Debates of Jan. 29th, 2019

Opposition Motion—Federal Deficit

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will start by referencing the opposition day motion from the Conservatives, which starts to talk about deficits and ends up with the commitment that the government should never raise taxes of any kind.

I will start with the issue of deficits. For those who have been following the political debates around the issues of deficits and debt, they could always ask, because every party seems to be raising this issue in the House of Commons, who they can trust when it comes to the issues of deficits and debt. The best way to find out who is credible on this issue is to consult the fiscal period returns of the Department of Finance.

Over the years, every year, the Department of Finance in Canada tracks how governments of all types manage the fiscal pot that is available for investments in Canadians. NDP governments have the reputation of investing in people. New Democrats do not tend to give massive subsidies to business or a lot of giveaways to Bay Street. In fact, it's quite the opposite. We decry this because we think it is bad practice. We make sure that education and health care are taken care of first. We make sure that those investments go to the Canadians who need them most.

With an NDP government, people can trust that seniors are going to have their pensions taken care of, that they are going to go beyond the cost of living. New Democrats do not believe that seniors should be living in poverty in our wealthy land. We take the principle that all Canadians should have a roof over their heads and NDP governments have historically been the best at creating housing and making sure it is affordable.

With those kinds of investments, people would have to ask themselves who has been best at managing deficits. What the Department of Finance's fiscal period returns tell us year after year—we are not talking about a three-year snapshot or a 10-year snapshot, we are talking about the last 40 years—is that Liberal governments historically are not very good at handling deficits. In fact, they have the worst record. The second worst record belongs to Conservative Party administrations. The reality is that even though New Democrats do not put that forward as our number one issue, NDP governments historically, according to Finance Canada, have been the best at balancing budgets and paying down debt.

That is not something New Democrats carry forward because we believe that, primarily, the business of government is to make sure that those investments are made for those who need them and that the education system is accessible to everyone. Our health care system, of course, comes from Tommy Douglas, the father of Canadian medicare, who had the courage to build the modern health care system, the public, single-payer health care system that we enjoy in Canada. The NDP will be relentless in continuing to push for that next stage in Tommy Douglas's dream, which is to have universal single-payer pharmacare in this country so that every Canadian can take the medication that he or she needs. That continues to be a priority.

If we talk about deficits generally, the NDP has the best track record, but we do it by eliminating these massive subsidies and handouts to big business. We do it by eliminating the pet project financing that we see by both Liberal and Conservative governments. We do this by making sure the investments are made in people.

I was very interested to see the member for Carleton stand on behalf of the Conservative Party and point his finger at the Liberal Party, saying the Liberal Party has increased the cost of government 25% over the term of its mandate. We know a lot of that cost of government has gone to Bay Street. There have been massive subsidies to fossil fuel companies, massive subsidies to corporate CEOs and most recently, the $14 billion that was handed out to Bay Street in the fall mini-budget. The priority was not housing or universal single-payer pharmacare. The priority for the government last fall was to give $14 billion to Bay Street. Therefore, it is not surprising to me that we have seen the cost of government increase to 25%.

However, we just ran the figures, because the member for Carleton surely would have also tested what the Conservative Party increase in the cost of government had been. He would not be pointing the finger at the Liberals unless he had done his homework before coming forward with another figure. Surprising to me, and this undermines everything Conservatives members will say for the rest of the day, the cost of government under Stephen Harper went up 34%, worse than the Liberals.

It is incredible to me that the Conservatives did not do their financial homework. They have come forward with a motion in which their key point is that the Liberals increased the cost of government by 25% with handouts to Bay Street and all those giveaways. He is absolutely right, but he did not do the homework to find out what the increase was under the Conservatives. The cost of government went up 34%, again because of these massive subsidies to Bay Street and to the very wealthy and largely foreign-owned fossil fuel sector.

Handing money left, right and centre to banks and corporate CEOs is something the Conservatives and the Liberals love to do, a pox on both their houses. Neither of them know how to manage money effectively. Neither of them seem to understand how to invest in people. Neither of them seem to understand how to run government in the interest of Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

As the member for Carleton pointed out, it is true that Canadians are living tough times. They are experiencing some of the toughest times we have seen in a number of generations. I completely disagree with my Liberal colleague's point of view that everything is just fine. The Prime Minister said in the House yesterday that he was getting compliments. Therefore, it does not matter that so many Canadians are struggling with the cost of housing. However, the figure that came out last week is indicative of how poor the approach of the Liberal government has been. Forty-six per cent of Canadians, nearly half of our population, is $200 away from financial insolvency in the course of every month. Half our population is struggling with this.

If this figure does not give a cause for the Liberal government to change what has been the incredibly irresponsible and mean-spirited direction it has taken, I do not know what could. After three years of Liberal government, half the Canadian population is a scant $200 away from financial insolvency every month.

I am going to mention three people I know personally who experience first-hand that desperation that comes from just trying to make it through every month. In question period yesterday, I mentioned the case of Sarah, and I did not get a response from the Prime Minister.

Sarah is indicative of so many other Canadians across the country. She is struggling to find affordable housing for herself and her three children. She works full-time as a nurse. She contributes to our health care system. She is dedicated. She works night and day. In fact, she works night shifts. I have knocked on thousands of doors over the course of the last few months and heard these stories so many times about getting affordable housing in Burnaby, British Columbia. In the case of Sarah and her three children, the only affordable housing she can get will take her entire monthly salary. She will have no money for food. She will have no money for clothes, school, transportation or heat.

The Liberals say that everything is fine when half the country is just a scant few dollars away from financial insolvency. They need to consider the case of Sarah, who is struggling. The $14 billion for Bay Street that came out in the mini budget in November was simply disrespectful to her situation.

