Debates of June 5th, 2019

Budget Implementation Act, 2019, No. 1

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to address the chamber on a wide variety of issues. This evening is special in the sense that we are talking about the budget. When we talk about the budget, we talk about priorities and I am happy to share my thoughts on the government's priorities.

As the member for Winnipeg South pointed out, he and I go back 30 years, both on the provincial and national scene. I have learned to respect many of the things he does, especially on issues surrounding the environment, women's issues and Churchill, Manitoba. These are the types of issues he really digs his teeth into and produces tangible results. I respect the effort he puts in, day in and day out, in serving the constituents of Winnipeg South. Combined, we bring the south end of Winnipeg to the north and the north to the south. As he pointed out, it is friendly Manitoba and it has always been a pleasure to work with him in many capacities.

Having said all of that, I would like to pick up on a couple of points. The overriding issue for me has always been to demonstrate that, as a government, we have been very effective in a relatively short period of time. The budget is all about priorities and ensuring the economy and the social fabric continue to move forward. When I say the social fabric, I am talking about diversity. One of the most compelling facts is the number of jobs that have been created since we have been in government: one million jobs. That is a significant achievement.

When we talk about those one million jobs, we ask ourselves how that happened. It is because we have a government that is committed to working with Canadians in all regions of our country. We have a government that is committed to working with many different stakeholders, provinces, territories, indigenous people and municipalities, and by working with Canadians, we were able to deliver in a very tangible way.

I referenced something the other day and I want to repeat it. From day one, we have been focused on Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it, and that has been demonstrated from the very first piece of legislation we introduced, which my colleagues will recall was Bill C-2. It is what gave the middle class of Canada a substantial tax cut, putting hundreds of millions of dollars into the pockets of Canadians.

If we carry that piece of legislation over to the budget of 2016, the very first Liberal budget under this administration, we saw substantial increases to the guaranteed income supplement, which lifted tens of thousands of seniors out of poverty. There were also substantial increases to the Canada child benefit that completely reformed it, which again lifted tens of thousands of children out of poverty. Through those things alone, we invested in Canadians in very real and tangible ways. We put hundreds of millions of dollars into the pockets of Canadians in all regions of our country. In Winnipeg North alone, there is $9 million a month for children, every month, in the form of the Canada child benefit.

This is how to support the middle class and those aspiring to be part of it and how to give a helping hand to those who really need it. By doing that, we increased the disposable incomes of Canadians. It meant more money was being spent in our communities in all regions of our country, and by doing that, we created jobs.

Take that into consideration along with the historic investment in Canada's infrastructure. In the most recent budget we have seen an additional allocation for municipal infrastructure investment. That investment in infrastructure means hundreds of millions of dollars being invested in every region of our country, creating more jobs.

Why have we been able to create one million jobs by working with Canadians? Compare what we did in the last three and a half years to the 10 years of misery with the Harper regime. For Canadians who follow the debate on the budget they will see there really is no change in the opposition today. The only change is the incredible amount of influence that Doug Ford has with the Conservative Party. The Premier of Ontario now sits on that small circular table with Stephen Harper and the current Conservative leader.

[An hon. member]

Who is in charge?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

That is a very good question that is being posed. Many would suggest that nothing has changed, it is still Stephen Harper. Many would argue it is Stephen Harper behind the curtains. He is still the driving force with the Conservative Party. There is no change.

Every so often Conservatives give a special invite to that circular table. One of the individuals recently there was Jason Kenney from Alberta. There are some interesting individuals at the top of the leadership.

Imagine the discussion. Doug Ford says, “Just wait a minute, Mr. Leader of the Opposition, I need more time to figure out this environment thing”. As Canadians from coast to coast to coast wait for the Conservative Party to tell us what the plan is, we have to wait for Doug Ford to give instructions to the current opposition leader. Sadly, I do not think that is the limit. I believe that Canadians would be surprised at the degree to which the Conservative Party really takes its direction from individuals like Stephen Ford.

That was a Freudian slip: Stephen Harper and Mr. Ford.

The point is that we would like to see more transparency coming from the Conservative Party. At some point its members have to start telling Canadians what they are proposing. It was not that long ago that the current leader of the official opposition said the deficit would be four or five years. Before long the Conservatives are going to adopt the same policy in regard to what we are talking about on the deficit.

