House of Commons Hansard #163 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was economy.

Topics

Opposition Motion—Economic SituationBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

Again, I would remind members to address their comments to the chair rather than directly to their colleagues.

The hon. member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl.

Opposition Motion—Economic SituationBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

NDP

Ryan Cleary NDP St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for that very good question, because Canadians need to understand that what Newfoundland and Labrador was asked to give up, what I consider a right based on the Constitution and our terms of union with Canada, is what is called “minimum processing requirements” to protect fish plant jobs on land.

The answer to his question is that Newfoundland and Labrador was the only province in Canada asked to give up something in the free trade deal during the CETA negotiations. What we were asked to give up were minimum processing requirements, and we were the only province in Canada asked.

Is the Prime Minister trying to create a rift with the province? Probably, but I do not know. I cannot read the mind of the Prime Minister, but I can tell from his actions that he does not hold Newfoundland and Labrador in high regard.

Opposition Motion—Economic SituationBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

NDP

Dany Morin NDP Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to my NDP colleague's speech. I hope that the many unemployed people in his riding will be able to find jobs soon.

At noon today, the member for Outremont announced a measure to create jobs and help small and medium-sized businesses across the country, whether it be in Chicoutimi or Newfoundland. This new measure would reduce the small-business tax rate from 11% to 9%. These businesses are responsible for most of the job creation in Canada.

Does my colleague believe that measures like this one can really help start and grow small businesses so that the people of his province will not have to look for work elsewhere and will be able to live in Newfoundland?

Opposition Motion—Economic SituationBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

NDP

Ryan Cleary NDP St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for another good question.

When it comes to the New Democratic Party of Canada, be it the announcement made by our leader today on a tax break for small business, be it our national child care plan, whereby child care would cost no more than $15 a day for Canadian families, or be it a national federal minimum wage of $15 an hour, I think Canadians see that the policies of the New Democratic Party of Canada are the policies that will most improve living standards for middle-income Canadians. I think it is clear. Canadians will see it. They are unlike the policies of the Conservative government of Canada, such as income splitting, which will only benefit the top 15% of income earners in the country. The wealthiest families in Canada will be the ones who benefit from that Conservative policy. That is not good enough.

We need policies that impact the lives of everyday Canadians, of middle-class Canadians.

Opposition Motion—Economic SituationBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

NDP

Robert Chisholm NDP Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak for a few moments on this important motion, a motion that was introduced by my colleague, the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley. It calls on the government to immediately present economic and fiscal updates to Parliament outlining the state of the nation's finances, in light of the unstable economic situation, and to prepare a budget that addresses the economic challenges faced by the middle class by creating more good quality, full-time jobs and by encouraging economic diversification.

It is important that the government has decided to postpone its budget from possibly this week or next to some time in April. It has not said exactly when. Conservatives have done that based on the fact that over the past year, oil prices have dropped by 40%. They have suggested that as a result of the unstable nature of the economy, they need more time, to do what exactly I am not sure, but I assume it is to work on the budget.

It is interesting, because the Conservatives are not going to change anything. Six months ago, when the price of oil was in the $80-a-barrel range, they said they were going to balance the budget and have a surplus. They brought in an income splitting plan that would cost $2 billion that would benefit only 3% of the Canadian population, the more wealthy families in this country, and there were other strategies to do that. Now that the price is in the area of $50, they say that they are still going to do the same.

What is it? Is it unstable economic times? Is it not unstable economic times? Are they going to have to change the budget, or are they not going to change the budget? Why are they waiting? If they are so convinced that they can hold the course, why do they not be clear with Canadians? Let us know. Canadians deserve to be treated like adults. They can handle the truth. They demand the truth, frankly. They want to know exactly what the government has in mind.

I listened to some of the speeches of the members opposite. I have been in this business a long time, and I should know by now not to listen, but I do, and I continue to get as tired and annoyed when I hear the nonsense about balancing the budget to prevent generations down the road having to pay the cost. That is a good sentiment, and I agree with paying our way. I agree with living within our means and making sure that we can afford to do what it is that we do. However, that is absolutely not what the government has done.

