Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise and participate in debate on budget 2015. I take a nuanced approach with respect to examination of the document, unlike the official parties that stake out strong, unequivocal positions. The government, of course, thinks this is the greatest thing since sliced bread and the opposition takes a much different position regarding all the negative aspects of it. I take a nuanced approach. There are some good aspects in budget 2015 and there are some provisions in it that I am not quite so excited about.
There are very few surprises. I could have written this speech several weeks ago. All of the major provisions of the budget had been leaked out in one form or another. That is unfortunate. Members of Parliament are owed that the budget be revealed to them prior to it being revealed to the public through media in fancy photo op situations. Also, the budget, entitled “Strong Leadership” actually does not look very much like a budget.
We all do budgets. When I do my family's budget, or my office budget, or even the upcoming political campaign budget, it is simply a matter of estimating revenues from various sources and then deducting estimated expenditures, based on past spending commitments and history. It is an income statement. It is a balance sheet. It is leading to either a surplus or a deficit. Although there are some charts and graphs in here, it is more of a narrative. It is a speech. It is an explanation of why we should like it. That is why my ultimate assessment of budget 2015 is that it is more of a political document than an economic statement.
To give credit where it is due, after seven consecutive deficit budgets, including the single largest deficit in Canadian history, the $56-billion budgetary deficit in 2008, budget 2015, at least on paper, shows a surplus. I congratulate the government for doing so. However, in order to come out in black ink the government was forced to sell some assets, including its remaining stock in General Motors and dip into its contingency fund and also borrow from the EI surplus. When disposing of assets to balance a budget it can be done in the short term, but that is not a long-term sound fiscal policy, because eventually we will run out of assets.
For some time, I have been asking the government for balanced budget legislation. We are assured, both by a press conference that the Minister of Finance had three weeks before the budget was tabled and also in the document, that balanced budget legislation is coming. I look forward to it. I look forward to having a debate on that, because although there are some limitations and some controversy concerning balanced budget legislation, I think it is important. Canadians have to live within their means and they expect no less for their government.
The real purpose of balancing this budget was to allow the government to implement its much heralded targeted tax relief that it promised. I also promised I would do it, because I was part of the government caucus in 2011. We campaigned on the promise that once the budget was balanced we would bring in targeted tax relief, most notably income splitting. Therefore, I congratulate the government for achieving that benchmark, that it will in fact be able to bring in tax relief. I support those aspects of the budget because I support tax relief generally. I believe, as many Conservatives do, that taxes are too high in this country and therefore it is difficult to vote against a provision that would lessen someone's tax burden.
With that being said, I continually question the continued complication of our tax code. The Fraser Institute, which many individuals on the other side will be familiar with, tabled a report just last week stating that the cost of tax compliance in the country is approaching $6 billion in terms of the cost to Canadians for hiring accountants and tax lawyers and spending their own time, which is valuable, poring through documents and receipts, attempting to save a few hundred dollars that are owed to them in tax credits.
I am always curious about why the government targets boutique tax credits, as opposed to what would be much simpler, which is simplifying the tax code by removing many, if not most or all, of the boutique tax credits and simply lowering the tax rate for all Canadians. That would be fairer and it would reduce to almost zero the estimated $6 billion that Canadians now spend in boutique tax credits.
We know why the government likes boutique tax credits, just as all governments like boutique tax credits. It is because they are able to micro target certain demographics and certain aspects of the electorate that they hope to curry electoral favour from and with.
As some of my colleagues might know, Alberta is in the midst of a provincial election, which is suddenly competitive due to the unpopularity of the budget that was tabled by the Progressive Conservative Government of Alberta approximately one month ago. That budget showed a huge deficit, some modest tax increases, delayed infrastructure announcements, and some minor cuts in front-line services. However, this budget is the opposite of a politically toxic budget. This budget is politically quite clever because it shows a balance. It would allow target tax cuts to key electoral demographics, such as seniors, small business and families with children; and then it offers some relatively large spending promises to other targeted groups, such as those who want public transit and military procurement. Those promises are back loaded and would not take effect until 2017 and thereafter.
It is a very clever document, and I congratulate the government on how clever it is, because it allows them to show a balanced budget while still making expensive promises, but the money would not go out of the door for another two years and would not, therefore, affect its timely surplus, thereby allowing it to balance the budget and bring in tax breaks.
The last thing that I want to say, if I have time, is that it continues to have too many industrial subsidies in it, such as the $100 million for the automotive supplier innovation program. There is too much targeted tax relief and subsidizing. It would be much simpler and much fairer if the government simply lowered the tax rates for all Canadians.
