House of Commons Hansard #10 of the 40th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was economy.

Topics

Economic and Fiscal StatementGovernment Orders

Noon

An hon. member

You can thank the NDP and Bob Rae for that.

Economic and Fiscal StatementGovernment Orders

Noon

Conservative

Patrick Brown Conservative Barrie, ON

Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is obviously important to note that the person who presided over the cuts to health care and medical enrolment in Ontario during that period was the member for Toronto Centre. Scary as it might be, it would not be surprising if he ended up as a minister in a coalition government with the separatists. He may choose to continue the ravaging of health care in Ontario that he started.

Our economic and fiscal statement is taking steps to help Canadian seniors. Our seniors built this country. They deserve to live with dignity and respect.

Registered retirement income funds, or RRIFs, and their associated withdrawal requirements are of particular concern. Last year our government raised the age limit for converting a registered retirement savings plan and an RRIF from 69 years of age to 71.

This government is proposing a one-time change that would allow RRIF holders to reduce their required minimum withdrawal by 25% for this tax year. For example, an individual who would be required to withdraw $10,000 from an RRIF in 2008 would see that withdrawal reduced to $7,500.

On top of the $2 billion increase to the borrowing authority of Export Development Canada, the finance minister has also planned for a $350 million equity injection that would support up to approximately $1.5 billion in increased credit for Canada's export business. That should be applauded by all members in the House who are concerned about Canada's export business.

The export sector has been hit hard by the financial crisis. EDC will now be able to add to the nearly $80 billion in exports and investments it helps make possible for Canadian enterprises, including $4 billion for the auto sector alone.

This government will move forward quickly on the securities regulation front. Our cumbersome and unwieldy system of having 13 security regulators is a glaring flaw in Canada's world-leading approach to promoting financial stability.

This government came to office looking years down the road. Our country is better off today thanks to that approach.

On October 14 Canadians chose a Conservative government to deal with the economic crisis facing the world. I am pretty sure that when Canadians went to the ballot box, they did not pick a Liberal-NDP-Bloc Québécois government. If the rumours are correct, this coup d'état, this non-election, this takeover of democracy, would certainly misrepresent the views of Canadians.

We will deal with these economic challenges in a way that protects Canadian families, in a way that Canadians asked of us and expressed by their opinions at the ballot box. Our plan demonstrates restraint and respect for Canadian tax dollars. It forces governments and politicians to cut back before asking ordinary Canadians to tighten their belts.

The Conservative government's economic plan will reform global finance, ensure sound budgeting, secure jobs for Canadian families and communities, expand investment and trade, and make government more effective.

Economic and Fiscal StatementGovernment Orders

12:05 p.m.

Liberal

Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague on one aspect, and that is with respect to the regulation of securities throughout this country. The provinces have a lot of work to do on that.

With respect to his rhetoric about a coalition government and what Canadians did not choose, I am pretty sure that Canadians, or at least the Progressive Conservatives in my riding, did not choose a Reform-Alliance-Progressive Conservative government.

We have to wait and see what happens. We have to understand that parties change. I would have thought those members would know more about parties changing their titles and working together than anyone else.

I have a serious question. It is a very simple one. The member went on many times about the many Liberal governments in the past and the correction that had to be made for the deficit that was left them. Can my colleague admit to the House and to the public what the Mulroney deficit was, and how long it took to get rid of the Mulroney Conservative deficit?

Economic and Fiscal StatementGovernment Orders

12:05 p.m.

NDP

Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I did not have this precedent when I argued earlier. It is on the same issue, the issue of whether the amendment is in order. I want to draw the Speaker's attention to a motion that was brought by the current Prime Minister on April 22, 2005, when he was in opposition.

The main motion before the House was a concurrence motion. The now Prime Minister moved an amendment at that point that the motion not be concurred in and be sent back to committee. That is very similar to a change in the format of what we are speaking about today. In that case the deputy speaker, who was in the chair at the time, ruled the amendment in order.

Economic and Fiscal StatementGovernment Orders

12:10 p.m.

Conservative

Patrick Brown Conservative Barrie, ON

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear my colleague from the Liberal side of the House talk about debt. We are certainly very well aware that it took a Conservative Prime Minister to provide real action to reduce the Canadian debt. The $37 billion paid down during the last three years under this government is a noteworthy figure. It is a record debt repayment.

We have seen a real change in the approach to debt compared with what happened in the past. Every year the Liberal Party would blow $5 billion, $6 billion, $7 billion at the end of the fiscal year on whatever project was its whim. Instead of having these massive surpluses that Liberals blow in a short period of 30 days on whatever project appeals to them in the winds of change that week, it is a much more prudent approach to pay down the Canadian debt, and that is the approach taken by this government.

I appreciate the member's raising the issue of debt, because that is certainly one of the reasons Canadians rewarded the Conservative Party when they increased and strengthened this minority government.

Economic and Fiscal StatementGovernment Orders

12:10 p.m.

