Debates of March 9th, 2020

Opposition Motion—Documents on Economic Downturns

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am still very concerned about the debt. I recognize that all governments have carried on deficit spending over the years. We have spoken about the Chrétien-Martin government and how it actually reigned in the debt and dealt with it. However, it dealt with it by pushing a lot of that spending on to the provinces that then pushed it on to the municipalities, where I used to serve. I felt the pain there.

At some point, someone has to pay. However, before we get to that point, how much debt is too much? What is the limit that the member feels the government should reach in deficit spending?

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as a former businesswoman, I understand debt. The debt ratio in Canada is at its lowest. We have a low interest rate, which has allowed us to foster economic growth in investments.

I am very happy with what I hear from people when I go door to door. They they want a government that invests in what matters to them. One thing that is very important is infrastructure investment, clean energy and ensuring that the jobs of tomorrow are there for the kids of tomorrow.

We can talk about debt, but there is a time when a government needs to invest, and the time is now.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about growing the economy and investing in Canadians. In comparison to the previous government, this government is investing in people by lowering the taxes on the middle class and ensuring seniors have the supports they need, not because it is the right thing to do in a society where we live together but because it helps to grow the economy. When we have a strong middle class, we have a strong economy and everybody does better.

Given her experience in the business community and as a business owner, what impacts does she see when the middle class does well because it has benefited from things like a lower tax rate?

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member touched on a few things about seniors. He talked about investing in local people and what matters to them when it comes to the middle class. One thing I know is this. If employers pay their employees decent wages, all the economics will show these people will in turn continue to spend inside our communities, helping small businesses grow the economy.

I want to ensure I do not forget to remind everyone about seniors. One thing we have done is to ensure seniors have a better long-term fiscal plan. I was very happy to see, as part of our promise, and I hope in our budget, an increase of 10% in old age benefits for seniors.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member was not here in 2015. She was part of the Kathleen Wynne government in Ontario, so I will excuse her for not knowing this.

In the real plan the Prime Minister put out in 2015, he stated, “It is time to shine more light on government and ensure that it remains focused on the people it is meant to serve. Government and its information should be open by default...”

In fact, the mandate letters for all the ministers speaks to this directly from the Prime Minister. This motion is openness and transparency by default. Will she support the motion, yes or no?

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, at this point, I feel confident that our government has shown transparency and openness since 2015. We are probably one of the most transparent and we are here to show members this.

I would remind the hon. member that while I might not have been here in 2015, I do live in Orleans and Ottawa. One thing that was made very clear to me when I went door to door was the openness of our government to invest in what mattered to people. We have done that since 2015, such as bringing the unemployment rates to their lowest in 40 years.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, what a privilege it is to rise today to speak to the opposition motion brought forward by the member for Carleton.

Let me start by giving credit where it is deserved. The member for Carleton is a great orator in the House, but listening to his remarks during question period and during debate on this motion, it is important to include facts on this government's economic and job creation record since we formed government in 2015.

There are many reasons I am proud to stand on this side of the House with the Liberal party, but it is perhaps our record on job creation and improving the lives of Canadians across the country which is why I am most proud.

I have mentioned before that my father was a truck driver and my mother was an administrative assistant at the local school. Simply put, I grew up in a family that was paycheque to paycheque. Therefore, I am sure members of the House can appreciate that when the Prime Minister spoke in 2015 about supporting Canada's middle class and those seeking to join it, his message resonated with me.

However, it has not just been a message; it has been a delivery for Canadians. Over one million Canadians have been lifted out of poverty since we formed government in 2015, including 334,000 children and 73,000 seniors. Poverty rates have decreased in all 10 provinces, and this is the largest three-year reduction in Canadian history. This has not been discussed enough in our debates today about Canada's economic status and our ability to improve the lives of Canadians.

We know more work needs to be done, but we have invested in Canadians and, as a result, it has helped drive a stronger economy.

