Debates of April 12th, 2016

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Ahmed Hussen, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond by stating that our government intends to take the lead on health care and exercise the traditional role of the federal government to provide that leadership. We are committed to having discussions with provincial and territorial governments on all aspects of health care, which includes palliative care. I am proud to say that this is a government that will move forward on health care and all aspects related to it in conjunction and consultation with the provinces and territories. We will provide the necessary leadership that the federal government traditionally does with respect to health care.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the member to comment on the Canada child benefit program.

Many in the House are saying that one could almost draw a comparison between this program and what Liberal administrations have done previously with regard to health care services. This is a policy shift which I believe ultimately will lift literally hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty and allow for a better quality of life for them. In the long term, if we continue in the direction we are going, this will, in fact, become a treasured program, something that was initiated in this budget, a commitment to children in every region of this country.

I wonder if the member would comment on the significance of this particular program and what the Prime Minister and the government have been able to accomplish for children in such a short period of time.

[Ahmed Hussen, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of the Canada child benefit that our government has instituted. It really simplifies life for families.

First, it is one benefit as opposed to three, so families will receive one payment every month. Second, it is tax-free, which means there will be more money in the pockets of families. Third, it is better targeted toward those who need it the most. This means that those who are very well off and do not need this benefit will not get cheques in the mail. The savings from that will be better targeted to those who need it the most.

Finally, the Canada child benefit is much more generous than existing programs. This benefit, in and of itself, will ensure that hundreds of thousands of children will be lifted out of poverty.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Minister of Science]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Lac-Saint-Louis.

I am happy to participate in the debate on budget 2016.

Our government believes in the importance of scientific knowledge to create a better society. Science plays a central role in a thriving clean economy and in providing evidence for sound policy decisions.

Support for science is an essential pillar in the Canadian government's strategy to create sustainable economic growth.

Science, both fundamental and applied, delivers economic, environmental, health, and social benefits. It creates jobs and opportunities and is at the heart of an innovation economy, but we know science is so much more than that.

Scientists work for a better tomorrow by making exciting discoveries, from aerospace to astronomy, from biotech to clean tech. I would argue that science matters more than ever before, because the challenges we face, such as climate change and shrinking biodiversity, are ever greater.

The government is committed to fostering scientific research and supporting the scientists who carry it out. We are committed to ensuring that sound evidence forms the basis of our investment and policy decisions.

The Prime Minister has asked me to make the creation of a chief science officer position one of my top priorities. This position will be key to ensuring that scientific analyses are considered when government makes decisions, that scientific communication is sustained across government in an effective way, and that the Canadian public has access to the science behind our decisions.

Consultations are now finished with chief science advisers in other countries, the broader scientific community, and all parliamentarians to seek input on what shape this position should take.

We will take the time we need to make sure that we put the appropriate mechanisms in place to do this right.

As Minister of Science, I work diligently to support science promotion and activities to inspire the next generation of leading Canadian researchers while ensuring young Canadians have the science, technology, engineering, and math skills required for rewarding careers in the modern Canadian economy.

I will now turn to budget 2016.

I will start by underlining that this budget is very different from those of the previous decade. The government has defined a new vision in 2016: to build Canada as a centre of global innovation renowned for its science, technology, creative and entrpreneurial citizens, and globally competitive companies offering high-quality products and services. Through 2016 and 2017, the government will define a bold new plan, its innovation agenda, to achieve the vision of Canada as a centre of global innovation.

To become the innovation leaders of tomorrow, we must equip Canadians today with the skills they will need to succeed. Post-secondary and other research institutions are front-line agents in fostering science and research excellence. To ensure these facilities continue to develop highly skilled workers, scientists, and researchers and support the growth of innovative firms, budget 2016 will invest up to $2 billion over three years in a new post-secondary institutions strategic investment fund.

Work is already under way, in consultation with partners, to begin projects quickly. Not only must we invest in spaces that enhance our innovative potential, but we must also invest in Canadian researchers themselves, particularly those on the cusp of new discoveries.

