Gérard Deltell

[Seniors, February 15th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the best way for the Minister of Finance to reassure Canadians would be to come clean with Canadians.

Unfortunately, every time we ask specific questions about tax benefits for Canadians, the minister is always evasive. We have been asking him questions about seniors for at least two and half weeks now, specifically on pension splitting and tax credits for the elderly, and yet the minister can never seem to give us a straight answer.

Will the minister finally reassure Canadian seniors this time?

[The Economy, February 14th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I will talk about three points. First, we are not against the infrastructure plan. Our government, under the leadership of the member for Lac-Saint-Jean, had an $80-billion infrastructure program. It was not $120 billion like the current government's program. The difference is that we had no deficit whereas the Liberals will have a colossal deficit.

With regard to working with the provinces, I do not think I need to remind the minister that there is currently a major dispute between the federal government and the provinces with respect to health—not to mention that the Liberal government pledged exactly the same amount as we did to support health, even though they criticized it at the time.

As for a clean environment, I would like to remind members that, once again, the government used the exact same targets that our government had set, and presented them in Paris. Yes, we are for the environment, and the proof is that the government used the same targets as we did.

I will end on a positive note: we agree with the support they are providing to individuals—

[The Economy, February 14th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise this evening. You have a worried Canadian before you today. I am worried about the future of this country's economy, and I am especially worried about the debt that my children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren will have to pay one day.

Right before Christmas, on December 23, the Minister of Finance tabled a very troubling document, which indicated that, if nothing changes, Canada is headed toward a $1.5-trillion debt by 2050, and, if nothing changes, we would only return to a balanced budget by 2055. The government was so proud of this document that it only released it a few hours before Christmas. Even worse, it was kept from Canadians for 10 weeks.

If I should have the good fortune one day of becoming a minister and a member of cabinet, and I have a document that is to my advantage, I will quickly release it. However, if it is not to my advantage, I will put it in my desk and try to forget about it. That is what the government tried to do when it sat on the document for 10 weeks.

When we were in government just barely 16 months ago, we left the house in order. We had a $2.9-billion surplus, the best debt-to-GDP ratio of the G7, and the lowest tax burden for Canadians in 50 years. That is our record.

The Liberals got elected by promising small deficits of $10 billion for three years, but we now know that these deficits are likely to be three times higher than that. The Liberals also promised to balance the budget in 2019. However, the Department of Finance has shown that the Liberals are going to miss their target by 36 years. Any lowly accountant working for a small business who was off by 36 years would be quickly shown the door. Let us hope that Canadians will do the same two and a half years from now.

The Liberals also promised revenue-neutral tax changes. That is untrue. The changes they proposed are going to cost $1.8 billion more than the taxes we are asking Canadians to pay. In addition, 65% of Canadian workers are not affected by this government's so-called extraordinary tax changes.

Humble people who earn $45,000 a year or less will not see any changes to their taxes. Those who earn $65,000 a year will see a little more money in their pockets, namely $2.50 a week. That is not exactly an extraordinary tax change. In fact, those who will benefit the most from these tax changes are Canadians who earn between $145,000 and $200,000 a year. That is hardly the middle class.

The same goes for money for children. Again today, the minister very proudly stated that this generosity toward Canadian children was unprecedented. The Liberals can certainly afford to be generous. They are giving away money they do not even have. It is easy to give away money one does not have. That is known as a deficit or a debt, but what it really is is bad management.

The government is also going after businesses by imposing the Liberal carbon tax, hiking their Canada pension plan outlays, maintaining the high business tax rate despite pledging to reduce it to 9%, and moving to eliminate business tax credits.

As a Canadian, I am very worried because the government's spending appears to be completely out of control. Fifteen times now, I have asked the government when it will balance the budget, but it has never been able to answer me. I rise in the House every day to ask which tax credits it is planning to cut next, but it cannot tell us. Things are being kept hidden that should be brought to light.

[Taxation, February 14th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, anyone who can count knows that giving people more money is just fine when it is available. However, if we go into debt or run deficits, our children and grandchildren will be footing the bill. That does not make sense. That is basic economics.

Students are also being targeted by the government. Can the government assure us that it will not touch the education savings plans of almost five million Canadians, who would be directly affected by this other bad Liberal decision?

[Taxation, February 14th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, that is precisely the problem. If the government maintains the status quo, then, according to the Department of Finance, we are heading toward a debt of $1.5 trillion by 2050. That is the bill, the gift, that the Liberals are giving to our children and grandchildren. The Liberals are hurting not just our grandchildren, but also our seniors with their serious talk of eliminating income splitting and the age credit amounts. Could the Minister of Finance assure Canadians and especially seniors that he will not touch these two very important benefits for our seniors?

[Finance, February 10th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, if it was that good, why did they keep the document under wraps for 10 weeks?

Because it is not that good. According to the projections, if the Liberals do not change course, there will be a deficit and the budget will not be balanced until 2055. The deficit will be $1.5 trillion in 2050.

I do not really understand how they can see that as a good thing. If it were, they would have fallen all over themselves to release the document. That is exactly what did not happen. They kept it quiet for 10 weeks.

Why is the government so hypocritical?

[Finance, February 10th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the cat is out of the bag. Members will recall that just hours before Christmas, the Department of Finance published a devastating report on this government's extremely bad management. The report indicated that, if nothing is done, Canada will be $1.5 trillion in debt in 2050 and will not have a balanced budget until 2055. Today, we learned from The Globe and Mail that the minister was actually given the report on October 12 but that he kept it under wraps until just before Christmas. For 10 weeks, the Minister of Finance hid the report, which harshly criticizes the government's poor management of the public purse.

Why is the government hiding things from taxpayers?

[Business of Supply, February 9th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, salutations to my hon. colleague from Hull—Aylmer. Without telling my life story, he is my federal MP when I am in Ottawa, since I of course reside in Gatineau. As a good Quebecker, I have a residence in Gatineau. I receive his literature regularly. I thank him and send him my regards.

The member speaks at length about the consensus that we have to have and that we try to reach as often as possible in politics. That consensus existed on the electoral committee. I know he has a great deal of respect for all of his colleagues, especially those in his party, including the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis who chaired that committee so brilliantly. Such respect was not evident in particular among the other members of the government party. Consensus on a referendum was reached among all the opposition parties, that is, the Green Party, the NDP, the Bloc Québécois and us, the Conservatives. In a democracy, the best way of knowing what the people are thinking is to ask them directly and allow all Canadians to express themselves. Why is the Liberal Party refusing to consult Canadians and to join in the consensus reached by all the other parties?

[Housing, February 9th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure we were at the same parliamentary committee because the experts told us during the last three consultations that this had absolutely no impact on Toronto and Vancouver, even though it ought to have affected them. However, it did have an adverse effect on first-time homebuyers from coast to coast.

Yesterday, members of the Fédération des chambres immobilières du Québec were here and they told us that there were 6,000 fewer first-time homebuyers in Canada. We are talking about families, the middle class. That is $220 million less in the Canadian economy.

Why does the government continue to attack families and the middle class in Quebec and across Canada with its bad real estate measures?

[Business of Supply, February 9th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Kingston said it himself.

More than 81,000 answered our survey. This was the biggest participation of Canadians in this process, better than any other experiment that we had, and especially for the committee.

In my home riding, we talked about what my constituents wanted to talk about. In my own riding more than 1,000 people answered my survey, and on behalf of them, 90% of the people of my riding asked for a referendum. We had a consensus on that in all parties except one: the Liberal Party.

If there is a problem, it is on the Liberal side, not on our side.