Debates of March 20th, 2018

Access to Information on Prime Minister's Trip to India

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, the question of parliamentary privilege that the deputy House leader from the Liberal Party raised was mine. I do not believe I used the term “cover-up” in my suggestion. I quoted the Milliken decision with respect to the ability of parliamentarians to see all information.

I would remind the member that information is not just provided through the production of documents. Witness testimony and the ability to question witnesses is part of the obligation of parliamentarians to fulfill their duties unfettered. That was supported by the Milliken decision, which supersedes both the Bosley and Parent decisions. It should be unfettered. National security interests can be addressed if there are some, but those were waived in this case when the Prime Minister's Office asked the national security advisor to brief members of the press gallery, who do not have the same privileges as members of Parliament.

The key element of the Milliken decision, which my friend, the deputy House leader for the Liberals, glossed over rather craftily, is that a parliamentarian's privilege shall be unfettered to fulfill their obligations to hold the government to account. My privilege, as both a member of this place and as the shadow cabinet minister doing my parliamentary duties to critique the minister and the government on foreign affairs matters is curtailed by the fact that the government has provided information to the media through the national security advisor, the most senior civil servant advising cabinet and the Government of Canada. It is not allowing parliamentarians, including me, to have that same degree of information and access. A request by parliamentarians to have that same degree of information at the public safety committee is the same as a request by this House to have documents related to Afghan detainees, which is the subject matter of the Milliken decision.

My friend is trying to be somewhat cute in the fact that suggesting there is not an order for the production of documents is somehow different and can be distinguished from requests from parliamentarians to have evidentiary testimony from the most senior civil servant responsible for security when that very information was provided to non-parliamentarians. It is a preposterous position for the member to take.

I would ask the Chair to look at both my presentation from two weeks ago and also my rebuttal here today, and the Eggleton decision, which recognizes that the government cannot have two positions on one issue.

The Prime Minister's Office compelled the national security advisor to provide briefings to the media. The public safety minister, in his press conference before the House rose, suggested that the national security advisor could provide that information to the media but could choose not to provide that information to parliamentarians. That is fettering the privilege of parliamentarians to fulfill their obligations in this place. That is supported clearly by the Milliken decision, which did not just in spirit relate to production of documents. It is information and evidence that parliamentarians need to fulfill their duties.

I would also suggest that the member's response to my question of privilege highlights the fact that the Eggleton decision would apply to this circumstance where the Government of Canada has provided two possible responses to a diplomatic incident. One response was that the member for Surrey Centre was responsible for the invitation of Jaspal Atwal, which the Prime Minister has acknowledged and the member himself has acknowledged, and for which the member was disciplined or resigned from a role. The Prime Minister has also suggested that the Indian government is somehow complicit in the Atwal invitation, or the scandal related to Atwal's attendance at the Prime Minister's events.

That is in a very similar fashion to a previous ruling, the Eggleton decision, where two positions of the federal government cannot possibly be correct. This is something that the House has been trying to probe at. The information that the national security advisor provided to members of the media is required for parliamentarians to discern which alternative is true. They cannot both be true. Even Mr. Atwal himself, a week ago, refuted the Prime Minister's suggestion that the Indian government was responsible.

I would ask for an expeditious review of this point of privilege. Parliamentarians are clearly having our ability to perform our function fettered by the government's unwillingness to provide parliamentarians with the same briefing and the same degree of access to the national security advisor that the Prime Minister provided to members of the media in order to explain away problems with his trip to India.

Those are my submissions in right of reply to my friend from the Liberal Party with respect to this matter of privilege.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to thank the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader and the member for Durham for the additional information that was provided. We will certainly take it under advisement. The Chair will include it in the information that has already been provided.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government, and of the amendment.

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

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

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague across the way, the member for Joliette.

This is a good news budget. It is a budget that continues from the previous two budgets. It helped build Canada's middle class, those aspiring to be a part of it, and those who needed that helping hand.

I look across the way. I have been listening to a lot of the Conservatives stand up and critique this wonderful budget. One cannot help but ask, what is the difference between the Conservative Party today and what it was three or four years ago? I would think that Stephen Harper is in fact still leading their party. I do not think Stephen Harper has left Parliament Hill. They do have a new leader, but I listen to the criticisms and try to distinguish the difference between Stephen Harper and this current leader. I do not see much of a difference. I would suggest that they are one and the same.

When listening to how the Conservatives are critiquing this budget, one would think that they are not listening to Canadians. In fact, I would suggest they are out of touch with what Canadians want the government to be doing. We had a good sense of that in the last national election, with one party talking about investing in Canada, protecting Canada's middle class, doing the things that are necessary to advance our economy and our society. We had the Conservatives and the NDP saying that we have to have a balanced budget. We have to have cutbacks and so forth. That was the unholy alliance back then.