In Canada, this funding typically flows through the three federal granting councils. This year we will provide an additional $95 million for these councils to support discovery research, the highest amount of new annual funding for this purpose in over a decade, and to make sure that federal support for research, including through the granting councils, is strategic and effective, we will undertake a comprehensive review of federal support for fundamental science.

We also want to ensure that we make the most of all the new areas of research in which Canada could excel.

For example, we will provide $237 million to support the pan-Canadian activities of Genome Canada, $50 million to support the world-class Perimeter Institute, and up to $12 million for the stem cell network.

We will also support the Canadian agriculture and agri-food sector. A century of farmers and ranchers have together helped feed the nation and today help feed the world. My colleague, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, will deliver on this commitment through investments of $30 million to support advanced research in agricultural genomics in priority areas, including on climate change, and the identification and prevention of biological threats to agriculture.

As a former scientist, I am aware of the risks posed to the health and well-being of Canadians and people around the world by a rapidly changing climate. In the interests of preserving our natural environment, I am pleased to be working with my colleagues in the review and reform of Canada's environmental assessment process to ensure that these decisions are based on science, facts, and evidence. Budget 2016 commits $16.5 million over three years to implementing an interim approach to a federal environmental assessment for major projects until a broader review can be undertaken.

Further to our goal of better understanding the impacts of climate change and improving our capacity to adapt to these changes, I have been mandated to work with the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard to examine the implications of climate change on Arctic marine ecosystems. Budget 2016 provides $19 million to gather existing research and traditional knowledge of the Arctic environment and conduct new research where gaps in knowledge exist.

In order to lay the foundation for new technologies and approaches that will help Canada become a low-carbon economy, budget 2016 provides $20 million to create two additional Canada excellence research chairs in fields related to clean and sustainable technology.

We aim to foster the emergence of a strong culture of science and innovation in Canada, one that recognizes the key role of scientific evidence in the important decisions our government makes. The measures proposed in budget 2016 will enable Canada to build upon its science and technology strengths in genomics, stem cells, brain research, and physics to support discoveries that will help to fuel economic growth and position Canada to succeed in the knowledge-based global economy.

The announced funding will flow as quickly as possible in order to reach our post-secondary institutions, researchers, and innovators.

To close, I would like to say that this is an exciting time for science and research in Canada. We are returning science to its rightful place, a place where science and scientists are respected and scientific evidence and advice are given the careful consideration they deserve.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the minister on her speech and on the collaborative way in which we work together on the science file so far.

I applaud the maintaining of the funding for applied research from the granting councils, which our government put in place, and the conversion of the knowledge infrastructure fund to support post-secondary infrastructure with a view to increasing innovation and increasing jobs and I agree that we need to get better as Canadians at commercializing our innovations to create jobs, so I wonder if the minister can explain how the $100 million announced for commercialization will be used.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it has been a pleasure to work with my hon. colleague.

This is really about building an innovation agenda. We will see increased support for incubators, accelerators, the emerging national network of business innovation and cluster programs, and the industrial research assistance program, IRAP. It will be $100 million in the future. There was an $800 million investment announced in budget 2016.

I look forward to maintaining this close working relationship. This is about working with all sides of the House and building a stronger science and innovation culture in Canada.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am curious with regard to the value of supporting research science and our research chairs and our universities when at the same time the government is cancelling a program called Auto21, which worked with the University of Windsor to provide excellent input and value-added contributions of up to $1 billion in the auto industry and had over a decade of significant contributions for the environment, our ecosystem, and our manufacturing sector.

It is also providing a facility that is, right now, structured to provide students with the greatest opportunity in everything from greenhouse gas emissions to safety for baby seats in cars. It was a few million dollars for this program, which has contributed over $1 billion in value-added resources and contributions. Why would the minister cancel this program?

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin by saying that it was a pleasure to teach at the University of Windsor for seven years. I loved teaching at that university. I taught climate change, meteorology, and environment. These are very important issues to me.

I will talk a bit about some of the investments we have made in clean tech.

As I said, there will be two research chairs coming forward in clean and sustainable technology. Some of the other investments made in the budget are $379 million for the Canadian Space Agency, $237 million for Genome Canada, $95 million for the granting councils, and $50 million for the Perimeter Institute, one of the top three theoretical physics institutes in the world. We have made significant investments in universities, colleges, and polytechnics.

