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

Opposition Motion—Federal DeficitBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

Conservative

Alupa Clarke Conservative Beauport—Limoilou, QC

Madam Speaker, I go door-knocking every month and I can tell you that Quebeckers have no appetite to see their tax bill constantly go up and their quality of life go down.

I would like us to focus on more important things. When we look at the state of international relations, whether with China, Southeast Asia, South America, Africa, Asia or Europe, we see countries that have plans to address the great challenges of the 21st century. Here, the government is barely capable of drafting a plan to balance the budget.

How will this government prepare for the great challenges of the 21st century when it cannot even come up with a plan to balance the budget?

If my NDP colleague conducted a survey in his riding, I am sure that everyone would tell him that the government has to stop raising taxes. That is what is important.

Opposition Motion—Federal DeficitBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

NDP

Cheryl Hardcastle NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON

Madam Speaker, it is funny that the member wants to find out what people in our ridings think. In my riding, the Conservatives have been an abysmal failure on their financial record. Lowering corporate tax rates did nothing. They caused dead money to be invested elsewhere. They created unemployment. Austerity is directly linked to increasing austerity. The Conservatives have a fundamentally flawed economic record.

Instead of talking just about austerity, why do we not ever hear how you would increase revenues? We know what happened, especially with seniors and veterans, when they were cut severely. Are you going to—

Opposition Motion—Federal DeficitBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

I am sorry, but I did allow the member more time than what was allotted. She did take a whole minute, and we did not have that much time left. I will allow the member to respond.

The hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou.

Opposition Motion—Federal DeficitBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

Conservative

Alupa Clarke Conservative Beauport—Limoilou, QC

Madam Speaker, I do not know what world the member lives in, but maybe she should cross the floor, because she seems to be attracted to the way they manage the economy on the Liberal benches.

I want to speak about the veterans file. To the contrary, my colleague was the minister before the last election and did an amazing job making sure that we had new benefits. There were dozens of new benefits given to veterans under the Conservative government, and that is the truth. It is just outrageous to see the Liberals lying like that on the backs of veterans.

Opposition Motion—Federal DeficitBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

I would caution members to be careful with some of the words they are using. The words “lying”, “fibbing” and “traitors” are not words that should be used here in the House. We know that members have different opinions, and we have to be respectful of those opinions.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for London—Fanshawe.

Opposition Motion—Federal DeficitBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

NDP

Irene Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Sherbrooke.

I would like to begin by acknowledging that this new chamber stands on unceded Algonquin territory. It is an honour that carries the heavy responsibility of working toward reconciliation with the indigenous peoples to whom this land was originally entrusted and to whom it still belongs. I would also like to thank my colleague, the MP for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, for his heroic and tireless efforts in fighting for the right to speak and hear indigenous languages in this House. We are so grateful for him, his courageous spirit and all he has accomplished in the House.

Today we are debating the Conservative motion calling on the Prime Minister to table a budget focused on eliminating the deficit and to not ever raise taxes again. It probably comes as no surprise that New Democrats will not be voting in favour of this motion.

Before the members opposite begin screaming about the tax-and-spend policies of the NDP, I would like to remind the House that New Democrat governments across this country have consistently delivered balanced budgets more often than any other party. New Democrats understand the value of taxation as the means to provide equal access to services for Canadians from coast to coast to coast. New Democrats understand that taxes fuel social democracy, the values upon which this nation was founded.

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. said that taxes are the way we pay for civilization. As Canadians For Tax Fairness points out:

2. Taxes put out fires, keep our streets safe, provide our children with education, provide our families with health care, ensure our food and water are safe, create legal safeguards for businesses and employees, provide parks—in other words, provide us benefits every hour of the day, every day of the year.

3. The average Canadian household receives about $41,000 in public services each year.., a tremendous bargain for the vast majority of Canadians.

4. Past generations paid taxes for what we have today—schools, hospitals, courts of law, roads, public transit, parks. Our taxes today allow us to pass along those benefits to future generations—our children, grandchildren and great grandchildren.

5. If we ignore, shortchange or postpone funding for social, economic and environmental problems today, the solutions become more expensive in the future.

6. Public sector employees work hard, often in difficult circumstances, to keep government running and provide the public services we need. We need to attract and retain hard-working public employees and pay them fair compensation.

7. ...Taxes provide a counter-balance [to the power elite], by softening extreme disparities in wealth, power and benefits.

8. Taxes ensure that Canada can build and maintain the necessary infrastructure—[safe water supplies and sanitation,] education, health care and transportation systems—to attract investment and businesses, and thrive in a competitive global economy.

