Debates of March 21st, 2017

Opposition Motion—Budget 2017

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, what I told constituents when I was campaigning and knocking at their doors was that our commitment to middle-class Canadians was that we were going to work hard for them. When I spoke to my constituents, I told them we would enhance the CPP. I also advised constituents at the door that we wanted to put in place the Canada child benefit program, which has lifted hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty.

We also indicated to our constituents, or I did anyway, that we were going to be increasing the guaranteed income supplement for low-income seniors. When I attended several senior citizens' homes and provided them with that information, I could see how relieved they were, because that $1,000 additional amount they were going to be receiving per year was going to make a real difference in their lives. It was going to allow them opportunities to buy groceries or to pay for whatever expenses they had.

Our government is focused on helping middle-class Canadians, which is exactly what we are doing.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was wondering if my colleague while canvassing and speaking to people during the last election campaign talked about the fact that the Liberal government might privatize the airports. I never saw that in one debate. I never saw that in the program of the Liberal Party, but still the Liberals are not closing the door to that possibility.

Right now, airports are a public asset managed by non-profit organizations. Those airports are paying rent of about $1 billion per year to the federal government. If the government sells all those airports, the quality of service will decrease and fees for passengers will increase. Let us say the government sells them for $8 billion. In the ninth and 10th years, they will begin to lose money. It is a short-term sell-off to try to balance the books, and it is going to be a disaster, like Hydro One in Ontario. Sell, sell, sell, but after that the people, the clients, the consumers, will pay the bill, not the Liberal government.

I ask the member if the Liberal government will or will not privatize the public airports in our country.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

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

During the 2015 election campaign, we promised to support the middle class and those working very hard to join it, especially the most vulnerable. Our plan provides for concrete steps. First, we said that we would cut taxes for the middle class. We also said that we would introduce the Canada child benefit, and then we would help our seniors.

With respect to airports, the Minister of Transport clearly said that any decision made would ultimately benefit travellers.

At this point, we must wait for the budget to be tabled tomorrow to finally see what initiatives will be implemented.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was very relieved and impressed by how much time the parliamentary secretary focused on talking about seniors in our country. This is something that I heard about when I was out canvassing during the last election campaign. Seniors and those getting close to the age of retirement are seriously concerned about what their future looks like. In fact, the World Health Organization now says that there are more people over the age of 65 than under the age of 14, for the first time in human history.

I am wondering if the parliamentary secretary could provide some input as to how she thinks what this government is doing and proposes to do for seniors will have a real impact on seniors in our country and in her riding in particular.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, during campaign 2015 when I knocked on doors and talked with seniors about what we were proposing to do for seniors, it hit really close and near and dear to my heart. I am the youngest child of a family of nine kids. My father was a janitor, and my mom was a stay-at-home mom, so we are talking about middle-class Canadians who worked very hard to raise the family. My parents actually depend on the guaranteed income supplement and the OAS. When I was able to go to doors and speak to people about the real difference this investment can make to Canadians, I really spoke from the heart, because my parents could see what that tangible difference was going to mean in their monthly budget and also in their pocketbook.

What does the increase that we have made mean? As indicated, when we look at the projections over a year, we can see that is almost $1,000 that those people are going to have in their pockets. Again, that can contribute to purchases that they are going to be able to make throughout that year, whether it be medication, groceries, whatever they choose to invest their money in. The other important thing this government did was to enhance the CPP, the Canada pension plan. We have been able to work collaboratively with the provinces and we have all come to the agreement that this is the best way to move forward as we want to ensure that our seniors have a dignified retirement. Finally, we have lowered taxes for middle-class Canadians. Again, that is a step in the right direction. That is exactly what we are going to continue doing moving forward, helping middle-class Canadians and those working hard to join the middle class.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member could tell us who the middle class is.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, middle-class Canadians are hard-working Canadians, just as my neighbour here indicated. When we campaigned at the doors, we heard what the priorities were for Canadians. We have indicated to them very clearly that our priority was to focus on their needs. That is why we put in place the Canada child benefit program. That is why we lowered taxes for middle-class Canadians and why we are continuing to move forward in putting programs in place that can absolutely assist them. From there, we have also made some historic investments when it comes to infrastructure. As a result of those investments, we have been able to see that jobs are being created and from there the economy is stimulated.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if the Liberals want to help the middle class, why do they not lower taxes for everyone earning less than $45,000 a year, or everyone who makes less than $23 an hour, which is the majority of Canadian workers? Why do the Liberals not include those people in the middle class?

