Bernard Généreux

[The Budget, April 22nd, 2021]

Madam Speaker, I like my colleague, because he is mischievous and tries to make me say things I would never say.

We Conservatives will not talk about cuts. We will talk about financial and fiscal responsibility. I think there is a very big difference between the two. We cannot keep going at the rate the Liberals are going now and will be going for the next few years.

I would like to point out once again that, in 2015, the Prime Minister said that there would be only three small $10-billion deficits. The reality is that the Liberals have an $80-billion deficit.

[The Budget, April 22nd, 2021]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

We have always agreed that people who do business in Canada should pay their fair share of taxes. This is a good principle that applies to all Canadians.

My colleague is correct in saying that, in accounting, there is a right-hand column and a left-hand column. The problem with the Liberals is that they only pay attention to the spending, not the revenues. The budget says nothing about revenues, so we find only spending and, of course, deficits, because we do not have enough revenue to balance the budget.

That is unfortunate. The Liberal government will not make any cuts, but it must make responsible decisions at some point to make sure we return to a balanced budget. That is not addressed anywhere in the 664 pages of this budget.

[The Budget, April 22nd, 2021]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question.

I agree that the fact that this budget was presented by Canada's first female Minister of Finance is a huge step forward for Canada and for all Canadian women.

That being said, we Conservatives definitely agree that the health transfers must be increased unconditionally. We also agree that there should not be two classes of seniors, those aged 65 to 74 and those aged 75 and over. That is completely illogical.

However, the reason the Conservatives voted against the Bloc Québécois' amendment to the amendment is that it gave the provinces and territories free rein to spend the money any way they wanted, without regard for financial responsibility. The Bloc Québécois can promise the moon, but we know they would never be able to deliver.

[The Budget, April 22nd, 2021]

Madam Speaker, I apologize. It was a slip of the tongue.

I was saying that people in my riding cannot understand the current Prime Minister's deficit policy. Our children and grandchildren will have to pay for it.

The Prime Minister once said that the budget will balance itself, which is unbelievable. A budget cannot balance itself. We have to work to make that happen.

[The Budget, April 22nd, 2021]

Madam Speaker, today we are talking about the 2021 federal budget. This is the Liberals' first budget in two years.

I have to say that, sadly, this does not bode well for future generations. In addition to about $400 billion in unbudgeted spending over the past year, this budget includes another $150 billion in red ink for the year to come. Moreover, if everything is okay in five years, the government is projecting a more modest $31-billion deficit for 2025-26. On Monday, Radio-Canada described that as pretty close to balancing the budget.

They seem to have lost sight of the value of money. They do not know the difference between $1 and $1 billion. This is nothing like Liberals' fiscal rigour under Jean Chrétien. It does not even come close to what the Liberals under the current Prime Minister promised when, in 2015, the Liberal Party leader projected three small $10-billion deficits and a balanced budget by 2019. Let us not forget that.

I understand, of course, that the pandemic has created the need for temporary support programs to get through this crisis, programs that we have supported and even helped improve many times over the past year. However, that does not explain this orgy of spending, this $101 billion in new spending that is not all related to the pandemic and that, once in place, will be here to stay. A government program is the closest thing to eternal life on earth. It does not actually exist.

Worse still, we learned that the budget, presented in the House of Commons on Monday, was already outdated the next day. The Prime Minister came out and said he would increase health transfers— something the provinces and the opposition parties have been calling for—right after the pandemic. Either the Prime Minister thinks the pandemic is going to last until 2025, or he has not included the increases to health transfers in his spending. This will inevitably add to the deficit after the pandemic.

We also want to act on the request made by the provincial premiers. Ideally, it would be unconditional, because health services are entirely under provincial jurisdiction. The only problem is that the amounts requested are nowhere to be found in the budget.

This budget is an 725-page brick, a half-baked document that the government took two years to complete. It was presented less than 48 hours ago, it has not even been voted on yet, and we already know that the figures for the next five years will have to be modified because the government did not have the foresight to include an amount for health transfers.

