Debates of Feb. 4th, 2016

Opposition Motion—Department of Finance

[Maxime Bernier, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is only today that the Minister of Finance is telling us that he was handed a surplus by his officials, as well as a $1 billion surplus by our former government last November. He then prepared his economic update.

When he prepared his economic update, those same officials told him that if he did not do something, there would be a deficit by the end of the fiscal year. The minister chose to do nothing, because he controls spending. He may not control revenues, but he does control spending and he could have closed out the fiscal year with a surplus.

Therefore, the deficit at the end of the fiscal year is his responsibility. When he was preparing his economic and fiscal update with his officials, despite the numbers presented to him, he chose to do nothing and did not make the cuts needed to have a surplus.

We, the Conservatives, left him with a surplus last November. He did nothing and now we are heading toward a deficit, which is his fault. He cannot point the finger at Canada's economic situation, because he controls spending. The Treasury Board controls spending. If the minister had wanted it, he could have had a surplus at the end of the fiscal year.

I have a question for the minister. Why burden future generations with debt? I would remind him that the government does not invest money, it spends money. Business people invest money. The government is currently spending money that we do not have at the expense of future generations, saying that we should take advantage of the low interest rates to borrow money.

The minister does not seem to realize that interest rates are at a historic low and that they will go up. As things stand, 10¢ out of every dollar that Canadians pay in taxes is used to pay the interest on the debt, a sum that represents the entire budget for the Minister of National Defence.

We have to stop increasing the debt and start balancing the budget for the good of future generations and the economic prosperity of the country.

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by commenting on the absurdity of the motion before us. To think that one month's worth of information or even six months' worth of information constitutes information for an entire year is patently absurd. It is like people looking at their bank balance before they have paid their bills and saying how thankful they are for a positive bank balance, not realizing that their bills amount to more than what they have in the bank.

Let us just start by telling the honest to goodness truth to Canadians. When the Conservatives prepared Budget 2015, they got it wrong. They made an economic assumption for growth that was incorrect. There is not one economist in this country who believes that the assumption they made was correct.

When it came time for our economic and fiscal update in November, we looked at the true facts of what was going on in our economy and realized that the Conservatives' assumption for growth was just wrong. The revenues were going to be seriously different from what they had assessed them to be in their budget and, therefore, we are faced with the inevitability of a deficit this year based on the actions and assumptions of the government before us. There is no simpler way to state it.

The next thing the Liberals can do is to deal with the real facts. The real facts are that we are in a deficit position. The question that faced Canadians in the campaign was what we should do about it. We presented them with a plan to grow, to actually deal with the real facts and create a new Canada, one that invests in productive assets for the long term, to help businesses and Canadians do better in the future.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, successive governments in recent years lied to workers, telling them that they were taking money off their weekly paycheques and contributing it to an employment insurance fund when that money really went to the government's general budget to balance the books.

The question that my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie asked the Minister of Finance seemed clear to me. He asked whether the current government plans to continue dipping into the EI fund to balance the books or whether it intends to honour its commitment to workers.

The Minister of Finance's answer was most ambiguous. He did not answer the question. He simply said that his government would be transparent. Being transparent about raiding the EI fund is not acceptable either.

I will repeat the question. Can the Minister of Finance confirm that the money the government takes off workers' paycheques for employment insurance will be used solely for employment insurance?

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the hon. member and I can agree that the employment insurance fund is critically important for Canadians. We recognize, especially in times of economic challenge, that this is an extremely important vehicle to help Canadians be able to deal with challenging personal situations.

We plan to make changes to the employment insurance fund to enhance its ability to act as a cushion for people when they are going through economic challenges. We commit to being transparent in what we do and to ensuring that Canadians understand the employment insurance fund, understand what the advantages cost and how we best fund that employment insurance fund.

We will follow through on that commitment by making absolutely clear what the income is and what the outflow is from that fund.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to say that I will be splitting my time with the excellent member for Elmwood—Transcona. He will take the second portion of the 20 minutes allocated to us.

I was a financial administrator before I was elected to Parliament, so I am well versed in making sure that we balance budgets. I am proud to say that at many of the organizations I ran, we received awards for the work we did, including two business excellence awards. We always balanced our budgets and paid down debt, while at the same time ensuring that we were increasing the services we were offering to the population.

That is a good reason why I am a New Democrat. The NDP has a proud tradition of making sure that services are available for the population and at the same time balancing budgets. We can go right back to our founding leader, Tommy Douglas, who was voted the greatest Canadian in our history by Canadians a few years ago. He balanced budgets 17 consecutive times while creating a universal health care system. That was extremely important, because it shows that there can be sustainability in the environment and the economy and in the nation's finances.

