House of Commons Hansard #240 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was money.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes
Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, Taxation; the hon. member for Drummond, Official Languages.
Resuming debate. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Madam Speaker, just listening to the previous speaker reminds me of the degree to which the NDP love to put a spin on things. Let me just comment on a couple of the things the member across the way makes reference to.
He talked about the importance of a national pharmacare program. I believe there are many members of this chamber who are striving to achieve that. I know my colleagues, at least on the government benches, are very much committed to strive toward that. We have a Standing Committee on Health that is working on that and inviting stakeholders to its meetings. It was in the midst of a report when the NDP had a flash of an idea and took the idea from the standing committee and presented it inside the chamber, not allowing the standing committee to do its fine work. True to form, the NDP likes to think that if it is a good idea it has to be an NDP idea.
The member just made reference to the housing strategy, that it might be a big plan but that we are not spending money on it today. I inform the member across the way that we are spending money today. Every year, the national government spends hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidizing national housing. However, this is historic because this is the first time we are getting the type of money we are seeing invested not only for today but into the future for a national housing strategy. Instead of at times trying to recognize the fine work the government is doing, the NDP tends to navel gaze and wants to look at where it can criticize and how it can say it is better than the government.
The member talked about tax fairness. One of my favourite lines is that the NDP likes to come across as if it thinks the rich and corporations should be taxed and the money given to the poor. That is the standard line that it likes to say. When I was in the provincial Manitoba legislature, where the NDP was in government for far too many years, it actually reduced corporate taxes from 16.5% to 12%. That was the NDP in government in the province of Manitoba—
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Madam Speaker, that is right, we are in Ottawa. That is very observant of the member opposite.
What did the members in Ottawa have to say? When it came to putting a tax on Canada's wealthiest, what did they do? They voted against it. What did they do when it came time to support Canada's middle class? The member opposite says that it was brought in because of the salaries of MPs. No, that is not true.
The difference between us and the New Democrats is that the Government of Canada supports its middle class and those striving to be a part of it to the degree that it brought in a middle-class tax cut that put hundreds of millions of dollars into the pockets of its middle class. I am talking about teachers, health care workers, and factory floor workers. Millions of Canadians had their disposable income increase, had that tax break, and what did the NDP do? It voted against that too.
Then we take a look at New Democrats wanting tax fairness. Once again, we have a government that wants to—
The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes
The hon. member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert is rising on a point of order.
Pierre Nantel NDP Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC
Madam Speaker, I will not lie: it is good to switch off this member's loudspeaker. The truth is that that this man’s speech has nothing to do with the business that is before us today. He spends his life blaming us for our positions. He should talk about the topic at hand, Bill C-63.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes
The hon. member knows that there is some latitude when members are speaking. However, I also know that the parliamentary secretary raised several points of order today regarding the relevance of speeches. I would ask him to make sure that his own speech be relevant to the bill that is before the House.
The hon. parliamentary secretary.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Madam Speaker, I will do just that. I may actually do a bit more than that. However, before I do that, I can appreciate the sensitivity because when New Democrats hear the truth it makes them feel a bit uncomfortable in their seats.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
The truth hurts at times but the truth needs to be said.
Madam Speaker, I have done quite well in terms of not standing up, because I hear many members of the opposition stand in their place and talk about the exact same things that I am talking about, but maybe not being as harsh on my friends in the NDP. I will try to stay away from being so harsh and look at ways in which we are supposed to be adding further thoughts on today. That is the issue of the infrastructure investment and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. That is what the NDP moved an amendment on to the budget. I realize very few members have actually talked about that, but I want to at the very least make reference to it because what we hear from across the way is again a false impression.
The members tried to give the impression that Canada is actually spending money on infrastructure in China in a very significant way. I thought it was interesting that one of the most significant investments that it made was actually in the Philippines. In the Philippines, where there were issues related to flooding, there was a commitment of just under half a billion dollars providing flood protection. Flood protection is important, I know. Manitoba is a province that has often had floods, and we have invested in flood protection and it works. It has saved the City of Winnipeg billions of dollars over the years.
