Debates of Feb. 4th, 2016

Opposition Motion—Department of Finance

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when I saw that the Conservatives were tabling this particular motion on their opposition day, part of me wanted to laugh and the other part struggled to fight off a deep frustration and a deep despair. Sure, the motion is factually correct and absolutely we support and salute the work of the officials of the Department of Finance, which the motion references. Yet there is a massive elephant in the room, and that is that this motion is designed to ignore the actual economic record. Yes, that elephant is the actual economic record of the former Conservative government. In fact, this motion seems designed to deflect attention away from the brutal fact that our country is only now emerging from one of the most grievous eras of economic mismanagement that we have ever had the misfortune to endure. The Conservatives like to present themselves as competent economic managers, but honestly, this was always more a public relations effort than fact. They seem to believe that if they just repeat this falsehood enough, people will believe it.

Let us talk about this record. According to analysis by economists Jordan Brennan and Jim Stanford, published last September—one that applied standard measures such as job creation, unemployment, GDP growth, productivity, personal incomes, debt, and more—the previous Conservative prime minister ranked or tied for last among all post-war prime ministers. He ranked or tied at second-last in another six cases. Across all 16 of the indicators the study used, the government's average ranking was the worst of any post-war administration—not even close to the second-worst, another Conservative, Brian Mulroney.

In a market economy, two of the most strategic components of spending are business spending and exports. The Conservatives' abysmal failure to garner more business investment within Canada and to increase exports has been especially damaging. Conservatives promised that expensive corporate tax cuts costing $15 billion per year would boost investment, and that signing more free trade deals would do the same for exports, but neither has worked, as we all know. Canadian corporations have not used the money saved by the tax cuts to create jobs or expand their infrastructure; they sat on it. Recent figures from Statistics Canada show corporate Canada's pile of dead money now hovers at $680 billion.

Exports hardly grew at all under the former prime minister—they were the slowest in post-war history—and business investment was stagnant and is now declining.

Government spending cuts, enforced in earnest after the Conservatives won their majority in 2011, only deepened our macroeconomic pit of despair. As noted by economists Scott Clark and Peter DeVries, when the Conservatives first formed government in 2006-2007, they inherited a surplus of $13.8 billion and within two years' time this became a deficit of $5.8 billion. After that point, the Conservatives were in deficit each and every year. If this is competent economic management, I shudder to think how Canadians would live under their conception of incompetence.

Economic growth has declined in every year since 2010 and averaged only 1.7% per year. In the previous nine years, economic growth averaged 3.4% per year. In 2014, only 120,000 new jobs were created, less than in 2013. Now these same people stand before us today, hoping that we will forget about all of this and just focus on a tiny moment in time when there was a tiny surplus that the Conservatives managed to obtain during their final weeks in power. Here we must ask ourselves how this surplus was achieved. It was by closing Veterans Affairs offices and by eliminating staff at Service Canada and indeed across every branch of the federal government responsible for delivering vital services to Canadians. The former government even used a flimsy legal technicality to deny claims of thousands of residential school victims.

It also turns out that federal departments and agencies helped out by not spending an estimated $8.7 billion for different programs that had been requested and often publicly announced by the government and approved by Parliament, the so-called lapsed funding.

Lastly, the surplus was achieved through the sale of General Motors in April-May of 2015, and the NDP opposed this sale. It was essentially the sale of these shares, an estimated $3.5 billion, that enabled the Conservative government to balance its pre-election budget. The main unions criticized this action, calling it short-term political gain for the next federal election—precisely. Therefore, the motion being debated today creates a false debate and is really a missed opportunity to talk about the real issues facing Canadians in these uncertain times. It is a futile effort to misrepresent the record of the former government by its remaining representatives in the House.

Canadians are not buying it. They know what is up and they know that this motion is an opposition day motion, with the emphasis on opposition. Meanwhile, there are families, workers, and low-income Canadians who are struggling to make ends meet. Conservatives are welcoming the numbers in this report, while Canadians continue to suffer the consequences of Conservative mismanagement.

Low-income Canadians, seniors, veterans, persons with disabilities, and those most vulnerable in our society face long wait times for their benefits, long wait times to have problems with their payments addressed or appealed, and across the board, the departments serving them have been cut to the bone by the former government. However, we are not supposed to think about our grandmothers or the elderly waiting for pension payments. We are supposed to focus on the surplus.

Accordingly, this motion is a missed opportunity to discuss real issues facing Canadians. We cannot contradict this motion. It is based on facts, however cherry-picked, and instead of wasting time squabbling over partisan numbers, my question is why the Conservatives and the Liberals are not discussing the issues that are actually affecting Canadians.

The NDP is the only progressive party that is actually working on behalf of workers and low-income Canadians. It proposed a number of concrete measures, including the national child benefit supplement, the guaranteed income supplement, $15-a-day child care for all Canadian families, and restoring the labour-sponsored tax credit. Instead of using their opposition day motion to try to rewrite economic and political history, I encourage the Conservatives to consider using such opportunities as a means to advance the real needs and interests of all Canadians.

