Debates of Feb. 4th, 2016

Opposition Motion—Department of Finance

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, once again, we have been treated to an example of economic delirium, really. We had a government that tried to sort of pull one over the public's eyes in the last election. They did not buy it then. I do not think they are going to buy it now. The fact is that the Conservatives ran up the deficit $150 billion over a succession of deficits and added to the national debt, with very little to show for it in terms of expansion and growth in the economy. In fact, the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce said that job creation in Canada was very low grade.

We would remind the members opposite that about this time nigh on a year ago, Canada was technically in recession, the only one of the G7 to be in that situation. When we talk about leaving a legacy for the government of today, we need to remember that.

I would ask the member this question. Given his record, which is selectively interpreted, would he have been in any better shape to help the people in Alberta, who now are relying upon our government to come to the rescue with the kind of stimulus spending that we desire? Or would he still hang his hat on a balanced budget?

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is a good question. It is a question that is worthy: would we continue?

We had the largest infrastructure program that the federal government has ever been involved in. Those are the facts. The Liberals are talking about a larger one now. That is fine. However, at the time, it was the largest infrastructure spending that we ever had.

What did we do? We began by saying we would double the gas tax rebate to municipalities and get it out the door earlier so they could be involved in the construction period. Every municipality across this country applauded that measure. We did not tie it to any jobs. We said, “You can pick your priorities. You, municipalities, can take that money and put it where you want. We want that out the door. We're going to make it permanent. We're going to double it.”

We did that, doubling from what the Liberal Party had done.

Then we indexed it. Then, we said that we would continue to invest in the largest Canada building fund across the country. We did that.

Why did we do that? We did that because the world had moved into this recession. Prior to it, we had paid down close to $40 billion in national debt, we had lowered the taxes, lowered the GST. That is the record of the previous government.

Then, when the world moved into this recession, not created here in Canada, we started spending. We did not spend enough at the time. The Liberals felt we should have spent more, as did the NDP. However, we did not spend without a plan. We said, “We're going to invest in infrastructure, we're going to come out of that and back to balanced budgets.”

In this election, the Liberals have said they are going to spend up to $10 billion in deficit this year. Yet, now, everyone says, “There is no upper limit here” and they spend, spend, spend.

We worry for the economy, business worries for the economy, job creators worry for the economy, and they worry about the government that is a big-spending government and just straight big government.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot has expressed full confidence in the “Fiscal Monitor”. I wonder if he would acknowledge that very same document shows, in table 2, between April and November 2015, that employment insurance premiums were $14 billion, while table 3 shows that employment insurance benefits were only $12 billion. That difference of $2 billion more than explains the razor-thin surplus of $1 billion for which the Conservatives are trying to congratulate themselves.

The member for Battle River—Crowfoot also mentioned layoffs in the resource sector in his home province of Alberta. We have the same challenge in Saskatchewan. I wonder if the hon. member would join with the NDP in calling for an improvement to employment insurance benefits to help workers in the energy sector who have been laid off.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member may very well be right in his comments, but let me tell him that in 2008, 2009, and 2010, the employment insurance dollars were in deficit. There was some catch-up to do in the last year or two and we had the plan to lower premiums so that it would better adjust. Conservatives lowered them once and we know that 2017 is the year that they will be lowered again.

The difference between Alberta and Saskatchewan right now is Saskatchewan has a government that will be able to take care of investment and jobs. Alberta, provincially, does not.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I must say I am genuinely intrigued by the opposition Conservatives' new-found appreciation for the hard work and evidence-based analysis offered by the independent, non-partisan officials from the Department of Finance. Previously they tried to muzzle everyone. As I have been listening to the debate, I really thought I was in Wonderland.

It is, however, very unfortunate for Canadians that the opposition only came to the realization about evidence-based and factual information after leaving office. Regrettably, the Conservatives made it clear while they were in government that they preferred the advice and analysis of outside organizations to that of the Department of Finance. Unfortunately, because of that, we see the current economic crisis and the challenges we face.