In 2008-09, the debt was just under $457 billion. In 2014, the budget debt is estimated to grow to $618.9 billion. That is an expense that future generations are going to be responsible for. I recognize the idea of balancing our books, the operating deficit, and having a surplus so that we can pay down that debt. However, that is not what the government has done. It has done just the opposite. It has confounded economic principles and has spent in the good times and not spent in the bad times to stimulate the economy. It completely flies in the face of the economy.

On top of that, Conservatives have put the handcuffs on the federal government's capacity to bring in revenues to deal with our operating expenses so that we can pay down that debt. They have forgone taxes from the corporate sector in particular, but also from wealthy Canadians, in the last four or five years, from 2010-14, to the tune $14 billion as a result of corporate tax cuts.

My point is that if we are going to keep reducing the fiscal capacity of the government to provide programs, to provide services, and to operate the things the current government does, then we are not going to be able to pay our bills when times get tough. That is the issue.

The Conservative government continued to spend in the good times. Now we are seeing the austerity program. It is chopping departments, laying off staff, freezing wages, and downloading to the provinces. Do members know that the total national debt in the public sector in this country has risen to $1.2 trillion? That is the amount the public sector owes. That is the amount all Canadians are responsible for.

We know that there is only one taxpayer. The federal government may be able to say, “We are lowering taxes and putting money back into the hands of wealthy Canadians and a few individuals from here and there, so we are able to reduce our operating costs”. However, it is downloading all that cost to not only provinces and municipalities but to individuals, to the point where we are running up a debt that is completely and utterly stifling.

The minimum wage in Canada since 1970 has increased by one penny. We have an infrastructure deficit, as determined by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, in the area of $200 billion. Who is going to pay that? If the government does not manage its ability to deliver programs and services and to make the kind of investments that are necessary, then someone is going to have to pay, but they are going to have to pay down the road.

This idea that the government is reducing taxes, that it is going to balance the budget, and that somehow it is going to benefit generations is absolutely nuts.

What we need, I believe, and what we have heard from this caucus, is a government that is going to start showing some confidence in Canadians, that is going to start making investments so that our young people are able to find work, meaningful work, in their communities, in provinces where they live, and are able to earn a reasonable, family-sustaining wage to help grow the economy, pay into pensions, and pay down the debt the current government continues to grow. Those are the kinds of investments we have laid out.

We have talked about affordable child care, $15-a-day child care. We have talked about leading the way with a $15-an-hour federal minimum wage. Just today our leader talked about extending for two more years the accelerated capital cost allowance to ensure that we encourage businesses, industries, and manufacturers to make investments. We have done the same thing with the innovation tax credit to promote innovation, research, and development. We are proposing to cut the small business tax rate from 11% to 9%.

Those are investments. That is working with the people in our constituencies across the country, from one end to the other, to grow the economy, to build strong communities that families can grow and can thrive in. That is the kind of leadership we need. That is why we need to support the motion introduced by the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

Opposition Motion—Economic SituationBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:05 p.m.

Cypress Hills—Grasslands Saskatchewan

Conservative

David Anderson ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak here today, but I do not know if it is laughable or annoying to hear the New Democrats talk about economic policy. For many people across this country maybe it is academic, but for those of us who have actually had to live under NDP governments it is not a joke. In many ways, it was the thing that destroyed the economy.

I come from Saskatchewan. For 50 years, we had NDP governments there, and their policies ensured that our economy was lagging far behind that of our neighbours. They refused to develop our resources. The taxation and investment policies basically destroyed the local economy. It is only in the last 10 years, when we have been able to get rid of them, that we have started to gain some ground on the neighbours around us.

It is interesting today to hear them, in some areas, copying our policies and then trying to sell them as their own. Their tax credits they say are good; ours are some sort of punishment or whatever. At home, the NDP candidates now have started a campaign for the next election, and all I am reading in the literature they are sending out is that raising taxes is the key, that we need to keep raising taxes.

I need a bit of time here to talk about this. It is important. Every time these folks get into office, they destroy the economy. They never build it; they have no credibility. Why would they expect Canadians to trust them?