NDP

Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON

Mr. Speaker, seniors are worried. They are watching their retirement savings disappear because of stock crashes.

They have been saying they need a two-year moratorium on the withdrawal of RRIFs, that is, registered retirement income funds. That is not in the statement.

Some seniors are concerned that their pension funds could be in jeopardy because some of these companies may have trouble. When action is taken to support these companies, seniors want a condition to be in place to make sure that their pensions are safe. That is also not in this economic statement.

Many seniors have been working for quite a while and are facing layoffs. They want the employment insurance to which they have been contributing to actually work for them, because it is, after all, an insurance. They want to get some of that insurance back when they are unemployed. That is also not in this economic statement.

Those in desperate situations want a slight increase in the guaranteed income supplement. That is not in this statement either.

What is in the statement is that the Conservative government expects to save over $15 billion over the next five fiscal years under the new expenditure management system.

My question is twofold. First, can the member give us examples of how and where they are going to find $15 billion in cuts, and in which departments? I thought every country in this world was contributing money for an economic stimulus package, not cutting money. This is a cut of $15 billion.

Second, what is also in the statement is that the government is going to sell some real property. I would like some examples. Is it the CN Tower, or perhaps some real estate in Barrie? Which properties are going to be sold, and what kinds of programs are going to be cut as a result of the $15 billion expenditure management system review?

Economic and Fiscal StatementGovernment Orders

12:10 p.m.

Conservative

Patrick Brown Conservative Barrie, ON

Mr. Speaker, on the topic of deficits and economic statements, it is interesting to hear the NDP provide lectures, given their record when in power in Ontario. During that time Ontario's economy took a devastating hit from the NDP's spending spree and the cuts they made to essential services. I note on infrastructure that it was the NDP government that actually cut GO train service to the Simcoe-Muskoka area when it was in power. I can tell members that was the wrong approach. Cutting infrastructure spending at the time of a slowdown was a foolhardy act by the Ontario NDP government of the time, and right now that approach certainly would not be right nationally. That is why it is fantastic that our finance minister wants to accelerate infrastructure spending and help rejuvenate the Canadian economy.

In terms of seniors, I would like to mention to my colleague, the member for Trinity—Spadina, that it was a Conservative government that actually created a cabinet minister for seniors' issues, thereby recognizing the importance of seniors and the role government has in standing up for seniors and protecting them.

I would suggest that two financial concerns exist today for seniors. The first is the impression that assets in RRIFs must be sold to meet withdrawal requirements. The second has to do with the recent drop in the market value of some of those assets. Our finance minister has made it clear to financial institutions that they should either accommodate in-kind transfers of those assets at no cost or offer another solution that would achieve the same result.

To help seniors cope, the economic statement proposes a one-time change that would allow RRIF holders to reduce the required minimum withdrawal by 25% for this tax year. This measure would mean that seniors would be under less pressure to withdraw assets at a time when those assets are at a low point in their market value, another fact that highlights how this Conservative government is standing up for, and protecting, Canadian seniors.

Economic and Fiscal StatementGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

Order. The period for questions and comments is now over.

Before continuing, I would like to inform the House of the Speaker's opinion of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Joliette. I must indicate that I have given consideration to the amendment and I have an opinion to express to the Chamber regarding its admissibility.

First, I must mention the quote from Marleau and Montpetit to which the hon. member for Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington referred previously in the House. I will again quote the text from page 453:

An amendment must be relevant to the main motion. It must not stray from the main motion but aim to further refine its meaning and intent. An amendment should take the form of a motion to:

A list of what may be proposed by an amendment follows.

I must also cite a ruling I gave in 1999, when I was Deputy Speaker:

I am sure the hon. member is aware that virtually any motion, except I believe an adjournment motion, put to the House is amendable. There may be a few others that are listed in the standing orders that are not but there are not many.

A motion, even on a take note debate, it seems to me is an amendable motion. It may be that the question is not put but that is in accordance with the rule adopted by the House in relation to this debate. Accordingly amendments are amendments. As long as they are relevant to the main motion and do not contradict the main motion and as long as they are not repugnant to it generally they are ruled to be in order.

In my opinion, the proposed amendment, which replaces the words “take note of” with the word “condemns” is not relevant to the main motion. In my opinion, this motion contradicts the main motion. Therefore it is not in order at this time.

Economic and Fiscal StatementGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

Liberal

Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE

Mr. Speaker, I usually say that it is great to have the opportunity to speak to some issues but it is with a great deal of sadness that I speak to this take note debate which now states:

That the House take note of the Economic and Fiscal Statement tabled in the House on November 27, 2008.

It is with some sadness because it is what could have been. We could have had a stimulus package, the politics could have been cut out of it and the Prime Minister could have fostered co-operation but none of that happened at a time when the world is in a global economic crisis and Canada, although its foundations are relatively good, thanks to previous governments mainly, will certainly feel the impact of that.