What we are referencing in this motion is fiscal period returns. That is, as a number of speakers have referenced, really the book that indicates to us what the actual figures are. Anyone can make a budget speech; anyone can talk a good game. We have certainly seen this a number of times with Liberal and Conservative governments in the past.

The reality is that it is the fiscal period returns, the actual year-end accounting of the finances of a province or of a nation, that determine whether or not the finances were actually balanced.

I am pleased to say that the federal Department of Finance, which is surely not a hotbed of social democrats, for the last 25 years has been keeping track of governments in the fiscal period returns, whether Liberal or Conservative or NDP or other governments. It has been making sure that the public is aware of what the records are of those parties in balancing their budgets.

It will be no surprise that the worst party among the three parties represented as official parties here in the House is the Liberal Party of Canada. The Liberal Party, at either the provincial or federal level, actually has the worst record in balancing budgets.

Second worst, and only marginally ahead of it, is the Conservative Party.

I am pleased to say, because it is important that the public be aware of this information coming from the ministry of finance, that the best party in terms of balancing budgets, year in and year out, is the New Democratic Party. Our provincial administrations have the best record at balancing budgets and paying down debt.

We have done that while maintaining and enhancing services. We believe very strongly in making sure that there is sustainability in the nation's finances. That means we take positions of principle. For example, when workers pay into employment insurance, that employment insurance should be there when they need it.

As members know, only 40% of workers who are unemployed can access employment insurance. That is because of consecutive so-called reforms, first under the Liberals and then under the Conservatives. The people of this nation, the people who paid into the employment insurance fund, have been cut from accessing that insurance when they are unemployed.

An NDP government would not do that. An NDP government believes in making sure that there is sustainability in finances, but not at the cost of the workers.

When we look at what the Conservatives did in recent years, the same fiscal period returns that I mentioned earlier come up, and I begin to understand why the Conservatives moved this motion today.

The Conservatives began ringing up deficits in 2008. A total of $150 billion was added to our collective debt, a debt that all Canadians must pay. There were six consecutive deficits. Last year, there was a change. The Conservatives realized that the deficits reflected badly on their performance, so they dipped into the employment insurance fund and then sold the General Motors shares to create a temporary surplus that could be presented to the Canadian public just before the election.

It did not work. The public understood all too well that even though the sale of General Motors shares brought money into the government coffers, the government was actually ringing up an average monthly deficit of $400 million from the start of the fiscal year onwards. Even though the sale of the shares created a temporary surplus, this financial claim does not stand up to scrutiny.

When we examine the Conservatives' record, we understand very well why they are perhaps just as bad as the Liberals when it comes to financial management.

That brings us back to this motion. It is a little strange, I must say. We have a motion from the Conservatives that basically says that we should take half of the year and say we are in surplus.

If I had done that with any of the boards of directors I had to report to as the financial administrator and said that we were going to take half the year and say it were the whole year, that that would show the real year-end fiscal situation of our organization, I do not think any of the boards of directors would have taken it seriously.

However, that is what the Conservatives have done. They are taking half the year, with the special sale of GM shares, and are trying to say to the public that it means we are in surplus, even though we know that in an average month it was a $400-million deficit.

I wonder how that translates into other realms of life. If that is the Conservative approach on finances, that we take half a year and try to pretend it is a full year, could a hockey team pretend that half a season is a full season, that they made it to the playoffs because in the first half of the season they did pretty well, even though in the last half of the season they did not do so well? Or should it be half a game, rather than a whole game, or that we stop the game after a period and a half? What would that mean for the testing of our nation's students, if they could go into the classroom and say they will just take half a test because they know half of the material, and that doing so should be enough for them to get a full A for the full test?

It makes no sense at all, whether we are talking about testing, or hockey, or the nation's finances, to take half a year and say, “Let us pretend it's a full year?”

The reality when we look at the Conservative record—and people often vote Conservative because they are told that Conservatives may be better fiscal managers—of the last 10 years, where we suffered so much, in terms of health care cutbacks, and a whole range of other cuts that led to the deterioration in the quality of life of Canadians, there is no doubt that even on the fiscal front, the Conservative record, to say the least, is not admirable. There have been six consecutive deficits, with some of the largest deficits in Canadian history.

We believe that deficits should be applied prudently. When a deficit is used to jig the economy, that is something that could be appropriate. Six in a row, obviously, is not.

I hope my Conservative colleagues will not find me unkind when I say that after six consecutive deficits and after the problems that our nation's finances went through under the Conservative government, it may indicate to me that the Conservatives just were not ready to govern when they took office 10 years ago.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, House Leader of the Official Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my NDP counterpart for his speech, although he will not be surprised that I do not agree with anything he said. I do love sports analogies though, and I love a good cliché. I appreciate what he was trying to do with that hockey analogy, but he is missing the point.

