House of Commons Hansard #169 of the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was c-45.
The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer
I do not want this to turn into a debate about the question. If members have points they want to raise that will help me in my decision, I will hear that, but I hope we do not get into a whole back and forth.
I will go to the hon. government House leader.
Peter Van Loan Conservative York—Simcoe, ON
Mr. Speaker, I will simply say the House leader for the NDP significantly mischaracterized my remarks. I said that as members of the government we frequently get correspondence from members of the opposition, forwarding correspondence to us that they received that are in areas of our responsibility. They do that all the time and I have never ever considered that to be a breach of my privileges.
They have numbered in the thousands on occasions in the past when there were significant issues, and this is a case where the hon. member himself acknowledges having gone to the public and stimulated thousands of such responses and been proud of having done so.
As I said, I do not consider it a breach of my privileges when opposition members forward correspondence from concerned constituents or other Canadians who have written to them. I find this complaint a little bit unusual.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, I will make an attempt to not repeat anything that has already been said, but I do believe, having tracked this issue very—
The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer
Order, please. The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands has the floor.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, I repeat, I will not say things that have been said by others. I associate myself with comments from other members of the opposition, but I wish to add this for your consideration.
As you can see, tempers are flaring on both sides of the House. We have before us a Canada-China investment treaty without an opportunity to debate it. There is a reality here in terms of motivation, which may affect the deliberate attempt to jam the personal account of the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway, and that is that the NDP sent out a message urging people to write to members of the trade committee to ensure that they would allow a debate in that committee. In my own office we have received thousands and thousands of emails.
The way this is unfolding and the failure to allow debate in the House, I want to suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that there is a motivation here to deliberately target the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway.
The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer
I thank all hon. members for their interventions on this and I will, of course, look into this and come back to the House with a decision.
The hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley has the Thursday question.
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Mr. Speaker, it is with some irony that I rise and enter the debate on what is coming next after we had a description of a point of privilege and a monkey-wrench tactic that the Conservatives somehow surprisingly feel okay and comfortable with.
I will quote the hon. House leader from across the way on the last Thursday question response. When talking about what was coming next, he stated:
I look forward to a vigorous policy debate on the economy and not on procedural games.
One would have thought that a week or more would have passed before that particular statement would prove to be false. We know that for their own part the Liberals chose some procedural games as we began to engage on the debate around Bill C-45, the second omnibus bill, the second budget implementation act. Some have called it ominous and some have called it some other names.
We on this side of the House have personally and privately assured the House leader for the Conservatives that we are committed to a procedural-free exercise so that we can have a fulsome debate on all of the problems that we see in Bill C-45. We expected the government to make some initial commitments to that. We then saw the invocation of time allocation today, which is a method that the government has grown very addicted to for shutting down the debate.
My two questions for the hon. House leader across the way are very specific.
First, can we expect to see more of these procedural underminings of the democratic process when dealing with this second omnibus bill, be it in the House or when the bill is sent to the committees?
Second, is the government willing and open to the consideration, now that it has separated the bill into its component parts for sending to these various committees, of opening those committees in their capacity and ability to actually affect the legislation they are studying?
What Canadians will quickly see is that the government has cynically agreed to separate this huge 450-page bill into some pieces for the committees to study, but those committees cannot actually affect the bill they are studying. What kind of a situation is that for members of Parliament or committees? It is a “look but do not touch” policy that is coming from the Conservative government and one that will not allow MPs to do their jobs.
All MPs from all sides should be interested in this question. The ability to hold government to account remains a central and critical role for members of Parliament from all sides, including the Conservatives, who last time expressed some lament at having brought in and passed such a massive bill.
Therefore, will the government commit to no more of these procedural tactics to shut down debate, be it here, at committee stage or further stages of this bill so that Canadians can finally get a look at what the government is trying to do to them and MPs can do their jobs?
Will the government be open to the suggestion that, now that it has divided up the bill into its proper topics for various committees to study, that those committees actually do more than study and do the job that every committee has always done with every piece of legislation throughout parliamentary history, which is to be able to affect and improve it and correct the errors that are inherent in any piece of legislation, particularly one coming from the current government?
