Debates of Feb. 4th, 2016

Business of the House

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to underline the decisive steps that our government has taken to address 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 continue to see headlines about the weakness in the global economy. Despite volatility in this economy, what Canadians can always count on is the tireless professionalism of the many public servants working on their behalf. This is why I am so taken by the opposition's efforts to drag civil servants of the Department of Finance into an effort to score passive aggressive partisan points. It is simply unacceptable.

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 the April to November 2015 period increased by $14.2 billion, or 8.2%, from the same period last year. These numbers are the result of unique circumstances, circumstances that are no longer congruent with the current fiscal realities, circumstances that do not reflect the previous government's stewardship of the economy. These circumstances were in part due to a $2.1 billion gain realized on the sale of General Motors common shares in April and higher corporate income tax revenues.

The opposition cannot bank on one-off situations and then 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, prices that have not yet recovered and look 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 taken and inaction of the previous government. This is a fact.

The previous Liberal government left behind a $13 billion surplus in 2006. The Conservative government squandered that surplus and accumulated an additional $150 billion in new debt, while still managing to deliver 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, as its first order of business on December 7, tabling a notice of ways and means motion to provide a much-needed tax cut for Canada's middle class. This is the first of three major economic planks on which we are moving forward. They reflect on 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 puts money into the pockets of about nine million Canadians each 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 will 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 trajectory 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. Also, diplomatically, Canada is back on the world stage in a big way. We are actively pursuing a long-term vision.

Many leading economists agree that strategic planning and investment in bridges, roads, and other building projects are essential ingredients for creating long-term economic growth. This type of investment requires forethought, planning, and most importantly, working with others. Our government is committed to working with provinces, municipalities, and indigenous communities to ensure that our funding decisions make sense 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 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 money 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 that are facing us. To ensure that our plan is aligned with Canadians' needs, the government is continuing its pre-budget consultations online, as well as through submissions. We are open to hearing what Canadians have to say, and we have been encouraged by the record number of people engaged in sharing their 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 their communities. Canadians identify economic growth with opportunities not only for themselves but for the people in their communities and, indeed, across our great country.

The government will continue to develop measures and pursue a fiscal plan that is responsible, transparent, and suited to these 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. Now is the time to overcome the challenges we face in our economy, in the House, and in Canadian homes. Given the headwinds that the Canadian economy is facing, it makes sense to follow through on our commitment to a strong and growing middle class, because it is central to a healthy economy and helps to ensure that all Canadians have a fair and real chance to succeed.

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 a weak global economic 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, to create jobs by focusing on the middle class, by investing in infrastructure, and by helping those who need it most. My colleagues have spoken about the support that our plan has already received and, indeed, that our plan has received in my riding of Mississauga—Lakeshore. We will continue our focus, and we will aim to grow the economy in a responsible way, with a long-term vision.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting. Canadians have a big problem on their hands with the current government. What they have is a government that does not seem to be able to understand and manage money. There is no accountability. When the Liberals ran, as the member mentioned, they were going to run a modest deficit of $10 billion. I would ask that the member clarify whether that, in fact, is the number that the deficit will be.

When the Liberals talked about this great tax relief, they said it would be revenue neutral. Even the private business that the finance minister was formerly involved with says it is actually not neutral. It is about a $2 billion deficit. What has happened over the years is that, when Liberals get into trouble, they go back to the people, as they did in the 1990s when they cut the transfers to the provinces, and health care for municipalities, gutted the military, and then took a little swipe out of EI for some $50 billion, which makes it really easy to start to balance budgets.

I am wondering if the member could help us understand if that is the route the Liberals are going to go now to help with the deficit and balance the budget at some point.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member raised questions with respect to the government's understanding in the area of the management of the economy.

First and foremost, I would put to the member that it is the Liberal government that understands that an economy needs to be nurtured. If an economy were left to its own devices in this global setting, it would produce the economic record the Conservative government put forward over the last 10 years, which was the worst economic record since the Great Depression. Therefore, in terms of managing the economy and managing money, I do not think the Conservatives should carry too loud a voice.