I have a feeling that many other amounts will have to be added or modified after seniors aged 65 to 74 begin complaining because they just learned that the announced increase in OAS applies only to those aged 75 and over. This is a measure that involves increasing the pension by 10% next year, but also offering a one-time $500 payment this year, just before the election. In fact, there is a good chance that an election will be triggered in August.

This issue was met with public outcry in my riding, including from Ms. Bélanger in Saint-Jean-Port-Joli, Mr. Fortin in Saint-Aubert, Ms. Plourde in Notre-Dame-du-Portage, Ms. Petit in Rivière-du-Loup and Mr. Saint Pierre in Sainte-Anne-de-la-Pocatière. These people and many others have called me since the budget was tabled, and they are very angry.

The government's discrimination against younger seniors, a group I will soon be a part of, shocked the people at the Fédération de l'âge d'or du Québec, the FADOQ, and other seniors' associations across the country. I would not be surprised if the government eventually had to put things right by raising the pensions of seniors between the ages of 65 and 74. The $12 billion could potentially grow to $24 billion or $30 billion. Once again, the projections in the budget are obsolete.

The budget does not contain more money for the third link in Quebec City or the extension of Highway 20 to Rimouski. If the government is so willing to go into debt and extend the deficits for years and even decades to stimulate the economy, in can at least build something of use for future generations.

We also had to run deficits under the Harper government. Members will recall that deficits were necessary during the 2008-09 crisis. However, the money was used in large part to support our communities by building and renewing infrastructure, which would serve and continues to serve Canadians.

In 10 or 20 years, what will the Liberals' legacy be to justify all these billions of dollars of borrowed money?

After the budget was tabled, we made a troubling discovery. By 2022-23, the deficits that the Liberal government has been accumulating since 2015 will have exceeded the eye-watering sum of $662 billion. That is more than the $630 billion in total debt accumulated by all other prime ministers combined since Confederation. The debt has doubled in the span of eight years. It is unbelievable, and it makes no sense.

Did Canada's GDP double in eight years? Did all Canadians' wages double in eight years? Obviously not. The Liberals just do not get it.

Despite mismanaging its own programs, the Liberal government now wants to get into child care, which it announced a long time ago but never did anything about.

I have nothing against day cares. The shortage of day care spots is a problem for many young mothers in my riding. However, child care, like health, is an area of provincial jurisdiction.

I am certain that the two provincial representatives in my riding are doing everything they can to improve access to child care services in these difficult times. In Quebec, we made the political choice to implement universal access to subsidized day care, and we pay for it with provincial income taxes. As everyone knows, nothing is free. This was a choice we made as a society. Quebeckers agreed to pay more income tax to support young families.

I would like to point out that, in Quebec, individuals pay 15% income tax on the first $45,000, compared with British Columbians, who pay only 5% provincial income tax on the first $42,000. In the next bracket, $84,000, Quebeckers pay 20% of their income to Quebec City, while British Columbians pay only 7.7% of their income to Victoria. That is a difference of 10% to 12%, which is enormous.

I will ask the government this: Why should Quebeckers take on 23% of the new debt? The $30 billion that the Liberals intend to invest in child care will be funded entirely through deficits. Quebec already has a child care system. That means that we will be paying twice, through our income tax, each year. Since the Liberals cannot restrain their centralizing federalist tendencies, we can also expect any transfers or compensation to be subject to the federal government's conditions.

Clearly, today's Liberals are far from being able to manage public funds as well as they did under Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin. Who would have guessed that a Conservative member would ever say such a thing? I have no choice but to admit that some Liberals did do a good job of managing this country.

This budget is a huge, 739-page campaign brochure that is not intended to get the country back on a solid foundation for the future, but to trigger an election and promise something for everyone. Canadians, especially the young Canadians who will have to pay for all of this, are not fooled by this attempt to buy Canadians' votes with their own money.

Two days ago I was shocked by the Liberal budget and I still am. For two days, I have been getting endless phone calls, email and text messages. People in my riding cannot understand why the government chose to run such huge deficits. These deficits were racked up before the infamous pandemic. Mr. Trudeau did not keep his promise. That is the first thing that needs—

[Employment Insurance Act, April 19th, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-265, introduced by the member for Salaberry—Suroît.

