Debates of June 19th, 2009

Opposition Motion--Business of the House

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the member should know that under a Liberal government, payroll taxes went down. The EI premiums went down 12 years in a row. They went down for employers and they went down for employees.

It is the Conservative government that has frozen them. In fact the Conservative government has included that as part of its stimulus. It said that $2.5 billion of stimulus is because it held the rates on potential increases in premiums.

According to the Caledon Institute that is similar to standing up on a Tuesday and announcing that everyone's taxes are going to double the next day and then the next day cancelling it and saying that is a $236 billion stimulus. It is phoney accounting.

I will say this about EI. There have been investments in EI. That is because there are more unemployed people in this Conservative recession.

I do not doubt the people at Service Canada. I think we are blessed to have the people at Service Canada on the front lines in my riding, in Peterborough and across the country. It is the political leadership I question. We could do a lot better.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, shortly, we will return to our ridings, back to the people who elected us, those we have the privilege to represent.

While at times other issues may have temporarily diverted Parliament's attention over the past six months, one issue has dominated everything, and that is the economy. We are in the midst of the most severe and widespread global recession in recent memory, a recession that all economists admit had no origins in Canada. As RBC Global Asset Management economist Patricia Croft observed, “This is not a made in Canada recession; this started outside of our borders”.

Regardless, this global recession has and will continue to impact Canadians, an impact that has been as brutal as it has been swift. In mere months unemployment has jumped to its highest rate in over a decade. Hundreds of thousands of Canadians have lost their jobs so far this year. Behind each one of those job losses is a family facing harsh realities, sleepless nights and uncomfortable conversations around the kitchen table, conversations about paying the mortgage or the rent and perhaps even groceries. As TD chief economist Don Drummond bluntly declared, “This year will go down in the history books as one of the most difficult economic years for Canadians”.

Our Conservative government has and will continue to recognize the economic challenges that we face. That is why we have tirelessly and aggressively worked to protect our economy. That is why we continue to work with our global partners on a global solution to a global recession. That is why we conducted the most comprehensive and open prebudget consultation process in Canadian history. That is why we tabled the earliest federal budget in history on January 27. That is why we made the difficult but necessary decision to run a short-term deficit.

What we presented was more than a budget. It was an ambitious, 300-plus page economic action plan, a plan focused on providing timely, targeted and temporary stimulus to save and protect jobs today; all this while growing the Canadian economy for tomorrow. It is a plan that the IMF heralded as “large, timely and well-targeted fiscal stimulus, appropriately sized well above the fund's benchmark of 2% of GDP”.

Indeed, our economic action plan received broad endorsement from provincial premiers, municipal leaders, business leaders, economists, public interest groups, and most important, this Parliament.

What is more, since its January introduction, we have succeeded in helping Canadians by aggressively implementing our plan, first of all, by reducing taxes permanently, helping the unemployed through new training programs and an extended five weeks of EI, avoiding layoffs by enhancing the EI work sharing program, maintaining and creating jobs through massive infrastructure spending, improving infrastructure at colleges and universities, supporting research and technology, supporting industries and communities most affected by the global recession, improving access to and the affordability of financing for Canadian households and businesses. Most important of all, we have succeeded in doing all of this on a timely basis.

Indeed, 80% of this fiscal year's economic action plan's initiatives are already being implemented. What does this mean for Canadians? It means in every region of Canada families and businesses are paying less tax. It means unemployed workers are receiving enhanced benefits as well as training. It means major job-creating projects are breaking ground. It means more Canadians are keeping more of their money in their own pockets where it belongs.

Because of our tax cuts, such as raising the basic personal exemption and the ceiling on the lower and middle income tax brackets, little wonder on June 6 of this year Canadians celebrated tax freedom day three days earlier than last year and 19 days earlier than under the former Liberal government. It means more than 3,500 businesses across Canada have entered into an expanded EI work sharing program helping almost 130,000 employees, employees like the nearly 100 workers at the Michelin Canada plant in Waterville, Nova Scotia, where the plant has continued to operate under an EI work sharing program.

Our plan includes much more and we want Canadians to learn more about it. That is why we created a website, www.actionplan.gc.ca, that clearly lays out our plan's benefits for individuals, businesses and communities. What is more, that website is also part of our Conservative government's effort to show transparency and accountability with respect to our plan by allowing Canadians to track investments that we have made.