[Alex Nuttall, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, a couple of speeches in a row by hon. members have mentioned that the timing of the General Motors share sale was not ideal. I find it interesting that the members would provide this information to the House considering that the very month that the shares were sold, the price, according to statistics, was $36.63. They said that they should be sold about six months down the road, with the advice they had been given from an economist, and six months down the road it had dropped $6 per share. Today, it has dropped even further.

My question is this. Is that the type of economic management we could expect from the NDP?

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are playing with numbers. They can isolate a moment in time and pretend that they are trying to advance ideology, but we all know that this report shows there are surpluses and deficits. This is just so self-indulgent when we could be moving forward.

We have shown real discipline in how we would be advancing all of our social causes. We laid that out in a fully costed platform, and we were the only party that did that.

[Bob Bratina, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the historic record that our colleague across the way presented. One was left out, and that had to do with the potential for revenue generation for the government.

Internal documents from the Canada Revenue Agency showed that it cut some of its most highly trained staff and folded international tax evasion units because of the 2014 budget freeze. Senior managers and trained auditors, who were considered among the most highly skilled experts at the CRA, were let go, basically. Therefore, the government, through the CRA, backed down from chasing after offshore tax cheats.

The offshore money is in the billions of dollars. Is the member aware of how the budget freeze actually affected revenue generation by the government through the method I just talked about?

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I can add to that list. I know the history that I went through in my speech was expedited to make the point that this was a false debate.

I can talk about the variety of housing options that are at the brink of crisis because they are expiring. We need an affordable housing commitment from the federal government. What about our commitment to health care? If the Conservatives are such brilliant money managers, they must know that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure and that the Canada accord, a recommitment to health care, and real national leadership in providing health care in Canada is probably the smartest way to maximize our tax resources.

We could go on, but the whole point is that to have this kind of debate and to talk about these meaningful items is better done in the context of really advancing some good policies. It is really unfortunate that we are having this meaningful exchange here over something that is such a flagrant misuse of the opposition day.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Before we resume debate, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Foreign Affairs; the hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, Foreign Affairs; the hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, Employment Insurance.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for York—Simcoe.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be dividing my time today with the hon. member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin.

The constituents of my riding, York—Simcoe, are what I like to call severely normal Canadians. They value honesty from those who represent them. They work hard. They pay their taxes. They follow the rules.

They want the government to give them the freedom to succeed and build a brighter future for their families. That freedom means having more money for their own priorities through lower taxes. That brighter future means managing their finances and their mortgages, and ensuring their children do not inherit burdens that block their desire to achieve their dreams.

The previous Conservative government reflected that mindset and those values. Those constituents knew the Conservative government was on their side. They knew it when they saw life become better as federal taxes fell to their lowest level in half a century, since 1963 when John Diefenbaker led a Conservative government.

My constituents knew that the Conservative government was on their side when measures like the universal child care benefit made their lives better. In fact, UNICEF reported that hundreds of thousands of Canadian children climbed out of poverty at that time. That was despite Canada going through the global economic downturn, the most dramatic in my lifetime.

Despite that downturn, the Conservative government delivered the stimulus through tax reductions and short-term stimulus spending to make Canada the first major economy to return to growth. Indeed, we were the first G7 economy to recover the jobs that had been lost during the economic downturn, and the first to recover the lost GDP from that downturn.

Then we set out with determination to return to a balanced budget, with a surplus of $1.9 billion being achieved in the fiscal year 2014-15, a full year ahead of schedule. However, at the same time, my constituents have been burdened by an Ontario Liberal government that does not share their values, one that sees big spending, deficits and debt as the way to go, both in good times and in bad.

As a result, my constituents are drowning under the burdens foisted on them by that Ontario Liberal government, burdens of higher taxes, fees, rafts of red tape, and job-killing regulation, and rocketing hydro rates.

Well the hole is so deep now in Ontario, that this same Ontario Liberal crowd, which has left the cupboard bare, has now spotted the surplus in Ottawa. Now those people have come up here to continue to those big spending debt and deficit ways. What is their way of doing things?

In Ontario, the debt has reached a staggering $300 billion. That is almost $22,000 for each man, woman, and child in the province. The deficit is $7.5 billion. It is now clear that the Ontario Liberal way of doing things is coming to Ottawa.

Three facts are clear from the finance department's report so far.

First, in 2014-15, the last full fiscal year under a Conservative government, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion.

Second, from April to October 2015, under a Conservative government, a six-month period of time, there was a surplus of $1 billion. The same pattern, the exact same trajectory as the previous year.

Third, by the end of March 2016, after just five months of a Liberal government, there will be a deficit of $3 billion. A year later, there will be an even higher deficit.

