House of Commons Hansard #373 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was conservatives.

Topics

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

10:30 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Opposition Motion—Federal DeficitBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:30 a.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON

moved:

That, given the Prime Minister broke his promise to eliminate the deficit this year and that perpetual and growing deficits lead to massive tax increases, the House call on the Prime Minister to table a plan in Budget 2019 to eliminate the deficit quickly with a written commitment that he will never raise taxes of any kind.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in this new chamber for my first speech here, and may it always remain faithful to the principles and practices of its predecessor. That is our inheritance as parliamentarians and as Canadians.

Speaking of inheritances, the Prime Minister inherited a massive family fortune. He has bragged about it. He has called it a family fortune. Because he has never had to worry about money, he does not worry much about Canadians' money. He believes budgets balance themselves. For people who inherit a family fortune, I suppose they do. He believes one can borrow one's way out of debt. I guess if one has always made other people pay for one's mistakes, that might make sense.

However, for ordinary, everyday Canadians who get up in the morning and earn a living and pay their bills with their own money, none of those things makes sense at all. The problem with this mindset is not just that it dances riddles in the Prime Minister's brain, but that it plays out in real consequences for Canadians, consequences they feel in their everyday lives. Canadians are paying for his mistakes.

Political life has only grown the Prime Minister's fortune. He forces taxpayers to fund his nannies while working Canadians pay for their own child care expenses. He was found guilty of breaking ethics laws by accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars in free vacations from someone seeking a grant from his government. He accepted thousands of dollars in speaking fees from charities and school boards while he was being paid to work here in the House of Commons. At that time, he had the third worst attendance record of any of the then 308 members of Parliament. He even forced Canadian taxpayers to pay the expense for him to clown around India with a terrorist and a celebrity chef in tow, until that great country laughed him out of town.

Canadians work hard and they pinch their pennies, so they laugh when the Prime Minister says that the budget will balance itself. Many of them, though, believed him when he put his hand on his heart and promised that the budget would be balanced this year. He looked them straight in the eye and said there would be three modest deficits followed by a balanced budget this year.

However, now we know that not only did this Prime Minister inherit a fortune, but he is costing Canadians a fortune. The debt is growing to four times as much as he said. Far from being balanced this year, the budget will not be balanced, according to Finance Canada, until the year 2040. We know what this means, and that is the purpose of this debate.

We know that this Prime Minister's out-of-control and growing deficit today will lead, if he is re-elected, to higher taxes tomorrow. Before we get into the case to prove that reality, let us just point out that not everybody is doing worse.

The wealthiest Canadians are doing much better. The Prime Minister and people like him who have family fortunes, such as the trust fund finance minister, are in the class of the one per cent. According to the CRA, the wealthiest one per cent is actually paying $4.6 billion less in income taxes than it was in the final year of the previous Conservative government. This, of course, runs contrary to the Prime Minister's promise, but it is the factual reality, which his own department of tax collection has publicly reported, and which has been printed in the Globe and Mail.

Unfortunately, for everyone else, those people without a family fortune, life is getting more expensive. Let us just recap why it is getting more expensive. When it becomes costly, the government makes life more costly. Deficits drive up interest rates and inflation in the present, and they drive up taxes in the future. That is why Canadians are consistently telling us they cannot make ends meet.

Half of Canadians now say they are $200 away from insolvency, not able to pay their monthly bills. I have an unfortunate message, a warning, for all Canadians. Yes, taxes have gone up under the present Prime Minister, but they ain't seen nothing yet, and let me give the evidence for that claim.

First, the Prime Minister broke his promise and raised taxes once before. The average middle-class family is paying $800 more in taxes than when he took office. This is because he took away the children's fitness tax credit, the transit tax credit, the textbook tax credit from students and the education tax credit from those same students. That is in addition to the increases in payroll taxes that take effect this year and the carbon tax that takes effect on April 1.

The Prime Minister took in all of the extra revenue from these taxes, and one would think that would have helped the budgetary balance, but instead the $20-billion windfall that resulted from higher taxes and a booming world economy has vanished, because the Prime Minister blew every penny.

