Debates of March 21st, 2017

Opposition Motion—Budget 2017

[Dianne Lynn Watts, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am always entertained by my colleague's questions.

We voted against a $30 billion deficit. We voted against all of what I just spoke about, all of the tax hikes and the removal of tax credits. I will further explain to my colleague across the way that Conservatives talk about a plan that is needed for infrastructure and to help the Liberals get their spending under control, and so do the reports from the parliamentary budget officer, the Senate committee, the C.D. Howe report, and the Fraser Institute report. It is not just us. There are many people wanting the government to have a plan in place.

As far as the budget goes, our House was in order and we handed over a balanced budget. In fact, we handed over a surplus of $2 billion. The member really needs to get caught up on what the actual facts are.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to my colleague’s speech, whom I thank.

I wanted to talk about my community and Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean, or more specifically the riding of Jonquière, which I am very proud to represent. The Conservative motion mentions unemployment and students, and earlier I heard my colleague refer to post-secondary education in his speech. If I am not mistaken, the topic was student debt. Full employment is a very important concern. We are seeing young people leaving. Every day, some of our young people leave because there is no full employment. We have nothing for them. We do not exactly have concrete plans. We just talked about plans, but initiatives and ways to keep our young people in the region are major concerns.

As was already mentioned, during the election campaign, the Liberals raised the stakes to invest in our infrastructure. Now, we do not even have anything concrete. We have not seen one red cent. We are not seeing any results.

I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about full employment and youth unemployment.

[Dianne Lynn Watts, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things we take and hold so dear concerns creating the environment for job creation.

That means there are low taxes, access to post-secondary education, and access to training for students and for the younger population. It is absolutely key to create that environment. The more the job creators are taxed, the more Canadian families are taxed, the more people will leave. They will leave to find better opportunities. That is what the Liberal government just does not get.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague for a great speech. When she mentioned in the lobby earlier that she was going to speak on infrastructure, I thought that would be a great opportunity for us to learn about the failed infrastructure program of the Liberal government. That is what we have here.

We know that tomorrow we are going to hear a budget that will be written in red ink again. We will be neck-deep in deficit. It will be another spend, spend budget, and yet the delivery of a lot of infrastructure, as the member pointed out, will not happen.

In the previous government, we saw the largest infrastructure program ever, the $75 billion building Canada fund. We saw those projects delivered. Today, in Alberta, for example, the Liberals have announced money for infrastructure where the province is now talking about taking the packet for municipalities and putting it into provincial general revenue. There is no infrastructure money getting down to the municipalities. There are no projects under way. There are no projects that are even really being planned in smaller communities.

Could my colleague comment on that type of program, a failed program of the Liberal government?

[Dianne Lynn Watts, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I alluded to before, it is not just the Conservatives, and me, as a critic, saying this. There are two reports, the parliamentary budget officer report and the Senate report, that clearly state that the infrastructure plan is not transparent. We cannot follow the money. The infrastructure dollars are not getting out the door to communities, where they should be. The Liberals are now looking at selling off airports and ports to pay for a bank, when we already have PPP Canada, which has leveraged private-sector dollars to the tune of $6.6 billion.

Every time we turn around, we see different independent organizations clearly stating that the current government does not have a plan, and whatever plan it thinks it has is failing miserably.

[Raj Grewal, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles.

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in this House regarding the Government of Canada's ambitious plan to make smart investments that will create jobs, grow our economy, and provide more opportunities for the middle class and those working hard to join it.

Over the past year, the government has put in place a plan to grow the economy in a way that works for the middle class and those working hard to join it. Our government has raised taxes on the wealthiest 1% so that we could reduce taxes for the middle class. We have introduced a new Canada child benefit that gives more money to nine out of 10 Canadian families and lifts 300,000 children out of poverty. We have strengthened the Canada pension plan to help Canadians have a more secure and safe and dignified retirement, which they deserve.

We are supporting strong communities by using innovative solutions to help meet pressing infrastructure needs. We are investing in infrastructure that creates good, well-paying jobs that help the middle class grow and prosper.

By making it easier to move people and products, well-planned infrastructure can deliver sustained economic growth for years to come. We put in place an ambitious long-term infrastructure plan that will invest more than $180 billion in federal funding over 12 years. This plan focuses on five key areas: public transit, green infrastructure, social infrastructure, trade and transportation, and rural and northern communities.

Under the first phase of this plan, budget 2016 invested more than $10 billion toward public transit and social and green infrastructure projects. We wasted no time in rolling it out and have made considerable progress. This includes investments toward nearly 550 public transit projects that will make it easier for Canadians to get to work on time and will ensure that public transportation is there when Canadians need it the most; more than 700 projects under the clean water and wastewater fund that will improve access to clean drinking water and will reduce pollution in our lakes and rivers; and 1,000 projects to retrofit and renovate social housing to repair more than 48,000 social housing units. These projects are already making a difference in communities across our country.

To maximize the benefits of infrastructure investments and to ensure that more money flows into infrastructure, the Government of Canada is committed to finding new and innovative ways to fund infrastructure and mobilize private capital. As part of our fall economic statement, we announced the creation of a Canada infrastructure bank. We have consulted broadly with experts on the creation of the bank and will continue to work with our partners to ensure that the bank meets their needs and the needs of all Canadians.

Canada has a very mature market when it comes to infrastructure projects, and partnerships between the public and private sectors have always been a key to the success of infrastructure. Many key pieces of infrastructure, including the Edmonton light rail transit system, were financed in part by the private sector.

In terms of moving the yardstick even further, we believe that there is an opportunity for the federal government to crowd in private sector investment in infrastructure through loans, loan guarantees, and equity participation. The bank will do just that.

The bank will also create more options and opportunities for provinces, territories, and municipalities across the country to undertake transformative infrastructure projects. The bank will invest $35 billion in new projects across Canada, projects such as major public transit in our largest cities, energy transmission corridors, major corridor projects, and more. Of the $35 billion planned to capitalize the bank, $15 billion will be sourced from the announced funding for public transit, green infrastructure, social infrastructure, trade and transportation, and rural and northern communities. This $15 billion is less than 8% of the total commitment of infrastructure funds under our long-term plan.

In addition, $20 billion in capital will be available to the Canada infrastructure bank for investments that will result in the bank holding assets in the form of equity or debt. This $20 billion will therefore not result in a fiscal impact on the government.

The bank will serve as a single federal government point of contact for the private sector and will employ private sector experts to enable the government to invest effectively with private capital. The bank's funds will be over and above the commitment this government has made to double infrastructure funding. Most important, it will offer our funding partners a new way to help meet pressing infrastructure needs. By using private capital to build those new projects, public money will be freed up to build more public infrastructure.

The bank will be a centre of excellence in infrastructure investment by the private sector. It will provide advice to project proponents to allow for better planning and procurement decisions. The vast majority of the infrastructure funding will still be delivered through traditional financial contributions through bilateral agreements or national programs. As such, many infrastructure projects will not need the bank.

I want to be clear. We will not impose the bank on any of our partners, but we will work with willing partners who think this can offer them additional value. The bank is just another tool in our tool kit that our partners can use to invest in the infrastructure they need.

The Government of Canada remains committed to building a fairer, more inclusive country that reflects the priorities of Canadians. We want to put an ambitious plan in place to grow the economy and to build healthier and more livable communities. We are already taking unprecedented action to invest in Canada, our communities, and Canadians. With these smart investments and a commitment to fairness, the government will ensure that Canada's best days are ahead.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member referenced private sector funding of an LRT project in my hometown of Edmonton. It seems that even though the speech was probably written by somebody else in the back room over there, he does not have a clue that it is not up and running yet. It is not even going at the correct speed it was supposed to go about two years ago, when it was announced.

I would like to get the member's comments. Is this is going to be a trend in public sector funding that we have seen from this infrastructure minister, who seems to have a real disconnect from what is going on on the ground in our communities?

[Raj Grewal, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear that my reference to the LRT was used as an example of something that was funded through public and private infrastructure. I did not speak about the fact that it was ready to go completed. Attention to detail is something members opposite should pay particular attention to.