I have spoken at length in the House about the stories I have heard directly on the doorsteps of residents of Kings—Hants of the benefits of programs like the Canada child benefit and the middle-income tax cuts and what they have meant for families and their ability to buy healthier groceries and to allow their children to participate in recreational opportunities.

I want to talk about job creation. Obviously, today's motion is premised on the idea that our government has not been focused on the economy and that there has not been success in the last five years. That is simply not true. It follows that when individuals have extra money in their pockets, and we just talked about one million Canadians having more money at the end of the month, they will spend it. Our investments in the middle class have created a strong economy that has been buoyed by significant job creation.

I have listened to some of my opposition colleagues criticize the economic performance of this government, but they do not seem to appreciate the fact that 1.2 million jobs have been created in the country since 2015. That is a significant number, and I stand here recognizing that there remain challenges.

I do not provide this statistic in anyway suggesting that our government is content or we do not recognize there remain challenges to ensure our growth in the days ahead. However, like we have in the last 5 years, we will continue to rise to the challenge to deliver for Canadians and work with the private sector to create opportunities for Canadians.

Again, I want to put some numbers on the record, on the Hansard, because the member for Carleton, and certainly earlier the member for St. Albert—Edmonton, has frankly a very elegant way of speaking politically to convey a point, but we are in the business of informing Canadians what is actually true. Therefore, I want to rhyme off some things that are actually true.

Unemployment in the country is at a near-historic low, in fact the lowest since 1976. That is not disputable; that is fact.

Foreign direct Investment in 2018 and 2019 increased substantially by 60% and 18.9% respectively. If people were in the House, they would not believe that to be true by some of the narrative coming from our members opposite. That is a fact.

In February 2020 this year, the Canadian economy added 30,000 net jobs, most of which were full time. Again, these are facts, and hopefully my Conservative colleagues will not get into the theory of suggesting Statistics Canada is somehow fake news.

Let us talk about Canada's marginal effective tax rate. It now stands at 13.8%, which is the lowest of the G7 countries. I am sure my Conservative colleagues would not deny that lower taxes are not beneficial for new growth. We have cut small business tax rate from 11% to 9%.

I want to contrast this against where we were before 2015. It is important to remind Canadians from where we have come. We inherited an economy emerging from a second recession within a decade and the unemployment rate was over 7%. Annual growth was stalled and investment in research and development was declining. As the parliamentary secretary for finance mentioned today, the Conservative government before us was responsible for the lowest economic growth rate in a generation.

I could go on, but the point is some of the members opposite may resort to rhetoric. This government has created a strong economy and has the room to respond to the global economic downturn in the days ahead.

Let us talk about the ability for the government to respond to the challenges in our global economy. Of course all Canadians, and indeed all parliamentarians, have been focused on the impact of the coronavirus and what we are seeing around the world.

Earlier today in question period, the member for Carleton mentioned cupboards and the ability for the cupboards to be stocked to respond to a global downturn. I have news for him that the cupboards are stocked and we are ready to respond. Our debt-to-GDP ratio, which is the debt to the size of our economy, is on a downward track, and that is a key measure. We know from economists that when we borrow we have to ensure that the economy is growing, which it has been.

Canada is one of the only 11 countries in the world with a AAA credit rating. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has concluded that current government spending is sustainable over the long term and that our fiscal plan gives us the room we need to confront new and evolving challenges to keep our economy growing.

The Minister of Finance has communicated that he will be tabling a budget that will ensure we, as a government, are ready to respond to the coronavirus and the challenges it represents.

I want to conclude with just a few points. Our economy is strong; it has shown strength over the last five years. Job numbers are up; unemployment is lower than when we formed government. In fact, it is the lowest it has been since 1976. One million Canadians have been lifted out of poverty. We are well positioned to tackle the global uncertainties that may result from the coronavirus.

The last thing I want to mention is that I welcome the opportunity to debate in this House our economic policy and the government record of creating jobs and meaningful conditions for Canadians across the country. However, when we look at the text of this motion, it asks for essentially every document related to the economy that has been in government hands since 2015.