Let me switch gears a little to football, something with which I am a little more familiar. What we have is not a team saying it is going to call the game at halftime, because it is ahead. What we are talking about is a team taking a ball from one quarterback and giving it to the backup quarterback, when it has a lead, then that quarterback losing the lead and losing the game.

This is what the motion is about. We are asking our colleagues to agree with what the Department of Finance has said, that when we switched quarterbacks there was a surplus, and if we end up in deficit it is because of choices of the play-calling of the new quarterback. That is what we are dealing with.

We left the Liberal Party with a surplus, with a healthy budgetary situation. It has now started to fumble the ball. It has started to throw inadvisable passes and is now losing the game. When the clock expires at the end of the year, if we are in deficit, it is because of the play-calling and the choices of the new quarterback on the government side.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I know the House leader opposite is a Roughriders fan. I am a B.C. Lions fan. We will hopefully see the B.C. Lions back next year even stronger.

I have to disagree with the analogy, because we cannot translate the fact that we are talking about half a year. The fact is that the Conservatives managed to achieve this little point-up, after six years of consecutive deficits, by taking from the contingency fund, by taking from workers through the employment insurance fund, and by a one-time sale of General Motors shares. It was a sort of fire sale of those shares as well.

What I think the analogy would be is that, on October 19, Canadians threw out all the players on the old team. They brought in a new team, and we have to watch what that new team will do. However, the new team is still looking at six years of consecutive deficits that happened under the Conservatives, so I do not think the Conservatives have much of a lesson to give to anyone.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member on what I thought was an excellent speech. Also being a sports fan, I very much enjoyed his analogies.

I was wondering if the hon. member would like to consider an election analogy? During the midpoint in the election, the Conservative Party suddenly pulled ahead. It was almost as if it would then say, “Wow, the election stops now; we won the election”, despite the results of the election. It almost sounds as if the motion is a bid to reinvent what happened in the previous government in a certain way.

I was wondering if the hon. member had any other interesting analogies about the motion that he might want to give the House.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Mount Royal for his question. It actually hurts a little because, if we recall, halfway through the election, the NDP was actually leading in the polls. We continue to fight the good fight in the House of Commons.

When I see yesterday's result, the NDP pushing for pay equity and getting the support of pay equity through the House and finally moving forward after 20 years of stagnation, I believe that shows the effectiveness of our team here in the House of Commons.

The reality is that, when we are talking about finances, lots of analogies will apply. However, I do think it is passing strange that the Conservatives would bring this forward. In a sense, it is as if they are trying to overcompensate for their poor fiscal record. They had six consecutive years of deficits. The former Conservative government, 20 years ago, had record deficits. They are just not very good at managing finances. They are arguably better than the Liberals, when we look at the fiscal period returns by the ministry of finance, but not at all in keeping with their own spin on the nation's finances.

When we look at government, in the provincial governments we have had across the country, the best party at managing money, paying down debt, and maintaining and enhancing services is the New Democratic Party. We are very proud of that legacy.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise to give my first speech in the House of Commons. I have been up on my feet a number of times, but this is my first official speech.

I would like to start by thanking the voters of Elmwood—Transcona for giving me the opportunity to come to this place and speak on their behalf.

I would like to thank my wife, Janelle, and my son, Robert, who in their own way are working just as hard as I am on the project of providing good representation to people in our hometown.

I want to say a special thanks to my father as well, who served for a long time in this House. He was a great political role model, both on how to conduct oneself in this place, and also on the substantive issues that face the country. He was a great voice for the working people for many years in this place. I hope to continue that tradition here today. I want to thank my mother also, because I know that she was as much a part of that project as he was, the project of providing good representation to the people in Elmwood—Transcona. It is something one always knows, even as part of a family growing up in that, but I think as all members get here it really does impress upon us just how much it is a family effort to be able to do this job and do it well. Therefore, I thank everyone in my family again.

I want to thank all of the volunteers and supporters who helped put me here as well. I intend to honour them by speaking up on the issues that they have sent me here to talk about.

Elmwood—Transcona is a great riding. It is full of people who are down to earth, who work hard for a living, and who have always understood that we face a lot of common challenges. We know we are better off facing those challenges together and addressing them collectively than leaving our neighbours to fend for themselves, because we know that the kinds of problems they are facing the next day may be the very same problems we will find ourselves facing. We know we ought to work together to build a world where we allow for bad times and prepare ourselves so that we have systems and programs in place to help our neighbours and ourselves when that time of need arises. That is why Elmwood—Transcona has always tended to return social democrats to the House of Commons, because that way of thinking is at the core of our program. It is at the core of our vision for the country. It is not just window dressing that we put on at election time. Rather, it is something that informs the policies and positions we present in the House.