We have also shown accountability to Canadians through formal budget progress reports tabled in Parliament. The most recent program report was released in June and another will be released in September. I would remind this House that we explicitly made that commitment in January's budget document on page 72, where we pledged to “provide an update to Parliament the first week following the summer recess”.

Our recent progress report illustrates our government's aggressive implementation of our plan. Increasingly, we are also seeing glimmers of recovery in the global and Canadian economies. For example, this week the Canadian Real Estate Association reported that national resale housing market activity has returned to pre-recession levels, stating, “Strengthening consumer confidence, low interest rates and improved affordability are drawing buyers to the housing market across Canada”.

Listen to what some prominent economists are saying. Scotiabank economist Aron Gampel said, “We are in the process of turning the corner. Bonds, stocks, every market is telling you we are at this transition from recession to recovery”. BMO economist Doug Porter said, “It is more and more likely that the recession could be declared over by some point in the summer”.

While this will likely still be a very difficult year, with continued lagging job losses, such optimism is welcomed. What is not welcomed is the excessive talking down of Canada's economy by the Liberals.

Despite the challenges we are facing in our economy and the business people, entrepreneurs and workers who fuel it, Canada is still among the strongest in the world and will remain so with the help of our economic action plan and the continued strong efforts of the individual Canadians on whom this government relies to work hard, remain focused and be innovative.

Instead of talking down Canada's economy and ignoring the facts, Liberals should acknowledge that both the IMF and the OECD project that Canada will, first of all, experience the smallest contraction in the G7 for 2009, and have the strongest recovery in the G7 in 2010.

Liberals should also pay attention and listen to their former deputy prime minister, John Manley, who said:

Everybody looks on us with envy in terms of our economy, our banking system, our stability.... Our debt to GDP ratio is the envy of the rest of the G7...

American President Barack Obama said:

...in the midst of this enormous economic crisis, I think Canada has shown itself to be a pretty good manager of the financial system...

The American magazine Newsweek said:

Guess which country, alone in the industrialized world, has not faced a single bank failure, calls for bailouts or government intervention in the financial or mortgage sectors. Yup, it's Canada.

Bob Zoellick of the World Bank said, “I think a lot of people would like to change places with Canada”.

Liberals should show some confidence, confidence in Canadians that we have beaten and are able to beat today's challenges and be stronger, more united and more prosperous for it in the end. As we celebrate this upcoming Canada Day, Liberals should keep in perspective and stop talking down our economy, because Canada is still the greatest place to do business and the greatest place to live.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member that Canada certainly is the best place to be living and raising a family, but I do have questions for him, as one might imagine, during this debate.

Last night I had the pleasure of being on a CPAC panel with him and the member for Markham—Unionville. He will recall that the member for Markham--Unionville said that he could not guarantee that out of these negotiations unemployed Canadians would get relief through better access to EI, but the member for Markham--Unionville was hopeful.

As a government member, I wonder if the member opposite might be able to help me out here. The member for Markham—Unionville and his caucus voted for the NDP motion with respect to EI that called for uniform qualifying hours, 360 hours, across the country. It called for better benefits and access for the self-employed.

I just wonder which parts of those are now negotiable for the member for Markham—Unionville, in the process of having conversations with the government, or are these still principles that are being taken to the table?

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would encourage that hon. member to ask the member for Markham—Unionville that question once again and maybe he would answer it this time.

I would not prejudge what the outcome of this is going to be. We on this side of the House actually make decisions based on what is good for Canada. We listen to Canadians. We listen to all sides of the debate in the House. We do not prejudge the outcome.

We preface our decisions on what is best for Canadians. We make sure that we read every document that is available to us, unlike the NDP. We make our decisions on what is best for Canada.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member is pretty diligent. I am shocked that the government cannot produce the stats on the money that has actually been spent on infrastructure. The parliamentary secretary is up to date, so I am wondering if he could explain to us why the government cannot produce those stats. The Prime Minister said he could not produce them.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I can answer that with a simple example. If I decide to hire a contractor to re-roof my house, it would not be smart of me to give that roofing contractor the money first in the hope that he will actually do the job and do it properly, and provide me with some sort of guarantee. That is the preface of the way the money is being handled. As projects get underway, as the money gets spent at other levels, we will pay the bills.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

It being 10:30, pursuant to order made Thursday, June 18, 2009, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the opposition motion.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

Pursuant to Standing Order 81(18) the division stands deferred until later this day.