Opposition Motion—Economic SituationBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:05 p.m.

NDP

Robert Chisholm NDP Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to talk about other governments. I am not going to talk about 10 years ago. However, I could, because that government was re-elected four times because it was providing important leadership in Saskatchewan.

However, I just want to ask that member this. The public debt of the federal government has gone from $457.6 billion in 2008-2009 to $618 billion. That is $161.3 billion in additional debt over the past seven years. Who is responsible for that? Whose policies are responsible for running up the debt and for putting future generations in hock?

Opposition Motion—Economic SituationBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:05 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the member, and I would like to continue on the same stream.

We need to recognize that the current government and Prime Minister have actually been an absolute failure in dealing with the debt issue. Even though they were provided with a surplus budget, they quickly turned that into a deficit situation, at a time in which we were not in a recession. For years now, every year the current government has brought forward a deficit. Now we hear the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance saying that they are going to have a surplus budget this year.

However, by the time the public accounts committee gets to deal with whatever it is the government comes up with in April—or whenever the Conservatives decide to bring it to the House—there is no real accountability as to whether it may be a made-up surplus. There is no evidence. The Conservatives do not have any history of showing that they can actually provide a balanced budget or a surplus. Why should we even believe them, given that this is an election year, if they were to fix the books to create the impression that they have a balanced budget?

Opposition Motion—Economic SituationBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:05 p.m.

NDP

Robert Chisholm NDP Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS

Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North is absolutely correct. Why should we believe them?

However, let me take the opportunity to raise something else that is very serious, and that is the whole question of income inequality and the fact that, while the incomes of the top 1% have been surging for decades, typical Canadian families have seen their incomes fall over the past 35 years. When the data is examined, we understand that over the past 35 years 94% of the inequality, the gap we are talking about, happened under Liberal governments.

Opposition Motion—Economic SituationBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

NDP

Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague and congratulate him on his excellent speech, his proposals, his presentations and his analysis.

I would like to talk about the fact that the Conservative government is in a very difficult position now. It was forced to postpone tabling its budget because it gambled everything on black gold. It gambled everything on oil. Now the price of oil, which was supposed to be $80 or $85 a barrel, is below $50.

How can it be that a Conservative government bet everything on fossil fuel development and abandoned the manufacturing sector, which creates jobs in Canada? I would like my colleague to comment on that.

Opposition Motion—Economic SituationBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

NDP

Robert Chisholm NDP Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question, and one that has been raised before in the House. One thing New Democrats have said is that the government is failing to recognize how important it is to have a properly balanced and diversified economy, and we have particularly talked about this in the area of trade. We are the only industrialized country in the G7 that does not have an industrial strategy to ensure we know what is going on in the various sectors of our economy, so that we sign trade deals that actually make sense for our economy and that we can adapt to changes in the world economy that have affected the natural resources industry.

Opposition Motion—Economic SituationBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Québec, Canadian Heritage.

Opposition Motion—Economic SituationBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

Liberal

Chrystia Freeland Liberal Toronto Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for York West.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me this opportunity to participate in this important debate.

It is the fundamental responsibility of the federal government to instil a sense of confidence in the economy. This is why we need a budget now. This delay is causing uncertainty in the markets and in the minds of Canadians. The Prime Minister has put all his eggs in one basket and now, when economic growth is slowing down and oil prices are falling, it is obvious that he has no plan B. Last week, the Bank of Canada acted, but the Prime Minister is improvising as he goes along, cancelling meetings with our leading trading partners and allies and delaying the introduction of the budget.

By delaying the tabling of the budget, the Prime Minister has thrown up his hands and admitted he has no plan B. Canada’s economic prosperity is at stake, but the Prime Minister is asking middle-class families to make even more sacrifices so that the wealthiest members of our society can get billions of dollars in tax cuts.

Who is the Prime Minister working for these days? His main priority during this difficult period is to protect the gift of more than $2 billion that he gave to the Canadians who need it the least. The Conservatives should start by reversing course on the income splitting plan, which will cost the government $2 billion a year, and is a tax cut for the middle class that will mainly benefit the wealthiest families in Canada.