Second, we went back to the people in October. They gave us a resounding mandate to invest in and grow the economy, to use those levers that are in the hands of government to make Canada better, to reach out to and strengthen the middle class, and to have a strategy for the future.

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

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

First I want to thank him for having pointed out that, in their motion, the Conservatives tried to exploit officials at the Department of Finance for political purposes, which is unfortunate.

I would like him to clarify the following point once again for our Conservative colleagues. The Conservatives just picked a number that suited them. If no changes had been made in the estimates, in other words, in the Conservative government's spending, there would have been a deficit at the end of this fiscal year,

Can he clarify this matter? I just want it to be clear for our Conservative colleagues. Can he confirm that that is what would have happened without any changes to the government's plans?

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for this excellent question.

It is not just about numbers. We could discuss and debate numbers all week, if we wanted to.

It is principally a question of looking forward and growing our economy.

One cannot take a snapshot and say that there is a surplus. No one in business does that. They look at long-term projections. Over the period that the previous government was in power, we clearly saw not only a deficit but also the worst economic record since the Great Depression.

Once again, in October Canadians resoundingly told us that the globally integrated Canadian economy needs investment, needs nurturing, and needs active attention on the part of its government.

[John McKay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, in reading the motion, it mentions expressing thanks for the hard work of the department and its evidence-based analysis. I wonder whether the motion should be amended to recognize that its hard work and evidence-based analysis was ignored by the previous government.

The motion goes on to thank the deputy minister and his team. Maybe we should further amend that and express our sympathies for having had to work with the ministers.

Does the member think those would be appropriate amendments that the Conservative Party opposite would appreciate?

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, of course, it is about science, it is about evidence, and it is about the public service. I am proud to say that I have been a member of the public service of Canada, and nothing makes me prouder than the women and men in our public service who are working day in and day out crunching statistics and making sure that we have the best available information in front of us. This underpins not only our finances and our budgetary system but our entire approach to government. It is evidence-based, it is forward-looking, and it is aimed at creating a better future for all Canadians.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to join the debate here today, and after the question from my friend from Scarborough, to hopefully elevate the debate to reality for a few moments.

This is a quintessential, classic, political tactic. When a new government comes into office, it usually spends its first number of months blaming the last group of people for all of its woes. We have seen this repeatedly. All parties have engaged in it to a certain degree.

What is unique about the debate before us today is that the Liberal Party, the new government, actually does not have support from the very departments that oversee the finances of the nation.

Normally, if a new government tries to blame the old guys for the problem, it has some form of evidence provided by the departments. It is usually last-minute spending for an election or that sort of thing. However, this is a case where it is a bridge too far. They are trying the old Liberal tactic, but they do not have the data to support it.

What is important to note about this motion is that if anyone in this House is disparaging the work of our professional public service, it is actually the government, because its own officials in Finance Canada and in the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer have confirmed that the previous government left Canada in a small surplus position.

Everyone knows that for the last number of years, the global economy has been tight. There was not a tremendous surplus, but it was a surplus. In fact, the revenue stream was positive enough that despite early spending commitments and a willingness for the government to spend, each month is clicking away, and it is still gaining between $500 million and $1 billion in surplus. We saw that when the finance department confirmed a surplus of hundreds of millions of dollars in November.

This is one of the cases when the old and tried political trick does not work when its professional departments release information that shows that the trick is a phantom.

I would like to say that I am going to split my time with my colleague from Barrie—Innisfil. I should have mentioned it off the top.

It is important for Canadians, because this is a government that has a lot of new, eager, and capable members of Parliament. I know that they are here to do the best for the country. Many of them were not here when their leader was leader of the third party.

I said this last week in debate about the energy east pipeline. For several years, the Prime Minister, who at the time led the third party in this place, did not support running a deficit at all. In fact, knowing that the Conservative government had set a plan in place during the global recession to get Canada back to a balanced budget position by 2014-15, and seeing that Canadians were behind that position, the Liberal Party, at that time, took a position that they would not run deficits. As I said last week, it took an election campaign for that fundamental principle of the fiscal plan of a party to change. The Prime Minister, during the election, said that he would run, for a couple of years, a modest deficit of up to $10 billion. That was certainly very different from the approach of the Conservative government, which had worked in a steadfast manner to get to balance.