It is important for Canadians to realize whenever we talk about deficits that the Conservatives like to give advice, but when Stephen Harper became the Prime Minister of Canada, he inherited a multi-billion dollar surplus. Before the recession, he had already squandered it and turned it into a multi-billion deficit.

Year after year of Stephen Harper Conservative rule in Canada, the deficit was accumulated in excess of $150 billion. Is it any wonder we do not take advice from Conservatives when it comes to managing the deficit, let alone the economy? We have been able to do in three and a half years what took the Conservative Party on the employment file almost 10 years to do. We know we have to invest in Canadians. We have to invest in infrastructure. We believe in Canadians, not just serving the rich.

Conservatives say they support tax cuts. That is balderdash. When they had a chance to vote for tax cuts, what did they do? They voted no. When they had the opportunity to say the rich in Canada, that one per cent, should pay a little more, they voted no. It is a Conservative Party that caters to its friends. The middle class of Canada is no friend of the Conservative Party. I believe that we have a government that will continue to work—

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that was the most ridiculous speech I have ever heard in this place.

Frankly, what it shows is that Edward Blake is still pulling the strings over there. We wonder how much influence he really has. Maybe Stéphane Dion is really behind all the things this government is doing. We do not know for sure. They are sitting around a table somewhere, and who knows.

In all seriousness, I do wish the member well with his post-parliamentary career after the election. It sounds like he is interested in pursuing a future in Ontario provincial politics. We have had cases before of people elected in Manitoba who have moved to Ontario to run. Maybe he is positioning for that.

In the midst of all the bluster, all of the exaggeration and outright fabrication, I have one simple question for the member. When will the bloody budget be balanced?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know what it is that I said.

Virtually everything I said was factual and could be supported. I did make one Freudian slip when I said “Stephen Ford”. That was not factual. It is actually “Stephen Harper and Doug Ford.” I apologize for that. However, everything else is a true reflection of reality.

It is interesting that when it came right down to the member's question, he asked about balanced budgets. Really? Is that the best question he could come up with? When we take a look at our deficit-to-GDP ratio, we are actually doing quite well. As I pointed out, the last people we should turn to for advice are those in the Conservative Party of Canada.

In the last 150 years of our Confederation, Conservatives have actually governed for a minority of those years, yet they have accrued the largest portion of the deficit. We do not need to take any advice at all from the Conservatives on how to manage an economy or balance the books.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to get back to the question about balancing the budget. I must say that this imaginary table that Stephen Ford sits at, along with Stephen Harper, Iron Man and Superman, where they all gather and conspire against our Canadian government, is more than just a fabrication; it is certainly imaginary.

However, I want to get back to the question from my hon. colleague about balancing the budget. In 2015, we were originally promised that the budget would be balanced by 2019. Simply put, we are asking, if it is not going to happen in 2019, when will it be balanced?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, every year Stephen Harper said that he would balance the budget, and that never happened.

Let me give the stats, for those who are following the debate: in 38% of the 151 years, which is a minority, the Conservatives actually accumulated 74% of the debt. Then we can take a look at Stephen Harper. As I said, he actually inherited a multi-billion dollar surplus and said that he would have balanced budgets, but he turned that multi-billion dollar surplus into a multi-billion dollar deficit even before the recession, in his first year.

At the end of the day, we would not be well advised to listen to what the Conservatives really and truly have to say about balancing budgets. They are so far out on the issue.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure members that my presentation will not be as loud or as exuberant as the previous one. That may be a very welcome reprieve for the members and many others watching TV this evening. I also want to say that I am going to be splitting my time with the NDP member for Beloeil—Chambly. I am going to do that for them.

It is my pleasure to speak to the budget implementation act today. I can best describe this budget implementation act and the budget as a distraction from Liberal scandals and failures. I want to set the stage a bit before we talk more about that.

Back in 1975, when I began my work career, I was a 15-year-old boy. I got a job working at Steinbach Toyota, and my job was to wash cars. I worked for a gentleman by the name of Henry Kliewer. He taught me how to wash cars. He developed in me an appreciation for clean vehicles and he taught me all about detailing. He was a fussy guy and he was absolutely careful and particular about everything he did.

We were walking through his shop one day in the back of the dealership. We were coming up to the showroom part of the building when I noticed a penny on the ground. I was going to give it a bit of a kick with my foot. He saw what I was going to do and he picked it up and said, “This is one penny I am never going to have to work for.” He said, “I want to tell you something. I look after the nickels and the dimes, and the dollars look after themselves.” I have never forgotten that. That was in 1975 when I was making $1.95 an hour and he was concerned about nickels and dimes.