Main Estimates, 2009-10

[Vic Toews, Conservative, President of the Treasury Board]

moved:

That the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2010, less the amounts voted in Interim Supply, be concurred in.

Mr. Speaker, a few short months ago, this government began the monumental task of implementing budget 2009 and Canada's economic action plan, a plan designed to counter the effects of the global recession here at home.

In that time we have used every tool at our disposal to ensure the plan stays on track and that the money gets to where it needs to go. In the course of this time we have provided the largest, fastest stimulus package in the G8. We have increased tax relief for Canadians and we have expanded support for Canadians hardest hit by the recession. Our goal has been to ensure that we are able to respond quickly and effectively while ensuring accountability, and we are succeeding.

In just over 70 days, our government has put into place 80% of the largest economic recovery program in Canadian history. We have been taking unprecedented action in every region of Canada. In the course of this, we have permanently reduced the tax burden on Canadians. We have provided tax relief, improved access to financing for Canadians and their businesses. We have assisted unemployed workers through extended EI benefits and skills training. We have supported home ownership and created jobs through housing construction and created jobs through a massive injection of infrastructure spending.

In addition, we have supported the industries and communities hardest hit by the global recession. We have invested in the jobs of tomorrow through new supports for research and technology. Implementing our action plan has been our top priority. Our plan was possible because of our position of relative financial strength. In fact, as has been already stated today by some of the other speakers, Canada is being recognized as a leader by international financial people.

The World Bank president recently said:

Canada’s experience offers lessons to others, especially its strong financial and regulatory environment that is helping it manage the shocks of the downturn, particularly in the banking sector.

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development Secretary-General Angel Gurria said:

Effectively, Canada will be one of the first to come out of the recession.

The International Monetary Fund said:

Canada is better positioned than many countries to weather the crisis. It entered the crisis from a position of strength, reflecting a track record of strong policy management that has supported underlying macroeconomic and financial stability.

It also highlighted that Canada's total government deficit as a percentage of GDP is the lowest in the G7. Canada's debt as a percentage of GDP is also the lowest in the G7.

The World Economic Forum ranked Canada's banking system out of 134 countries, first.

I am very pleased that our economic action plan is already making a difference and that this is being recognized on the world stage. More importantly, it is being recognized right here at home by Canadians.

We took a number of steps to get the funding flowing as quickly as possible. One of these measures was the creation of vote 35, a special, time-limited central vote in the main estimates allowing the Treasury Board Secretariat to approve up to $3 billion for budget implementation.

This vote has allowed the government to provide initial funding for ready-to-go initiatives in advance of the normal parliamentary supply schedule. This vote was necessary because of the proximity between the tabling of budget 2009 and the tabling of main estimates.

We recognized that the short timeframe simply did not allow enough time for departments and agencies to seek the necessary funding in the main estimates for initiatives outlined in our economic action plan. This funding has allowed programs to move forward quickly, programs that would have otherwise had to wait for up to six or more months for funding.

As the Prime Minister noted in his report to Canadians last week, 80% of the plan's general funding has been committed and it is now being implemented across the country. As the Prime Minister indicated, 3,000 projects are underway and with the passing of these estimates and other money bills, we will see even more being implemented.

The funding is creating and protecting jobs. It is building infrastructure, easing the tax burden on families and supporting Canadians who have lost their jobs. It is also helping threatened industries.

Last week, I had the pleasure of announcing a number of infrastructure projects in the province of Manitoba. I was with the Premier of Manitoba, who is a New Democrat. I must say that he has been responsible in his approach to the recession. He has worked with the federal government to ensure that the stimulus money flows. In fact, he indicated this stimulus funding was working.

For example, in Manitoba alone, last year there were 36,000 construction jobs. This year, there are 38,000 construction jobs, directly attributable to the stimulus funding that is going on through the programs of this government. I want to thank the premiers, like Premier Doer and others, who are in fact working with this government to ensure that this succeeds.

There is virtually no area of our economy that this funding does not touch. It is being used to invest in the skills and knowledge of Canadians. For example, last month we introduced the knowledge infrastructure program, a two-year $2 billion economic stimulus measure to support infrastructure enhancements at Canadian post-secondary institutions.