Our government's first economic and fiscal update, produced by the very same finance department that the opposition suddenly holds in such high esteem, confirms that the predictions made by the previous government in budget 2015 were off by around $6 billion. This means that our government inherited a projected deficit of $3 billion for 2015-16, which is a stark contrast to the $13 billion that the previous Liberal government left them in 2006. After inheriting a $3-billion surplus, we have to work hard to ensure that we balance the budget, as promised.

Canadians elected our government to address the whole range of myths and other challenges that the previous government left us. We are doing so by implementing an ambitious economic agenda that will get our economy growing again. Our work in advancing this agenda is well under way. The only people who believe that the Conservative government left behind a surplus are the Conservatives themselves. Canadians know better.

Let us get some facts right. The previous Conservative government claimed a surplus without booking the $3.4 billion payment it made in July. It claimed a surplus by withholding $1 billion from veterans, the DND cuts, the lapsing of funds, and the list goes on. Instead of smoke and mirrors, let us acknowledge the fact that the previous Conservative government left us in a deficit. Conservatives do not want to acknowledge that they were the worst economic managers. They had eight consecutive deficits and they are still claiming that they left us with a surplus. The reason they are so terrible in managing the economy is that they do not realize that the budget is for a full year, not a monthly fiscal snapshot. It is like people looking at their bank accounts after payday but before they make their mortgage payments. We do not really know what expenses the Conservatives left for the next government.

As mentioned, the previous Liberal government left behind a $13-billion surplus in 2006. The Conservatives squandered it and accumulated an additional $150 billion in new debt while still managing to deliver the worst economic growth since the Great Depression. They must make note of all this. Those are the facts. All of that is coupled with no plan for supporting the middle class, no growth agenda, and no plan to invest.

The “Fiscal Monitor” cited in the opposition member's motion is a snapshot in time, as I said, and does not tell the full story. It is like counting chickens before they hatch. The economic and fiscal update presented in the November statement by the Liberal government gave Canadians a transparent picture of our economic and fiscal situation.

Let me begin with an important example.

When we took office, in just over 100 days, we made it our immediate priority to deliver a tax cut for the middle class. We took actions on the understanding that Canadians should have a real and fair chance to succeed, and central to that is a strong and growing middle class. In December, at the earliest opportunity, we delivered on this commitment.

Effective January 1, 2016, our proposed middle-class tax cut reduced the personal income tax rate from 22% to 20.5%, which provided $3.4 billon in annual relief to nine million Canadians, and that is a lot. Single individuals who qualify will see an average tax reduction of $330 every year, and couples who qualify will see an average tax reduction of $540 every year. To help pay for this middle-class tax cut, the government is asking the wealthiest 1% of Canadians to contribute a little more. We therefore created a new top personal income tax rate of 33% for those earning in excess of $200,000.

With these measures, we are already delivering on what we promised to Canadians. This is just one example of what we have accomplished as a government.

In our first 100 days, we appointed the first ever gender-balanced cabinet. We have championed climate change at the Conference of the Parties in Paris, and out of the momentum of those meetings, have now met for a second time with our provincial and territorial partners to determine the right path forward for Canada on this critical file. In 100 days, we have done more than the previous Conservative government ever did.

We have also renewed our relationship with Canada's indigenous peoples through the full endorsement of all 94 recommendations proposed in the final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, including a new inquiry into missing and murdered women.

These accomplishments do not take place without the hard work and commitment of our government.

It is interesting that, with the Conservatives' motion, they now believe strongly in facts. They did not want facts when they eliminated the long-form census, muzzled scientists, and did not listen to the Department of Finance.

We need to work together and defeat a motion which is filled with fallacy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague across the way for giving us fine detail of what the Liberals have done in their 100 days of being in office. Let us talk about what they also have done. They have added more confusion for Canadians. They have lessened the world's confidence in Canada and in our ability to get projects done and to boost our economy. They have lessened our Canadian opportunities in building our economy and projects.

However, this is about confidence and it is the confidence in those people who are working very hard in the Department of Finance and whether the government has any confidence in the reports they are building for it.

