Mr. Speaker, I think everyone here is old enough to remember the year 2015. That was the year the Harper government brought the budget back into balance after successfully steering Canada through the great recession and when the New York Times congratulated Canada for having the world's most prosperous middle class. This was a few years after the Liberals tried to topple the government because Harper's government refused to run larger deficits than were necessary to steer Canada through the 2008-09 financial crash. He had run a disciplined government, one focused on core government services and responsibilities.
That same year, the Liberals alone campaigned on a promise to run what they called modest deficits for three years that would fund unprecedented generational investments that would boost productivity and allow the budget to balance itself. That was the year the Liberals destroyed the consensus that successive Liberal and Conservative governments shared: that deficits matter, that debt matters, that fiscal discipline matters, that productivity matters and that all of these things directly impact everyday Canadians and their struggles to make ends meet.
Here we are, 10 years later, and no historic transformational public investments occurred. During that time, the budget was never balanced and the national debt doubled. The amount spent on Liberal consultants ballooned out of control despite the federal public service increasing by 100,000 employees, while service levels for Canadians declined. The armed forces still have rusting ships, 40-year-old fighter jets, only a few dozen operational tanks and crumbling barracks and housing. The CRA still cannot answer the phone or give accurate information to Canadians.
Now, 10 years after the Liberals promised transformational, generational public expenditure to boost productivity but delivered the lowest per capita growth in the G7 and the OECD, they have tabled a budget promising the same broken promises recycled from 2015.
Let there be no misunderstanding. This is a credit card budget. The Liberals have tabled a budget, the first in nearly two years, that sets a new non-pandemic record of $78 billion in deficit expenditure. That is double the size of the deficit that triggered the resignation of the member for University—Rosedale when she was the finance minister. Do members remember that? Do members remember chaos this time last year and the consternation and hand-wringing over Trudeau's $42-billion deficit?
I will point out that I intend to split my time with the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek.
Let us remember the 2025 election, when the Prime Minister promised Canadians that he was the guy who was going to rein in public spending. The deficit in this budget is the equivalent of adding $5,300 of new debt to every Canadian family. What do Canadians get for this staggering new debt that every Canadian knows they have to pay off with interest? Is there any new money in this budget to pay for the so-called generational investments that the government keeps talking about? The answer is no.
This act we are debating does not contain money for transformational new productivity-improving spending. It simply grows the size of government. The Liberals keep saying that they are going to reduce spending on the operations of government in order to spend more on capital projects. This budget says these words, but this act does not do these things.
The main way the government plans to fulfill its unbelievable claims about its investments is through accounting trickery. Some might ask what is wrong with that if it helps Canadians differentiate between the administration of government and capital costs. What is wrong is that the Liberals' definition is grossly misleading. The PBO says it is “overly expansive”.
What is wrong with it is they are deliberately trying to trick Canadians into thinking the government is building infrastructure when it is actually hiring bureaucrats or connected insiders with consulting contracts or is dispensing corporate welfare and calling it capital investment. What is wrong is that the Liberals are not following internationally recognized definitions. What is wrong is that the government, which has done so much over the last 10 years to compromise its fiscal credibility, is now resorting to accounting trickery to try to fool Canadians and the finance community.
Ten years ago the budget was balanced, homes were relatively affordable in Canada, outside of Vancouver at least, and Canada's middle class was doing all right, much better than in its peer countries. Over the last 10 years, though, Canada alone among G7 countries and alone among members of the OECD, with the exception of Luxembourg, has had no increase in per capita GDP, none. That means that in Canada, we have been left behind by our peer countries.
The value of everything produced in Canada divided by all the people in Canada is now the same as it was 10 years ago, but during that time, the cost of food has gone up, the cost of housing has doubled and the cost of rent has doubled. The cost of living has shot up while Canadians' productivity has not, and as the Bank of Canada told the finance committee earlier this month, the productivity crisis and the cost of living crisis are the same thing. Canadians increasingly cannot afford to live because the government keeps growing, choking out consumers and absorbing more taxes while creating laws that chase investment out of Canada, leaving workers less productive than in the rest of the developed world.
The government spent 10 years passing anti-business laws that have left Canadians with fewer and fewer jobs in Canada's most productive industries. One full year ago, before the tariff war, the senior deputy governor of the Bank of Canada called this a break glass emergency. She talked about how excessive regulation drives out investment from Canada's number one industry, which is the energy industry. Energy is by far Canada's biggest and most valuable export, and the government spent 10 years trying to regulate it into the ground.
There is nothing in this bill that would deal with the root cause of Canada's productivity emergency. There is a lot of talk about major projects, but when the Liberals talk about major projects, the government acts like it is having an out-of-body experience and has no idea who has been in charge of the government for the last 10 years and who introduced Bill C-69, Bill C-48, the carbon tax, the emission cap and a host of other major and minor acts that have chased $606 billion out of Canada to the United States, even before Trump was inaugurated.
For a moment, let us set aside the government's mismanagement of the Canadian economy, the fiscal deterioration of the national balance sheet that it is presiding over and the cost of living crisis that has been triggered by the government's overspending, and let us talk about fiscal anchors.
On a boat, an anchor is used to hold the boat in place. If we cut the line that connects the boat to the anchor, the boat drifts aimlessly until it runs aground somewhere. If the government were a sailor, it would be the kind of sailor who brings a new anchor on board the boat, a shiny new piece of equipment that it shows off to everybody, and then throws the anchor overboard without attaching it to a line that connects it to the boat. That is exactly what the government does, and it wonders why it is adrift. Fiscal anchors mean nothing if they are not attached to anything.
The government was literally only a few weeks old in 2015 when it broke its promise of a limited deficit. The Liberals pretended that it never made any such promise and replaced their 2015 election promise with their first so-called fiscal anchor at the time, which was that Canada's debt-to-GDP ratio would never go down. They said it hundreds of times in this chamber.
At the end of 2019, they cut that anchor, brought in a new one and said that their new anchor was our AAA credit rating. Then Fitch Ratings downgraded Canada to AA+, and in the COVID recovery, the Liberals came up with a guardrail, which was a maximum deficit. They blew through that and then went back to claiming that a declining debt-to-GDP ratio was their fiscal anchor.
This budget would cut loose all of the Liberals' past fiscal anchors and bring in two new ones: balancing operating spending with revenue by 2028-29, and maintaining a declining deficit-to-GDP ratio. How much credibility does the government deserve with its history of cutting the line on its anchors? Based on history alone, I say none, but the Parliamentary Budget Officer did give the government a 7.5% chance of maintaining the anchor of a declining deficit-to-GDP ratio. That is getting close to 20:1, if the PBO is giving betting odds on the government's keeping this anchor. These anchors mean nothing when the government's operating budget relies on accounting trickery as well.
This budget would add $80 billion to the national debt at a time when interest is choking out all other expenses. That is unsustainable and unsupportable and the government is unbelievable.