I also have a soft spot in my heart when it comes to Alberta, because I was born in Alberta. I have a lot of pride in that province.

I will say that we will take no lessons from the party opposite on job creation or economic growth. For 10 years, it had the worst record when it came to job creation and economic growth. It had low economic growth for 10 years. What has our government been doing? In the last six months, we have created 220,000 jobs. We have decreased unemployment. We have decreased taxes for the middle class, a middle-class tax cut the party opposite voted against. Why? It is because it wanted to reduce taxes for rich Canadians. Our government made a commitment to raise taxes on the wealthiest 1%. That is exactly what we have done. That is exactly what we are going to do in tomorrow's budget. We are going to keep fighting for the middle class. I encourage my colleagues on the other side of this House to support us.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today.

My colleague's partisan fervour is totally inappropriate.

Quite honestly, as the member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, I can safely say that very few people have benefited from these so-called middle-class tax cuts.

As for heritage and culture, we have been asking the Minister of Canadian Heritage to talk to the Minister of Finance for months now to get international players to pay the same taxes as everyone else and stop them from spiriting their profits away to tax havens in foreign countries. The Liberals should be ashamed of themselves for doing nothing about major issues like that. I am tired of hearing about their middle class.

I have a very simple question that relates directly to today's topic. The government says it plans to borrow money for major infrastructure projects because interest rates are so low, but it is approaching lenders that want returns on the order of 7%, 8%, or 9%. How does that make sense?

[Raj Grewal, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague across the aisle started his question by talking about tax fairness. Our government is extremely committed to tax fairness. The finance committee, of which I am a proud member, did a study on tax fairness and made 14 recommendations that were tabled in the House. I am pleased to announce that the government accepted all 14 recommendations to ensure that Canadians pay their fair share of taxes.

When it comes to the Canada infrastructure bank, it will make sure that we make smart and wise decisions to ensure that not only are we leveraging private investment to build public transit and infrastructure projects across this country but also that these projects are creating good, well-paying middle-class jobs. That is a commitment our government has had from day one.

The member opposite and the entire NDP caucus keep talking about working-class Canadians. They keep using the rhetoric that they used in their campaign, but when the time came to vote in favour of a middle-class tax cut, they voted against it. I would like to ask them a question. How can they tell their constituents, when we on this side are helping the middle class by increasing support for families, that they voted against it? They should be ashamed of themselves.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in today's debate, which has been very lively.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to talk about our efforts to ensure that Canadian seniors enjoy a good quality of life. I am also pleased to note that my colleagues in the opposition do not want any burden to be placed on our seniors. I agree with them wholeheartedly.

During the last campaign and every time I go out and about in my riding, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, I speak with seniors about their ambitions and their vast knowledge, which they so enjoy passing on. I believe that including our seniors is crucial to the well-being of Quebec and Canadian society.

As everyone knows, our government is doing everything it can to allow all Canadians, including seniors, to participate fully in society and in the economy.

Currently one in seven Canadians is over the age of 65. In 2030, which is soon, it is estimated that there will be 9.5 million seniors in Canada and that they will make up nearly one-quarter of the Canadian population. In 2030, I will be one of those seniors.

Seniors are among the most important members of our society. As we all know, they are very much engaged in their families and contribute actively to their communities and our economy. That said, seniors, particularly those with low incomes, are also among the most vulnerable members of our society.

We are proud to say that Canada is one of the countries with the lowest low-income rate for seniors. Indeed, the most recent data indicate that in 2014, only 3.9% of them were considered low-income. However, Statistics Canada tells us that some 212,000 seniors are still living below the poverty line. These important Canadians are struggling to make ends meet at a point in their lives when most of them can no longer work. I think we all need to agree that no one should have to grow old in poverty or in isolation. I cannot emphasize strongly enough the importance of this issue for our government.

Our government believes that all Canadians deserve to retire with respect and dignity. They should also have some peace of mind knowing that the government will help them make ends meet. We are talking about Canadians who worked hard their entire lives and who contributed their fair share to the tax system. When they retire, it is up to us to give them the support they need in recognition of their contribution to Canadian society during their years of work. Budget 2016 included important measures that sought to do just that.

