Debates of Jan. 27th, 2015

Opposition Motion—The Economy

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I may have missed it, but I do not know if my friend across the way said he was supporting the motion or not.

I like the idea that there is a budget forthcoming—no kidding— but the question is when, and does the government seek to act on and respond to the reality that is facing us in these uncertain times, as the governor of the bank has been able to do? The minister keeps referring to unstable markets. The markets are not just “unstable” in oil; they are low. If they had climbed 60% or 70%, I am sure the government would have enthusiastically presented a budget.

My question is about the choices the government has made. It wants to spend upwards of $2 billion on an income-splitting scheme that helps 15%, the overwhelmingly wealthiest Canadians, as was pointed out by the new Minister of Veterans Affairs. It is great for him, since he is earning $180,000 a year. It will help out his situation to the tune of almost $3,500, yet the government is spending 30 times less on the increase to child support payments, at $65 million. Then it derides the NDP for having the audacity to propose a universal and affordable child care plan that would actually help boost the economy. Which is the clear choice: $2 billion on income splitting that does nothing to help put people back to work, or an affordable $15-a-day child care plan that allows those who want to enter the workforce to do so, which has been pointed out by the TD Bank and others as an excellent way to help the economy when it needs help, which it does right now? Why make such a bad and partisan choice in this time of such serious situations?

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, our family tax plan will help all Canadian families with children under the age of 18. The NDP's plan would only help 10% of Canadian families. Furthermore, its plan would cost over $5 billion—at least, that is what was projected; it could be much more than that.

Ours is a plan to put money back in the pockets of Canadian families so that they can choose how to invest or spend that money on their own priorities, not those of the NDP or our government. We are putting money back in the pockets of Canadian families, whereas the NDP has said it would take that money back out of their pockets and use it for their own schemes. We do not think that is a prudent way to go. We believe Canadians know best how to spend their own money.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I find it fascinating to listen to my colleague when he also talks about the issue of child care and what the $3,200 would do when it comes to trying to find child care. I suggest the Conservatives should spend a few days out there knocking on doors and looking at just what child care costs today.

The issue I wanted to ask my hon. colleague about is this. Yesterday the Minister of Finance proudly stood here saying in a really blusterous way that the budget would be balanced, that there would be no cuts. He talked about the commitments to small business and income splitting, saying that everything would be in that budget and that everything would be fine.

If that is the case, then why is the government not introducing it today? What are you waiting for, if you have it all figured out? Are you just waiting for June so that you can spin it into an election campaign?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. Before I go to the parliamentary secretary, I would like to remind all hon. members to direct their comments to the Chair rather than directly to their colleagues.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, unlike the Liberal Party, when we make a promise, we keep that promise, and that is what we will be doing with our family tax cuts and keeping taxes low.

As the Minister of Finance stated, we will not bring the budget forward any earlier than April. Declining oil prices will have an impact on the government's flexibility, but we will balance the budget in 2015. Because of the volatility in the oil market, we will not bring forward the budget any earlier than April. It is desirable to have all the information available to make informed decisions.

Our government will proceed prudently. At a time when the global economy is uncertain, Canada is not immune to the economic challenges beyond our borders. That is why it is important that we take the time to listen to Canadians and to the economists before we come out with budget 2015. Members should stay tuned; it will come out after April.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure and Communities]

Mr. Speaker, as the member of Parliament for Kitchener—Waterloo, I am proud to come from a community that has one of the strongest local economies not only in the province but in the country. It is a local economy with diversified strengths. It has strength in advanced manufacturing, in financial services, and in our technology and innovation sector. When I hear the opposition claim that we as a government are putting all of our eggs in one basket, I laugh out loud.

I want to ask the parliamentary secretary if he could please speak to the important diversification of Canada's economy.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is true that Canada does have a highly diverse economy. We are not dependent on just one sector, and that is why our government supports jobs and growth by connecting Canadians with available jobs. It is why we have invested in infrastructure, manufacturing, and transportation.

Unlike the Liberals, who encourage manufacturers in southwestern Ontario simply to close up shop, our government recognizes that they are some of the most innovative manufacturers in the world. That is why we are supporting the Canadian economy with lower taxes. There are 780,000 small businesses that will benefit from the small business tax credit. We understand that this is a diverse economy and that it runs on many different cylinders, and that is why we are supporting all of those cylinders with lower taxes and support for Canadian manufacturers and Canadian exporters.