This should not surprise anyone. The Liberal Party actually campaigned on a commitment to run deficits. During that election when I occasionally ran into people who told me they were voting Liberal, I would ask them what they liked, was it the promised deficits or the higher taxes? They would usually say to me that it was none of those things. I would tell them that this was what they would get. In turn they would say they did not think so.

I would tell them it was in the Liberal platform, that it was spelled out, and that is what the Liberals had committed. Their comment was that the Liberals always broke their promises. To which I would tell they that they might be surprised, that these might be promises they would actually keep.

We are discovering that this is the case. Clearly, whatever new face those Liberals thought they were voting for in the last election, they were not looking for the higher taxes and the deficits that the Liberal government believes is its mandate.

Those constituents are, however, correct in at least one regard. Liberal promises are already being broken. The Liberals promised their tax measures would be revenue neutral, but now they have already admitted that they are not revenue neutral. They will in fact dig an additional deficit hole of $1.4 billion to $1.7 billion annually. That is not my number. That comes from the Liberal Minister of Finance. That is his admission of how that Liberal promise is being broken. Unfortunately, that broken promise and others to come will only make deeper the hole into which Canada will be pushed.

When I was House leader of the government, I was astounded by the remarkable discipline that our then prime minister and our team, working with two very hard-working finance ministers and in fact the whole team, applied to the question of fiscal discipline. The work to achieve a balanced budget overall was in the interests of all Canadians. When there is a chance to be in government and see how challenging it is to manage the finances and the economy, people see how narrow that margin of manoeuvre is. It is like driving a car down a winding mountain road. It takes only a small amount of recklessness or inattention before going in the ditch or worse.

In Ontario, my constituents are waiting for that provincial tow truck to arrive. Their well-grounded fear often expressed to me is that the same crowd who drove Ontario into the ditch now wants to continue that sloppy ride on the federal scene, putting Canada off the solid fiscal road it was on. They know that at the end of the day it is ordinary Canadians like them who will have to pay for it all.

It is often said that history is written by the victors. What is said less often is what we hear from the other side of the House today, and that is history being rewritten by the victors. They did it in the Soviet Union. They do it in North Korea. Now the Liberals are trying to do it in Canada. Fortunately, this is Canada and Canadians will not be fooled by this Liberal overreach. That is because Canadians have access to objective facts, objective facts from the Department of Finance and objective facts from the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

What are those facts? First, there was a $1.9 billion surplus in 2014-15, the last full fiscal year that the Conservatives were in government. Second, there was a $1 billion surplus over the last six months of the Conservative government, April to November, 2015.

The question remains. Why, if the Liberals have promised to run deficits and they make a virtue of it, and there can be no doubt that Liberals see deficits as virtuous, are they so anxious to try to rewrite history, to go into those documents in the library at the finance department and cut out, with their scissors, any reference to past Conservative surpluses? I believe we all know the answer. Liberal deficits will be far higher than anyone thinks and they cannot bear to see the contrast with the Conservatives.

The problem with the party that believes that deficits are a good thing, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons said today, is that they just cannot get enough of a good thing. If people believe a small deficit is good, it is not long before they start believing that a bigger deficit is better and before we know it, a huge deficit is just awesome. That, however, is how Liberal thinking always works. Before we know it we will find that the budget does not actually balance itself. That is the path we are already on. It did not take long, but the spending and deficits that the Liberals promise and are now delivering will ensure that at the end of next month we will be solidly in the red politically and fiscally. We will have gone year over year from $2 billion in surplus to $3 billion in deficit.

Many out there are critical of our Conservative government's focus on achieving a balanced budget. There can be no doubt that the hard work and discipline of running a tight fiscal ship is not a lot of fun and sometimes people want to have some fun, and some money can buy fun. However, there is much truth in the saying that money cannot buy happiness. While some may argue with it, and some may argue that money can buy at least some happiness, nobody can argue that drowning in debt will do anything other than bringing continual misery.

As for my constituents, they would prefer responsible leaders refusing to have fun with their tax dollars to happy politicians spending away, burying Canadians under a mountain of misery, debt, and taxes. Balancing the budget was the right thing to do. A steady hand on the tiller is what Canadians need. Our steady hands, a disciplined prime minister, and our hard-working finance ministers steadied the Canadian ship through the stormy seas of the biggest global economic downturn of my lifetime. We came out the other side with a balanced budget, solid books, low taxes, and a rising tide that was lifting the fortunes of all Canadians. It is a pity that it has taken so little time for that ship of state to start springing leaks and taking on water.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for York—Simcoe wants to talk about past Conservative surpluses, so let us talk about them.

The former Conservative government of the member for Calgary Heritage was the first Conservative government since that of Sir Robert Borden in 1912, the year the Titanic sank, to balance any budget whatsoever. The two governments had something very important in common. Both squandered the surpluses left to them by the previous Liberal governments prior to the onset of significant economic challenges.