One of the members across the way asked whether, if we were still in power, we would be able to do anything better in the 100 days that we were there. First. it would not have taken our former prime minister 100 days to get to the communities hardest hit by our economy's downturn, which I think the Prime Minister is just doing now. Our prime minister, instead of jetting off to Paris or on other international trips, would have been in those communities, finding out what was needed and spending time with friends and families that were hurting the most, and putting that into a plan. He would have demonstrated and delivered to Canadians a plan on how we would move Canada forward.

We have uncertainty with the Minister of Finance and the gobbledygook and verbal gymnastics that he has put forth in our questions about the geo-statistics, where the Liberals are getting their data, the online correspondence and forms and where they are getting them from, and where they are basing any decisions. We want to know. Canadians want to know what the plan is and if he can deliver it. The confidence in the Minister of Finance is the uncertainty and the inconsistency in the numbers he puts out from time to time.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I forgot to mention that I will be splitting my time with the member for Winnipeg North.

I listened to the hon. member's question, and he is totally and absolutely confused. There is the example of our Paris conference and examples of our meeting with the provincial and territorial leaders. International communities have said that Canada is back and they are happy it is back. It is a positive environment.

During the election, the only platform the opposition Conservatives would give was negative ads, and it is a good thing Canadians booted them out.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, previously in this debate, I have pointed out that the Conservatives managed to create a small surplus for at least part of the year by withdrawing money from the EI fund. Could the member for Don Valley East commit that the new Liberal government will not resume the practice of withdrawing money from the employment insurance fund? Also could she provide a bit of a timeline as to when the new government will make concrete improvements to employment insurance and improve the accessibility level and duration of benefits?

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member would have been well advised to ask the Minister of Finance that question.

Dipping into the EI fund is not a good practice, but it goes into the consolidated revenue fund. Once it does that, the fund is used to fund other investments. I would like to work with the member as part of the finance committee. He should work with the finance committee as we do our pre-budget consultation and ensure that those things do not happen again.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe the hon. member mentioned during questions and comments that she was splitting her time. However, my understanding of the rules is that members have to mention they are splitting their time during their speech, not during questions and comments.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

That is a good point. As we are going through this, a lot of the members are new and are just getting used to the procedure. We will proceed to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

I want to remind all members that when they split their time, to say it when they start. That would make life easier for all of us.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to address the House on what I believe are important issues. More often than not that is the case when we are dealing with financial bills. Although this is not a bill, it is an interesting opposition day motion. When I first read it, I found it a little hard to believe. It would appear that the official opposition is trying to shape what history should look like as opposed to what history is going to reflect in the 2015-16 budget year.

As has been pointed out, the only ones who believe there might have been any sort of a balanced budget or even a surplus would be those who sit on the Conservative benches. Canadians will not be fooled. The reality and the facts speak very clearly as to whether there is a deficit versus a surplus in the 2015-16 budget. It is a deficit. One needs to be very clear on that. However, I can appreciate why the Conservatives would try to give the impression otherwise.

The way I will approach that is to briefly make comment on one of the questions.

A member made reference to the Prime Minister and his trip to western Canada, particularly to the province of Alberta. I am a member of Parliament from the Prairies. I say that to highlight the fact that I am concerned with what is happening in the province of Alberta. I sit in the northwestern caucus of the Liberal Party. Whether it be the Liberal members of Parliament from Alberta, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, and my home province of Manitoba in the northern region, there is a strong advocacy coming out that caucus with respect to what is taking place in western Canada, which is that a healthy western Canada economy helps all of Canada. We all benefit from that.

Therefore, we are happy the Prime Minister is in Alberta. He went there yesterday. He is working with the premier and is working and meeting with different stakeholders to try to not only get a better, more comprehensive understanding but to also indicate that this government genuinely cares and is prepared to take action, unlike the previous government.

The former government would often talk about it. However, rarely did we see any significant steps taken to try to improve the conditions. A good example of that is the whole energy east pipeline issue.