In fact, I had the pleasure of being with Dr. Lloyd Axworthy, the president of the University of Winnipeg, who praised this government's initiatives in respect of the stimulus funding. People can go to Winnipeg today and see the holes being dug in the ground. Dr. Axworthy and his staff are thankful for the initiative of our government to help the university move along with that $18 million grant provided to it, which was matched by the provincial government.

Just this week our government announced $1 billion to support environmental improvements for the pulp and paper industry, not to mention all the funding for roads, bridges, recreational and community facilities. For instance, there is a bridge on a main road through the entire southern portion of the province of Manitoba. That bridge was virtually falling and, indeed, is still in danger of virtually falling into the Red River. The Liberals did absolutely nothing in that respect.

We brought forward money together with the province. There will be a brand new bridge built and it will not only facilitate commerce, farming and other traffic throughout the southern part of Manitoba but will provide an alternative route during the flooding.

The member from P.E.I., the former minister of agriculture, asks about farmers. I can inform him that farmers in my riding have been calling for that kind of funding for years. It was not until this government partnered with the provincial government to get that bridge underway. We are also seeing success for farmers, to help them in their work.

I appreciate the support that the Liberals have given us to date. I wish the support had come a little earlier but better late than never. It is certainly much better than the New Democrats who have consistently opposed measures for every single sector in my province and, indeed, right across this country.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think the crux of the matter for most Canadians and members of the opposition is that the government has not been getting the moneys that this Parliament, this opposition party and other opposition parties authorized. I know this has to be of concern to the minister. It has to be of concern to all members of the government. However, it is particularly of concern to Canadians.

Frankly, it is disingenuous for the government to claim that it is actually getting money out the door when it is not. In my riding, whether it is an overpass extension in Langford, sewer extensions in Sooke, or moneys for the University of Victoria, Royal Roads University, or Camosun College and their Pacific Institute for Sport Excellence, moneys have been promised but not delivered.

I would like the minister to please tell the House and our citizens how the government is going to get moneys out the door within the next few months. If it does not, it is simply missing the entire construction season and missing all the opportunities that people such as Mr. Les Bjola in my riding and his development projects need in order to put workers back to work.

I have one last point. There is a great opportunity for the government to provide credit to developments that have taken place. This would get money into the real economy and I implore the government to tell the House—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. President of the Treasury Board.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I find the member's comments rather surprising. In fact, all across this country, work is being done. Why it is not being done in his particular riding I do not know. I think he will have to approach the ministers, which he apparently has not done, and ask why certain projects have not proceeded.

The issue is not so much whether the money is flowing; the issue is whether the work is being done. We are not simply going to shovel money out the door, as has been done with some past governments. We are saying to our provincial, municipal, private sector and NGO partners that we are prepared to partner with them. We have negotiated contribution agreements and we are continuing to negotiate them.

On the basis on the contribution agreements, such as the one we did with the University of Winnipeg or the one we did with the Province of Manitoba for the Letellier bridge, that means the work can commence immediately, and the work is commencing immediately. The money will flow in due course. We are very pleased. Our public servants have moved this ahead of the regular schedule by six to nine months.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was really puzzled by the last question by the hon. member from the opposition. Indeed, the infrastructure programs have moved at warp speed. All levels of government and all civil servants have been approving projects and getting money out the door.

Could my hon. colleague share some more great examples of shovels getting into the ground and money getting out the door? I think we have done an absolutely amazing and very rapid job.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I can reiterate some of the other programs. I do not want to boast about how efficient we have been in respect of working with municipal and provincial governments. All I can do is reiterate the general statement that the Premier of Manitoba, a New Democrat who works with this government as opposed to opposing everything like the federal New Democrats, said, that we have increased the number of construction jobs in the province of Manitoba from 36,000 to 38,000.

This is in the middle of a recession. He has clearly indicated that it is a direct result of the stimulus funding that we have instituted in cooperation with the provincial government and municipalities. We will continue to work with NGOs like the president of the University of Winnipeg, Dr. Lloyd Axworthy, who praised this government for the funding, indicating that the shovels are in the ground. The work is happening.