In fairness, I am starting to see a bit of a division among the NDP and the Conservatives. I do not want to say that the NDP are fully in line with the balanced budget model that the Conservatives often talked about today. However, having said that, I believe the proof is in the pudding. I would like to suggest to my friends across the way that a lot of good things have happened in Canada as a direct result of the change in government back in 2015. I remember the slogan of “real change” quite well. Canadians wanted a change, and Canadians received that change when they voted for this government.

We will continue to work with Canadians from coast to coast to coast to build a stronger and healthier economy. One of the biggest selling points to how successful this government has been is to take a look at the job numbers, with over 600,000 jobs created. It took the Conservatives a decade to get to those types of numbers. In less than three years, we have accomplished that by working with Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

When I am asked what sort of policy initiatives we have taken to support that type of growth, I bring it back to the first piece of legislation. The first priority in terms of legislation was dealing with a cut in taxes for Canada's middle class. That resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars being put into the pockets of consumers. Those consumers were able to spend that money, which helped to cultivate the economy with more money being spent. It is the middle class who are the great consumers. They purchase items needed, increase production, and cause all sorts of wonderful job spin-offs. That tax cut was critical to what we see today.

I remind members that we also put the tax on Canada's wealthiest 1%. That was an additional assigned tax, so there was that tax increase. However, it is interesting. Members will recall that the Harper Conservatives, as well as the Conservatives under this new leadership, who are the same, voted against that particular tax cut.

Other initiatives have included the Canada child benefit. I have often talked about the benefits of that program. The bottom line is that thousands of children were lifted out of poverty, and millions of dollars were put into the pockets of Canadians, thereby increasing disposable income once again.

Every month we get millions of dollars from the national treasury going to Winnipeg North to the families and children that really need that support. That is something that is really helping our economy and strengthening the lives of so many people. The budget recognizes that it is not good enough to have established the child benefit program; we need to ensure that it continues to receive increases. Therefore, we are going to see them in the future. When the cost of living goes up, the money allotted to the program will also go up.

I talked about tax cuts and about money in the pockets of Canadians with young children. I should also talk about the increase to the guaranteed income supplement, our seniors program. We continue to support seniors in whatever way we can.

I heard a lot of discussion about pharmacare. It is a fantastic idea that I suspect will get good support from Liberals, New Democrats, and the Green Party. Even some Conservatives might ultimately support a national pharmacare program. It is an ambitious road we are on, and we need to recognize that the national government has to work with our provincial and territorial counterparts. We will also work with indigenous people. The New Democrats will snap their fingers and say, “Make it happen yesterday.” It just does not happen that way. Negotiations have to take place.

My daughter, an MLA in the province of Manitoba, and I have a wonderful story about the pharmacare program. My daughter said that she wants to see a national pharmacare program, but until then, the Province of Manitoba should be prepared to go it alone if necessary, because she believes so passionately in the program. Interesting enough, the provincial NDP, after being in government for 15 years and booted out of office two years ago, now finally says that we should have a national pharmacare program. In fact, the NDP back then, in the province of Manitoba, could have led the way. It chose not to do that.

The Standing Committee on Health has recognized the importance of pharmaceuticals and the cost of medications. Its report has been brought forward. I think it is a step forward for all of us. I hope there will be an opportunity some day in the future when we will be able to say that we have a national pharmacare program. I know that the residents of Winnipeg North would love to see that happen.

The Canada workers benefit that is being established by our government is one of those programs that will greatly enhance opportunities for our working class, in particular our low-income workers. My colleague and friend from Winnipeg Centre talked a great deal about that program and the thousands of Manitobans and Winnipeggers who will benefit from it. The bottom line is that from coast to coast to coast, Canadians will benefit from that initiative. This is one of the initiatives that demonstrates very clearly that we have a Prime Minister and a government that genuinely care and believe in bringing in good, solid, progressive programs that will have a profound, positive impact on the future of all Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, at the tail end of the speech by the member opposite, because most of his speech focused on previous budgets and previous initiatives of the government, he mentioned the changes to the working benefit. Many of these changes were brought in by former minister of finance Jim Flaherty, who originally proposed the WITB enhancements and whatnot.

In last year's fall economic update, the Minister of Finance and the government announced that there would be further changes. However, those cheques the Liberals have said are ready to come out will not actually go out until 2019, almost at the end of the government's mandate, when we are looking to have an election. I am not saying that cheques coming out in an election year are anything short of what a Liberal government would do. However, the member said that this budget would help those people. It seems to me that the government makes a habit of announcing and announcing and basically ragging the puck until either it is near the end of its mandate or after.