I can extrapolate that to today. What a privilege it is to stand in this House and talk about the finances of the country of Canada. It is an extreme privilege, and it is humbling, but today requires us to look at the millions of dollars because what we are talking about is the billions. If we are good stewards of the millions of dollars that we are entrusted with as members of Parliament, then the billions will probably look after themselves.

Let us talk about some of these millions of dollars that we have not been looking after very carefully.

The current Liberal government under this Prime Minister has given Canadian taxpayer dollars to the Clinton Foundation. It has given money to Hamas. It has gotten India to invest $250 million here in Canada, but only after we have turned around and invested $750 million in India. If we do the math, that does not quite add up.

We have had a crisis with illegal migrants at our southern border with the United States. That crisis cost us roughly $200 million in 2017 and $400 million in 2018. In 2019, it was another $600 million. It has cost us $1.1 billion already because we have mismanaged our borders and allowed illegal migrants to come into this country, and we have been footing the bill. In addition to that, municipalities and provinces have also had to pick up additional expenses. That number is again projected to grow to another almost $2 billion this coming year.

Let us then look at the Trans Mountain expansion pipeline. Kinder Morgan owned the Trans Mountain pipeline. It had it on the books for $600 million. It invested another $1.2 billion on working toward constructing a second pipeline, known as the Trans Mountain expansion. The current government turned around and bought the existing pipeline plus the investment that had been made in the proposed pipeline for $4.5 billion, using Canadian taxpayer dollars.

Kinder Morgan had $1.8 billion invested in that project. The Liberal government turned around and gave it $4.5 billion for its $1.8 billion. Kinder Morgan had to realize a capital gain of $2.7 billion. That was Canadian taxpayer dollars that left this country, left our resource sector here in Canada and were sent down to wealthy Texas investors in Kinder Morgan, which owned the Trans Mountain pipeline.

We have not been managing our millions of dollars very well. We have given $2.7 billion of Canadian taxpayer money to American investors. In addition to that, Canada could have received a further investment from Kinder Morgan of close to $10 billion in the actual construction of the Trans Mountain expansion. That money will also now have to come from Canadian taxpayers.

We have not been managing our millions of dollars very well under the Liberal government and under the current Prime Minister. It has been a failure, and Canadian taxpayers are going to be the ones left on the hook.

We have paid convicted terrorists $10.5 million. We have paid millions of dollars to Bombardier in Quebec. We have bought rusted-out CF-18s from Australia to bolster up our defence forces and our defence fleet of aircraft. That is money we will not recover.

Now we are looking at a budget implementation act that would implement the budget that the government has presented to the House, which is not balanced. The Liberals are projecting a $20-billion shortfall again.

I worked in the credit union system for 30 years. For 17 of those years, I was the president and chairman of Manitoba's largest credit union. One thing I know is that when times are good, money is set aside because rainy days are coming.

We were promised sunny days. The sunny days are gone. I think they left on the first day after the election. We have some rainy days on the horizon. The time to invest money and to set money aside was when the sun was shining. I saw that over and over again in my experience and involvement in the credit union system. People who wisely put money aside when times were good were the people who were successful with their finances at the end of the day.

Members of the Liberal caucus stand up in this place and tout the good results they are having from a financial perspective in the Canadian economy. They tell us about all the jobs they have created and how the economy is booming. It is actually not booming as much as they say it is. They tell us it is booming, and yet they have not been salting away money and reducing our debt to build up our inventory of cash so that we can weather the storms that may someday come.

The time to do that is when times are good, and the Liberals would like Canadians to believe that times are good. If times are good, why do we still have a deficit budget? We need to have a balanced budget. The Prime Minister promised in 2015 that by 2019 we would have a balanced budget. We do not have a balanced budget.

The budget that has been presented this year was supposed to be an election-type budget, with lots of good news. There is $41 billion of new spending in this budget over the next five years. It was meant to be a bit of a hit budget, a budget that people could get excited about. With all the scandals and failures of the current government, it hardly got any airplay when it was announced. The $41 billion of additional spending in the next five years is not enough to distract the Canadian taxpayer from the failures and scandals of the current government.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Women and Gender Equality]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is the member for the riding adjacent to mine, and I am often in his riding, because I travel Highway 75 south to places like Morris, which has great curling facilities. He knows that I am a big curling fan.