After the election, after telling Canadians that it would be one or two years of modest deficits in the $10-billion range, in the first few days of this new Parliament the government's number changed to $20 billion per year. Canadians did not vote for that. Then, if anyone has been following in recent weeks, speculation is coming out that those numbers will be more like $25 billion to $30 billion for two to three years.

The real underpinning of the motion before the House today is not just to show that we cannot use the age-old game of blaming the last team. It is that the Liberals are changing their fundamental financial plan for Canada's future by the week. That is deeply concerning.

I suggested some time ago in a column I wrote that excessive spending is not sunny ways. When we are dishing out the dough, there may be some sunshine, but if we are putting Canada's financial position in a precarious situation, those are storm clouds on the horizon.

What we hear from the government already, in preparation for the budget, is the potential for a $60 billion to $90 billion deficit over the course of its four years. That is certainly different from a year ago, when the Prime Minister said no deficits. Then, during the election campaign, he said up to $20 billion over the first two years, and then they would balance. Now we are in the $60-billion range at a time when the Liberals are also putting so many hurdles in the path of resource projects, or stopping them, that capital is fleeing Canada. Depressed resource prices and our dollar are compounding this, yet they are not changing this reckless plan.

The motion today is to set a stark line between the last government in this place and the present government. The Conservative Party believes that a balanced budget should be achieved whenever possible, that stimulus should be limited, and that a plan to end the deficit caused by stimulus in a recession should be clear and attainable.

Sometimes I say to my wife that I feel too young to be a “former”. I am a former air force person, a former lawyer, and a former minister. I am a young “former”. Many of the former ministers in this place have talked about the decisions of governing, and this is where I am very concerned that the Prime Minister is not ready to govern, because it takes decisions.

A minister in his government is famous for saying that it is not easy to make priorities. That is what Canadians elected them to do. Those priorities need to be getting a proper world price, or better than current price, for our resources. That includes budgets that do not put our future at risk. That includes not eliminating a popular measure for saving, the TFSA, or reducing it dramatically. That includes not driving out talent and our creative class by taxing stock options as income and by raising taxes on those very people.

When I was veterans affairs minister, we steadily increased and modernized the department. It is important to note, despite a lot of the rhetoric we hear on this, that the Chrétien government and the Martin government ended with a $2.9 billion budget for Veterans Affairs Canada, and we ended with an approximately $3.4 billion budget. Any way we slice it, despite a global recession and despite our pledge to balance the budget, which we did, we increased that budget by 15%. We spent in different areas, because post-Korean War and during 30 years of the Cold War, PTSD was not even discussed in a responsible way. The previous government went from the two operational stress injury clinics it opened to 27 by the time we left office, addressing a new need. That new spending went to areas of need.

We created a family caregiver relief benefit. We created the retirement income security benefit. We created the critical injury benefit, all new benefits passed in the last Parliament to address some of the gaps in the new Veterans Charter, which the previous government created. In fact, it was the now Minister of Immigration. All parliamentarians voted for it, and our government implemented it and fixed it along the way.

That took decisions, because when we want to balance the books, when we do not want to raise taxes on Canadians, when we want to lower them, it means making priorities.

The motion before the House today draws a line in the sand. The previous government planned; spent in priority areas; tried to get jobs created through innovative new sectors and by supporting our resource sector; spent prudently; created retirement tax planning, with the tax free savings account; and allowed all families a benefit with the universal child care benefit.

We made those decisions and balanced the budget. The Department of Finance officials confirm that. It is about time that the new government recognizes that, and starts a new course to make sure the sunny ways do not turn into storm clouds on the horizon.

[Kyle Peterson, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend opposite, the member for Durham, for his fantastic insight into this debate today. We go way back. We both studied at Dalhousie Law School together, so I am happy to be joining him in the House. My in-laws have the great pleasure of living in the great riding of Durham. I do not believe they took a sign of my friend during the election, but in any event I know he is a bright guy. We obviously have a similar education so he cannot help but be bright.