We should have been debating a stimulus package. The PM should have been honest when he spoke of co-operation in the throne speech. We have seen none of that. Instead, we are having a take note debate because the Prime Minister, under his authority, moved back the ways and means motion a week and suspended, to a great extent, the opposition day where there might have been, not necessarily so, but might have been a confidence motion come forward.

We see what is happening here. We saw some of it over the weekend with the propaganda machine that the Prime Minister is so good at fostering. The propaganda machine has started to roll out and change the focus, which is that this is about gaining power when it is really about the economic situation, the stimulus that is needed and the dictatorial and ideological approach by the Prime Minister. I think we will see the propaganda machine big time, and the Prime Minister's initiative to see if he again can rechange the focus.

Under the cover of the economic crisis, the government tried to weaken political dissent in the country. The Prime Minister's ploy on political party funding, which really makes democracy work and allows the people of Canada a political voice on all sides, was just a ploy to divert attention from the other aspects of the downgrading of government and erosion of rights. Simply put, political funding inclusion in the statement was to provide cover for the other measures he was taking. He attacked collective bargaining by taking away the right to strike and eliminating pay equity was unconscionable but does fit with his personal ideology.

How could anyone even suggest that taking money out of working people's pockets would in any way improve the economy?

The issue is jobs, economic stimulus. It is and should be about the economy, not about taking money out of working people's pockets and taking fundamental Canadian rights away, which is what the economic statement suggested it would do.

Here are the facts on the economic statement. Having made pledges of co-operation at the G20, with the premiers and to the opposition parties, he then unilaterally introduced an economic statement inclusive of the ways and means motion that subverts democracy, attacks public servants, undermines fundamental rights, such as pay equity and collective bargaining, fabricates the financial numbers to show a fictional surplus, targets the sale of the people's assets and fails to provide a stimulus package. That is really what the economic statement did.

Let me turn to another voice on the farcical economic statement that has turned an economic crisis into almost a political crisis.

Don Martin, who is sometimes quite friendly with the Conservative Party of Canada, in a commentary in The Ottawa Citizen on Friday, had this to say:

The true horror wasn't in the let's-pretend numbers contained in the much-dreaded fiscal update from Finance Minister Jim Flaherty. Those were fluffed to give the delusion of deficit-free, rising-revenue fiscal stability, subject to so much imminent change as to be almost meaningless.

It's the nightmarish aftershock from a sneaky, ill-timed, irresponsible government move to eliminate the $1.95 annual per-vote public subsidy to political parties....

Prime Minister Stephen Harper put away his friendly sweater vest and, in an epic mistake that might only be resolved if his Conservative government does an uncharacteristic retreat, pulled on his brass knuckles in an ugly bid to inflict knockout blows on his political rivals.

He went on to say:

While not as politically egregious, the fiscal update was almost as pointless as Harper's move to use his economic update as stealth cover to sabotage his political opponents.

The fiscal update's numbers are mostly carved in cotton, a document of denial because it represents a snapshot of circumstances today without taking into account any downside developments to come.

It's not until you reach the very last page of the background material under the heading of "Risks to Fiscal Projections" where everything in the document is put to a harsh reality check.

Economic and Fiscal StatementGovernment Orders

12:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member but he is an experienced member and he knows that referring to members by name is unparliamentary. Even though he was reading extensively from an article that appeared somewhere, he should not use a member's name. He ought to refer to him by title or constituency, and I urge him to restrain himself in that regard.

Economic and Fiscal StatementGovernment Orders

12:25 p.m.

Liberal

Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE

Mr. Speaker, I apologize. I can see, extensively, why the members opposite do not want that name mentioned, even if it is in a quote. I accept your point.

Through his economic statement, the finance minister shows that he is a stranger to the truth. In his economic statement, the Minister of Finance, as Don Martin said, fudged the numbers to a great extent.

I will now turn to James Bagnall who also wrote an article in The Ottawa Citizen on Friday. He stated:

Such is Canada's strength among the G7 nations that [the Minister of Finance] is forgoing a significant boost to spending on roads and other public works projects, thought necessary by some to offset the deterioration in economic growth.

He went on to say:

In view of the financial turmoil in other countries, it is a remarkable record. And it would be nice to see [the Minister of Finance] give credit where due. Canada's solvency owes a great deal to Jean Chrétien's Liberal government. Because Chrétien acted in the mid-1990s, [the Minister of Finance] has a range of options to combat a declining economy. [The current leader of the official opposition's] Liberals and the rest of the Opposition in Parliament are angry he is not taking advantage of them.

He is talking about the foundation that is due to a previous prime minister and his minister of finance.

Mr. Bagnall goes on to state:

By 2008, federal debt levels had tumbled more than $100 billion. The government is now paying about $30 billion per year on interest payments compared with $46 billion in 1995.

Canada's books are solid at the right time.

However, the Minister of Finance failed to recognize why that is so. Later in my remarks I will point out that not only did the government have a good financial foundation in the beginning, it undermined that financial foundation regardless of the propaganda that has been spun today by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister when he said that it was their good management of the economy that got them to this stage with decent fundamentals.