I am a little puzzled when the member talks about the border and security. The Stephen Harper government, which he and the member for Brandon—Souris were part of, as they were both elected in by-elections, cut millions from the budget for border security and the RCMP. In getting to their fake budget surplus, some of the other things they cut were the Cereal Research Centre, the Institute for Biodiagnostics and the Experimental Lakes Area. There was a war on science in Manitoba. Why did the hon. member not stand up for Manitoba?

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member from Winnipeg South for his complimentary remarks about my riding. When he is looking for good employees to staff his constituency office, he comes into my riding and snatches the good folks out of Provencher to provide him with the staffing he needs in his riding. It was probably the only Liberal in my riding, but he did get him, so good on him.

Approximately 40,000 illegal migrants came into Canada in the last three years, and not all of them through Emerson. Most of them came through Roxham Road, in Quebec. That was the result of one careless little tweet that said, “Welcome to Canada”. It does not matter who people are or where they are from, they are welcome here in Canada, and by the way, we will fork out $1.4 billion and go further into debt to do it. That was the case.

That member is a member of the government. Right now, the Prime Minister is standing in the way of allowing his province to export the cleanest, renewable hydroelectricity energy from Manitoba into Minnesota. He is standing in the way of allowing the transmission line to proceed.

Why does the member not encourage the Prime Minister to sign off on a deal that the NEB and the province have already approved?

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if my friend from Provencher is so convinced that we can cut our way to growth, how is it that his government left the country completely penniless?

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, we left, in 2015, with a balanced budget. We had just come through the greatest economic recession since the Great Depression. We successfully navigated that. We came out less scathed than any of the other G7 countries in the world. It was because we had Stephen Harper, who the member for Winnipeg North has been so infatuated with all evening that he cannot stop talking about the great work he did. Stephen Harper will go down in Canada's history books as the greatest prime minister Canada has seen to date. The member for Winnipeg North acknowledged this evening what a wonderful job he did, and I am so pleased that he is so infatuated with him.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have growing debt and deficits like never before, but we have huge opportunities, with the TMX pipeline, to transport oil and natural gas in my riding and get that to market. There is a way to make money as a country by developing our natural resources. Does the member not think we should develop more of those resources?

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we are so blessed here in this country with natural resources. Our biggest challenge is finding a way to get them to market. I am passionate about natural resources.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Provencher for sharing his time with me. The NDP and the Conservative Party often disagree, but we have been able to work well together in true parliamentary spirit.

I have five key points to make. Obviously, there could be more, since we are talking about an omnibus bill, but I will focus on five points that I believe should raised in today's budget debate.

The first is that the oil industry subsidies are being maintained, despite the government's promise to get rid of them. These subsidies are still in place. Budget 2019 is a missed opportunity to do something to fight climate change and provide additional revenue in order to truly invest in green energy, the energy of the future.

The second aspect I would like to address is another missed opportunity, and that is the fact that the government is not requiring web giants like Netflix to collect sales tax. That is important, and it shows a major lack of political will. Just look at Quebec. With the stroke of a pen, Quebec managed to do what the current government has not done in four years. We are seeing the consequences today, with massive layoffs at TVA. We know that our cultural industry is suffering the effects of this unfair situation, which would be so easy to fix. Contrary to popular belief, it is not a new tax. It is just a matter of applying existing taxes and the law consistently, as they apply to businesses here.

Third, I would like to talk about the fact that this is an omnibus bill. The issue of immigration and refugees comes up in this bill. A budget bill is creating a situation that is unfair and discriminatory towards refugees. Omnibus bills were criticized under the previous Conservative government, which is precisely why the Liberals promised not to use this kind of problematic tactic. As the member for Sherbrooke pointed out earlier in his speech, this matter was raised several times at the Standing Committee on Finance. Stakeholders and civil society representatives had to appear before the finance committee to share their concerns regarding legislative changes that will affect refugees. It is completely absurd that this issue appears in an omnibus budget bill. It is completely unacceptable.

Speaking of missed opportunities, my fourth point is about employment insurance, the 50 weeks, and people with serious illnesses who cannot get their fair share of EI and so are unable to return to work, despite having gone through a terrible ordeal while dealing with a very serious illness. We have been fighting for this for quite some time. Just think of people like Marie-Hélène Dubé and everyone fighting for the same cause. We in the NDP will continue to support them. This is another one of this government's missed opportunities.