That brings us to the second point. The Prime Minister not only raised taxes, but he got caught trying to raise others. He attempted to impose a 73% tax on small business investment. He attempted to impose new tax penalties on family businesses that transfer the company or the farm from father to son or mother to daughter. He tried to tax health and dental benefits.

He even tried to put in a new tax on what are called employee discounts, like when a waitress has a chicken salad sandwich on her 10-minute break at one o'clock in the morning. Her employer was going to have to put that on her T4 slip and force her to pay income tax on it at the end of the year. Thank God we caught the Prime Minister and forced him to put that plan on ice.

He also attempted to take away the disability tax credit from diabetics. These tax hikes will all be back if he is re-elected, when he will no longer need voters but will still need their money.

Then we have the carbon tax cover-up. It started with the blacking out of documents that I requested in an ATIP, asking for the real cost to average families of the Liberal carbon tax. The Liberals claim that this tax makes people better off. If that were true, surely they would be determined to release every single government document they have to prove it. Instead, there are dozens of pages covered, ironically, with black ink, which is of course a carbon-based product itself. They have not revealed how much carbon went into that ink either, so that is another part of this cover-up. That is only the first part of the costs they refused to reveal.

The second part is that the documents they released that were not blacked out indicated that they will not be able to meet their climate change goals with a $50-a-tonne carbon tax. They now admit that it will require a $300 carbon tax. That is six times higher than they admit and 15 times higher than the tax is expected to be this year. Rather than, as the government claims, costing Ontario families about $600, when the carbon tax is implemented it will cost them over $3,000. Rather than costing the average Saskatchewan family about $900, it will cost that same family well over $5,000.

Again, that is based on documents the government released, and the numbers are calculated based on the government's own figures. These are not the opposition's calculations; they come directly out of the government's documents. In reality, if Canadians re-elect the present Prime Minister, they will pay carbon taxes in excess of $3,000 per year in Ontario and $5,000 a year in Saskatchewan.

The Prime Minister will tell Canadians not to worry because he will send them a rebate for $150 a year. Big deal. Trading $3,000 for $150 might make sense if one has inherited a family fortune, but for the folks who pinch their pennies in order to get by, that is a financial disaster. For families who are $200 away from failing to pay their monthly bills, that is a mathematical impossibility. They recognize that they are already paying for the Prime Minister's mistakes, and they cannot afford to pay a fortune more.

The next proof point that the government will impose massive tax increases if the Prime Minister is re-elected is the deficit. The Prime Minister promised we would have a balanced budget. He broke that promise. He broke his promise on deficits; he will break his promise on taxes. It is a mathematical fact that runaway and growing, permanent deficits must eventually lead to tax increases. The only way to avoid that is to set in place a plan, starting this year, to phase out that deficit over a reasonable time frame so that we can avoid the higher taxes that the Prime Minister is setting Canadians up to pay.

This is an unavoidable fact. We have seen it before. Back in the eighties and nineties, the deficit grew and grew until the interest was consuming one out of every three dollars that Canadians spent on their federal taxes. Now we see the same trend. The deficit is growing, and so is the debt interest. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, by the year 2023, only four years from now, we will be spending $40 billion a year on debt interest. That is an increase of two-thirds from last year. We will be spending more on debt interest than the government currently spends on health transfers. In other words, that means money for bankers and bondholders rather than for doctors and nurses.

Of course, when that happens, the Prime Minister will come back here and say that circumstances have changed and he can no longer keep his promises, and that yes, he denied and denied during the 2019 election that he was going to raise taxes, just as he had denied and denied that he would run long-term deficits in the election before, but that unfortunately he is going to have to make Canadians pay more. We can almost imagine him giving the speech now, a tear rolling down his cheek, blaming everyone but himself: “It is the world's fault. It is Stephen Harper's fault. It is John A. Macdonald's fault. It is Wilfrid Laurier's fault.” He could go further back into history, I am sure. There is no one who is more skilled at externalizing blame for his own failures than the Prime Minister. We can count on him to do it again in the future. If—God forbid—he is re-elected, he will impose massive taxes.