The fact is that the decent fundamentals were, as is stated in James Bagnall's article,:

Canada's solvency owes a great deal to Jean Chrétien's Liberal government. Because Chrétien acted in the mid-1990s, [The current finance minister] has a range of options to combat a declining economy.

That is what the Minister of Finance should have done. He had a solid foundation. He had a fiscal capacity turned over to him by the previous government. He failed to seize on that capacity and instead played the ideology game. He attacked public servants, pay equity and political dissent in the country, and failed to bring in an economic stimulus package when the ability to do it was in this country better than any other country in the world.

I want to be clear in terms of what the Minister of Finance did. In this particular economic statement, the finance minister is a stranger to the truth. In terms of the way this action unfolds, the Prime Minister, through his actions, has shown that he is a Prime Minister who cannot be trusted.

However, today, the Prime Minister tries to buy time and put his propaganda machine into full gear, attacking the idea of a coalition and worse, fabricating the history of how our financial position got to where it is, more stable than other countries in the world. Let me put it this way. Over the last two years, the Prime Minister and the Conservative government have managed to move Canada from being the financial envy of the industrialized world to being on the brink of deficit financing.

What concerns me about the economic statement is that when we go through it, we find that he is projecting small surpluses out into the future, but how is the Minister of Finance projecting that into the future? They are going to sell off some Canadian assets. When we ask officials what Canadians assets are going to be sold to get to that $2.6 billion, which happens to match the amount that they need to show a surplus, they cannot say.

Was the Prime Minister right during the election that this is a good time to buy? Is the Minister of Finance saying to the rest of the world, “Come to Canada. The auctioneer is the current Prime Minister and we will sell off the people's assets?” They are not the government's assets. They are the people's assets that the Prime Minister is saying he will sell to show a fictional surplus in the budget through his Minister of Finance's economic statement, at fire sale prices.

Now is the time for honesty. Now is the time for the government to be straightforward and lay out its fiscal position, admit to the fact that it has the biggest spending budget in Canadian history, and that taking about $12 billion annually through the GST cut did nothing to stimulate the economy. We are seeing the effects of that. What it sure did was take away the ability of the federal government to do what it ought to do for Canadians in a time of economic turmoil.

In two years, we have moved from being a strong, central government in this country, holding the financial resources to assist in troubled times, to a weakened centre with the cupboards bare.

Why did the Minister of Finance not, in his economic statement, admit to that fact? We could have accepted that. That is the reality. This is the time for government and leadership to be honest and straightforward with the fiscal position of the country. We have to assist Canadians in terms of economic stimulus and other programs, to assist our forestry, manufacturing, automotive and farming industries, and to assist our seniors in terms of their pensions. That is what needs to be done and the government has failed in the statement. Whether the direction came from the Prime Minister or straight from the Minister of Finance, I do not know, but what the government tried to do was misrepresent the numbers, play politics, and drive ideology over good economic common sense.

We know that this particular Minister of Finance has a record elsewhere, and the province of Ontario has suffered because of the minister’s record in that province. I as a parliamentarian and Canadian do not want to see this Minister of Finance do to Canada what he did to Ontario. That is why the opposition parties are challenging the government in terms of its lack of stimulus and co-operation. The government does not even seem to care if it breaks the law on that side of the House. I spoke on that point in a point of privilege on Thursday morning.

The member says I am looking pathetic. Is there just no law? Is there nothing the government on that side will not do? It cannot even allow democracy to work in terms of elections within farm organizations. It has to try to influence it using franking privileges of the House. Mr. Speaker, that question of privilege is before you. My point is, just like the financial statement in which it fudged the numbers, no law seems to matter in other areas as long as the Prime Minister gets his ideological point of view.

The fact of the matter is, with this economic statement, no longer do we have the prudent planning with financial reserves to partner with industry and provincial governments to fight issues and dilemmas as we did in the past, as we did with SARS, BSE and other issues. Now, we have a global economic crisis that is impacting Canada. It is strange how the Prime Minister finally seemed to realize that after the election, but would not admit it before. The difficulty is that the Government of Canada has been weakening our ability with our financial reserves to be able to take on those challenges all along. Now, when the government has an opportunity in its economic statement to come clean and give this place the right numbers, the honest numbers so that we know what we were dealing with, it fabricates them to a great extent.

In two short years, we have seen the government undermine our opportunities. As I indicated, we have seen a lot of propaganda coming out from the government this weekend, and that will be the kind of game I think it will play over the coming weeks.

Let me close by saying that the government has brought forward a fiscal update that has demonstrated that it clearly has no understanding of nor interest in the growing economic crisis which all other industrialized countries have been responding to and responding to aggressively.

The Minister of Finance claims that he can maintain a surplus in the face of this crisis and that, to put it mildly, is a deception. Conservatives ran up a $6 billion deficit and are using it as an excuse to make ideological cuts to essential government services, sell government assets, and cut the paycheques of public servants. It did not have to be this way.