I addressed my last point when I talked about the amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Despite the government's repeated promises, it introduced a number of omnibus bills. Some of them were even longer than the ones introduced by the previous government. That is a broken promise that violates our rights as parliamentarians.

In closing, I would like to present an amendment:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:

“the House decline to give third reading to C-97, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2019 and other measures, because it:

(a) gives more to big business than to Canadians;

(b) does not establish a universal pharmacare plan;

(c) does not solve the current housing crisis;

(d) maintains subsidies to oil companies;

(e) makes major changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act that are unfair and fail to meet the standards of the process established by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada;

(f) is an omnibus bill that is contrary to this government's promises; and

(g) limits the Members' ability to vote separately on the various divisions of the Bill.”

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the proposed NDP amendment.

I want to ask for his further reflections with respect to the immigration sections of the budget. We have heard concerns from many Canadians on the issue of shady consultants and the impact that has on Canadians when bad advice is given and this budget. Although it purports to make some changes, it falls short of the changes that many people have asked for and there continue to be many concerns about those changes.

Could the member share a bit of his thoughts and what he has heard from people in his riding?

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

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

Some shady individuals try to profit off of vulnerable people by offering services at an astronomical cost. In some cases, these services could have been provided by an MP's office or by people much more honest and reputable, for example, a lawyer, for a much more reasonable fee. This is an extremely important issue. I remember an article in Le Journal de Montréal about this. It talked about consultants that were misleading people about what they could or could not do when coming to Canada.

What we mainly object to in the proposed changes is the inequity that the changes will create. The Liberals spoke about having a compassionate system that would respect human rights. They mismanaged the situation at the border because they did not know how to deal with President Trump's racist policies and the irregular arrival of people at our borders, they made a de facto change to fix the situation. At the end of the day, this change will violate the rights of people who are seeking a better life here in Canada and who are simply trying to start a process legitimately.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

Before going on to the next question, members who do not already know, although I gather some do, will want to know that the Toronto Raptors just defeated the Golden State Warriors 123 to 109.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

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

Mr. Speaker, I suspect 30 million-plus Canadians are quite happy to see the Raptors prevail. As they were watching the Raptors, we have been having a very challenging debate in the House of Commons on a budget that will impact many of those millions of people. I congratulate to the Raptors and the fans.

I think it is fair to say that sadly the NDP has been consistent over the last few years with respect to budgets. We have seen a government that has brought in many different progressive measures. It shocks and surprises me the degree to which the NDP continues to vote against what I would have thought it would vote for. A good example of that is the housing issue.

On the housing issue, the NDP made a commitment for a very small allocation in the last election. We, on the other hand, made a commitment of billions of dollars in the national housing strategy.

Why does the NDP continuously not support good progressive social policies?

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is extremely dishonest for a member to say that a party voted against a given measure when that member knows full well that budgets contain many measures and that one can only vote against the budget as a whole. If we could vote on individual measures, things would be different.

That gives me an opportunity to remind everyone that we are talking about an omnibus bill that deprives MPs of the right to vote on individual measures. Once again, they are preventing us from voting on individual elements.

Just to prove how willing we are to do that when we are able to vote on separate elements, I would point out that, earlier today, we voted in favour of an amendment that would have done exactly what the NDP wants to do with the housing file. The amendment was proposed in committee by my colleague from Sherbrooke, but because it lacked a royal recommendation, the government had to come back with this one.

When a government maintains oil industry subsidies, refuses to tax web giants and refuses to protect workers' pensions, its progressive measures are really just half-measures that are not nearly good enough.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this speech is well timed, because I know now that the Raptors game is over. Canadians will now be able to switch their dials back to CPAC and watch this, so I appreciate that. I am very pleased about the Raptors' success this evening. I have been a long-term fan. For two weeks, I have been following the games and I am sure that devotion is going to mean a lot for my continuing visits to the ridings of the members across the way in the greater Toronto area.

We are talking today about the budget implementation act and I want to frame this by talking about what I think is on a lot of Canadians' minds when they look at the budget. They are asking themselves how they can get ahead. Frankly, a lot of Canadians are struggling to get ahead. They might be getting by, but not getting ahead. When I think about getting ahead, I think about my paternal grandfather. He just passed away a couple of weeks ago and it was great to hear some of the stories shared at his funeral. My grandfather came here as an immigrant from Malta with not very much money. If there was someone who could get ahead, who could make a looney go a little further, it was my grandfather.

