Debates of Jan. 27th, 2015

Opposition Motion—The Economy

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not familiar with the riding the member represents, so I looked up the city website on the Internet. I noticed that in 2012 the average house price in New Westminster was $645,400. It is a little surprising that riding has an NDP member.

I have a question for the NDP member. I have heard the comments of the NDP members about our promise of income splitting for families. I am assuming that also applies to pension splitting.

Are the NDP members telling Canadians that not only would they not follow through on the income splitting for families, but that they would take away pension splitting for seniors, which we put in place a number of years ago, as well?

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that my colleague used Google to find out about my riding, which is New Westminster—Coquitlam and Port Moody. It is a fantastic, urbanized riding just outside of Vancouver. We are a blessed with what we have, but we do have our challenges. Housing affordability is definitely one of those challenges, as is transit. Affordability is incredibly important.

An NDP government would get rid of income splitting. We would focus our priorities, as I mentioned earlier, on things like child care and investment in health care. We would actually invest in housing. We would invest in the things that not only seniors have called for but what others in my riding called for as well.

I listen to constituents. I have invited them to my annual town hall meeting every year. I hear clearly that income splitting is not the priority about which they want to hear. They want a focus on solid investment in health care, child care and housing supports.

Those are the things I hear in New Westminster and other parts of my riding.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

When we listen to today's debates, it is remarkable to see how varied the NDP members' speeches are. They are presenting a wide range of viewpoints. In contrast, the Conservatives keep delivering the same litany of empty and very annoying slogans. They keep repeating themselves. It is a real challenge to follow the debates when a Conservative takes the floor because we have learned nothing new in the past eight or nine years. That being said, let us come back to the problems that my colleague's constituents are undoubtedly facing.

The Bank of Canada report indicates that the participation rate of prime-age workers, aged 25-54, fell substantially in 2014. My colleague shared the concerns of his constituents, but this is an additional concern. Our economy depends on people being able to support their family, buy a house, participate in a community's economic activity, and that was before the drastic drop in the price of oil. This is a direct consequence of the Conservatives' decisions. They are about to leave a poisoned legacy to our constituents and future generations.

I would like my colleague to say a few words about this factual information presented by the Bank of Canada.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's question raises an excellent point.

I did mention youth unemployment in my speech, and the government is going in the wrong direction in not supporting or investing in our youth and in the employment and types of jobs they need. My colleague pointed out that even the Bank of Canada has addressed that point and has said that it is an issue that we need to draw attention to.

I certainly hear from people in my riding. I have met with the Douglas College student union. Many are very concerned with the future of our country, with the federal government's lack of investment in education and lack of attention to youth. They are concerned with that direction and concerned that when they have the skills and have done the training and have the education, they will get the jobs. As well, they are struggling with high tuition and with increased debt when they get out of school.

They do not feel the Conservatives are going in a direction they want to support. They are saying they want a change. They do not want tired answers. They want new solutions. They want an investment in the youth of our day, and that is certainly what an NDP government would do.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Wild Rose.

I appreciate this opportunity to address my colleague's motion on the immediate presentation of an economic and fiscal update to Parliament, outlining the state of the nation's finances in light of recent developments.

The hon. member may have missed the economic and fiscal update that was tabled only two months ago. How quickly we forget. Allow me to refresh his memory on some of the key points that were discussed in that update.

First of all, in the global context, with an election on the horizon it is no surprise that the opposition has only just recently taken notice of developments in the Canadian and global economies. On this side, however, we have been relentless in our pursuit of growth and jobs following the downturn of 2008 and 2009. That period saw the worst global recession since the Great Depression, and it was followed by one of the worst global recoveries. We see signs of this challenge everywhere today, but we pointed out many of the risks in the economic and fiscal update in November.

European debt is too high. Inflation was -0.2% in December. The eurozone economy is sputtering. It has been stop and go for three years now. Last year it was expected to have grown by just 0.8%, which is a global concern, given that it is the world's second-largest economy. The continent's three largest economies—Germany, France, and Italy—contracted in the second quarter of 2014 and remained weak in the third quarter. Just last week, the European Central Bank significantly expanded its bond-buying program, now estimated to reach €1.1 trillion, plus possible extensions, to ward off deflation and revive a struggling euro area economy.