Does the member believe that the Minister of Finance needs to do a better job of working with provinces like Manitoba to get those cheques out to support working families faster than what this budget proposes?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, over the last three budgets, we have consistently seen the Minister of Finance present to this House many progressive policy changes that are having a very positive and profound impact on Canadians in all regions of our country. When we look at what was the working income tax benefit and how it is being converted to the Canada workers benefit program, what we are really witnessing is this. An individual who has a job paying around $14,000 or $15,000 a year will benefit from an additional $500, which is a significant amount of money.

We can always look at ways we can improve the system, but what I think Canadians will appreciate is that we have a government that has consistently, through its budgetary measures, brought in progressive steps that will enable a healthier, stronger middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it. That was the theme from day one of this government. I hope and trust that we will continue to see that theme being carried through so that we will have a healthier and more robust economy into the future.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, I was very interested when my colleague said that the government will support seniors wherever it can. That is a very important statement. However, in 2009, the Liberals promised to change the bankruptcy laws. That was when the then leader held a big rally outside this House. They did it again in 2015, at election time, yet it is 2018, and still nothing has been done. The budget has referred to it, stating that we are going to have consultations and that it will be evidence-based.

How much more evidence does the government need to find out that thousands of workers and retirees have been shortchanged on their pensions? The Liberals are still looking for a way to avoid correcting it, as we have said many times in this House. What concrete measures has the government taken to ensure that pensioners will not be ripped off in the future?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I can assure my friend across the way that when we look at the issue of pensions, what we see is a government that took action virtually within the first few months of governing Canada. All one has to do is look at the guaranteed income supplement, which was significantly enhanced to the tune of up to $900 plus for some of the poorest seniors, lifting literally tens of thousands of seniors out of poverty. We can talk about the CPP. We have a historic agreement between this government and the provinces and territories for individuals who are going to be retiring. Many of those seniors are ones we are all concerned about. I am not only talking about seniors but about individuals between the ages of 25 and 50-plus, who will have better or more resources when it comes to retirement. Does that mean that everything is done? No. There is always room to do more.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Québec debout, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Winnipeg North for sharing his time with me.

There is nothing revolutionary or even ambitious about this budget. The only thing coming out of this budget is the fact that the government is throwing money around without any real plan to return to a balanced budget. That works well for pre-electoral announcements in Toronto suburbs, but not for much else.

Once again, Quebec is not a priority to Canada. Again, Quebeckers are not a priority to the government. In short, budget 2018 is totally unfair to Quebec. For example, look at what Irving got. Irving practically has the monopoly on forestry in the Maritimes with four and a half million acres. The Liberal government decided to give the Maritimes forestry sector, or Irving, $75 million to combat the spruce budworm while Quebec got nothing. Not one penny for us, even though the area affected in Quebec is larger than the entire province of New Brunswick. It does not make sense and is a slap in the face.

Pushing our Davie shipyard aside in favour of Irving was more of the same. Eight hundred jobs were lost just before Christmas because the government gave nothing to Canada's largest shipyard. However, the two shipyards that received all the contracts, Irving and Seaspan, are behind on building their ships. In fact, they are constantly behind. The Davie shipyard could build a second supply ship and the icebreakers, which are so desperately needed on our St. Lawrence, but there is nothing for that in the budget. Since the current builders are unable to meet the orders, all the contracts should be redistributed, no more, no less.

I will give the government a little tip for free. If a supplier is bad, change suppliers. As we know, the Davie shipyard delivered the Asterix supply ship on time and on budget. The Davie shipyard, which is struggling without a contract, is capable of meeting requirements. However, there is nothing in the budget for Davie. Clearly, the Liberal members from Quebec are asleep at the wheel on this issue. The government has just missed out on a great opportunity to be a little fairer by awarding contracts to Davie.

When I say that all the major measures in this budget have no impact on Quebec, I am not exaggerating. For years, everyone in Quebec has been asking the federal government to do its part for health care funding. We know that our nurses have to work until they become sick themselves. Just to maintain the system in its current form, health transfers would have to be increased by at least 5% annually. Again, however, there is nothing new here. The Liberal government ignores our needs and prefers to create programs that we already have in Quebec. For example, the Liberal government has announced that it wants to establish a pharmacare plan, but only outside Quebec, because we already have our own. It has announced that it wants to establish parental leave, but only outside Quebec, because we have had our own for 12 years. It also wants to introduce a federal bill on pay equity, while we have had our own for 22 years. Last year, it freed up money to create day care spaces, but only outside Quebec, because we already have our own. The Liberals are full of measures that have no impact on us. It is rather strange to have a government that ignores Quebec's requests and then constantly copies us 10 or 20 years later. Ottawa seems to feel free to ignore our requests.