I remember one story he told us. He came from Malta right after the Second World War. Malta was heavily bombed by the German Air Force during the Second World War. When he bought his first car, he saw the ad in the paper, the guy came over and they negotiated a price of $300 for the car. The guy thought he recognized my grandfather's accent and asked where he was from. My grandfather answered that he was from the island of Malta. It turned out the guy he was talking to had served in the German Air Force and the guy said he had dropped so many bombs on that country. They talked back and forth a little and at the end of the day, my grandfather gave him $200. When the guy said he thought they had agreed to $300, my grandfather said that was a discount for all the bombs he had dropped on his country, and the guy took the money and left. That was the immigrant experience for so many people who came then and come now and need to use every advantage they can get just to get ahead.

I look at the economic reality that the government is presiding over and it is one in which it is harder and harder for Canadians to get ahead, so I want to contrast the economic vision we see from the government and the alternative vision of the Conservatives.

The government's approach, which we have heard in the speeches that were given tonight, is that if someone has a problem, the government has a program for that. If people are struggling with accessing the Internet, the government will have an access-the-Internet program. If people want new tires, the government will have a new tires program. There is a program for every problem. Of course, every time there is a new program, there are people to administer the evaluation and delivery of those funds. Thus, in the name of providing help to the specific issues people face, and I do not doubt that many members of the government are sincere in their intentions, the effect of it is the piling on of expenditure and bureaucracy and on the other end of it, it is taxes. Taxing people more and more is like trying to lift people up in the bucket they are standing in.

The government purports to want to be more generous, but generous with whose money? The effect of its constant growth in program spending, with more bureaucracy and more administration, is that people have to pay more taxes. Not only do they have to pay more taxes today, but they feel a great deal of uncertainty about the taxes they will have to pay in the future. We know, and we have seen it before, that when governments run unplanned, uncontrolled deficits, that leads to higher taxes, as surely as night follows day. The government is already imposing higher taxes on Canadians as a result of its inability to control spending and people are worried that if that spending does not get under control, we are going to see higher taxes in the future.

My friend from Winnipeg North spoke a lot tonight about his favourite politician: Doug Ford. I would like to take us back to how Ontario got the challenges that it faces. I will share a little about my own province as well. In Ontario, there were successive Liberal governments under Dalton McGuinty and Kathleen Wynne. They did not believe that the budget ever had to be balanced, so it seemed, although at least they had a theoretical target for balancing the budget, which the federal government does not even have. They wanted to convince people that the party could just go on forever. Now Liberals are looking at the situation and asking why spending could not just increase forever right now.

We have to understand how we got here. The fiscal challenges that Ontario experienced were created by multiple terms of reckless spending. I believe that we can avoid that at the federal level. I believe that we can prevent this Prime Minister from doing to Canada what Dalton McGuinty and Kathleen Wynne did to Ontario. I believe we can avoid that kind of a situation.

I think we can effectively manage spending and reduce taxes at the same time, while continuing to invest. However, I think it is important that we act now by replacing the Liberal government with a government that actually understands the importance of balance and prudence in our spending.

I heard the member for Mississauga—Erin Mills talk about the U of T Mississauga in her riding. I have been to that university. Actually, I spoke at a number of events at that beautiful university in her riding. One of the big issues on the minds of students at that university, and other universities, is how they will have to pay back, over the long term, the deficits, the debts that are being accumulated today.

Young people are aware of this. I have young children. I have three young children and one more on the way. My children should not have to pay, in their future, for the things that I got to enjoy today.

The government talks about all these areas in which it is spending more. However, it is going to cost the future. It is going to cost our children and our grandchildren. I asked the new member for Outremont if the budget should ever be balanced, if there is a point at which she thinks the budget would be balanced. She told us that in the current conditions, it makes sense to be “investing”, which for the Liberals is a code word for “spending more than we have”. If the conditions are always, in their view, such that we should be spending more than we have, then eventually the Liberals are going to run out of other people's money. Eventually the rubber is going to hit the road.

Where does this thinking come from? How do they come to the place of just not understanding this basic reality of the rubber hitting the road, not understanding the reality that my grandfather understood? My grandfather understood, intuitively, when he negotiated a reduction in the price of his car that every dollar matters, every dollar counts. However, we have a government led by a Prime Minister who has never had to make those tough choices in his own life. Therefore, he does not recognize or appreciate the importance of being prudent in his spending decisions.