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to remind the member that the first thing our government did was cut taxes for the middle class and also increase taxes for the wealthiest 1%. The opposition party, however, voted against that proposal.

In addition to that, it was our government that introduced the Canada child benefit, again to help lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty. I will reiterate that we increased the amount of the guaranteed income supplement for seniors.

We implemented initiatives and our program is working.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I wish to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the incredible, fantastic member for Windsor—Tecumseh.

I want to pick up on what our Liberal colleague just said. According to the Liberal government's definition, the middle class does not include any workers who earn less than $45,000 a year. Those workers did not benefit in any way from the tax cuts the Liberals have been bragging about for the past year. They did not get one red cent. That is a rather strange definition of middle class. The people who benefited the most from Liberal tax cuts are those who earn between $90,000 and $210,000 a year. Those folks got a rebate of $270, while the workers who need it the most got absolutely nothing. Zero.

I will now talk about the bragging the Liberals have been doing about infrastructure. Our regions, our cities, and our towns desperately need the government to invest in infrastructure, not only to stimulate the economy and economic growth, but also, quite simply, to help businesses move their goods, their services, and their employees.

As the parliamentary budget officer pointed out recently, although the Liberals made a big deal out of their $13.6-billion announcement, only $4.6 billion of that has actually been or is about to be invested. That means about 75% of the total was a figment. The people doing the work in public service and municipal government have not seen a penny of it. That money is not doing anything to create jobs or stimulate the economy. We need to take Liberal promises with a grain of salt.

I am very much looking forward to tomorrow's budget speech to see if there will be any new developments in this area. The Liberals will talk about innovation and training workers, but what they announce is likely to differ from what they actually invest. Unfortunately, there is a big difference between what this government says and what it does.

I would like to talk about the Conservative Party's opposition day motion. We do agree about one thing: privatizing Canadian airports is dangerous. I am surprised that the Liberal government is even considering this because there was no mention of it during the election campaign or in the Liberal platform. Maybe I should not be too surprised, because the Liberals often say something but do not do it. Electoral reform is a prime example of that. On other matters, they keep mum, only to spring unpleasant surprises on us, such as this airport business.

Right now, federal airports in Canada belong to everyone. They are public assets. Our airports are managed by airport authorities and non-profit organizations. They have to self-fund, which is why we have airport fees. Their purpose is not to turn a profit or generate a return on investment. They also pay rent to the government, a total of about one billion dollars a year.

Right now it feels like the federal government is in panic mode. It is trying to sell our belongings so it can gain control of its massive deficit. That is shortsighted. There are two ways for the airports to turn a profit: either make cuts to services, jobs, and the working conditions of airport employees, or increase fees. Passengers are going to end up paying out of their pockets. They are literally going to pay the price. All those who travel in the country or abroad will pay the price for the Liberals' nasty little surprise, its move to privatization. Will private foreign companies be allowed to buy our airports? Airports provide not just any public service. They are also part of a very strategic infrastructure. At the risk of fearmongering, not only is this a bad idea, but it could also lead us down a path that we do not want to take.

The Liberal government has been skating around this issue for two months now. It refuses to answer questions and avoids the issue. We know that the Liberal government hired a firm to study the pros and cons of privatizing airports. Who was hired to conduct this study? A company called Credit Suisse, an international company that specializes in privatizing airports and ports. That gives us an idea of where they are going with this. I am sure that Credit Suisse will provide a fully impartial and neutral report. Yeah, right. The people in that company are extremely biased. It is their business. It is what they do for a living.

This fire sale might bring in $8 billion, $9 billion, or $12 billion. That is a quick cash injection, but since airports are a source of revenue for the federal government, what will it do in year 9, 10, or 12? That is when the government will start losing money and then it will be too late. It will be over. It is the passengers who will pay the price.

To ensure that everybody understands the message, I will continue in English on the same issue of the privatization of our airports. The Liberals never said anything during their campaign. It was not in their political platform. Suddenly it is a bad surprise for everybody. There is an option that is probably on the table to sell our airports. Right now federal airports are the property of everybody in the country. It is a common good. It is a service for all travellers. Those airports are managed by non-profit organizations. They have to raise enough money to function, but they are not there to make profit. Therefore, what will happen if the Liberals sell off our airports?

The private company that will buy them will need to make money, and there are only two ways to do that: decrease the services, the quality of services, or the working conditions of the employees at the airports, or increase the fees that passengers pay to use the services at airports. At the end of the day, travellers will literally pay the price for a bad decision by the Liberal government. We do not have any clear answer on that, but the door is wide open right now.

