Marc Garneau

[The Budget, March 27th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, listening to my hon. colleague, everything is sweetness and light and everything is exactly what all Canadians want.

However, there is always a price to pay for these things. Since the government came into power in 2006, by this summer it will have added close $160 billion to the debt. The debt is something that, unfortunately, we cannot hide. It is not going to go away. It is going to have to be paid back at some point.

What does my hon. colleague think a government should do with respect to addressing the debt that will be passed on to our children and our grandchildren and that now exceeds $600 billion?

[The Budget, March 27th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I notice that my hon. colleague talked about the importance of infrastructure, and I agree with him. In fact, it was Paul Martin who started to take money from the excise tax on gasoline to devote to infrastructure, which was a good thing.

Why is it that we are going to have to wait a couple of more years? If infrastructure is so pressing, why is the amount of money put toward it so light for the next couple of years? This reminds me of when the Conservative government, in 2011, during the last election, promised that it was going to double the tax-free savings allowance from $5,000 to $10,000 once the budget was balanced, some time in the future. Conservatives did the same thing with income splitting in families for income tax purposes. Once again, that was going to be done after the budget was balanced.

If everything is so urgent, why is it that on infrastructure, the amount of money for the next two years is so little?

[The Budget, March 25th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member for Newmarket—Aurora talk about how her constituents were pleased with the tax reductions. There is always a price to pay for some things, and one of the things that has happened in the seven years of the Conservative government's rule has been that the national debt has increased by $124 billion so far. Of course, that has added quite a bit to our servicing charges.

I wonder what her constituents have told her about the fact that this year, for example, close to $30 billion will be paid by the government to the public debt charge that has occurred because we are now at $600 billion. How do they feel about that part of the big picture?

[The Budget, March 25th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to very briefly quote Fleming, who of course was the discoverer of penicillin. He said:

When I woke up just after dawn on September 28, 1928, I certainly didn't plan to revolutionize all medicine by discovering the world's first antibiotic, or bacteria killer, but I suppose that's exactly what I did.

I am very disturbed by the government's focus on moving away from basic and fundamental science, which of course has to be balanced with applied science. I would like to hear what the member has to say about that disturbing trend.

[The Budget, March 25th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague talked about lowering business taxes. Does he know whether corporations that have had their taxes lowered to 15% are actually spending that windfall of money they are receiving?

[The Budget, March 25th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, we know the Conservatives are increasing the payroll taxes on EI every year.

My question for the hon. member is the following. I remember way back in 2011, during the last election, the Conservatives promised that once they balanced the budget, which looks like maybe 2015 according to their prediction, they were going to double the TFSA, the tax-free savings allowance, from $5,000 to $10,000. They were also going to do some family income splitting with respect to the income tax. Those measures are obviously going to cost money and yet there are projections of surpluses starting in 2015.

Would the hon. member tell us how much it is going to cost to double the TFSA and how much it is going to cost to do the income splitting for families with respect to income tax? That will play into the surpluses the Conservatives promised back in 2011.

[Employment Insurance, March 25th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, last fall, the government cancelled an employment insurance pilot project that provided up to five extra weeks of benefits to Canadians in regions with high unemployment. It would have cost $77 million to renew the program this year. Instead, the government will be spending $78 million on partisan budget ads.

Why is the government wasting money on pre-election propaganda instead of using it to fund programs that would help unemployed Canadians?

[Justice, March 20th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Budget Officer revealed that the crime rate has gone down 23% since 2002, but costs have increased by 23%, especially since 2006.

The provinces obviously end up stuck with the bill for 73% of those costs.

My question is very simple. Does the government plan on helping the provinces, which have no choice but to pay the ever-increasing court and prison costs? Is the government prepared to help them?

[National Defence, March 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the CF-18 replacement program is on track to becoming the greatest fiscal procurement fiasco by the government if it is not overtaken by the new ship program. Now we are hearing about upgrades and extensions to the CF-18 after being told we needed the F-35 really urgently. What is the new solution? It is to hit the reset button.

This is my advice for the Prime Minister. It is not the reset button that needs to be pressed; it is the eject button on a couple of his ministers.

[National Defence, March 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, we have seen nothing but incompetence from the government on the F-35 file for two and a half years now. It would be funny if it were not so tragic.

At stake is billions of dollars of taxpayers' money. At stake are considerable industrial spinoffs for the aerospace industry. Now, the word is that replacing the CF-18s will be delayed.

Who is in charge here?