All businesses have benefited and prospered because of the infrastructure provided by civil society. Rather than trying to force a promise from the current or any other government to never raise taxes again, we would do better to discuss the ways in which the tax dollars entrusted to us can be spent wisely, with the needs of Canadians at the forefront. Neither Conservatives nor Liberals have been able to accomplish that. ln fact, I would say that neither party has had any real interest in accomplishing that.

New Democrats understand that this Conservative motion is nothing more than posturing in advance of the next federal election. Conservatives under Stephen Harper ran six deficits between 2008 and 2014. In fact, the Conservatives slashed the corporate income tax rate by one-third, from 22% to 15%, over a six-year period, but only corporate taxes. Individual citizens paid dearly for this corporate tax break, and they continue to pay so corporations like General Motors can reap huge profits without any responsibility to the community and people who made those profits possible. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has said that these corporate tax giveaways cost the government $12 billion annually, but these drastic cuts have not boosted investment or led to promised job creation. The NDP is convinced that if the government made the wealthy pay their fair share, it could tackle inequality and build an economy that would benefit all Canadians.

The Liberals refuse to reverse Harper's corporate tax cuts, and so do the Conservatives, whose so-called efficiencies created an austerity plan that included reductions in health transfers and cuts in food and transportation safety, imperative safety measures. Certainly they have done this kind of cutting when in government.

History shows us that neither the Conservatives nor the Liberals have the best interests of Canadians at heart. If they did, women would not have to continue to fight for pay equity after decades of being paid less than men doing equivalent work.

If they cared to make it a priority, they would have a fully funded, comprehensive health care system that included pharmacare and fully funded home care, with wage parity for health care workers.

If they cared, we would have universal and accessible child care programs.

If they cared, we would have legislation that protected workers when factories moved offshore or that prevented companies that go bankrupt from stealing workers' wages, invested as pension dollars, to pay corporate bonuses to those who already have more than their fair share.

If they cared, we would have a national housing strategy that actually provided affordable housing for every Canadian who needed it.

If they truly cared, we would have a strategy for poverty elimination and would have met campaign 2000's goal to raise every child out of poverty by the year 2000. However, here we are. It is 2019, and food bank use is higher than it has ever been, because families must make choices between paying the rent and buying groceries. It is our shame in a country as rich as this.

The tragic irony is that we know from the experience of other governments that if we were to provide these public services for Canadians, the country would prosper. Just as a rising tide raises all ships, every Canadian, rich or poor, would benefit, because we would not have to pay poverty's tab in increased costs in health care, education and the justice system.

In 2011, the cost of poverty to our economy was $24 billion. Members can be assured that this cost has increased in the eight years since. By contrast, Quebec's universal daycare program has resulted in an increased GDP for the province, because more women have been able to enter the workforce and contribute their tax dollars to the public good.

February 2 is Groundhog Day, and in that same theme as the famous Bill Murray movie, we find ourselves recycling the same old bogus arguments over and over again in this House. Whether it is the white cats or the black cats in power, the story always ends the same, and Canadians end up losing.

Are our memories so short in this House that we forget Paul Martin's slashing of health care transfers to the provinces to pay his deficit? Our health care system has yet to recover. Canadians have suffered for it. Canadians are paying out-of-pocket expenses for life-saving drugs and medical procedures that used to be covered. Of course, we are plagued with creeping P3 agreements that erode the democracy of a fully funded public health care system.

The Prime Minister has stated that Paul Martin made the right decision, but he would have us believe that he would not do the same thing. However, he has done nothing to restore funding slashed by his Liberal predecessors to health care, employment insurance, and our public broadcaster.

The solution is obvious, if only there was political will. If the government ensured that super-wealthy corporations and individuals paid their fair share of taxes, we could tackle inequality and build an economy that would benefit all Canadians. Instead of recovering this lost tax revenue and applying it to better health care, community infrastructure, and other urgent priorities, such as veterans, seniors care and housing, the Liberals refuse to close tax loopholes.

This Conservative motion is about the deficit, and New Democrats are asking this: What does a $19-billion deficit buy? It buys billions in gifts to Bay Street, such as the tax incentive to purchase corporate jets and limousines. Let us not delude ourselves that the Conservatives are any different. Stephen Harper implemented the G7's lowest corporate tax rate, but the promised community investment spinoffs have never materialized. lnstead, Canadian corporations have stashed away $200 billion in offshore tax havens. They close factories and lay off workers, claiming lost profits at the same time as they pay bonuses to executives and shareholders.