During the 2011 election campaign, the Prime Minister promised that when the budget was balanced, his government would let families split their incomes for tax purposes, up to a maximum of $50,000. On October 30, 2014, the government announced a slightly modified plan offering families a theoretical tax credit for income splitting that could reach up to $2,000. This means that 85% of Canadian households will not benefit from income splitting, among them single-parent families, parents with similar incomes and families that have no children under 18. In most cases, the $2,000 maximum benefit will be paid to households where only one person is earning an income, where that income is higher than $100,000 a year.

This program will cost the government $2.4 billion over the 2014-15 fiscal year, and $2 billion a year over the following years.

We need leadership with an intelligent plan to expand our economy in all sectors and in all regions, for all Canadians. The Liberal Party’s priority is clear: we have to improve the security and prosperity of middle-class Canadians who have not seen a decent increase in their incomes for 30 years. Canadian families deserve to have a real and fair chance to succeed.

In its economic vision, this government has failed to take into account what has always made Canada a prosperous country: diversity, balance and partnership among regions and economic sectors.

Canada’s strength should not depend on one thing or one place. It comes from the diversity of its population and the diversity of its economy. Yes, we need the strength of western Canada, but we also need the strength of eastern Canada, the strength of northern Canada and the strength of central Canada.

I would like to thank my colleagues, and particularly the francophone members, for having to listen to my bad French, and I hope it was understandable.

I will continue in English. I thank members for their tolerance. As an anglophone MP representing an anglophone riding, I do apologize for murdering the language of Balzac, but it is important to try. Balzac, by the way, had a Ukrainian wife, so I feel especially close to him.

One of my favourite commentators on the economy is Warren Buffett. In his 2001 letter to shareholders, he had this great line, “Only when the tide goes out do you discover who's been swimming naked.”

In Canada, the tide has gone out. That is what has happened to the government. Now that we see that there is no tide, it is not that pretty. The economic tide that flattered Canada's relative economic performance consisted primarily of two things: high commodity prices, and the fact that Canada alone, of the G7 countries, avoided the financial crisis, thanks, it might be worth noting, to the very wise and prudent decisions, against the conventional wisdom, of the Liberal government to maintain tough banking regulation.

That tide has now gone out because, first of all, the high commodity prices that flattered our economic performance have collapsed, particularly of oil, and the financial crisis that devastated the other G7 countries and really flattered Canada's relative economic performance has now started to abate and is not hitting the other G7 countries so badly.

Particularly in relative terms, we are seeing the true reality of Canada's economic performance and the true reality of the government's economic stewardship. What we are seeing is a government that has failed to understand the central economic challenge of our generation, which is that of adjusting to the new realities of the 21st century economy, the realities of an economy in the age of a technology revolution and globalization.

What is happening in this 21st century economy is a relentless hollowing out of the middle class. We are seeing middle class wages, over the past 30 years, stagnate at the same time that wages and wealth at the very top are increasing.

The government, for years, has been in denial about this. In fact, when the leader of the Liberal Party first started talking about the hollowed out middle class, we were met with derision and denial. It is now becoming a truth universally acknowledged that this issue of income inequality and the hollowed out middle class is the central economic challenge, and we have to address it.

I am just going to read a final quote from the World Economic Forum in Davos, not generally seen as a hotbed of pinkos or communists. This is what they have to say about income inequality:

Across rich and poor countries alike, this inequality is fuelling conflict, corroding democracies and damaging growth itself. Not long ago those who worried about inequality were accused of partaking in the politics of envy. In the past year this concern officially became mainstream as voices from the Pope to Christine Lagarde...cautioned of its impacts. The mounting consensus: left unchecked, economic inequality will set back the fight against poverty and threaten global stability.

Instead of pushing against these economic forces, the government, particularly with its imprudent and unfair income-splitting plan, is exacerbating them. That is why we support the opposition motion.

Let us have a budget. Come clean. The tide is out. We want to see what the government guys have.

Opposition Motion—Economic SituationBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

January 27th, 2015 / 4:20 p.m.