Beyond Europe, the growth rates of key emerging economies—China, India, and Brazil—are also losing steam. Geopolitical conflicts in Ukraine, Iraq, and Syria have complicated the economic recovery and fuel uncertainty globally.

We have been saying it for years, and it remains just as valid now as it was in November: the global economy is fragile. Growth cannot be taken for granted. In many countries, it demands excruciating decisions and hard work from everyone.

Let us turn to Canada's performance. For years, Canada did that hard work, and it paid off. While the global recovery has been challenging, Canada has led the way to economic growth. A downturn that did not start here hit us later than most and affected us less deeply, but Canada emerged from it quickly and in better shape than other developed economies.

We have recovered all of the jobs lost during the recession. In fact, our Conservative government has created over 1.2 million net new jobs since the depths of the recession. While others are raising taxes to pay down deficits, our government has been reducing them. Not since John Diefenbaker was Prime Minister over half a century ago has the overall federal tax burden been this low. That is why the last economic and fiscal update introduced new tax cuts for hard-working Canadian families.

After years of hard work, Canada's free trade network now touches every corner of the globe. I cannot overstate the importance of this to the Canadian economy. Allowing Canadian manufacturers to export their products to over half of the global economy is a significant advantage in the competitive global market.

Our labours have not gone unrecognized, except perhaps by our hon. colleagues opposite. Allow me, then, to refresh their memories on some of our government's accomplishments.

Bloomberg ranks us as the second most attractive place in the world to do business. For those wondering who was first, it is Hong Kong, and that is due to the low cost of starting businesses.

Both the IMF and the OECD are expecting Canada to become the strongest growing economies in the G7 this year and the next. The World Economic Forum rated Canada's banking system as the soundest in the world for the seventh year in a row. Additionally, four credit rating agencies—Moody's Investors Service, Fitch Ratings, Standard & Poor's, and DBRS—have reaffirmed their top ratings for Canada. It is expected that Canada will remain in its AAA rating in the year ahead.

Most importantly, we have created the world's strongest middle class, according to The New York Times.

At the same time, we have joined our international allies in applying economic sanctions to the rogue Putin regime. These sanctions are now taking their toll on the Russian economy. Its credit rating was just classified as junk, a far cry from our AAA rating.

Clearly we are on the right track, and we must stay on the right track. We must relentlessly choose prosperity, not reckless spending schemes that will consign our country and our children to remorseless decline. This government chooses prosperity. I know Canadians do as well.

Where does the path to prosperity lie? It is in our low-tax plan for jobs and growth. Members may have already heard of the government's goals, but they bear repeating: keeping taxes low for Canadian families and job creators; equipping Canadians with the skills they need to pursue the jobs they want; investing in world-class research and innovation; reducing red tape and empowering businesses; responsibly developing our natural resource wealth; helping businesses succeed in the global marketplace by encouraging trade and foreign investment; and making historic investments in infrastructure, including our new Building Canada plan, which is the largest and longest federal infrastructure investment in Canadian history.

These measures are built on a rock-solid foundation—our government's commitment to return to balanced budgets in 2015.

In the worst of the recession, Canada's deficit stood at over $55 billion. Today we are on track to eliminate the deficit, as the Minister of Finance has affirmed, and begin paying down the national debt. Let me say it again: we will fulfill our commitment to Canadians to balance the budget in 2015. This is a remarkable achievement when so many other countries are still locked in deep deficits; in fact, Canada's net debt-to-GDP ratio is less than half that of the G7 average.

It is not easy to return to balanced budgets; after all, budgets do not balance themselves. That requires a plan and the discipline to follow it, not just whipping up rhetoric when an election is close.

Canadians should be proud not just of our impending balanced budget but of how we got here. We repeatedly cut taxes, close to 180 times. We have increased transfer payments by 55% since 2006, reaching $65 billion this year. These transfers are used for key priorities such as health care and post-secondary education. We remain committed to keeping taxes low while increasing transfers responsibly as our economy grows.

What is not growing is the bureaucracy in Ottawa. Direct federal program spending has declined for the fourth year in a row. We have diligently controlled government spending, something that few nations have done, and we have done it while maintaining the programs and services Canadians rely on.