It would be refreshing if we could focus on what is really important for Canadians, rather than this ridiculous race to the bottom that always ends up with cuts to services and Canadians who continue to lose and pay with their hard-earned dollars and their hard-earned—

Opposition Motion—Federal DeficitBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

Opposition Motion—Federal DeficitBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Madam Speaker, I am sure there must be some regret on the other side of the House. We have seen very progressive measures by our government over the last three years and the New Democratic Party has consistently voted against some of those progressive measures. Many of my colleagues have talked about those already today. They are issues like the Canada child benefit, the increases to the guaranteed income supplement and the national housing strategy, which is tenfold what the New Democrats talked about in the last election. They continuously stand up and vote against these. I am sure there has to be some remorse, just by listening to her speech.

The NDP answer to all problems seems to be to tax corporations. I was in the Manitoba legislature for a number of years. In 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009, every one of those NDP budgets actually had a reduction in the corporate tax. Seven times they actually decreased corporate tax, and that is a NDP administration. One would think that would be absolutely taboo if one listened to members of the national NDP caucus. I wonder if she could explain why the NDP at one level, where the NDP is in government, has no problem cutting corporate taxes, and at the same time perhaps explain—

Opposition Motion—Federal DeficitBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

I am going to stop the member there. I know he could go on, but I have others who want to ask questions.

The hon. member for London—Fanshawe.

Opposition Motion—Federal DeficitBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

NDP

Irene Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON

Madam Speaker, I am sure there are a lot of regrets over there, regrets about broken promises in regard to postal services, promises to seniors who still live in poverty, to all of those people waiting for that promised “after the next election” housing strategy. There is lots of regret.

In terms of corporations, I am talking about the tax havens. I am talking about the Bronfmans, who have a cozy relationship with the government and have not paid their fair share of taxes. What about those loopholes? What about those tax havens? What about bringing that money home so that there can be money for veterans, for children and for families that need it? Yes, I am sure they are filled with remorse over there.

Opposition Motion—Federal DeficitBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

NDP

Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB

Madam Speaker, I have heard the member for Winnipeg North allude a couple of times to 10 times the number the NDP announced in the election. The thing about the number for the national housing strategy that he does not say when he mentions the number is that it is a speculative number. It is contingent upon investment by provincial governments that have not committed to making that investment and private sector investment that also has not committed. The member is keen to take credit, as is his government, for spending by other people who have not announced they are going to do that.

I am wondering, because the debate is about budgeting and deficits, what kind of sense does it make to have a government claiming credit for money that other people are purportedly going to spend when they have not committed to spending it.

Opposition Motion—Federal DeficitBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

NDP

Irene Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON

Madam Speaker, the Liberals take credit for a lot of things they never did and do not intend to do. Housing is most definitely one of them.

I remember in 1993 when Paul Martin cut funding for the national housing strategy and we have never recovered. We are years and years later and this bunch is talking about maybe having some housing after the next election, maybe having housing if we get buy-in from some of the provinces. We have a Doug Ford government in Ontario and I do not expect to see any housing anytime soon, unless there is a NDP government in the country in 2019.

Opposition Motion—Federal DeficitBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

NDP

Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate and rise for the first time in this temporary House to give a speech.

Unfortunately, we are once again debating a Conservative motion. Whether in the permanent House or here in the temporary one, they have fixated on two things: the carbon tax and balanced budgets.

As I was saying to a colleague earlier, we are being asked to vote on a motion that would indefinitely tie our hands with respect to taxes in Canada. If the members of the House pass this motion, the government and the House will never be able to increase taxes under any circumstances. This is a rather restrictive motion that would tie our hands indefinitely. The motion does not have a time limit, even though my colleague seemed to be saying that it would only apply to the Liberals' next term. The motion clearly states, in black and white, that the government must never raise taxes of any kind.

My colleague may have had good intentions when addressing fiscal responsibility. The NDP is a very responsible party when it comes to taxation. Members need only look at the record of the numerous NDP governments in many provinces over the years. By examining the record of other major Canadian political parties, we come to realize that the NDP has the best record on fiscal responsibility in Canada.

Naturally it makes sense to talk about taxation, responsibility and a balanced budget in the House. These are important themes for those listening to the debates, for several observers of Canadian politics and for people in the financial and business sectors concerned with these issues.

Every government must manage public finances responsibly and must have a credible plan for returning to a balanced budget when it makes investments and accumulates deficits. This is probably the biggest shortcoming of the current Liberal government. It has no plan for balancing the budget. That is what the Conservatives' motion condemns.

If that was all, we would be having a different discussion. Unfortunately, the Conservatives go much further. They want perhaps to divide the House by asking us to indefinitely prohibit tax increases in Canada. As I stated earlier in a question addressed to my colleague, it is totally irresponsible today, in 2019, to support such a motion that would forever tie our hands.