So I can only agree with the member. The person from Nanaimo who indicated that things are not getting done in his riding needs to perhaps speak to one of the ministers over here to make sure that things are getting done in his riding if he cannot get those done by himself.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, 2009 has been quite a ride. It began with all of us returning to the House after the Prime Minister had prorogued the first session of the 40th Parliament after only 10 sitting days, before the ink had even dried on the Speech from the Throne.

After the Conservatives took their six-week vacation, they returned to the House in January and admitted that the government was not in fact running a small surplus as it had claimed. No, they were running a $34 billion deficit. Then, four months later, we discovered they were actually running a $50 billion deficit this year, and for good measure they ran one last year, too.

I have to make it clear, the Liberal Party is not in the slightest opposed to fiscal stimulus. What we are opposed to is the fact of runaway Conservative spending during good times such that they ran down their inherited $13 billion surplus and they were heading into deficit before the recession even arrived.

As a consequence, today's deficit is far greater than it need be had these Conservatives managed prudently during good times. In fact, I warned them two February's ago that they were heading in this direction. I will do the unusual thing of quoting myself from two years ago, when I said:

Consider the fact that less than four months ago the Finance Minister delivered a fiscal update that projected Canada's gross domestic product would grow by 2.4% in 2008. Yesterday he downgraded that forecast to 1.7% growth. If in a few months from now it turns out the minister was once again wrong by the same amount, then that alone is enough to give the country a slight deficit this year and a bigger deficit next year.

That was two budgets ago, and they paid no attention. Look where we are today.

We have also spent a lot of time in this House and in committee warning that the government was wrong-headed in terms of the new employment insurance crown corporation, that it was not well equipped to handle a recession. On many occasions, I and many others stressed that the EI account needed to be balanced over the business cycle, not just over two years, in order to avoid massive swings in the premium rate, especially in the event of a recession. Actuaries from across the country all told them the same thing.

As usual, the government paid no attention, and last November we saw how this played out. The government had to re-seize the rate-setting mechanism from the new EI corporation and hold it steady. It did, however, increase the maximum contribution for anyone earning more than the average industrial wage. Those employees and their employers had a payroll tax hike in the middle of a recession.

The part that the Conservatives really do not like to talk about is the future EI tax increases that the finance minister has already booked into the fiscal framework beginning in 2011. Page 233 of the budget clearly says that not only has the finance minister already decided to increase these payroll taxes 18 months from now, it says he has already included the revenue from his future tax hike into the EI account's revenue stream.

So much for being a Conservative Party that does not like tax hikes. They have already built them into the budget. This morning, the Montreal Gazette said:

[S]harply higher premiums are foreseen beginning in 2011 and running until 2016.

So much being a party, the Conservative Party, that does not believe in hiking taxes. These were deliberate choices made by the Prime Minister and the finance minister, and they will have real consequences for Canadians.

Let us not dwell too long in the past, especially on this last day of Parliament. Let us instead look to the future and to the good work that will be done this summer on changes in the employment insurance system.

Currently there are 58 separate regions with varying EI qualifying rates and benefit levels. During a recession, this simply makes no sense. Employers simply are not hiring the way they were even two years ago. So those who lose their job in a region with relatively low unemployment are likely in the same boat as those who lose their job in an area of high unemployment.

Despite being in the same boat, however, the government will not treat applicants the same because of where they live. As a particular case in point, all of us have assistants in the House, and if assistants happen to live on one side of the Ottawa River they have to work far fewer hours than if they live on the other side of the Ottawa River. So all of us in the House know that it makes no sense at all. Indeed, it has been described as unfair by all the western premiers, by my premier here in Ontario, by think-tanks of the left and by think-tanks of the right of the political spectrum.

It has been a long, tough battle to get the Prime Minister to acknowledge finally that the EI system is not working right now, but we did get this acknowledgement at the final hour. As a result of the strong negotiating abilities of my leader and my colleagues and good friends from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour and from Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, I am convinced that they will negotiate firmly with this recalcitrant, reluctant government over the summer and I am hopeful that at the end of the summer we will collectively come up with a solution that will provide major help to those Canadians who have unfortunately lost their jobs.

I would like to devote my remaining few minutes to the theme of prudence and how a finance minister ought to be exercising prudence in guiding the nation's finances. I want to give two examples, one from the past and one that will hopefully materialize in the future.