We see these concerns that everyday people are facing in terms of the uncertainty that comes from high deficits and high taxes. They are looking at their futures and they are saying, “Okay, the government might be promising to spend more in this area, this area and that area, but in the long run, how can be confident that those investments will continue into the future if they are not made from a balanced budget position?”

The great advantage of a balanced budget situation is that when spending decisions are made in the context of a balanced budget, people can have confidence that those investments will stay in place. However, we have seen, consistently, how when one does not spend within their means, eventually the rubber is going to have to hit the road.

In addition to this, while the situation we have is creating economic uncertainty for individuals, it is also creating some level of economic uncertainty in our business environment. We want to aspire to be the sort of country where entrepreneurs succeed by having their own ideas, not by their ingenuity at filling out grant applications, not by their ability to hire well-connected lobbyists and to justify their desire for more money in terms of whatever the government's priorities of the day are. I think we want to be the kind of country where people succeed on the basis of their ingenuity, acting independently from government, where government establishes the framework, the infrastructure that allows them to succeed, but then they are making those investments on their own.

In the past, the Conservative government was able to facilitate entrepreneurs' success by lowering business taxes. We saw that when we lowered business taxes, there was an increase in business tax revenue. The government was taking in more money from business taxes because the government was creating the conditions in which businesses were making greater investments.

Some politicians in this place want to raise business taxes. The government would like us to forget that when the Liberals first came into office, they tried to raise small business taxes. In fact, they did, but then they unraised them in response to subsequent criticism, and trumpeted that as some kind of great success.

It seems like yesterday when the Liberals told us that the fact that they had appointed a minister for seniors showed how committed they were to seniors. The member for Edmonton Mill Woods, whose riding I look forward to visiting this Saturday, is applauding that. He may have forgotten that there was a minister of seniors throughout the tenure of the previous Conservative government. The minister of seniors position was then removed at the beginning of the Liberal mandate, but then in the final year they had this great idea of appointing a minister of seniors, and that demonstrated their commitment to seniors.

The member for Edmonton Mill Woods is applauding. I have to say that I am looking forward to having the great Tim Uppal back in the House of Commons. I know he is going to do a great job for the constituents of Edmonton Mill Woods. He is probably out door-knocking right now. It is not too late in Alberta to be doing that. Probably while he is doing that, he is talking about things like Bill C-69 and Bill C-48, which the member for Edmonton Mill Woods voted in favour of.

This is maybe a good point in which to transition to talk a little about the Alberta economy, because in Alberta we see continual attacks on our economy coming from the current government. We see legislation put forward that even the Alberta NDP saw problems with. We see bills that essentially would make it impossible for new pipeline infrastructure to ever proceed in the future. We see so many efforts from the government to block the development of the natural resource economy in Alberta, and that is a particular source of concern and anxiety in the greater Sherwood Park area in which I live.

What is the alternative to this vision that the government has put forward? It is an alternative Conservative government that lives within its means, that understands the importance of balancing budgets over the medium term and believes in cutting taxes.

I will respond to some of the comments that the member for Winnipeg North made about the Doug Harper or the Stephen Ford government that he was talking about. What he said was that deficits were run during the period of the previous government, which is true. We had a Liberal opposition that was calling for us to spend so much more, but we made the decision to have timely, targeted and temporary deficits in a time of economic recession that were focused on significant infrastructure investments, such as building up our university campuses and building up our roads. They were actual infrastructure investments, and we had a clearer, tighter, well-defined definition of infrastructure. These were investments that genuinely stimulated our economy, and we returned Canada to a balanced budget before the next election. Members across the way will say an “alleged” balanced budget, which was told to us by the alleged Parliamentary Budget Officer.

I know that the members across the way are worried that they will not get their questions and comments in. They do not have to worry. I will be back here tomorrow morning, and I look forward to the questions that the members are going to ask.

However, all of the spending commitments that were made by the Conservatives were within the framework of a balanced budget plan, which means that Canadians could have confidence in them. When we raised the guaranteed income supplement, when we introduced the universal child care benefit—which the Liberals have since renamed—when we supported families, when we brought in income splitting for parents with children—which the current government took away—and offered these forms of vital support, Canadians could have confidence that those investments were going to stay in place.