Let me tell members about Heather. I have raised her name in the House before as well. Heather lives with her mother and her disabled daughter. She is trying to get by every month in a one bedroom apartment. It is a family of three. She is struggling every month to get through the month and keep that apartment.

This is not a rare story in any way. Right across the Lower Mainland, in parts of Toronto, in many of the big cities in the country, families are living in one bedroom apartments, sometimes in bachelor suites, just to get through the month. In the north it is even worse and more chronic. We hear about families of a dozen or 15 people living in a one bedroom home because there is simply no affordable accommodation available. Heather's case should give the Liberal government pause and have it change direction as well.

Let me tell the House about Jim, who I have referenced in the House of Commons before. Jim is very indicative of the crisis that so many Canadians are living through while Liberals hand out billions of dollars to Bay Street. Every Liberal MP would pass Jim every day. He is in a wheelchair on the bridge between the Chateau Laurier and the East Block. We can see him as we walk by. If we talk to Jim, he will say that he is there because he needs to get money for my medication. He lives on social assistance. His medication costs him $540 a month. He has to pay $540 a month out of pocket and the only way for him to do that, whether it is -30° or whether it is pouring rain, is to be on that bridge begging so he can take the medication that keeps him alive.

The Liberals say that everything is fine, that everything is great and they hand out more money to Bay Street. Jim is not fine. Heather is not fine. Sarah is not fine. People are suffering, while the out-of-touch Liberals make the worst policy decisions one can imagine, handing out $14 billion to Bay Street, handing out $15 billion for the Trans Mountain pipeline, which not only have they paid twice its asset value, not only is it a money-losing pipeline but the construction costs are escalating. The impact of that project on the possible loss of jobs in the fisheries and tourism industries in British Columbia is unaccounted. That is where Liberal priorities seem to be. They hand out billions of dollars and do not think of the consequences at all.

The question now is how do we fix this. We believe that we need a fair tax system. Our tax system is the most unequal among all industrialized countries. Our effective corporate tax rate is around 9%, which is not at par with the corporate rate in other industrialized countries.

We think the solution is the opposite of the Conservatives' proposal. They are suggesting that we maintain the existing tax system, which is antiquated and unfair. Unfortunately, this tax system does not allow for investments to help people like Sarah, Jim and Heather.

Other countries are currently working on this. Some European countries are taxing web giants. France was upset that web giants were just paying the effective tax rate of 9%, although this is better than what major corporations pay in Canada. France decided to implement a fair tax system. Web giants will be required to pay their fair share of taxes, which will allow for investments to help people like Jim, Sarah and Heather.

Major corporations are often associated with tax havens, which help them pay an effective tax rate of only 9%.

People like Sarah pay an effective rate much higher than the 9% that the Liberals impose on major corporations. Fortunately, our Parliamentary Budget Officer heroically stepped in. His office said that we needed to find out the exact difference between what companies should be paying in Canada and what they are actually paying. Five and a half years ago, the Parliamentary Budget Officer started this process and asked the Harper government to disclose how much the big companies were paying. Ordinary Canadians pay their fair share of taxes, but we needed to know what the corporate tax rate was for big business. The Harper government and the Conservative MPs all said they could not reveal that information because it was confidential. For three years, the Parliamentary Budget Officer relentlessly pursued his mission. The Conservatives refused to allow for any transparency in the tax system, which is disgusting. They wanted to keep Canadians from finding out the real tax rate and the difference between the rich and the regular folks who pay their fair share of taxes.

We got a new government in 2015, but nothing changed. The Liberals blocked the release of that information for two and half years. The Parliamentary Budget Officer finally said that enough was enough and that he was going to take the government to court, so the Liberals gave in and released the information. In a few months, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who is working hard to figure out all those numbers, is going to announce to Canadians the exact discrepancy between the amount that big business should be paying and the amount that they are actually paying as a result of tax havens. That will change things. That was the last argument that I wanted to raise.

Earlier, the member for Carleton said that eliminating a tax credit is effectively a tax hike. That is not what we want. Big oil companies are getting billions and billions of dollars' worth of subsidies. That makes no sense. That sector turns huge profits. Canadians' tax dollars are being used to help those big oil companies, which are primarily foreign-owned corporations. The Conservatives believe that oil companies should continue to receive those billion dollar subsidies, and the Liberals do too. The Liberals say that they do not like it and that they will deal with it later, but how can we possibly count on them do to that?

Climate change is already costing the Canadian economy and Canadians billions of dollars a year, billions of dollars in insurance payouts, billions of dollars as these catastrophic climatic events occur. For the Liberals and the Conservatives to say that they will continue to subsidize wealthy, very profitable fossil fuel companies does not make any sense at all. Effectively, that is what the Conservative motion would do. The tax credit, according to the member for Carleton, is a tax hike. Therefore, Canadians have to continue to subsidize, according to Conservative logic, a sector that makes enormous profits.

My conclusion is this. The Liberals and the Conservatives have been running the country for decades. They have been running the tax system for decades and they have been running it into the ground. They have created a monster, the most unequal, inequitable tax system in the industrialized world.

We in the NDP believe that we need a fair tax system, a tax system that ensures that everybody pays, as we say in French, leur juste part. By creating that system, we can have the resources to make the investments that make a meaningful difference in the lives of regular Canadians..

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I always enjoy listening to my colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby. He is very eloquent.

In 2015, the NDP promised an austerity budget. I would like my hon. colleague to tell me which of the measures we have introduced he would cut. Would he get rid of the tax cut for small businesses, which lowered their rate from 11% to 9%? Would he get rid of the Canada child benefit? Would he raise the retirement age back up to 67? We lowered it to 65. Would he cancel tax cuts for the middle class?

I just listened to him talk about a fair tax system. Do my colleagues opposite regret having promised voters an austerity budget in 2015?