The previous government pushed back the age of eligibility for old age security and the guaranteed income supplement from 65 to 67. One of the first things we did was to correct that situation and bring the eligibility age back to 65 for old age security and the guaranteed income supplement.

We believe that someone who works their entire life and contributes to our economy and our society deserves a secure and dignified retirement. Seniors do not deserve to be told to keep working for two more years to qualify for their pension. Every Canadian should have the chance to live without worrying that they will not be able to make ends meet.

That is why we increased the guaranteed income supplement by 10% for low-income seniors living alone, which was very well received in Rivière-des-Mille-Îles. As we know, the guaranteed income supplement is an important tool for reducing poverty among seniors. It will give one million of our most vulnerable seniors almost $1,000 every year. We believe that this measure will lift 13,000 of the most vulnerable Canadians out of poverty.

I would like to remind the House that pensioners and seniors are also fathers, mothers, aunts, uncles, brothers, sisters, grandparents, friends, and neighbours. No one wants their friends or family members to suffer and clearly no one wants to find themselves in a difficult situation in the future.

That is why we are also going to ensure that the old age security program will continue to provide adequate support for the most vulnerable seniors by indexing it to the cost of living. This was raised by groups in my riding and several other Canada-wide associations.

We will index the old age security and the guaranteed income supplement benefits to reflect the increase in the cost of living that seniors face. With respect to income security, our government is currently working to strengthen the Canada pension plan. I would like to assure the House that we will work with our provincial and territorial counterparts and that we will also honour the close relationship between this plan and the Quebec pension plan.

I am proud to say that we have kept our promises to seniors. Other key initiatives, such as the Canadian poverty reduction strategy, will also have a big impact. Last year's budget also included an investment of more than $200 million over two years in support of the construction, repair, and adaptation of affordable housing for seniors.

However, financial security is not the only measure of a happy life. We all hope to continue to be active and to contribute to our family life and to our community as we age. One way to succeed is through the new horizons for seniors program, which supports projects led or inspired by seniors who make a difference in the lives of others in their communities.

Not only do these projects promote volunteerism, which seniors in Rivière-des-Mille-Îles are quite involved in by the way, and mentoring among seniors, but they also help many seniors stay active and engaged as well as keeping them from the dangers of social isolation. To date, 7,000 projects across the country have been approved, and six were approved in my riding since I took office.

As well, in recent weeks, I announced two grants under this program in Deux-Montagnes to support two projects created by and for seniors. I can tell the House that our seniors are motivated to help their neighbours and to make our communities better places to live.

All this clearly demonstrates our commitment to seniors. I am proud to say that the important work we are doing for Canadian seniors will continue after the budget is announced tomorrow. Our government is taking important and decisive action to provide seniors with the support they deserve. We will continue to do so in the coming year.

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

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague about the importance of considering and supporting our seniors.

However, when we know that close to two thirds of Canadians oppose the privatization of our public infrastructure system, including ports and airports, I am absolutely certain that many of the seniors who contributed to creating the public infrastructure system we have in this country are against privatizing it.

How is the member taking into account this position, this opinion shared by two thirds of Canadians, in fact some of them in her riding, who are opposed to privatizing airports? What position will she be taking on that?

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's question.

Today, I chose to speak about seniors because they are very vulnerable people in our society. I believe my colleague across the way agrees with our measures that seek to help our seniors in Canada, particularly by boosting the guaranteed income supplement and returning the age of eligibility for old age security and the guaranteed income supplement to 65 years old.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to ask my colleague, whom I very much appreciate by the way, if she agrees with the fact that in the years including last year and the next four years her government will have created a deficit of about $100 billion.

How can she be okay with that? I would like her to explain why she supports creating a $100-billion deficit in four years.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

We are facing the same issues regarding official languages. I feel that he is eager and looking forward to tomorrow. I can understand this, but tomorrow is when we will see where we are going.

I would like to assure him, and the House, that our government remains committed to the well-being of all Canadians, including seniors, and we will continue to prove it with our budget, which will be tabled tomorrow.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I asked this question to one of the member's colleagues this morning. I wonder if she could tell me what her party means when its members talk about the middle class. Who is the middle class?