We have the Asian infrastructure bank, which does some fine work that might not have taken place. Not that long ago, some serious floods took place in the Philippines and at the time members on all sides of this House stood up and called on the Canadian government to do something. We had individuals in every region in our country; it went far beyond the Filipino heritage community, which continues to grow and be prosperous and add to our very rich heritage. People responded to the flooding in the Philippines, not only by providing comments but by providing hundreds of thousands of dollars and the Canadian government responded to that.
This is some of the work that is being done with the Asian infrastructure bank. However, if people listen to the opposition that is not the impression they would receive. One of the things we do exceptionally well in Canada is the high level of expertise of individuals who have infrastructure experience. Investing in the Asian infrastructure bank allows Canada to better compete, with the expertise that we have to offer the world. If people listen to the opposition, they would think that we are throwing the money away. That is not the case because that money ultimately will come back and there is a very good chance there will be a healthy dividend on it. Therefore, we are contributing to the development in many areas of the world, particularly in that Asian area, in a very humanitarian way as in the example I just cited, and allowing Canadian expertise and possibly even Canadian companies to participate in the process.
It is a bit ironic. We hear Conservatives talk about how bad this thing is because of infrastructure dollars going out of Canada, and yet here we have a Minister of Finance who has invested more in infrastructure with historic record highs, hundreds of millions going toward billions of dollars invested into our infrastructure.
The government has excelled at investing in Canada's infrastructure. By building infrastructure, we support the middle class, and the healthier the middle class, the healthier our infrastructure, the better we all will be.
Peter Kent Conservative Thornhill, ON
Madam Speaker, I always appreciate my colleague's enthusiasm, but I will pick up from the end of his remarks when he talked about the government's promises for infrastructure spending, many billions of dollars worth of those promises postdated until after the next election. How does he excuse the $2 billion committed already, which has had to be reprofiled because the government could not get those $2 billion out the door?
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Madam Speaker, I am sure my friend across the way recognizes that as much as the government would like every dollar of that spent in a fiscal year, there is an obligation to work with provinces and other stakeholders. In many situations, they could not get the shovels in the ground fast enough. More and more projects are being approved and there are more and more shovels in the ground, but let there be no doubt that this government is truly committed to Canada's infrastructure and the dollars tied to it, because we want the Canadian economy to continue to develop and grow.
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Winnipeg North for his speech and for emphasizing the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.
After the Second World War, Canada learned its lesson well regarding the importance of being part of multilateral organizations to ensure development.
As we all know, when everyone works to create prosperity and wealth by investing in basic infrastructure, everyone benefits, as it ensures progress and development in Asian countries.
Canada is not the only investor in the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. Indeed, it is not 10 or 20 countries that expressed interest, but 80 countries.
According to my colleague, is it a good idea for Canada to do its part to invest in development in developing countries?
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Madam Speaker, that is a great question. Canada plays a very strong leadership role on many fronts. If we look at the Asian infrastructure bank, Canada is not alone. The United Kingdom, France, Germany, and many other countries are engaged with that infrastructure bank, and no doubt it is for different reasons. Canadians can feel very comfortable with our investment, which will range anywhere from $250 million to $500 million, depending on whether it is U.S. or Canadian dollars, that it is a good, solid investment, for which we will get a return, likely with significant dividends. Whether it does or does not, we should recognize the potential good we are doing around the world.
I used the example of the Philippines, because it is a country I care very much about. My constituents and Canadians as a whole understand and appreciate the horrific natural disasters that took place there and because of the infrastructure bank, the country will be more flood-proof. I see that as a positive thing. It is not just about the dollars. It is about ways we can contribute to the betterment of countries beyond our borders, while still getting a return. Canada is not alone. The Conservative Party might want to be excluded from that, but I suggest there is an obligation to other countries I have already referenced, such as the U.K., Australia, and many others.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to review Bill C-63 at report stage. I lament that we have time allocation in place, but I am grateful that I was able to grab the slot that occurs every 34 slots for someone in a position like mine: being in a party with fewer than 12 MPs. Time allocation tends to be a real detriment to the principle that all MPs in this place are equal. That is the principle of Westminster parliamentary democracy. Of course, the increased power of party whips and the increased partisanship within the House means that all MPs are equal in the way that George Orwell described all animals as being equal in Animal Farm. Some are more equal than others.
Regarding the rules on recognized parties, I only recently discovered that Canada is the only Westminster parliamentary democracy that has the notion that a party needs a certain number of MPs before they get the same rights as their colleagues. It is unique to Canada. It is replicated in our provinces and is something I would like to see removed someday.