NDP

Alexandrine Latendresse NDP Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my colleague for her speech and congratulate her on the first part, which she presented entirely in French. That is very impressive and I want to thank her.

Given that she referred to income splitting, I would like to ask her a question about the status of women in relation to that measure. The member said that this measure would not benefit couples that have similar incomes, but rather it would be most beneficial to couples with a wide gap in their earnings. Of course, it is often the man who earns most of the income, while the woman either does not work or earns a much lower salary.

Would my colleague not agree that such a measure would undermine the status of women and hinder the advancement of women in the workplace?

Opposition Motion—Economic SituationBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

Liberal

Chrystia Freeland Liberal Toronto Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, the question of the gender impact of income splitting is an excellent one. One of our big concerns with income splitting should be the fairness issue, particularly at a time when we are discovering that the fiscal constraints are greater than we thought. To be giving a tax break to the Canadians who need it least is absolutely unconscionable. It not only makes bad economic sense, it is also just wrong.

The gender impact is significant too. Income splitting discourages married women from entering the workforce. As a working married mother, I think that is something that our economic policy should not be ideologically slanted toward. Countries like Sweden and provinces like Quebec have found that if we do the opposite, if we have economic policies that encourage maximum female labour force participation, there is a measurable improvement in GDP and in tax take.

Opposition Motion—Economic SituationBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

Conservative

Ryan Leef Conservative Yukon, YT

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the answer to that last question. The member mentioned fairness being an important piece on the income splitting end. I could not agree more. In part, that is why we have introduced that measure.

Would the member not agree that we can have a family with a total household income of a certain amount that pays one rate of taxes and another family with an identical total household income paying another simply because one wage earner earns a lot more and one a lot less? There is one household paying a lot more in taxes than another even though the total household income for the two different families is identical.

That is exactly what this tax policy is about, bringing fairness to two different household incomes and then allowing each household to enjoy the same benefits, the same freedom and the same flexibility to determine what they do with their hard-earned dollars. It is about giving Canadians freedom and flexibility, and balancing out the inequality that exists today in total household incomes.

Opposition Motion—Economic SituationBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

Liberal

Chrystia Freeland Liberal Toronto Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member opposite for his question but I disagree 100% with the premise.

All of the calculations show that income splitting would disproportionately benefit Canadians at the very top of the income distribution. This benefit would go to the 15% of Canadians who least need it. Therefore, as a matter of economic fairness, income splitting is a really bad idea.

As a matter of sound economic policy it is a really bad idea too, because what we are learning about economic policy is that if we do not focus on growing the middle class, we will have slowing economic growth. If the middle class does not have the income to purchase, we have an economy that is stalled. An economic policy like income splitting that benefits the top is a policy that also has an adverse impact on GDP.

Opposition Motion—Economic SituationBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

Liberal

Judy Sgro Liberal York West, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to get up and speak to this important motion on the table. I would like to congratulate my colleague, who did a super job with her comments, both in English and in French. As nervous as she was, she did a fine job, and I applaud her for being able to do that.

I am on my feet today to speak to the NDP motion, but I have to say with profound disappointment that instead of discussing the budget, we are discussing why we do not have a budget. I really do find it quite shameful that the government is refusing to conduct itself with even the slightest degree of fiscal prudence and transparency. A government that campaigned on accountability and transparency 10 years ago is now in a position where we are talking about passing motions to force it to table a budget. It really does not make a lot of sense when we look back at what the message was.

Canadians know that the fiscal situation has changed since the fall economic update. The government owes all Canadians an honest answer to hard economic questions. Level with Canadians and let them know what the situation is. I can see no reason why they would not just understand it, accept it, or disagree with it as they might, but they at least have the right to know.

The facts are clear, yet the Conservatives are smugly refusing to deal with the true fiscal reality, and their head in the sand approach is beyond contempt.