Peter Van Loan ConservativeLeader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I did want to be in accord with the official opposition and NDP House leader. However, my disappointment was that before we started debate on Bill C-45, what we first encountered was a delay tactic in the form of a concurrence motion brought by the Liberal Party. Indeed, that was very disappointing to us and a surprise because Bill C-45 is important. It is the government's top legislative priority for this fall. All parties know that. He is quite right that I did want to see it debated in substance in the House rather than see those kinds of tactics to avoid debate.
Bill C-45's measures will further Canada's economic recovery and ensure the foundation for more good-quality jobs on top of the over 820,000 net new jobs we have already had. It includes an extension of the highly successful small business hiring credit that is directly helping Canadian entrepreneurs create new jobs.
Unfortunately, we have seen the NDP take an anti-job creation position. Believe it or not, the NDP finance critic actually dismissed the hiring credit as yet again another across-the-board cut for small businesses.
We want to see taxes lowered. We do not want to see higher taxes or an NDP carbon tax. That is why we have a budget bill that keeps those taxes low.
I am pleased to say that we will be voting on C-45 on Tuesday night at second reading, which will give us the opportunity to send it to the finance committee for consideration. The parliamentary secretary for finance has made it clear that she will ask the finance committee to ask, I believe, 10 other committees to study elements of the bill and potentially make recommendations with respect to changes or adopt its contents. The opposition and government members are free to make amendments at committee based on their own study as well as on the studies of those other committees. Therefore, there will be ample study of the bill and that is good for all.
Bill C-45 will continue to be debated this afternoon, tomorrow, Monday, and Tuesday. As I said, the vote on the bill will take place on Tuesday evening.
On Wednesday, we will take up report stage—and, hopefully, third reading—of Bill C-28, the Financial Literacy Leader Act. Should we be able to make quick work of that debate, the House will take up Bill C-12, the Safeguarding Canadians' Personal Information Act, at second reading.
On Thursday morning, the House will consider second reading of Bill S-2, the Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act. And, after question period, we will turn to Bill S-8, the Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act, also at second reading.
Finally, on Friday, we will start report stage of Bill C-24, the Canada–Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act. This bill would implement our free trade agreement with the Republic of Panama—an agreement whose time has long come. In fact, when I was the public safety minister, I was honoured to be present when the Prime Minister concluded negotiations in Panama City, some 38 months ago.
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-45, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer
The hon. member for York Centre has five minutes left to conclude his remarks.
Mark Adler Conservative York Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House, through our economic action plan, are committed to what matters most to Canadians. That is jobs, growth and long-term prosperity. We on this side of the House recognize our obligation to leave a legacy not only for the current generation but also future generations of Canadians and, therefore, that we need an economy that is sustainable and always in a position for growth. We want young people to be excited about the prospect of getting their first paycheque, or the challenge of starting a new business. This is something that we on this side of the House are fully aware of and committed to.
The budget itself is a plan, a road map. We began that plan back in 2006. Through the economic action plan we have created 825,000 new jobs since July of 2009. We have been recognized by leading economic organizations around the world, from the World Economic Forum to the Economist Intelligence Unit, to the OECD and the IMF, as having the strongest economy of the G7 countries. We have the best job growth, the strongest financial sector and the best banking system. That is by no coincidence. It is from making the right choices. We on this side of the House have made those right choices. We have the best Minister of Finance in the world making those choices.
The budget is based on a number of pillars. The first pillar is job growth. As I indicated earlier, we have a plan in place that has created hundreds of thousands of new jobs. It is the best job growth record in the G8. By doing so, we have created more taxpayers, more communities and a better quality of life for our citizens. That is important.
It is important at the end of the day that people have the dignity and self-respect of a job, from which they can go home and spend quality time and engage with their families. They can only do so with the dignity of having a job. We have been on the forefront through our policies of creating those economic conditions through lower taxes and putting more money into the pockets of ordinary Canadians. They know how to spend their money better than government does and they make the right spending decisions. Through a lower tax system we have been able to accomplish those goals.