In the meantime, the bill has already made history. It is the first time the new rules for parliamentary procedure on omnibus bills have been applied. I appreciate that the Speaker accepted to look at this and separate out the sections that did not appear to be within the same theme of action.
Omnibus budget bills became, I have to say, horrific in the Harper era. We had two omnibus budget bills in 2012, Bill C-38 and Bill C-45, that had nothing to do with budgets and were omnibus bills of the most egregious kind. The term “omnibus budget bill” became, in the public mind, something to be absolutely rejected and condemned. However, there is such a thing as a legitimate omnibus bill; there is such a thing as a legitimate omnibus budget bill. This one came close, but there were sections I appreciated the Speaker separating out.
For the most part, the debate in this place has been misplaced in tending to be, from the opposition benches, primarily about the Minister of Finance's personal finances. We need answers to those questions, but not in the context of a debate on Bill C-63. Bill C-63 has much in it that I would urge colleagues to read closely, because I have read the bill closely, and there is much in the bill I like.
Although it did not go far enough, I certainly want to support the steps toward something the government promised. The Stephen Harper government promised to remove fossil fuel subsidies at the 2009 G20 summit. The promise has been on the books for some time that Canada would eliminate fossil fuel subsidies. It is, in that sense, a government promise that is not strictly a Liberal promise, but it is also a Liberal promise, and it was made in the platform and in the Speech from the Throne. We have seen very little done at the federal level to eliminate subsidies to fossil fuels. The accelerated capital cost allowance for oil sands investments was tapering off under the previous Conservative government. It remains in place for existing projects that are grandfathered under this very advantageous tax regime. It continues to amount to about $1 billion a year for oil sands companies, but it was once closer to $3 billion a year. People debate what is a subsidy and what is not, but a capital cost allowance is seen as pretty advantageous tax treatment that amounts to a subsidy.
The other one that has not been touched at all by the Liberals was one Stephen Harper brought in after he pledged to get rid of fossil fuel subsidies. That is the subsidy for the production of natural gas, particularly to assist liquified natural gas companies. It is hard to beat the one the former premier of B.C., Christy Clark, left in place for the Woodfibre LNG plant, which will amount to about $4,000 in public subsidies for every job created. Therefore, we are still subsidizing fossil fuels provincially and federally.
However, I was pleased to see what the bill would do on oil and gas drilling, in part one, although it would not go far enough. If a company had an unsuccessful oil and gas drilling experience, it used to get a 100% writeoff. Under Bill C-63, that would now be reduced to a 30% writeoff. That tax treatment would be better. It is a step in the right direction, but it does not go far enough.
The other piece in that same section that certainly is encouraging is better tax treatment for a real winner in renewable energy, and that is geothermal energy. We have known for a long time that we can do a lot with geothermal. We have seen countries around the world benefit from geothermal. The bill includes very good new tax treatment to encourage geothermal electricity.
There are also improvements in the bill on the donation of ecologically sensitive land. I was part of the national round table on the environment and the economy back in the day when the member for Ottawa South was the CEO. We took a real fight on to try to convince then minister of finance Paul Martin not to treat the donation of ecologically sensitive land as something that penalized the donor. People used to get dinged with a deemed capital gain, when they did not actually get anything; they were making a donation.
Over time, our tax code has moved consistently in the direction of better treatment. Bill C-63 would expand the kinds of land that could be donated and would improve the tax treatment. The ecologically sensitive land donations are quite welcome.
I also want to support the improvements in the tax treatment of nurse practitioners so that they would have some of the same tax treatment as other health professionals, which would improve their day-to-day lives.
Similarly, in division 10 of part 5, there are improvements to how the Energy Efficiency Act would operate. We definitely want to see more energy efficiency programming. It has been a big disappointment to me, and the Minister of Finance knows this, as I mentioned it to him recently, that we are not using the tools in the federal tool kit to approach climate change as if we take it seriously.
If we could go back and look at the current Minister of Public Safety's budget when he was minister of finance, in 2005, and pull all those measures out and decide that they were a top priority for the government to put in the 2018 budget, I would be one happy camper. That would include ecoenergy retrofits, which we do not have. It would include support for electric and hybrid vehicles and improvement of the east-west electricity grid.