The Minister of Finance could have been honest and clear, put forward an economic stimulus package, co-operate with leadership in the G20 as he claimed he would do and did not, co-operate with the premiers as he claimed he would do and did not, and co-operate with the parties in the House which in the throne speech the Prime Minister claimed he would do. It is a sad day when we have this kind of economic statement and ideological agenda put forward by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, when we know it could have been so different.

The bottom line is that the Prime Minister has clearly lost trust with us in the House over this measure and I believe he has lost trust with Canadians. It could have been so different.

Economic and Fiscal StatementGovernment Orders

12:40 p.m.

Okanagan—Coquihalla B.C.

Conservative

Stockwell Day ConservativeMinister of International Trade and Minister for the Asia-Pacific Gateway

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of quick questions.

The member opposite mentioned the political subsidy to parties and tied that to democracy. Does he realize that was a very recent introduction into our political system by former Prime Minister Chrétien? Does he not think that democracy flourished fairly well for 140 years without it or was there no appreciable democracy before the tax-forced subsidy?

Could he also comment on the effect of this coalition talk over the weekend? This is an economic question that relates directly to the update. The Toronto Stock Exchange, in closing on Friday, had six days of gains and improvements, and over the weekend with the coalition discussions it has turned negative.

In that context, can he explain how he can look people in the eye and say that he is going to build a coalition that relies specifically on the support of people who are trying to tear the country apart? That would be the Bloc Québécois. Does he think that has any impact at all in a positive or philosophical way or, in fact, a moral way with his own political persuasions? Could he explain that to us, please?

Economic and Fiscal StatementGovernment Orders

12:40 p.m.

Liberal

Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE

Mr. Speaker, the minister knows that the political subsidy is beside the point. That is not the issue. If that were the Prime Minister's goal, he should have campaigned on that issue.

Yes, it is a new initiative and it is done in many countries around the world, but foregoing union and corporate funding was part of the package that Prime Minister Jean Chrétien brought in to ensure that other parties would have the ability to represent people's voices in Parliament or, indeed, be funded. I heard one individual on CBC this morning who was saying that he does not like any of the parties but felt his $2 should go toward the Green Party for its stand on its environmental views, so it could do its research and put forward its arguments, maybe not in this place but in the public arena, to foster that economic argument.

It is interesting how the Minister of International Trade tries to turn this around and say it is the coalition idea that is having an impact on the market. The fact of the matter is that the big issue that the markets were looking for was some credibility in terms of the economic statement. Let me quote what Jeffrey Simpson said in the Globe and Mail on Friday, November 28. He stated:

Instead of heeding the advice of economists everywhere that the economy needs stimulus, he [the Prime Minister] got his Minister of Finance to present a budget that offered cutbacks and tiny surpluses that absolutely no one believes will be realized.

Every credible economist and journalist in the country is saying that the economic statement means virtually nothing. If that side of the House would take responsibility for its actions and inactions, it would be a good start to making this place and this country work.

Economic and Fiscal StatementGovernment Orders

12:45 p.m.

NDP

Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT

Mr. Speaker, I would like to question my hon. colleague in terms of his talk about deception in this economic statement.

In its economic statement the government talks about the vast amount of infrastructure money that was put into the economy over the last two years, yet it includes the money the system did not allow to be put in place, the $3 billion outstanding with the municipalities. The failure of the government to design and deliver programs in a successful fashion has meant that that infrastructure money is not available to municipalities and further stimulus will leave the municipalities behind the game. They will simply have to catch up with the $3 billion of expenditures they already have on the books before they can go ahead with new expenditures.

Does the member think that the government, in its document, is telling the true story of what is going on in this country?

Economic and Fiscal StatementGovernment Orders

12:45 p.m.

Liberal

Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, the Minister of Finance is a stranger to the truth. We have seen a lot of this fiction from the government since it has taken power and indeed it is fiction. The government, in putting out its message, tends to talk about monies that it has spent. It may be monies it has booked but it certainly has not spent the monies. I think that is my hon. friend's point.

Even setting that aside, the problem now is that the Prime Minister has no plan. The Prime Minister at the earliest claims that he will begin to respond to the economic crisis in some as yet unclear manner, and not this year but next year. We have had two months of no action. For two months the economy has been without direction nor has there been the acknowledgement that the federal government will do the job it should and bring forward assistance. Those are the facts. That is the reality.

The Conservatives talk about spending. They announce spending. I have had that happen in my own riding. Everyone knows the beef and hog industry is in trouble. The Conservatives announced $6 million, and we appreciated that at the time, for assistance in terms of a plant in Prince Edward Island. However, 18 months later, only a dribble of that money came out.

That is not what it takes. Talking about it is not going to stimulate the economy. Government action and real dollars will stimulate the economy. That is what we need from the government, not rhetoric, not an ideological agenda, not an attack on pay equity and labour unions, not an attack on the political process. What we need is economic action and dollars going into the economy, whether it is in infrastructure, the automobile industry, the manufacturing industry, the fisheries industry, the forestry industry, or securing seniors' pensions.