The second pillar is trade. We on this side of the House believe in free trade. I know the official opposition has been against every single free trade agreement we have proposed, and not only our agreements, but even going further back. It was against the free trade agreement between Canada and the U.S. It was against NAFTA. All of those agreements have since been proven to be beneficial to our country, creating jobs, investment and economic prosperity. Nevertheless, the opposition has said it is against complete free trade.
It reminds me of when I was in high school learning about American history in the Depression era, when Americans set up trade barriers around its country through the Smoot-Hawley tariff act. That is exactly what the NDP wants to do. It is against trade. We on this side of the House are in favour of trade because trade creates jobs, and so many Canadian jobs depend on trade.
Another pillar is immigration. We are reforming the immigration system and basing it on the kinds of jobs that our labour market will need going forward. We have a labour shortage in the country and will require more skilled labour as we move forward.
Another pillar is innovation. We have created a $400 million venture capital fund so that exciting new entrepreneurs can create new products that can be introduced to the world.
We are on the right track on this side of the House. We are creating jobs, growth and long-term prosperity. We are not talking about imposing a $21 billion carbon tax that would kill jobs and destroy our economy. That would take us back light years in terms of economic development. With Halloween coming up, it would even add to the cost of candy for our kids. That is what a carbon tax would do. We on this side of the House are firmly against it.
I encourage members on that side of the House to support the economic action plan to create jobs, growth and long-term prosperity in the country.
Jamie Nicholls NDP Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC
Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed listening to the hon. member across the way. He talked about how lowering taxes allows Canadians to spend—and we know that Conservatives love to spend taxpayers' money. However, we also know that the weakness in the Canadian economy is investment, as investors are not taking enough risks to invest. As much as the Minister of Finance might bleat at investors to tell them to invest more to improve our innovation, they are not doing it. Why not? We have to ask that question.
Canadians need reliable economic indicators and not improvisation from the government. Investors do not know where to put their money because the government is not being transparent, it is not being clear, it is not giving certainty to investors. It is not letting investors know where they should put their money, so they are putting it in the wrong place and it is not moving our economy forward.
When are the Conservatives going to rely on reliable economic indicators, rather than bleating about the Minister of Finance who was voted best finance minister by Euromoney magazine in 2009. We know how well Euro money is doing right now, so I would like an answer from the member.
Mark Adler Conservative York Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, I know that the member is a very hard-working member of Parliament, but I am really confused. I am reminded of the show Dragnet, where Sergeant Friday would walk into an investigative scene and would say, “Ma'am, just the facts”. Let us look at the facts.
We have the best job creation record of any G8 country. By lowering our corporate tax rate to 15%, we have increased corporate tax revenues in this country. Every economic indicator is up. Every single international organization around the world is saying that Canada is the best place to be doing business, not just us. We do not control what the OECD says, we do not control what the World Economic Forum says, we do not control what Forbes magazine says.
It seems like we are on the right track. Opposition members are on a track to nowhere.
Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thought I heard it but I want to make sure that I understand it, and perhaps the member can expand on it. My understanding is that the member said that the carbon tax would cancel Halloween. Could he expand on that? I am not sure how that would work out. Is it like the Grinch stealing Christmas? I am really not sure, so perhaps the member could expand.
Mark Adler Conservative York Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, the $21 billion carbon tax the NDP is advocating will increase the price of groceries, consumer goods, housing, fuel and, yes, it will increase the cost of candy that we buy for our children on Halloween. That, my friends, is unacceptable and the NDP members should be ashamed of themselves for declaring war on the children of this country.
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
Mr. Speaker, what the NDP member really meant to say earlier was that the NDP think the only problem facing this country, according to the Broadbent Institute anyway, is that we do not tax high enough. We disagree with that obviously.
However, the bill is a good bill. Contained within this omnibus budget bill is a very important act, the bridge to strengthen trade act, to move forward the new international bridge crossing between Windsor and Detroit. That is pivotal for the economy of southern Ontario, and Canada by extension.