Those are the things we do not have in the budget, but at least in Bill C-63 we have amendments to facilitate a lot of energy products to include harmonization of regulations to enhance energy efficiency. Those are very welcome.
What I tried to change the most in committee, through amendments, was something that is generally positive or a step in the right direction, which is to give people the right to time off work if they or members of their family are victims of violence. It is obvious to anyone who thinks about it or has gone through it. If a person has been a victim of a violent assault, or if someone in the family, particularly a child, has been the victim of a violent assault, it takes time. That child will have to be taken to therapy appointments. People will have to go to therapy appointments.
If people are going to recover from the trauma, they need time off work. This legislation is very welcome. It would give employees, by right, time off work. However, the bill operates in such a way that employers would have the option to say that someone could not take less than a full day. Employees could not say that they just wanted a couple of hours off, because that was all they needed. Employees would have to take a full day, and this would be time off work without pay. I am very disappointed that my amendments did not get through, because in committee, we said that this should be time off with pay.
The evidence we heard in committee was overwhelming, certainly from Hassan Yussuff, president of the Canadian Labour Congress, who pointed out that 90% of domestic violence survivors experience financial control issues.
If a spouse has been violently assaulted by a spouse, and in most cases it is the male partner who violently assaults his wife, and the wife is, generally speaking, in a reduced financial situation of independence compared to her husband, how does she manage, if taking time off work means she might lose her right to raise her own children because of the financial duress? These are the parts of the bill I would have liked to see fixed.
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Madam Speaker, I thank the leader of the Green Party for her speech, and there are many parts I agree with, and also for her work at finance committee, of which I am a member.
My question is in regard to some of the tax treatment changes in Bill C-63. One of the elements the member mentioned was changes regarding geothermal energy and its tax treatment. I am wondering if I could give the hon. member the opportunity to talk more about the measures, some of the changes she wanted to bring, and how in future budgets she would look for changes in that regard.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for those points and for his kind words about my work at the finance committee.
The geothermal regulations are found in a couple of places, primarily at subclause 104(1), on allowing the recovery equipment to be used in the process of both energy efficiency, meaning conserving energy, and producing energy. Geothermal has tremendous potential. A lot of reports the British Columbia Utilities Commission has issued, for instance, to B.C. Hydro have said to look at that potential. The potential is enormous.
People tend to think that it is kind of icy and geographically specific, such as in Reykjavik in Iceland, where there are geysers and it is clear that they get their energy from geothermal. However, geothermal is adaptable to almost every region of Canada. One could tap geothermal energy to warm a house in every part of Canada, certainly below the treeline. There is huge potential for the large-scale production of geothermal energy.
In the suite of renewable energy options, including solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, and tidal, Canada is abundant. When Stephen Harper used to talk about Canada as an energy superpower, that is where our superpowers lie: installing that equipment so that we never have to buy fuel again. Once we have solar capacity, once we have wind capacity, once we have geothermal, once we have tidal, we are not buying fuel to run energy-producing equipment. It is there for free. We just have to invest in it.
Pierre Nantel NDP Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from the Green Party for her speech. We do not hear often enough about alternative methods for finding heating, for example, below ground where the temperature is higher in the winter, regardless of where we are in Canada.
Another topic that we do not talk about enough is the Labour Code. I was listening to my colleague speak about the different types of leave and I wondered if she did not find it deplorable how little the government has done. We are finally talking about it and we could have respected the Arthurs report that proposed 10 days of family-related leave, but we stopped at three.
Does my colleague think that that is something that we could have improved?
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Madam Speaker, I absolutely agree with my colleague, the member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert.
In times like those, families must have access to financial support for days not worked. Without that support, it is truly hard to obtain leave.
It is pretty clear that when we are in these situations, if it is an opportunity we cannot use, it is not really an opportunity.
Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak again to the economic update, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2017 and other measures.
This will be an opportunity for me to address, in particular, the issue of accountability in government decisions. Governing is not just about pleasing people. It is also about making well-thought-out and sometimes difficult decisions by going beyond the objectives of the mandate itself. Our political actions have repercussion on many future generations, and that is even clearer for budget issues.