How does he reconcile his position about anti-deficit spending when his government for the last 10 years racked up $150 billion in debt? We must conclude that the Conservative Party when in government has no problem with deficit spending, had no problem during 2007-08 going into deficit because it was necessary at the time because of the economic crisis. How does he reconcile that as his party today speaks constantly about the economic crisis and the job losses in Alberta and throughout Canada? Why is today not appropriate for deficit spending but it was in 2007-08?

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that question from my learned friend from Newmarket—Aurora. He was a year behind me at Dalhousie Law School and I am quite sure he graduated. I know he did and he had a very successful law practice before coming to this place.

As a lawyer, he knows that before we conclude, as he mentioned in his remarks, we have evidence and the evidence is clear. We did run a deficit, but the previous prime minister was crystal clear with Canadians that our deficit spending was time limited, was stimulative, and was part of a longer term plan to get to balance by 2014-15, which we did. At the time, as I said previously, we lowered taxes on Canadians, particularly families and seniors, and grew the economy modestly.

Our success record was stronger than most countries in the G7 through that global recession. The difference and the line in the sand we are drawing is the plan the new Liberal government seems to have deficits going up with no end in sight, not going down. The deficits were estimated to be $10 billion or $20 billion in their election plan, going to $60 billion plus. I would urge that bright young member of the House to speak up on Wednesdays and pull the reins back on spending in his caucus.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government used a number of questionable strategies to balance the budget. It slashed postal services. It cut the CBC's funding, which has gutted regional news services, for example. It reduced its reserve from $3 billion to $1 billion. It pocketed $1 billion by selling its General Motors shares. It took billions of dollars from the employment insurance fund while just 38% of unemployed workers were entitled to benefits.

Is the official opposition willing to pressure the government into keeping the employment insurance fund separate from the consolidated revenue fund and to have it serve those for whom it was created?

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned a few things in her question. The record would show that during the global recession the government eased EI rules to make sure that there was a longer period. Knowing that the economy would be tight, we provided more flexibility for people to qualify. That is something we have been urging the new Prime Minister to extend to Alberta in the challenging situations it has been in. We have made sure that going forward the EI fund will be run prudently and not picked from as the previous Liberal government did regularly.

The member also mentioned the auto sector and I am passionate about that, representing the Durham region part of Oshawa. I would note I was born in Quebec. My father worked at General Motors at Sainte-Thérèse and am very proud of that plant, which closed under the Chrétien government.

Our trade deals and our deals we signed with the European Union in particular, on top of the loan we provided for the auto sector to help it through the global recession, are causing what is happening now, record sales in autos. Along with Ontario, we took back the money we loaned as was the normal plan. We have an auto sector today, with the Edge vehicle built in Oakville, for around the world new investments, and the auto innovation fund. We secured an industry that was on the precipice. We are not going to let happen to Oshawa what the last Liberal government let happen to Sainte-Thérèse.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today in favour of this motion.

I rise with complete objectivity, not being a part of the previous government. I am, however, very proud in the way the country's finances were run by the Conservatives. That is why I am a Conservative and why I believe the Liberals need to acknowledge the truth in the Department of Finance's report. I also believe that the Liberals have to stop blaming the previous government for the mistakes they are now making and the mistakes that many people in my riding know they are making.

I would first like to thank the independent, non-partisan officials from the Department of Finance for their hard work and evidenced-based analysis for the most recent “Fiscal Monitor”, as well as the deputy minister and his team. I want everyone who works in the Department of Finance to know that this Conservative Party and Canadians respect the work they do. We know they do it well. The Conservative Party trusts the information they provide as the truth. We know the work they do is not political. It is a shame, really, that the Liberals are using their efforts for their own political gain.

The people of Barrie—Innisfil and from ridings across Canada expect the government to act in their best interest when it comes to spending taxpayers' money. The most important part of fulfilling that fiduciary obligation is to balance the books, just as Canadians have to balance their own household budgets on a monthly basis.

Seniors are especially vulnerable and hard hit when the cost of goods and services and taxes rise. In Barrie, 18% of residents have reached the age of 60. In Innisfil, 14.5% of the population are 65 or older. When a senior in this country has to make a decision between heating and eating, we know that something is structurally wrong.