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

I am surprised that an MP who has been sitting in the House for several years is asking me what the middle class is. In my riding, the middle class is made up of couples who work very hard and find it difficult to make ends meet.

We are working for the middle class, and we will continue to do so. We will provide another good example of this tomorrow.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

There has been a lot of talk about the middle class here; the government cannot stop bringing it up.

As I said earlier, the middle class is made up primarily of people earning about $22 per hour, which adds up to $45,000 per year. In its last budget, the government did nothing for those people, yet as I see it, they are the middle class because they make up about two-thirds of Canada's population. They are very hard-working people. The government, however, chose to give a tax cut to those who make more than $90,000 per year.

The government goes on and on about the checks families are getting and all the benefits available to them. Once children turn 18, what happens to single moms and dads? How can they keep helping their kids and paying for post-secondary education?

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Jonquière for her question about the middle class.

Budget 2017 will be tabled tomorrow. We are working hard for the middle class and those working hard to join it, and that is what we will keep doing. I am very proud to represent all the people of Rivière-des-Mille-Îles.

Provisions in Draft Supplementary Supply Bill

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order concerning the draft supplementary supply bill that was distributed earlier this morning. In schedules 1.3, 1.4, and 1.5, the proposed bill contains provisions to pay a number of ministers of the crown through the use of an appropriation act. Specifically, payments would be made, and I believe have been made, to ministers without portfolio or ministers of state who do not preside over a ministry of state.

This initiative—raising all ministerial salaries—was part of the Prime Minister's efforts at gender equality in appointing female ministers with no portfolio responsibilities. Then he discovered, or the ministers discovered, that there was a significant salary variable.

The government subsequently introduced Bill C-24 to amend the Salaries Act to give statutory authority to these pay increases. Bill C-24 is still before the House of Commons, was debated at second reading on October 7 and October 19, 2016, but has not yet received approval in principle. It has languished on the Order Paper, neglected and unloved, and so we are confronted with the rule against anticipation.

It is long-established procedure that estimates cannot be used as a substitute or shortcut for legislation, and it is clear that the government saw the need for legislation when it introduced Bill C-24 to amend the Salaries Act. The House will appreciate the irony of a government that ran against omnibus bills using obscure wording in the estimates to hide and to expedite pay increases for ministers.

O'Brien and Bosc has this to say at page 869:

The Chair has maintained that estimates with a direct and specific legislative intent (those clearly intended to amend existing legislation) should come to the House by way of an amending bill. Speaker Jerome stated in a ruling:

...it is my view that the government receives from Parliament the authority to act through the passage of legislation and receives the money to finance such authorized action through the passage by Parliament of an appropriation act. A supply item in my opinion ought not, therefore, to be used to obtain authority which is the proper subject of legislation.

He also said in a further ruling:

...supply ought to be confined strictly to the process for which it was intended; that is to say, for the purpose of putting forward by the government the estimate of money it needs, and then in turn voting by the House of that money to the government. ... legislation and legislated changes in substance are not intended to be part of supply, but rather ought to be part of the legislative process in the regular way which requires three readings, committee stage, and, in other words, ample opportunity for Members to participate in debate and amendment.

I have a number of references in support.

The collected rulings of Speaker Lamoureux, at page 429, reference a proceeding on December 10, 1973. The issue is stated, “Should items of a legislative character be included in the Estimates?” The decision of the Speaker was,“No, they should not.” A subsequent entry on page 430 contains this statement: “Parliament cannot legislate by Estimates.”

In Beauchesne's, sixth edition, citation 941 at page 259 states:

If a Vote in the Estimates relates to a bill not yet passed by Parliament, then the authorizing bill must become law before the authorization of the relevant Vote in the Estimates by an Appropriation Act.

Reference is made to the 18th edition of Erskine May at page 364, where it is stated:

A motion must not anticipate a matter already appointed for consideration by the House, whether it be a bill or an adjourned debate upon a motion.

Here I respectfully remind you, Mr. Speaker, that debate on Bill C-24 has been adjourned since October 19, 2016.