In addition, we have opened up 38 new trade markets for Canadian businesses. We have signed 38 new trade agreements. That compares to just three trade agreements that were signed by the Liberals back in the 1980s and 1990s. We are proud of this record because it gives Canadian businesses the opportunity to expand globally and to grow.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my Conservative colleague for his speech. However, I am not sure that he responded to the question asked by my NDP colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

Today, the NDP is calling on the government to immediately present an economic and fiscal update to Parliament outlining the state of the nation's finances in light of the unstable economic situation, including job losses, falling oil prices and declining government revenues.

To show how important this is, I want to add that according to Statistics Canada, the unemployment rate in Saguenay is very high—9.6%—which puts my region of Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean last among all metropolitan regions in Canada when it comes to job creation.

A region like mine, the riding I represent, needs a message from the Conservative government. It needs investments. It needs to know that the federal government knows what it is doing. We are now living in great uncertainty, in both Parliament and my riding.

Could my Conservative colleague tell me whether the government will present an economic and fiscal update to outline the state of Canada's finances?

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we had an economic and fiscal update just nine weeks ago, and as the Minister of Finance has said, we are going to have a full budget sometime after April.

I want to assure my colleague opposite that at the same time we continue to manage the economy and we continue to invest in Canadians' jobs and future prosperity. We have a $75 billion infrastructure plan to help create jobs across the country, the largest and longest infrastructure plan in Canadian history. At the same time, Canada does have the best job creation record in the G7. Our government will continue to monitor the situation and continue to manage the economy to make sure that our job creation record continues.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I keep hearing the government tell us to quote the facts. Conservatives continually cite an article in The New York Times that talks about Canada's middle class in comparison to the middle class in the United States. The article says that Canada's middle class has never been more frightened than any other time in the country's history. That is because the cost of education is going up, the cost of transit is going up, the cost of housing is going up, and the cost of medical care is going up, yet when the government deals with the budget, nothing changes. No matter what happens to the price of oil, no matter what happens to the economic outlook, no matter what changes, the ideology stays the same.

If everything the Conservatives promised to do is no different than it was last week, regardless of the facts, why are we not discussing a budget?

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we recognize that costs are going up, which is precisely the reason we are putting money back in the pockets of Canadian families. In fact, we put over $3,400 back in Canadians' pockets this year alone. We are proud of our low-tax plan to create jobs and long-term prosperity. We are proud of the fact that the Canadian middle class is doing better now than it ever has in Canadian history.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, today I will speak about the Canadian economy and the challenges faced by middle-class Canadian families.

Conservative government mismanagement and also its lack of vision for the Canadian economy and its future has dashed the hopes of middle-class Canadian families. I would like to take a moment to reflect on the reality of Conservative management of the economy.

When it came to power in 2006, the Conservative government inherited a decade's worth of balanced budgets from Liberal governments as well as an annual surplus of $13 billion. It took the Conservatives just two years to turn that surplus into a deficit, and that was before the recession hit.

The Conservatives actually put Canada on the edge of deficit prior to the global financial crisis in 2008. Even in the most recent economic update, the government forecast shows that the economy's rate of growth would slow from one year to the next. That is the latest forecast from the government.

The economy is facing long-term structural challenges. These structural challenges existed before plummeting oil prices. The Bank of Canada has forecast that the economy's growth will decline in 2015 to 2.1% from the previously forecasted 2.6%. The TD's forecast is actually even lower, at 2%.

The Conservatives like to take credit for the country's favourable performance relative to other industrialized economies in weathering the 2008 recession, and it is true that we did get through the 2008 financial crisis better than other countries. However, the Economist magazines tells us that there are three principal reasons for that: first, Canada's banking system and the decision made by Prime Minister Chrétien and Finance Minister Martin not to follow the global trend of deregulation in the 1990s; second, with the fiscal management of the previous government, having taken more than $80 billion off the national debt, the Conservative government inherited the best incoming fiscal situation of any incoming government in the history of Canada; and third, oil, gas and minerals. Those are the three factors that helped Canada get through the 2008 financial crisis, and they have one thing in common: the Conservatives actually are not responsible for any of them.