It is important to deal with the facts when it comes to managing the economy. The reality is, the previous Conservative government paid down $37 billion in debt before the great recession. Once that global financial tsunami hit our shores, a conscious decision was made to run deficits over the medium term. A comprehensive plan was put in place, and the previous government stuck to it.

Members from other parties were screaming for more and more spending, but a balanced approach was taken. The Department of Finance's official findings of the budgetary surplus of $1 billion for 2015-16 is a clear vindication of the Conservatives' strong leadership on the economy through nearly unprecedented tumultuous economic times. It is also relevant to note that the parliamentary budget office has also substantiated that the surplus was received.

It is interesting as I sit on this side and listen to government officials talk about the parliamentary budget officer. It is amazing what they used to say when they were in opposition about the PBO. The current President of the Treasury Board said, “That office has become indispensable, both to us as parliamentarians and to Canadians, who want to know what their government is doing with their money.”

The current Minister of Foreign Affairs, on April 29, 2013, said, “No one can deny that the Parliamentary Budget Officer produced some excellent analyses. Instead of shooting the messenger, the government should have listened to and respected what he had to say.”

The current member for Scarborough—Guildwood said, “Mr. Speaker, in November 2008 the PBO predicted a deficit, the minister a surplus. The PBO was right, the minister wrong.”

At another time the member said, “...the PBO tests the numbers against internationally recognized verifiers.... the PBO spends his money on peer-review panels rather than on spin and re-announcements.”

It is amazing to me how things can change once the government changes.

The studied, measured approach was an important reason why the deficit was reduced from $55.6 billion at the height of the great recession to a projected surplus of over $1 billion by 2016, which we now know was achieved.

Our rural areas, small towns, growing cities, and large urban centres all require targeted plans to stimulate the economy and promote economic innovation.

I am proud to be a member of a party that has a record of lowering taxes every year after coming into office. This made Canada competitive and allowed job-creating businesses to thrive. The former government recognized the best way to grow the economy and help create more jobs was to keep taxes low and to achieve a balanced budget.

The Liberals have not been clear on their plans regarding finances and the economy for Canadians. The new government must present a pro-growth agenda that involves tax cuts, free trade, and key investments in manufacturing, innovation, and infrastructure to get more Canadians working and earning more.

Since the election, I have been reminded by business leaders in my riding that their money is portable. One employer with 2,400 employees has told me point-blank that if taxes, debt, and deficits grow in this country and that burden falls on companies like his, he will seriously consider moving his operations. Money is portable.

As Canada's official opposition, the Conservative caucus is proud of its record of lowering taxes during its time in government. In fact, Conservatives reduced taxes over 200 times, saving the average Canadian family over $6,600 per year. Those pocketbook-saving measures included roughly $2.7 billion in annual targeted tax relief directly for the benefit of seniors and pensioners.

The Conservative caucus has always made lower taxes a priority. The Conservative Party has always recognized the importance of Canadians keeping more of their hard-earned money in their pockets. During the Conservatives' time in government, we removed over one million low-income Canadians, including 400,000 seniors, from tax rolls completely. We increased the amount that Canadians can earn before paying federal income tax at all, and we reduced the lowest personal income tax rate to 15%. We reduced the GST, we increased basic personal income tax exemptions from $8,148 in 2005 to $11,327 by 2015. We removed the $10,000 limit that applies on the amount that caregivers can claim under the medical expense tax credit on behalf of certain dependants.

Under the Conservatives, the federal tax burden has been the lowest in half a century. We are the party of lower taxes, lower spending, and strong economic management. The Liberal Party, on the other hand, is the party of big government, big deficits, and certainly big rhetoric. However, the numbers do not lie. If the Liberals run huge deficits, it will be their doing, and theirs alone. They will not be able to point to the previous government, as they so often do. The PBO and finance department are clear that the new Liberal government is beginning its mandate in the black due to hard work of the Conservative Party.

Unfortunately, the lack of tangible, clear economic plan for the party opposite spells doom for Canadians. The Liberals' laundry list of election-time promises point to a government that tried to be all things to all people in order to get elected. Their lack of details in governing signals the inevitability of economic instability, massive job losses, and higher taxation for all Canadians.

