa Askari, said:

...there is no indication that the amount of money that has gone to TFSAs is actually new savings. It's very likely that most of it is the money that was saved in other instruments and had been transferred to a TFSA.

Mr. Askari showed that tax sheltering TFSAs did not result in new savings.

Why is he okay with billions of dollars in public money being thrown out the window when this mechanism is not even leading to new savings?

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in his last comment, the member illustrated the difference between our government's thinking and the thinking of the opposition. He said it was using government money, public money. This is not government money. This is the money of taxpayers themselves.

The opposition likes to bemoan the fact that Canadians have a fairly low savings rate and high personal debt. Here is a program that actually incentivizes people to save money.

Just last weekend, the Liberal member for Markham—Unionville, who is one of the Liberal finance critics, stated that they agree with the tax-free savings account. They think it is actually a good vehicle for incentivizing people to save money. They just do not think it should be increased over the current status quo.

There seems to be some confusion on the opposition benches as to whether or not they think this is a good idea. However, 11 million people are taking advantage of this, and that is new money that is accumulating capital growth, tax free. It is a pool of capital that is available to Canadian businesses for investment in job creation going forward. It is a great thing for Canadians, and 11 million people would not be doing it if it was not a good idea.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, here are three things.

First, the parliamentary secretary talked about provincial deficits on the Liberal side. Well, the Conservative Party in Newfoundland and Labrador also has a deficit that is approaching $1 billion. Let us take a look at that in perspective.

The second part is about the TFSAs. He mentioned my colleague from Markham—Unionville. The point is that what the Conservatives are doing is promising something that few people can avail themselves of. The vehicle of the TFSA, as he puts it, is used by people in the $60,000 a year range.

Here is the problem with that. Of most of these people, less than 20%, took advantage of the maximum of up to $5,000. Now, the Conservatives would increase it to $10,000, which even fewer people will take advantage of. It is not the vehicle. It is that the amount that can be invested has been increased, which few people will take advantage of.

The problem is that the Conservatives have also raised the age of eligibility of 65 to 67. That is the problem. That is a huge problem. It takes $28,000 from vulnerable individual seniors.

Here is my question. Let us talk about a contingency fund. Here is a quote from the Minister of National Defence, who sits in this House right now.

We won't be using a contingency fund. A contingency fund is there for unforeseen circumstances, like natural disasters.

The Minister of National Defence said that on January 18 of this year. Perhaps the parliamentary secretary would like to comment on that.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think most of that question had to do with tax-free savings accounts. I would like to talk about that for a moment.

If it is a good idea at $5,000—and this is what the Liberals are saying, that it is a great way to incentivize people to save and that is what we want people to do, save for their retirement, save for their families, save for their children's education, and save for that rainy day—why would it be a bad idea to give them a little more encouragement?

I have known lots of high-income people in my life. What I will say is that some of the lower-income people are the better savers. They know how important saving is to their way of life. They cannot look forward to that big paycheque coming in next week or at the end of the month, so they save. They put their pennies aside.

This would give them a great incentive to earn a little extra tax-free money on the capital gains on those savings. That will give them a secure retirement. Seniors are some of the biggest beneficiaries of this. Seniors with an income of $60,000 or less put the maximum amount in these tax-free savings accounts.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we go to resuming debate, I have just one observation from this afternoon and, I think, in general for the budget debate. I know it is of great interest for hon. members to participate in these debates. Of course they are very important.

Typically we only have the five minutes for questions and comments, so I would perhaps encourage hon. members to keep their comments and interventions concise, both those who are putting a comment or question and those responding. I am not making any mention in particular of the last round. It is just that it has been a general thing over the past day or two.

In this way, by keeping the comments and interventions more concise, more hon. members will be able to participate in the debate in the House.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Fleetwood—Port Kells.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today on behalf of the constituents of Fleetwood—Port Kells to participate in the debate on the 2015 budget.