For years, we Quebeckers have been asking for investments in regional infrastructure, like airports and ports. Sadly, our pleas have gone unanswered. The funding for municipal infrastructure has already been announced, but it is held up in Ottawa because the program is too rigid. The budget has nothing new to say on this subject.

The budget also contains no announcements about the issue of the EI gap. People, ordinary people, are struggling because the government refuses to lift a finger. Despite a unanimous call by Quebec's National Assembly, the Liberal government continues to give an unfair advantage to Web giants. By not taxing them, the government is giving them a 15% advantage over our businesses. I do not see Amazon creating jobs in our cities and municipalities, nor do I see Netflix creating jobs in our cultural sector, yet the government has decided to side with multinational Web giants over our local businesses. It has picked rich Americans over its own cultural sector. If that is not colonization, I do not know what is.

The Liberals also missed an opportunity to tackle tax havens. Again, Quebec asked Ottawa to stop legalizing tax havens. Instead of making the immoral illegal, the Liberal government has just legalized two new tax havens. Good God.

This political choice has a price. Each year, tax authorities lose between $7 billion and $10 billion. Quebec's tax authorities are also losing money. It is clearer than ever that all of Quebec's voters have less weight in the House than the Bay Street lobby.

In Quebec, Desjardins and National Bank do not have subsidiaries in tax havens. In Toronto, the five big banks will continue to hide their profits in tax havens, while those in the middle class, who work and pay their taxes, will continue to pay in their place. This is what is going on. The money that is hidden in tax havens matches the budget deficit. That is the government's economic vision.

There has been another budget announcement made to please the banks of Bay Street. The Liberals announced that they will try again to remove Canadian banks from Quebec's Consumer Protection Act. We will be awaiting them with our heels dug in, because there is no way we will be set back 40 years so that the insatiable appetite of their friends on Bay Street can be satisfied. It is out of the question.

Despite the government's rhetoric about our dairy producers and all of our supply-managed farmers, it continues to sacrifice them in trade deals. For instance, the government has not even renegotiated quotas in the new TPP. The Liberals chose to cede the same market share as in the previous agreement, while the United States is no longer part of the agreement. This goes directly against the will of the National Assembly, the unanimous motion that was voted on here, and even the Prime Minister's statement. It is unacceptable. This certainly does not bode well for the NAFTA renegotiations. Meanwhile, there is no compensation for our farmers. The budget has forgotten them.

Regarding environmental commitments under COP21, we were expecting measures to encourage the electrification of transportation, such as purchasing bonuses for electric vehicles or even funds to develop the network of charging stations. Unfortunately, the budget contains nothing to that effect.

In conclusion, the budget does pay particular attention to women, indigenous people and other minorities, which would be fine if the government ever walked the talk. What it does not do, however, is speak to Quebeckers. It is not meant for them. It does not respond to their needs. Quebec has never been so weak in Ottawa. This is crystal clear in the budget. No one even pretends to care about Quebec anymore. It is completely ignored. For my colleagues in the Quebec caucus and I, our job is to defend the interests of Quebeckers. It is not complicated: We will always put Quebeckers first. Since the budget ignores them completely, we are certainly going to vote against it.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech in defence of Quebec's interests. In mine, I will defend the interests of all Canadians, but I understand his objective.

In his opinion, are we now more than ever dealing with an excessively centralizing Liberal government that has no respect for provincial jurisdictions? It almost seems as if the government sees the country as its own unitary regime. For the Liberals, it is as if there is no federation, only a great leader who revels in his duties and who gives orders to the provinces.

Is that how my colleague reads the situation as well?

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Québec debout, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I fully agree with him. We have a centralist and imperialist government that wants to interfere in all areas of jurisdiction of the provinces and Quebec even though it is incapable of doing its own job. For every dollar paid in taxes, 50¢ goes to Ottawa, whose job it is to spend it in ways that matter, such as investing in health care. We have been asking for this for years but we get nothing but crumbs. It is unacceptable. This government, which is not even capable of paying its employees properly, is not going to give Quebec lessons on how to do its job well.

My colleague talks about defending the interests of all Canadians. We want to defend the interests of Quebeckers in the House. What I have seen here over the past two and a half years is that there are two very different societies with very different economic bases. When Ottawa comes up with economic policies, they are not adapted to Quebec and the province is ill-served. Quebec is just too different. We do not have Ontario's automobile or financial sectors, or western Canada's oil sector. We have a high-tech sector. Furthermore, the needs of our forestry industry are different than British Columbia's. We need more support for the high-tech, aerospace, and informatics industries. We saw our pharmaceutical sector collapse for lack of support. That is also the case for the manufacturing sector. More than ever before, this must change.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for all his comments. However, women in sport is what I am interested in. Today, I am a very proud mother because my eldest daughter is in a major synchronized swimming competition.