While our government may respond and support this motion in the days ahead, it begs asking whether this is just pure politics. The men and women in our public service, who are focused on delivering for Canadians, would then have to spend time pulling these documents together. For what purpose, I am not necessarily sure, and I do not know if that has been well articulated by the members opposite today.

What a privilege it is to be able to speak on this topic today, and I welcome any questions from members.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, sitting through the debate today, it is certainly clear the mantra of the current Minister of Infrastructure and Communities is holding true, which is that if one says things over and over again and loud enough, people will truly and totally start believing them.

I want to bring to light to the member that this is a Prime Minister who in 2015 said that the government would be transparent by default. I know that the member is new and perhaps does not know that a lot of the information the opposition has been asking for has in many cases been redacted. I use the impact on the carbon tax, for example, and how that was going to impact the economy, which was a document that was completely redacted.

Even the mandate letters to all the ministers, including that to the Minister of Finance, stated that the government was going to be transparent by default. This is a very simple motion. If the hon. member believes in transparency and accountability, that is precisely what this motion calls for. It is asking what information the government had to indicate the current economic downturn and to provide that information to Parliament. Will he support this motion, yes or no?

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to tackle a couple of the different comments that the member opposite put forward. He talked about the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities and that if something is said often enough, somehow it will become true.

The statistics I put forward on job creation and the economy come right from Statistics Canada. I do not know if the member is somehow questioning the independence or the validity of some of the reports from Statistics Canada, but that is exactly where my information comes from.

I will move to the point on transparency. Of course our government is built on the premise of providing this information. The member asked directly whether I will support it. I suspect this evening, once I have the chance to contemplate it, I will, but again I go back to this being pure politics.

We can sit and debate in this House, but asking for documents going back to 2015 that have any relevance to the economy or to our government's response is just going to create a lot of work for public servants who should otherwise be focused on delivering services for Canadians.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have certainly heard some very eloquent statistics and facts presented by my friend from Kings—Hants. I would like to share some facts from Hamilton Centre.

It is a fact that in the fourth quarter of last year there were 1,500 more unemployed people in Hamilton compared to the same time in the previous year. It is a fact that the labour force of both unemployed and employed people has jumped by 11,000. It is also a fact that the number of people who have jobs has increased by 9,500. I say this because, when it comes to unemployment, the fact is that my residents are often having to work three times as many jobs as they did when they used to be able to have one good job.

With that, and with the statistics that have been coupled with conversations on cutting poverty, would the member not agree that the low-income cut-off rate has remained relatively the same while the cost of living has skyrocketed? Also, would the member not agree that unemployment and the low-income cut-off are not accurate ways to reflect the precarious nature of the lived experiences for the people not just in my riding, but also in ridings across this country?

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, for those Canadians at home who do not know, the member opposite has ties to my riding, having gone to Acadia University and as a member of the football team there, so we have a deep connection through Kings—Hants.

The member spoke about the challenges, in particular to those in his riding. Our government has been thorough in the last five years in terms of trying to support Canadians across the country. The Minister of Labour calls Hamilton home as well.

Speaking to the member's particular situation, I want to highlight the work that has been done. There are, again, the one million Canadians who have been lifted out of poverty. I want to focus on the fact that we have a shared interest in ensuring all Canadians can have access to basic necessities and in trying to improve their standing. That has been a mantra of our government. It will continue to be so, and I look forward to working with him collaboratively in the days ahead to make sure that happens.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Mégantic—L'Érable, a great cleanup hitter for my time today.

I find it interesting when the Liberals comment during this debate and say we are adding too much work for the government by asking for transparency and clarity on some of these issues. We have certainly heard over the last several years that one of the things that seems to be lacking within this government when it is putting in new policies, policies that time and time again weaken industry and our economy, is it is not doing any economic impact assessment before these decisions are made.

We want to raise the awareness that they have been warned about the impacts or the possible consequences of some of their policy decisions and the ramifications they are having. Were the Liberals given those documents? If not, why were they not asking for some of that due diligence before implementing some of these decisions?