Our government is responding to the needs of my constituents. We are helping young families, seniors, veterans, and small business owners. We are putting more money into the pockets of residents, so they can raise their families and save for retirement.

Under our leadership, Canada has created more than 1.2 million new jobs since the recession, but we live in uncertain times and the global economy remains fragile. That is why economic action plan 2015 would continue our government's focus on creating more jobs and growing the economy in Surrey and across Canada.

Importantly, at the same time, this is a balanced budget. This means more tax cuts for Canadian families and individuals and less debt for future generations. It would ensure that taxpayer dollars are used to support important social services, such as health care and education.

Economic action plan 2015 includes key measures to support Surrey families and the B.C. economy, including cutting taxes for small businesses. Economic action plan 2015 proposes to further reduce the small business tax rate to 9% by 2019. Due to measures taken since we formed government, we have reduced taxes for small businesses by almost 50%.

On tax-free savings accounts, economic action plan 2015 proposes to increase the tax-free savings account annual contribution limit to $10,000, effective for the 2015 taxation year. There are now 11 million Canadians who have opened accounts, and of those who contributed the maximum amount, 60% have incomes below $60,000.

On supporting job-creating businesses, economic action plan 2015 proposes to provide tax relief to the LNG industry and new funding for the forestry sector to help diversify their markets to emerging economies. These initiatives would help create jobs and economic growth for British Columbia.

On national security, we would ensure that our armed forces continue to have what they need to accomplish the dangerous tasks Canadians ask of them. Economic action plan 2015 proposes to increase the National Defence budget by $11.8 billion over 10 years. We would now provide new funding to help counter violent extremism and terrorism.

In my riding of Fleetwood—Port Kells, there are more than 12,000 households with young children. In total, there are more than 25,000 children living in those homes. Economic action plan 2015 would benefit 100% of those families and children. It would do so by lowering taxes and increasing benefits.

We have recently introduced new tax relief and benefits to help make life more affordable for Canadian families, including increasing the universal child care benefit. For each child under the age of six, parents would receive a benefit of $160 per month, which is up from $100 per month. The universal child care benefit would be expanded to children age 6 through 17, allowing parents to receive a benefit of $60 per month, or $720 per year. There are 18,000 children in my riding who would be eligible for this benefit.

We are also introducing the family tax cut, which is a federal tax credit that would allow a higher income spouse to effectively transfer up to $50,000 of taxable income to a spouse in a lower tax bracket, providing up to $2,000 in tax relief.

Since 2006, our government has introduced more than180 tax relief measures, which will provide tax relief and benefits of up to $6,600 dollars for a typical Canadian two-earner family of four in 2015.

There are also nearly 12,000 seniors in my riding. Our government recognizes that Canada's seniors have helped build and make our country great. That is why, since taking office, we have provided over $2.3 billion in annual tax relief for seniors and pensioners, including removing over 85,000 seniors from the tax rolls, introducing pension income splitting, doubling the pension income tax credit to $2,000, increasing the age credit amount by $2,000, and establishing the landmark tax-free savings account.

Budget 2015 builds on this impressive record of support for seniors by reducing the minimum withdrawal requirement from registered retirement income funds, introducing the home accessibility tax credit to help with renovation costs so seniors can remain in their homes and, as I mentioned before, increasing the tax-free savings account annual contribution limit to $10,000.

I would be remiss if I did not also mention infrastructure. Canada has led the G7 in public investment growth over the last decade. Our government's unprecedented investments in infrastructure, the most significant in our country's history, have already yielded significant results for hard-working Canadians and their families, ensuring the resilience of our economy and creating jobs. These investments will ensure Canada's future economic growth for years to come.

Budget 2015 adds to this record by continuing to provide $5.35 billion per year on average for provincial, territorial and municipal infrastructure under the new building Canada plan, the largest, longest-running federal infrastructure commitment in our country's history. The budget also provides an additional $750 million over two years, starting in 2017-18, and $1 billion per year ongoing thereafter for a new and innovative public transit fund to promote public transit infrastructure investment in a manner that is affordable for taxpayers and efficient for commuters. The ability to invest this substantial amount in targeted infrastructure is a direct result of the government's responsible actions to return to a fiscal balance.