It is important to realize that the more time has passed since the recession, the less robust Canada's economic recovery has been, especially in comparison with the U.S. In fact, the Economist magazine's article was “Canada's economy, Maple, resting on its laurels. Canada's post-crisis glow is fading”. That article was from last spring, a long time before plummeting oil prices.

Now it is clear, with the recent collapse of oil prices, that we cannot simply rely on fossil fuels, pipelines and minerals to be the sole drivers of the Canadian economy. The Conservatives have had a three-prong strategy. It has been oil, oil and oil. They have actually shortchanged other sectors, totally ignoring the manufacturing sector, where we have lost almost half a million jobs under the government.

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Markham—Unionville.

Again, even before plummeting oil prices, Canada faced significant challenges, slow growth and a a soft employment market.

The number of Canadian jobless for over a year or more had actually doubled since 2008, and that was before plummeting oil prices. Even before plummeting oil prices, there were 200,000 fewer jobs for young Canadians than in 2008. More young Canadians with good educations were unable to support themselves and were living at home with their parents. More Canadian parents and grandparents were going deeper in debt, in fact record levels of personal debt, because of their direct financial support of children and grandchildren. This was, again, before plummeting oil prices.

The reality is that the Conservative government has also raised taxes. It imposed a $330 million increase in Canadian tariffs in the previous budget implementation act. In fact, that took effect this month.

Now the government's fiscal position is eroding. The TD Bank has forecast a potential $4.7 billion deficit if oil prices do not recover. Similarly, the Conference Board of Canada has issued a report saying that the drop in oil prices will reduce government revenues by $4.3 billion.

These economic circumstances call for vision and leadership from the federal government, and certainty. In fact, we have had anything but certainty from the Minister of Finance or the government. The Minister of Finance postponed the tabling of a budget to April, at the earliest. Even in the best case scenario, where a budget is tabled in April, there will be a lack of parliamentary scrutiny as the House of Commons is due for a two week break in April.

Also troubling is the apparent rift within the government when it comes to how to cope with the budget surplus that is now evaporating.

The Minister of Employment and Social Development said:

We won’t be using a contingency fund. A contingency fund is there for unforeseen circumstances like natural disasters.

On the other hand, the Minister of Finance said:

The contingency fund is there for unexpected and unavoidable shocks to the system [like] the oil price decline--which was a dramatic one--would fall in that category.

The fact that two senior Conservative economic ministers have two totally separate and different positions on something as fundamental as the budget does not inspire confidence among the investment community or among consumers.

The dilemma over how to avoid a fiscal deficit would not have presented itself in the first place if the government had not recklessly painted itself into a corner with pre-election commitments to income splitting and other tax expenditures. This was the opposite of leadership. The government was pandering to its base for political advantage. It was doing everything it could to create a notional surplus on the eve of an election to fund its pre-election spending. It took no account of the potential volatility of commodity prices.

It is plain and simple. The government mismanaged the fiscal situation. It let Conservative ideology and politics take priority over the practical demands of governing and fiscal responsibility.

The government should now prepare and table a budget that acknowledges the uncertainty and provides some level of leadership. It should not wait until April to do this. The government should retreat from its income splitting commitment because it is costly and it would benefit only 15% of Canadians. We heard from the former minister of finance, Jim Flaherty, on this, and he expressed concerns that it was unfair.

Before plummeting oil prices, income splitting was unfair. After plummeting oil prices and its fiscal impact, it is unaffordable. It is important to realize that any tax cut like income splitting, which only benefits 15% of the richest families, and deficit financing will require all Canadians to pay higher taxes in the future.

The Bank of Canada has shown leadership. It recognized the turbulence faced by the Canadian economy and it cut the key interest for the first time in almost five years.

Despite the warning from economists, the TD Bank and others, the Minister of Finance said, “the Canadian economy is in good space”. This is out of touch with the emerging reality, and out of sync with the concerns of middle-class Canadian families. It is also indifferent to the needs of average Canadians.

It is important to realize that the Conservative government has not provided certainty to Canadians, and it has not provided a plan for jobs and growth. A plan for jobs and growth was needed before plummeting oil prices. We need a plan for jobs and growth even more today.

A Liberal government would invest in plans for jobs and growth in three principle ways. It would invest in infrastructure. We have never had a better time to invest in infrastructure than today. We would invest in people and skills. We would invest in innovation.