For Mr. Borden, 1912 saw a surplus inherited from Sir Wilfred Laurier in 1911. In 1913, Borden posted a deficit. In 1914, the First World War broke out.

For the former Prime Minister from Calgary Heritage, the Liberal surplus was so significant that it took him two full years to squander it before the onset of the 2008 fiscal crisis the following year.

That Conservatives are in any way good fiscal managers is one of the great myths of Canadian political discourse.

Does the member know that the last time the Conservatives actually took us from a deficit to a surplus on their own competence was in the 1870s, and does he know that every Liberal Prime Minister to introduce a budget has balanced at least one?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the last time was last year. Before that we had balanced budgets that paid down some $40 billion against the national debt when the previous prime minister was in office, so in fact, the Conservative record is solid, and that is clear and widely seen.

What I find interesting is hearing Liberals and some new Democrats argue earlier today that it was only the General Motors sale that made this happen. Ironically, the Liberals are arguing that earlier the Ontario Liberals sold all their shares.

We were the last ones to sell the shares, and in so doing achieved a far greater share price than the Ontario Liberals did, if the hon. member wants to know who are good managers.

What is more, despite the Liberals selling the shares and applying that to the books and selling off Hydro One and applying that to the books and selling off whatever other furniture they could find around Ontario, they are still running a $7.5 billion deficit. There will not be much left if they keep selling off things the way Liberals do.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am a little confused about why the Conservatives would want to pass self-congratulatory motions for the work they claim to have done.

When we look at what Liberal and Conservative governments have done to try to balance their books, it is clear that they have always begun by cutting provincial transfers. So much so that the parliamentary budget officer said that, in 30 years, Ottawa will have paid off all of its debts while the provinces will be on the verge of bankruptcy.

That being the case, how can my colleague be proud of the Conservatives' record?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in fairness, I think the hon. member is a little bit confused. Transfers under our government to the provinces increased maximally. In fact, transfers to my province increased some 80% over the time that the Conservative Party was in government, which was in stark contrast to what Paul Martin and the Liberals did when they decided to attack the deficit, which was slash funding to the provinces by over 40%. Does everyone remember that the health care crisis back there in the nineties, 1997 and 1996, when health care was slashed and every single province was struggling, because that was the Liberal approach, to slash transfers to the provinces.

We did the opposite. We increased health care transfers to the provinces well ahead than the rate of inflation, in fact, higher than the rate of inflation in health care spending. The federal share of health care funding under our government rose. The provincial share of health care spending under our government fell. We were doing more than our fair share.

Our concern is, what happens when another debt and deficit gets built up? We know the Liberals' way: it will hurt people.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as this is the first time I am standing in the House in this new Parliament, I will start by thanking the voters of Edmonton—Wetaskiwin for their strong support in this last election. We got just a little more than 45,000 votes, which was the fifth-highest vote total in the country. There was strong support for our Conservative record over the past decade for a balanced budget and significant leadership in navigating our country's course through the global economic slowdown of 2008.

I want to take the opportunity to thank my kids, Jaden and Jenae, who played an increased role in the campaign and also play an increasing role in my position as a member of Parliament, in coming on the road and helping me do a lot of the work that I do on autism. Many people know that my 20-year-old son has autism, and many people in this room have received a high-five from him at some time or another. I thank them for sharing me with constituents and stakeholders, both in the constituency and across the country.

I will also take this chance to thank my mom, Bonnie, and her husband, Dale, for their tireless support. One of the highlights of my week is driving with my mother to the airport. It is our time together. When we do not get any other time to spend together, we get 20 minutes when she comes to pick me up, sometimes at 5:30 in the morning, and takes me to the airport. It is a great opportunity for us to catch up.

I will also take the opportunity to thank my staff in both my Edmonton and Ottawa offices, who do and have done phenomenal work over 10 years in support of what we get a chance to do.

Finally, and I think it is important in the context of what we are talking about today, I want to thank the officials at Industry Canada. I had the opportunity to be the parliamentary secretary for eight years at Industry, and those public servants were absolutely phenomenal during that time in supporting me. I was always amazed at how they could take a complicated topic and within half an hour give a briefing that would help me look sometimes like an expert, which may be debatable from different sides of the House. However, the work they do is phenomenal and it was a great pleasure to work with them in addition to the ministerial staff and ministers that I got a chance to work with.

On the topic we are talking about today, as we went through the election campaign I heard, and have heard a lot since, about the importance of balanced budgets, and the importance of that Conservative leadership that we have shown on the economy over the last decade. I also heard a lot about the strength of the Canadian middle class. There was a recognition of that as I was on the campaign trail. However, there were a lot of things being said during the campaign that were not entirely true. I think we still hear some of that coming from the government side today in the image it is trying to portray.

I will focus today on three Liberal fictions that I have seen over the last several months as we have been going through this.

First, there is a fiction that Canada's middle class is struggling. Certainly we all want Canadians to be better off. We all want to create an environment where all Canadians can succeed, no matter their level of wealth, their job, or position in life. However, the fact is that Canada's middle class is the strongest in the world.