Could the member talk about the importance of that particular bill and why the NDP would be opposed to moving forward the most critical piece of trade infrastructure in this entire country?
Mark Adler Conservative York Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member so that I finally receive a sensible question.
It is passing strange that the NDP members can claim to be fighting on behalf of workers when in fact they are fighting on behalf of union bosses. A bridge crossing the Detroit River to expand trade between Canada and our largest trading partner, the United States of America, is so needed. That piece of infrastructure is going to create jobs in and of itself, but notwithstanding that, the jobs are going to be created by the increased trade that is so necessary between our two countries.
This government is on the right track. We have a plan and we are on a course for jobs, growth and long-term prosperity. We are going to implement that plan notwithstanding what the NDP says.
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
Mr. Speaker, it is great to be here this afternoon to talk about the second budget implementation bill.
Before I get started, I want to inform the House that we had our municipal elections in Saskatchewan last night and we had a lot of great people put their name on the ballot and I want to thank them for doing that. As everybody in the House would understand, it is always tough when we put our name on a ballot and run for something. We go out there and shake hands and talk to people and there are always winners and losers. All people who put their names on ballots are winners, and we really appreciate that they are willing to make that type of sacrifice.
I have a few new mayors, councillors and reeves, and I look forward to working with them. Something I pride myself on when I go back to the riding is that I sit down and talk to our local mayors, reeves, councillors and local MLAs and really get a feel for the priorities of the riding, of the Prince Albert area, and make sure those principles and priorities are represented here in Ottawa.
I also want to thank the mayors and councillors who lost. We appreciate the time they have given to their communities, so I thank them for their years of service. They have committed to their communities and have given a lot, often for very little or no pay, and I want them to know that the people in the riding of Prince Albert appreciate the effort they have given and the sacrifices they made, not only theirs but their families'.
When I talk about the second budget implementation bill, this is nothing new for this government. This is a government that has been focused on jobs and growth of the economy and setting the stage for long-term growth, so when our kids get out of high school and go to university, they have a good platform and good opportunity to get a job and create a good standard of living to raise their family. Those are the things we would put in place through the budget implementation act, which actually would ensure long-term security for Canada and Canadians in the future.
Coming from Saskatchewan, I highlight some of the things that are going to impact the province of Saskatchewan, and of course changes to the agriculture world are very important in Saskatchewan. Mining, production and manufacturing are also increasing in Saskatchewan, but historically Saskatchewan is known as an agriculture province, and we in Saskatchewan all have roots to our agriculture base.
A lot of farmers were appreciative this year, when they went through what was a tough harvest time, of the changes we made through the Marketing Freedom for Grain Farmers Act, basically allowing farmers the choice and freedom to sell their grains whichever way they see fit. I talked to farmers the last time I was in the riding during the break week and they talked about how they had a choice now. They could take their wheat or their canola and market it today and, because they have options, they can actually plan their cash flows, market the product that makes the most sense and establish the best price for that product at that appropriate time.
It is changes like this that we have made to agriculture that have made the lives of farmers better. We are seeing a lot more young kids going into farming now because there is profitability back at the farm gate.
When we make changes, we have to make more changes, and we have some important changes coming to the Canadian Grain Commission. Some people would say we should make even more changes, but we have to go into this by a step-by-step process and we would do so by a proper process in the budget implementation act.
I will highlight some of the things we would do. We would improve the efficiency by removing outdated commission services. We would streamline regulations, only regulating what is necessary. We would reduce costs for farmers, which is always important. We would have greater international domestic competitiveness for farmers. And we would work toward a more sustainable funding model for the Grain Commission itself. Plus, we would ensure greater dependability of the grain shipments.
These are things that reflect the comments stakeholders have made throughout the consultation process over the last couple of years. We have had different types of changes brought forward to this House. One time, it was hoisted by the NDP because it did not like the changes. The other time it was defeated because we went into a federal election. These changes are very important because right now, looking at the Canadian Grain Commission, the commission and the act are made for something like a horse-drawn carriage when farmers are using Super-Bs. It needed to be modernized to reflect the changes in the agriculture sector and what has happened in the agriculture sector. We have a good balance in the changes, and I look forward to seeing that coming forward either to the finance or the agriculture committee as we move forward.