This has meant that we have been able to provide even more support for hard-working Canadian families. I am referring to our government's latest steps to help Canadian families prosper. These actions include proposals to enhance the universal child care benefit, introduce the family tax cut, and increase the child care expense deduction dollar limits.

Our government understands the basic truth that no government can tax its way to prosperity and no government can indefinitely spend more than it earns.

We cannot take this prosperity for granted. This government never took prosperity for granted, and we have worked hard to ensure that we are in a stronger position than we were in 2008. We have a duty to manage our finances responsibly.

Under ourPrime Minister's unwavering leadership, we will soon return to balanced budgets. Now is not the time for risky experiments. As I said in November at the time of the economic and fiscal update, Canada has come a long way, but we are not out of hot water yet. The global economy remains fragile. That it is still fragile two months later should not be a surprise to the hon. member. Fortunately, our government has a plan to meet these challenges, a plan that is working, and we need to stay the course. That is why I call upon this member and all hon. members to focus not on this motion but on working together to make the greatest country in the world even better.

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

Mr. Speaker, my Conservative colleague boasted that his party has reduced the tax burden for businesses and individuals since it took power. However, I am concerned about small businesses. Small businesses create more than 50% of all the jobs in this country. Their tax rate has not been lowered in recent years.

I am curious to hear why the Conservative government focused on tax cuts for big businesses, which have not really created any new jobs, and why it chose not to help small businesses.

My region has a lot of small businesses. They are trying to create jobs, but the unemployment rate is very high. Tax cuts for small and medium-sized businesses could really help them. Why does the government refuse to lower the small business tax rate?

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in my speech I talked about the fact that Canada ranks as the second most attractive place in the world to do business after Hong Kong. The reason for that is the low cost of starting a business in Hong Kong, which I would suggest to the hon. member is also the case here in Canada. On a consistent measure we have lowered red tape.

We have consistently lowered taxes for small businesses and it is our intent to continue to do that. We have lowered taxes in other areas. I would point to the fact that the HST in the province of Ontario was moved down by two points. Taxes were lowered across the board for all Canadians.

The member is right that we must focus on small businesses and the need to grow small business, because that is where the majority of employment will take place. It happens not only with the lowering of business taxes, which is something that this government has done, but also with an overall lowering of taxes so that Canadians have more money in their pockets. It is the mom and pop shops and the smaller manufacturing areas in this country that employ those people who will then be in a position to have more money to spend. That money spreads into the economy and makes our economy stronger. That is certainly the intent of this government.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to the member's remarks that whipping up rhetoric when an election is close is not the way to manage the economy. If we hear any rhetoric, we heard it in that speech and we hear it from the Minister of Finance daily. We hear it from the Prime Minister, because he and Conservatives are always talking about balancing the books.

Is it not true that the Prime Minister has never had a surplus on his own, other than the one transferred to him by the previous Liberal government? We could call the Prime Minister “deficit king”. Is it not true that under the Prime Minister's watch in the last eight years the debt load of the country has increased at minimum by $133 billion and at maximum by $160 billion? He has added that to the debt of Canadians. Is that not true?

Now Conservatives are saying that they will balance the books. What will the Prime Minister and Minister of Finance cut in terms of value from taxes from Canadians in order to do that? They have cut EI and pretty nearly every service known to mankind in this country during their watch. Canadians are getting less value for their taxes, and that is not rhetoric; those are the facts.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

The hon. member for Chatham-Kent—Essex only has about 30 seconds left in the time available, but I will give him a bit more than that, given the member's question.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wish I had more time to talk about the charge that this government inherited a surplus, which would be a long discussion, because we could then say that the deficit was a result of previous Liberal governments in the Trudeau era. This government in 2006-07 paid off more debt than any other government in the history of Canada.

When the member talks about what we will do and the hyped up pre-election preamble, what we will not do is what his leader did in southern Ontario, where he told people that they needed to stop thinking about manufacturing jobs and start thinking about something else. We certainly will not do that. We will continue to do what has been proven, to the point that we are the envy of the G7. We will continue to move in that direction and remain the envy of the G7 and the rest of the world.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would certainly like to thank the opposition for the opportunity today to showcase our government's strong economic record. It is a record of success in the face of adversity, a record that Canadians are rightly proud of, and it is a record that the opposition and the Liberals would utterly destroy.