That is what we need. We need some action and some real money. That will stimulate the economy and it will help. There will still be difficult times. We do not need to just talk about it. We need to see the plan. The government should lay it out and let us get with it.

Economic and Fiscal StatementGovernment Orders

12:45 p.m.

Liberal

Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my friend if he thinks the party over there, whose last experience with deficits during the Mulroney years brought in a whopping total deficit of $42 billion, is fit to manage the crisis that we are getting into economically.

The member did not have enough time to expand on the buyers' market it is for assets. I know he is from a small place in P.E.I. and does not know about big cities like Moncton but he knows that in hard times one does not get good prices for what one is selling. Is that not what the government is doing? Is it not a fire sale?

Economic and Fiscal StatementGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

Liberal

Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE

Mr. Speaker, I will let the Moncton comment slide. To buy quality potatoes, all the member needs to do is go to Prince Edward Island and we will sell him a bag or two.

The fact of the matter is that the government is not fit to manage the economy. We have seen that with the economic statement. We have seen how the Conservatives have handled the finances of the nation over the last two years, taking what was the biggest surplus transferred to an incoming government in Canadian history, going with the biggest spending budget ever in Canadian history and squandering those finances away on ideological agendas of the Prime Minister.

Even during the good times we have seen cuts made to literacy and to the arts. We know the Conservatives are not fit to manage the economy in the good times. They are certainly not fit to manage the economy in the bad times.

The Prime Minister had an opportunity to come forward with a plan to show that he was not ideologically driven, to show that he was interested in the workers, the families, the communities and the businesses in this country, but he failed to do that in his economic statement. As a result, he broke his trust with the Canadian people and with this Parliament.

Economic and Fiscal StatementGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

Conservative

Leon Benoit Conservative Vegreville—Wainwright, AB

Mr. Speaker, this is a sad day for Canada. Over the past three days we have heard opposition members of Parliament declare that they will throw aside the results of an election held just six weeks ago and gang up and vote down this Conservative government in a raw and pure lust for power, nothing more. They would replace this government with a coalition of their own making rather than have a government of the people's making. That is what they are talking about, as unbelievable as that sounds to Canadians. The opposition members say that they know better than Canadian voters, who made their decision just six short weeks ago, and because the opposition members know better, they are going to grasp the reins of power and completely push aside the democratic process strictly out of a lust for power, and this in Canada.

There is so much more that could and should be said about this, but what great plan would the proposed unelected government they are talking about put in place to justify, at least in their own power crazed minds, this unprecedented action?

Today, in the little time I have, I will go through the eight points the Liberal finance critic presented as his economic plan once this coup has taken place. I will demonstrate that in fact this and so much more has already been done by the Conservative government. We are not just talking about it. It is not just a plan. Much more has been done. On top of that, other things have been promised. Of course, whatever action is necessary has been pledged by the Prime Minister and the finance minister.

The Liberal finance critic, in an interview on the weekend, put forth his eight point plan for the economy, his justification for overthrowing the elected government of this country.

The first point is that he said he would work co-operatively with all members of Parliament from all parties to seek their input as we move forward.

That unelected gang has certainly demonstrated that, have they not? They have demonstrated clearly that they will not work with Conservative members of Parliament. They have demonstrated, in fact, that the members of Parliament they will work with are the separatists, the very people they promised they would not form a coalition with, and the socialists. The leader of the official opposition also said during the election campaign just six weeks ago that he would never form a coalition with the socialists either. That is how they will work with other members of Parliament. That is the first point of the Liberal finance critic.

The second point is that he said he would “work with finance department officials to thoroughly evaluate the financial position of Canada”.

The finance minister has already done this and he presented it in last Thursday's economic and fiscal update. His highlights were presented on page 82 of the 132 page document that he presented to this House of Commons. Of course, the opposition did not want to see this document. They did not want to hear about this document, and I know they have not read this document. We know that, for example, the socialists, the New Democrats, got caught in a secret plot to get together with the Bloc to form a coalition with the Liberal official opposition. They did not care what was in the fiscal update. They did not read the 132 page document that lays out the situation.

I am going to highlight and quickly summarize some of the points in this economic and fiscal update.

Number one, the government is planning on balanced budgets for the current year and the next five years, although given the downside risk, balanced budgets cannot be guaranteed.

Number two, weaker economic growth has significantly reduced expected revenues.

The third point in this summary of the fiscal and economic update is that program expenses in 2008-09 are expected to be lower than projected in budget 2008, but in 2009-10 they are expected to be higher than projected in the budget, largely reflecting increased transfers to persons and other levels of government. Public debt charges are lower than projected in both years due to lower projected interest rates.