It is a common characteristic of those who have never had to pay for their own mistakes. If people inherit a family fortune, they just pass on their mistakes to others and let them pay for it. That is how he has lived his life and that is how he has governed the country. However, Canadians can no longer afford to pay for his mistakes.

That brings us to the fifth and final proof point: because he inherited a fortune, he costs one. He costs Canadians a fortune.

Most people understand the basic principle of scarcity. When they are raising their kids, they will tell them they can do skiing in the winter or hockey, but they cannot do both, or they can have a great vacation at the cottage or at Disneyland, but they cannot do both. Most people who go out and buy groceries are going to make sure they get the best price for those groceries so that their dollar goes as far as possible. Someone who inherits a family fortune does not have any appreciation for that sense of scarcity, because there is always someone else's money to spend. It is always “yes” and “get me the most expensive one you can find”. That is exactly how he has run the government.

Do members know that the Government of Canada is 25% more expensive today than when the Prime Minister took office? Does anybody out there in the real world believe they are getting 25% better services or products from the Government of Canada? I cannot find a constituent who can identify a 25% increase in the benefit.

If a grocery store charges 25% more than the competition but says to just trust it because it is worth the money, yet the product is exactly the same as before or worse than before, then really the grocery store is asking the consumer to pay for the brand name. Does that not remind us of someone? Even though it is way more expensive, worse in quality, costs more and does less, we would pay 25% more for the brand name.

Opposition Motion—Federal DeficitBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

Conservative

Stephanie Kusie Conservative Calgary Midnapore, AB

It is Prime Minister's choice.

Opposition Motion—Federal DeficitBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON

Someone said that it is the Prime Minister's choice, not President's Choice. I thank the member for that very helpful intervention.

However, there it is, the case that Canadians need to hear: if the Liberal government is elected with the current Prime Minister at its head, they will raise taxes, and those tax hikes will cost Canadians a fortune. We know this because he raised taxes before. He got caught trying to raise them again, and he covered up the true cost of the carbon tax. We will have to pay for his never-ending and growing deficits. Of course, he inherited a fortune, he spends a fortune, and therefore he will cost a fortune.

I do not want it all to be about bad news, because in a democracy there is always an alternative, and we have a good one. We have as our leader the son of a working-class family who grew up with the same struggles as ordinary Canadians. He worked at a local restaurant in order to pay his bills and get through university.

He had a driver too, but his driver was a bus driver. He talks fondly about how hard it was trying to convince a girl to go on a date when they had to meet at a bus station. He worked in insurance briefly before he was elected to Parliament. He raised his five children with the same values he inherited from his working-class family. Those values were that he had to work for everything he had, had to live within his means, and could not make others pay for his mistakes.

We need to empower individuals and their families to get ahead through their own ambitions and hard work. It is not about us and it is not about him. It is not even about our leader; it is about everyday Canadians achieving their dreams through their own hard work. It is about putting people before government.

Under our leader, we will make government live within its means so that life is more affordable and Canadians can achieve their dreams.

Opposition Motion—Federal DeficitBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:50 a.m.

Jennifer O'Connell Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Youth Economic Opportunity), Lib.

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech, but I find it interesting that once again my hon. colleague quoted the Fraser Institute's numbers. He stopped for a while when he realized that they did not include the Canada child benefit or the CPP changes that our government implemented.

Why is the member so scared to put up the Conservative Party's own economic plan and instead using false numbers and fake facts to try to scare Canadians into voting for them? Why will the hon. member not speak the truth and demonstrate the real numbers instead of using the Fraser Institute's numbers, which leave out a lot of the equation?

Opposition Motion—Federal DeficitBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:50 a.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON

Madam Speaker, I will list for the member all of the tax increases that she voted for and that the Prime Minister implemented, breaking his promise to the middle class.