In their arrogance, the Liberals are running around this place and in Canada thinking that Canadians endorse their financial plan to place us deeper into debt and place us in a deep structural situation. I have news for them. There may have been other reasons why they got elected, but this is not one of them. Canadians, by nature, would not pile on debt or put their families into deficit or debt situations purposely and I do not believe they expect their government to do that either. I believe in that in all that I am.

In closing, I encourage all members to support this motion. Our economy is not a game. Choices have consequences. The stakes are high. By voting against this motion, the government would be signalling that it does not have any confidence in the employees at the highest levels of Finance Canada.

If the Liberal government does not trust its own officials, how can we expect it to prepare the budget or manage the finances of Canadians moving forward?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are the only ones who are self-interested. Since my hon. colleague says that we are not following the recommendations made by our officials or departmental staff, I will quote the Update of Economic and Fiscal Projections 2015:

The Government will pursue an approach to fiscal management that is realistic, sustainable, prudent and transparent.

This Update of Economic and Fiscal Projections reviews the federal government’s economic and fiscal outlook, which has deteriorated since the previous Government presented the budget in April 2015.

The Canadian economy contracted in the first half of 2015...

These economic developments have led to a downward adjustment to the fiscal outlook.

These developments have reduced the projected budgetary balance by about $6.0 billion per year, on average, relative to Budget 2015...

These are the fiscal projections inherited by this Government.

Why does my colleague opposite keep telling Canadians things that are not true?

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, clearly I am not stating things that I think are false. The document speaks for itself. It is time the Liberals start recognizing this and stop the rhetoric, stop blaming the previous government, when the document does show a surplus is there.

The fact is that the Liberals have been piling onto the debt with some of the decisions they have made early on. Many times over the last several months I have heard in the House about the middle-class tax increase. The Liberals went through the election saying that it would be revenue neutral when in fact this year there will be a $1.4 billion deficit piled on to any other problems that may exist. Over the course of the next nine years, almost $8.9 billion will be run into deficit because of the decisions the Liberals have made with that middle-class tax cut.

I would suggest that the Liberals are piling on the debt, not the Conservative Party. They need to stop blaming us for their mistakes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. Since he is a very intelligent man, I am sure that he will not give in to intellectual dishonesty and he will confirm to the House that with the same level of spending, if there had been no change in government and no major changes to fiscal planning, there would have been a deficit at the end of the current fiscal year.

Can my colleague confirm that?

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, going by the information that is in front of us, it is clear that what the motion talks about is that our government has left a surplus. It is time the Liberals started recognizing that.

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the things my colleague from Barrie—Innisfil outlined is the surplus that was left for the Liberals. A month later the Liberal government outlined a deficit of over $3 billion.

Has the Liberal government communicated to my colleague where or how it is spending the money? Has it provided any transparency or accountability to the House or to my colleague as a member of Parliament to date?

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, obviously the Liberal Party is accountable to the House. We have been receiving information through the House and there are also plenty of media reports out there.

I go back to the example I gave of the middle class tax cut, the shell game that the Liberals are playing with the middle class. We will be paying for a $1.4 billion deficit as a result of that, yet the Liberals went through the election campaign saying that their tax cut for the middle class would be revenue neutral. We are starting to see those numbers mount. As my colleague from Durham stated earlier, a deficit of many billions of dollars is projected to be incurred throughout this term.

It will be up to Canadians to decide in four years when they look at the Conservative plan and the Liberal plan who had the best fiscal plan for managing our economy. People will be awakened in four years.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh.

We are debating a Conservative opposition motion, which I am pleased to comment on given my role as the NDP's finance critic.

The motion states:

That the House: (a) thank the independent non-partisan officials from the Department of Finance for their hard work and evidence-based analysis;

We totally agree with that.

The motion continues as follows:

[That the House:] (b) acknowledge their most recent Fiscal Monitor which informed Members and Canadians that, for the period from April to November 2015 of the 2015-2016 fiscal year, the previous government posted a budgetary surplus of $1.0 billion; and

We agree with that. That is what the “Fiscal Monitor” says. We could even add our congratulations to the team at the “Fiscal Monitor” for all the work it has accomplished, and not just for the most recent issue.

