Mr. Speaker, I guess it is somewhat comforting to now realize that the economic theory of the Conservative Party comes from a work of fiction.
Putting aside The Hunger Games and the appetite that leaves us to go after this a bit harder, I am kind of struck by something.
The party opposite often references The New York Times article about how well the middle class is doing. I often wonder if those members have actually read it beyond the headline, because the second paragraph says the following:
Members of the middle class in Canada worry about whether they can afford college for their children and whether their children will find jobs afterward. Housing costs are a major concern, as are everyday costs for transportation and mobile-phone plans. Middle-class Canadians worry about inequality.
In light of the fact that this is what Canadians are worried about, is it any surprise they changed governments in the last election?
However, what surprises me more is that the party opposite often rails about the deficit, somewhat oblivious to the fact that the Conservatives added $150 billion to the debt.
In light of the fact that the member opposite does not believe in Keynesian economics, does not believe we should go into debt when we are not in recession, which the Conservatives did in 2007 well before the 2008 recession, is he willing to resign and sit as an independent because of the disgrace of that party and its record on fiscal management?