It is not the former Conservative government that is saying that. It is not our Conservative members of Parliament who are saying that. The New York Times reported on the Luxembourg Income Study, which put forward a paper that talked about Canada being number one in the world in terms of income levels at the 30th, 40th, and 50th income percentiles. These are independent organizations that have said that. Notwithstanding that, the Liberals, during the election campaign and even now, continue to talk about the struggling Canadian middle class.

Andrew Coyne put it brilliantly when he wrote back in May that:

Introducing his “fairness for the middle class” tax plan, [the Liberal leader] waxed lyrical about a golden time, still within memory, when opportunity beckoned and the sun shone year ’round.

Coyne continued:

Of course, there was no such era. It was just something to say—the same myth-making on which the entire plan is based. In Liberal mythology, the middle class is forever to be “struggling”, forgotten, falling behind.

Coyne concluded by saying:

But then, every line of the Liberal story is a fraud. The middle class isn't struggling: the $53,000 the median family earned after tax in 2012 is an all-time high—24% more than in 1997, after inflation. The rich aren't pulling away from the rest of us: the share of all income going to the top 1% has been falling steadily since 2006. At 10.3 per cent, it is back to where it was in 1998.

I will give the final word to none other than a prominent conservative speaker, Hillary Clinton, who said:

Canadian middle-class incomes are now higher than in the United States. They are working fewer hours for more pay, enjoying a stronger safety net, living longer on average, and facing less income inequality.

The fact of the matter is that this notion that Canada's middle class is struggling that the Liberals campaigned on is a complete fiction.

A second fiction, and the one we are debating today, is the fact that they inherited a deficit. I say “fact”. I put quotation marks around that because the fact is that the Department of Finance has confirmed that Canada posted a $1-billion surplus up to November 2015, when the Liberals took office.

That is very important because there have been a lot of things said today and over the course of the last several months. It is very important to notice that in addition to the $1-billion surplus, we increased funding for the Canada health transfer by 6% over that year period and a 3% increase in the Canada social transfer over that period. That is a $1.5-billion increase in these two important transfers.

After the 2008 global financial crisis, the Conservative government laid out a comprehensive stimulus plan and a seven-year plan to get back to budget balance.

It was interesting to hear the Liberal member opposite allude to that earlier in his question. I know he is a new member and that he has maybe not had the benefit of doing a Google search before he asked the question, but if he did, he would find statement after statement by Liberal members of Parliament, from opposition members from all sides, absolutely demanding that the government spend more money, that we spend on a broader range of programs, and that we extend that spending. Of course, during that time, members will remember that our plan was targeted, it was time-limited, and our spending was designed to expire and we laid out a solid plan to get back to budget balance. However, time and again, every single day, Liberal members of Parliament stood and demanded more spending and demanded that spending be made permanent.

It is a bit of a mythological world, I guess, that the Liberals live in over there, but hopefully today will clarify some of that record.

Finally, I will deal with the last fiction, the fiction that they will only run $10-billion deficits every year.

First, I underline the word “only”, because only $10 billion in deficit is a ridiculous way of phrasing it in the first place. Clearly, the Parliamentary Budget Officer has looked at the facts and projected that the deficits will be billions of dollars higher over the years. In fact, we are talking tens of billions of dollars higher—so high, in fact, that Liberal members cannot even clarify it. They have no way of quantifying what those numbers will be.

Let me just close by saying that this is my first time in opposition. I very much look forward to holding the government to account. I want to avoid going back to the time when the Liberal government of the day, a former Trudeau government back in the 1970s, took steps to increase deficits and run massive deficits, starting the cycle in the first place and another Liberal government then had to slash spending on health care and social service and education transfers by billions of dollars.

We hope that mistake will not be made by the government. We will oppose those types of measures every step of the way.

On this important motion, we hope that we will have the support of all members of the House.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am a rookie in the House. I believe that the biggest political fiction, since that is the topic, is that the Conservatives deliver balanced budgets while the Liberals do not. The Conservatives talk a lot about delivering balanced budgets but they are not good at delivering them. It is a distinction with a difference.

Would my friend agree that, in the last 30 years, Liberal governments have delivered more balanced budgets than Conservative governments have, yes or no?

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would have to look at the record in terms of the actual numbers for that. The member can check the record on this. It is really easy to find news articles.

If my colleague was to Google the word “coalition” he might find that in 2008 his leader of the day tried to form a coalition with the Bloc and the NDP to take over the Conservative government of the day, because we could not spend enough to satisfy them at that time, immediately after an election campaign.

We took a world-leading approach to the global financial crisis. Organizations around the world, from the OECD to the World Economic Forum to the IMF, praised Canada's approach in that crisis, partly because we delivered the stimulus quickly. We came out of the crisis faster than other countries. We did that despite the fact that Liberal members of Parliament demanded more spending and longer spending. We would still be running deficits today if the Liberals had had their way.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I would like to ask him to explain to the House why the Conservatives are suddenly so afraid of deficits. Today is not the first time we have heard this.