Already there has been unprecedented federal investment in B.C.'s Lower Mainland and Surrey under this Conservative government, impacting nearly every aspect of the lives of hard-working families. Since taking office, we have invested billions of dollars into British Columbian communities. We are making a real difference in the everyday lives of Surrey residents. In total, our government has spent $1.5 billion on local projects since 2006. This includes the new RCMP headquarters in Green Timbers, the South Fraser Perimeter Road and the new Surrey Library.

I have personally made over 50 announcements, totalling more than $40 million. All were in Surrey and most in Fleetwood—Port Kells. These investments are resulting in local jobs, local opportunities and local facilities for Surrey residents.

It is all about helping hard-working families, the unemployed, seniors and youth and it is also about improving our communities, creating jobs and stimulating the economy.

While the opposition parties support high taxes and high debt that will threaten jobs and set working families back, our Conservative government can be trusted to manage Canada's economy and keep taxes low for the people of Surrey. The province of British Columbia will receive record-high transfer payments to support health care, education and social programs. Specifically, B.C. will receive $6.1 billion in federal transfers this year, a 34% increase from under the Liberals.

Our government is acting prudently and decisively to ensure that Canada's economy creates good jobs and sustains a high quality of life for Canadian families.

We are proud of our plan that is lowering taxes and providing benefits directly to families in Surrey for them to reinvest in the Canadian economy. It is a plan that I will be happy to take to the doorsteps of the people in my riding.

With economic action plan 2015, our government remains squarely focused on the number one priority of Canadians, with a forward-looking plan to create jobs and grow the economy in British Columbia and across Canada. It is a good budget for Canada, for British Columbia and for Surrey.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is very evident that the government does not know what the priorities of Canadians are, much less what the priorities of Ontarians are.

When it comes to manufacturing, there is very little in the budget that will actually assist the manufacturing sector, especially considering the fact that Conservatives lost 277,000 manufacturing jobs. As far as northern Ontario goes, the Conservatives never even mentioned northern Ontario in the budget. It is very problematic.

More and more people need some assistance. They need to ensure that life is more affordable. Why has the Conservatives chosen to give to the wealthiest as opposed to help those who need it the most, those who have a hard time making ends meet?

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's economic action plan is working for all Canadians. It is not only for the wealthy. It is for all Canadians in general.

Also, Canada has demonstrated one of the best economic performances among the G7 countries over the recovery. Over 1.2 million more Canadians are working than at the end of the recession. The majority of these new jobs have been full-time positions, not part time, in high wage private sector industries.

Our government has done a lot in the manufacturing sector as well.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I want to touch on something that Conservatives keep saying, which is promise made, promise kept.

Here is a statement that maybe is shrouded in a promise, but nevertheless it came from the Minister of National Defence. In January 2015, “We won't be using a contingency fund. A contingency fund is there for unforeseen circumstances, like natural disasters”. The budget uses $2 billion of that fund to balance the budget. Why did Conservatives use that fund if they truly believed they should not have?

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, Canada's economic action plan 2015 is a comprehensive agenda to bolster Canada's long-term economic strength and to promote job growth. It is a plan not just for the next 12 months or three years, but it is a plan for the next generations to come. Our government is proposing measures that will ensure long-term prosperity and growth. It is also about putting the country on track for success, both now and going forward.

Economic action plan 2015 will ensure that we are focused on enabling and sustaining Canada's long-term economic growth.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member keeps talking about how the government has balanced the budget. It has balanced the budget on those who are more affected by it, by those who are not able to access services such as employment insurance, by those who will maybe need that contingency fund. For example, we had some flooding in Wawa a couple of years ago. We also had some in Thessalon and area this past year.