We know the Liberal government asked a company to study the advantages and disadvantages of eventually selling and privatizing airports. Who did the government ask to do that? It was Credit Suisse. What does Credit Suisse do? It provides counselling for the privatization of public assets like airports. The conclusion is already quite clear.

I want to point out that there is another part of the Conservative motion that New Democrats strongly oppose, which is forbidding the government to increase taxation on individuals or companies. The New Democrats do not think it is a good idea for the CEOs of the country, in big companies like banks and oil companies, not to pay their fair share for good public services, like taking care of seniors, health care, child care, and housing.

Right now, the average pay of the 100 highest-paid CEOs in our country is $9.5 million per year. They are earning 193 times the average pay of Canadian workers. There are growing inequalities in the country. If we cannot raise taxes on big companies or eliminate some loopholes, such as the stock option deduction, for the richest in our country, we will not have the resources we need to take care of our neighbours, to create good jobs, or to take care of our environment and health care.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. We are debating a Conservative motion that wants to set out the broad terms of the government's budgetary policy. I am really not very surprised that the NDP seems to agree once more with the Conservative Party's budgetary policy. During the last election, they said that the budget had to be balanced at any cost. However, when we took power we discovered the terrible economic legacy the previous government left us.

I am giving my hon. colleague the opportunity to reconsider, to rise, and to tell us, on behalf of his party, whether he regrets having said that the budget had to be balanced at any cost rather than helping the middle class and those in need in our country, as we are doing.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will refute the premise of that intervention.

On a more serious note, we are extremely concerned that the Liberal government seems to be spending recklessly and not investing where it is really needed. I think that the case of social infrastructure and public infrastructure is a good example. Only 25% of what was announced was really spent. We are extremely concerned about this trend towards privatization.

I talked about airport privatization, but there is also the infrastructure investment bank, which is apparently intended to include private partners brought in on a massive scale to take care of our public infrastructure. This is completely contrary to the Liberal rhetoric during the election campaign. They said it was time to invest in our infrastructure because interest rates were low. They ranged from about 2% to 2.5%. It does not cost much to borrow money to invest, stimulate the economy, and create economic growth.

However, they are telling us that they want to include private partners, who are going to ask for 7% or 9% returns on their investment, while we could borrow that money at 2%. Why do we need to pay 7% or 9% returns to private companies, when we could have this money at only 2%? That does not make sense.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have one question. The member mentioned the review of the eight top airports: Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal, Calgary, Edmonton, Ottawa, Winnipeg, and Halifax. He also mentioned that the Liberals were reviewing the ownership of 18 Canadian ports. They have said that any privatization or selling off airports would go to fund an infrastructure bank, which would provide a return on investment of 7% to 9%, which is unheard of.

I would like the member to comment on the fact that the Liberals are also reviewing 18 Canadian ports.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

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

Indeed, ports are also included in this study, this Liberal government review. That has us concerned as well. It brings up the same fee- and security-related problems for the companies or individuals that use these port facilities. It feels like the Liberals are doing this to please their cronies, certain privileged friends and an elite group that has connections to the Liberal Party. This does not serve the public interest and neither does the Liberal Party's broken promise to close the tax loophole for stock options deductions that benefit a very small portion of the population. This loophole costs us $800 million a year and two thirds of that money goes to only 75 people in the country. That is totally unacceptable.

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on the motion before us. As this motion is very much aspirational with respect to budget 2017, I will use my time today to talk about the things I believe Canadians need to see in it.

New Democrats have expectations for this budget that are entirely reasonable given the commitments the Liberals have made, either during the last election or since. We will welcome all concrete initiatives to address the many pressing issues facing Canadians today. Frankly, everyone has pretty much had it with rhetoric at this point. It is time to follow through.

A good way to start is by building a fairer tax system, closing loopholes for the wealthy, and cracking down on offshore tax havens. While most Canadians pay their fair share of taxes, our tax code is full of loopholes that allow the wealthiest among us to pay less. Altogether, our unfair tax system takes tens of millions of dollars from Canadians annually in lost revenues, money that should be spent to support services like health care.

The Liberals campaigned on a specific promise to address a gaping hole in our tax code that costs the government more than $800 million each year: the stock option deduction used by CEOs. They have since abandoned that promise in response to lobbying from corporate executives.

The government also curiously left untouched Stephen Harper's radically low corporate tax rates, which were slashed by a third and continue to cost the government more than $12 billion each year. In spite of this giveaway, Canadians have not seen the promised increases in investments or jobs.