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, the Liberals are talking about a fantasy budget. In 2015, they promised all sorts of things, but they have done nothing to keep those promises in 2019.

In 2015, they tried to reassure Canadians by saying that they would deal with housing. They said that access to affordable housing was important. Today, people like Sarah and Heather are still waiting.

In 2015, the Liberals said that they were going to institute democratic reform and that the 2015 election would be the last under the existing system. Will that change in 2019? Not one bit.

Today, the Liberals are presenting a fantasy budget and platform. They had no intention of keeping any of their promises. It is now 2019 and it is clear that the quality of life of most Canadians is getting worse. Household debt has reached a record high, not just in Canada but in all of the other industrialized countries. In 2019, I am convinced that Canadians will question the Liberals about all of their broken promises.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is entertaining to watch those two parties argue over who can be more expensive to Canadian taxpayers, who will pay more than the other. It is really impressive to see how quickly they can run up the costs for Canadians taxpayers and that they measure their success by how costly they can be. We will let them continue to carry on this bidding war. We will stand on the side with people who earn the money in the first place, hard-working Canadian taxpayers.

The member is debating a motion related to gradually eliminating the deficit and balancing the budget. He claims always to be against handing fortunes to wealthy people, on Bay Street in particular. There is no mechanism that more readily hands money to the wealthy on Bay Street than interest on our national debt. Who does he think the lenders are who collect the interest? Does he think they just hand over the money out of the generosity of their hearts, all of these investment banks and private equity fund managers? Does he really believe they expect nothing in return? I do not think he does.

He accepts that we pay interest on that debt, that the interest comes from the working class and then it goes to the super rich, that it is a transfer from the have-nots to the have-yachts. Does he not therefore support our view that we should limit public debt?

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member for Carleton is really hilarious on this because he asked the question just a few minutes ago about who would increase the cost of government most. He should already know the answer if he was listening to the debate. The answer is, the Conservatives. Yes, the Liberals increased the cost of government 25% over the term of its mandate, and the member raised those figures quite rightfully in the House of Commons. What he forgot to do, in not doing his homework, was check what the comparative figures were for the Conservatives. There was a 25% increase for the Liberals. What happened under the Conservative mandate? It was a 34% increase in the cost of government. Thirty-four per cent is far worse than the Liberals.

The Conservatives love giving money to Bay Street, love giving money to have-yachts, love giving money to anyone who is rich. With the motion today, they will permanently fossilize any attempt to actually build a fair tax system.

According to the member, the web giants will never have to pay a single dollar of income tax in Canada and all of those offshore tax havens will continue under the Conservatives. That is why we are voting against the motion. The Conservatives did not do their homework. They actually win the gold medal for increasing the cost of government from 2006 to 2015.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague for his speech. He spoke very eloquently about the major differences between them and us and about both the Liberals' and the Conservatives' lack of vision when it comes to management. He talked about the measures that make it easier for web giants to do business and make profits here in Canada without paying any taxes.

I would like to ask him about compelling web giants to collect sales tax, GST and HST, since, unlike Canadian companies, they are currently not required to do so.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I know he is working tirelessly to fix this very situation. This is not just about taxes. It is also about unfair competition. Many Quebec companies have to compete against web giants while paying their taxes and their employees. They are doing everything they can to be good citizens, yet web giants are exempt from all these obligations. I am very grateful to my colleague for asking the big question.

What are European countries doing? The United Kingdom and France are in the process of making web giants pay their fair share and levelling the playing field between them and British and French companies. Only Canada is giving foreign web giants a leg up instead of instituting a system that is fair for everyone.

An NDP government led by Jagmeet Singh will change that and bring in a system where web giants pay their fair share of taxes.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is very fascinating to be in this room today, listening to the Conservatives lecture us about fiscal responsibility. In reality, out of the last 19 budgets the Conservatives introduced into the House, 16 of them ran deficits. Now we are also hearing from the NDP about balancing budgets and ensuring we are fiscally responsible. In the last election, the NDP committed to balancing the budget.

I am not going to ask the question that we seem to ask a lot, which is why the NDP committed to balancing the budget. These are straightforward questions for the member. Did he agree with the position that his party took in 2015? If he did not, is he regretful of the fact that his party did take that position in 2015 to balance the budget?

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I agreed with the NDP position that we should have universal single-payer pharmacare in the country, and most Canadians agree with us. The Liberal promises have been broken and shattered, left in Centre Block. We have seen more broken promises even since we started here.

The NDP's commitment to universal single-payer pharmacare has never wavered and we will continue to push for that. The NDP principle and commitment to ensuring all Canadians have a roof over their heads at night is a commitment from which we have never wavered and one we will never change.

We believe in making investments in Canadians. We do not believe in handing out $14 billion to Bay Street, as the Liberals did this fall. Next October 21, Canadians will be the judge of who is more true to the principles of putting in place a government that actually works in everybody's interest.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to support the motion before the House. I will be sharing my time with the member for St. Albert—Edmonton.

Members may recall that in the last election campaign in 2015, the then leader of the third party promised modest deficits, if elected, leading to a balanced budget by the end of that Liberal term. He said that the promised balanced budget in 2019 was “very” cast in stone. It is not very grammatical, but that is what he said.

The Conservatives warned the brash new leader that in times of modest growth, responsible governments did not run the country into deficits. I am sure members will recall that in 2015 Canada was in modest growth mode. After guiding the country through the 2008-09 recession, Canada was hailed by economists around the world for being the last country to go into recession and the first to emerge, and emerge strongly.

After guiding the country through the 2008-09 recession, our Conservative government raised infrastructure spending by three times and we did it while balancing budgets and lowering taxes on Canadians. In short, our previous government's building Canada plan was the largest long-term infrastructure plan in Canadian history that was itself structured to keep the country out of a structural deficit.