Therefore, when I saw today's motion, I wondered if this was the kind of thing that people had sent me here to debate, discuss, and to take a strong position on. A simple snapshot of the fiscal picture at a certain time of year does not represent the entire year of a budget. That is clear. At the end of the day, I think hon. members on all sides of the House know that. I do not think that posturing for cheap political points in the House on that issue is what I was sent here to do. I was sent here to talk about social justice. That is why I am proud to be part of a caucus that, on its opposition day, decided to bring forward a motion on pay equity and to have the House spend its time debating and voting on that. That made me very proud yesterday. There is a lot of good work to do. There is work left to do when we talk about the situation that aboriginal people are facing in this country, or the funding gaps that exist that perpetuate social injustice on and off reserve for aboriginal people, and there are many other people whose causes we have to champion in this House and do something about.

This motion does not speak to any form of economic justice, which social democrats also take to heart. Members have heard us talk here about income inequality.

We are also concerned about income security because we know that individuals' dignity is tied to their freedom to be able to take hold of their own destiny to make decisions about their life and what they want to do. However, there has to be enough money in the bank to be able to make those kinds of decisions, because I think we can all agree that, when we do not have those resources, we do not have a lot of choices. That is why the NDP has always fought to make sure workers get their fair share of what they work every day to produce. Yes, workers have employers who help organize their work. However, as someone who has worked on a number of job sites, I can say that it is the workers who are bringing that value to the work they do every day.

They are the ones doing the building. They are the ones doing the producing. They are the ones filing the paperwork. It is fair that they get a good return on that investment and on that work.

Looking at the numbers, over decades now, we see that it is the same group of people who are producing that value who are getting less of a return on that value. We see that as the corporate income tax rate drops from 28% to 15% in almost as many years. Meanwhile, workers who are getting laid off because of a downturn in the economy cannot access EI, and seniors who worked and paid into a pension plan their entire life are not seeing an adequate return on that. They are not seeing enough to be able to pay their rent and buy their food.

These are issues that really matter to us in this party, not trading points about what time in the fiscal cycle there happened to be more money in accounts receivable instead of accounts payable, when we all know that at the end of the day there really was a deficit, as my hon. colleague has done a good job of pointing out. A one-time sale of GM shares does not address a systemic deficit.

We are here also to talk about environmental justice and to talk about people having the dignity and freedom to make their own decisions. We can only have a good life if we have a planet to live it on. It is reasonable for people to raise concerns about the way we are extracting certain kinds of natural resources. It is reasonable for people to be concerned about what that is doing to the planet. It is reasonable for people to demand a process for approval of these projects that takes those considerations seriously.

It is also reasonable to be concerned about the overall effect of those projects over time on climate change. We are having an unseasonably warm winter. These things do happen from time to time, but they are starting to happen with a frequency that we have not seen before. That is well documented.

These are all reasonable concerns if we look at the evidence. They are not just reasonable concerns; it is a benchmark for sanity that we do take these things seriously in the 21st century.

I am proud to be part of a team that is here to raise that. It was the minority view in the late seventies and early eighties that we were headed down a road that would have serious consequences. We were the first to raise this and we are raising it again here today. I hope we are going to be part of the solution soon, rather than just shouting across the aisle at governments that are listening with deaf ears. That is part of what we were working on at election time.

The other component to social democracy, which the motion does not address, is the democratic component, in keeping with the idea that it is important for people to be able to take charge of their own destiny. It is also important that they have the economic freedom to do that, which means getting a fair share of the value they produce at work. It means having income security. We know people are worried about getting laid off because they do not have access to employment insurance. Some people cannot retire and leave the workforce when they want because they do not have an adequate pension. Workers do not have economic freedom when they are fighting for a better deal but know the government is willing to legislate them back to work as soon as they start to talk about a strike. Those workers are not in charge of their destiny. Certain economists would call that promoting labour discipline, but we see it for what it is, and that is taking advantage of people. It is robbing them of the dignity to take charge of their own destiny.

As much as that is important on the economic side of things, it is important on the political side as well. People need to have political freedom. They need to elect their representatives to this place, and they need to do it in a way that reflects their desire for the country. That is why the NDP has long been an advocate for electoral reform. We have not had a system for a long time, if ever, that has done a good job of that. We are keen to hold the government to account on its promises for meaningful electoral reform.

That comes as a total package. The social democratic vision of the NDP is to give people the power to determine their own destiny by giving them the economic freedom they need to do that. We can do that by addressing problems with respect to social justice. We can do that by giving them a planet to do it on. We can do that by giving them the political freedom to implement it if they so choose, and not to if they do not.