This is what we know so far. The most recent fiscal update made a series of assumptions about economic variables, including what the price of a barrel of oil would be over the next several months. The last time the minister did his math, oil was trading at $81 U.S. a barrel. At $81 a barrel, the minister figured, rightly, that there would be a surplus this year, the first since 2008, of about $1.9 billion. Now, however, sources such as those at the Bank of Canada say that oil will trade well below that $81 a barrel average. In fact, TD Bank said earlier this month that $50 a barrel oil would result in a $3.2 billion deficit. We did not say that. The Parliamentary Budget Officer did not say that. It was Toronto-Dominion Bank's expert economists. At $40 a barrel, which is not too far from where we are now, it would result in a deficit of $4.7 billion.

I think that Canadians would understand this if the government came forth and explained it, but no, the government continues to put its head in the sand in trying to figure out how it is going to do all of the things that it promised, even though we clearly cannot afford them.

Why can the government not just admit this and ask for help? Why can it not be honest with Canadians and parliamentarians and say this is a serious situation and ask how we can solve it in a non-political and positive way?

Rather than giving honest and forthright answers, the government has promised a spending spree totalling billions of dollars. It has steadfastly promised to ignore the facts because it claims it can increase expenditures, decrease revenues, and balance the budget simultaneously. The Conservatives must be real magicians to do that, and all of it would be done just in time for an election.

As appealing as all of this would seem when expressed as a sound bite in a taxpayer funded Conservative ad, it is just not believable. Canadians are not swallowing it. They do not believe it. They run their own households and businesses, and they know that the serious impact on oil revenue will have a huge effect on the government's ability to deliver a balanced budget.

I operated a small business for 30 years, and my banker would never have accepted a financial plan like the one the government is talking about. Most Canadians know that we cannot budget like this. It does not work in a household. It does not work in business. It certainly does not work in government, as least if we are being honest with people.

Liberals want to see the updated numbers. Let us have some transparency and some honesty so that Parliament can make the decisions necessary to get past this crisis.

Canada needs a coherent economic growth plan. Instead, the Prime Minister is making it up as he goes along. The Conservatives have put all of Canada's eggs into one basket, and when that basket crumbled, they lost their footing and had nothing to fall back on.

The Prime Minister is addicted to high oil prices and now that the economic situation has changed, he is unable to cope with adverse economic developments. He is retreating to a bunker with the hope that no one will notice and that somehow, when he gets up the next morning, everything with be fine.

As I said, instead of reaching out to Canadians to show leadership and build confidence, the Prime Minister has punted the federal budget, which is normally delivered in February, into April or later. It might mean a June budget being introduced without any analysis, which means we will not have any time to discuss or debate it, and roll right into an election. By the time Canadians find out the real picture, it will be well after the election, and by that time it might be too late.

It means that Canada will go without a budget for more than this entire fiscal year. Granted, Conservative budgets are only slightly better than nothing, but it would be nice to have some accurate numbers, and even if they are not really accurate, at least it is something with which we can deal.

Let us remember that the government did not get us into this situation overnight.

In 2006, the Prime Minister was handed a steadily growing economy, which had generated 3.5 million net new jobs, declining debt and taxes, a decade of balanced budgets, annual surpluses of about $13 billion and fiscal flexibility projected ahead five years totalling $100 billion. This is what the Prime Minister had to work with, the most robust fiscal situation in the world, but he blew it in less than three years.

He overspent by three times the rate of inflation, eliminated all the financial shock absorbers that had been built into Canada's budgetary framework to protect against adverse events, and he put our country back into deficit again, a structural deficit, before and not because of the recession which arrived in late 2008.

The Prime Minister failed to anticipate that recession. We all remember his great words that there would be no recession and that we were in great shape. However, six months later, we had a recession.

As the recession began, the Prime Minister dismissed it as just a good buying opportunity. When he could not deny reality any longer, his belated stimulus plan was slow, convoluted, intensely partisan and tainted with boondoggles like fake lakes in Toronto and multimillion dollar misappropriations for ornamental gazebos and sidewalks to nowhere in Muskoka. He used the stimulus package as a mathematically-challenged excuse to cover up what was horrific and short-sighted fiscal management. In effect, he went on a spending spree with the nation's credit cards, and he has no plan now to pay the bills, not even the minimum balance.

