Deepak Obhrai

[The Budget, April 14th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, what anyone would do is work towards balancing the budget. Once we work toward living within our means, we will have the money to spend where we want to spend it. We will create an environment in which there is more investment, where more businesses are attracted, which would then generate the economy. Most importantly, what generates the economy are small businesses, medium-sized business, and the middle class, not high government.

[The Budget, April 14th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the problem with this budget is that it has no plan to meet the deficits made through the government's spending.

I agree with the hon. member about Mr. Flaherty during the 2008 recession, which I stated in my speech, but I do not think he listened. We spent the infrastructure money because that was what the G20 had agreed to. However, we then immediately had a plan on how to balance the books, which is what we did. Subsequent to balancing those books, we were able to give assistance to families, provide tax credits, invest in social services, and reduce the tax burden. Therefore, I say yes, but there has to be a plan.

Under the 2016 budget, there is absolutely no plan on how to reach that. It is just motherhood statements that the Prime Minister has been making, known to be the fluffy statements that he makes that somehow we will balance the budget, or like he said in—

[The Budget, April 14th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, what is correct has been put in a historic context, which is to live within one's means.

I will explain to the member that for the last 20 years when previous governments overspent, we had to fight to bring it back. Then after that, we managed to reduce the tax. It was our government, with that kind of management, that reduced the GST to 5%, putting more money into the pockets of Canadians. More money in the pockets of Canadians is what moved the economy.

We all know that it is the consumers who move the economy and not the planners or economists. Therefore, this is a critical aspect. While reducing the GST to 5%, I would remind the member that in 2008, Canada was not in a recession at that time.

[The Budget, April 14th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Durham.

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour and privilege to stand to speak to the budget. As this is approximately the seventeenth or eighteenth budget that I have debated, I will give my perspective on all the years that I have been in this House talking about budgets.

First let me say that on the other side, there are a considerable number of new members of Parliament. I welcome them all into this House. I am sure they will have a great time in this House over the next four years. We will debate many issues, many of which we will agree on and many of which we will not.

For the new members of Parliament, let me give them a little history. I came here about 18 years ago. From that time, until October last year, every government had been fighting to balance the books. The previous Liberal government, under this Prime Minister's father, created huge deficits, and every government, including the Liberal government that preceded us, fought to balance the budget, to bring the books back into shape. We can all remember that the former prime minister, when he was the finance minister, cut transfers to the provinces to balance the budget, which no province has forgotten.

Under the leadership of former prime minister Harper and finance ministers Jim Flaherty and Joe Oliver, we worked very hard to bring the finances back into shape.

During the recession of 2008, when I travelled all over the world, wherever I went, I was asked all the time how Canada had not suffered from the world recession. It was because the policies we had were sound. We were not recklessly spending the money that we now see the present government doing in the budget of 2016.

Budget 2016 is the first budget in the 18 years that I have been here where there is absolutely no control on spending, no control on any kind of transparency or accountability for Canadian tax dollars. What we have in this budget is a deficit. It started with a $10-billion deficit. Now it is a $30-billion deficit, with no plan as to when we are going to pay it. As it continues with the unplanned expenditures, we do not know where this deficit is going to end up.

In 2008, when the world faced a recession, the G20 countries came out with spending on infrastructure to stimulate the economy. At that time, the Conservative government also went into deficit.

For the present government to now say that it is bringing in infrastructure spending and all these things is something that the world economy has done. However, we are done with the plan, a plan to bring back and balance our books.

The present government, despite the fact there it is very clear that when we left government there was a surplus, tends to mislead Canadians. It misled Canadians by saying that there will only be a deficit of $10 billion. It is misleading again to say there was a deficit when it came into power. It is utter nonsense.

During the period that we were the government, I remember very clearly taking control of our expenses. We gave the departments and everybody an opportunity to see how they would reduce expenses to make it balance. That allowed us to cut taxes. We moved the taxes from early July to the middle of June for Canadian taxpayers. We reduced the GST to 5%. Now, with all this massive spending by the government, many people are asking whether the GST is going to go up. “Are they going to raise the GST?” It is a question that many Canadians are asking. Based on the past experience of the Liberals, we cannot trust what they are saying. It may go up.

Of course, we are facing a crisis right now of low oil prices, but everybody tries to say it is a regionalized issue in Alberta or Newfoundland. Today budgets are being presented both in Newfoundland and in Alberta. In all of them, they are talking about massive deficits. The oil prices are world-controlled, but let us make it very clear that everyone benefits from the energy industry. It is not only the few provinces of Saskatchewan, Alberta, or Newfoundland; it is everyone, including Ontario, and most importantly Quebec.

Because everybody benefits, it is important that this energy sector now be given assistance, as we did when the automobile industry was under pressure. We came out with a program to help the auto industry in Ontario. It is the same thing, and today the energy sector requires assistance.

However, what do we have to do? It is very simple. We need to move our oil resources to tidewater, as everybody keeps saying. What is interesting is that the NDP government in Alberta has recognized that this is a vital thing for the economy of the country. The Alberta government is changing its tune and saying it needs pipelines to take oil to tidewater.

The latest opinion poll shows that most Canadians agree that pipelines are the safest way to take oil. What do we get from the other side? We get nothing. We get statements saying that they know it has to go there, and yes they will do all this. They put in all these rules and regulations that can delay for years and years the project of making pipelines.