For many years the Conservatives failed at being able to establish an inch of additional pipeline, not to mention that throughout their term in government they were unable to get any pipelines to tidewaters. For the first time a national government is working with the different stakeholders, coming up with a process that will better enable us in the future to get oil to our tidewaters through an extension of our pipelines.

Going specifically to the motion before us, let me provide very quick comment with respect to the civil service.

The Liberal Party, and myself personally, have the deepest amount of respect for the civil service. It has done an outstanding job over the years. In fact, countries all around the world look to Canada to provide leadership on the issue of how to provide good quality public service through a healthy civil service. Therefore, we should commend those who represent us so well, both from a service and leadership point of view, and the positive impact they have with respect to allow us to make good, solid, sound policy decisions.

I want to comment on the deficit, the debt, and the reality, as I often refer to it.

The Liberal Party took governance back on October 19 after the election, when we saw the winds of change in every region of our country.

Shortly thereafter, in November, the Prime Minister was sworn in and we provided an economic update to the House. During that economic update, it was made very clear that there in fact was no balanced budget, or surplus, that because of the policies of the previous government, Canada would be in a serious deficit situation. Nothing has changed since then. We recognize there will be a deficit.

The Conservatives do not want to hear that because they have tried to portray a certain image, which is just not true, that they know how to manage an economy and finances. The former minister was wrong. They were not successful in the previous 10 years.

Deficit and debt are two different things. If we speak strictly of debt, Canada has a debt somewhere in the neighbourhood of $640 billion. When we look at that total picture, we will find that the previous Conservative government and the Brian Mulroney Conservative government added more than half of that accumulated debt. It is from those two regimes. That is substantial.

When we talk about deficit, it even gets worse. The Conservative Party inherited a multi-billion dollar surplus in 2006 and converted it into a multi-billion deficit. That was even before the recession hit. It has run a deficit every year since then, including in 2015-16.

I spoke to the budget when it was introduced last year and indicated back then that the books were cooked, that there was no balanced budget. I cited several reasons. Then in the month of July, the Governor of the Bank of Canada confirmed there was a running deficit.

There is no credibility or merit to the Conservatives proclaiming any sort of a balanced budget or surplus. In the last eight years, they have done nothing but deficit financing.

We in the Liberal Party acknowledge that at times there is a need to go into a deficit situation, for example, if we want to invest in infrastructure programs and incentives that will enhance and grow Canada's middle class and those wanting to join it. Now is the time to do that. The economy needs the government to play a role. There will be deficits.

However, we have heard from the Prime Minister and our government that there will be a balanced budget under a Liberal regime in time. We have been transparent, honest, and open to Canadians right from the get-go. The only party in the House that can clearly indicate to Canadians that they have been fully transparent on the issue of finances and deficit financing has been the Liberal Party of Canada, and in particular, the Prime Minister of Canada.

Our party has a record demonstrating to Canadians and reassuring them that we can deliver balanced budgets. However, for now, we are looking at it from the point of view of investing in Canada. We will invest in infrastructure, housing, and programs like the Canada child benefit program that is coming up.

There is so much on the horizon. I believe Canadians, for the first time in many years, have good reason to be hopeful for good governance, something that has been lacking in the last eight to ten years.

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

Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy the discussion that comes from the other side, from the member for Winnipeg North.

The member brought up the issue of government image. One of the things the Liberals never talk about is that, shortly after the Conservatives came into government, we went into the worst recession since the Great Depression of the 1930s.

One of the things that Canadians appreciate—although very few Canadians were seriously impacted by that great recession we had, because of the policies the government brought in—is that over our term we saved families some $6,600 for a family of four. Our belief was that the money should be left in the pockets of families. They are the ones who generate the economy.

We were the second best country in the world in which to do business. We had a finance minister recognized as the best finance minister in the world. There was the creation of more than one million net new jobs.

Let me talk about image. In the 1990s, when there was also a blip, the Liberals gutted the military. I was in municipal government, as the hon. member was. There was basically no funding in small rural municipalities for infrastructure. There were health care cuts in my province of Ontario of some 20% to 25%.