In Canada, 41% of girls between the ages of three and 17 and 84% of adult women do not participate in sports. This budget provides funding to foster gender equality in sport.

Does my colleague believe that this type of funding can help women and girls in his riding to participate in sports?

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Québec debout, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

Having an eight-year-old daughter myself, I believe it is important to achieve gender equality in all areas, including sports.

After looking closely at this budget measure, I consider it to be more of a vote-seeking measure that gives Liberal ministers and MPs an opportunity to make a bunch of announcements all year long and in various settings, giving a little money each time in exchange for visibility. I see this measure first and foremost as a way to hand out goodies to people.

I did not see any structural measures in the budget to develop the Quebec economy or any vision for economic development. I saw only scattered bits of funding here and there.

The issue of gender equality is extremely important. We need to keep going in that direction. The budget does propose legislation to ensure pay equity at the federal level, but I would remind the House that Quebec introduced that 22 years ago. The federal government is 20 years behind.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I wish to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the very honourable and very competent member for Mégantic—L'Érable, a beautiful riding that has a beautiful lake I swam in a few years ago. As I always do, I would also like to say hello to the many residents of Beauport—Limoilou who are listening to us today and those I meet in my travels, whether I am going door to door or attending events at community centres and so on.

Today I want to talk about the stark realities of budget 2018. I would like to draw a parallel to the disastrous trip to India that my constituents have been upset about and have been talking about so much in recent weeks. This trip was not out of character for this government. The trip was ill-defined and achieved virtually nothing, other than having the Prime Minister dress up in ridiculous costumes—ridiculous only because it was the Prime Minister wearing them. The clothes themselves are not ridiculous; what is ridiculous is the fact that the Prime Minister of Canada wore them instead of wearing the type of clothing he should be wearing to such international meetings. He toured around India making a mockery of the office of Prime Minister, and he was the laughingstock of the international press. He then returned home after announcing hardly anything to Canadians.

This trip pretty much reflects how this government acts every day in the House. It is also exactly like budget 2018: a political agenda with no substance, with page after page of lofty words, and void of any concrete measures.

The Liberals and the Prime Minister, the hon. member for Papineau, brag about forming a government that is not cynical, that will put democracy back on track, that is more transparent, and that wants to restore Canadians' trust in the political system. In my opinion, one of the best ways to restore Canadians' trust is keep the most basic of promises. Not only have the Liberals broken key promises, such as changing the voting system, but they have also broken basic, structural promises that they made with their hands on their hearts in 2015.

The Prime Minister promised to run annual deficits of no more than $10 billion. He also said that in 2018, the deficit would not exceed $6 billion. Less than two weeks ago, the government announced that the deficit for 2018-19 is $18 billion, three times the amount that was promised during the 2015 campaign.

The second broken promise is just as important. The Liberals promised a return to a balanced budget by 2020. As my dear colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent always says in a delightful turn of phrase, never has a Canadian government ever run a deficit outside wartime, such as during the Second World War, or outside a major economic crisis, like the one we went through when Mr. Harper was leading the government. He was a great prime minister, by the way.

The Prime Minister is running major deficits and has no plan to return to a balanced budget, even though our economy is in a favourable position compared to most countries around the world. I will get into this economic situation a bit later. It is unbelievable.

Here is what the parliamentary budget officer thinks about it, as reported by the QMI Agency:

...Canada's fiscal watchdog notes that the federal government's vagueness about [balancing the budget] conflicts with the objectives set out in the mandate letter of finance minister Bill Morneau.

The PBO also notes that the mandate letter from the Prime Minister explicitly asks the minister to ensure “that our fiscal plan is sustainable by meeting our fiscal anchors of balancing the budget in 2019/20 and continuing to reduce the federal debt-to-GDP ratio throughout our mandate”.

Lastly, the article states:

However, in its 2016 budget, Ottawa abandoned its intention of reaching a zero deficit in 2019-20.

Ottawa confirmed two weeks ago that not only will a balanced budget not be reached this year, but it will certainly not be reached by 2023, or by 2045, based on forecasts.

As for infrastructure, it is the biggest joke of all. It is unbelievable. After the election, the government bragged about implementing the largest infrastructure program in Canadian history, a $180-billion program.

I am not the one saying this. Barely a week ago, the parliamentary budget officer said that only $10 billion had been released so far. The media has been covering this story for last few days, thank heaven. All the billions of dollars that should be spent on infrastructure by 2019 will be delayed until 2022, 2023, and 2024.

I will come back to balancing the budget and to deficits. When the Prime Minister promised deficits of no more than $10 billion a year, he brazenly insisted that these deficits were for infrastructure, not for international relations, or for climate change in third-world countries, or for endless funding for all of Canada's diversity groups. No, he said that they were for infrastructure.

The parliamentary budget officer said that the Liberals do not yet have a plan for how the federal government will spend $186.7 billion in infrastructure money over the next 12 years. Is this not the same Liberal government that keeps repeating that meeting environmental targets, for example, requires a plan? The Liberals have no plan for the environment, just as they have no plan for infrastructure. One of their flagship promises, which was so important that it formed the basis for the other promises, was to balance the budget in 2019 and to run annual deficits of $10 billion.

Meanwhile, taxes are going up for the fine constituents of Beauport—Limoilou. The average increase for middle-income families is exactly $840 per year, whereas by the end of 10 wonderful years of Conservative government, from 2006 to 2015, the average Canadian family paid about $2,000 less in taxes. There is an increase in Canada Pension Plan contributions, up to $2,200 per household, there is a carbon tax, up to $2,500 per household, and the cancellation of the family tax cut. This has a direct impact on the people of Beauport—Limoilou. All my neighbours in Beauport—Limoilou have children who play sports or take part in fitness or arts activities. For example, on Sunday mornings, my daughter takes music lessons at the Cascades school of music. It is a great place and I am proud to mention it today. They also cancelled the tax credits for education and textbooks, which could be as much as $560 per student, and they raised EI premiums. This does not even include the disastrous tax reforms imposed by the Minister of Finance, even though he himself wanted to hide some of his income from the federal taxman, frankly.

The sad part is that the debt keeps piling up. After three years in office, the current government has grown the national debt by $60 billion. According to projections by the Department of Finance, in other words, our dear, dedicated public servants, the budget will not be balanced until 2045, which will add $450 billion to the debt. A colleague opposite spoke about 3- to 17-year-old girls not being able to access this or that thing. I will tell her that, in 30 years, fully all of these girls will be paying the debt piled up by the current government. Only one thing is certain: men and women alike will be paying a lot more on the debt in 30 or 40 years, because of the bad fiscal management by this bad government, which, I hope, will be calling it quits in 2019.

What is even more unbelievable is that the government brags about having wonderful financials thanks to its prowess at managing public funds. That is not the case. We know full well that the current growth is primarily due to a recovery in the oil sector. That is good for the entire oil industry, but again, it is not because of the Liberals' sound management. In addition, house prices increased by 16% in 2016, bringing in additional revenue. Oil and gas exports went up. The Canadian dollar fell, and so did interest rates. All those factors combined to produce strong economic growth in Canada. What should we do under such circumstances, when the economy is doing well? We should address the issues and ensure that there is money for potential emergencies, such as the crisis in the aluminum and steel industries, the potential end of NAFTA in a few months, or a global economic crisis that could erupt at any moment.

When the economy is doing well, we must prepare for future crises. The current government is simply being reckless with the Canadian economy. The constituents of Beauport—Limoilou have a right to know.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech.

When I listen to Conservative Party members talk about our budgets, I hear two things. On the one hand, they say that we are spending too much and that we should lower taxes and balance the budget. On the other, they say we are not doing enough in some areas, such as military procurement.

Yesterday, I heard a colleague from Edmonton say that we did not have a plan for the Phoenix pay system, but the fact is that we are spending $400 million to fix problems left behind by the Conservative government. They say we are not doing enough in all kinds of areas. We need to fix 10 years' worth of Conservative mistakes, because they underfunded pretty much everything and still failed to balance a single budget. They want us to spend more and spend less. That seems pretty contradictory to me.

Can the member tell us precisely which programs for Canadians he thinks we should scale back? Can he be specific about the funding cuts he would like to see?

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, the fact is that never in the history of Canada has a government spent so much on the bureaucracy and its own administration, instead of on Canadians. We are not saying that the Liberals should allocate more money in one area and less in another. We are asking them to distribute the money in an intelligent manner, by focusing on the most urgent issues.

The Senate report on national defence, which my colleague is very familiar with, says that during the great years under the Harper government, the percentage of our GDP spent on national defence reached its highest-ever level of about 0.8%. That was unprecedented. During the dark years of the Chrétien government, that percentage was between 0.2% and 0.3%.

As my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles always says, the Conservatives gave huge amounts of new equipment to the men and women in uniform who bravely serve us. We did all that and balanced the budget. We left a surplus of $3 million for the Liberals when they came into office in 2015. We also lowered taxes by an average of $6,000 per family.

The Liberals are fattening up the bureaucracy and interest groups across Canada instead of working for Canadians in general.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou for his fire and passion.

My colleague knows all about Canadian history. I am always impressed by his knowledge of the Constitution. When he says that never has a government invested as much in the bureaucracy as this government, there is no one better placed to say it. He is up to speed on our history.