How will the government make ends meet for these people? How will it respond to these emergencies if it dipped into the contingency fund? The Conservatives have not balanced the budget because of all of the money they have raised or because they have done things the right way. They have balanced the budget by cutting programs such as the sexual exploitation program that is derived through the RCMP, programs for those who need it the most. How shameful is that?

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, budget 2015 reaffirms our government's commitment to reduce employment insurance premiums for over 60 million Canadians in 2017. In 2017, the government will implement the seven year break-even EI premium rate setting mechanism, which will ensure that EI premiums are no longer needed to pay for the EI program over time.

[Maria Mourani, Independent, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to the budget today. I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Edmonton—St. Albert.

I would like to talk about a few aspects of the budget that are of particular concern to me, especially with regard to public safety and national security. First, with regard to public safety, the government has unfortunately not invested anything in prevention. The budget allocates $292.6 million to the RCMP, of course, to the Canada Border Services Agency and to CSIS. That is a small step that we cannot ignore, but when we look at the breakdown of that funding, we see that $18 million will be allocated in 2015-16 and that $92 million will be allocated in 2019-20.

As I was saying in question period, that is just peanuts, since most of the resources allocated to the fight against organized crime and street gangs were reallocated to public safety and the fight against terrorism, particularly RCMP resources. That funding may give law enforcement some breathing room, but it does not constitute major progress.

I would like to digress for a moment. On April 20, 2015, before the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, CSIS confirmed that, in the past four months, approximately 25 more Canadians have gone to join armed groups in Iraq and Syria. That represents a 50% increase in such cases. Let us not forget that, in October 2014, 145 individuals had gone to join such groups, so the situation has not improved. On the contrary, there has been an increase in the number of these cases.

The budget does not provide for any investments in prevention for families and youth or any investments in research. We learned that the Kanishka project will not be renewed, which is unfortunate. It will also not be replaced by another research program. There is nothing of the sort in the Conservative budget.

Meanwhile, there is also nothing in this budget for disengagement, or what is commonly referred to as deradicalization. I am very skeptical about our prisons. I am wondering whether there are actually programs in place to deradicalize inmates who became radicalized either in prison or before they arrived. That is another problem that is not addressed.

This budget allocates $2 million to the Security Intelligence Review Committee. Thus, Bill C-51 gives more powers to CSIS, but not more responsibility. That is very worrisome in a free and democratic society.

On the one hand, the operations of the Security Intelligence Review Committee should be revised, primarily to put a stop to partisan appointments and to base appointments on merit instead. On the other hand, $2 million is not all that much. The real question we should be asking ourselves is whether this committee is doing what it is supposed to do, and that is overseeing CSIS. I do not have an answer, I am just wondering.

There is also the matter of money invested in national defence. The budget allocates $360.3 million just for the mission in Iraq and Syria. If we were instead to invest that money in prevention, just imagine the number of young people and families whose suffering we could alleviate and the number of radicalized youth we could prevent from leaving for Iraq or Syria.

Let us look at another figure: $13 million to $14 million spent on advertising this budget. Imagine how much work we could do on prevention and disengagement here in Canada with $13 million or $14 million. No, the government prefers to invest that money in advertising and go to war in Iraq. I wanted to emphasize that.

As far as health is concerned, we see a major loss for the provinces. In this budget, the health transfer is capped at 3% a year. This is clearly going to put pressure on the provinces.

The government already made cuts of nearly $30 billion over 10 years in health transfers during the renewal of 10-year agreement for 2014-24, which represents a loss of approximately $800 million a year for Quebec.

The NDP is the only party that is saying that it will restore the former calculations for health transfers.

As far as people 57 or under are concerned, the Conservatives still reject any suggestion to increase Canada pension plan benefits and of course, Quebec pension plan benefits, but that is another story. It is also staying the course on pushing back the age of retirement from 65 to 67.

This means that people who were born in April 1958 or after will see their right to retire gradually pushed back. They will not be treated like other Canadians born before that date, which is totally unfair in my opinion.