When it has a serious spending problem, which the Liberal government does, should it not be able to tell us what the deficit is going to be and when it is going to be able to balance the budget?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the issue is that there is no serious problem in terms of transparency coming from the government.

There seems to be a lack of factual information being provided by the official opposition, in particular of this nature. Let us remember when the member talked about that blip or that recession. Prior to the recession, the former Conservative government inherited a multi-billion dollar surplus, and it turned that surplus into a deficit before the recession even took place. That is the reality. History cannot be changed.

The member talks about the dollar value in health care, but everyone would agree that we have the highest amount of federal dollars going to provincial health care services, and that is great to see. That is happening today because of the health care accord, which was signed under the Paul Martin government. It had nothing to do with the Conservative government. It had everything to do with Paul Martin when he was the prime minister. That is what gave us the health care funds we see today.

The Conservatives failed to get a new health care accord. It is only this Liberal government and Prime Minister that recognize that Canadians care about health care, and that have the Minister of Health and others work with the provinces to see what we can do to better improve one of those programs in which Canadians truly believe.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Don Valley East suggested that, despite a weak job market, the Minister of Finance may well decide to continue withdrawing money from the employment insurance fund by keeping EI benefits well below EI premium revenues.

I wonder if the member for Winnipeg North could confirm that the Liberal government is planning to continue the fine Paul Martin tradition he alluded to, of draining money from the employment insurance program, or whether the sense of Prairie solidarity that he invoked earlier in his speech would extend to providing a helping hand to laid-off resource workers who are really in need of improved EI benefits.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, let me focus on the deficit.

There is a difference in terms of approach in dealing with the deficit. The Conservatives will be dishonest with the facts. The New Democrats, in the last election, said that they were not going to have a deficit at all in the next couple of years.

There is a distinct difference. Liberals believe that deficits can be a good thing. That is why we will allow them to occur. It is the way in which we can drive, and be supportive of, the economy, adding wealth to our economy.

We believe in Canada's middle class. We will have deficits when there is a need to have a deficit.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to share my time with the excellent member for Calgary Nose Hill.

Today's motion is quite simple and has two objectives. The first objective is something that we do not often take the time to do as politicians, but it is still important. I am talking about thanking those who dedicate their lives to public service. Today, we want to thank our experts at the Department of Finance, specifically, but we want to also thank all public servants.

The second objective is just as simple, and it involves recognizing that two and two equals four. As my colleague from Milton pointed out, in the latest “Fiscal Monitor”, Canadians learned that for the period from April to November 2015, and I hope that my colleagues opposite are listening closely and that they cleaned out their ears, the previous Conservative government posted a budget surplus of $1 billion. That is the truth.

Today, all the members of the House are invited to support a concept that is important to all Canadians and all parliamentarians: the truth and the facts. The Conservative government posted a $1-billion surplus, just days after the election on October 19. That is a fact.

Our first objective is to thank public servants. Throughout my political career—this is now my 10th year—and even before that, I myself have been a federal public servant. I worked for the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in a regional office in Quebec City. I still deeply admire the work ethic of the men and women who worked there and who are still working to improve the lives of our first nations people. I know people who left after dedicating their lives to improving the lives of first nations people, as well as young people who entered the public service with plans to do the same. I have so much respect for public servants.

While I was a minister, I had the opportunity to work with public servants at Veterans Affairs, including deputy ministers Suzanne Tining and Mary Chaput and their team. The people working here in Ottawa and in Charlottetown care so much about improving the lives of our veterans and making sure that all Canadians are aware of the sacrifices they made. That was from my time at Veterans Affairs.

More recently, I was the minister of public safety and emergency preparedness, with deputy minister François Guimont and his team. I have nothing but praise for them at a time when our country needed an effective public service focused on protecting people from the terrorist threat. Mission accomplished, I say. I thank the public servants at Public Safety Canada, who did amazing work in concert with the people at the Department of Justice and other departments that were involved. Because of their work, our country is now safer from the terrorist threat. Who do we have to thank for all that? Our great prime minister, of course, but also a team of dedicated public servants.