Certainly, the motion we have put forward today is highlighting “waste not, want not”. One of the things Canadians ask of their government is to ensure that it is being a strong steward of their tax dollars. There is no question that middle-class Canadians are paying more taxes, but one of the things we want to raise awareness about today is that these policies have also made Canadian business uncompetitive.

I want to talk about a constituent in southern Alberta, John Van Hierden, who has a grain business. Last week he emailed me his carbon tax bill for his grain operation. The carbon tax bill for the month of January was $25,000. He has calculated that by 2022 the Liberal carbon tax will cost him close to $1 million, making his grain operation unsustainable.

When we talk about competitiveness, the other issue the carbon tax has caused is that he has lost one of his most important contracts. He has been selling grain that comes from farmers throughout southern Alberta to Qatar. It is a $2.8-million contract to send southern Alberta grain to Qatar. However, because of the Liberals' carbon tax, he can no longer match the prices of his global competitors. As a result of the carbon tax being in for one month, he has now lost that contract. That is just one of many contracts now in jeopardy because of the Liberal carbon tax.

We are asking the government if they can back this up. Did it do the due diligence before putting in these types of policies? We have specifically asked the Minister of Agriculture if she understands the ramifications the carbon tax is having on Canadian farmers, processors and producers across this country. In her responses she has been saying that she is collecting data and evidence, and that she does not believe it is as harmful as farmers are saying.

Why was this not done before the carbon tax was implemented? Is the government trying to tell Canadian farmers and the opposition that it did not do any due diligence? Could the government not find the information and data to find out what the implications of this were going to be to Canada's agriculture sector before implementing a carbon tax? Now that we are months into it, we still do not have that data or that evidence. I find that to be unfathomable. Frankly, Canadian farmers and producers do not take that as an answer. They want data to back this up.

For the Minister of Agriculture and the Liberal government to say they do not have that data is ridiculous. How is a decision of that magnitude made without doing an analysis of what the impact will be? That is just one producer of thousands across Canada.

I have heard it from grain farmers, dairy producers, honey farmers, and producers of beans and pulses in Ontario. This is from every sector of agriculture and certainly every corner of this country. This is not just something that is impacting western Canadian producers. This is something that is impacting every agriculture producer in this country, and that is even more frustrating.

My colleague across the way was talking about facts today. This is what makes it even more frustrating for Canadian producers, and small business owners as well, when they are being hammered with a carbon tax that the government says it needs in order to reduce GHG emissions and look at revenue.

The one thing that I want to mention as well is this. If the carbon tax is supposed to reduce your fuel usage, how is that possible in agriculture? Are my farmers to just combine on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays because of the carbon tax? That is impossible if we want to grow food, grow the economy and feed the world, and if we want the industry to be successful. Farmers have no way to reduce those things. It just does not exist. Those are some of the facts that the government needs to be aware of.

We have had the Prime Minister spending $95,000 in food and drink on one international trip, 57 bottles of wine, 35 cans of beer, $50 million to Mastercard, and $12 million to one of Canada's largest grocery stores for refrigerator retrofits, even though they had profits exceeding more than $800 million in one fiscal year. Other examples include 1.6 million of taxpayer dollars for the Prime Minister's photo ops, $14,000 on a TV, $8 million on an outdoor rink on Parliament Hill that lasted just a few months, $200,000 on the cover design of the budget in 2017 and $100,000 to operate one minister's Twitter account.

As the agriculture critic, I have to point out that agriculture Canada bought 100,000 cocktail napkins for close to $4,000. That is literally throwing taxpayers' dollars in the waste bin when producers right now are struggling to find a way to remain successful or even profitable. When one sees those types of numbers, it adds to one's frustration.

We had officials from agriculture Canada at committee the other day. I wanted to mention too that we have producers dealing with the harvest from hell, illegal blockades, a carbon tax, lost trade markets and now many of them can no longer even subscribe to programs that should be there to help them, like AgriStability. It is un-bankable, it is unaffordable, it is unreliable. We asked the officials from agriculture Canada what the administration costs would be for AgriStability.