The bill focuses on EI sickness benefits, which have been capped at 15 weeks since the 1970s, whereas EI regular benefits can last up to 26, or even 50, weeks.

This is not a new issue. I heard about it from Marie-Hélène Dubé, a Rivière-du-Loup resident who contacted me about it. I hear about this issue quite regularly from my constituents. Marie-Hélène Dubé is an acquaintance of mine. Over the years, I have spoken with her several times about the topic we are debating today.

Nearly four years ago, in 2018, I presented a resolution at my party's general council, held in Saint-Hyacinthe, to extend EI benefits in the case of serious illness. This resolution was adopted the members of my party. Last month, I also got this resolution passed by all party members at the Conservative convention, which was held virtually earlier this year.

All parties in the House want to address this issue. The Liberals are sadly the only ones dragging their feet.

I remind members that the Liberal government has been in power since October 2019. It had a majority for the first four years and has remained in power for another year and a half with the help of other opposition parties. So far, the Liberal government has not done anything to extend EI sickness benefits, and I do not see why.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer released a study two years ago in April 2019, estimating the cost of extending sickness benefits from 15 weeks to 50. According to this study, it would cost between $1.1 billion and $1.3 billion a year. That may seem like a lot, but it is important to know that the EI program is first and foremost supposed to be independent and self-sustaining. It is funded through premiums paid by workers and employers, which are adjusted periodically based on the claim rate.

In 2019, the contribution rate for workers was $1.62 per $100 of insurable earnings to a maximum of $56,300 a year. The employer pays 140% of that amount, or $2.27 per $100 of insurable earnings. The Parliamentary Budget Officer estimates that extending sickness benefits would cost 6¢ more per $100 earned by a worker. For someone who earns $35,000 a year, that is an increase of $21 a year or $1.75 a month. For someone who has reached or exceeded the maximum insurable earnings of $56,300, the proposed change would cost $33.78 a year or $2.81 a month. If we asked people whether they were prepared to pay between $1.75 and $2.81 a month for peace of mind and access to EI sickness benefits if they were to get cancer or need heart surgery, for example, it is very clear that the answer would be yes.

Balance protection insurance for credit cards and credit disability insurance on car loans both cost far more than 0.06%. They usually cost around 1% of the monthly balance. That amount is 20 times higher than the small increase we are talking about here to extend EI sickness benefits from 15 weeks to 50.

We might well wonder if that is why the Liberals are reluctant to offer EI sickness benefits for longer than 15 weeks. Have insurance companies lobbied the government because they do not want this safety net to make their financial products less attractive?

Let us remember the incestuous relationship between the Liberal government and major financial institutions, which was an issue when the Liberals introduced Bill C-27 in the previous Parliament. That bill proposed legislative amendments to pension standards that would have benefited Morneau Shepell, the family-owned investment company previously run by Bill Morneau, the former finance minister.

As a Conservative, I am very wary of any new tax or government directive that could make it harder for Canada's small and medium-sized businesses to compete. As the owner of a business with about 30 employees, I am all the more wary considering the especially difficult year all SMEs have had. I am here to help them get through the pandemic that we will have to continue grappling with for the next few months, or maybe even more than a year. However, I do not think that contributing an extra $29 or $47 per year per employee will bankrupt my business.

My employees are important to me, and I would love for them to have this lifeline to count on in case they ever have to face such a difficult struggle.

On this subject, I would not accuse the government of overspending. Why, then, are we still here, six and a half years after the Liberals took office? They still have not addressed this issue. The Liberals had a chance to include parts of Bill C-265 in their own Bill C-24, but they decided against it. To top it all off, we learned last week that the government has decided to refuse royal recommendation for Bill C-265, so its odds of being passed by the next election are slim.

Is this what the Liberals call co-operation with the opposition parties? It sounds more like “my way or the highway”. It appears as though they want to call an election right away, so that the Prime Minister can run as a great saviour and promise, for a third time, to increase the number of weeks of EI benefits for serious illnesses, when he had every opportunity to get it done sooner.