It is quite simple. We should not overthink things today and just read the motion for what it is. As I just illustrated, there are very good reasons to adopt the motion. However, as we know, this is Parliament, this is politics, and, unfortunately, the current government seems to have a problem with facts and figures. It is worrisome because we saw our current Prime Minister go to Paris early on in his term and talk to international stars about sustainable development. He tried to impress them by saying that he would take $2 billion of Canadian taxpayers' money and distribute it here and there around the world. Obviously, Canadian taxpayers are going to foot the bill.

As everyone knows, we have a target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 30% over 2005 levels by 2030, and we have to invest that money here at home in order to meet that target.

However, the government decided to take taxpayers' money and put $2 billion elsewhere. The government also decided, as soon as it took office, to take taxpayers' money and create a deficit.

In my riding, some people earn $40,000 a year, while others earn $90,000. They work at Rotobec, Plastique Micron, and Exceldor, and they are not part of what the government calls the middle class.

However, those who earn $150,000, $200,000, $300,000, or $500,000 a year are part of the Liberal government's middle class, and the tax cut that the Liberals plan to give them is going to create an $8-billion deficit. That is the reality.

The Liberals were bragging over cocktails in Paris, while mortgaging the future of generations to come by putting them into debt. That is what the government opposite is doing just months after taking office.

One thing that we cannot accept is playing fast and loose with the truth. That is why we are respectfully reaching out to the current government in a constructive manner. We are calling on the government to acknowledge the facts, namely that there was a $1-billion surplus in December, and to thank the people who dedicate their lives to the public service, such as the employees of the House of Commons.

We managed to balance the budget because we worked hard to do so. It is quite easy to say yes, pull out one's chequebook for anyone who asks and write a cheque. Anyone can do that. Santa Claus likes to do that, too. However, the government is accountable to taxpayers, and we were very responsible in that regard.

When our country was facing an economic crisis, we did not hesitate to invest to stimulate the economy. We also managed to avoid structural deficits. That is where the current government is headed. I demonstrated that we were heading towards nearly $10 billion in recurring deficits before this government even tried to present its tempting measures.

Unfortunately, the government did not bother to consult parliamentarians or set up an advisory committee on finance to find out what direction we wanted to take as a country. That is what I did in my riding, and I have some recommendations that I would like to submit to the Minister of Finance. These recommendations will help our seniors.

Instead of throwing money out the window, will the government help our seniors? Will it keep its promises concerning the guaranteed income supplement for our poorest seniors? Will it keep its promise about more generous pension indexing? Those are some of the things I heard, but the government did not hear, because it did not consult Canadians.

I would like to share a brief quote. This week I read a book about former president Ronald Reagan.

Here is what Ronald Reagan had to say about Jimmy Carter's tax scheme to raise the taxes for those earning more: “getting the most feathers as possible from the fewest...in order to minimize the quacking”.

Can we steepen the tax brackets any more than they are without being totally unfair to those who work and earn and make this country go?

The question President Reagan asked at the time is relevant today.

We should continue to invest in Canadians in order to create wealth, but we must acknowledge the facts. Let us support the very clear motion that is before us today.

In November 2015, the federal government had $1 billion in its coffers, and we thank our public servants, who do a great job.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, business analysis includes a general ledger and a balance sheet. The previous government added $154 billion to our debt, yet the balance of trade went from a $54 billion surplus to a $13 billion deficit. Exports are down and economic growth was anemic in the Conservatives' term.

Businesses can sometimes make the bank balance book look a bit better by delaying payments owed to others or by taking on additional debt. The previous government did both.

Would the hon. member admit that the snapshot of the bank book as of the end of November includes deferred payments that were not made for programs such as veterans affairs, EI, seniors programs, and education for first nations, and I could go on?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I hope the member clearly understood my speech, whether it is an ongoing, recurrent deficit generation after generation, like the Liberals are currently willing to throw us, or investing to combat a crisis, which is what our government did in 2008. When there was a world recession, we were the last to enter a recession and the first to come out of it, because of wide policies.