A Liberal government would invest in jobs and growth. Canadian families are looking for leadership and investment in jobs and growth, a real plan.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member said that he was so proud that the Liberals balanced the budgets in the 1990s. How did the Liberals balance the budgets? They did it by slashing transfers to the provinces and territories. Those were transfers that were supposed to be used for health care and education. They increased taxes on seniors by forcing them to remove their savings from their RRSPs and RIFs two years earlier. They did it by raiding the EI fund of almost $60 billion. Also, they did it by not cancelling the GST, which they promised they would do. They did it by not tearing up the free trade agreement, which they promised they would do as well. That is how the Liberals balanced the budgets in the 1990s.

My question for my hon. colleague is this. Will the Liberals raise taxes on Canadian families by cancelling our family tax plan, or will they get on board and help Canadian families by supporting our family tax plan?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, we have been very clear. We do not support income splitting, which is unfair because it only benefits 15% Canada's richest. It does nothing for the other 85% of Canadians. However, it puts 100% of Canadian families deeper in debt by putting the government deeper in debt, because it is deficit financing. A tax cut like income splitting, which is highly regressive today, will be paid for through higher taxes in the future, and we do not support that.

The member spoke of free trade. We agree free trade is very important. The NAFTA is extremely important to the Canadian economy. Our relationship with the U.S. and Mexico are critically important, which is why I find it curious that the Prime Minister would have cancelled the upcoming summit of President Peña Nieto, President Obama and the Prime Minister in Ottawa. Why would he have damaged further our relations with our key trading partners in the NAFTA by cancelling that meeting?

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since we have been focusing on issues that are closely tied to fossil fuels, I would like to read today's motion again:

That the House call on the government to (a) immediately present an Economic and Fiscal Update to Parliament outlining the state of the nation’s finances in light of the unstable economic situation, including job losses, falling oil prices, and declining government revenues; and (b) prepare a budget that addresses the economic challenges facing the middle class by creating more good-quality full-time jobs, and by encouraging economic diversification.

I listened to my colleague's speech, and he is right, those were indeed the days. We can speak of those days nostalgically, but they are the ones who got rid of the federal minimum wage.

Will they at least support our initiative to introduce a $15 minimum wage at the federal level?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, in the current situation, it is very important that the government put forward an economic plan. I therefore support the NDP motion in that respect.

At the same time, we need to work more closely with the provincial governments on issues like minimum wage. I agree that middle-class families are having trouble making ends meet at a time when incomes have stagnated while the cost of living continues to rise. This is a problem in Canada and around the world.

The government should be working very closely with the provincial governments to develop post-secondary education programs, for example, in order to ensure that workers have the skills they need for the future. That would be another way to ensure progress for middle-class Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak on this NDP motion, which as my colleague indicated, the Liberal Party will support.

The basic point is that it is the responsibility of a government to lead, and it is especially the responsibility of a government to lead when economic times become tough and uncertain. Therefore, there is absolutely no reason to delay the budget in the way the government has. Indeed, the tougher the economic times, the sooner Canadians want to see resolute action and a concrete plan from the government.

It is not at all clear from an economic point of view what the government will gain from delay. Members can correct me if I am wrong, but I do not think anybody on the planet predicted that oil prices would suddenly collapse from over $100 a barrel to less than $50. This was not foreseen by anyone, to my knowledge. Therefore, if that collapse in oil prices was not foreseen by anyone, why should we believe anyone who claims to know the pace at which oil prices will recover, if indeed they will recover? For all we know, oil prices could drop even lower.

Simply to wait to buy time, because in waiting a month or two one thinks one will have a better idea of what oil prices will do in the future, I think is a fool's game. It is just an excuse for the government not having a plan. The Conservatives did not know what to do, and so rather than present a concrete plan based on the most defensible assumptions they could make in an uncertain world, they just decided to delay. In so doing, they increased the uncertainty felt by Canadians in this time of uncertainty.

I think that is indeed an irresponsible move. Whether the Conservatives present the budget in February, March, April, or May, the world is and will remain a place of uncertainty. Nobody will know, whatever the month of the budget presentation, exactly or even approximately what oil prices or other things will be in a year, two years, or three years from now.

However, the function of the government, the function of a budget, is to present a credible plan. It is to make assumptions as required on these things that cannot be known and to forge ahead with a plan. I think the Conservative government's inaction in presenting its budget shows a lack of a plan, a lack of an idea of where it thinks the economy will go.