The rhetoric that the other side is giving is that the current government streamlined the environmental regulatory process so that it would be a balanced process, not a process taken over by special interest groups, which the government seems to be representing all the time. We need to have the pipelines and the natural resources that this country is blessed with go to foreign markets. That is the key element of where prosperity would fly all across Canada for more jobs. Yes, we have infrastructure in the budget. We did that too, but there is no plan on that side. The parliamentary secretary was just talking about it.

Canadians are extremely worried by this huge spending budget of 2016. They do not know where it will lead them. I can say that all of us will have to pay for this deficit. As I have said, in the last 20 years we have been fighting to ensure that the overspending of the previous Liberal government was brought under control. The generations to come will be paying for the current government. It is not going to pay. It is the generations to come that will be paying. Our young children will be paying for all of this deficit.

There are some economists talking about this being a good thing, but I know from history that all economists have different views. However, the simple, straightforward logic that everybody knows and that everybody's parents and grandparents taught them is to live within our means. That is what the current government should be doing, and not spending money as if it is somebody else's money.

I will conclude by saying this to the Liberal government: respect the taxpayers' dollars.

[International Development, February 26th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the cyclone that hit Fiji last weekend has caused massive damage and left a trail of destruction that requires a major recovery effort.

International teams are being deployed, as we speak, to assist Fijians in their time of need. Canada is home to a dynamic Fijian diaspora, many of them in my own riding. They stand ready to lend their support to any government effort.

Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development tell Canadians what the government is doing to assist Fiji in its recovery efforts?

[Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISIL, February 17th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, he says that I seem to have a problem with the motion. I want to let him know that not I but Canadians have a problem with this government's motion. He should look at the motion and see if he feels he can support our amendment.

As far as the contributions, the defence minister has made a great contribution to Canada. He is a great Canadian.

[Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISIL, February 17th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for giving a historical perspective of what happened in the last Parliament on this issue. It is a very good point. We have now heard the Minister of National Defence say that he met with the coalition and he told them what we are planning to do.

I have a question for the member. When the Liberals decided during the election that they were going to pull out the CF-18s, did they consult with anyone from the coalition forces at that time? If they had done so, they would have been told that it was a wrong move to make this election promise. Let me remind the Liberals that they only got 39% of the votes. Over 60% of Canadians did not vote for them. Therefore, let us not go into this whole idea that they speak for Canadians. At the end of the day, if they had talked to the coalition forces, they would have been told that, and they would not have made that stupid promise they made during the election.

[Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISIL, February 17th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, we have debated the question on the arms treaty. We made our point very clear that there were some domestic issues with the laws that would not allow us to sign that treaty as well. Also, let me say that the treaty will not stop ISIL from advancing. Contrary to what the NDP has said, the treaty will not stop these terrorists from attacking. That is absolutely wrong. For that reason, we really need to degrade ISIL's capabilities. One of the most effective ways is with our military engagement, which we know the NDP opposes and has been opposing since I have been in this House.

[Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISIL, February 17th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, as the member said, I know him very well. I want to correct him and say that my speech was not an entertaining one. It was a serious speech to give some attention to this thing. By saying that it was an entertaining speech, he is degrading the debate in the House, as he has been doing all day. I want to correct that. Please do not say it is an entertaining speech.

Coming back to the facts, the member said that air strikes are not only ones. Agreed, air strikes are not the only ones. I am very glad he got up and said what the Conservatives agreed with, because that is what we have been doing in the past, in the debates that he and I have had in the House. We have been doing all of that. I am very happy he got up and stated what the Conservatives agree with.

Let me make it very clear, in response to the hon. member saying very clearly that air strikes are not effective and his wanting to withdraw them, that one of the most important elements is that the capabilities of our jets are the finest in the world. That is what coalition forces need. That is why the coalition forces are a little disappointed in the Liberal government.

[Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISIL, February 17th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I will take my six minutes to address this very important issue for Canadians.

ISIL is spreading its terror throughout the world. We know from Paris, Indonesia, and Nigeria with Boko Haram fighting there. In Somali, it is Al Shabaab fighting there. In Kenya, Al Shabaab has arrived there as well. The root of terrorism is spreading. We need to fight together to fight it.

No one disputes the fact that working with those affected, the local population, is the most effective way of handling this. That is why we are with the Peshmerga in Iraq, why we went to Nigeria to help build capacity, and why we said we would support the Kenyans in building their capacity to fight terrorism. That is the most effective way.

Right now, the most effective way to stop the biggest threat to the world, the most terrible terrorist organization, is in Syria and portions of Iraq. That is where we have to go and attack. We have been doing it in an effective way. The Minister of Defence and everyone stands up and says it. We all know our pilots and our military personnel have done a marvellous job of degrading the capacity of ISIL.

That is why we are extremely surprised that the Liberal Party wants to take away an effective tool. Then, after deciding it wants to take this tool away, it makes its excuses, saying it has to put in more training officers and that we will have better intelligence capacity. It is already there. They can also do that. There is nothing stopping them increasing the training forces or the intelligence gathering.

However, why would that be at the expense of the most effective weapon we have in destroying ISIL? That is what everyone is asking. That is what Canadians are asking. In poll after poll, this is the question everyone is asking. That is the question the government will have to answer for the Canadian public.