The NDP knows that we must rescind this decision to push back the age of retirement. The age of retirement should be 65, not 67. People have worked hard enough in their lifetime. It is high time that they rested, did what they love and received the money to which they are entitled.

The other interesting thing in this budget, and the NDP can be commended for contributing to this, is that the Conservatives finally responded to the request to lower mandatory minimum withdrawals from registered retirement income funds.

I could go on, but I will leave the floor to my dear colleague.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Ahuntsic for her speech, which touched on a number of very interesting topics.

However, I cannot help but come back to the topic of TFSAs, since unfortunately, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice gave an unsatisfactory answer to my question.

This morning, at the Standing Committee on Finance, the Parliamentary Budget Officer's team made it clear that TFSAs essentially are not meeting the objective of encouraging people to save. On the contrary, the assistant parliamentary budget officer, Mostafa Askari, clearly stated that, unfortunately, savings are simply being transferred from another instrument to a TFSA.

As a result, the billions of dollars in public money being spent to give people a break on their taxes constitutes a net loss, since it is not resulting in additional savings.

Could my colleague speak to the government's unfortunate misuse of public money?

[Maria Mourani, Independent, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comment. Yes, I understand completely, especially since not everyone is in a position to save.

The purchasing power of the middle class is weak and is getting smaller and smaller. Costs are rising on everything, and people are struggling to make ends meet. Who can afford to put money—now up to $10,000—in a TFSA?

This certainly benefits the wealthy and puts the least fortunate at a disadvantage. Money invested in these accounts is not taxable, so this is a way for people to avoid paying taxes.

We are not opposed to saving. However, there needs to be some fairness in all of this.

I find it unfortunate that this budget once again favours the wealthy, whether we are talking about income splitting or TFSAs.

What about seniors, for example, who unfortunately did not get their fair share? What about the poor and affordable housing?

We see absolutely nothing about this in the budget.

[Brent Rathgeber, Independent, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise and participate in debate on budget 2015. I take a nuanced approach with respect to examination of the document, unlike the official parties that stake out strong, unequivocal positions. The government, of course, thinks this is the greatest thing since sliced bread and the opposition takes a much different position regarding all the negative aspects of it. I take a nuanced approach. There are some good aspects in budget 2015 and there are some provisions in it that I am not quite so excited about.

There are very few surprises. I could have written this speech several weeks ago. All of the major provisions of the budget had been leaked out in one form or another. That is unfortunate. Members of Parliament are owed that the budget be revealed to them prior to it being revealed to the public through media in fancy photo op situations. Also, the budget, entitled “Strong Leadership” actually does not look very much like a budget.

We all do budgets. When I do my family's budget, or my office budget, or even the upcoming political campaign budget, it is simply a matter of estimating revenues from various sources and then deducting estimated expenditures, based on past spending commitments and history. It is an income statement. It is a balance sheet. It is leading to either a surplus or a deficit. Although there are some charts and graphs in here, it is more of a narrative. It is a speech. It is an explanation of why we should like it. That is why my ultimate assessment of budget 2015 is that it is more of a political document than an economic statement.

To give credit where it is due, after seven consecutive deficit budgets, including the single largest deficit in Canadian history, the $56-billion budgetary deficit in 2008, budget 2015, at least on paper, shows a surplus. I congratulate the government for doing so. However, in order to come out in black ink the government was forced to sell some assets, including its remaining stock in General Motors and dip into its contingency fund and also borrow from the EI surplus. When disposing of assets to balance a budget it can be done in the short term, but that is not a long-term sound fiscal policy, because eventually we will run out of assets.

For some time, I have been asking the government for balanced budget legislation. We are assured, both by a press conference that the Minister of Finance had three weeks before the budget was tabled and also in the document, that balanced budget legislation is coming. I look forward to it. I look forward to having a debate on that, because although there are some limitations and some controversy concerning balanced budget legislation, I think it is important. Canadians have to live within their means and they expect no less for their government.