One, he took away the children's fitness tax credit. As his justification, he said that soccer moms and hockey dads are too rich and do not deserve a tax credit, according to him.

Two, he took away the tuition and education tax credits, making working students, particularly low-income ones who have earned income, pay higher taxes.

Three, he took away the transit tax credit, which again targets lower-income people who are disproportionately likely to take public transit.

These are just some of the tax credits that he took away from everyday families.

Another one that is very interesting is that he imposed new taxes on charities. It used to be that if a business person gave private shares to a charity, the transaction was exempt from a capital gains tax. It meant more money for charities such as food banks, hospitals, dramatic arts centres and other things, but he put a tax on that too.

These are the tax increases he has imposed on Canadians. They work out to about $800 for the average Canadian family.

Opposition Motion—Federal DeficitBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:50 a.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC

Madam Speaker, I would like to wish the member a very happy new year. I enjoy working with him on the finance committee and will enjoy working with him going forward.

However, we do not always agree. We do not agree on the rampant tax evasion that we are seeing from the wealthiest of Canadians. As members know, offshore tax havens and the exclusion of the web giants from having to pay any sort of income tax, or taxes of any sort, cost Canadians tens of billions of dollars a year. This means less money for housing, less money to support a national pharmacare program, and less money to make investments in Canadians.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer tried to get a handle on this and had to fight for five and a half years, first with the former Harper government and then with the current government, to finally get the information for a report about this gap between revenues that should be coming in to make investments in Canadians and the money available to the federal government. The Parliamentary Budget Officer will be publishing the report this spring.

My question is very simple. Why did the member's government stonewall for three years the Parliamentary Budget Officer's attempt to get the real information on the growing tax gap in Canada?

Opposition Motion—Federal DeficitBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:55 a.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON

Madam Speaker, of course we did no such thing.

However, the member is correct in pointing out that the wealthiest Canadians are paying less tax under the current government. The wealthiest 1% are paying $4.6 billion less in tax under this government. That breaks another campaign promise. It is a reality and it comes from CRA data. It was reported in The Globe and Mail in a very informative front-page piece by Bill Curry, a respected Ottawa-based journalist. That is a fact.

Another fact—and socialist parties do not like to hear this fact—is that whenever government gets big and expensive, it is always the working class that pays. The rich guys always find a loophole. They move their money out of the country, their hire the best accountants, they go to the black market, or they just make the decision that they have enough money already and do not need to earn more, and therefore they do not have additional taxable income to declare and pay tax on.

The reality is that big government always falls heaviest on those with the least. That is why we need to limit government and expand the scope of economic freedom: so that everybody, not just the wealthy and well-connected who have their hands in government pockets, can get ahead.

Opposition Motion—Federal DeficitBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:55 a.m.

Conservative

Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON

Madam Speaker, I will be supporting the motion.

One of the things I wonder about is what we got for all the spending. When we look at the facts, we did not get much.

Here are four facts that prove we received very little for all of this out-of-control spending.

The Liberals like to talk about how Canada, under their watch, has improved its standing in the world. Here is a fact: Canada's overseas development assistance goal is 0.7% of GDP. With the Liberal government it is 0.25%, one-third of our international commitment.

Canada's NATO commitment is 2%. In fact, when President Barack Obama was in that very chair, everybody on the opposite side applauded when he said that Canada needed to meet its 2% commitment. Well, Canada spends less than half of that commitment on national defence each and every year.

As well, Canada's climate change commitment is not going to be met. We are going to blow through the Copenhagen targets. We are going to blow through the Paris targets.

Finally, the most important daily activity for millions of Canadians, some 15 million Canadians, is commuting. Commute times under the current Liberal government have gone up. In the GTA alone, it now takes over an hour for Canadians to commute each and every day, a 4% increase over the previous census—so what did we get for all of this out-of-control spending?

Opposition Motion—Federal DeficitBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:55 a.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON

Madam Speaker, I am afraid I cannot answer that question, although it was a good one.