A few weeks ago, I asked the government whether it was going to extend EI sickness benefits from 15 to 50 weeks, as set out in the motion the House of Commons passed in February 2020. The government responded that it would first extend this benefit period to 30 weeks.

That is great, but when? Will it be in the budget? We shall see this afternoon. Can the government tell us the difference in cost between 30 and 50 weeks? I remind the House that the Parliamentary Budget Officer estimated that extending these benefits from 15 to 50 weeks would cost 6¢ for every $100. This figure is not for 30 weeks, but perhaps the government and the Department of Finance did their own assessment.

What is the difference in cost between 15 and 30 weeks? What would be the difference in cost between 30 and 50 weeks? Is the government seriously obstructing Bill C-265 to save 2¢ or 3¢? The Liberal member who will be speaking next has a few minutes to ask me questions. I would like him to start by answering mine.

Beyond the figures I just cited, Marie-Hélène Dubé and Émilie Sansfaçon were extremely resilient, and in the case of Ms. Sansfaçon, to the very end. Ms. Dubé went through three cancer diagnoses in the last 10 years. Earlier I heard my Liberal colleague note that the government has made changes related to COVID-19. I am glad that it did that, with our support, but here we are talking about a recurring thing and not something sporadic in connection with a pandemic. As mentioned by my colleague from Salaberry—Suroît, these are legislative amendments that do not happen often. The Employment Insurance Act has not changed since the 1970s and is no longer adequate. As my Liberal colleague aptly put it earlier, we must absolutely overhaul this legislation to adapt to today's realities.

I could go on for several more minutes, but the reality is that many businesses are struggling to find employees. That is the case in my riding right now. Unfortunately, when some get sick they not only have the burden of their illness weighing on them, but they also bear the financial burden, which becomes an additional stressor and is very hard to bear for anyone going through these difficult times.

Some will say that the Conservatives refused to make these changes in the past. It is true, but the way things are changing we must take care of one another. As my colleague mentioned earlier, people who can take care of those who are sick are entitled to more benefits than the sick people themselves. That makes no sense. We must adapt these new realities to today's life. Clearly, the pandemic added another layer, and the reality is that these types of events primarily affect women.

I believe that we must absolutely support my colleague's bill, and I invite the Liberals to also support it.

[Employment Insurance Act, April 19th, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Salaberry—Suroît for her excellent speech and her excellent bill.

As she indicated when she was introducing her bill, we have decided to support this legislation and we will continue to support it. I have a very simple question for her.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer believes that anyone eligible could take full advantage of the entire benefit period. The reality is that this is not always what happens.

Can my colleague comment on the fact that, if the bill were to pass and 50 weeks of benefits became available, that does not necessarily mean that most people would take the full 50 weeks?

[COVID-19 Emergency Response, April 16th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, last year when the Prime Minister was announcing his COVID-19 assistance measures he said that no one would be left behind.

Rosalie, a young mother from Montmagny, recently finished her maternity leave and at the dawn of the third wave she is being denied the Canada recovery caregiving benefit by a Canada Revenue Agency officer because her daughter was not previously registered for child care between the two waves.

It is not for lack of trying. Rosalie is on a wait list at 50 different places and those that remain are not taking infants because of COVID-19. What does the government suggest Rosalie do?

[Laurentian University in Sudbury, April 14th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, I do not know whether my colleague from Edmonton Strathcona is aware of the relationship between Campus Saint-Jean and the Collège de Sainte-Anne-de-la-Pocatière. They have an agreement dating back a number of years that enables anglophone and francophile students from Campus Saint-Jean to come learn and improve their French in La Pocatière. We have that in common.

For me, it is important that all Canadian universities, particularly those in minority communities, have adequate funding. When the member said that it is important that the federal government invest more money, has she or the NDP ever assessed how much should be reinvested in Canada's university faculty?

[Laurentian University in Sudbury, April 14th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent speech.

I find it very interesting that she wants to broaden the discussion on university education.

I have a question for her, since she worked in university administration for about 10 years, if I understood correctly.

What does she think could have happened to make Laurentian University file for protection under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act?