The Liberals could also use this budget to deliver on promised investments in public infrastructure, rather than selling off airports and pursuing their infrastructure privatization bank scheme. While selling off Canadian assets like airports to turn a quick buck may make short-term sense, from an accounting perspective, it will leave Canadians to pay the costs through increased user fees for many years to come.

Canadians are increasingly stuck in precarious jobs characterized by part-time, low-paid, and temporary employment without benefits or pensions. Let us also hope that this budget will make a priority of creating and protecting good full-time jobs for Canadians and of improving conditions for all workers. It can implement a $15 federal minimum wage and restore promised small-business tax reductions.

Canada can also create good full-time jobs and be a leader in clean energy if the Liberals take the necessary steps to invest in home energy retrofits, to train workers for the emerging green economy, and to get critical infrastructure dollars out the door.

As Canada celebrates its 150th anniversary, it is unacceptable that indigenous people continue to face third-world conditions as a result of a long and indefensible history of chronic underfunding of services. They lack adequate access to housing, clean drinking water, mental health services, and education. The budget must make immediate investments to rectify this long-standing injustice by immediately investing the minimum required $155 million to end discrimination in the delivery of child welfare services, as per the unanimously passed NDP motion last year.

It should also provide the necessary resources to end the dozens of boil-water advisories affecting indigenous communities and ensure that all communities have access to clean, safe drinking waiter. It should, likewise, make an immediate injection for mental health services for first nation and Inuit communities to address the tragic funding shortfalls for such services, shortfalls that have been acknowledged by department officials. It should also lift the punitive 2% gap in funding transfers that continue to apply to most of the base funding that supports indigenous communities. That was a key election promise.

These commitments were made to our indigenous brothers and sisters in a very public way. The fact that the government has yet to honour them shames and embarrasses us all to no end.

Following from this, it would be great to see stable, predictable funding for the many native friendship centres throughout the country. With over half our native population living off reserve, friendship centres provide an array of services to urban natives but lack a regular funding formula. This has forced a number of these centres to close, while many others struggle from month to month to keep their doors open. On a yearly and grant basis, it is impractical to expect organizations such as our Can-Am friendship centres to consistently be able to strategize and provide these services.

It is crucial, as well, that this budget take the next steps to meet the health care needs of Canadians. Currently, one in 10 Canadians are unable to fill their prescriptions due to financial constraints. It is simply unacceptable that Canada remains the only country in the world with universal health care that does not include prescription drug coverage. It is time to fill this gap by committing to a universal pharmacare plan. This will not only make critical medicine more affordable for Canadians but will save provinces and our health care system billions in lower drug costs.

Despite lofty promises of a renewed co-operative federalism, the government has used a divide-and-conquer approach in provincial-federal health accords. It has forced deals on provinces that are, disappointingly, based on Stephen Harper's planned cuts to health care transfer increases. In fact, the Liberals, who I would like to remind this chamber were elected as a real change government, are giving only the same 3% escalator proposed by Harper for core health care funding, far short of the resources required to ensure the quality of care Canadians expect. More disturbingly, the Liberals have agreed to ignore violations of the Canada Health Act by accepting private clinics, such as MRI clinics in Saskatchewan, in order to cut a deal, another short-term gain that will result in more privatization and more costs down the line. As well, new funds for mental health and home care services are heavily back-loaded, with just 2.7% of new funds to flow in the first year. This will leave Canadians waiting for improvements and suffering.

Lastly, the Liberals made a promise to civil society groups during the previous election, as part of their successful campaign to woo progressive voters, to establish, if elected, an office of the mining ombudsperson. The ombudsperson would operate independently of government and would provide much needed oversight of Canadian extractive industries operating abroad, oversight these industries are in dire need of, given the increasing number of well-documented human rights abuses, as well as violence, associated with their operations around the world. I would say to the current government that it wooed them, it got them, and now it needs to honour its word and create this office.

One of the main reasons the Liberals were trounced out of power 12 years ago was that Canadians had grown tired of a party that seemed willing to say and do just about anything to stay in power. It has unfortunately only taken a year and half for the Liberal Party to re-establish its reputation along these lines. However, with this new budget, all could be changed. The Liberals can show Canadians that when they make a solemn commitment, they intend to follow through, or not.

We will be watching.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are talking about possibly getting rid of our airports in Canada by selling them to the private sector. One only has to look back, as the hon. mentioned a few minutes ago, 10 or 12 years, when the Liberals were in government. They got rid of some 26 airports across Canada. They sweet-talked a lot of municipalities into taking over these airports and told them it was going to be great for them and would be given to them for a dollar.

I happen to have been a mayor of a community that took one of these airports, and I sat on that committee for many years. I think I know a thing or two about airports and privatization. I am also a commercial pilot and have put my wheels down in many airports across Canada. Of those 26 airports, a number closed. Many of them ran in the red year after year. They became white elephants.

Our airport was in the black because of the Conservative tax cuts that allowed businesses to grow in my area of northeast British Columbia. Businesses grew and supported the airport, and we could operate that airport in the black. We operated with four municipalities that worked together.

Does the member see a repetition possibly of what we saw in the early 2000s, with the 26 airports the Liberals gave away, and what might happen in the immediate future?

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I too have insight and experience in how privatization has impacted airports, particularly in my area. My caucus has been sounding the alarm about privatization since we learned of the very cryptic wording “flywheel for reinvestment” and “asset recycling”. In my community, a town hall is planned for March 30 about that very issue, about what happens down the road when we privatize. Obviously, I am talking about it because I am in Ontario. This is about hydro. Though that is a provincial jurisdiction, why are we not learning lessons? Why are we not looking at this?

As politicians, it is part of our job to look, to learn, and to not operate in silos. It is really frustrating to see that we are going to follow this same pattern, and we know what will happen. It is exactly what is happening right now in Ontario. We are expecting that this will happen not just with airports but with other assets.

What exactly is the government's role in intervening? It is not to facilitate corporate profit, and that is exactly what privatization does. The way the Canadian infrastructure bank is being proposed is sounding even more alarms. Issues such as what my hon. colleague mentioned are going to be heightened. It is unfortunate that we are looking at this with a very narrow view for some kind of short-term gain so that somebody can look at a piece of paper and say that it was a good idea within a six-month period. How unfortunate for us, and what a disservice to Canadians.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement]

Mr. Speaker, I tried earlier with my colleague and her party, and I will try again. We saw in the last election that the Conservative Party and the NDP were pretty lined up on fiscal matters. I know that the hon. member would have campaigned very hard on that platform. I would like to give her the opportunity to perhaps stand in her place and explain whether they have done some thinking about their commitment, like the Conservatives, to at all costs balance the federal budget, whatever the costs for middle-class Canadians.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh, in 30 seconds or less, please.

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that I have only 30 seconds to respond to a very simplistic argument. We have been watching and have been engaged and rethinking the campaign balanced-budget issue for a long time, and guess what? As I said earlier about making observations, nothing has changed. We can see the right thing to do for Canadians, and we can see the right thing to do with corporate taxation. People paying their fair share means that we would actually be able to invest in Canadians. This simplistic argument actually does a real disservice to Canadians who want a balanced budget and responsible services for Canadians, not this cop-out we have seen from the Liberals.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take the floor today following the Leader of the Opposition's motion on the budget that will be tabled tomorrow.

As is the case every year, the finance minister of some government or parliament or other stages what is called a photo-op in the business, meaning a photo session on the broad strokes of the finance minister's enthusiasm. All finance ministers of every party have participated in this kind of PR exercise. Of course, this is an opportunity for the minister to show off his new shoes, as British tradition dictates.

Yesterday, what caught my attention is that the Minister of Finance was in Toronto, which is a good thing, but he had children with him. What a nice way for him to show how kind and sensitive he is to children!

However, knowing full well that our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren will have to foot the bill for the finance minister's poor fiscal mismanagement, the photo of him surrounded by children truly captures the harsh reality of this government's mismanagement.

We will have an opportunity a bit later to take a look at the Liberal government's record over the past 16 months, since the Liberals have already been in power for 16 months.

First of all, let us recall the facts. What was the state of Canada's finances at the time of the 2015 election? There was a surplus of $2.9 billion, as confirmed by the parliamentary budget officer last October 24 at the Standing Committee on Finance.

We left a clean house, with a surplus. Yes, “surplus”. This word existed under our government. It was not a deficit but a surplus, and our government had to address the worst economical crisis in the world since 1929. However, thanks to the Right Hon. Stephen Harper and those members of Parliament who supported him hard and strong, like the late Hon. Jim Flaherty, we came back as strong as possible. We came back as Canadians can come back. This was the signature of the Conservative government in the last 10 years. We left a clean house, and we were the first country in the G7 to get back on track. We were faster and better, which was Canada under the Conservative government.

Actually, we left the house in order with budget surpluses and the lowest tax rate that Canada has had in the last 50 years. All in all, Canadians had more money in their pockets at the end of the Conservative administration than in the previous 50 years. That, too, was signature Conservative.

We also had the best debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7, the most valuable legacy a government can bequeath to its constituents, and especially to the following government. Indeed, this debt-to-GDP ratio gives it the wiggle room it needs. Still, you need to know how to use it intelligently, contrary to what the Liberals have done.

Let us now remember the circumstances in which the Liberals were elected.

It was very surprising to see the successor to Paul Martin table a platform, which included a deficit. Paul Martin did a credible job as the minister of finance in the good old days of the Liberal Party when the Liberals were very afraid to have a deficit, and they fought for that. However, the successor of the Right Hon. Paul Martin, the actual Prime Minister, tabled a program in which he included a deficit. It is crazy.

What was this deficit?

Let us remember that the Liberals promised a very small deficit of $10 billion a year for three years, and then a return to a balanced budget in 2019. Hogwash.

Last year, the Liberals were very proud to table a budget that had a deficit of about $30 billion, three times higher than planned, and now they have completely lost control of public finances. We are not the ones saying it, Finance Canada officials are saying it, too. Indeed, two or three times a year, these officials conduct evaluations, assess our current situation and consider future prospects.

Now, on October 10, 2016, the Department of Finance gave the Minister of Finance a report that concludes that if nothing changes, Canada's debt will be $1.5 trillion in 2050, and if nothing changes, we will return to a balanced budget in 2055, 36 years later than expected under the Liberal agenda.

This isn't coming from the Conservatives. Department of Finance officials, the people who deal with this every day, are saying it. They see exactly what is going on. Their conclusion was brutal.

There will be a zero deficit in 2055. The government missed the target by 36 years. This is totally unacceptable but this is totally Liberal. This is the same situation.

The minister was so proud of the report. What did he do with the report? He put it on his table, not for a day, not for a week, not for a month, but for a full two months. He did not look at it for 10 weeks and then finally published it. When?

[An hon. member]

Before Christmas.

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

Just a few hours before Christmas.

In French, there is a nice song by Beau Dommage. When did they release it? On December 23.

December 23 “Merry Christmas, Mr. [Tanguay]!”

Take it easy, little buddy! See you again on January 7...

That is the song, but we actually did meet again on January 7.

On January 7, we finally had the report. The odious face of the government was shown to everybody. The Liberals had lost control of spending.

That is the signature of the Liberal government.

Today, we are just a few hours away, 26 or 28 hours away, from the budget being tabled, and Canadians are rightfully worried. They were promised many things in the last budget, as we recall. Even today, the overblown rhetoric drones on. The Liberals spout lofty principles and claim to be thinking of the children, that they have never been as generous as with the Canada child benefit.

Hang on a second. First of all, let us recall that this program abolished all sorts of programs parents could use to help their children. This government abolished the tax credits for fitness and arts activities, the purchase of textbooks for school. This government that spouts lofty principles about helping families has eliminated a number of tax credits.

Worse still, the Liberals are all proud to say that they are spending $2 billion more than the previous government. Of course they are, they are creating a deficit. They are sending the bill to our grandchildren; they will be paying for it. Which brings me back to the picture I spoke of at the start of my speech. The Minister of Finance, surrounded by children. Of course, he told them that he will be sending them the bill later and that they are the ones who will be paying for his mismanagement.

Let us not forget that this government overlooked one small detail in its new family allowances. It forgot to factor in inflation. This is just a small detail. This small oversight turned into a $20-billion mistake. It is incredible. Any low-level accountant working for a small business, whatever it is, forgetting to factor in inflation would be quickly kicked to the curb. Now this government is patting itself on the back, pleased as Punch. They are the nice guys; they can do no wrong.

It is totally unacceptable. To forget the inflation rate when a budget of billions of dollars has to be tabled is the proof without a shadow of doubt. The Liberals have no control when it comes to spending money. This is a signature of the Liberal government.

It gets better, as the government's lofty principles do not end there. It claims Canadian workers pay less tax because it was good enough to think of the poor, hard-working folk and to punish the big bad one-percenters, those who make a good living, as if they were criminals. Come on, now! For my part, I dream of the day when the 1% will be the 10%, 20% or 30%. That is what we want. Why attack them from all fronts, on all sides?