Finally, the rest of the motion states:

[That the House:] (c) concur in its conclusions and express its confidence in the Deputy Minister and his team.

We have no problem with that either because that is what the “Fiscal Monitor” says. The report is prepared by the Department of Finance, and we have no trouble believing that in November 2015, there was a surplus of $1 billion.

I might as well propose an amendment asking the House to recognize that the sun is yellow, the grass is green, and the sky is blue, because those are facts one would be hard-pressed to deny.

I feel like we are kind of wasting the House's time today by talking about something that we all agree on. We have missed a good opportunity to debate issues that really matter to Canadians on their behalf.

However, since I have speaking time, I would like to talk about how the Conservatives got that number. There may have been a $1-billion surplus in November 2015, but there is no guarantee that there will still be a surplus at the end of the 2015-16 fiscal year. Actually, knowing whether we will have a surplus or a deficit at that point is pretty important.

We should also remember that the government posted a surplus in November 2011 because it sold at a loss the shares in General Motors that it had purchased in order to help save the auto industry. We spoke out against this sale at the time.

The government in power at the time sold 73.4 million shares for $3.3 billion. A portion of that was obviously recorded in each part of the fiscal year. It was recorded as income from the sale of shares, and only the sale of shares, putting the Conservative government not in the red, but in the black, and it was solely this exercise that made it possible.

We could add that the government continued to dip into the employment insurance fund, which was supposed to be used to help unemployed workers who needed it. It was also included in the final report on the government's consolidated revenue fund. The employment insurance surplus was used to put the government in an overall surplus.

Notwithstanding the issue of employment insurance, the sale of GM shares is the one and only reason why there is, or at least there was in November 2015, a budget surplus on the books.

However, the shares were sold at a loss. The sale was condemned not only by the opposition parties, but also by a number of financial analysts for being made at the wrong time.

I am referring to comments by financial analysts such as John Stephenson, who was the president and CEO of Stephenson & Company Capital Management.

He said:

If you look at GM, it’s grossly undervalued relative to other global automakers.... I think you could easily squeeze out another $6 to $7 per share in the next 12 months or so, so you’re leaving a fair bit of money on the table if you believe that.

In its rush to claim a balanced budget for 2015-16, the government at the time sold our GM shares at a loss, even though it had apparently been advised to wait, hold onto these shares, and sell them at a book value that was beneficial to the government.

In order to break even on the purchase and sale of the GM shares, the government would have had to sell the shares for $4 billion in total, in Canadian dollars, of course.

The sale totalled $3.3 billion. At the end of the day, the government ended up with a net loss. The shares were sold at a loss, and the whole thing was nothing but an attempt to balance the budget in their last year for purely political reasons. The budget was balanced in November 2015, but it may not remain balanced at the end of the fiscal year in March 2016.

In addition, the Auditor General issued a report in November 2014 regarding the sale of the GM shares and, especially, the GM bailout. He said that the government was lax in requiring accountability for how the amounts were spent and how the money was used to bail out GM and also Chrysler. I will not go over the entire report, but there was one thing in particular that blew me away at the time and still does. I am talking about the $4 billion that the federal government gave GM to save or strengthen the GM pension plan. GM used $1 billion to save or strengthen the U.S. pension plan. This means that $1 billion of Canadian money went straight to the United States. There was no oversight at all by the government, no call for accountability.

As a result, the Conservatives are trying to win political points with a motion like this one. It is ill-advised, but we cannot help but agree with it, since it sets out some fairly obvious facts. The truth is that the motion is an attempt to draw attention away from the government's mismanagement of the GM and Chrysler bailout, its failure to require accountability, and the political decision it made later to quickly sell shares in order to artificially balance the budget, as we can still see on the books today.

Does that mean that the current Liberal government is off the hook? Not really, because the Liberals will have a serious challenge to face with the upcoming budget. During the 2015 election campaign, the Liberals promised to run deficits. Many Canadians think that those deficits will be incurred only for infrastructure, but that is not the case.