We know that Canadians, for a variety of reasons, made a fateful choice at the ballot box. Almost immediately, buyer's remorse began setting in as the new Liberal government began breaking promises. It broke promises across the policy spectrum. There is not time to list all of those broken promises again today, but the biggest, the most damaging broken promise was the “very cast in stone” promise to run three modest deficits of $10 billion a year, returning to balance in the final year of the mandate, this year, 2019.

Instead, and despite a $20 billion windfall of a booming world economy, the Liberal government blew it all, and has run huge budget deficits, leading to today when the Parliamentary Budget Office tells us that the deficit is more than $21 billion this year alone. According to Finance Canada, the budget will not be balanced until at least 2040. By then, Canada will be looking at an additional $271 billion in debt.

It is abundantly clear that as the Liberal government and the misguided Liberal Prime Minister runs now chronic deficits, he is borrowing money not only from our children but from our grandchildren, in fact, from our great grandchildren. Today's deficits are tomorrow's taxes. As much as taxes have been raised by the Liberal government and continue to be raised based on its past, current and future spending plans, the worst is yet to come.

As the leader of the official opposition, the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, warned Canadians on the weekend, if the Prime Minister is re-elected, our taxes will go up. Taxes will go up in many areas and for a variety of reasons. My colleagues have spoken, and will speak, about the results of misguided policy mistakes and ineffective spending. However, I would like to discuss another example of irresponsible deficit spending with regard to the almost $650 million committed to the ill-considered commitment to bail out the Canadian news industry, widely seen as a cynical election year attempt to co-opt, to buy-off, media owners and publishers.

Members will recall that $50 million was allotted in the 2018 budget and another $595 million promised in the 2018 fall economic statement. There is a stark disagreement between the owners and shareholders and those who actually generate news content on the worthiness and acceptability of the bailout, and I will address that in a moment.

I grew up and was blessed to develop a career in the golden age of 20th century conventional media after arriving in Canada from England near the end of the Second World War. I was born in a Canadian army hospital in Sussex to Albertans serving in the army and army medical core. My father went to work for the Southam newspaper chain in Canada: the Ottawa Citizen, the Medicine Hat News, the Calgary Herald and so forth.

I enjoyed many happy days with my dad at the various papers, captivated by the smell of hot lead, clanking Linotype machines and the wonderful roar of the presses. That led me to a wonderful career in journalism, more than four decades in radio, television and newspapers, working for CTV, Global, CBC, NBC and Monitor Television. I was honoured to host CBC's The National for a couple of years in the mid-70s, before being assigned, or actually exiled, abroad for successfully challenging Trudeau government interference in CBC editorial decision-making during the time of the Parti Québécois government in Quebec.

I participated in the ultimately ill-fated attempt to converge the Global Television Network with the former Southam newspapers to adapt to the rapidly changing media changes at the turn of the century.

I saw far too many colleagues deal with the harsh downsizing of newsrooms, as fragmented advertising budgets and audiences took a destructive toll on the gathering and generation of Canadian news content: local, national and international.

Back now to the stark disagreement over the almost three-quarter-billion dollar news industry bailout I mentioned earlier between boardroom and newsroom. News organization CEOs and publishers, who draw multi-million dollar salaries and equally outsized bonuses as their newsrooms are depleted, are delighted. Then Postmedia CEO Paul Godfrey enthusiastically welcomed the finance minister's fall economic statement announcement. Mr. Godfrey recommended that “Everyone in journalism should be doing a victory lap around their building right now.”

However, I agree passionately with a host of Canada's most respected journalists who immediately rejected the Liberals' bailout as an unacceptable intervention that will compromise the independence of their craft. I share their opposition to the Liberal proposal of a panel of news experts who would distribute the election-year beneficence by deciding which newsrooms are credible and worthy and which newsrooms are not.

The Canadian news industry is not disappearing. It is being transformed from conventional print and broadcast forms to digital platforms. To my mind, struggling conventional organizations will survive only with public policy adjustments that will reset and level the playing field for private sector newsrooms.

The finance minister cannot justify the Liberals' $600-million-plus election year bailout, because he has absolutely no idea what will happen after his subsidized transition period. That is unacceptable. Intervention should have a goal beyond short-term survival and dependence.

I will save discussion of the public policy remedies the government should be considering for another day. I offer the misguided attempt to bail out the Canadian news industry as just another example of the out-of-control deficit spending by the Liberals.

I will conclude by returning to the ask of today's worthy motion:

That....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.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise for the first time in this new chamber. It is always a privilege to sit here.

I will get to my question to the Conservative member in just a second. There is also the whole question of how we pay for the things we need in our society. We have had the Liberals throwing the old canard at the NDP that somehow, in the last election, we suggested an austerity budget, when nothing could be further from the truth. We suggested a budget that served the interests of ordinary working Canadians and in which everyone, including corporations, and especially the big web giants, paid their fair share of taxes.

What I just heard from my hon. friend is that the Conservatives are asking for no new taxes ever. My question is fairly simple. Are the Conservatives actually telling us that we should never ever place any new taxes on those great web giants, like Google or Netflix, and that they should continue not paying their fair share for the services that ordinary working families need in this country?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with the member that the Liberals grossly misspoke in describing their last budget as an austerity budget, which required stimulation to an economy that was in growth, although through no credit of their own. They have been riding a worldwide economic revival, and they have been spending money when they should have been putting money aside for the next economic downturn.

When it comes to the digital mega-giants, the data-opolies, that is one of the public policy adjustments I would like to see considered. It is being considered by our ethics committee today with regard to the Canadian advertising dollars that are going untaxed to American digital platforms. If they were advertising in American conventional media, they would be paying taxes and supporting the Canadian advertising industry.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard several members talk about things such as getting rid of the child fitness tax credit. One of the things that stands out to me from before the election was a conversation I had with someone who was telling me that she could not afford to actually sign her daughter up for soccer, because she could not afford the cleats or the registration fees. This was something that was outside her means. What she needed was help to afford that initial cost.