Where did this way of thinking come from? Our leader understands what it means to live within a budget. That is his experience and the experience of his family. He understands what everyday families are going through in struggling to get ahead.

I also want to comment on the government's immigration policy, because there is discussion of immigration in the budget. The government's immigration policy is very clearly not as advertised.

With respect to the issue of illegal immigration into Canada, we have had an epidemic of illegal immigration under the current government. For a long time, it tried to demonize the opposition for even raising this concern. Then, the government's bright idea was to appoint a minister responsible for the border who is not actually responsible for the Canada Border Services Agency. Finally, with this budget, it brought forward measures that attempted to respond to the issue. However, the government has not taken any action on the need to renegotiate the safe third country agreement, for instance, or on the need to change the tone.

Where do I hear most about these problems in our immigration system? I hear about them in my riding, to be sure, but I hear a lot about them in ridings like Edmonton Mill Woods, Winnipeg North, York Centre and Etobicoke—Lakeshore. People there are very concerned about these issues, because they know the costs and the challenges of coming to Canada the right way. They do not believe it is right when people can take advantage of the fact that they are in the United States and can walk into Canada. It is not fair to those in China, India, the Philippines or other parts of the world who are trying to come to Canada the right way and cannot just walk across the border. That is why we need to renegotiate the safe third country agreement.

I look forward to continuing the debate.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

The hon. member will have two and a half minutes remaining in his speech when the House next resumes this topic.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Housing

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to discuss an important issue for Nanaimo—Ladysmith.

We have an affordable housing crisis in my constituency. Our region has had a rapid rise in home prices and rental costs. It is the inevitable consequence of skyrocketing house prices in Vancouver and people moving to the island. It is also related to speculation and money laundering in B.C. real estate. As houses are sold, renovated and flipped, the price of rental stock has gone up along with the cost of buying homes. The most vulnerable people in our community, low-income renters, people with disabilities, low-income seniors and single-parent families, are forced to move and are finding it increasingly difficult to find affordable places to rent.

For the last three years, I ran employment skills training programs for young people with barriers to employment. Of the 60 people I had in my 15-week program, six experienced homelessness while they were in the program. The homes they were living in were sold or renovated and they could not find affordable places to live. I have heard similar stories from seniors.

During the Nanaimo—Ladysmith by-election, I heard over and over again that people were struggling with the cost of housing. I met a young single mother with two children who lived in a campground last summer. She found a place to live in the fall and had that home sold out from under her six months later. She has been dealing with a housing cycle like that for several years. There is no stability for her children.

This is simply not acceptable in a country as wealthy as Canada. We have homeless people living in our parks and bushes around the community. There are people who are couch surfing and homeless. On any given evening, we can see people sleeping in cars in parking lots and on the street.

Last summer, we had a major homeless camp in downtown Nanaimo with hundreds of people living there. Many of the people living in this camp were indigenous, and there were a number of people with mental health and addiction issues. A few of the homeless people who were desperate and in survival mode engaged in criminality. There was a growing community backlash to the camp. Homeless people were threatened and bottles thrown at them in the camp at night. Some were physically attacked in the streets. We had the Soldiers of Odin marching in our streets and threatening vigilante action against the people in the camp. The businesses in the downtown core suffered from a loss of revenue as people avoided our downtown.

B.C. Housing set up emergency temporary housing for people in the camp, but the homeless people who were not in the camp did not get the same access to this emergency housing. This emergency housing is only a band-aid, but it does not cover the whole wound. The homeless situation in my constituency is exacerbated by a lack of mental health and addictions services.

We need help in Nanaimo—Ladysmith. We need more purpose-built, affordable, energy-efficient housing. Developers and builders are not going to create low-income housing without incentives from the government. They are in business. Affordable rental units cannot compete with the margins available for market housing.

We could really use some co-operative housing in our community. Co-op housing is an excellent model for affordable housing. Co-ops are owned by the community they are in and they are not susceptible to real estate speculation, changing ownership or rent evictions. People pay rent based on their incomes. If they start to earn more, they pay more. If people lose their jobs they do not lose their homes. Seniors can age in place. The federal government needs to support co-op housing the way it did decades ago.

The City of Nanaimo is struggling with this affordable housing crisis. I would like to know what the government can do now to help our community with this crisis. What emergency measures is the government prepared to take to help with this crisis right now, not next year, not in two years or four years, but now?