Worse than that, these people say that they are the modern Robins Hoods, that they will make the rich pay for the less fortunate. What is the result of their tax changes, really? On Senator Larry Smith's initiative, the parliamentary budget officer was asked to assess the precise impact of these tax changes. The PBO revealed that 65% of Canadian workers saw no difference at all. Those earning $45,000 or less get $0. Those who earn $60,000 have $2 more in their pockets a week. Even worse, the biggest winners are those who earn between $140,000 and $200,000 a year. I admit to my conflict of interest, as I fall into that category of people, like every other MP. Indeed, MPs are paid handsomely.

That means this measure will benefit us the most. Those people are trying to tug at our heartstrings by saying they want to help the middle class. Well, I am sorry, but when the people earning $199,000 a year are the ones benefiting the most from these changes, that is hardly the middle class.

That is what we, as parliamentarians, have been working with up to now, so we are very concerned about what the government has planned for the budget it will be tabling tomorrow. We are especially concerned about three issues: entrepreneurs, Canadian workers and the management of public funds, and the potential sale of airports. Let me go over those one by one.

The government has been hiding the truth from Canadian workers. False promises, bad management, and saddling our children and grandchildren with crippling deficits is the name of the Liberal government's game.

Canadian workers who get up every morning only to watch half their paycheque drain away in taxes expect to get their money's worth. Eliminating tax credits for families, as we discussed earlier, does not help these people. Even worse are the new pension plan fees that will cost businesses an average of $1,000 more per worker. That is classic Liberal government.

The same goes for the Liberals' coast-to-coast carbon tax, which will hit taxpayers right in the pocketbook.

Just to be clear with everyone, the best example of that is this. The government had a study done by the civil servant about the impact to the average Canadian of the Liberal carbon tax. I thank my colleague, the member for Carleton, who day after day in the House of Commons talked about the reality of the carbon tax cover-up. The government is not so proud of this study because, without a shadow of a doubt, it concluded there would be a lot of money to grab from the pockets of the people instead of helping them.

The carbon tax will have a real impact on the average Canadian. That is why this is totally unacceptable. I extend my thanks for the hard and good job of my colleague from Carleton who has raised the issue in the House of Commons day after day. We also had a debate on it a few days ago.

Canadian taxpayers therefore have good reason to be worried about the Liberal government's upcoming budget. Let us talk about entrepreneurs.

For us, the Conservative Party of Canada, entrepreneurs form the backbone of our economy. Those people create wealth. They create jobs. They are real actors for the wealth of the Canadian economy. We shall support them as far as we can. We do not want to make things difficult for them. We must help them.

For us Conservatives, small and medium-sized business owners are the backbone of our economy. Need I remind the members of the sad day barely two years ago when the current Prime Minister said quite seriously that, as far as he was concerned, small businesses were a means to save on taxes or even evade taxes?

I understand that he was looking at himself in the mirror when he said that, but I would prefer that he respect those who risk suffering huge consequences and who are creating real jobs and real wealth.

What did the government do for those people? First, it eliminated a number of tax credits that helped stimulate economic activity for businesses. This government is going to increase pension fund premiums for every worker. Not only do employees have to pay $1,000 more for their pensions, but businesses also have to pay an extra $1,000 for each employee.

I would also remind the House that the Liberal carbon tax is going to penalize those who work to grow the economy rather than carbon producers. This is not the right approach, and we do not support it. This is why entrepreneurs ought to be supported, especially since the new American administration keeps saying that it plans to reduce fees and taxes for businesses.

Let us face facts: our Canadian businesses are going to go head to head with U.S. companies, which are both our main competitors and our main partners. They will be facing businesses that will see their taxes go down, while Canadian businesses will see theirs rise. That is not the right approach. We believe that the best way to help businesses is not to invent 36,000 programs, but to lower taxes.

Finally, let us look at airport privatization. This is worrisome because, to my knowledge, the Liberal platform did not include this measure. Every time the issue is raised, inside or outside the House, the government avoids giving a definitive answer: maybe yes, maybe no, maybe we will do this, maybe we will do that.

We are asking the government to take a firm position against this privatization. We must be vigilant. Let us keep in mind that starting on December 5, the Leader of the Opposition and I have asked about 20 questions in the House. The questions were about a possible tax on health and dental benefits. After he was asked twenty or so questions, the Prime Minister finally rose, here in the House, and said that the Liberals would not tax health and dental benefits. We were very pleased. Common sense had finally prevailed. However, six days after the Prime Minister said this, we had a vote on a motion that said exactly what the Prime Minister had said. What did he do? He opposed it. He voted against what he himself had said. What is the Liberal government's word worth? Nothing.

