Mr. Speaker, it is always nice to hear the hon. member, whom I always associate with Shawinigan, even though he is not from there. I am a good old-fashioned archaist, as everyone knows.
He raised two points that I find intriguing. First, he reminded the House that in this budget, his government is bringing the retirement age back down to 65. It is our belief that that is not good for the economy. In fact, that point of view was also held by the current Minister of Finance, who just two years ago published a book entitled The Real Retirement. In that book, he said that raising the eligibility age to 67 was the right thing to do and a step in the right direction, adding that “in 20 years' time, the economy will run better”.
Unfortunately, the former author and experienced businessman became a Liberal minister who is short-sighted when it comes to public finances.
The other point is that the member and parliamentary secretary keeps repeating that it is excellent because their budget puts more money in people's pockets.
Can the member and parliamentary secretary recognize that his approach is based on spending money that we do not have? In fact, the tax changes announced a few months ago will cause a $1.7-billion deficit, and the changes in family benefits will result in a $1.4-billion deficit.
In short, does the parliamentary secretary recognize that with these changes, the money we put in people's pockets is money we do not have?