The fourth point in the summary, a document that the opposition did not bothered to read and did not listen to when presented by the finance minister, is after taking into account the actions proposed in this economic and fiscal statement, the projected surplus is $0.8 billion for 2008-09. We know, from the release of the third quarter results today, that they demonstrate a 0.3% surplus for the third quarter. We know we will not be in deficit for this fiscal year. What are opposition members talking about when they are talking about the danger of these deficits? We might be in deficit in future years, depending on the amount of stimulus required. The Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister made that abundantly clear.

The fifth point is the tax burden, as measured by total revenue as a share of gross domestic product, which is projected to decline from 15.8% in 2007-08 to 15.2% by 2013-14, its lowest ratio in nearly 50 years.

The sixth point in the summary of the government's fiscal and economic statement, which the members opposite did not bother to listen to or to read, is program expenses are projected to increase temporarily from 13% of GDP in 2007-08 to 13. 4% in 2009-10, reflecting weaker economic growth. Over the medium term, program spending is projected to grow in line with the economy.

The seventh point in the summary is public debt charges are projected to be relatively flat as a share of GDP over the forecast horizon at about 2% before falling to 1.8% in 2013-14.

This is only a summary of the 132 page document presented by the finance minister last Thursday, the plan that the opposition members apparently want to throw away and replace it with their eight points.

Furthermore, the details of each of these highlights start on page 84 of the document, if the members opposite care to finally have a look at the document, which is a good piece of work.

The third point that the finance critic for the official opposition said would be part of their eight point plan, is:

—would continue to work with the top economic thinkers and business and labour leaders in Canada and bring them together formally for an immediate summit to determine how far we can go.

The opposition members are talking about just now starting the planning, something our government has been working on for two years. This has already obviously been done. For example, the finance minister indicated in his speech, and it is laid out in detail in this 132 page document, which the opposition members do not want to read or hear about, the projections of four private sector organizations. They developed their own fiscal projections based on existing policy. These four organizations, which opposition members dismiss out of hand, are the Conference Board of Canada, the policy and economic analysis program of the University of Toronto, Global Insight and the Centre for Spatial Economics.

The opposition members have said again in speeches today that there are no experts who would agree with what we have put forth. That is clearly wrong, and I know all of us as members of Parliament go to our people, to our business leaders in our own communities and to labour leaders to get their opinions on what should happen in this very difficult time. Again, this third point is another bogus point.

I quote again from the finance critic for the official opposition when he states, “An increase and an acceleration of infrastructure measures”. This is his fourth point. Where has the critic been? Our government has already brought in unprecedented federal infrastructures investments in past budgets. It also promised to accelerate this spending to provide further stimulus.

We are truly ahead of the curve and, in fact, every other top economic power is envious of the actions we have taken and the position in which we are in our country. That is the reality.

For example, our government has put in place a long-term infrastructure plan, the building Canada plan, which provides an historic investment of $33 billion over seven years. That is a lot of stimulus. We have made the gas tax fund permanent, something the former government refused to do. That is ensuring about $2 billion more for infrastructure in 2009-10 and each year thereafter, not temporary spending.

We have established public-private partnership Canada, which is a crown corporation to manage and encourage public-private partnerships. In other words, further investment, government investment, will be leveraged with private investment as well, something, if the finance critic were being honest with himself, I would be very surprised if he would not admit we have done what he said he would do in that fourth point.

In the Speech from the Throne, the government said:

Public infrastructure is vital not only to create jobs for today, but also to create the links between communities and regions to help generate jobs for the future. Our Government is committed to expediting our Building Canada plan to ensure that projects are delivered as quickly as possible.

We had our vote on that after the finance minister presented his fiscal and economic update. What was the result of that? It passed in the House, so the members opposite know about this, but they ignore it. The opposition finance critic in his eight points completely ignores it.

I want to talk a little more about some of the things our government has done to deal with the fourth point the opposition finance critic has put in place.

The fact is other leading economies are copying action taken by this government over the past three years, and here is proof. The United Kingdom has just cut its value-added tax, its GST, something this government has done, starting in our very first year in office about three years ago. In the United States, president-elect Obama, who campaigned in his presidential victory for increasing taxes to the American people, now has reversed his position in line with the action taken by the Canadian government. He has decided he will lower taxes to the American people.

All the leading economies are promising more spending on necessary infrastructure and an accelerated spending on infrastructure, something we have been doing over the past three years. We clearly have been ahead of the curve on these things.

The fifth point by the official opposition critic is “an increase in support for Research and Development”. I cannot go through the long list of increases in research and development spending and support for research and development. I will mention only three key items.

As a result of the 2008 and previous two budgets, the government will invest an additional $850 million in 2009-10 alone in support of the objectives of the strategy, including improvements in the scientific research and experimental development tax incentive program. This includes specific investments of $250 million in the automotive sector.

The members opposite stand in the House and say we have done nothing for the automotive sector. This is one example which is critical and is certainly a very positive move, ignored by the opposition finance critic.