The Conservatives are getting all worked up because the government is predicting a deficit, when they racked up $153 billion in debt during their mandate. Furthermore, a Conservative finance minister proposed this strategy to stimulate the economy. They decided to make significant investments as part of what they called Canada's economic action plan.

Now, when this government is talking about doing the same thing, the Conservatives seem to be working themselves into a state because the government has an action plan similar to the one they proposed. Why are they suddenly against deficits now, when they themselves racked up $153 billion in debt during their mandate?

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asks why we would not want to see the government run a deficit. First of all, it is not exactly the same thing. There was a global financial crisis, and leaders around the world took measures to coordinate their approaches at a fiscal level to ensure that, as a world, we were able to pull forward. Canada took a leadership role in that, along with other countries. New Democrats, who were in the House during that time, demanded more spending all the time, as they do almost every day in the House of Commons.

Why is it that we do not want to go down that road today? It is because we saw what happened with Liberal governments in the past. We saw the devastating cuts that they had to make to health care and post-secondary education, and they threw them on the backs of the provinces. Provinces like Ontario and Alberta and others had to respond to that because suddenly the transfers were turned off.

As a government, we were able to get our budget back to balance coming out of the global crisis. We were able to do that while dramatically increasing investments at the same time in transfers for health care, social services, and education, as the member for York—Simcoe so aptly mentioned in his comments. That is important.

As we move forward as a country, and if we are going to avoid the types of decisions that a previous Liberal government had to make and governments around the world have to make in terms of cutting really important services for their voters, balanced budgets are critical. We hope that NDP members will support this important motion.

[Leona Alleslev, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement]

Mr. Speaker, as this is my first time rising in this House in this capacity, I want to briefly highlight my riding of Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, a new riding made up three existing ones. It is a vibrant, energetic, and growing region. I would also like to thank my constituents who placed their trust in me to represent them, and I would like to thank my family members for their unfailing support: my husband and best friend, Ted; and my two children, Christopher whose birthday is tomorrow and Hillary whose birthday is next week.

I am honoured to rise in this House to speak to this important topic, and I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Kanata—Carleton.

I rise today to underline the decisive steps that our government has taken to address the challenges facing our economy; steps we took immediately after the Canadian people handed us a majority mandate for a new approach that prioritizes long-term economic growth. Since last fall, we have continued to see headlines about the weaknesses in the global economy. Despite volatility in the economy, what Canadians can always count on is the tireless professionalism of many public servants working on their behalf. This is why I am disappointed by the opposition's efforts to drag in the civil servants of the Department of Finance to score a passive-aggressive partisan point.

The numbers up to November 2015 are clear. They are in line with a projected small deficit for 2015-2016. Let us take a closer look at the numbers. Revenues for April to November increased by $14.2 billion, or 8.2%, from the same period last year. These numbers are a result of unique circumstances that are no longer congruent with current fiscal realities and that do not reflect the previous government's stewardship of the economy. These circumstances were in part due to the $2.1-billion gain realized on the sale of General Motors common shares and on higher corporate income tax revenues.

The opposition cannot bank on one-off situations and claim sound economic management. The reality is that revenue growth is expected to slow over the remainder of the fiscal year, reflecting economic trends of collapsing commodity prices that have not yet recovered and look likely to remain low over the medium term. The only people who believe that the previous Conservative government left behind a surplus are the Conservatives themselves. Canadians know better.

Make no mistake, the Government of Canada will post a deficit for the 2015-2016 fiscal year, and that deficit rests squarely on the shoulders of the actions and inactions taken by the previous government. That is a fact. The previous Liberal government left behind a $13 billion surplus in 2006, and the Conservative government squandered that surplus and accumulated an additional $150 billion in new debt while still delivering the worst growth record since the Great Depression.

We have been, and will continue to be, proactive managers of the economy. Since our earliest days in office, we have had a plan to grow the economy, create jobs, and invest in communities. It began with the government tabling, as its first order of business on December 7, a notice of ways and means motion to provide a much-needed tax cut for the middle class. This is the first of three major economic planks that we are moving forward on, and they reflect what we feel is the lifeblood of Canadian society, the middle class.

I want to remind the opposition that it is our government that has brought tax relief to the middle class during these troubled times, a tax cut that would put money in the pockets of about nine million Canadians a year. This was the right thing to do, and the smart thing to do for our economy. The proposed middle-class tax cut and accompanying proposals would help make the tax system fairer, so that all Canadians have the opportunity to succeed and prosper.

Canada is in a strong position to face the future. Our debt-to-GDP ratio is well below the G7 average, and keeping our debt-to-GDP ratio on a downward path throughout our mandate remains a central plank of our economic agenda. We have a well-educated population, we have abundant natural resources, we are fortunate to have the world's largest economy as a neighbour, and diplomatically, Canada is back on the world stage in a big way.