The Liberals had promised us balanced budgets by 2019. They also promised us a deficit of less than $10 billion only for the first two years. That is what they promised Canadians, and Canadians elected this government because they believed those commitments. The Liberals are therefore accountable to all Canadians who expect those promises to be kept, and also to all those who elected opposition members and who are concerned about the growing government spending.
The Liberal deficit is now twice as large as what was promised and, unfortunately, the government does not foresee a return to a balanced budget. The Liberal government is thus increasing the debt twice as fast as promised and expects that debt to increase every year from now on.
I will read a quote: “We were the only ones in the last election to not focus on a balanced budget at any price, regardless of the repercussions”. Who said that? It was our esteemed Prime Minister himself, no later than this summer, on June 27, during a press conference in Ottawa. That statement by our own Prime Minister is a bit over the top.
Meanwhile, interest on the debt is growing, totalling more than $15 billion in 2017. I take this opportunity to clear up the confusion that exists sometimes between deficit and debt. A budget deficit, or a negative balance on the government budget, is when budget revenues, what the government receives from taxpayers and businesses, are lower than that government's expenditures. It is therefore a negative balance. To fund its overspending, or its deficit, the government must borrow money, and all government loans, every year, when added together, constitute the government's debt. Accordingly, the more deficits the government accumulates, year after year, as the Liberal government is doing, the more the government’s debt grows.
The two figures are different, but they are closely related. Budget deficits contribute to the debt, which, in turn, has an impact on the level of the deficit due to the increase in interest being paid. While the deficit corresponds to the money that is not available today, the interest on the deficit is simply lost money. Let me explain.
The government will tell us that it created a deficit to invest in infrastructure, and we can understand that reasoning. However, the interest that is paid on the debt is money that is completely lost. It is $15 billion. The infamous interest that we pay, $15 billion just in 2017, is an expenditure. It is therefore money spent just to finance the debt, not programs, structuring projects, or aid that could be provided to Canadians, such as tax cuts.
Here are some comparisons to illustrate the magnitude of the money lost by paying interest on the debt just this year. With $25 billion, we could have funded a half million child care spaces. We could have built three Champlain bridges. We could have built four dams like La Romaine or 11,500 affordable housing units.
Unfortunately, a series of deficits, year after year, fosters the creation of new deficits. If we continually increase the debt, the interest that it produces leads to an increase in the deficit. In other words, the country is driven further and further into debt. There is therefore collectively more interest to pay, year after year. That is what is called a snowball effect.
That is why I wanted to talk about government accountability. The Liberal government is currently operating on a line of credit and therefore on the backs of our children and grandchildren. This government constantly tells us that the economy is going well and that all indicators confirm that we are in a good economic cycle. However, if we rack up the debts now, when the economy is doing well, what will happen when the economy is not doing well? What will happen when we have no choice but to borrow to be able to deliver our programs and our services and our line of credit is in the red? What will happen when we need to borrow to stimulate the economy by investing in infrastructure while already being in the red?
What are we leaving for future generations? If the tendency that the Liberal government has begun continues, my daughter, who recently turned 16, will be 45 when the budget is balanced. What are we leaving to our children?
I will give an example: according to data from Statistics Canada, if we divide this year's $20 billion deficit by the number of children in Canada, that represents exactly $2,005.75 for each child just this year. That is in addition to last year’s deficit and future deficits.
Does this government think beyond its four-year mandate or does it think more about its re-election in 2019?
I would also note that if the previous Conservative government had not been such a good steward of the economy for the past 10 years, and if that government had not been able to balance the budget after a terrible global economic crisis, the Liberal government would never have been able to act so irresponsibly.
If we oppose this budget update today, it is because the government is asking for a blank cheque, with no guarantee regarding a return to a balanced budget. However, Canadians have a right to know when the country’s finances will improve and when we will see an end to this endless cycle of deficits that fuel an ever-growing debt, like the snowball effect I explained earlier.
In the meantime, someone will have to pay the bill. Today, despite the deficits, 80% of middle-class Canadians are paying more taxes than under the previous Conservative government.
Make no mistake: the money we are spending today will have to be paid back one of these days, whether by us, by our children, or by our grandchildren. The more recklessly we spend, the bigger our debt will be and the more it will cost us to repay that debt.
The bigger the deficit grows year after year, with no plan to balance the budget, the more we will be saddling our children and grandchildren with that debt. That, to me, is completely and utterly irresponsible.