I will remind all members of the House that there is a strategic infrastructure program, and they should let their institutions know that the due date is May 9.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. minister for her intervention and for all the work that her department is doing on behalf of science for Canada.

As chair of the post-secondary education and innovation caucus, I am very encouraged to see the renewed focus on science and research in this budget. I wonder whether the hon. minister could comment on how these investments might contribute to Canadian scientists attending international conferences, publishing their work, sharing their work among their peers, and regaining a position that Canada had for many years up until recently.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for co-chairing this important caucus.

This investment, particularly in the three federal granting councils, is unfettered money. Under the previous administration, we often saw that the money was tied, but this type of investment is going to allow our researchers to build bigger teams, to take on new projects, and to publish, which is so important.

I will finish by talking about the strategic infrastructure fund. This is available for the universities, colleges, and polytechnics in our ridings. The due date is May 9, and we hope the members will share this good information with the institutions in their ridings, because $2 billion is available.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the budget is a document that is both nuanced and comprehensive. It implements many election promises that, taken together, constitute the economic vision that the Liberal Party laid out during the election campaign and that earned the confidence of Canadians on October 19.

In fact, the budget plays a dual role. It focuses on the immediate needs of today's economy, as well as the challenges that we must address in the longer term if we want to make a better future for our children and our grandchildren.

The budget addresses the needs of our times, this economic period where growth has been slow for far too long. It addresses the increasingly pressing need to lay the foundation to increase the longer-term productivity of our Canadian industries. Without that, we will not really be able to support and encourage the strong growth we need in the coming years to create the necessary tax revenue for funding the social programs that are so dear to us and are often at the very heart of our Canadian identity.

In addition to the temporal aspect of the budget, there is the fact that it is multifaceted because of an insightful and wise acknowledgement that the economy is complex and composed of diverse and related elements and that we must act on different fronts simultaneously to create the growth that will allow each and every one of us to prosper with dignity and to have a good quality of life.

The budget recognizes, for example, that we must look after the economy and the environment at the same time. We have to ensure that our businesses are healthy and also protect the well-being of our children. We need major infrastructure, such as efficient public transit networks, but also meeting places where people can get together for socialization and recreation and to talk to, support, and help one another.

We have to innovate with new technologies and products brought to market, but we must also provide our university researchers with the means to explore these concepts that are sometimes still in the early stages and whose practical application and economic viability are still unknown.

In short, its comprehensive vision truly makes this a Liberal budget.

There has been much talk about the deficit. No one really wants deficits as a matter of ideology, at least not on this side of the House. In fact, as Liberals, we have been in the past elected to wrestle deficits to the ground.

However, there is a time when deficits are helpful on a short-term basis to stabilize the economy, build the confidence of consumers, businesses and investors and sow the seeds of future growth, and Canadians have determined that this time is now.

The need to invest in Canada's future, even at the cost of modest deficits, was not only endorsed by Canadians in the last election. The idea is reverberating in other developed nations as they come to realize that monetary policy has come up against its limitations, and cannot by itself move the economy out of its current doldrums.

No lesser a Canadian business leader than Michael Sabia, hardly a promoter of socialist economic fantasies, has said that it is time “to focus on the real economy”, as opposed to the monetary economy only.

Bank of Canada Governor Stephen Poloz has recently said that he is putting off further monetary easing, namely through further interest rate cuts, until he evaluates the extent of the fiscal stimulus coming from the federal government.

David Watt, chief economist at HSBC Canada, as per an article in The Globe and Mail of March 12, said:

What we need is more of a change in perception of where we want the economy to go and set the stage for not just government, but for the private sector to start creating jobs...The private sector doesn’t have confidence to start adding jobs and that’s what we need.

What he is saying is that the previous government after 10 years did not create that confidence.

This budget, both subtle in design and forward-looking and comprehensive in scope, will achieve dual results. It will create jobs in the short term by investing in projects to renew Canada's social, green, and public transit infrastructures and it will also spur confidence in the future by acting today to create the conditions needed to support growth in the years ahead.