One of the other things that is important, having seen the results of the problems we have had with the meat issue here in Canada, is protecting Canadian foods. Of course the Canadian Grain Commission does a great job in ensuring that we have a safe handling system, that the standards of quality grain are there and that the quality in the research is also there. They, in part, help shore up that safe-food aspect and this would also be very important.
In Saskatchewan, we have the good old University of Saskatchewan and University of Regina, two great educational facilities that do great research and great work and educate kids all across Canada. For example, in my riding of Prince Albert, there are kids who may go to first year and second year of university in Prince Albert, Nipawin or Melfort but will do their third and fourth years in either Saskatoon or Regina and get a great quality of education. They are some of the best schools in Canada, but they need proper research. What has been done for them, for example, is that the University of Saskatchewan received $4.4 million from the SSHRC to explore past and future environmental sustainability. Those are good research dollars meant for future things.
In agriculture, the scientists at the University of Saskatchewan received $3.4 million from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions, allowing the U of S to remain at the forefront in agriculture research. Of course, there has been general funding in research. If we look at the economic action plan, there is $37 million of annual funding for the granting councils, which enhances their support for industry academic research partnership initiatives.
We are also proposing $60 million for genomics research, which is something I have got to know quite well, especially at the University of Saskatchewan. The genome research it is doing is fabulous. The way it has done that research and is applying it to plant breeding, it used to take 8 or 10 years for a new variety to be developed in plant breeding, and this is bringing it down to 12 to 16 months. It is amazing what it can do with the technology there.
Of course, there is $500 million over four years for the Canadian Foundation for Innovation. Those are things with which everybody in the House would agree. We need to keep supporting research and we want to make sure the proper dollars are in place to see that research move forward because that will make Canada even stronger.
There is another change that is going to affect Saskatchewan and the municipalities. It is something they have been asking for and lobbying for over quite a few years, and that is changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act. A lot of people think the changes to this act will be changes to environmental process. They are not. The environmental process is still separate and something that the rural municipalities will have to deal with on a case-by-case basis.
What is happening in my riding and rural ridings with the Navigable Waters Protection Act is that it is taking a long period of time to approve a project. When small streams or rivers cross roads, the Navigable Waters Protection Act is applied when the roads are rebuilt.
I have a great example from the Rural Municipality of Meadow Lake. It gives an idea of what the rural municipalities are dealing with when it comes to navigable waters. Meadow Lake was trying to put a bridge over a creek. It applied in April of 2010 and did not get approval until November of 2011. It actually missed two construction seasons waiting for approval. When it did get approval on this creek, it was forced to put in a bigger bridge. It had to build up the road bed to accommodate a canoeist to go on the creek. That sounds fine and dandy if there are a lot of canoeists on that creek, but there has never been a canoeist on that creek. If we look at the cost, the time and what the rural municipality had to go through to put that bridge in place, when it could have simply installed a normal culvert, we see it would have saved the municipalities a lot of money and time, plus the road would have got fixed a lot quicker.
There are many examples in my riding where a lot of little bridges need to be replaced. It would make sense if there were bridges over creeks or streams that people used, but in 99.9% of the cases, they do not. This actually brings some common sense into the Navigable Waters Protection Act, so that on small creeks and streams municipalities can install culverts, reduce the costs and make sure there is proper infrastructure for the great big new Super-Bs that farmers use on the roads.
Those are the things in this act that we should highlight. There are many other things in the act itself.
When we think about where Canada is going to be in the future and look around the globe and see what is happening in the U.S., Europe and Greece, I would advise my colleagues to be very careful about changing something that is working. Obviously, what is going on in Canada right now is working. Getting back to a balanced budget is working and Canadians want that. Making sure we have the safety nets and proper health care in place, we already have. We are increasing funding to the provinces. Those types of things are working.