Fayçal El-Khoury Liberal Laval—Les Îles, QC
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague opposite for his speech.
I have to say that our government is very responsible. Why? Because our government decided to invest in creating jobs for Canadians and supporting middle-class families.
Does my colleague have anything to say about a government that created over half a million jobs all across the country from coast to coast?
We need to invest in driving economic growth. We need to invest in creating jobs for Canadians. We need to invest in supporting middle-class Canadian families, and we need to invest in paying the debt the previous government left us.
Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. I like his smile.
No one believes that the economy is doing well because of this government's decisions, since the funding it allocated to programs are just starting to be used. More than half the infrastructure projects did not even get off the ground after they were announced. Several projects are in a holding pattern in the municipalities.
The economy is doing so well because of past decisions. Let us come back to that in two or three years to talk about the repercussions of the current decisions. One thing is certain, someone will have to pay for the deficits created by this government. My three children, and the children and grandchildren of every hon. member here and all Canadians will one day have to pay for the budgetary irresponsibility that this Minister of Finance and this Liberal government have shown for the past two years.
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his intervention.
I always have a hard time understanding where the Conservatives truly stand on the question of deficits and balanced budgets. My colleague talked about everything we could do with billions of dollars. As a matter of fact, the previous Conservative government left a $150-billion debt, not including interest, which was added to the government's cumulative debt, which is currently almost $700 billion.
Can my colleague tell us how much interest we are paying every year on the $150 billion that the Conservatives added to the public debt? What could we have done with that $150 billion?
Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I thought I was pretty clear in my explanation of the difference between a deficit and a debt.
The Conservative government was in power during the worst economic crisis in the world, and yet Canada was the first major democratic country to balance its budget. We proved that we can invest in our economy and still achieve a balanced budget.
I would also like to remind all members of the House that it was the previous Conservative government that lowered taxes for Canadians, cut the GST from 7% to 5%, and took less money away from taxpayers, all while balancing the budget, making investments, and creating the largest infrastructure program in Canadian history to that point.
I am not sure how I could be any clearer. Indeed, the economic situation did create a deficit. We balanced the budget gradually and over time, while still putting money back in taxpayers' pockets. Unfortunately, we are back in the deficit spiral, which means that today, we are paying $15 billion in interest, on top of the $20-billion deficit this year and the $25-billion or $26-billion deficit from last year. For the people from Quebec who are listening today, that is equal to 53 Videotron Centres a year, and it will probably be the same next year. At this rate, every city and town in Quebec could have its own Videotron Centre.
Larry Maguire Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate on the Liberal government's second budget implementation act of 2017.
As with all legislation, members of Parliament must weigh the consequences not only of what is found in a budget implementation act, but also what is not included. It should come as no surprise to anyone that the government is not moving forward to lower the small business tax. That was promised in the 2015 election, but as I have pointed out, they broke their promise. Then after the great tax revolt of the summer of 2017, they had a revelation that breaking their promise to thousands of small business owners and then calling them all tax cheats was not a recipe to get re-elected.
While scouring the many parts of this proposed legislation, I thought that there might have been a line about how they would retract their ill-thought-out tax increases on local businesses, farmers, and entrepreneurs. Lo and behold, the government did not take this opportunity to provide clarification on the details of its tax increases and how it would be plucking more feathers out of the goose. The government's intention to raise taxes is causing great consternation among job creators throughout Canada.
The government likes to proclaim that it and it alone is responsible for any job creation, and in many respect it has been, as thousands of new individuals joined the ranks of the public service from across the country. For example, it has been estimated that the public service has grown by almost 10% in the national capital region since the Liberals formed government. While any government can go out and borrow money it does not have to create new full-time equivalents, we must always remember that such growth in these jobs is not sustainable.
There is an argument to be made that a government should stimulate the economy while in recession. However, it must also include a road map back to balanced budgets, as Prime Minister Harper predicted, and attained one year faster than his original plan. This brings me to the point that there are no measures included in the Liberals' proposed budget implementation act to get back to balance. It reminds me of the broken promise that the Liberals ran on in the 2015 election.
Some would say that the Liberals' election platform was one of the greatest works of fiction in recent memory. While it was not written nearly as eloquently as one would like, it was the platform, however, in which they made promises to Canadians.