The Liberals promised deficits of approximately $25 billion over the next four years, with a return to a balanced budget in the fourth year. That is completely unrealistic, given the way things are now, the economic and fiscal update, and particularly the parliamentary budget officer's December 2015 report. When we take those things into account, the Liberal government is currently facing an accumulated deficit of $55 billion at the end of four years, including an $11-billion deficit in the fourth year, because of the promises it made and the current economic climate. That could happen if the Liberals keep their election promises, and it reflects the fiscal framework they presented during the election campaign.

I want to say that during the election campaign, the Liberals themselves probably promised too much in relation to Canada's fiscal capacity. At that time, we were extremely cautious with our forecasts, because we knew that the Canadian economy might be facing a struggle. That is why we wanted to be careful about what we promised. That is not what the Liberals did during the election campaign. They were elected based on all the changes they promised to Canadians, so now Canadians want to see some results, including the reversal of the Conservative reforms to employment insurance, as promised, or the reopening of certain things that were closed by the Conservatives. One example would be the marine radio communications centres. The Minister of National Revenue, who is also the member for Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine, promised to reopen the marine communications and traffic services centre in Rivière-au-Renard, which does not appear to be one of her government's priorities.

We are taking notes. Obviously, we are going to be watching closely and we will carefully study the Liberal government's upcoming budget. We will be here to make sure that the government keeps the promises on which it was elected, because many of those promises were similar to promises and commitments that we had also made. I can assure the House that we will be here to hold the Liberals to account when the promises that got them here are not honoured.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the hon. member talks about shares. Members will remember that the Conservative government bought shares so that the working people could keep their jobs and the automobile industry could keep going. I know the hon. member realizes that everybody wants jobs. Every party in this House wants jobs. We did that back then.

Good for the member to say that we sold the shares and that is why there is a surplus in the budget. We had a surplus, and it should be recorded that in November 2015 the Conservative government left a surplus. Did we look at a crystal ball to decide if we should sell them seven or 10 months later? Good for the member to say that, because all Canadians should have sold their oil stocks a year ago. We do not have a crystal ball.

Therefore, I would say this to the hon. member. He can talk about surpluses all he wants. However, he should give us some recognition. When we did buy the shares and saved the automobile industry, is that not what we should have done at the time?

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

It gives me the opportunity to clarify that we were not against the purchase of shares to bail out the automotive sector. I think this approach should have been considered for bailing out other sectors, such as the forestry industry, for example, which faced similar challenges, but was ignored by the Conservative government at the time.

We were not against the purchase of shares to help out the automotive industry, but we have some concerns over how those shares were sold and the reporting that General Motors was required to do.

The hon. member just admitted that the sale of the shares was responsible for the surplus reported in the “Fiscal Monitor”. It says as much in that report.

I am not the only one to say so, and it is not about having a crystal ball. There are 24 financial analysts on Bay Street who follow General Motors. Only two of those 24 analysts said it was the right time to sell, while the other 22 said it was not. In fact, 14 of the analysts said it was a good time to buy GM shares.

When we make decisions based on facts, we have to listen to experts in the field. They are not perfect, but at least their information is better than the information the government wanted to use just to achieve a balanced budget on the eve of the 2015 election campaign.

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his passionate and intelligent speech.

It is obvious that the Conservative Party left a financial mess after the election. One of our strategies is to make strategic investments in public infrastructure.

Can the hon. member tell us what he thinks of our goal of making major investments in public infrastructure?

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, our election platform also included significant infrastructure investments because we recognize that there is a serious infrastructure deficit in this country. This is recognized by all municipalities, in Quebec and elsewhere in the country, and also by the general public.

The difference between the two programs is that ours provided for more investments in the second, third, and fourth years so that the municipalities could plan their projects. It provided $5 billion for the current new building Canada plan. Doubling this amount in the first year does not mean that there will be enough worthwhile and shovel-ready projects to invest in.

We would have preferred that there be more money for the second, third, and fourth years, but the fact that there will be major investments is important in itself.

However, this should not become an excuse for wasting money by investing for the sake of investing. We must ensure that the investments are productive and that they boost the economy and Canadian productivity.

[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.