I was looking at an article by the CBC, which reported that when the tax savings from this tax credit were analyzed, the credit began to look more like a windfall for rich families, which could likely afford the activities regardless, rather than something that helped pay for what lower-income parents could not otherwise afford. I put that out there because I think what everyone wants to see from government is that we are smart about the decisions we make with a budget and our spending.

Would the member not agree that doing something like the Canada child benefit, which gives money to families in need so they can actually sign up their children to participate in those sports is a better decision than having a tax credit available so that wealthy people can sign off on something they were already able to afford?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my Liberal colleague that too many Canadians are simply getting by. They are not getting ahead. It comes back to the basic motion before the House today that these tax-and-ineffectively-spend Liberals sending billions of dollars out of the country because they bought the Trans Mountain pipeline, sending billions of dollars to the Asian Development Bank to develop infrastructure in Asia and not in Canada, and raising taxes on hard-working Canadian families with a carbon tax that is a revenue plan, not an environmental plan, are contributing to the economic pressures on hard-working Canadians who are struggling to not only get by but to get ahead. I would suggest, and remind my colleague, as we remind members today during this opposition day debate on this motion, that these deficits will only be translated permanently into continuing tax increases. If we re-elect the Liberal government, as we were told by the official leader of the opposition on the weekend, Canadians' taxes will certainly go up.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise for the first time in this new chamber. It is a privilege to rise to speak to this Conservative opposition day motion. By bringing forward this motion, we are fulfilling our duty as the official opposition to hold the government to account.

What we have before the House today is a relatively straightforward motion, a motion that, quite frankly, I would hope the government would support, because, after all, all we are asking the government to do is fulfill the promise it made to Canadians to balance the budget.

When the Prime Minister was elected in 2015, he inherited a Conservative balanced budget. Indeed, it was a surplus budget, and very quickly, the Prime Minister turned the Conservative surplus into a Liberal deficit. One could say that was not entirely surprising, given that the Prime Minister, during the 2015 election campaign, campaigned on what he called short-term small deficits. To be fair to the Prime Minister, by turning a Conservative surplus into a Liberal deficit, one could say that it was consistent with the promise he made to Canadians.

Aside from turning a Conservative surplus into a deficit, when it comes to keeping promises made to Canadians with respect to the fiscal management of this country, it has been all downhill from there.

It is important to remind members of the government what the Prime Minister said in 2015 when he was talking about what he again characterized as short-term small deficits. What he meant by that was that in the first year of the Liberal government, the deficit would be no more than $10 billion. What happened to that promise? It turns out that it was a Liberal promise made and a Liberal promise broken. Instead of running a $10-billion deficit in the first year, the government managed to run a deficit of $19 billion, 92% higher than what the Prime Minister promised Canadians.

When the Prime Minister talked about short-term small deficits, he said that in the second year of the Liberal government, the deficit would again be no more than $10 billion. What happened to that commitment? What happened to that promise? Once again, it was another Liberal promise made and another Liberal promise broken. Then the Prime Minister said that in the third year, the deficit would be no more than $5.7 billion. What happened to that promise? It was another Liberal promise made and another Liberal promise broken. We are beginning to see a pattern of Liberal promises made and Liberal promises broken.

The Prime Minister, quite famously, in the 2015 campaign, made the commitment that in fiscal year 2019-20, Canada would be back in the black. The budget would be balanced. What happened to that promise? Again, it was another Liberal promise made and another Liberal promise broken. Instead of balancing the budget, the government is projected to run yet another massive deficit in 2019-20, another massive deficit in fiscal year 2020-21 and another massive deficit in fiscal year 2021-22, and on and on.

It is quite interesting, given how specific the current government was about balancing the budget in 2019, that when the member for Carleton rose in the House and asked the finance minister a very straightforward question, namely, in what year the budget would be balanced, he refused to say. He would not answer the very simple, straightforward question of what year the budget would be balanced.

It is no wonder the finance minister refuses to answer that question, because the true answer is that the budget will never be balanced with these Liberals. Indeed, according to the Department of Finance, at the current rate of spending, the budget will be balanced in 31 years. I am 34. In 31 years, the Liberals will maybe get around to balancing the budget. Therefore, instead of three years of what the Prime Minister characterized as small, short-term deficits, what the government instead is delivering is more than three decades of red ink.

What is quite remarkable about all of this is that the government has managed to run rather large deficits, which are two and three times larger than what it promised Canadians, in times of modest economic growth. It begs the question of what the fiscal situation would look like in the not so unlikely event of an economic downturn.

According to the Fraser Institute, if the economic conditions were the same as 2008 and 2009, the last time this country saw a major economic downturn, instead of running a $20-billion deficit, the deficit would balloon to $120 billion. If the member for Kingston does not like the Fraser Institute, I think he and any reasonable person would agree that the deficit will increase substantially in an economic downturn because two things happen immediately, without any change in policy, when we have an economic downturn: revenues decrease and government program spending increases.

The fact is that the current government has set Canada on a very slippery course, which is unsustainable and comes with a price. It comes with a price in the form of higher taxes. We have seen that from the government. This is a government that rolled back tax credits for public transit users and cancelled tax credits for students and families. This is a government that has shaken down diabetics and the most vulnerable in our society by trying to take away disability tax credits. This is a government that tried to get away with taxing employee discounts and health and dental benefits. This is a government that has increased taxes on the average Canadian family by nearly $1,000. This is a government that is now prepared to impose the mother of all taxes, the tax on everything, a massive and unfair carbon tax.