Budget 2008 provides $250 million over five years in support of strategic large-scale research and development projects in the automotive sector, which I mentioned earlier, to develop an initiative for greener and more fuel efficient vehicles. On top of this is the $1.5 billion to Genome Canada and various other spending on ongoing research projects.

I will quote number six of the eight point so-called plan laid out by the official opposition finance critic over the weekend:

—working with provinces to improve programs for Canadian workers to train and retrain as part of life-long learning to help them cope with current and future economic realities...

Those members have to know that the government is already, first, investing in education and training by providing long-term support for post-secondary education, introducing the new Canada student grant and modernizing the Canada student loans program. They have chosen to ignore this.

Second, the government is implementing the Canadian experience class and streamlining Canada's immigration system to better respond to the needs of the Canadian labour market.

Third, the government is making significant investments in labour market training so training and skills development opportunities are more widely available to Canadian workers.

The list of other actions we have taken in terms of research and development and training goes on: $1 billion for the community development trust; $3 billion over six years for the new labour market agreements to address the gap in labour market programming; and on and on. I do not have time to read them all.

Quoting his words again, number seven reads:

—working with manufacturing, forestry and auto sector leaders to develop measures that help strengthen their position during this crisis.

Once again, being a leader in the world's strongest economies and far ahead of opposition parties, our government has already done this and has promised to do more in the future.

In budget 2008 our government's actions to implement the “Advantage Canada” framework have delivered important benefits for manufacturers and processors by helping them to better invest and compete, specifically through over $9 billion per year in tax relief by 2012-13, including broad-based tax reductions as well as a temporary accelerated writeoff for investments in machinery and equipment used in manufacturing and processing.

We have provided $1.3 billion per year in additional funding to provinces in budget 2007 for post-secondary education and so on and another $1.5 billion over three years from budgets 2006 and 2007, clearly shooting down the seventh point by the opposition critic.

The eighth point is to “convene an immediate First Ministers conference to partner with provinces”. The Prime Minister has promised to do that and that will happen. Action has been taken already.

All eight points in the Liberal finance critic's statement that he made over the weekend have been acted upon and so much more has been done.

Those members talk about stimulus and this is what the Conservative government has done for stimulus.

Besides all the things I have mentioned, we are actively protecting the Canadian banking system and the Canadian credit market by injecting tens of billions of dollars in liquidity to ensure people in businesses can get the credit they need. This was announced shortly after the election. Up to $75 billion of credit could be made available by banks through CMHC if they so chose to take advantage of that. This provided credit that is much needed by the Canadian people.

I have a motion I would like to move, but before I do that I want to point out briefly the impact of what the irresponsible opposition wants to do.

I was in my constituency over the weekend and met with 300 people at one meeting and 400 at another. They all wanted to talk to me. They cannot believe the opposition would throw aside democracy and for a raw lust for power take over the reins of government.

One of the sad byproducts of this irresponsibility is that in my constituency and across the west, the ugly head of separation is being raised again. I have never seen it at this level before, in boardrooms, in kitchens, in schools, everywhere. That is the result of the opposition's irresponsibility. Those parties do not care.

I see my time is up. I therefore move:

That this question be now put.

Economic and Fiscal StatementGovernment Orders

1:10 p.m.

Liberal

Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON

Mr. Speaker, probably the most critical failure of the government has been the failure to have the confidence of the chamber. It is directly rooted in credibility.

Economic and Fiscal StatementGovernment Orders

1:10 p.m.

An hon. member

Oh, oh!

Economic and Fiscal StatementGovernment Orders

1:10 p.m.

Liberal

Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON

Mr. Speaker, a member wants to comment but we are debating something different now. The member should know that the economic statement included financial projections.

Economic and Fiscal StatementGovernment Orders

1:10 p.m.

An hon. member

Oh, oh!

Economic and Fiscal StatementGovernment Orders

1:10 p.m.

Liberal

Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON

Mr. Speaker, if the member would like to have the floor, then he should identify himself and explain to the House why he should have the floor, rather than interrupt another hon. member who has been given the floor.

The growth rate included in the projections in the economic statement was 0.3% for next year. No organization, no public sector forecaster, not even the OECD has numbers anywhere near that. It was clearly an effort to fudge the numbers. That has been proven by the Parliamentary Budget Officer who has the same information from the same finance department showing that the performance is much worse.

Why is it that the government continues to be an incredibly unreliable source for the truth?

Economic and Fiscal StatementGovernment Orders

1:10 p.m.

Conservative

Leon Benoit Conservative Vegreville—Wainwright, AB

Mr. Speaker, the opposition members are clearly grasping at something so they can justify their talk of putting aside democracy and taking over the reins of power in an unelected fashion. Clearly, that is why the member would ask a question like that.

All of the numbers in the economic and fiscal update were provided by the finance department. The member is questioning the credibility of our well-respected, worldwide respected finance department. That is just absurd.

That is where the numbers came from, as well as from four private sector forecasters.

Economic and Fiscal StatementGovernment Orders

1:10 p.m.

Liberal

Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE

Your fiction.