The opposition members claim to demand action, but they have absolutely no ideas. They demand that we rescind tax cuts for families, but they have no plan at all to return money to Canadians. They demand that we spend more and more money, as they would do. Of course, we know they have no plan to return to balanced budgets, like we do.

Our government would not follow the well-trod Liberal path to economic decline. We will continue to follow the course that led us through the largest recession since the Great Depression, a course of prudent, decisive action. Canada now enjoys the fruits of our approach. It is an approach that has led to a job record that is second to none. We have created over 1.2 million net new jobs since the depth of the global recession.

Of these jobs, the vast majority are full-time, high-paying, private sector jobs. In fact, more Canadians are working today than at any other time in our history. Canadians are wealthier for their hard work. In fact, the Canadian middle class is among the richest in the developed world.

Canadians are not just wealthier, but are also benefiting across the board from economic improvements introduced by our government that allow them to make the most of their opportunities. We did not accomplish this by taking the Liberal approach of raising taxes and slashing transfers to the provinces. On the contrary, we have provided tax relief close to 180 times—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I wish my Liberal colleagues across the way would quit talking while I am speaking and pay more attention, because what I am saying is that we have provided tax relief close to 180 times since taking office. That is an outstanding record.

Just on its own, our family tax and benefits package will benefit every single Canadian family with children to the tune of $1,140 on average each and every year. Every family in the country with a child under 18 will benefit from these measures. Two-thirds of that money will go back into the pockets of low- and middle-income Canadians.

Members of both the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party have said that they would take this tax cut away from Canadians. In its place, both parties have proposed to spend it on more government and more bureaucracy. This is really the fundamental divide between our government and the opposition. The members of the opposition continue to embrace the philosophy that it is better to spend money that we have than to balance the budget and to give money back to Canadian families and businesses.

I know where this approach has led in the past, and I know where our approach has led. Our approach has led to one of the best growth and job records among developed economies. I also know where the opposition's approach would lead. It would lead, as it always has in the past under Liberal governments, to big governments, to low growth, and to deficits as far as the eye can see.

However, it is not only—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Order, please. There is just away too much chatter. I am having some difficulty, in spite of the fact he has the microphone turned up as loud as possible, hearing the member for Wild Rose. I would ask all members to lower the decibel levels, please.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I know it concerns them that our government's record is so warmly received by Canadians and that their record is such a poor one of big government and low growth and deficits as far as the eye can see.

It is not only on tax relief for Canadian families that we disagree with the opposition, but on the fact that we have also lowered taxes on businesses across this country to create jobs and economic growth, and that Canada now leads the G7 with the lowest overall tax rate on new business investment. According to KPMG, total business tax costs in Canada are the lowest in the G7 and are 46% lower than those in the United States.

The opposition would reverse this course, with the NDP in particular saying that it would increase business taxes. Only a party with no experience in government or running a business would think that taking money out of the hands of businesses would somehow create jobs.

I can assure the House and all Canadians that we will keep lowering taxes on businesses and will continue to reduce red tape. We have lowered taxes while growing, to all-time record highs, federal financial support for health and social services that define and sustain us.

This success is no accident. It has come about because our government has created the conditions for success and kept them when times were tough. This may have escaped the attention of the opposition parties, but it has not escaped the attention of independent experts all around the world. Moody's Investor Service, Fitch Ratings, Standard & Poor's, and DBRS have all reaffirmed their top ratings for Canada, and it is expected that Canada will maintain its AAA rating in the year ahead. This paints a picture of a superb environment for business, from manufacturing, for trade and investment. This means a strong environment for creating good, high quality, full-time jobs for Canadians.

While we cannot expect our actions to insulate us fully against future risks and crises, we can be confident that the foundations our government has laid over the past seven years have set us on the right course. Going forward we will continue to work hard on the next federal budget, fully cognizant that we, like other countries, still have headwinds to confront.

As our government and our Prime Minister have consistently said, the global economy remains fragile. We are not immune to economic forces outside of our borders and we are not immune to the decisions of countries around the world.