This is why we are concerned. When we hear the government say one thing, we know very well that it could do the opposite—not to mention that it got elected by promising to run small deficits, when in actual fact these are massive, colossal deficits, and the budget will not be back in balance until 2055. This is ludicrous, preposterous, and unacceptable.

What concerns us about airports?

Let us get one thing straight: airports are not corner stores. They are the gateway to Canada. The same goes for ports. There is an over-arching function to this kind of infrastructure that makes it different from the others. Moreover, Canadians have already paid, through their taxes, to develop the airports that we have today. If they are sold, the new owners will need to make money somewhere. This makes perfect sense in a market economy, of course. We have nothing against this principle, but can it be applied to airports? We do not believe so, because Canadians have already paid for airports with their taxes. By increasing fees and charges, this government will make Canadians pay twice for something they have already paid for. This is not the right thing to do.

We are not talking about jet-setters here. We are talking about average Canadians who go on pleasure trips with their families to see friends across Canada or abroad. Gone are the days when only the proverbial 1% travelled by air. Today all Canadians regularly travel by airplane. These are the people who will end up paying if the government unfortunately goes ahead with this initiative. Why are they doing this? It seems that this would be to finance the infrastructure bank. Why does the government want to establish an infrastructure bank given that a private infrastructure investment tool already exists? It is called PPP Canada. Yes, it was created by the Conservatives. Is it because it is a Conservative creation that the Liberals are unable to use it? It is not some venereal disease!

We are asking the government what its motive is to create this initiative from scratch. Why do we need something else when the tool already exists? Even worse, creating a bank takes a fund. What will they do with the $15 billion they are going to put in the fund? Will they freeze it just like that? The government is going to freeze billions of dollars at a time when the Canadian economy needs them today.

Do not get me wrong, Mr. Speaker. We do not disagree with the investment for infrastructure. When we were in office, the hon. member for Roberval was the head of the ministry that had tabled an $80 billion budget for infrastructure for the next 10 years. It was a most ambitious program at that time, and we are proud of that. The main difference is that we would have done it with a zero deficit budget, compared to the current government, which spent without any control.

Today we are debating the sound management of public funds. This government has proven without a shadow of a doubt that it has no control over public finances, threatening to put Canada in a downward spiral without a return to a balanced budget until 2055. This is completely unacceptable. I call on all parliamentarians to vote in favour of this motion, which takes the government to task and takes to heart the interests of our entrepreneurs and, first and foremost, the interests of all hard-working Canadians.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement]

Mr. Speaker, the member is suggesting that we are a bit full of ourselves. The fact is that after 10 years of Conservative reign during which we observed the decline of the middle class, after nine deficit years in a row, after disasters like the Phoenix fiasco, and after years and years with no major military acquisitions, Canadians needed real change, and that is precisely what we are delivering.

The party across the way is once again attempting to write Canada's economic and fiscal policy from the opposition benches. The member is his party's finance critic, which is to his great credit, but there are 14 other people travelling across Canada promoting their visions and their versions of Canada's economic and fiscal policy.

Can my hon. friend assure us that, no matter the outcome of the interminable Conservative leadership race, the economic vision he is presenting today is the one that the future Conservative Party leader will espouse?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for drawing Canadians' attention to our leadership race.

In a leadership race, each person expresses their ideas and we debate them. If everyone sang the same song with the same instrument, the same song sheet and the same tone, it would not be a leadership race. It is a debate of ideas.

My colleague thought it was appalling that we were in a deficit for nine consecutive years, but I urge him to be careful, because it was not quite nine years. I am not sure where my colleague was at the time, but we were all on planet Earth, and the whole world was facing the worst economic crisis in history since 1929. That is why we ran such deficits.

However, thanks to the rigorous management of Mr. Harper and the late Mr. Flaherty, Canada was the first G7 country to emerge from the crisis. It had the best debt-to-GDP ratio and Canadians had more money in their pockets in over 50 years—so yes, we are proud of that record.

At the same time, it must be embarrassing for the government to talk about the Phoenix pay system. Must I remind the parliamentary secretary that, about a year and a month ago, when the Liberals were in power, they were the ones who authorized the implementation of the Phoenix pay system, although our ministers had warned the government about the associated risks? If the government wants to politicize the issue, I would say welcome to the big leagues, because this government is the one that pushed the green button at the wrong time.

Now the Liberals have the gall to talk about military procurement when they are the ones who just signed a $5-billion cheque to buy the Super Hornet jets that no one wants and that serve no purpose. They have some nerve to raise that issue. I am very proud of the Conservative administration when I see the billions of dollars the government is shamelessly spending.