I hope the current government will review the way we managed this economy for the last 10 years. I hope the Liberals will realize that when the economy is doing relatively well, as it currently is, it is not the time to create ballooning deficits that will have to be paid by future generations.

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the people of the Kootenay—Columbia riding sent me here to help build a better Canada, and I want to thank them for that opportunity.

Two days ago in our opposition day, the NDP put forward a motion to move Canada forward on the important issue of pay equity for women. I am very proud of that motion and the support of the majority of the House.

There are so many issues facing Canada, such as child poverty, health care, climate change, and the environment, to name just a few. With so many important issues facing Canadians and so few opposition days, why did the Conservatives decide to focus the House on this particular issue, which really has no future benefit for Canadians?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish the member well in his endeavours as the member for Kootenay—Columbia.

There is nothing more important, then, now, and in the future, than the truth, the facts, and a clear direction of where we are going, and also to take the time to thank those who serve Canadians on a daily basis and do a very important job.

While we were able to balance the budget, we were also able to make massive investments like never before in provinces like British Columbia and Quebec. We have never seen such a large investment in health, education, and social services, while balancing the budget. That is the Conservative government's legacy. We are very proud of it, and will seek to further pursue it in the future.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, why do the Liberals seem so touchy about this subject? Why do they seem to be denying that the information as presented by their own officials is correct?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

Once again, I want to clearly say that it was the excellent team at the Department of Finance that confirmed that from April to November of the 2015-16 fiscal year, the previous government posted a budgetary surplus of $1 billion.

In recent months, additional amounts were added to this surplus. We left the country in excellent shape. The current government had better take care of it.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in this place, we spend Canadians' money. It does not come from us; it comes from them. When we make decisions around program expenditures, we are spending Canadians' money. What we discuss in this place is how we do that, why we do that, at what level we should do that, and how it benefits the economy. At the end of day, we are spending people's money. This is money that they earned. Therefore, it really behooves us to be accountable to them on how we are doing that.

There was a question that came up in debate about why this motion is important. It is important to the people who give us their money, who entrust us here to make decisions on how we spend their money, because it sets the stage for the government's narrative on how much money it is actually spending. The reality is that this year's “Fiscal Monitor” stated that their research and analysis shows that the current government was left in a surplus position. These are department officials in the public service, people who members across the aisle cited over and over again in the previous Parliament. That should be important to the people who give us their money and entrust us on how to spend it. Why? It is because what we are hearing from across the aisle is that there is no end in sight for government spending. That should concern all Canadians, because we do not have the money to pay for what it is spending.

Every day across this country, people make decisions on how they spend their money. They try to make ends meet. They make decisions on whether they are able to put their kids in a sporting program or how they are going to pay their rent. These are decisions that everybody has to make, and they make decisions on whether they can afford to do that. That choice is what is important. Therefore, for the government to continually say in the House that it is already in a deficit position so it should spend to high heaven is a problem for Canadians. They should be paying attention to that.

What Conservatives are asking government members to do today is something that they should take to heart. They should look at the fact that the statistics and the research of government officials show that we are in a surplus position; ergo, the big deficit position they put us in is their choice. It is their choice and they need to be accountable to Canadians on that. This is about accountability. They should have to tell their constituents that they put them in a $50-billion deficit position this year, they mortgaged their children's futures, and they should be able to explain to their constituents why they are doing that.

During the campaign, we did not hear a lot about “why” from the government. We did not hear a lot from the Liberals about why they want to go into deficit. To quote my colleague opposite in the last round of questions, he said deficits can be a good thing. What he should have said, and this belies the underlying philosophy of the Liberals, is why they want to make this program expenditure and how they predict it is going to affect the economy, x, y, and z. No, they are focusing on spending, spending, spending, and that spending comes out of the wallets of the people we represent. We have to be accountable for that. There is a huge fallacy the Liberals put in place when they talk over and over again about spending our way out of a bad situation.