What did we get for all of this spending? It is funny that the well-informed, hard-working member from Ontario would ask the same question my constituents ask me over and over again. They say that they are paying more and that their government is up to its eyeballs in debt, and what do we have to show for it? We have a big embarrassing trip to India and legalized weed, and what else?

We have a 25% increase in the cost of government, and what is there to show for it? We just have a more expensive government that is spending a fortune and is led by someone who inherited a fortune who is going to pass on to future generations a massive debt that will cost a fortune.

Opposition Motion—Federal DeficitBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:55 a.m.

Liberal

MaryAnn Mihychuk Liberal Kildonan—St. Paul, MB

Madam Speaker, it is such a pleasure to be here in the new chamber. It is my first opportunity to speak. I could not help but stand to talk about the member's motion to look for a rapid reduction of the deficit. I would point out that $16.5 billion of the expenditures announced in the fall economic statement were directed at business.

My question to the member is this. If he looked at aggressive tax cuts, would he first slash the housing program for the poor? Maybe he would go after single mothers and the child benefit. Maybe seniors would feel the wrath of the Conservative plan. How about veterans? Let us not forget infrastructure, which we need so much more of. Maybe it would be the program of pay equity that would be the first to go. Would it be, finally, our efforts on reconciliation with indigenous people?

I look forward to the Conservative plan to see who is going to be hurt first.

Opposition Motion—Federal DeficitBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON

Madam Speaker, the government has achieved nothing in any of those areas. It is true. It is true that they are more expensive. It is true that everything the government does is more expensive. The only thing it uses as a success metric is how much money it has shovelled out the door.

If we ask the Liberals how they are doing on, let us say, roads, they say that their road program costs three times as much as the previous government's, and therefore, it must be good. “Are you filling any pot holes?” “No, not filling pot holes, just costing a lot of money.” No other business, no other sector in the world, would judge its success by how deliberately and exorbitantly expensive it can be, none but the government.

Opposition Motion—Federal DeficitBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

Jennifer O'Connell Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Youth Economic Opportunity), Lib.

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to participate in a discussion with hon. members about our government's record on good fiscal management. Our government has strengthened the middle class. We have provided real help to those who need it and we have grown the economy with more good, well-paying jobs for Canadians.

By investing in people and in their communities, we have created hope and opportunities for success. Hard-working Canadians are seizing these opportunities, building better lives for themselves and their families. Over the course of the past three years, Canadians have created over 800,000 jobs. The unemployment rate is at a historic 40-year low, and the share of working age Canadians with jobs is also at a historic high.

Our economy grew at the fastest pace among our G-7 peers in 2017, and we are expected to remain among the leaders in growth this year and next year. Most importantly, the benefits of this economic growth are being widely shared among Canadians. Groups that have been under-represented in the labour force, namely young Canadians, new Canadians, women and indigenous people, are seizing the new opportunities we are creating, joining the workforce or improving their positions within it and contributing to a stronger, growing middle class.

Our government came in determined to help hard-working Canadians have more opportunities to share in the benefits that come from a strong and growing economy, and that is exactly what we have done. We have taken decisive and effective action, based on the shared values that define us as a country, to make Canadians' priorities a reality.

We asked the wealthiest one per cent of Canadians to pay a little more so that we could cut taxes for the middle class. The middle-class tax cut is benefiting over nine million Canadians.

We created the Canada child benefit. Compared to the previous system of child benefits, the CCB is simpler, more generous and better targeted to those families that need it most. It is also entirely tax-free. With the CCB, nine out of 10 Canadian families are getting more in benefits than they did under the previous system. Canadian children are better off as a result. The CCB has already helped lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty. The extra support it gives makes a big difference for those working hard to make ends meet. This additional support from the CCB helps pay for things that can make a real difference in a child's future, such as nutritious food, sports activities and music lessons.

Thanks to the middle-class tax cut and the Canada child benefit, a typical middle-class family of four receives on average of about $2,000 more each year to help with the cost of raising children, saving for the future and helping grow the economy for the benefit of everyone.