What we do not want to do is disrupt the apple cart and end up like Greece. We need to maintain a responsible government and responsibility in our spending. We need to be targeted and focused, maybe like a laser, as one of my colleagues has often said. What is important is that we keep on the track we are on. It does not matter where one goes throughout the world, it is agreed that Canada is the shining light when it comes to our economy and banking sector. I cannot see why we would want to shake up that apple cart. The wise and prudent thing is to continue what we are doing right now. When we look back on it 5 or 10 years from now, we will all say that by approving this budget implementation act, we helped make Canada a stronger place.
Tyrone Benskin NDP Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the speech from the hon. member. I am interested in getting things done too, and I would say so are all members on this side. I guess the difference is that we want to make sure we get things done right.
I am pretty handy with my hands, screwing things in, changing light bulbs and so on and so forth, and I have done a bit of carpentry in my life. One of the things I learned doing carpentry, which I actually apply to a lot of different aspects of my life, is to measure twice and cut once.
This is what we are looking at. We would like to make sure what we are doing is not based upon expediency, not based upon just getting it done and not based upon purely economical issues, but that it is based upon getting it right.
So, if it does take a little longer and it is done right, I think it is something we need to look at instead of just doing it quickly and then realizing we could have done it differently.
I would like the hon. member to speak to that, in terms of this omnibus bill and all the elements that are in there. There are some good elements in there and there are some bad elements in there, but we are all being asked to vote on something in its entirety, all or nothing—
The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton
Order, please.
I am just trying to get enough time for all members to ask questions.
The hon. member for Prince Albert.
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
Mr. Speaker, I think I know where the member is going. I think he is saying that he has not had enough time to go through the budget bill and to go through it with a fine-tooth comb.
However, a lot of things that are in the budget bill have been there for quite a while and actually have been debated in previous sessions of Parliament, in different committees all the way through, in minority Parliaments. When we start looking back at the different items that are in it, we see they have actually had full flushing, either in committee or in the House of Commons or in both.
However, for some reason or another, whether there was an election or a minority government, it did not proceed forward.
So, if we were to look at it and talk to Canadians, they would ask why we would go through that whole process again, why we would spend all that time and all that effort and, more important, why we would waste all that money redoing all the work we have done in the past four years.
These things are not new concepts. These are concepts governments have used in the past: balanced budgets. Look at some of the provinces that have decided to maintain balanced budgets. Saskatchewan, for example, has a balanced budget. I cannot find enough employees in my riding to do the work. Why is that? Because the economy has been established in such a way that the business sector is flourishing like crazy, but it cannot find enough people.
So, as long as we keep making policies similar to that—
The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton
Order, please.
I appreciate the enthusiasm of members during the five-minute questions and comments period. I do not like to cut people off, but I know other members would like to put questions to the hon. member for Prince Albert.
Questions and comments, the hon. member for Markham—Unionville.
John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for his speech and I want to ask a question relating to his comment about Canada as a shining light.
I wonder if he knows that the current Prime Minister has led Canada to its second lowest economic growth since R.B. Bennett during the Great Depression or that the Conservatives took five years to increase the national debt by 33% or that, for every $5 of debt accumulated since Confederation, one of those dollars was incurred in the last five years.
In light of this dismal record on growth and massive accumulation of debt, I wonder why he says Canada is a shining light, and I wonder whether he would not agree that, given this dismal record, the economic action plan is indeed far from perfect.
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
Mr. Speaker, I have to totally disagree with the member on that. In fact, I think the member should turn on his television at night and see what is going on in the rest of the world.
We are facing one of the worst global crises since 2008. It has been four years now that we have been in a global crisis. Look at Canada and look at the situation. Let us compare Canada to Greece. Let us compare Canada to Europe. Let us compare Canada to the U.S. Let us compare Canada to anybody else in the G8 or G7. This country is performing like crazy. The member should look at Canada and be proud of it. Instead, the Liberal Party wants to take out little facts, misleading figures or percentages and adjustments.
The reality is that Canadians are working. We need more people to work in Saskatchewan. Jobs are here. The economy is growing; it is stable; it is balanced. I cannot see what the problem is with that.