According to The Economist in its February 20 issue:

The good news is that...Plenty of policies are left, and all can pack a punch. The bad news is that central banks will need help from governments. Until now, central bankers have had to do the heavy lifting because politicians have been...reluctant to share the burden. At least some of them have failed to grasp the need to have fiscal and monetary policy operating in concert. Indeed, many governments actively worked against monetary stimulus by embracing austerity.

I would add that the previous government was repeatedly criticized specifically for pursuing an inherently self-contradictory economic policy.

The Economist goes on to say:

Bond markets and rating agencies will look more kindly on the increase in public debt if there are fresh and productive assets on the other side of the balance sheet. Above all, such assets should involve infrastructure...

In line with this prediction by one of the world's most reputable publications read by leaders and finance ministers around the world, on March 30 The Globe and Mail ran the following heading, “Investors, rating agencies see Liberal deficit plan as manageable”.

The Conservatives believe in markets and market signals. They sometimes even elevate markets to the status of religion and attribute magical powers to markets to solve a whole range of problems that are not necessarily economic in nature.

The financial markets are speaking to the Conservatives right now. Moody's Investors Service's vice-president Steven Hess has said that the deficit is not large as a share of the economy and that the federal debt-to-GDP ratio is low by international standards.

David Madani of Capital Economics has said, “the market’s 'shrug' is hardly a surprise because the risk that the budget’s projected deficits would trigger a surge in Ottawa’s borrowing costs 'is practically zero'.”

To the foregoing I would reference another headline in The Globe and Mail, on March 3, “Big banks urge Ottawa to spend $20-billion in rapid stimulus”.

This is a finely designed budget that focuses on real problems. That is what Canadians wanted and that is what Canadians were expecting.

One of my policy interests is water. I am proud to say that for the first time in as long as I can remember in this House a budget is giving a specific priority to water namely, water filtration and waste water infrastructure. As announced in the budget, there will be $5 billion for green infrastructure of which a large amount will be for water and waste water infrastructure.

Water is becoming a greater priority for Canadians not only because of the impact of climate change on water supplies, but because Canadians are becoming more concerned with the quality of the water in their ecosystem. We have seen this repeatedly with a number of issues. This budget takes a step in the right direction in making water a priority of public policy at the federal level.

The budget is a step in the right direction. There will be more to come in the years to come throughout this mandate. This Liberal government acted quickly to implement a good number of the promises that were discussed in the election campaign and that Canadians resoundingly supported.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned The Globe and Mail, so I am happy to bring up an editorial of March 22 in which the editorial board said, “It’s not building roads or bridges or public transit. It’s ongoing program spending, locked-in and permanent....it’s mostly about writing cheques to seniors, parents, aboriginal Canadians, the unemployed and provincial governments”, which will inevitably lead to higher debt.

In fact, the government, on page 242 annex 1 of the budget, says, “Public debt charges are projected to increase from $25.7 billion in 2015-16 to $35.5 billion in 2020-21...”. It also says that this reflects an increase in borrowing requirements due to a projected rise in interest rates over the forecast horizon.

The government is even admitting that it is expecting interest rates to go up. It is expecting the cost of borrowing to go up. In fact, according to its budget documents, probably the fourth highest spending element on the program side will be debt financing.

What does the member have to say to this, that his government is basically increasing our national debt with absolutely no plan to pay it down?

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, when we run a deficit, we increase debt. This is a truism. There is nothing surprising in that. However, it is important to look at certain important ratios, like the projected ratio of the deficit to GDP. If we look at 2015-16, it will be under 1%. If we look at 2016-17, it will be under 2%. Then by 2019-20, it will be under 1% again.

I would like the hon. member to look at the period in history that saw Conservative governments in power in Ottawa. In 1984-85, the budget deficit, as a percentage of GDP, was 8%; then 7%; then 6%. If we look at the most recent Conservative government, the deficit as a proportion of GDP was higher than we are expecting for the next few years.