I think the Conservatives only had one plan, and that plan was based on oil at $100 a barrel. Their plan was based on Canada being an energy superpower. However, when that plan collapsed with the price of oil around the world, the government did not have a plan B. It has no alternative plan, and so the Conservatives are delaying and figuring out what to do.

In the meantime, the Conservatives operate on the fly. One of their most senior ministers—if not the most senior minister and certainly the one who is talked about most to become the next leader of the party over there—has said that they would have to make cuts in the near future in order to balance the books, and then he was promptly contradicted. I think that dissension at the highest levels about the budget, which is the most important document for the government in the whole year, is another sign of disarray and disorganization on the part of the government.

The budget is important and there is no reason to delay it. The fact that the government has not presented it and has said it plans to wait a few months is not good for Canadians. This shows a lack of leadership, because in two or three months' time, we will not know any more than we do now about what will become of our economy or the price of oil on world markets. Furthermore, the government already announced its tax measures without even knowing what the budget will be. That was also a mistake.

The fact that the government announced this income-splitting measure some time ago and all of a sudden maybe does not have the money to do it is another sign of incompetence and irresponsibility on its part.

We on this side do not object to the income-splitting plan just because it was incompetently announced before the facts were on the table, but we also object to it because we think substantively it is a bad move. Yes, middle-class families are struggling and they do require measures to support them going forward, and that is the cornerstone of the policy of the Liberal Party. However, the solution to the woes and the challenges and the difficulties of middle-class Canadians is not to present a tax cut that would benefit only 15% of Canadian households.

The C.D. Howe Institute, which is hardly a socialist, left-leaning institute, has come down strongly against this policy, pointing out that only 15% of Canadian households would receive anything at all and those that would receive the lion's share of the benefits are high-income households with children, such as the families of the Prime Minister and the leader of the third party, the Liberal Party. Their families would receive the $2,000 maximum benefit, and yet they are not the ones evidently in greatest need. This is a wrong-headed policy. It would be a wrong-headed policy even in the best of economic times, but it is doubly a wrong-headed policy when it is presented at these times of great economic uncertainty.

We support the NDP motion in the sense that it is a by-product. Our primary concern is not the NDP motion but the lack of responsibility, the lack of leadership, displayed by the Conservative government in deferring the budget in uncertain times. It is precisely when times are uncertain that Canadians need their government to step up to the plate and present a clear plan to go forward under these difficult circumstances in which we live.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a feeling of déjà vu when I listen to the Liberals. In 1992—quite some time ago—when they were in opposition, Brian Mulroney was the prime minister and many cuts were being made, the Liberals said that they wanted to get elected so that they could do things differently. They said that they wanted to take care of the middle class.

They made cuts to unemployment insurance and stole $57 billion from workers to balance the budget. They said that they would not do that. In 1998, they cut CBC's budget by $357 million, so that it could no longer function. Then, the Conservatives cut CBC's budget by an additional $115 million. In 1994, the Liberals made such drastic cuts to health care spending that they made our health care system sick.

At the time, the Liberals were saying that they wanted to replace the Conservatives because the Conservatives were not on the right track. The Liberals said that they wanted to do better.

My question for the Liberals is this: are they still the same Liberals or have they changed? After all that, there was the sponsorship scandal. I think that the Liberals need to be honest with Canadians and tell them that if they are elected, they are going to forget all about Canadians six months after the election, like they did in 1993.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think that if the member has to go all the way back to 1992, he is feeling desperate. I can tell him that I am very proud of the Liberal Party's performance at that time. The member is forgetting that the Liberals inherited a $43 billion deficit from the Conservatives and that something had to be done.

We eliminated that deficit in just a few years, and we reduced the debt for 10 years. The Canadian government's fiscal position was a thousand times better under the Liberals than under the Conservatives. As a result, we were able to reduce taxes and increase health care spending by 6% per year for 10 years. I am therefore very proud of what the Liberals did in the past. I am also proud of what we will do in the future.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the only thing funnier than watching the finance minister bolt from the House yesterday and head off in all directions at once, not knowing which way to go—which is probably poetically symbolic of the government's position on the economy right now—is watching both sides of the House in this debate look at the Liberals with amazement because we balanced the budget: the government side that never encounters a problem that it does not respond to with a cut, and the official opposition that never encounters a problem that does not require spending more.