With our middle-class tax cut and the Canada child benefit, a couple, one earning the average wage and the other earning two-thirds of that wage, with two children, now keeps nearly 85% of the couple's gross income. For a single parent of two children earning the average wage or for families with two children where only parent is working at the average wage, the benefits are even more significant. According to the OECD, when the CCB and other benefits are added to family income, those families effectively pay personal tax rates of just 1.8% and 1.2% respectively. This means that they keep more than 98% of what they earn. I am proud to be able to say that Canada is truly a global leader.

We have gone even further to ensure that the benefits of economic growth are widely shared. In our 2018 budget, we introduced the Canada workers benefit. The CWB will put more money in the pockets of low-income workers, encouraging more people to join and stay in the workforce and offering real help to more than two million Canadians who are working hard to join the middle class.

Beginning this year, the CWB replaces the working income tax benefit. The CWB will provide for a benefit that is more generous and more accessible. To give a sense of what this will mean for Canadians, low-income workers earning $15,000 could receive up to almost $500 more from the Canada workers benefit in 2019 than they would have under the previous system. That money can be used to support their priorities to get ahead, making a real difference for Canadians who are working hard to join the middle class.

With these investments in Canadians and a growing economy, we are proving what Canadians already know: a country cannot cut its way to prosperity. A different approach, one that includes smart investments and fair choices, is what keeps us strong, united and growing together.

That is especially the case when it comes to Canada's most vulnerable. Rather than cutting services for the most vulnerable, we are supporting them while responsibly managing our fiscal track. For Canada's most vulnerable seniors, we increased the guaranteed income supplement top-up, which is providing greater income security for close to 900,000 seniors, 70% of whom are women, while helping to lift 57,000 vulnerable seniors out of poverty.

We also introduced Canada's first-ever national housing strategy. This 10-year, $40-billion plan will give more Canadians a safe and affordable place to call home, lifting 530,000 households out of housing need and reducing chronic homelessness by 50%.

Investments in infrastructure, including public transit, roads, bridges and ports that support trade, water and waste-water facilities, cultural and recreational infrastructure, and affordable housing, are helping to improve the quality of life for people across the country while setting the stage for sustained economic growth and the creation of well-paying jobs over the long term.

In addition to support for Canadian scientists, researchers and innovators, new trade agreements, including the new NAFTA, the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement with the European Union and the Comprehensive Progressive Agreement for Trans Pacific Partnership, will mean even greater economic opportunities for Canadians in the years ahead.

Our government also recognizes the importance of a competitive tax environment for small businesses. Lower tax rates for small businesses allow them to keep more of their hard-earned money so it can be reinvested to support growth and to create jobs. That is why we have reduced the small business tax rate, first to 10%, effective January 1, 2018, and then to 9%, effective January 1, 2019. The combined federal-provincial-territorial average income tax rate for small business is 12.2% in 2019, the lowest in the G7 and the fourth-lowest among members of the OECD. For small businesses, our actions mean up to $7,500 in federal tax savings per year compared to 2017. For the average small business, it means an average of $1,600 per year to reinvest in new equipment, growth and job creation.

Small business is a key driver of Canada's economy, accounting for 70% of all private sector jobs. The small business tax reductions introduced by our government will support jobs and growth in small businesses and will create new opportunities in communities right across the country.

We are taking action to ensure that all Canadians benefit from the opportunities we are creating and will continue to benefit in their retirement years. We have worked in collaboration with our provincial and territorial partners to enhance the Canada pension plan so that Canadians can enjoy a dignified retirement. The CPP enhancement will be phased in starting this month. It will mean more money for Canadians when they retire so they can worry less about their savings and focus more on enjoying time with their families. Over time, this enhancement will raise the maximum CPP retirement benefit by up to 50%. This translates to an increase in the maximum retirement benefit of nearly $7,300, from $13,855 to more than $21,100 in today's dollars.