It is true that Canada is a significant oil exporter and that the unexpected collapse of crude oil prices since last June is an area that we must be particularly vigilant about. We know that the impact of lower oil prices is complex and has a variety of potential effects on the economy. Given the volatility of prices, there is no consensus about the future of oil prices in the shorter term. That is why we are taking the prudent approach and monitoring the situation.

I would certainly discourage the sort of thinking at the core of today's motion for debate that erroneously assumes that current circumstances will not continue to change and evolve. Today's motion by the opposition would have us act prematurely and panic at the first signs of adversity. Canadians can rest assured that our government will not try to build a hasty defence against global headwinds on shifting sands. We will continue to do as we have always done, that is, to act prudently and effectively and decisively. We will do so as always on the basis of sound analysis and policies with a proven record of creating jobs and growth in the face of the global challenge. I look forward to our next budget's delivering on this commitment, as we have always done.

I would encourage all hon. members of the House to support our government's efforts and to reject today's motion and all the other ill-considered actions.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the announcement my leader made earlier in his speech to the Economic Club of Canada. He said that an NDP government would cut the small business tax rate from 11% to 9% to stimulate the economy.

Could the member tell me what he thinks of the measure my leader announced?

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would encourage all Canadians to contrast all the statements and the record of the NDP to the statements and record of our government. Our government has consistently reduced taxes for all Canadians. As I mentioned during my speech, 180 times we have reduced taxes for the average family, saving each of them over $3,400 in tax. We have reduced the taxes on businesses. The NDP has indicated that it would raise those taxes, which is very contradictory to what its leader said today.

When we look at the records and plans of our government, we see there is certainly no question which one would create the most opportunities, continue the lowest taxes, and not adopt the risky spending schemes proposed by the NDP, and not return to the huge deficits and debt that there would be with the NDP, without question. We would also see that from the Liberal Party. There is only one party that Canadians know they can count on for lower taxes, balanced budgets, growth, and prosperity in this country, and that is our Conservative government under the leadership of our Prime Minister.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the comments of the member for Wild Rose with great interest. I believe that, unfortunately, he has mixed his adjectives up when talking about a prudent approach or premature action. Does he actually consider that it was prudent to promise up a $2 billion tax break to the families who need it the least at a time when the budget is not balanced? The government has created a huge vulnerability for this country in having balanced books with this premature tax break.

The key question I am wondering about is this. Does the member believe that part of the prudent approach is the deliberate clawback of over $1 billion from the Veterans Affairs budget and the slashing of front-line and other staff in Veterans Affairs by 1,000 members? Is it prudent to withdraw from injured armed forces members and veterans the very services and mental health care that they need and deserve?

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I say shame on the hon. member for the kinds of smears that I just heard. I did not hear any basis in fact for any of the things she talked about. Our government's commitment to veterans is completely absolute. We have an absolute commitment.

I want to thank her for the opportunity to comment on the approach she mentioned that our government would take as compared to the Liberal approach. This is very key, because there is a key difference between our approach and the approach of the Liberals. Their approach would be one that would see more money taken from taxpayers and given to bureaucrats in Ottawa, because they believe they know better than Canadians how to spend their own money. That is not the approach of our government.

Our approach is one that believes that Canadian families know best how to raise their own children and how to spend their own money, not bureaucrats in Ottawa. That is the key difference between the two parties. We would rather Canadians have their money returned to them in the form of tax cuts because we know that back in the pockets of Canadians is where money can be best spent by Canadians: on their needs and priorities.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to rise in the House today to join my colleagues in supporting the motion moved by my hon. colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

Before I begin my speech, I would like to mention that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Compton—Stanstead, and I look forward to hearing his presentation.

The motion is very simple. What the NDP wants is quite clear. I will nevertheless tell the government once again what we are looking for, because sometimes we talk but the message does not get through. I will therefore try again.

First of all, we are calling on the government to present a fiscal and economic update to Parliament in order to inform both parliamentarians and Canadians about the real state of our public finances. We do not want any bogus projections from the Conservatives, as we have seen recently. We want an update on the state of our public finances.

Furthermore, we are also calling on the government to commit to presenting a budget that includes measures to help the middle class and create good-quality jobs. Frankly, that would be a refreshing change. What we are asking for is not unreasonable; quite the contrary.