I want to direct my colleague's attention to the annual fiscal tables, table 3, and look at the revenues. This is straight-up revenues in millions of dollars. If we look at that over the last 10 years, we will notice that last year the Conservative government, if I am reading this table correctly, had one of the highest levels of revenue coming into the government coffers for expenditures. However, the Conservatives did that while the federal tax burden was at its lowest level in 50 years. Therefore, there was a high level of government revenue coming in and yet Canadians, the people who give us their money, were paying less taxes. Why is that? It is because when people have more of their own money in their pockets, the economy grows. They are better off.

At the heart of this motion, the Liberals need to admit that they were left in a surplus situation. Now they need to go to Canadians and tell them why they are going into a massive deficit situation of their own choosing with, and here is the rub, no plan to get out of it. They should be able to tell Canadians, in two or three years, here is how these program expenditures will bring us back on track.

What do we have instead? The rhetoric we get instead out of the government is, let us make a checklist of absolutely everything we can do to hamper the Canadian economy right now. Point in case: Last night, the Prime Minister of this country was in Calgary. He was asked a very simple question. He was asked if the National Energy Board, our regulator in charge of conducting arm's-length scientific review processes for major infrastructure projects, green-lights the energy east pipeline, will his cabinet approve it.

Reader's Digest notes on his comments were long and obfuscating: “we will see”. He told a job-creating company to forget investing billions of dollars into the review process or going to their investors or their workers and saying that they would take a risk and build some job-creating infrastructure, forget the sanctity of the scientific review process. “I do not know, maybe we will approve it; maybe we will not. It is up to me.” That puts the chill on investment. That is what drives down government revenues over time.

Why is it important to support the motion? We left the Liberals in a surplus position. They should have to go to Canadians. They should have to go and tell them why we are in a deficit position of inordinate magnitude.

During the campaign, the Liberals said that their platform was fully costed. We are already at the point where they are well over that, just on the one area of responsibility. I am responsible for talking in the House about the Syrian refugee initiative. That platform was not fully costed, not even close. The Liberals have an accountability to Canadians.

I am happy to stand up and argue in this place on how we spend Canadians' money, but the Liberals should not lie to them. They should not tell them that we are in a deficit situation when we are not. They should not tell them that government officials the Liberals use to produce their budgets and their projections are wrong all the time. How else are we supposed to be accountable to Canadians?

For every Liberal who will stand up in this House and vote against the motion, I hope that all of their constituents write to them and ask why they would lie about the position we are in. Why would they do that? At least they should be honest with Canadians about how they are taking their money and spending it.

In a time of economic downturn, the government proposes to increase premiums for the CPP. That is not what people need right now. They do not need more money coming off their paycheque. It is the same thing with increases in EI premiums. That says to job-creating companies that maybe they will not be able to hire another person because their operating expenditures are going up. When we raise taxes on job-creating companies, they have to make a choice on whether they can invest in a new project or hire more people.

Again, table 3 in that report shows government revenue increased while the federal tax burden was at its lowest level in 50 years. The Liberals' logic is flawed. They owe it to Canadians to be honest. Every single one of them who gets up and votes against the motion in this place has a lot of explaining to do.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for sharing that tale with Canadians.

My hon. colleague forgot one thing, though: on October 19, Canadians clearly chose a government that invests in Canadians, in infrastructure, and in the middle class.

She asked us if we held consultations. I am proud to say that I consulted the people of Quebec, in Saint-Maurice—Champlain. I also held 15 or so consultations across the country. It is clear that the only ones who believe in rhetoric are the members across the way. They are the ones who put this country in more than $150 billion of debt and left us a deficit.

Canadians understand that the only ones who are trying to play politics with our country's difficult economic situation are the members on the other side. They have absolutely no credibility on the economy. They had seven successive deficit budgets and added $150 billion to the national debt.

Why does my colleague opposite continue to tell Canadians that everything is fine? Why does she not admit that, on October 19, Canadians chose to invest in the economy? Why does she disagree with the IMF, which suggests investing when interest rates are low? The international community and economists all agree, and Canadians understand that. My colleague should explain her position to Canadians.