To conclude, we have accomplished all of this—creating jobs and economic growth, investing in new opportunities in the future and supporting our most vulnerable—while carefully managing our fiscal track. We are being fully responsible in safeguarding the advantages Canada enjoys as a result of this approach to financial management. Canada's strong fiscal position has allowed our government to invest in Canadians while keeping the debt-to-GDP ratio on a downward track and protecting the long-term fiscal sustainability of Canada's economy.

Opposition Motion—Federal DeficitBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:10 a.m.

Conservative

Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

Madam Speaker, the hon. member spoke about many things I disagree with. I am flabbergasted that she still contends that the USMCA, for example, was in any way an improvement on the previous situation we had under NAFTA. Canada made nothing but concessions in the context of those deals. The triumphs the Liberals pointed to were merely concessions they did not make.

I want to ask this, which pertains particularly to the topic of the motion that was proposed. The government talks about all its spending. Does it, at a basic level, acknowledge that when it takes on debt it has to pay interest on that debt, which ends up costing Canadians more over the long term? In other words, if it does not have a plan to balance the budget, if it fails to develop such a plan, that failure has a significant cost to Canadians in terms of higher taxes. What ends up happening then is that we pay taxes not for social programs, not for the vital needs of Canadians, but we simply end up paying more and more taxes to fund interest on debt to pay bondholders more money. Surely, that is not in the public interest.

Does the member accept, as a point of basic principle, that we should be, as much as possible, using our taxes to fund things for Canadians and not interest on debt that is continually being accumulated as a result of the failure of the current government?

Opposition Motion—Federal DeficitBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:10 a.m.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Youth Economic Opportunity), Lib.

Jennifer O'Connell

Madam Speaker, what I will first say is that I would take absolutely zero lessons from the Conservatives on how to manage a stable economy. The Conservative government added $150 billion to the debt in 10 years. The Conservatives speak about the debt, yet they added $150 billion. What did that get Canadians? Tax cuts for the wealthiest, low growth rates, high unemployment rates and cuts to things like services for veterans and Canadians. They did nothing to support seniors and to ensure that Canadians have a dignified retirement.

Therefore, I do not accept the Conservative member's premise on how to manage an economy that grows for everybody. That is what Canadians elected us to do and that is exactly what we are delivering on.

Opposition Motion—Federal DeficitBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:10 a.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC

Madam Speaker, I wish the member a happy new year. I look forward to working with her on the finance committee. However, I found her speech absolutely unbelievable.

At a time of the greatest housing crisis in our country and a family debt crisis that is not only the worst in our history but the worst in the industrialized world, with families struggling under record debt levels and unable to pay for their medication, their housing or their kids' schooling, the Liberals are saying that everything is just fine. It is not. Their misplaced sense of priorities could not have been more evident than last fall in the mini-budget when the Liberal government handed out $14 billion to Bay Street so that they could write off their corporate luxuries, such as a private jet or a stretch limousine, more quickly on the taxpayers' tab. This is a misplaced sense of priorities.

When are the Canadians who are struggling under these family debt loads, and struggling in the worst housing crisis in our history, going to get the same priority from the current government that Bay Street always seems to get?

Opposition Motion—Federal DeficitBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:15 a.m.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Youth Economic Opportunity), Lib.

Jennifer O'Connell

Madam Speaker, we agree that, after 10 years of fiscal mismanagement by the Conservatives, families were struggling. That is why they elected our government, which is focused on them, focused on lowering taxes for middle-class Canadians and focused on creating a more generous Canada child benefit. That is precisely what we have been focused on and delivered on. As I said in my speech, on average, a typical Canadian family will be $2,000 better off under our plan than that of the Conservatives.

It is tough to hear the criticism from the New Democrats given the fact that in the last election they agreed with the Conservative fiscal plan, which was austerity, cuts and balancing the budget at all costs. We knew we had to make investments to support Canadians, which as a result have created over 800,000 jobs.

Our plan is working and we are focused on Canadians.

Opposition Motion—Federal DeficitBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:15 a.m.