The question for my colleague is this. Somehow this budget is going to be balanced with a combination of both cuts and expenditures, and I am curious to hear his perspective as to how to nuance that so that we end up with a balanced budget but also support growth, the creation of jobs, and the middle class in this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague very much for his question. For those who may have forgotten, he is the newly elected member for Trinity—Spadina and has a passion for housing. Therefore, let me answer that question in terms of how to address the concerns of middle-class families by talking about the member's own field of interest, which is housing.

I have conducted round tables across the country, and I have spoken to mayors across the country, and all of them are passionately concerned about the lack of affordable housing. Let us take the income-splitting tax cut, which does nothing for ordinary families and is particularly limited to those at the top end, and compare that with the member's proposals on affordable housing, which would do great good for middle-class Canadian families and seniors across the country. Yes, we have to live within our means. We in the Liberal Party have learned that and we have taught the Conservatives that. The NDP will never learn that, but we have done it. While we have to live within our means, the kinds of things we want to do to support middle-class families are the kinds of things my colleague from Trinity—Spadina has proposed in the area of affordable housing.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to this opposition day motion today because after spending more than a month away from this place, almost exclusively in my beautiful riding of Newton—North Delta, I heard a pattern of comments from my constituents. They are very worried about the harmful effects of the Conservative government's economic mismanagement.

Our economy is damaged. Middle-class families are working harder than ever, yet falling further behind. The people of Surrey want to know where the police are that the government promised our community in 2006. They want to know why they have so much difficulty bringing siblings and parents into Canada to say goodbye to dying relatives and to attend their funerals.

People want to know why the government made cuts to literacy programs when half of the adult Canadian population right now does not have sufficient literacy skills to read the prescription on a bottle of pills. They want to know why community groups fear closure and loss of services for the most vulnerable, when the government does not bother to inform them whether their skills link funding will be renewed.

People want to know why it will be five years before they can get a hearing on their appeal before the social security tribunal. They want to know why the government has not yet fixed the temporary foreign worker program. They want to know why the government is doing nothing to make day care more affordable for families.

People want to know why the Conservative government is pushing an income-splitting scheme that would give billions to the wealthy few and absolutely nothing to more than 85% of Canadian families. Honestly, I would love to know, too.

I love representing Surrey and North Delta here in Parliament. Right now, I am hurting for my constituents.

By the way, I forgot to say that I will be splitting my time with the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

Too many constituents in my riding are struggling to make ends meet. Income inequality in our country is spiralling out of control. The incomes of the top 1% have been surging for decades. It is embarrassing. The typical Canadian family has seen their income fall over the last 35 years. How is that fair?

High levels of income inequality and slow growth have hurt communities like Surrey-Newton and North Delta, preventing millions of Canadians from achieving their full potential. It is no surprise, sadly, that when the data is examined, 94% of the increase in inequality over the last 35 years occurred under federal Liberal governments.

The Conservative government and the Liberal governments that preceded it have taken our country in the wrong direction. Billions of dollars of cuts to social programs by Liberal and Conservative governments have made things worse by reducing services to all Canadians.

The NDP motion today calls on the Conservative government to release an economic update. Canadian taxpayers deserve an honest account of how the drop in the price of oil has impacted the state of this country's finances.

Budgets are about making choices, and the Conservative government has chosen to make cuts at every turn, cuts to programs and services that Canadians rely on. The government has also gutted Canada's fiscal capacity to help families in need through tough times. Meanwhile, it is worth noting the government is proceeding with reckless handouts to the wealthiest Canadians.

The NDP wants an economy that is fair to the middle class. We want a budget that focuses on diversifying the Canadian economy, rather than putting all our eggs in one basket. We find it wasteful to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on government advertising to advance a political party's interest. Indeed, just last week I submitted a letter to Advertising Standards Canada, asking them to investigate the government's apprenticeship ads.

We find it wasteful to spend tens of millions a year on an unelected, unaccountable, and under investigation Senate. We find it wasteful to give away billions in subsidies to oil companies and handouts to the most profitable corporations.

The former parliamentary budget officer, Kevin Page, said recently that “In the last 10 years, we have virtually made no progress on all our big issues, long-term economic challenges. We have not closed innovation gaps in our country, dealt with an aging demographic that will put pressure on health care, nor dealt with environmental sustainability. We have not even had the discussions or proposals from this government.”