That is why we have been gracious in defeat from time to time and we have worked hard whenever we win, whether it is right now in Alberta with an NDP government or in Manitoba with an NDP government. We are hard-working in victory and gracious in defeat.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to sit beside the member for Elmwood—Transcona.

My points today are directed at not only my hon. colleague from Elmwood—Transcona, but also the member for Timmins—James Bay. I, too, love sports and I am a diehard BC Lions fan. That is about all we have in common right now.

However, I want to talk about leadership and confidence. Leadership is about accepting adversity, regardless of what is coming, not making excuses, not pointing fingers, but taking charge and showing to the team that you are a strong leader. We have asked time and time again for the government to give us a plan, give us a budget, and yet we have not see it. Canadians deserve better. Our partners deserve better.

Banks, lenders, the world needs to know that Canada is on a strong footing. Rather than pointing fingers at each other and pointing out some of the challenges we have faced over the years, we should get together and focus our attention on holding the government accountable.

Do you not feel that the uncertainty and the lack of leadership we see is shaking the foundation of confidence from not only Canadians but our world partners.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the day, perhaps a BC Lions games day, when the member shows up in the House wearing an orange tie.

I agree that planning is a cornerstone of good governance. We will have a budget eventually. We have been asking for this.

Something we never did see from the Conservative government was an impact assessment on what the TPP would really mean for the Canadian economy. When we look at the long-term fiscal situation of the country, the TPP has the potential to have an effect on that. Its proponents obviously say it would make it better. On our side of the House, we are quite concerned that in important respects it will make it worse.

To your point about having a plan, that is the kind of document we would like to see so we can have a better debate in the House about the long-term fiscal position of the country.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona for representing the hard workers at the steel and rail yards in Transcona. I am very familiar with them. My brother married Barbara Nebozenko from Elmwood and brought Ukrainian-Canadian heritage to our family, so the member is representing some fine people.

I am very interested in what the member said around social justice and environmental deficits and how they all relate to economic deficits, that we have to take the whole package. We have talked about sports analogies, but we are also talking about things mid-season here where we do not have all the numbers in. In November, a lot of bills had not been paid, as the Minister of Finance pointed out, and will result in a deficit by the end of the year.

I would be very interested if you could expand a little more on how social justice, environmental, and economic all work together.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I actually have a little Transcona Ukrainian in me as well on my mother's side.

The member is absolutely right. Part of what we have often pushed for is the kind of complete bottom line, where we include the environment, social deficits as well as the fiscal bottom line. Therefore, we absolutely need that.

What facilitates that discussion or the people on whom it is incumbent to provide that analysis is government. I would hope that with the change of government we will start to see better planning documents and analysis that are released to the public so we can start to have that conversation in a meaningful way.

I agree that fiscal conversations divorced from these other issues eventually come with a price tag. They either come with a price tag on the environmental side later during cleanup or when damage is done that cannot be repaired, and it is not a matter of spending but a matter of damage done.

However, we also see in a number of government departments expenditures that could be reduced or avoided if we were to make investments upfront. I am thinking especially of the justice and health systems. When the right kinds of investments are made upfront, which you can do if you are looking at the complete bottom line, you can save money in the long term.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we resume debate, I remind all hon. members that the Standing Orders compel us to address the Chair, whether in a question or in their speech or when members are responding to questions and comments. There is a reason for that.

When we make our style of speech in the House in the third person, we tend not to use the word “you” except in a rhetorical way. I recognize there has been no disorder in the chamber and it has been a good healthy exchange. However, from time to time the “you” comments can invoke personal sentiments and this is when disorder can occur. This is the reason that the style of speech in the House has tended to be this way historically. It also keeps the decorum at a level that is quite respectful, as it has been this morning. This is just a reminder for all hon. members.

We will resume debate. The hon. member for Niagara Falls.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to share my time today with the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

This is an opposition motion put forward by my colleague from Milton. I was very pleased when she asked me if I would be one of the individuals who would speak to it.

As members can see, the motion thanks member of our public servants, particularly in the Department of Finance, for their hard work and their projections that there would be a budgetary surplus of $1 billion. I like the idea that she is thanking the public servants who work in that department.

I know very well the dedication and commitment of our public servants. I have had the honour of serving in five different portfolios during my career, and I have received a huge amount of support and information from my departmental officials who were invaluable to me.

On the portfolio of Veterans Affairs, which is the one I most recently had, departmental officials did an outstanding job of compiling information and giving me briefing notes, and for that I was been very grateful. Likewise in National Defence and Justice, they could not have been more helpful or on time, and to this day I am very grateful toward them. I am therefore pleased that my colleague from Milton has brought forward the motion thanking the members of the Department of Finance for what they are doing.