I think the figures speak for themselves. Yes, when we have a deficit, we have to borrow. However, long-term interest rates are dropping, and that is a good sign for future interest payments.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will let the Liberals and the Conservatives decide who outspent each other and put us into more deficit and debt. However, the member made some interesting comments. One of them was that the central banks had done the heavy lifting, which is certainly not the case in the United States. In Canada, I remember the days of John Manley, then finance minister, when he tried to bring us toward Americanization of our banks and the New Democrats advocated to keep our banks from doing that. It was a very lonely battle at that.

However, I want to specifically deal with the member's comments with regard to water treatment facilities and improving our fresh water drinking supply, and I commend him for that.

Yesterday I asked a question in the House of Commons which was very germane to this issue. I mentioned that 40 million water drinkers and the ecosystem were at risk because the Liberal government was considering allowing nuclear waste to be stored for up to 100,000 years within less than a kilometre of the Great Lakes. This is opposed by a number of different Democrats and Republicans in the Congress and also in the Senate where they have legislation against this. We also have a letter from our then foreign affairs minister, Mr. Joe Clark, who was an excellent Canadian contributor to all political respects. He opposed the U.S. doing this and it agreed with those terms.

Does the member support putting nuclear waste within a kilometre if the Great Lakes system when there have only been tests done three times in history, with the most recent resulting in a fire and spewing radiation?

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the question is not really about the budget, but I appreciate the hon. member's interest in water issues as well.

I have been speaking to people in that community and learning about the issue. I know evaluations and studies have been done. I also know that the Minister of Environment and Climate Change is looking at the issue. It is a big decision, and I have faith in her ability to do the right thing.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix.

I rise in the House today to speak to the Liberal government's proposed budget or, as I like to call it, the government's line of credit plan, which aims to withdraw a whopping $113 billion, using the future of hard-working Canadians as collateral.

Members probably realize that I am no big fan of the budget. I would like to take a few minutes to explain in detail the various problems in budget 2016, which is mislabelled as “Growing the Middle Class”.

For starters, it is clear the budget does not grow the middle class; it only grows the debt of the middle class. Why is that? It is because the budget is the Liberal's plan to run a projected $29.4 billion deficit this year alone. That is right, nearly $30 billion. That is $20 billion more than the Liberal's campaign promise of running, in the wise words of a certain hon. member of the House, “a teeny-tiny little deficit of $10 billion”.

The budget contains undisciplined spending, has no plan to balance the books, will fail to boost economic growth, and will raise taxes on families, individuals, and corporations. The Conservative Party of Canada does not stand for this, and neither do I.

The bottom line is that over the next five years, Canada will borrow $113 billion, with little to show for it except a raging debt hangover. That is $4,300 for every taxpaying Canadian. The only good thing about having so many Liberals on that side of the floor is that they will be on the hook for a larger percentage of this than our side.

The government is quickly becoming known as one that has misled Canadians on many election promises. These are promises that it obviously had no intention of keeping. It is not just the modest $10-billion deficit promise that the Liberal government has broken with the budget. It has broken its promise to return to a balanced budget within a term, and it has broken the promise to reduce the debt-to-GDP ratio to below current levels in this term.

The Liberal government is selling the new budget as a plan to boost and grow the economy. Unfortunately, budget 2016 has zero plans to make this sales pitch a reality. I would like to point to the most infamous part of the budget, something that the Prime Minister himself tried to sell during the previous election: infrastructure.

The budget allocates $11.9 billion towards what the government calls infrastructure. Unfortunately, only a small minority, $3.4 billion, over 3 years no less, is allocated to improving transit systems across Canada, the hallmark infrastructure investment that the government promised in the recent election. That is $3.4 billion over three years across the entire country, to build subways, LRT lines, and expand and improve other modes of transportation. What a shame, especially when we consider that much of this funding had already been promised under our previous government. The cost of the proposed 32-kilometre expansion of the Toronto subway system, for example, rings in at $9 billion. Even if the government were to fund only one-third of the cost, not the half that it was promising, it would deplete nearly all of the funds allocated for public transit expansion infrastructure. The rest of the country would see virtually nothing for their transit systems.

Staying on the topic of infrastructure fairness for Canadians, it disappoints me to see the allocation of infrastructure spending across the country in budget 2016. My home province of Alberta is only set to receive $347 million for public transit expansion over the next two years, which is 10% of the amount of funds available. Yet, Alberta holds 12% of Canada's population, leaving Alberta underfunded 13% on a per capita basis. I shudder to think what would happen if we were not fortunate enough to have the Minister of Infrastructure himself in Alberta.

Meanwhile, Ontario is set to receive $1.5 billion for public transit expansion. That is 44% of the total funds available, yet it has 38% of the country's population. Quebec is to receive 27% of the funds, yet it holds just 23% of the population.

This means that Albertans will see significant delays in projects like the Edmonton LRT extension and the Calgary CTrain long-term extension, as federal funding for these projects will fall far short of the needed financing. Clearly, fairness is not of importance to the Liberal government. In fact, I brought up this exact point a couple of weeks ago, right after this very budget was tabled in the House.

The budget claims to extend employment insurance benefits to areas across the country that are facing economic hardship. However, the problem with the EI extension plan is that the Liberal government is omitting certain areas of the country that are being significantly impacted by an economic downturn. Take, for example, my hometown of Edmonton. It is a well known that the entire province of Alberta is currently facing a severe economic downturn, a slowdown made worse by the government's poisoned attitude towards pipelines.

As members know, the energy sector is what drives Alberta's economy and many other industries throughout the province. Construction, mechanics, tourism, housing, and the service industry all rely on the wealth and growth of the energy sector. They are industries that are under stress right now.

Yet, as the energy sector has largely slowed down, leading to thousands of layoffs in Alberta, the city of Edmonton has been excluded from this government's EI extension plan. Why? It is because the government says that the statistical unemployment rate in Edmonton capital region is too low for the government's standards. However, what the government does not seem to understand is that the Edmonton region employment sector is dominated by government employment, and this artificially lowers the region's unemployment number in comparison to other regions. While it is great to see that the unemployment rate in the Edmonton capital region is lower than the rest of Alberta, it does not mean that there are not thousands of laid-off employees in an area that has been hit hard by the collapse in the energy sector.

Our own Edmonton Liberal MPs have been missing in action when it comes to speaking up for unemployed people in Edmonton. Tellingly, the Liberal member for Edmonton Centre himself commented that Edmonton was snubbed because it has not felt the same dramatic jump in unemployment as other parts of Canada.

In April of 2015, unemployment in Edmonton was 5.8%. Today Edmonton's unemployment rate is 6.9%, which is a 19% jump in one year. Yet the Liberal government is waiting for a dramatic increase to happen before assisting laid-off Edmontonians. A 19% increase in unemployment in one year is the cold hard mathematics that the Prime Minister speaks of but does not seem to understand. However, what is not cold hard math is that these are real people who are suffering. They are not mere numbers but real people. I guess the Liberal mantra of “a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian” does not apply if one is from Edmonton or has the wrong postal code.

I wrote to the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour about this issue, voicing the concerns of our constituents. While I hope the minister will take this into consideration, I also hope that the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister will take into consideration the grave consequences of the debt of this budget.

The fact remains that the Liberals are on a spending spree, with absolutely no plan for paying back the tens of billions of borrowed dollars. However, what is clear is that today's debt will have to be paid by tomorrow's taxpayers, which means our children, grandchildren, and their children will have to pay for the spending being proposed in this budget.

I, as a responsible individual, cannot in good conscience support a budget that does this. I cannot agree to indebting our children. It is unjust, unfair, and simply un-Canadian. We ought to be paving the way forward for the next generation, making life better for them, and not indebting them with billions upon billions of dollars of debt.

It is for these reasons that I will not be supporting this budget.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for his passionate speech, but again I need to point out that the party opposite has a twisted view of economics and of the last 10 years.

This is a party that ran seven straight deficits. This is a party that came forth with a smokescreen surplus in the last year of its mandate by throwing in EI funds, GM stock sale funds, and then the rainy-day fund. Let me be very clear. The rainy-day fund maybe could have been used to help the province of Alberta, but the Conservatives did not. .

Alberta's problems did not happen in the last five or six months; they happened over the last 10 years. Therefore, the party opposite is very responsible for the same economic position that we see today.

The member talked about mortgaging our future for our children and our grandchildren. Was it not the Conservative's former finance minister who said that Mr. Harper's grandchildren were going to have to pay for the tax-free savings account?

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I would remind the hon. member that the right hon. member for the riding of Calgary Heritage remains a member of this House, and we do not use the proper names of other hon. members.

The hon. member for Edmonton West.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to revisit the member's comments.

If you go back in time, I think you will remember that it was your party that teamed up with the separatist Bloc Québécois and the NDP, and the coalition demanded an immediate $50-billion deficit. This was during the worst economic period since the Great Depression. We are not in a great economic recession. The economy is actually growing now. It is mind-boggling that the member would compare massive irresponsible deficit spending during a time of economic growth with a time of great collapse.

With regard to your comment about Alberta, I would point out the Conservative's support for the province of Alberta. In the last 10 years of a Conservative government, there was $3.4 billion of infrastructure spending. Let us go back 10 years to the Liberal era. I have to put my reading glasses on because the number is so small. There was $351 million for Alberta. Therefore, do not sit over there and lecture me on supporting my home province.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I would remind the hon. member to address his comments and responses, all remarks in fact in the House, to the Chair.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Regina—Lewvan.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Edmonton West for his remarks. It has been a pleasure working with him on the government operations committee.

He is quite right to point to the hard economic times in Edmonton and that his city is very deserving of being included in the budget's extension of employment insurance benefits. Things are even worse in my province of Saskatchewan, which is not benefiting from the progressive policies of Rachel Notley's government. The last labour force survey from Statistics Canada showed that full-time employment in Saskatchewan had fallen by 2.4% over the past year, the largest drop of any province west of Prince Edward Island.

I wonder if the member for Edmonton West would agree that Regina and southern Saskatchewan also need to be included in the budget's extension of employment insurance benefits.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Regina—Lewvan for his question. I hope he enjoyed a wonderful week in Edmonton, my hometown, recently.

I agree with him that the EI policy needs to be reviewed for Regina as well. The region includes a lot of hard-hit oil areas, and it is disgraceful that the Liberal government is not addressing this issue.

I will take offence to his comments about our colleague Rachel Notley. I think she is more of a hindrance than a help in Alberta, but I fully agree with my colleague that there needs to be more for Regina and the hard-hit people in that region as well.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of rising in the House to speak to the budget.

On March 22, I listened carefully as the Minister of Finance presented this government's budget. The Liberals are using a line of credit without worrying about the limit. This is a far cry from their election promise to borrow a modest sum of $10 billion a year, which was completely ridiculous, in my opinion. That amount was set aside and replaced with an amount of no less than $30 billion for this year alone.

I am wondering whether Canadians think that a deficit of over $100 billion over four years is a modest deficit.

What is more, I was not at all surprised to learn that the Liberals had no plan to return to a balanced budget. That term has been deleted from the Liberal dictionary. The Liberals are promising to put our country into debt, but they have not presented any sort of plan or approach for putting an end to this spending spree.

Since we are debating the budget, I would like to remind the House that government budgets involve spending other people's money. The government members, on the other side of the House, seem to have all too easily forgotten that.

It seems as though the Minister of Finance closed his eyes, took a shot, and hoped to hit as many targets as possible. This is an unfocused, directionless budget.

The budget does not have a plan for how and when to return to a balanced budget. However, the government will make up the difference by increasing taxes for families, young people, and businesses.

This government should take some more time to think about the families in our ridings that are having a hard time making ends meet, paying their mortgages, and paying their grocery and other bills.

Families are already footing the bill for the Liberals' spending promises through increases in the costs associated with enrolling children in sports, arts programs, and post-secondary studies.

The Liberals abolished income splitting, the children's fitness tax credit, the children's arts tax credit, and the post-secondary education and textbook tax credits. While the Liberals are busy spending other people's money, it is easy for them to forget that they have access to all of this money as a result of the former Conservative government's policies, not their own.