From the minute we started debating this motion today, the Conservatives have refused to answer our questions and be transparent with Canadians. They keep giving us spin. They would have us believe that they are excellent managers, but everyone knows that this is not true. I can understand them wanting to bury their heads in the sand because reality is far from being in their favour. The current situation in Canada very clearly illustrates this Conservative government's incompetence. As I was saying, the Conservatives would have us believe that they are good managers and that we should trust them to lead our economy and help middle-class families. However, Canadians know better.

The NDP has repeatedly talked about the Conservatives' obsession with developing natural resources at the expense of other sectors of the Canadian economy and the possible consequences of not diversifying the country's economy. We are facing those consequences today. The Conservatives have denied the facts and tried to discredit the NDP for various reasons. Today, we are facing a problematic situation with the current price of oil.

The price of a barrel of oil is plummeting. Recently, TD Economics announced that because of the rapid drop in oil prices, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for the Canadian government to balance the books for 2015-16, as promised. It is not likely to happen until 2017-18, and even that is pretty optimistic.

TD Bank seems to think that oil prices will recover, but other economists are much more pessimistic. A balanced budget could come even later than 2017-18 if conditions remain as they are.

I would like to quote from an article written by Alain Dubuc and published in La Presse yesterday. Nobody would accuse Mr. Dubuc of being a closet New Democrat. Nevertheless, he accurately portrayed the Conservatives' incompetence when it comes to the economy. He wrote:

The Canadian formula had less to do with Conservative genius than a fortuitous advantage—oil—over which they had no control. Canada's success—or rather the illusion of success based on oil-doped numbers—relied too heavily on burgeoning investment in oil and growth in the west, and not heavily enough on modernizing and diversifying the Canadian economy. That has led to significant environmental consequences and high costs for Quebec and Ontario. The government is therefore partly to blame for this turmoil.

As I was saying, Mr. Dubuc sums up the situation very well, and highlights the problem caused by the Conservatives when they decided to put all their eggs in one basket, and concentrate exclusively, or almost so, on the natural resources extraction sector to the detriment of other sectors of the economy. I am referring to the manufacturing sector, which has suffered huge losses in recent years.

We are now confronting job losses and the bankruptcy of big companies, as is now the case with Sony and Mexx, to mention only those two. Suncor is also announcing job cuts. Even the extractive sector is now suffering, because the price of oil is much too low.

Economists estimate that every $5 drop in the price of a barrel of oil costs our government nearly one billion dollars. We can thus imagine that if the price of oil stays as low as $45 U.S. a barrel, as it is today, that could represent a revenue loss of nearly $6 billion in a year for the Canadian government. Yet the Conservative government was relying on that revenue to generate a surplus and make election promises to its cronies. We thus have a problem on our hands. Apart from not necessarily being able to help Canadian families, we may find ourselves facing other cuts. The government’s choices are in fact fairly limited. That is why the NDP is now asking for an economic and financial update. It wants a real-world picture of the situation in order to be able to make the most appropriate choices for Canadian families.

Looking at the situation, I can certainly believe that the government is panicking, and wants to delay the tabling of its budget until April. However, crossing your fingers and hoping that the price of oil will stabilize or increase is not a valid economic strategy. I hope the Conservatives will realize this fairly quickly.

The Conservatives maintain that they will balance the budget, whatever it takes, but how are they going to achieve such a result? Are they going to cut services to Canadians even more than they have already done? Are they going to dip into the contingency reserve that should be used in emergencies, and not to fill gaps in the budget that the Conservatives were not able to foresee? Neither of these two choices represents a real solution that will benefit Canadian families. People are looking to the government for help.

A few months ago, we saw the Conservatives postponing $3 billion worth of military procurement because, there again, they saw that they would not be able to achieve their balanced budget. They cut in areas that directly affected frontline services to veterans, people that this government is constantly trying to make use of for electoral purposes. They claim to be big defenders of our military and our veterans, when we know very well that this is absolutely false. We will be facing agonizing choices because the Conservative government is quite simply incompetent in matters of economic management, and has not been able to prepare forecasts for the budget.