Liberal

Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC

Madam Speaker, I found my colleague's speech to be very interesting. I have the honour of sitting with her on the Standing Committee on Finance.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague a question. In 2015, when we decided to invest in Canadians, one thing we did was create the Canada child benefit. I know for a fact that, in my riding, it helped address to some degree the worldwide problem of the gap between the rich and the poor. The benefit certainly helped families in need and made a huge difference for thousands of children in my riding.

I would like my colleague to comment on the Canada child benefit and the positive impact it has had on Canadian families.

Opposition Motion—Federal DeficitBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:15 a.m.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Youth Economic Opportunity), Lib.

Jennifer O'Connell

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the work he does on the finance committee.

The Canada child benefit has been transformational. The member spoke of how the benefit is helping families in his riding, which is precisely its intention and why we knew that this type of investment was important. The Conservatives' motion today as well as the press conference done by the member for Carleton earlier is very concerning to me because it indicates that if the Conservatives were to form government they would make significant cuts.

I suspect, since the Conservatives never supported lowering taxes for the middle class and they did not support the Canada child benefit, that is precisely what they would cut. They are going to cut the Canada child benefit. They are going to hurt the families across this country and in particular in the riding of the member who asked the question. Thousands of families would not be better off and the Conservatives do not care about the hundreds of thousands of children we lifted out of poverty. They just want to cut it.

Opposition Motion—Federal DeficitBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:15 a.m.

Conservative

Cathay Wagantall Conservative Yorkton—Melville, SK

Madam Speaker, it is important that we make an accurate comparison today. When the previous government and our prime minister were in power, we faced the most difficult—

Opposition Motion—Federal DeficitBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:20 a.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Dark days.

Opposition Motion—Federal DeficitBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:20 a.m.

Conservative

Cathay Wagantall Conservative Yorkton—Melville, SK

Yes, Madam Speaker, it was dark days for the entire world and our government was the envy of the world for the way that we dealt with the issues that we were facing as Canadians. Canadians came out of that recession in better shape than any other country in the world. On top of having to go into deficit numbers for a good reason, we were able to turn around and have a plan to balance that budget to lower taxes for Canadians.

The current government is spending carelessly at a time when it should realize we are in a good position. The Liberals are wasting Canadian tax dollars with no plan to balance their budget. Do you have a plan to balance the budget if you are so fiscally responsible?

Opposition Motion—Federal DeficitBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:20 a.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

I want to remind the member that she is to address questions and comments to the Chair and not to individual members.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance.

Opposition Motion—Federal DeficitBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

January 29th, 2019 / 11:20 a.m.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Youth Economic Opportunity), Lib.

Jennifer O'Connell

Madam Speaker, if we are going to speak of a history lesson, maybe we should talk about the fact that the Conservatives blew through the Liberal surplus that was left to them long before the global economic changes. Let us talk about that for one second. In addition to that, I love how the member opposite referred to the investments we have made in Canadians as wasting money: things like the Canada child benefit, lifting hundreds of thousands of kids out of poverty; investments in transit; investments in seniors; and investments in veterans services, which the Conservatives cut. These are investments in Canadians who, after the dark days of the Harper Conservatives, said they wanted a change and a government that was working for them and not for the Conservatives' millionaire friends. That is exactly what we have been doing.

Opposition Motion—Federal DeficitBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:20 a.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

Before I go to resuming debate, as members know, we have been trying very hard to improve decorum in the House. We have some repeat offenders here. I would hope that, just as they are afforded an opportunity to speak, they would ensure that there is no rhetoric being thrown back and forth. Therefore, I want to remind the member for Kingston and the Islands, the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan and the member for Yorkton—Melville to please refrain from having other discussions across the way or making comments when someone is speaking. I am sure that they would appreciate having that respect as well, and I know that the member for Yorkton—Melville experienced it a while ago when she was making her speech, where people were making comments during that speech.

Therefore, I would again ask people to refrain. If they wish to partake in the discussion, they should ask to be put on the speakers list or they can wait until questions and comments.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.