The members of the Department of Finance are projecting a $1 billion surplus for this year. I appreciate that this is upsetting to the Liberals in terms of what they had to say during the election campaign. It is maybe one of the first times in Canadian history that somebody is upset that there is a surplus, but we all have our different approaches to this.

I remember during the election when my campaign manager said to me that the NDP was starting to slip in the polls. I asked what the issues were. My campaign manager noted that one of the issues was the fact that the New Democrats wanted a balanced budget and many people disagreed with that. This was one of the first times I was going to say that I agreed with the New Democrats, that balanced budgets were a good idea. I am sorry they lost support on that. I still think it is the right thing for Canada.

I am very proud of the way our government handled the budgets prior to the last election. In fact, I am proud of all the different aspects of what it took to govern the country. I was very pleased with the leadership of our prime minister during that time. I now have the honour of being his seatmate. He was consistent over those 10 years. In my six and a half years as justice minister, he was consistently supportive of standing up for victims and law-abiding citizens and in holding people who committed crimes to account.

His and our government's stand with respect to foreign policy was always consistent. People knew where the Conservative government stood with respect to Ukraine, Israel, and the fight against terrorists. I had the honour to visit various parts of the world. People knew where Canada stood and they were grateful. This was the one thing that was consistent about all the places I visited. People thanked me. They asked me to thank Canadians and our government for our consistency on that.

However, with respect to the finances, again there was consistency in our government in keeping taxes low, to strive toward a balanced budget, and to have responsible spending. Those were the characteristics of our Conservative government. It allowed us to do things that were important to Canadians, and did not break the bank.

I remember coming back here in 2004 and my colleague, the member for Niagara West, started to lobby the then Liberal government to remove the federal excise tax on 100% Canadian wine. He made a very good point. There was not a huge amount of money being collected by the federal government on Canadian wine, but if it were removed, it would be a huge boost to the wine industry in our area. When the government at that time would not listen to him, he brought forward a private member's bill and gave me the honour of seconding it. He tried to push forward with that.

That is why I am so appreciative of what took place after the Conservatives became government in 2006. In the first budget presented by Jim Flaherty, he brought forward the recommendation that had the support of the member for Haldimand—Norfolk, the other members in Niagara, and my colleagues British Columbia. It was a huge boost to the wine industry and a responsible way to act.

I can remember, as well, as justice minister, being informed about child advocacy centres when I was visiting Edmonton. At that same time, one was established in St. Catharines. These centres were to help children who had been victimized by crime, having a one-stop family-friendly and child-friendly centre for them to get help. The federal government was not involved with this, but Jim Flaherty and the former prime minister were supportive of it. This did not cost a huge amount of money, but made a big difference in helping children who had been victimized. I have been very grateful to them for those centres.

Now the Liberals are telling us they have some problems. As my colleague, the member for Beauce, has said, they have no problem with spending, but they have a problem with financial accountability. It should be the exact opposite. They should be concentrating on financial accountability and controlling spending. We need this in our country.

People have told me that the Liberals will make a mess of the finances and this will guarantee the the re-election of the Conservatives in 2019. However, I want what is best for Canada right now. I do not want a mess. We have seen what has happened in other provinces at times when governments irresponsibly spend. It takes many years to correct those situations. This is not what we want.

The Liberals have a different agenda. As we heard yesterday in debates, Conservatives want union members to have the right to privacy. The Liberals want something different than that. We disagree with that, but one thing the Conservative Party will be consistently in favour of is controlling government spending and keeping taxes low. We would have continued with a balanced budget. This is apparently out the window now with the Liberal government. It is a mistake and I think some day Canadians will not only give us the opportunity, but will very quickly realize that this is a huge mistake on the part of the Liberal government.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know whether the member for Niagara Falls can explain why no projects were approved for Quebec under the building Canada fund. The Conservatives left $1.6 billion on the table. They balanced the budget on the backs of Quebeckers.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, nobody has done more for infrastructure than the Conservative government did. When there was a downturn in the economy in 2008 and 2009, the Conservatives put billions of dollars toward infrastructure. As the member for Niagara Falls, I am very proud of all the infrastructure projects that we were able to finance during that period of time. These will be for the long-term benefit of the people of our areas.

Members can check right across the country and see that billions of dollars was put into the country by the Conservative government. I am very proud of that. This is exactly what we needed at that time, and it is exactly what we did.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, as a former economist with the Department of Finance, I am happy to discuss a motion recognizing the good work of civil servants in that department.

I would like to ask the hon. member, however, if he acknowledges that the “Fiscal Monitor”, to which the Conservatives are referring, also shows that between April and November of 2015, employment insurance premiums were $14 billion, whereas employment insurance benefits were only $12 billion. That difference of $2 billion is more than twice the $1-billion surplus that is being claimed.