In fact, it chose instead to give election goodies to its buddies. Did it suggest the possibility of not implementing the expensive and inefficient income-splitting arrangement? Not at all. On the contrary, I believe it would look rather bad in this election year. However, the arrangement in question has been criticized by many experts and many economists. In addition to offering nothing to over 85% of Canadian families—which is huge—there are clear indications that setting up such a scheme would push the government into deficit. We are therefore in a difficult situation already, but the government is considering dipping into reserves that should be used in the case of floods or natural disasters, and unforeseen events of that kind. The government is out to win points in specific constituencies with a particular elite that the Conservatives are trying to win over, and it continues to push forward such a plan.

I clearly recall that the new Minister of Veterans Affairs was quite proud to announce to Canadians, to his Conservative supporters, that this tax measure introduced by his government would result in a tax credit of nearly $3,500 for his family. That is magic. Thank goodness there are limits on tax credits. I cannot imagine what he might get with his new minister's salary. What will this measure do for 85% of Canadian families? Absolutely nothing. Once again, the Conservatives hope to buy the vote of the wealthy with this gift.

What we are asking for today is very simple. We want the government to stop burying its head in the sand and be honest and transparent with Canadians for once. We want the government to present the actual economic situation. The NDP has proposed measures that could help Canadian families, such as our affordable national child care plan. When Quebec implemented its child care program, 70,000 women entered the labour market. This is a practical measure that will stimulate the economy and create jobs. I do not hear the government making such proposals. What we want to see today is a commitment from the government that it will present a budget that includes measures to help Canadian families and provide an economic update. It is very simple.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member might want to provide further comment in regard to the government's inability to provide a national budget in a timely fashion. It does very little to restore confidence that the Government of Canada actually knows what it is doing. The government is trying to give the impression that it wants to have balanced books, or even possibly a surplus in 2015-16, when there is actually no tangible indication that it has the ability to balance the books. It has demonstrated that, as the Prime Minister has added to our debt year after year.

Further to that, she might want to comment on how unfortunate it is that the government has not seen the merit of reversing its position on income splitting. We are talking about a $2-billion commitment that will benefit less than 15% of the population. That money is going to be coming out of the middle class. The government is really off track on so many fronts, the very least it could do is announce that it will have a budget and that it will be presented on such and such a date.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. He seems to have paid attention to my speech, because I went into great detail about how income splitting was not a valid measure. It does not help Canadian families, and the NDP has already committed to reversing that decision.

I do not understand the Conservatives' obsession. Actually, I do understand. There is an election coming up. They are trying to woo a small elite to try to win a few more votes. They are not providing tangible assistance for the majority of middle-class families.

What I would have liked—and the day is not over, so there is still time—is to hear what the member for Papineau thinks. I still have not heard his thoughts on this topic. He has made some contradictory statements recently. In London, Ontario, he said that we should transition away from the manufacturing sector. The following day, in Windsor, he told workers that we should invest in the automotive sector. That is a little confusing.

The Conservatives seem to be confused, but the Liberals are too. I would have liked to hear the member for Papineau clarify. I am still holding out hope, since the day is not over yet.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of respect for my colleague.

The Conservatives' reputation for being good economic managers is clearly a myth. They have concealed the figures. Is it possible to explain the kind of impact this interference has on planning for the national budget?

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question and compliment him on his mastery of Molière's language. I really appreciate the effort, and I am very impressed.

Let us get back to the crux of the matter, the problem that we are currently facing. The budget has been postponed. They say they will table it in April, but what do we know about it? We know nothing because the government is refusing to give us any information. When the Minister of Finance talks to journalists, he says it is exasperating to have to keep answering the same questions. If he actually bothered to give a clear answer, then maybe we would stop asking him those questions, but that seems to be a pretty complicated concept. That is where we are. Nobody has any idea what kind of budget we are in for.

The other especially negative consequence is that very tough choices will have to be made. What cuts will the government make to balance the books? If the government really believes that that is the goal it wants to achieve, fine. However, how will they achieve it? They have already closed Veterans Affairs Canada offices and raised the retirement age to 67. Plenty of decisions like that are being made, and they will have a direct negative impact on Canadian families. That is what the Conservatives' incompetence has wrought, and that is a real shame.