While my New Democrat colleagues and I continue to roll out concrete proposals to support working and middle-class Canadians, the Liberals are continuing to cower with no ideas to propose other than their same old feeling of entitlement to power. New Democrats have a plan for the middle class, including a $15 minimum wage and child care that costs no parent more than $15 a day. We are ready to make the economy work for average hard-working Canadians, not just the rich few. We have a practical plan that would repair the damage the current government has done to our social programs, our environment, and our economy.

I came to this country in my early twenties with very little. I started to teach immediately and have not stopped working yet, many years later. I know what it is to work hard, and I know the anxiety and stress that surround job losses, and serious illnesses and precarious employment within families. Under the current Conservative government and previous Liberal governments, too many families have lived through this kind of stress.

Not only do I have the immense privilege of representing people of Newton—North Delta, but I am also very proud to act as an opposition critic for employment and social development. In this capacity, I see first hand, on an almost hourly basis, the impact of the current government's fiscal mismanagement on Canadians all over the country. The Conservative government has both driven down wages and reduced support for unemployed Canadians through its cuts to EI, a fund that most Canadians pay into and which only about four in ten people can now access. The current government has expanded the temporary foreign worker program, even though youth unemployment is at an all-time high, and it has failed to fix it. As well, the Conservatives have totally ignored the importance of keeping current labour market information. They have introduced a “job creator tax cut” that would only create 800 jobs at a cost of half a billion dollars. I need help to wrap my head around that one.

In real terms, the average minimum wage in Canada has increased by just 1% over the last 40 years. Do the Conservatives honestly believe that someone who works 40 hours a week should be left living below the poverty line? Without action to boost minimum wages for workers in federal jurisdictions, that is essentially what the Conservatives are telling us.

What do we tell our youth about this government? What do I tell young graduates who cannot get a job? What do I tell someone whose job application was not even considered because it was cheaper for the employer to use the government's temporary foreign worker program? I would like to be able to tell them something.

I would like the Conservatives to vote in favour of our opposition day motion and immediately present an economic and fiscal update to Parliament that outlines the state of this nation's finances in light of the unstable economic situation, including job losses, falling oil prices, and declining government revenues. Further, we are asking the current government to prepare a budget that would address the economic challenges faced by the middle class, by creating more good-quality, full-time jobs, and by encouraging economic diversification.

Despite poor economic forecasts by others, the Conservatives continue to claim they will achieve a balanced budget. We are asking for a fiscal update. We want to ensure that their agenda does not get achieved on the backs of hard-working Canadians. Clearly, the Conservatives government is conflicted, because even ministers cannot agree among themselves on to how face the challenges. The mixed messaging only continued as the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Employment and Social Development explicitly put forward two different agendas.

I would like to finish with a very brief quote from Kevin Page, who said that “When you're spending somebody else's money, you need to show them the plan. When you're spending someone else's money, that plan needs to be scrutinized, and that's okay. That's just good fiscal management.”

Give us the plan.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, a number of New Democrats will often comment about the previous Liberal administration, but there is nothing really to compare it with, because the federal NDP has not been in power here. However, we can take a look at the provincial NDP in Manitoba.

According to a quote in a Winnipeg newspaper, the leader of the official opposition says that “I'm going to do whatever I can to keep the Manitoba government in place to help keep the NDP in power in Manitoba.” He praises the Greg Selinger government for its financial prowess and how well it manages the Manitoba economy.

Let us take a look at the provincial debt. The debt was $10.6 billion in 2007 and it has increased every year, to $16.3 billion in 2012. Then last year Greg Selinger actually increased the provincial sales tax in Manitoba, from 7% to 8%.

Does the NDP have any appreciation or understanding of the need to balance the budget and, second, is it part of the NDP platform to increase—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please.

The hon. member for Newton—North Delta.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am always in awe when colleagues from that end of the House stand, because they always go into denial about the reality of what it was like for Canadians when they were in government. They forget about all the scandals and all the insider stuff that happened while they were in government. They forget the fact that they stole billions and billions of dollars from the EI Fund. They forget the fact that they are the ones who started the cuts to all the social services.

I will finish on a positive note. When we look at the data and actually examine it, we see that the unemployment rate has been much lower under NDP governments than Liberal ones, which have always had the highest unemployment, or under Conservative governments. So let us talk about reality.