Quite frankly, it is time the current government did what it said and said what it did, kept its commitment to Canadians and tabled a plan in this House to do what the Prime Minister said he would do all along, which is to balance the budget.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I always listen closely to what my colleague from St. Albert—Edmonton has to say.

Does he know that families in his riding have received 11,910 tax-free child benefit payments for 22,430 children? That is an average of $6,840 a year. Our hon. colleague voted against that.

I would like to know what the Conservatives' plan is. What are they going to cut? Are they going to promise to balance the budget in 2020? I would love to hear what they have to say.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, every day that this government spends it becomes more and more difficult because the government keeps digging a hole. It keeps digging it bigger and bigger. It is completely unsustainable.

What a Conservative government will do is ensure that the government lives within its means, spends no more and puts more money back into the pockets of hard-working Canadians.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I always think it is interesting when the Conservatives, who express their concerns about the influence of foreign money and politics, then turn around and cite the Fraser Institute, which receives enormous donations from the Koch brothers in the United States. However, my question to the motion today goes back to the last part, which says there should never be any tax increases ever and no new taxes ever.

I want to ask the member for St. Albert—Edmonton this. Does he really agree that the web giants should continue to pay no taxes, even while profiting greatly upon their activities that take place in Canada? Does he believe that the super rich in this country, who have seen their marginal tax rates go down, should never pay their fair share for the benefits they have achieved from their economic activity in Canada? Is he fully in support of this motion that would allow those people to continue to avoid paying their fair share of taxes?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, what we are committed to doing is making life easier for everyday Canadians by putting more money into their pockets and scrapping the carbon tax.

I will say this. We have seen many examples that when governments cut taxes, not only does it put money back into the pockets of hard-working people; it helps stimulate the economy and it helps stimulate growth. That results in increased revenue, not decreased revenue, over the long term.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I find it very perplexing to hear the Conservatives lecture this side of the House on fiscal responsibility and, in particular, balancing budgets when, in reality, 16 of the last 19 budgets introduced into this House by Conservative governments ran deficits. Of the three that ran surpluses, two of them came on the heels of Paul Martin's $13-billion surplus. The other one happened in 2015 when the former Conservative government slashed veteran services and sold off shares of GM at bargain prices, just so it could produce a phoney budget to take into the 2015 election.

My question to the member specifically is this. What would the Conservatives cut in order to do what they are proposing? I want to hear specifically what they are going to start cutting out and what services they are going to take away from Canadians in order to get to the desired place he wants to be. In fact, will they actually commit today to being able to do that in 2020 if they were given the opportunity to govern?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we would not have spent $4.5 billion to buy a pipeline that cannot be built. We would not have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to build pipelines in places like Azerbaijan, instead of getting our product to tidewater here in Canada.

With respect to the fiscal record of the previous Conservative government, let the record show that under that government a historic amount of money was repaid in terms of debt, more than $40 billion. The previous Conservative government guided Canada through the biggest economic downturn since the Great Depression, creating more than one million jobs, the best economic growth rate in the G7 and a balanced budget that the current government has blown.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is wonderful to rise in this new year in this new chamber. It is not wonderful to rise to speak to an opposition motion brought forth by the member for Carleton that is, in my opinion, useless, if I can be so direct. It is an opposition motion that does not speak to the needs of everyday hard-working Canadians, middle-class Canadians at home, and their concerns of ensuring they have a bright future for themselves and their kids, or ensuring we make life more affordable for Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Reading the text of this motion, it does nothing to that effect.

Let us speak to the record. We, as a government, cut taxes for nine million middle-class Canadians in the last three and a half years. The opposition, the Conservatives, voted against that. As a government, we raised the guaranteed income supplement by 10% for our most vulnerable seniors. They, as the opposition, voted against that measure. As a government, we brought in the Canada child benefit, which makes nine out of 10 families in Canada better off by $2,300 on average. They, as the opposition, voted against that.

We expanded or enhanced the Canada pension plan, which will benefit generations of hard-working, middle-class Canadians. They, as the opposition, voted against that. We asked the wealthy to pay a little more. They have done well and we all know that. They, as the opposition, voted against that. We cut the small business tax rate to 9%, a savings of $7,500 for SMEs from coast to coast to coast, and Conservatives voted against that.

We have created 800,000 new jobs, a majority of which are full time and in the private sector. We have the lowest unemployment rate in 44 years. What did the Conservatives say? Nothing. Do they have a plan? No. What services will they cut? We know what Doug Ford is doing. He is cutting services for university students, making education less affordable for hard-working families in Ontario. That is the Conservative philosophy. That is what we have. Shame on the Conservatives. Shame on them for not bringing out any ideas.

We are growing our economy. In 2017, we led the G7 with 3% growth. This year, we will come in at 2% and change. Where is the Conservatives' plan? There is no plan. On our fiscal finances, the finance minister met with the rating agencies. They affirmed our AAA credit rating here in Canada. I think the word they used about our fiscal finances was “solid”. Canada's finances are in great shape.

We are doing things to benefit Canadians. For hard-working, low-income Canadians, the ones we really want to help get into the middle class, we introduced the Canada workers benefit. The Conservatives voted against it.

We need to speak about records. As someone who has worked in the financial markets for 23 years, both in New York and Toronto, someone who grew up working at a McDonald's, the Donut Factory, Zellers and a pulp mill and grain elevator, and who comes from the low middle class because my parents were immigrants, I can say we are doing things that are lifting people, children and families out of poverty. What did the Conservatives do? They voted against everything, everything helping families in my riding.

Over 15,000 kids and their families receive the Canada child benefit in my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge, which amounts to almost $5 million a month. What did the Conservatives do? They voted against it.