Would the hon. member acknowledge that the only reason for this surplus is, in fact, because the former Conservative government took money out of the EI fund?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure exactly what the hon. member is implying from the Department of Finance. He said he was a member of the Department of Finance. It was the Finance Department that said there is a $1-billion surplus.

I am hoping that the NDP is still on side with us. They apparently lost some votes because of their support for a balanced budget, but nonetheless, I believe it was the right thing for them to do. They should train their sights on the Liberal government, which is determined to run a deficit. This is exactly what we do not want, and he should know as well. If he has been a member of the Department of Finance, he should know better than anybody how difficult it is to come out of a deficit when there is a deficit. He should be completely supportive of this.

This recognizes the wonderful work that is being done by our public servants, and in this case the public servants within the Department of Finance. I agree with them that we have a $1-billion surplus. We can all be very proud of that.

I hope the government reconsiders its plans to recklessly spend in the future.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

First, Mr. Speaker, let me thank the member for Niagara Falls for his years of service, not only to his constituents, but to Canadians, for all of his efforts and accomplishments.

We have a big problem. The Liberal government projected a modest deficit of $10 billion. The Liberals said they would have a tax cut that would be neutral. We have a math problem, because it is not only not neutral, it was not $1 billion, but $2 billion out.

All of us have the greatest respect for the Minister of Finance, particularly in his past role, but the policies he is bringing forward now are different from those he talked about in his private life.

I want to ask my colleague from Niagara Falls, is it not the responsibility of the government to one, talk about and know what the deficit is, and two, as the Liberals talked earlier in their platform about balancing the budget, know when will they actually be able to do that?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has it exactly correct. Things were said during the campaign. I am well aware of Liberal platforms in the past saying one thing during the election and then having a different position later.

That being said, it is important for them to realize, now that they are actually in government, that a $10-billion deficit is not minor. This could be a major problem for this country. It could completely degenerate into $20 billion or $30 billion, and we will be paying the price for that for many years to come.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour for me to participate in this important discussion.

I want to say hello to my almost three-year-old daughter, Gianna, who I believe is watching this back home. She is probably the only three year old in the country who watches CPAC on regular basis. Although when I told her yesterday that I would be giving a speech today, I think she thought we were going to the beach. Therefore, despite my excitement about being to speak today, she may be a bit disappointed.

In watching this debate today, I wonder if my three-year-old daughter may be a bit disappointed for a different reason. As parents, we all want to pass the best that we can on to our children in the context of our own individual families, but also in the context of social relations. We receive the goods of society from our parents and we pass them on to our children, hopefully improved or at least not diminished.

As Edmund Burke writes in Reflections on the Revolution in France, society is “...a partnership not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born. Each contract of each particular state is but a clause in the great primeval contract of eternal society...”.

He says later:

...one of the first and most leading principles on which the commonwealth and the laws are consecrated is, lest the temporary possessors and life-renters in it...[should be mindful of] what is due to their posterity...should not think it among their rights to cut off the entail or commit waste on the inheritance by destroying at their pleasure the whole original fabric of their society, hazarding to leave to those who come after them a ruin instead of an habitation...

We live here in a great country. We can and indeed we must be grateful for the goods of civilization that we have received from our predecessors. We have a duty to pass the goods of our civilization on to the next generation, socially, culturally, and fiscally. However, for reasons unknown to us, and perhaps even unknown to it, the government is betraying this sacred obligation by running massive, totally unnecessary, deficits, creating debts that our children and grandchildren will have to pay off. We are spending massive amounts of money today, and they will have to pay off these debts with interest.

The government is running deficits in spite of the fact that the economy is growing. The Liberals are running deficits not because of a financial crisis, but because the government felt that its only chance in the last election was to outflank the NDP on the far left. It was a cynical political game rooted in the narrow politics of the present, betraying the hard-learned lessons of the past when it comes to deficits and debt, and ignoring the needs of the future. The Liberals' cynical game was to say whatever they needed to say to get elected and let the future worry about itself.

How did the Liberals plan to satisfy all of their spending commitments and keep the deficit under $10 billion? They did not have a plan. Again, it was the narrow, cynical politics of the present, without regard for the lessons of the past or the needs of the future.

The Liberals promised three deficits of $10 billion each, but now we know that they may use up all $30 billion of that deficit commitment in year one. Even a $10-billion deficit would add over $300 to my daughter's share of the debt. However important the needs of the present are, let us have enough regard for my daughter and her generation to pay for present needs with present dollars.

I think Canadians get this. They intuitively get the obligation that we have to generations past and to generations in the future. They get that it is wrong to burden future generations just so that we can have more right now.