We are actively pursuing our long-term vision. Many leading economists agree that strategic planning and investments in bridges, roads, and other building projects are essential ingredients needed for creating long-term growth. This type of investment requires forethought, planning, and most importantly, working with others. The government is working with provinces, municipalities, and indigenous communities to ensure that the funding decisions we make are sensible for the present and future needs of those communities.

Going forward, the government will introduce proposals in the budget to create a new Canada child benefit. Payments under the new Canada child benefit would begin in July 2016. In addition to replacing the universal child care benefit, which is not tied to income, the proposed Canada child benefit would simplify and consolidate existing child benefits while ensuring that help is better targeted to those who need it the most.

All of these initiatives demonstrate that our sights are clearly set on the future. These actions would help strengthen the middle class and those who are working hard to join it, by putting more in the pockets of Canadians, to save, invest, and grow the economy. More broadly, they would help grow our economy in the context of a difficult global economic climate, so that all Canadians can benefit. We have also brought an open and collaborative approach to how we are going to solve the problems facing us.

To ensure that our plans align with Canadians' needs, the government is continuing its pre-budget consultations online and through submissions. We are open to hearing what Canadians have to say and have been encouraged by the record number of people engaged in sharing ideas. So far, Canadians have identified economic growth as their top priority. Canadians know that economic growth means bettering their own circumstances but also bettering those of their communities. Canadians identify economic growth with opportunities not only for themselves but for others in their communities and those across the country.

The government will continue to develop measures and pursue a fiscal plan that is responsible, transparent, and suited to challenging economic times. These plans will be most effective when all of us seize the opportunities to grow our economy together and for the benefit of all.

The economic and fiscal update presented in November gave Canadians a transparent picture of our economic and fiscal situation. It makes clear that the previous government put the country on track for a $3 billion deficit. It takes into account such factors as low and volatile crude oil prices and weak global environment, risk factors that have become more pronounced in recent months. After 10 years of weak growth, this government has a plan to grow the economy and create jobs by focusing on the middle class, investing in infrastructure, and helping those who need it most.

My colleagues have spoken about the support our plan has already received. We will continue our focus, and we aim to grow the economy in a responsible way, with a long-term vision.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask a question for my hon. colleague across the way. Maybe she has the answer. The Liberal government continues to go on and on about this great engagement of Canadians from coast to coast to coast and meeting with stakeholder groups from communities far and wide.

I would like to know the communities that government members are going into and if they can provide us with the geographic data, whether it is the 3,500 Canadians they have heard from, or the 80,000 that the Minister of Finance mentioned, or the 150,000 Canadians that have responded to their online forums. I would like to know the geographic data, where it is coming from, and who is advising the government.

[Leona Alleslev, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are getting information, feedback, and data from all over the country, from online submissions to emails directly to our constituency office. I was privileged enough to have a public pre-budget consultation in my riding, where a significant number of people attended. We also then met with the region, and others have met with the provincial leaders. We have met with all the stakeholders and are continuing to welcome any feedback.

We look forward to members of the House asking their constituents to participate as well. The pre-budget consultation process is vastly important. We are privileged to have the participation of Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was struck by the fact that my colleague and a number of her caucus mates had talked about the fact that the government is charged with safeguarding the community, growing the economy, and fairness.

However, one of the things that troubles me is exactly what one does when one is in deep deficit. One of the things we have seen in the Province of Ontario is the Kathleen Wynne Liberal government selling off an important asset, that being Ontario Hydro. A government cannot win when it is selling off the assets that are important to sustaining it.

Therefore, my question is, does the member agree with the provincial Liberals and their sale of Ontario Hydro, and what would the federal Liberals do in regard to creating that balanced budget? Would they follow their provincial cousins and sell off assets?

[Leona Alleslev, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member fully appreciates that provincial decisions are not something the federal government is really in a position to comment on. However, I can say that our government is focused on investment in infrastructure. We believe that social infrastructure, transit, roads, rail, and most importantly, green infrastructure are the lifeblood and the transition that is going to take this economy from where it is now to be well positioned and internationally competitive into the future.

By making those investments we are defining the foundation upon which our country was built and what the economy will be built on not only today but into the future. That is why our government is committed to that in the budget.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to members opposite on the issue in front of the House right now, talking about how bad Conservative budgets were in the previous government. I would like to ask a quick question. Does she know that the Liberals voted for the Conservatives' first budget in the spring of 2006?

[Leona Alleslev, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I can certainly say that a Conservative government that was selling assets at a loss to make a feigned attempt at a surplus, as it did, is not sound financial management. Even that feigned attempt by the previous government did not result in a balanced budget, but rather a deficit for the 2015-16 fiscal year. That is why the motion has no merit.