Does my colleague think that public money should be used to serve Canadians, rather than serving the Liberal government?

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, the answer is yes.

I have met with people from my riding over the past three weeks. Much to the Liberals' dismay, everywhere I went, even in redder areas like Giffard and Limoilou, people are shocked by what is happening and what the government is doing. I met with countless people who voted Liberal and will never do so again.

The way the government is spending money does not make any sense. The Liberals are spending hand over fist in every area, without any plans to balance the budget and for no good reason other than to try to appear virtuous and please Canada's interest groups. What is more, their trips abroad have been disastrous.

Developing a welfare state served a purpose in the 1920s, 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s, but now things have gotten completely out of hand. Canadians want the government to one day work for them, not the other way around.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, once again, I would like to commend my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou for his excellent work and his speech. I will continue in the same vein by acknowledging all the people in my riding of Mégantic—L'Érable, who are also disappointed with the Liberal government's most recent budget. Never has a government spent so much to accomplish so little. That is what the leader of the official opposition said after reading this public relations document—since this was really more of a public relations document than a budget. That is what most of the financial analysts who examined this document said. This budget merely serves to cover up and hide the bad decisions that the Liberal government has made in recent months.

I am the shadow minister responsible for agriculture and agrifood. In this public relations document from the Liberal government, what we have seen is that agriculture, despite its absolutely critical impact and importance to the Canadian economy, is not a priority for the Liberal government. There is nothing in the budget for agriculture, period. It is as simple as that. There is no compensation plan for the signing of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and there is no increase in the envelope for the dairy industry funding program. I will quote an industry member, the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association, who had this reaction to the budget:

“Ignoring the farming community is something that farmers are used to but refuse to accept. We contribute a huge portion of the Canadian economy.”

We can believe them, it was the president, Levi Wood, who said that. Another member of the organization, Jim Wickett, added:

“Budgets don’t balance themselves and wheat doesn’t plant itself. If the Federal Government really wanted to help farmers, they would remove trade barriers and ensure that we can move our products to market, rather than face transportation delays that cost us both time and income.”

There you have it, clear and simple. These people made the same observation. Obviously, the Minister of Agriculture did not have a say when this public relations document from the Liberal government was drafted. Is there even a minister of agriculture in the cabinet? We may wonder, but we have discovered something in recent weeks, namely that there is a minister of agriculture in India. He hosted the Prime Minister during his tour of India. We saw it. Unfortunately, we laugh about it, but we saw the Prime Minister on his trip failing to promote Canada's exports to India. Instead he put them at risk. The facts speak for themselves, since $587 million in exports to India have been lost under the Liberal government. This represents nearly 75% of our exports, according to current figures. I understand why India's minister of agriculture was pleased to receive the Prime Minister, since he was helping his own industry. However, this visit did not help our industry or our exports.

The government’s current track record is measured in deficits for everyone, and losses in the millions for farmers. Farming does not even appear in the table of contents of the document that they are calling a budget. After this document was tabled by the Minister of Finance, I looked and I tried to figure out why there was nothing on farming. I asked the Minister of Agriculture why, once again, farmers are being sidelined in the 2018 budget. As an answer, he gave me the talking points for the 2017 budget. He told me that the answers to my questions on the 2018 budget were in the 2017 budget. It is incredible. It is as though nothing has happened to farming in Canada for a year. That is what they gave us, a document with nothing for farmers and a public relations document to cover up the mistakes of this budget.

This public relations exercise is a failure of the Liberal government to take action for the Canadian middle class. The Prime Minister raised taxes by over 90% for middle-class families. He is going to add $18 billion to the debt in 2018-19. That is three times higher than what the Liberals themselves had promised, in 2015, during the election campaign. Billions of dollars are being used to hide the government’s disastrous track record, the most recent example being the family trip to India.

As well, the main measures in the budget, parental leave and universal pharmacare, will do nothing for Quebeckers, since they already benefit from these. Do not be fooled. It is not enough to mount a big public relations exercise and make big promises, especially when the government does not even keep them, which should worry Canadians in the other provinces.

What I would have liked to see, in a real budget, is money for the rail bypass project in Lac-Mégantic. On January 23, the Minister of Transport announced that the federal government was going to provide assistance, something that has been requested for years, and that a sizeable amount was going toward Lac-Mégantic. Unfortunately, the budget, a public relations operation, was not used to announce this funding. Are we, or are we not, going to see this rail bypass? I beg the government to heed the call from the people of Lac-Mégantic. It is important.