I will move to the speech I would like to give today, but when it comes to leadership on the economy and the environment, we are acting. That is what Canadians want. They do not want platitudes. They do not want hot air. They want us folks here, who have been elected and have the privilege of serving, to demonstrate leadership. They want us to leave a better environment for our kids, as well as a stronger economy and future for all Canadians.

I welcome all opportunities to remind the House and all Canadians of the work this government is doing because we are very proud of it. We are building a stronger Canada, a better Canada, while continuing to reduce the federal debt-to-GDP ratio. In fact, the work our government is doing is attracting praise from all around the world. The IMF has hailed Canada as an economic model for the world, with the IMF's managing director, Christine Lagarde, saying that the world needs more Canada.

I know the opposition party members like to comment and state facts from the Fraser Institute. How about if we just listen to the residents of our ridings and what they are saying? Why do those members not just go back and speak to them instead of to some think tank? Why do they not ask them what they want to do on the environment? They would like us to put a price on pollution and they would like us to make life more affordable for our residents, and that is exactly what we are doing.

Let us talk to our residents. Let us talk to them about our tax cut for nine million Canadians. Let us talk to them about the Canada pension plan enhancement. Let us talk to them about rolling back the age of eligibility to 65 from 67, which the Conservatives brought in. Let us talk to them about that.

Last year, the OECD gave us positive recognition for the government's historic investments in infrastructure and our first-ever national housing strategy, as well as the expected positive impacts of the new employment insurance parental sharing benefit.

Last week, the best-country rankings the U.S. News and World Report for 2019 put Canada at number one for quality of life, something we should all be proud of, because a strong economy is about people and ensuring that all Canadians have the tools to succeed. From the beginning, this government has put people at the heart of its plan for economic growth. It is one thing to grow the economy, but we must grow it in an inclusive manner, and that is what we are doing.

That is why we have lifted 300,000 kids out of poverty. That is why our national housing strategy, which again the Conservatives voted against, is lifting hundreds of thousands of people out of poverty and giving them a secure place to stay and to live. We are doing that. In my riding alone, in 2019 we will open a new building with 162 units of affordable housing for our residents. There is much work to be done, and we will do it.

We 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. That is why our government's first action was to ask the wealthiest Canadians to pay more so that we could cut taxes for the middle class.

Yes, there is a tax cut for nine million hard-working Canadians at home. Maybe some in Ontario are home today because it snowed so much, but most of them are out working.

Thanks to the middle-class tax cut, over nine million Canadians can save more, invest, or buy what they need. To help parents raise their children, the government created the Canada child benefit, the CCB, a more generous, tax-free benefit targeting families that need it the most. Thanks to the CCB, nine out of 10 families are receiving more money now than under the previous system. This benefit has raised hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty.

Thanks to the tax cut and measures such as the CCB, a typical middle-class family of four now gets about $2,000 more each year to raise their children, save for the future, and contribute to economic growth, which benefits everyone. That money is changing these families' lives. For example, it is helping them provide healthy food for their children and buy new winter boots.

The Canada child benefit is transformational. We brought it in, and it is helping families every month in ridings across Canada, including the ridings of the opposition parties, and we have to acknowledge that. It is lifting hundreds of thousands of kids out of poverty and it is helping families, and that is something we all need to be proud of.

Would the Conservatives cut the Canada child benefit when they talk about it? Would they do what Doug Ford is doing, cutting services to hard-working Ontario families? I hope not, and they will not.

This money is changing these families' lives. Moreover, in fall 2017, the government introduced measures to help low-income workers, which led to the creation of the Canada workers benefit, or CWB, in budget 2018. The CWB is an enhanced, more generous and more accessible version of the working income tax benefit. Since January 1, the CWB has made it possible for low-income workers to keep more money in their pockets. It will also encourage a larger number of workers to secure and keep jobs while providing real assistance to more than two million Canadians who are working hard to join the middle class.

These Canadians are working hard. We are going to help these low-income Canadians with the Canada workers benefit. People earning about $15,000 right now will get roughly about $500 more when they file their income taxes. We will help them join the middle class.

We will ensure that we take care of all Canadians, including our most vulnerable Canadians. That is why we brought in the 10% increase to the GIS. In my riding alone, over 2,000 seniors received the 10% increase to the GIS, almost $847 on average. It is real and it is helping them.

Our measures have helped Canadians from coast to coast to coast, and we are going to continue to build a strong and inclusive economy for today and tomorrow.

Retirement is a reward to look forward to after many years of work. For many seniors in Canada, and especially women, retirement can be fraught with financial difficulties. We think that is unacceptable.

That is why we increased the guaranteed income supplement for single seniors with modest incomes, thereby giving the most vulnerable seniors greater financial security and greater peace of mind.

We also improved the Canada pension plan, a historic measure if ever there was one. The improvements to the Canada pension plan, to be phased in beginning early this year, will give Canadians more money when they retire, allowing them to worry less about their future and spend more time with their families.

Ensuring Canadians have a secure and dignified retirement is something we ran on in 2015, and we did several things.

In Switzerland, the former Conservative prime minister announced that his government would raise the eligibility age for OAS and GIS from 65 to 67. We reversed that bad plan. For bricklayers or carpenters who had worked all their life and whose bodies were showing a bit of wear and tear and who were looking forward to retirement, going from age 65 to 67 was asking a lot from them. What the Conservatives did was unfair, and we reversed that. That measure would have put people into poverty, and because of the way the system worked, that would have been dumping it onto the provinces. We reversed it.

We enhanced the CPP for future generations, and that was something great. We increased the GIS again. We said we would do that and we acted.

By working with the provinces and territories to improve the Canada pension plan, and thanks to the government's decision to restore the eligibility age for old age security to 65 from 67, more Canadians will be able to spend their retirement under better conditions.

Thanks to the 30,000 infrastructure projects approved since 2016, we are also building strong and resilient communities. The majority of these infrastructure projects are already being built, which is creating more well-paying jobs for the middle class.