On this file, the Conservatives are big talkers. They act as though they were perfect and never ran any deficits. They keep talking about balanced budgets, but recent history shows that they do the opposite of what they say.

Earlier, my Conservative colleague said that running deficits inevitably leads to raising taxes and paying more in interest every year. It is true that the interest rates are high and that they increase over time, according to forecasts. If interest rates go up, so does the cost of the public debt. That is money that goes directly in the pockets of Canadian and global high finance. Major financiers are lining their pockets and giving bonuses to bank executives.

My colleague said that interest rates would inevitably go up, but she failed to mention that the Conservatives added $150 billion to the public debt over the last decade they were in power. The Conservatives themselves increased the public debt by $150 billion. I would therefore like to ask my colleague how much that represents in higher taxes and higher interest charges.

The Conservatives are all talk and no action. When it comes time to walk the talk, unfortunately, that is when we see the Conservatives' true colours, for they do not do as they say. They tell others to do as they say, but will not do so themselves, unfortunately.

What can we say about the Liberals in all that?

The first item in the Minister of Finance's mandate letter is a plan to balance the budget in 2019-20. Lucky for us, that is this year. Perhaps in the upcoming budget we will have our answer to that promise and that mandate letter, which puts balancing the budget at the top of the list. At that point we will see whether that promise can be added to the very long list of broken Liberal promises. Unfortunately, that is the reality. The Liberals make promises during the election campaign but then do the opposite once they are elected. That is what awaits Canadians during the next election campaign. Canadians will have to be vigilant and keenly aware of what the Liberals are all about—not just this Liberal government, but Liberals in general. Indeed, time after time, the Liberals have said one thing during an election campaign only to do the opposite afterwards or simply deny saying what they did to get elected.

That promise to balance the budget hints at the kind of political tactics the Liberals are likely to redeploy during the upcoming election campaign.

One thing the motion does not mention is what is in store for Canadians if the Conservatives win the next election: Stephen Harper-style austerity. I remember it well. Conservative austerity measures really hit hard in 2011. Soon after winning their majority in 2011, the Conservatives began cutting in every department. If I remember correctly, they instructed departments to cut nearly 5% of their budget.

That Conservative approach is what lies in wait for Canadians. Let us not fool ourselves. When the election rolls around, Canadians will have a choice to make. Voting for the Conservatives will mean voting for the kind of cuts we saw in my riding, Sherbrooke, where services to the public were reduced.

The Conservatives are already trying to convince people that their plan to balance the budget will not affect services to Canadians. That is totally false. Canadians must not allow themselves to be misled by such appealing promises. The truth is that it will be 2011 all over again.

Cuts were made to services in Sherbrooke between 2011 and 2015. There is no longer an Immigration Canada office in Sherbrooke. People no longer have in-person access to the services offered by Immigration Canada, they can rarely attend their citizenship ceremony in Sherbrooke, and they can no longer or rarely ever take citizenship tests there. People have to travel to Montreal to have access to those services. That is the reality created by the Conservative cuts. The impact of those cuts is still being felt in 2019 since the Liberals did nothing to remedy the situation.

The same thing goes for the Canada Revenue Agency. Before the Conservatives' 2011 austerity measures, the people of Sherbrooke had access to in-person services at the Canada Revenue Agency. When the Conservatives took office, they put an end to all in-person services there. They simply posted the telephone number to call for services on the door of the CRA office. That is the reality created by the Conservative cuts and austerity measures. With all due respect to the Conservatives, Canadians will be warned that cuts to services are hiding behind all this talk of balancing the budget.

Although I will not repeat what she said, I believe my colleague from London—Fanshawe pointed out just now that taxes are important. With all due respect to the Conservatives, taxes do serve a purpose. Throughout this debate, members seem to have forgotten that taxes serve a purpose: they make a fairer and more just society possible. As my colleague said, those who pay the least tax are also those who receive the most services. That is the kind of society we want to live in, a society where the least fortunate still have access to quality services so they can overcome their difficulties, succeed in life, and have a shot at a better future. Conservatives need to realize that taxes serve a purpose even if that offends their Conservative ideology.

Opposition Motion—Federal DeficitBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

Liberal

Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Surrey—Newton, BC

Madam Speaker, I listened very carefully to the hon. member, and I agree with some of the observations he made about the Conservatives. However, he mentioned that we did not have a plan in place. In fact, when our Prime Minister, our leader, ran for the leadership, Canadians gave him a mandate, and we had a plan to help the middle class and low-income families. Through our plan, there are over 900,000 seniors who receive benefits. In my riding alone, there is $8 million going to child care benefits that help low-income and middle-class families. We have reduced the taxes for small businesses. All of these plans are helping middle-class families.