I have already referred to the Conservatives reckless spending during good times, such that we were taken from a big surplus to a deficit before the recession even began. I would say the one major act of imprudence committed by the finance minister during those days is that he got rid of the $3 billion contingency reserve, which had been an insurance policy applied over many years by previous Liberal governments to avoid deficits. He simply yanked that off the table and we can see where we are today in terms of deficits.

My second point is about the debt. The point is that we today are living in a world of historically extremely low interest rates, close to zero at the short end, up to just under 4% at the long end. Therefore, the great risk for Canadians and for future generations is that there will be a spike in interest rates. With the government having to borrow for refinancing purposes over $200 billion per year, imagine the impact on the deficit if there were a big spike in interest rates.

A prudent finance minister , at this time of historically low interest rates and major borrowing requirements, would seek to lock in more of the debt at longer terms so as to reduce this risk of a huge impact on the deficit were there to be a spike in interest rates. However, I can tell the House, so far the finance minister's record on this subject is going in the wrong direction, the imprudent direction, because the debt of this nation has been coming shorter term rather than longer term because the borrowing is concentrated at the short ends and not at the long ends.

What the finance minister for the second time is doing is engaging in imprudent behaviour. He is failing to take advantage of the historically very low interest rates to lock in a higher proportion of the national debt at the longer terms so as to reduce the risk of a huge impact on the deficit should interest rates spike in the future.

We know that the finance minister has behaved imprudently on the contingency reserve in the past. We can still hope that he will exercise a modicum of prudence and move to a longer term structure of our debt so as to reduce the risk of interest rate spikes for current and future generations. So far, the budget talks of him moving in the opposite direction. Therefore, I am concerned for the sake of our children and our grandchildren that the minister is not managing our national debt in a prudent fashion.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the speech by the member for Markham—Unionville. It is always fascinating to hear the member quoting himself, and I will come back to that at the end of my question. I would remind the hon. member that in quoting oneself, one needs to be a little cautious about having one's quotes maybe read back to him. We will see where that goes in a moment.

However, the member mentioned that the Liberals had put in place a contingency reserve. We have heard all kinds of numbers of what that was.

Could the hon. member for Markham—Unionville, who seems to know so much about a contingency reserve, please tell me exactly in which legislation that was put? I have been searching high and low and I cannot find it.

However, before he answers that question, let me read a quote, “The Conservative government is overstating the risks because many experts expect the Canadian economy to grow by up to 2.5 per cent this year”. That quote was on January 1, 2008. The hon. member told us how he had predicted two years ago that the entire world would into a recession. Could the hon. member please tell me who made that statement publicly?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives love to cite quotes with no context and the Liberals like to go the middle way, the sensible way.

The explanation for that quote is the Prime Minister one day was talking about Canada leading the way out, that we would have no recession. The next day he was ruminating about depression. The context for that quote was it immediately followed the Prime Minister's irresponsible talk about the possibility of depression. It was incumbent upon me, after that irresponsible depression talk by the Prime Minister, to tell Canadians that, yes, things were not that terribly wonderful, but we were not heading into depression. It was up to me to inject a note of optimism after the depression talk by the Prime Minister.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of talk about the NDP not reading the economic statement. I read it. I read the last 30 pages of the economic climate. Within that piece of the document, there was not one mention about the exchange rate between Canada and the U.S., which is one of the largest determinants of our trade relationship.

Could the hon. member explain how the government can consider the future of the country in the absence of that very important information?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a little weird that I am asked to defend this so-called economic action plan and the deficiencies of it. I could join with my colleague over there and list 101 further deficiencies of this plan.

However, in answer to his specific question, the government of the day, whether Conservative or Liberal, is not in the business of forecasting currency rates. Nor is it in the business of actually running that side of the show. That is principally the responsibility of the Bank of Canada.

Escuminac, New Brunswick

[Tilly O'Neill-Gordon, Conservative, Miramichi, NB]

Mr. Speaker, today marks the 50th anniversary of the tragic disaster that befell the residents of Escuminac, New Brunswick. Thirty-five lives were brutally taken by the sea, leaving behind widows and orphans, as many as 13 in some families.

During this weekend, 3,000 people are expected to attend gatherings, some to remember and some younger ones to be made aware of what those victims and families have endured.

Today, as we honour those who died during the fishing disaster and salute the brave heroes of that day, I wish to pay tribute to the community that pulled together and to mark the strength and the courage of the survivors who bravely moved forward.