During budget 2017, the Liberals projected a $28.5-billion deficit for this fiscal year. This was almost triple their campaign promise of running a small $10-billion deficit and that the budget would be back to balance in 2019. Finance Canada now says that if spending continues at the same pace, there will be no budget balance until 2051, which is almost 35 years.
Now the Liberals think they deserve kudos because their fall economic statement revealed that the deficit is only about $20 billion to date. While not as bad as originally projected for this fiscal year, it is still a broken promise as per their election platform. As they would like to call it, balancing the budget in 2019 is under way, but with challenges.
The Liberals have tabled a budget implementation bill and are asking us to get behind their finance minister's financial plan. Normally this would be par for the course in a parliamentary democracy, but it was only earlier today that the Prime Minister gave no clear answer to a point blank question on whether he would stand squarely behind the finance minister. What was most shocking was that it was a chance for the Prime Minister to publicly state he had full confidence in his finance minister, but he avoided giving a straight answer. This begs the question: If the Prime Minister will not defend his finance minister, why do members of the opposition trust anything the finance minister says?
There are many reasons for Canadians to be concerned about what is found in this omnibus bill. If the proposed legislation passes, it would allow Canada to join the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. This would mean the Government of Canada would be giving $256 million over five years to that bank, even though Finance officials have stated that Canadians should not expect to see any financial dividends or return on this investment.
If the intent of the Liberal government is to send a quarter billion dollars to an Asian bank that will not see any financial gain, it can only lead those people who are questioning this deal to think there are ulterior motives behind this agreement. The government's priority to reach a free trade deal with the People's Republic of China should not be achieved using Canadian taxpayers' money, particularly when the money is being given to a bank located halfway around the world. At the end of the day, the government should not give loans to other countries when Canadians will be taking all the risks and seeing no rewards.
In this legislation, the Liberals are once again going after energy companies by repealing one of the tax credits for energy exploration. The government is phasing out the first one million dollars, and no longer will Canadian development expenses be allowed to be reclassified into Canadian exploration expenses. This change will have an impact on smaller and more up and coming drilling companies, exactly the ones that most rely on this tax credit. Ironically, this change was actually in the 2015 election platform. Raising taxes seems to be a promise the government is willing to keep. The government is more than willing to once again go after the energy sector, which employs hundreds of thousands of individuals either directly or indirectly, but it has no problem adding billions to our debt load while playing class warfare. This is all in the name of politics.
I cannot tip my hat to the government for another aspect of this legislation, It is trying to move the yardstick forward by eliminating many of the non-tariff barriers between provinces. Quite frankly, it is absurd that in many cases it is easier to ship and sell your products in a foreign country than to your provincial counterparts next door. While there has at least been some progress made to reduce interprovincial trade barriers, it should be noted that the list of exclusions to this agreement is almost as long as the agreement itself. I would prefer the Government of Canada to spend its time and energy on eliminating all interprovincial trade barriers than on attempting to woo the People's Republic of China.
It would be irresponsible of any member of this House to vote in favour of this bill. No member should endorse the government's budgetary plan. The government has completely eliminated any hope of ever balancing the budget. It has eliminated even the mere thought of having a plan to return to balanced budgets, and it is causing serious and unnecessary pain to Canadian businesses and our overall economy.
A government that spends more money than it brings in while the economy is growing is foolhardy. I have seen that personally when I spent my 14 years in the Manitoba legislature watching the NDP. The Liberal government is trying to outspend Manitoba's former NDP government. It is adding billions of dollars of new debt with not a lot to show for it. It should come as no surprise that the government is willing to waste taxpayers' money, such as spending over $200,000 to design the cover of their budget document or half a million dollars to make the Canada Post building look like a present.
Let me say this. Canadians are mightily upset about the millions of dollars being spent to build a hockey rink where no one will get to play hockey. They have a finance minister that nobody trusts. They have budgetary numbers that no one believes and they have no plan to create real private sector economic growth, other than spending billions of dollars of taxpayers' money on pet projects.
I cannot, and will not, support this legislation as, in many respects, the government has failed Canadians. It has lost its way and, unfortunately, Canadians are left picking up the tab.
In the weeks ahead we will see if the finance minister will keep his job. It is my sincere hope that, in the best interests of all Canadians, they will stop piling on debt and attacking local businesses.