As a result of many of these useful economic measures, consumer confidence is practically at an all-time high. With more money at their disposal, Canadian consumers have every reason to have greater confidence in their financial situation and their future.

That is also true for Canadian businesses. Since 2015, their after-tax profits have nearly doubled, which means that businesses and Canadians have more money to invest, stimulate growth and create good jobs.

We know that small businesses drive our economy. Small businesses provide 70% of all private sector jobs. That is why we lowered taxes for small businesses last year. In January 2018, the government lowered the small business tax rate to 10% and this year we lowered it again to 9%.

In my riding of Vaughan--Woodbridge and in the city of Vaughan, there are over 12,000 small businesses that employ over 200,000 hard-working Canadians.

Yes, we have reduced the small business tax rate from 11% to 9%. Yes, we brought in a fall economic statement, which the NDP does not like—to be honest, I am not sure what the NDP likes these days—and it is going to help firms make capital investments and invest in machinery to make their firms more productive and more competitive.

I visited Alps Welding in my riding. It is building components for pipelines in Kazakhstan and components for pipelines in Canada, in Ontario, in Alberta. It is building components worldwide. I invite opposition members to come to Woodbridge so that I can take them to see the great work being done.

The company's biggest issue is that it cannot find enough welders. Its order book is full and it is hiring and expanding, but it cannot find enough skilled labour.

The company is exporting to Alberta, south central Asia, the United States, Ontario and Quebec. It is a Canadian success story owned by a Canadian immigrant family, and that is something we need to be proud of.

My hon. colleagues can taunt and tease, but the family has built something they are proud of and they worked hard doing it. I do not think that is a laughing matter, nor should my colleagues taunt and tease, especially from the opposition side. I tell my kids who are six and eight to grow up sometimes, and sometimes I think the opposition members need to grow up.

The combined federal-provincial small-business tax rate is 12.2%, which is by far the lowest rate among G7 countries. The results speak for themselves. The Canadian economy is strong and is growing rapidly. Its performance ranks highest among G7 countries. There are more good, high-paying jobs for Canadians. Over the past three years, Canadians have created more than 800,000 new jobs, which brought the unemployment rate down to its lowest in more than 40 years.

Canadian companies are doing well and Canadian workers are doing well, but we want to make sure that anyone who is looking for work in Canada can find that job. We are investing in skills training and better data collection. I understand that the Conservative Party cut Stats Canada, cut the long-form census, but we brought it back. Why? It is because we want to ensure we have the information Canadians need when they are looking for work. We want to make sure that the programs the government enters into with the provinces are working well. It is too bad that the Conservatives do not believe in science, data collection and information.

Consumer confidence remains strong and corporate profit margins are good, which opens the door to other investments that could lead to the creation of more good, better-paying jobs for Canadians.

We know that we cannot take Canada's economic strength for granted, and 2018 was a challenging year for Canadian businesses with regard to the recent tax changes in the United States and the ongoing global trade disputes.

Last summer, the government heard from a number of business owners and business leaders that there is strong interest in making investments, the kind that can position businesses for long-term growth and create good, well-paying jobs for Canadian workers. We heard many businesses express relief when we announced our new trade deal with the United States and Mexico, because securing that deal does help when it comes to confidence to invest in the future.

Co-operation between Canada and the United States is nothing new. We have a longstanding productive relationship that is the envy of the world. The connections between our peoples, governments and economies have been yielding positive results for both countries for more than 150 years. We know that if we work together, we can continue to deliver real results for Canadians in the coming years.

The agreement we recently signed with the United States and Mexico reaffirms that our trade relations with our North American neighbours are very important.

We welcome this new modernized trade agreement because we know it will help support good, well-paying middle-class jobs right across the country. At the same time, we know that we need to do more to protect and maintain Canada's competitive advantage. We did that in the fall economic statement with accelerated investment incentives, a measure that will now allow firms to make investments in Canada at a lower marginal tax rate than firms investing in the United States. Yes, call it the Canadian advantage, but it is there.

It is four points lower. It is going to encourage more investment and more creation of good, middle-class jobs in this country. We have created 800,000 jobs since we came into power in October 2015. The majority are full time and in the private sector. We are going to continue doing the job that Canadians sent us here to do.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about so many different issues, and there is so much I could pick up on.

Does the member believe that the budget should be balanced at some point? It need not necessarily be this year, like he promised in the last election, but does the member think it should be balanced at some point, and if so, when?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the debt-to-GDP ratio and the deficit-to-GDP ratio are both on a declining trend. That is what is important. As long as we continue to reduce that deficit over time, we continue to grow the economy, and we continue to invest in Canadians, we are on the right path.

As someone who worked in the financial markets for 23 years of my career, I know that path is sustainable and fiscally prudent. That is why both Standard and Poor's and Moody's recently reaffirmed our AAA credit rating. I have read these reports and they are quite glowing in terms of our government's record, the strong financial figures, and the path we are taking this country on.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated hearing the speech about how everything is just hunky-dory and everybody is doing great.

Unfortunately, from what we are seeing, big city mayors are not in agreement with what the Prime Minister reported to us yesterday. In fact, they are very dissatisfied. The big city mayors caucus chair, Mayor Don Iveson is from my city. He advised the Prime Minister of a number of things.

One of the things the municipalities want is delivery of money now to deal with housing and homelessness. They are not happy with the delivery of the monies on housing. They want permanent funding for public transit, because it is an ongoing issue. The Liberals promised they were going to resolve climate change by investment in public transit, but where is the long-term commitment? They want more money for municipalities, because they are dealing with the major impacts of climate change, and they want a new intergovernmental forum that would give them a voice in federal decision-making.

I am wondering if the member could respond to what the big city mayors actually asked for.