The real purpose of balancing this budget was to allow the government to implement its much heralded targeted tax relief that it promised. I also promised I would do it, because I was part of the government caucus in 2011. We campaigned on the promise that once the budget was balanced we would bring in targeted tax relief, most notably income splitting. Therefore, I congratulate the government for achieving that benchmark, that it will in fact be able to bring in tax relief. I support those aspects of the budget because I support tax relief generally. I believe, as many Conservatives do, that taxes are too high in this country and therefore it is difficult to vote against a provision that would lessen someone's tax burden.

With that being said, I continually question the continued complication of our tax code. The Fraser Institute, which many individuals on the other side will be familiar with, tabled a report just last week stating that the cost of tax compliance in the country is approaching $6 billion in terms of the cost to Canadians for hiring accountants and tax lawyers and spending their own time, which is valuable, poring through documents and receipts, attempting to save a few hundred dollars that are owed to them in tax credits.

I am always curious about why the government targets boutique tax credits, as opposed to what would be much simpler, which is simplifying the tax code by removing many, if not most or all, of the boutique tax credits and simply lowering the tax rate for all Canadians. That would be fairer and it would reduce to almost zero the estimated $6 billion that Canadians now spend in boutique tax credits.

We know why the government likes boutique tax credits, just as all governments like boutique tax credits. It is because they are able to micro target certain demographics and certain aspects of the electorate that they hope to curry electoral favour from and with.

As some of my colleagues might know, Alberta is in the midst of a provincial election, which is suddenly competitive due to the unpopularity of the budget that was tabled by the Progressive Conservative Government of Alberta approximately one month ago. That budget showed a huge deficit, some modest tax increases, delayed infrastructure announcements, and some minor cuts in front-line services. However, this budget is the opposite of a politically toxic budget. This budget is politically quite clever because it shows a balance. It would allow target tax cuts to key electoral demographics, such as seniors, small business and families with children; and then it offers some relatively large spending promises to other targeted groups, such as those who want public transit and military procurement. Those promises are back loaded and would not take effect until 2017 and thereafter.

It is a very clever document, and I congratulate the government on how clever it is, because it allows them to show a balanced budget while still making expensive promises, but the money would not go out of the door for another two years and would not, therefore, affect its timely surplus, thereby allowing it to balance the budget and bring in tax breaks.

The last thing that I want to say, if I have time, is that it continues to have too many industrial subsidies in it, such as the $100 million for the automotive supplier innovation program. There is too much targeted tax relief and subsidizing. It would be much simpler and much fairer if the government simply lowered the tax rates for all Canadians.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Like the other Speaker, I will try to divide the time for each of the two last members of Parliament. We are going to have one question under questions and comments.

The hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for your generosity.

I agree with my hon. colleague that this is a clever budget insofar as we consider smoke and mirrors to be clever. In that respect, it is clever. I do agree with his demographic targeted cutting of boutique tax credits.

What I was interested in knowing is whether the hon. member is concerned about the built-in structural, fiscal deficit caused by the initial HST cuts, which have basically forced the government into this smoke and mirrors bogus balanced budget, where it has to mug the contingency fund and prematurely sell off assets in order to get to the bogus balanced budget.

[Brent Rathgeber, Independent, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the short answer is yes, I am concerned. As I indicated in my comments, in order to balance this budget, there was a bit of a shell game going on. The EI surplus was depleted. The contingency was paid down. Assets were sold, including the General Motors stock. It allowed the government to balance its budget on paper and, therefore, implement its long promised tax relief, but that strategy cannot be a medium- or, certainly, long-term strategy because we will run out of assets.

Yes, we do have structural issues. We have had deficits for the last seven years, ever since the recession of 2008. The government is going to have to find revenue sources to replace the two-point cut in the GST or other targeted tax relief that it has offered in this budget and previous ones.

The hon. member is quite right. Yes, this budget is balanced, but the next one may not be because there may not be a contingency fund or assets. There will not be assets in General Motors, and there may not be comparable assets to sell to make up for the revenue that has been otherwise lost.