In the Appalaches RCM, the Fonds Christian Paradis bears the name of a former member of Parliament. This fund was put in place to help communities that rely on chrysotile asbestos through the crisis. The Liberals' proposed ban of asbestos will decimate this industry in Thetford Mines. Will people be able to cope and keep on living? Mountains of mine tailings are being abandoned after nearly 100 years of operation. Will our community receive help in dealing with what has been left behind by the mine? There is nothing in the budget to stimulate economic growth in our region once asbestos is banned. I would be remiss if I did not add that, for 100 years, governments lined their pockets with the income taxes of those working in this industry.

There has also been a lot of talk about broadband Internet. My region has a lot of connectivity issues. There were announcements about funding for new satellites to provide Internet access to all rural regions, but the satellites do not work well around mountains. No matter how hard you try, it does not work. If this is the Liberals' answer, let me warn them that it will not work. Not to mention, this solution does nothing to fix cell service in the region either.

As for cannabis, it is a total joke. The government's budget includes public education initiatives on cannabis. It is going to invest $62 million over five years. That is $12 million per year, which breaks down to less than $1 million per year per province and territory. How is that money going to be allocated? Who knows. One thing we know for sure is that nothing will be ready by the time marijuana is legalized, which will probably be by the end of the year. That is scandalous. The government gave its head a shake and handed the Mental Health Commission of Canada $10 million over five years to “study the impact of cannabis use on the mental health of Canadians”. Wait, what? Pot is about to be legal, so should the government not have done that a while ago? Seriously.

That is not all. The government is also giving the Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction $10 million over five years to support research on cannabis use in Canada. Why did the government not do that before? What evidence did the government use in making a decision as momentous as legalizing marijuana? Nobody seems to know, and they are only now investing in finding out more. This is the Liberals' ridiculous, half-baked way of doing things.

When I visited a high school in my riding last week, I found out that nothing had been done to make sure the students were informed about this big change that is about to hit our communities. There are no resources for students, teachers, principals, or municipalities. There is nothing for anyone who is going to have to live with the consequences of this irresponsible decision to legalize marijuana so hastily.

Let us talk about small businesses, which create jobs. They play a key role in the Canadian economy, but the government keeps getting in their way and making it harder for them to grow and compete. The U.S. government just implemented juicy tax incentives to entice our small business owners to relocate south of the border. We do not want that. We want growth here at home, in our regions and our ridings.

This budget is about grandstanding and public relations for the government. Our leader's priority and that of the Conservatives will always be to deliver a budget that serves Canadians and not the government.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Madam Speaker, I want to make some comments on one part of the member's speech. He must have read a different document than this budget document, which talks about equality and growth. He is certainly off the mark on so many of his points.

This budget is all about growing the economy, assisting small businesses, assisting researchers, and increasing exports, and it is equal across the country.

The member laughed about the Minister of Agriculture. I am a bit insulted by that. The Minister of Agriculture strongly supports supply management, which is key in the province of Quebec. The Minister of Agriculture was not in India, but negotiations were done and we enhanced our market opportunities in that market.

This budget would increase research spending on agriculture institutions. I have seen several announcements where funding was increased for researchers at agriculture research centres across the country, the very areas that your former government cut.

What you are seeing is—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I also want to remind the member for Malpeque that he is to address his questions and comments to the Chair and not to individual members.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, I suggest that my honourable colleague ask permission from the people in cabinet to give a speech. That way, he will be able to decide what kind of speech to give.

I would still like to recognize my colleague's courage, because, when the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food stopped talking, and when the Minister of Finance wanted to impose a disastrous tax reform on farmers and SMEs, my colleague who just gave us a bit of a lecture at least had the courage to rise, something that the Minister of Agriculture did not do to defend farmers when the time came to defend the tax reform.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. Earlier, we were talking about agriculture, and I would like to have his opinion.

The budget mentions agriculture, but there is also forestry. Quebec is dealing with the spruce budworm, which will have serious consequences. However, there are no tangible solutions or funding envelopes specifically for Quebec to help with its research and to achieve its goals.

Furthermore, there are the public forests, but there are also private forests, and where those two meet, those tiny butterflies cannot tell the difference between the two. I would therefore like my colleague's opinion. If the government is so inclined to talk about agriculture and forestry, it should also take action, which should be reflected in the budget.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, I share my colleague's view.

There were a lot of public relations announcements in this budget. When we take a closer look, we realize that there is not much for Quebec. There is not much for the parental insurance plan. Just when we think we finally found something about forestry, we read the words “spruce budworm” and we realize that it does not concern Quebec. I read it myself.

The members from Quebec on the other side should rise a little more often on budgetary and financial matters so that they can make their own demands to the Minister of Finance. If they had done so, perhaps we would not have been excluded from the funding to fight against the spruce budworm, which my colleague has requested adequately and appropriately.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his remarks and his work on agriculture.

What does he think about the infrastructure and the funding that were carried over to 2022?