Therefore, the Liberals are casting around for an excuse to run a massive, new, entirely pointless deficit. Their strategy is to claim that they were left with a deficit, in spite of clear evidence to the contrary from the Department of Finance and from the parliamentary budget officer. Forgetting the past and ignoring the future, unfortunately, has become the Liberal way.

By contrast, it is important to highlight the realities of the previous Conservative government's very strong fiscal record, which demonstrates mindfulness of the past and the future, as well as the present. In our first years in office, our Conservative government ran significant surpluses, paid down debt, and cut taxes for middle- and low-income Canadians. However, in late 2008, Canada was hit by the global financial crisis, the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.

At the time of the global financial crisis, the Liberals, then in opposition, presented none of their own plan for the economy. Sometimes they attacked our government for running deficits. At other times, they demanded bigger deficits. We did the responsible thing.

We did what past and future generations would want us to do. We ran timely, targeted, and temporary deficits, stimulating the economy and preserving vital Canadian industries, while also seeking efficiencies and bringing the budget back to balance one year ahead of schedule.

We did this while increasing transfers to the provinces for vital public services, and we did it while further cutting taxes. According to every credible authority, we ended our mandate in surplus. We had the best job creation record, the best GDP growth record, and we have by far the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio anywhere in the G7. We led Canada through challenging economic circumstances; we preserved strong economic fundamentals.

Still today, when the Liberals look back on the global financial crisis, they insist on having their cake and eating it too. Some of the time they tell us that Canada fared poorly during the financial crisis despite obvious facts to the contrary, and some of the time they tell us that Canada did well in the financial crisis but it was only because of Liberal governments of the 1990s.

Other times they criticize the deficits we used to stimulate the economy, and the rest of the time they criticize the spending controls we imposed on the federal bureaucracy, as if it were possible to balance the budget without controlling spending in certain areas.

Here is our position with respect to fiscal policy. A government should run timely, targeted, and temporary deficits only in the face of significant declining revenues or in response to major crises like war or natural disasters. There is no need to cut during these periods provided that the same government can make up the difference during good years. To do this in a timely, targeted, and temporary way is not a betrayal of future generations, rather it is prudent and responsible, because it is a way for the present generation to both create debt when necessary and also to do the work to pay it off.

However, to capriciously run structural deficits far beyond the scope that Canadians were led to believe would occur during the election, to do so in response to no significant decline in revenue or major financial event, is a betrayal of our obligations to our children. It is, in effect, a demand that our children and grandchildren pay in the future for what we do not want to do without today.

Our children do not have a choice in this matter. Profligate deficit spending today robs future generations of citizens and policy-makers of the ability to enact their own ambitious plans. It saddles them with debt that will limit their dreams long after ours have faded.

This is the reality in many countries around the world, countries where the financial crisis was followed by a debt crisis because they had used up all the room they had to bail themselves out. We do not have to go down this road in Canada. That is certainly not where we started from. It certainly is not inevitable.

If we are to now run up large new deficits, it will only be because of an irresponsible political choice, one that the government could have decided not to make and one that the government must take responsibility for.

If members of the government wish to be generous to their friends, let them do so with their own money. However, the government has no money of its own, it only has the ability to spend the money earned by Canadian taxpayers. As such, it should adopt the requisite humility that normally comes with being entrusted to discharge someone else's property.

It is not too late. I say to the government, “Do not capriciously run massive, totally unnecessary deficits. Do not saddle my daughter with your debt, she does not deserve it. Do not distort the facts to obscure responsibility. Take responsibility. Look squarely on the numbers given to you by the finance department and the parliamentary budget officer. Take responsibility, and do right by present and future taxpayers.”

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan deliver his speech and talk about timely, temporary, and modest deficits.

During his time in the prime minister's office and during the Conservatives' time in office, those timely, temporary, and modest deficits added $160 billion to this country's debt.

Just to be clear, the eight deficits that were run during the last government, were all of them timely, temporary, and modest?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, just a brief correction. What I said was “timely, targeted, and temporary”.

Absolutely, we had a clear plan to stimulate the economy at a time of great global economic uncertainty, and we came out of that. We came out of that with a balanced budget a year ahead of schedule.

Perhaps the hon. member and I would disagree about the record, but what is clear, and what he cannot walk away from, is the the total absence of a Liberal position on this. The Liberals will at one time say we should have run bigger deficits. They will at other times say that it was terrible that we ran deficits. It is rather curious that they seem to think we should not have run deficits in the 2008-09 period and yet they think it is okay to run deficits now in spite of radically different economic circumstances. There were much more challenging circumstances at the time.

I understand that we are going to disagree on both sides of this House. However, I wish the government would have the courage of its convictions to actually take a position on this issue, one way or the other.