The last time I noticed the NDP supporting the Conservatives to bring a Liberal government down, the Kyoto agreement was gone, child care benefits were gone and the Kelowna accord was gone. I wonder if the hon. member will support the Conservatives now on this motion.

Opposition Motion—Federal DeficitBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

I would remind members again to keep their preambles short enough to allow for other questions.

The hon. member for Sherbrooke.

Opposition Motion—Federal DeficitBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

NDP

Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC

Madam Speaker, I am surprised to hear my colleague raise that issue yet again. The Liberals seem to be forgetting that it was not the opposition that voted against them in 2006, but rather Canadians. No one member of this House decides who forms the government. Canadians decided the Liberal reign was over because of Liberal corruption.

I would like the member to correct the talking points he receives from the Prime Minister's Office. It was not the NDP that tossed the Liberals out; it was Canadians. I hope he realizes that one day.

Opposition Motion—Federal DeficitBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

Conservative

Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

Madam Speaker, it is interesting in following this debate to hear the Liberals try to hide from how much the Prime Minister's failures are costing Canadians. People know, and the member for Winnipeg North in particular knows, that Canadians are paying for the government's mistakes.

I wonder if the hon. member can comment on an issue that he and I agree on. Perhaps there are not many, but I think we both agree that the government should not have spent $4.5 billion buying a pipeline. We think it should have built it without buying it. The member probably thinks differently about the building piece, but certainly the government has no plan to get it built.

The government has been asking our members where we think spending should not have been made and what areas we would cut. I say that the government should not be spending money by giving it to private business. It should not be giving money to the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.

Would the member agree with me that these are areas where expenditure should not happen, and does he think that we could get to a balanced budget much more quickly if we were willing to take on some of these issues?

Opposition Motion—Federal DeficitBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

NDP

Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC

Madam Speaker, if my colleague wants me to list all the Liberal government's bad spending choices, I would not know where to begin. Of course buying a pipeline for $4.5 billion U.S. is an outrageous expenditure by the government. It also shows that the government is completely making things up as it goes along on this file.

When it comes to investing in pipelines, the government is able to scrape together $4.5 billion U.S. However, when it comes to social housing, there is no money available and we have to wait until there is some wiggle room for investing, even though there is a housing crisis across the country.

It is a matter of priority. When it comes to supporting oil pipelines, the money is readily available. When it comes to resolving Canadians' real problems, the government asks Canadians to wait until after the election. In 2019, I think that Canadians will be able to see that the government could not care less about Canadians and their well-being.

Opposition Motion—Federal DeficitBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

Before I acknowledge the next speaker, I want to advise him that I will have to cut him off. He has only a couple of minutes.

The hon. member for Edmonton West.

Opposition Motion—Federal DeficitBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

Conservative

Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak on the motion from the member for Carleton today with respect to the Liberal government's failure to balance the budget, which asks that it commit to balancing the budget and to not raising new taxes.

I want to look at the promise made by the Prime Minister in 2015. He said that the budget would balance itself. Members probably think that is hilarious. People laughed about it. However, I think he was being serious. Why? It is because this is a Prime Minister who has never had to balance a household budget himself, so of course budgets just balance themselves.

If only the rest of us could take advantage of such logic. When I go home this Friday and my wife tells me to make sure I go out and shovel the walk, I could just sit and say that the walk will shovel itself. If I ask my kids to clean up their room, they could look back and say that the room will clean itself. Unfortunately, in reality, the budget does not balance itself.

What are the consequences of the unbalanced budget and the massive runaway deficits? I want to quote from Kevin Page, the former Parliamentary Budget Officer, who is now with the Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy. He stated, “As a result, the current federal deficits are entirely structural in nature.”

They're not needed to address the economy and they haven't been used for infrastructure or for the Liberals' fake housing initiative.

An entirely structural nature means there was no business cycle justification for running these deficits. This points to higher inflation and higher interest rates that would not have happened otherwise.

Higher interest rates are going to punish Canadians. Finance Canada itself said that younger middle-class Canadians will be hurt most by the rising interest rates.

Again and again the current government states it is for the middle class, yet its actions show the exact opposite. The government needs to commit to balancing the budget and not raising taxes.

Opposition Motion—Federal DeficitBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

It being 5:15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Opposition Motion—Federal DeficitBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

Opposition Motion—Federal DeficitBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Opposition Motion—Federal DeficitBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Opposition Motion—Federal DeficitBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

All those opposed will please say nay.