In a similar manner to the ruling at page 69 of the Journals of January 25, 1973, I would suggests that at this point the House in its totality has not made a decision on the supplementary estimates except to study them. Bill C-24 has, however, been given first reading, and the House is now considering whether it should be read a second time. The bill to amend the Salaries Act would be the more effective way of securing spending authority, and the supplementary estimates ought not to anticipate the decision of the House.

In anticipation of a response from the government that this is not a new practice, I would make two points: first, disorder is not cured by repetition; second, in this instance there is a bill to amend the Salaries Act on the Order Paper. While the practice may have slipped through in the past and become law, this House should respect its own procedures for considering bills.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I ask that you remove all references to authority for ministerial salaries contained in these supplementary estimates.

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

Mr. Speaker, as we know, the Prime Minister has made it a top priority to have a gender-neutral cabinet. The Prime Minister has also made it a priority, in a very clear statement, that all cabinet ministers are equal.

I will report a direct response with respect to the point of order that has been raised by the member back to the House in due course.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the point made by my hon. colleague in the Conservative caucus is one that we need to consider.

Very clearly, the government promised that it would be transparent, it would be different, it would be above board. We have some concerns in regard to this particular situation. I would indeed support the need to look at it carefully, in light of the fact that Bill C-24 is before the House.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I thank the hon. member for Perth—Wellington for bringing his legitimate point of order to the House's attention. To the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader and the hon. member for London—Fanshawe, I note that they will wish to come back to the House at a later time.

The House is aware that this is a matter that will be before the House fairly soon. Timeliness is of the essence here, but we will take the matter under advisement and act on it as quickly as we can.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Budget 2017

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member of Parliament for Calgary Nose Hill.

It is always a pleasure to participate in this place. Before I begin to offer my comments, I would first like to state my belief that people offer themselves up for public service with a sincere belief and desire to build a stronger and more prosperous Canada. At times we may disagree on how best to achieve those goals, but I believe a democratic debate and a healthy democratic environment, like we enjoy in Canada, are all part of this. They are all part of what we collectively celebrate on July 1st of each year.

I mention these things because I believe that those members of the Liberal government who campaigned on a promise to run modest annual deficits and then return to a balanced budget in 2019 all did so with a sincere belief that these promises were true and accurate. I would like to believe that there was no intent to deceive Canadians, but here is the problem.

We know now that the Liberal government, in budget 2016, blew past these budget promises by saying that it would spend roughly $30 billion in debt. How much has been spent in the last year alone? We do not know. Was it 50% above the Liberal election promise? Was it 100%? Was it double or triple or somewhere in-between? I am not talking about over the next three years that the government promised but just in this last fiscal year that is coming to a close. If we are honest, many on that side would support even more in the upcoming fiscal year. Worse, if we dig a little deeper, as the parliamentary budget office did recently, we would find that less than $5 billion of that could be identified in real infrastructure projects. Where has the rest gone? We know from both the current and previous parliamentary budget officers that the balance is going toward increased spending.

To be fair to the Liberals, I would suggest they have a mandate for some of that increased spending on which they campaigned. However, they did not campaign on much of that other increased spending. Worse, if we read the Liberals' own budget documents, we would find that infrastructure spending eventually has to be increased to meet the Liberals' big spending promises. However, no matter how we cut it, we have a very real challenge now, when spending massively dwarfs revenue. That is why the Department of Finance, in a forecast report, warned that if the current Liberal government does not change course, Canada will not return to a balanced budget until at least 2050, and at that time Canada's debt will be well over $1 trillion.

The finance minister first saw this report back in October. He then punted it, pushed it from the public eye, until Friday December 23. When I asked the finance minister in question period about this report, he threw his own department under the bus, trying to discredit its report. When I made mention of studying this report at finance committee, the Liberals on committee blocked it.

If this report is seriously flawed, as the finance minister contends, he would welcome this scrutiny as it would have surely backed up his claims. Every person in the room knows the real reason the report was blocked. This leaves the question: How will the Liberals overcome what is basically a Liberal-created structural deficit and return to a balanced budget? In question period I have asked when the Liberals will return to a balanced budget. The finance critic for the Conservatives has asked numerous times.