[Karen McCrimmon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, since this is the first time I am rising in the House in this capacity, I want to thank the people of Kanata—Carleton for having placed their confidence in me. I also want to thank my husband, Rob, and my children, Kyle and Brea, for their confidence and support over all these many years.

There has been much discussion about Canada's current economic situation and its economic performance over the past decade. This discussion should not be treated as just another example of partisan bickering. It demands serious and in-depth analysis. This analysis is critical, because the consequences of getting it wrong will have a serious impact on all Canadians.

Of course, Liberals believe that the previous Conservative approach to the economy was the wrong approach for the country. This is why the economy ended up being a primary issue for most of the recent election campaign.

Einstein is quoted as saying that if he had one hour to save the world, he would spend 55 minutes defining the problem and only five minutes trying to find the solution.

I believe that we need to be honest with ourselves about the state of the Canadian economy. We need to stop playing politics with the data to create a false sense of security. We also need to be honest with ourselves about the challenges ahead. We need to select a course of action that can help turn around this weak economy and actually help the thousands of Canadians who are currently struggling.

Do we want to talk about balanced budgets? We can. Canada may have had one balanced budget since 2007-08, but that was only because of fire sales of Canada's property assets around the world. However, Canada did have balanced budgets from 1996 to 2007, and during that period, we paid down our national debt by almost $70 billion.

The previous government delivered deficit after deficit for the budget years 2008 to 2014. During the tenure of the previous government, it added almost $150 billion of new debt to our national debt. If we take that $153 billion and spread it over seven years, it translates to deficits of about $20 billion per year.

We need to stop considering snapshots in time as a true indicator of annual performance. We need to stop playing politics with the numbers and the Canadian economy, and together we need to get to work.

The level of economic activity in Canada and the government's revenue vary depending on the season. The government receives more revenue during the summer months when all the seasonal industries, such as the fisheries and the agricultural, forestry, construction, and tourism industries, are active. However, expenses have to be paid all year long. As a result, any consideration of the matter of deficit must reflect the entire fiscal year, not just a select period in the most economically active months.

I would like to remind members that the 2015 update of economic and fiscal projections indicated that, under the previous government, the Canadian economy shrank in the first quarter of 2015. The gross domestic product dropped by 0.8% in the first quarter and 0.5% in the second. We still do not have the figures for the third quarter, but there is nothing to suggest that the economic conditions have improved.

There will also be a deficit of approximately $3 billion for the 2015-16 fiscal year.

With the previous government running all of these deficits, including in the 2015-16 fiscal year, what does Canada have to show for it?

First, let us talk about job losses. It is estimated that 400,000 good-paying jobs in manufacturing and heavy industry have been lost, and now a further calamitous loss of 70,000 jobs in the once booming oil sector.

My colleague from Windsor, Ontario must well know that Windsor was once a booming city of Canada's manufacturing heartland. It now has an unemployment rate of 9.7%, and has had for almost five or six years.

Other important facts and figures put together by independent non-partisan officials include those related to Canada's trade deficit. Under the previous government, Canada hit record trade deficits. For a country whose economy has such a strong basis in exports, this demonstrates the failures of the previous government to diversify our economy and make it more resilient.

While I acknowledge that the previous government did make efforts toward diversifying which markets we were selling to, it neglected to consider the diversity of the products that we were bringing to the global market. It also neglected to do enough to spur more investment into research and development to help design, build and sell made-in-Canada products and technologies.

With respect to the record trade deficits, Canada needs to be an export nation. Canada's all-time trade surplus of $8.5 billion was in 2001 under a Liberal government. The all-time low for Canada was a $3.7 billion deficit in March of 2015. That is a $12.2 billion difference from high to low.

It is important to remember that when we sell a raw product, we are only earning 30% of the available equity in that product. For every step we take that product up the value-added chain, we can be earning another 20% to 30% of the equity in that product, while creating jobs at the same time.

In order for Canada's economy to be strong and robust, it needs to be flexible and diversified and cannot be left entirely at the mercy of the commodities markets. Economists have warned that the commodities markets are known for being vulnerable to interference, speculation, and manipulation, and that is the situation we are in today, a boom-bust cycle.

Workers across Canada are now facing the consequences of the previous government failing to anticipate the current situation and failing to ensure that contingency plans were in place to deal with the possibility of an oil glut. Can we make money with oil at $30 a barrel when we are only getting a discounted price for our product? That is what has been happening for the last few years.

Canada has been paid approximately 30% below the world market price for the raw products from our oil sands. One reason may be that there are only two or three nations that can purchase our product: the U.S., China, and maybe India. If members think that any of those countries would actually pay us the world market price, we will be sadly disappointed.

The path chosen by the previous government did not produce the desired results: a resilient and flexible economy where we earn a good price for our product because we have a host of customers wanting to purchase our exports and that is the challenge today. We need—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Order. I am sorry, your time is up. I am sure that you will be able to finish during the question period.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills.