Debates of June 14th, 2016

Concurrence in Vote 1—Infrastructure Canada

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, who has vast experience in municipal politics.

I thank her for her comments because she truly understands the needs of the municipalities, not just in urban areas, but also in rural areas, as I do. I can tell her, and I think that the House has taken note, that the minister said that we would go up to 50% during phase one of the historic infrastructure investment program. That is quite significant compared to the position of the previous Conservative government, which was not prepared to go this far. We have taken this step because we are aware of the tax pressure our municipalities are under.

I would very much like to continue answering my colleague but I see that my time is up. I will have the opportunity to answer her in private.

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

Madam Speaker, the revisionist history of the current government is absolutely incredible. What the Liberals are forgetting is an economic action plan that rolled infrastructure money out the door very rapidly, but the Conservatives did not have a minister who needed to spend almost $1 million on furniture. If they are going to roll out the infrastructure program the way they have rolled out setting up offices, Canadians have a lot to be concerned about.

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Madam Speaker, Canadians had a lot to be concerned about. That is why they elected us after 10 years of Conservative government. That is why we are in power today.

What I can say about infrastructure is that if the previous government did such a good job, I am surprised that I have heard across Canada that we need to make an historic investment, which we are making, of $120 billion in infrastructure. That is an investment that should have been made before and that we are committed to making for the good of Canadians.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak in the context of this debate, and I will let the House know right away that I plan to share my time with my colleague from Red Deer—Lacombe.

Why are we gathered here this evening? We are talking about the implementation of the budget, specifically the infrastructure file. I really need to set the record straight on some things that my government colleagues just said, which were not quite true. When people say that the Conservatives ignored infrastructure investment, that is false. Never in Canada's history has a government been so dedicated to investing in infrastructure as ours was.

The final budget introduced under the right hon. member for Calgary Heritage included over $80 billion in investments. The difference is that we did it with a balanced budget. That adjective is missing from the Canadian Liberal dictionary. Balanced budgets no longer exist. That is the defining feature of this government, its management, and its administration. Unfortunately, our children and grandchildren will pay for this extravagance. They will pay for the Liberals' bad management.

It is also important to point out that we think investments are important, and when it comes to infrastructure, those investments need to be made under a minister. I hear the opposition members saying that there was no infrastructure minister back in the day. That is false. That is not true. The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean was responsible for economic development for the Quebec regions, among others. He was the one who allocated the sums available to Quebec. Need I remind the House that those investments in Quebec are made based on recommendations from the provincial government? We worked in partnership with the provincial government and the municipalities, and we made huge investments.

A picture is worth a thousand words. When it comes to managing public funds, the current government is unfortunately demonstrating just how ugly mismanagement can get. This begins first and foremost with the minister's own office. The current Minister of Infrastructure and Communities, who is responsible for spending the billions of dollars entrusted to him appropriately, is going about it all wrong in his own ministerial office. This speaks volumes about his ability to manage money. When he is incapable of managing even his own office properly, imagine how how poorly he will manage the rest of the money that has been entrusted to him.

The fact that he spent $800,000 to set up his office is indecent and unacceptable. Anyone who did that in the private sector, anyone who would sign off on spending $800,000 for their own office, would be immediately shown the door. I do not know what the cost of the door would be, but we could save a lot of money there, that is for sure.

That is why I was very happy to hear the speeches given by our colleagues, particularly the member for Mégantic—L'Érable, who gave a humourous yet woefully accurate description of the reality and this government's lack of vision.

The member for Mégantic—L'Érable went to what I would go so far as to call absurd lengths to show how someone could equip an office for $10,000 rather than $800,000, which is what the others spent. The minister could have gotten everything he needed for 30 people in his office for $10,000 and that would have been that, but no, this spendthrift government that is in party mode is spending money it does not have. This government has absolutely no vision when it comes to the proud and careful management of public funds, which is something that a government should have. The fact that this government spent almost a million dollars on an office is completely unacceptable.

Should we be surprised that a senior minister who is responsible for spending and carefully monitoring the billions of dollars entrusted to him spent $800,000 on his private office? No, that comes as no surprise because that is this government's signature. This government spends recklessly. This government has completely lost its mind and lost control over public spending. This government said one thing during the election campaign and has been doing the opposite ever since it took office.

Look no further than the budget and the astronomical deficits that this sad government has announced. Let us remember that during the election campaign, the current Prime Minister travelled all over Canada telling people that his party was going to run only small deficits.

He said that it was a tiny deficit of $10 billion, nothing more, nothing less. He said that it would be only $10 billion and that three years from now, everything would be set. There would just be three difficult years of $10 billion, and after that, we would get back on track.

That is all wrong. For the first year, it is $30 billion. That is the reality. That is the signature of the Liberal government.

The government announced a small $10-billion deficit, but the deficit will actually be $30 billion. Now we see how the Liberals can afford to spend $800,000 on an office. They are living beyond their means, but there is nothing there.

My colleague from Shawinigan keeps saying that we need to put money back in people's pockets. During the election campaign, the Liberals said that their tax changes would not cost anything. In reality, the deficit for the tax changes alone is $1.7 billion.

The Liberals said that they needed to give money back to families, as though we had done nothing. Does the UCCB not ring a bell? They do not seem to remember that last summer, Canadian families had access to the universal child care benefit. That was money for families. It was our program, and it was managed in a balanced way.

Now, the Liberals say that they want to give more money to parents for their children, in a balanced way. We end up with a $1.4-billion deficit. That is what we get under Liberal management. The Liberals say that this will be done in a balanced way, but what we are seeing is the complete opposite.

That is why we have a minister who is responsible for spending billions of dollars but ends up spending $800,000 on his office. The Liberals have completely lost control of government spending. They are living beyond their means, but so what.

Some of my colleagues opposite are looking at me sideways. I want to remind them that spending $800,000 on an office is not acceptable. The minister could have followed the lead of the current Minister of Finance, who set up a new office for $1,400. That is pretty good.

It is true that the Minister of Finance had just been appointed and that, in a previous life, he was an experienced businessman who knew how to manage things properly. Unfortunately, he lost control of public finances. Members will recall that he wrote a very interesting book about the sound management of public funds entitled The Real Retirement: Why You Could Be Better Off Than You Think, and How to Make That Happen.

As an experienced businessman, he said in this book that it was an excellent idea to increase the retirement age to 67, among other things. That is unfortunate. Now that he is a Liberal minister, he is rolling back the retirement age to 65. That is the kind of Liberal management that is leading us into a black hole. It is not the right thing to do.

Last week in Quebec City, the Minister of Families, a member from Quebec, was proud to announce a $10-million investment in the Diamant project.

Do not get me wrong. We have nothing against the Diamant project, but the point is this: Where was it in the campaign?

During the election campaign, the Liberals did not say anything about a $10-million investment in that project. That is a fact.

However, although they are investing $10 million in a project that they did not commit to, they scrapped the funding promised to the INO and the amount that should have gone to the Institut nordique du Québec. Furthermore, they have completely turned their backs on the Quebec Bridge file.

The Liberals make big announcements, boast about their fine principles, and say that they are proud to invest $10 million in culture in Quebec City. I have nothing against that, but once again, they need to have the means to pay for it. Can they assume their responsibilities and keep the election promises they have broken? They need to be careful.

When I became a member of Parliament, there was a lot of equipment in my riding office. I took only what I needed and donated the rest to charitable organizations in my riding.

If I had known that the Liberals were about to spend $800,000, I would have asked the minister to come to my riding office and take whatever he needed. That would not have cost anything. However, the government has decided to live beyond its means. That is unacceptable.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities]

Madam Speaker, my colleague is talking about deficits, but he has a short memory. The Conservatives left us with not one, not two, not three, not four, but seven deficits. They added an extra $150 billion to the debt. Why? Does my colleague want to see the results? They left $750 million in partisan ads.

The hon. member was not here at the time, but we had gazebos by the shovelful, a fake lake with fake ducks that went quack quack, a sidewalk that ended at a tree, and washrooms for the delegates 12 kilometres away from the conference centre. That is the legacy of the Conservatives.

Seriously, the Conservatives had the opportunity to invest, but lost two construction seasons. Why?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I invite my colleague to show some restraint. I would ask him to have a less dramatic style. Having a more contained response is always best.

I would like to invite my colleague to remember the reality of the facts. Where was he in 2008, 2009, and 2010? I presume he was on planet Earth. What was happening at the time on planet Earth? It was the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Fortunately it was the Conservatives, under the leadership of the right hon. member for Calgary Heritage, who were in charge. Imagine what state Canada would be in if by some misfortune those people were in government 10 years ago. We would really be in the hole. Fortunately we were the ones at the helm.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

As everyone knows, Canadian household debt levels are worrisome, and that makes families acutely aware of the impact of debt on a budget. What I hear every week when I go back to my riding, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, is that people are worried and the government needs to know. Every week, I meet people who are worried about this government's spending. People tell me that they are concerned about the future of their children and grandchildren. They feel compelled to express that concern.

I would like to know if my colleague has been hearing the same kind of thing.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, that is precisely the difference between our vision and this government's.

This government is living on credit, and our great-grandchildren, who are not even born yet, will have to pay for this government's over-spending and bad management. How nice that they can hand out money to everyone and that nine million Canadians will have more money in their pockets. Nobody is against that, as long as the government has the means, which is not the case right now.

A $30-billion deficit means that our grandchildren will have to pay that $30 billion back later on. This is like someone with a net household income of $50,000 spending $55,000. Eventually, it stops working, it backfires, the system breaks down. They can let loose for a night, but they cannot do it for four years. Unfortunately, this government is leading the country into a disastrous situation for our public finances. I urge the government to change course.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend for Louis-Saint-Laurent for his very enlightening speech and for educating us and reminding us of some of the past troubles that the Liberals have had. I am glad he brought up things like the ad scam and Shawinigate.

As we are talking about the $825,000 office of the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities, I would ask my colleague if this reminds him a little of David Dingwall's statement that Liberals are entitled to their entitlements.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague is very right, because unfortunately the government failed to recognize the reality of how to deal correctly with the public finances of the people.

Also, it reminds us of the dark years under the Liberal government, especially the 1970s when we lived so much higher than expected that we have to pay today for the expenses of 40 years ago under the leadership of the Right Hon. Pierre Elliott Trudeau, the father of today's Liberal Prime Minister.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am thrilled to have the opportunity to speak on behalf of my constituents of the brand new riding of Red Deer—Lacombe. I am happy to have the opportunity to represent such great hard-working people.

I wish the Liberals would get out of the way of some of the economic things that are holding us back when it comes to pipeline approvals and so on, because there are a lot of folks in central Alberta who would love to get back to work and pay their fair share of taxes. The deficit might not be so high if we did.

The motion that we have before us today deals with the Minister of Infrastructure and his lavish spending. I want to be clear for the record so that Canadians who are watching right now understand what this is about. This is almost $1 million in renovations for 32 staff members. I went on to the government employment site. According to that there are only 12 people in the minister's office and six people in the deputy minister's office. Those numbers to me total 18. If the minister says there are 32, I will give him the benefit of the doubt. We know what a Liberal job creation program looks like. It is just about taxes and hiring people to work for the government. We will see that time and time again over the next four years.

The renovation costs for the minister's own office amounted to $204,889. The renovation costs for the deputy minister's office amounted to $138,673. The cost of furniture for both offices came to $486,378. This gives us a grand total of $835,252. That is money that we had to take out of hard-working taxpayers' pockets just so the new Minister of Infrastructure could have a lavish office, a minister who comes from Edmonton where politicians ought to know that when they start spending taxpayers' dollars on lavish entitlements for themselves and things like the sky palace that Alison Redford had and now sky palace 2.0 for the Minister of Infrastructure, Albertans for sure do not tolerate this kind of behaviour.

I want to put things into perspective as to what $835,000 or almost $1 million would get us.

In my riding of Red Deer—Lacombe, previously the riding of Wetaskiwin, the town of Bentley had a memorial park playground for $465,000 for Canada 150 that it applied for. Everybody in the community could have used this playground for many years to come, not an office for a couple of bureaucrats in downtown Ottawa.

Ponoka Splash Park wanted to upgrade to make it safer. They asked for a mere $28,150. Ironically, that is about the same as the cost of one of the offices for the 32 staff members. If we divide $800,000 by 32 that gets us a safe splash park or an office for one staffer who is likely only going to be there for four years.

The Ponoka Ag Event Centre had a request for a digital sign, a storage shed, permanent seating for the wonderful events it puts on there, indoor roping events and so on with horses and dressage, all these kinds of things. It is looking for $242,000. I am sure taxpayers in Ponoka in central Alberta would have much rather seen their tax dollars come back to their constituency to be spent on infrastructure investments for them not on a minister's office.

The sewer system and lagoon in the town of Bentley would cost $190,000. The Lacombe Athletic Park wanted $210,000. We could have repaved the whole village of Clyde for about $500,000. The Thorsby Seniors Club building renovation only wanted $20,000. The Calmar Arena upgrades would cost $500,000 so the kids could play hockey for many years to come. Instead, the newly minted Minister of Infrastructure needed a nice new office.

In fact, the Ponoka splash park, the Bentley sewer system and lagoon reconstruction, the Lacombe Athletic Park, the Thorsby Seniors Club, the Ponoka Ag Event Centre, and the Mirror and District Museum projects would have all been funded for $700,000. That is less than what the Minister of Infrastructure spent.

The money comes out of the pockets of the taxpayers who live in these communities. It should go back to these communities in the form of investments, but no, it is going into the minister's office.

The next question I have is this. What could we do with $1 million? What would we do with $1 million if we had to make a decision like the Minister of Infrastructure did? Thankfully, we do not have to ask everybody. We just have to ask the Barenaked Ladies, because the Barenaked Ladies back in the eighties published a song entitled If I Had A Million Dollars. If I had a million dollars, what would I do?

If I had a million dollars
Well, I'd buy you a house.

It turns out that the average cost of a home in the minister's riding is $283,000. He could have bought three homes in his riding, putting homeless people in his riding inside a home, but no, he has a nice office.

If I had a million dollars
I'd buy you furniture for your house
Maybe a nice Chesterfield or an ottoman

We know there are nice chesterfields out there. For about $15,625 per office suite, they have brand spanking new furniture, and I am sure there are a couple of ottomans thrown in there. By the way, the average Canadian household spends about $2,000 a year on new furnishings, so this is looking pretty good for those 32 lucky people who are going to have those pretty swanky new renovated offices to work in.

If I had a million dollars
Well, I'd buy you a K-Car
A nice Reliant automobile

In its prime, the K-car went for $5,880 brand new. That is 142 K-cars that the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities could have bought for Canadians who had transportation needs, but no, we are not going to get that from the minister.

I'd build a tree-fort in our yard

Five hundred dollars built me a tree fort for my kids. It was not quite that lavish, but that is 1,670 tree houses. Does a tree house not remind everyone of a sky palace, or sky palace 2.0 perhaps?

...you could help
It wouldn't be that hard

He should be asking John Baird for help, because John Baird as minister spent $42 billion on things that Canadians actually needed. He did so with complete approval from the Auditor General, not a questionable expense, and he did it in his half-time role as the minister of infrastructure. It is kind of ironic that a fully dedicated minister could not find a cheaper way to do it than a half-time minister could.

Maybe we could put a little tiny fridge
In there somewhere

They could have pre-wrapped bacon and sausages laid out.

But they don't have pre-wrapped bacon
However, bacon goes for about $1 for 100 grams. Therefore, we could have bought 83,500,000 grams of bacon or 42 tonnes of bacon. The minister could have brought home 42 tonnes of bacon with that money, but no, he just has a nice office.

If I had a million dollars
Well, I'd buy you a fur coat
But not a real fur coat, that's cruel

I do not necessarily subscribe to that point of view, but an average fur coat costs about $2,000. Therefore, we could have lavishly outfitted some homeless people who were looking for coats. We could have done it for 417 people, nice seal skin coats to keep them nice and warm, but no, the minister needed new office renovations instead.

Well, I'd buy you an exotic pet
Yep, like a llama or an emu

Did everyone know that a llama today is about $50. We could have bought 16,700 llamas. We could be the llama capital of North America if only the minister had some vision that went beyond his own immediate needs of putting together a very lavish office for himself.

The song goes on to talk about John Merrick's remains. I have nothing funny to say to that, so I am going to pass.

However, if the minister had $1 million, he would not have to walk to the store. It actually costs about $20,000 to stock a convenience store, by the way. That is 41 stores worth of products that we could put out there for Canadians' needs, but no, we are not going to do that.

He could take a limousine because it costs more. He is a Liberal. I expect he will be taking a limousine everywhere he goes.

If I had a million dollars
We wouldn't have to eat Kraft Dinner

Kraft Dinner goes for $1 a box or about 25¢ a meal. That is 3,340,000 meals of Kraft Dinner that we could have fed people who needed to go to food banks, or whatever the case might be, but no, instead we got some nice furniture for the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities.

We could have even got the fanciest ketchup, Dijon ketchup. That is 240,000 bottles of ketchup.

Well, I'd buy you a green dress
But not a real green dress...

No, Statistics Canada says household expenses on clothing are about $3,500. We could have clothed 238 homes with that money.

Well, I'd buy you some art
A Picasso or a Garfunkel

If he is getting Art Garfunkel to perform at the taxpayers' expense, I need to know.

Well, I'd buy you a monkey
Haven't you always wanted a monkey?

A monkey at a pet store costs about $2,500, which is 334 monkeys. That is one for every member of Parliament: a monkey for that member, a monkey for that member, that member, and that member. We could all have monkeys. As a matter of fact, I think the folks at home watching this right now might actually say something about that. The point of the matter is that there are so many more things we could do with this money.

The last line of the song says:

If I had a million dollars
I'd be rich!

It is pretty rich that the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities spent $834,000 on his own office.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities]

Madam Speaker, the member's colleague from Quebec City must be very disappointed because I agree with him. This is a serious debate. I understand that my colleague wants to have some fun, but we are talking about important and serious matters here.

I would also like to mention that he seems to have a selective memory. I spoke a little earlier about how the Conservatives spent money on fake lakes, fake ducks, gazebos, and sidewalks leading nowhere. If my colleague is asking us to imagine what can be done with a million dollars, I would like to ask him to imagine what could have been done with the $750 million his party spent on partisan advertising.

What could have been purchased with that money? What could have been purchased with the $21 million that had to be spent auditing the senators appointed by the former government? What about the $16 glasses of orange juice for Conservative ministers? The member did not mention any of that. He seems to have a selective memory.

My question remains the same. The Conservatives had the opportunity to make serious investments in infrastructure. Why did they not do so?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Madam Speaker, at least I was part of a government that could be proud to advertise a program that was worth delivering to Canadians, one that actually balanced the budgets, one that kept taxes the lowest in 50 years, one that delivered more infrastructure program spending than any other government in Canadian history.

I am very proud of that record. I have nothing to apologize for, insofar as that is concerned.

What have the Liberals actually got, after 10 years? There was $750 million spent on advertising; that was completely legitimate. There was a $16 glass of orange juice, and $93,000 that was inappropriately paid back to the taxpayers.

We can just wait and see what we are going to see with these guys at the end of four years.

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

Madam Speaker, “If I had a million dollars”, I would buy a hospice that could give palliative care to Canadians; I would buy youth shelter infrastructure for $350,000, which we need in Sarnia—Lambton.

I am offended. When the offices were given out, we had to wait for the party whips to give all of the Liberal government their offices before we were awarded our offices. With five office buildings, I certainly got a fine office that would have housed them.

I wonder if the member can comment on whether his office is fine.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Madam Speaker, my office is more than fine. I have been there for about 10 years and, God willing, I will be there for a few more. However, the point my colleague makes is well taken.

All kidding aside, taxpayers work very hard for their money. I remember picking rocks and roots out of the field when I was a kid on the family farm. We bought a quarter section of land and cleared it. When I came in, the only white thing on me was my eyes and my teeth. I was covered in dirt from doing back-breaking work when I was a teenager, growing up on that farm.

I have laid tile. I was a tile-setter. I spent hours on my hands and knees, laying tile until there was sweat on my brow and my back was aching, so that I could pay taxes, just to have them squandered by decisions like this.

I am not saying that every decision the Liberals are going to make will be a bad one, but our job in the opposition is to point out a bad decision when we see one. It is regrettable that I have to shame the minister this way, but I have to do my job as a critic and as a member of the opposition to make darn sure that these kinds of lavish expenses are not made again.

That office could have been furnished a lot cheaper. We know that is true, because we have never had to do it when we were in government. All the other ministries that had to change as a result of the change of government did not have to do it. Why this one?

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague spoke about spending, but there are some things he is forgetting. I said that the Conservatives left us not one, not two, not three, not four, not five, not six, but seven deficits. My colleague is also forgetting that the Conservatives left a $150-billion debt for future generations.

My colleague said that the Conservatives had to make investments, but the truth is that they invested only once in infrastructure. They did so only because we forced them to because they were going to prorogue Parliament. That was the most undemocratic action ever taken in the history of this Parliament.

My question remains the same. Why did the Conservatives not invest in infrastructure after they promised to do so?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Madam Speaker, I was here when that happened.

Here is the recollection I have. In 2008-09, we saw the start of the global financial crisis, the worst financial crisis in modern history. I remember when the leader of the Liberal Party, the leader of the Bloc Québécois, and the leader of the NDP made a three-way pact to take the reins of government away from the duly elected government at the time, because they were not spending enough money.

They wanted more money to be spent. Then, after they got what they wanted, all they did was complain about the deficit. Which one is it?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order.

It being 9 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

Call in the members.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition motion—Internal Trade

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion relating to the business of supply.

The question is as follows. Shall I dispense?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

[Chair read text of motion to House]

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #90

Business of Supply

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I declare the motion defeated.

The House resumed consideration of Motion No. 1.