The Prime Minister thinks he should not be required to report to Parliament. He just expects that people will trust him, despite his personal legacy of fiscal failure. However, Canadians are weary of the fiscal failures that characterize the current tired government. The Conservatives expect us to lower expectations and settle for less. “Just trust us” they say, whether it is the Iraqi war or the budget. That is the exact opposite of what any of us should be doing.

Unfortunately the bill for Conservative blunders is being shouldered by Canada's middle class and the children of that middle class. Middle-class incomes have been flat for years, while living costs and household debt have ballooned. Of those employed in the private sector, 70% cannot count on a company pension, 60% of middle-class parents worry about affording any kind of higher education for their kids, youth unemployment remains near recession-like levels and a whole generation of young Canadians have put their lives on hold. Let us not forget the attack on income trusts and old age pensions. Is this what the Prime Minister means when he talks about prosperity? I do not think so.

Today's motion is about transparency and accountability, and Canadians deserve a fiscally competent government, just not this one.

Opposition Motion—Economic SituationBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

NDP

Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet NDP Hochelaga, QC

Mr. Speaker, the member said, and I quote, “Just trust us”, talking about the Conservatives and the budgets and policies they present.

I agree that the Conservatives' policies have no long-term vision. They are not the best policies in the world when it comes to the economy and many other areas, and I have a hard time understanding where the Liberals want to go. Either they cannot tell us where they want to go, or they give us conflicting information. For instance, in London, Ontario, the Liberal leader said that we must transition away from the manufacturing sector, then the next day in Windsor, he told workers there that we need to invest in the automotive sector.

What, then, is their vision?

Opposition Motion—Economic SituationBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Liberal

Judy Sgro Liberal York West, ON

Mr. Speaker, the member should have a little patience.

As to what our leader has said and not said, when we are looking at a manufacturing sector that is in trouble and needing change, it is about how we put things together. What is the strategy for moving forward the manufacturing in our country? How do we help the auto sector?

If the member listens properly to what the leader of the Liberal Party was saying—

Opposition Motion—Economic SituationBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

An hon. member

He isn't here.

Opposition Motion—Economic SituationBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Liberal

Judy Sgro Liberal York West, ON

Mr. Speaker, could you please tell those folks across the aisle? I guess they do not like what I am saying because they are very noisy. Anyway, they will not get up and I will continue.

We have very positive ideas and plans of where we are going and what is needed to build our country, and it means a solid fiscal framework and new ideas. We will show members opposite those ideas when we get into an election campaign.

Opposition Motion—Economic SituationBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

The Chair would agree that there are certain members who seem to want to talk when others have the floor, but given the opportunity to ask questions or give speeches themselves, they do not seem to take advantage of that.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Yukon.

Opposition Motion—Economic SituationBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Conservative

Ryan Leef Conservative Yukon, YT

Mr. Speaker, I heard the hon. member say “recommend and urge the government to project any numbers, even if they are not accurate“.

I know that fits in nicely with the Liberal Party's philosophy that the budgets will just balance themselves, but that is clearly not a responsible course of action and it is not something a prudent government would do. It is not a course of action our government would take because it is not a prudent measure.

Last year we tabled the budget in early February and the Liberals raced out the door before they had even read it to criticize it, so I am not sure what they are waiting for. We know they will criticize it. We know they will vote against it. Why do they not just race out the door and criticize it now?

The Liberals do not want accurate numbers. In fact, they have urged the government to produce any kind of numbers whether or not they are accurate. That just shows the irresponsibility of the Liberal Party and the folks in the opposition.

This is certainly a comment and not a question, but Canadians will absolutely count on this government for a low-tax plan and a balanced budget in 2015. That is a responsible course of action, and those numbers will be tabled by our great Minister of Finance in April.

Opposition Motion—Economic SituationBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

Liberal

Judy Sgro Liberal York West, ON

Mr. Speaker, no matter what you put out there and put on the table, I do not think anybody will believe the numbers anyway, because for the most part, the numbers put forward are inaccurate. You are making faulty assumptions. When you got into power, you got a $13 billion surplus and blew it trying to buy votes all over the country. That is completely incompetent when it comes to running a country. No matter what budget you put forward, I doubt any of us would believe your numbers anyway.