We implemented targeted stimulus programs to help create and maintain about 200,000 jobs. We kept our promise to balance the budget, and we left the Liberals a $3.2-billion surplus. We lowered taxes to the lowest rates in 50 years and we put more money back into Canadians' pockets, while at the same time balancing the budget.

Unfortunately, instead of focusing on lowering taxes for Canadian families, this government is playing politics with family benefits. On top of that, the Liberal government will force the provinces to charge a national carbon tax that will cost Canadian families about $1,000 a year. This government is not helping to grow the middle class, and Canadian families will once again pay the price.

I also noticed that this reckless budget plan will only make government bigger and will do nothing to create jobs. There is nothing to help unemployed Canadians get back to work.

Small and medium-sized businesses are the pillars of our society and our economy, but there are no measures here to help them diversify or grow. These are the businesses that create jobs, and that is what Canadians really need right now. Those same businesses will have to foot the bill for the Liberals' spending spree.

During the campaign, the Liberals promised to cut small business taxes from 11% to 9%. Unfortunately, they got rid of that tax cut. The Minister of Small Business and Tourism even said that she would work closely with the Minister of Finance to keep their promise to reduce the small business tax burden.

The small business tax cut was undeniably a Liberal election platform promise in 2015. That promise was broken, as was the promise to cap the deficit at $10 billion.

Stability enables businesses to prosper. Budget 2016 means that the only thing businesses can be sure of is fiscal uncertainty. These businesses are important to our regions. It is clear to me that the government has completely abandoned them in this budget. There are precious few measures to foster job creation and development.

The government decided to build on the work of the previous government, our government, to renew the broadband connection program to promote digital access, but that is the only ray of hope here for our regions.

Here is an example of an initiative currently under way in my area. It is critical for the survival of our small businesses to make citizens aware of the impact of choosing to do their shopping close to home.

In my riding, in the Charlevoix area, there is currently a buy-local campaign, aimed at supporting our small and large businesses. I strongly support this campaign, because its goal is to boost our businesses with small, concrete measures, in order to preserve our stores close to home. It is this kind of initiative that we should encourage, in order to promote regional development. This is a good example to give the Liberal government.

The government has done away with aid to the regions of Quebec and Canada. It has failed to make the necessary effort to ensure the vitality of our regions, which are the economic heart of our country.

Unfortunately, it is not the only sector that the government has abandoned. With regard to official languages and la Francophonie, I am very disappointed in the government’s budget. There are no concrete measures to strengthen francophone and anglophone minority communities. In a country like ours, promoting bilingualism is important. I am disappointed that the government has turned its back on many of those communities.

In addition, as official opposition critic for la Francophonie, I was dumbfounded to see that there was no reference to Canada’s francophone partners in the budget.

At the last meeting of the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie in Dakar, the partners adopted a resolution recognizing the important role that the private sector must play in implementing the economic strategy for La Francophonie, especially its components dealing with promoting French as a language of work and a driver of economic growth.

It is also important to strengthen co-operation with francophone regional economic communities in order to boost regional integration, which is a driver of market expansion, economic vitality and job creation. The government’s budget is a missed opportunity to pursue our commitment to la Francophonie. In my opinion, it was a good opportunity to do so.

To conclude, I would like to say that the budget ignores a number of sectors of our society, including families, small and medium-sized businesses, and official languages, despite the lovely promise of a deficit of more than $100 billion over four years.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, could my colleague tell us where she gets the idea that the Conservatives were able to generate a $3.4-billion surplus between 2015 and 2016? If we look at the monthly figures instead of the annual figures, we can interpret them in all sorts of creative ways, but the reality is that the Conservative government’s balanced budget contained a deficit of more than $5 billion for the fiscal year. Indeed, there is only one Conservative prime minister who succeeded in eliminating a deficit and generating a surplus, and that dates back to the 19th century.

Would my colleague care to admit that, historically, the Conservatives have been chronically incapable of managing a budget?

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

Historically, the biggest spenders have always been the Liberals. We succeeded in balancing a budget, and in Mr. Flaherty, God rest his soul, we had the best minister of finance.