The Liberal government is paying bureaucrats 25% of the entire budget of AgriStability just on administering that program, close to $70 million. That is ridiculous for administration of a program that farmers are not even using anymore because carbon tax, trade disruption and illegal blockades make it impossible for them to subscribe to that program. When we ask for changes to that program or other business risk management suites, the Liberals say they are not going to do that.

We have asked for extensions on the advance payments program loans, to waive interest fees and give agriculture some sort of assistance to get them through this very difficult time and the Liberals refuse to do that.

The Canadian budget deficit is billions of dollars more than the Liberals promised and they are using Canadian taxpayers like a credit card with absolutely no way of paying them back. With deficits of $60 billion more than promised, which will certainly get higher, at some point it has to be paid back. How do the Liberals expect to pay that back when two of the most important pillars of our economy have been decimated, agriculture and energy, because of trade disruption alone? Just in trade disruption in lost markets in China, India, Peru, the United States, Italy and Japan, Canadian producers have lost more than $5 billion in revenue since 2017, thanks to the geopolitical mistakes of the government.

Let us take a look at energy. We had Teck mine walk away from a $20-billion oil sands project in Alberta. Warren Buffet announced that he has walked away from a $9-billion LNG pipeline in Quebec. Energy is $15 billion in royalty revenues for the government. When these revenue streams are taken away, how does the government possibly expect to pay back these massive deficits?

What we are asking from the government is to table the documents to show any due diligence and any economic impact analysis on the impacts that its decisions will have on the Canadian economy. We want the government to support this motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, in particular, I took note of my colleague's story about the grain farmer he was speaking of. Of course, nobody wants to see anybody go through losing such a valuable contract that that grain farmer had with Qatar. What I assume is that the grain farmer had the contract in place prior to the price on pollution coming in. That is when Rachel Notley had another version of the tax in there.

Is my colleague saying that Rachel Notley's plan was a good plan because it gave an opportunity for this grain farmer to be competitive with Qatar? Is he saying that that was the preferred plan? If so, why, when the Conservatives came along, was Alberta in favour of scrapping Rachel Notley's plan?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, what my colleague is missing is that these contracts come up on an annual basis. This is a contract that he could have had, but because of being now uncompetitive, he is no longer able to compete on the global market. The carbon tax is being passed on to agriculture, which is a price taker at the ground level on farmers. They cannot pass that cost on to anyone else. They absorb it.

We are asking the Liberals whether they did any impact analysis on what this would cost Canadian agricultural producers. It is clear that they have not done that and they do not understand the ramifications that this is going to have, not only here domestically in our ability to do business from province to province, but also internationally. More than 50% of agricultural production is traded on the global market. We must be competitive. Programs like the carbon tax have made us uncompetitive.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, one of the key issues before us in terms of diversifying our economy is we know that Alberta has gone through a boom and bust cycle. It has been that way for a long time. We are into a different phase in terms of where we are with respect to the climate crisis. Part of the issue is to look at how we can ensure that the workers in Alberta and elsewhere have alternatives.

To that end, I wonder if the member would call on the government to embark on the new green deal and to actually do a just transition initiative for the workers in Alberta and elsewhere in the oil and gas sector.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the question is really a root cause of where we see a problem within Canada. The Liberals do not look at Alberta as already having one of the most diversified economies in this country. To say that we rely only on energy, I would invite the member to come to my riding where I have more than 500 wind turbines, two of the largest solar farms in the country and one of the richest agricultural areas in Canada.

Alberta is one of the most diversified areas in this country and Albertans do not want a handout. They want to work. They are risk-takers and entrepreneurs, just like most other areas of this country. To say that we are going to somehow transition to this new green economy, where is it? I have 150,000 Albertans out of work who have been out of work for close to four years. There are no magical jobs in the wind turbines and the solar farms. People just want to work at what they do best and that is world-class energy and world-class agriculture.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we saw today just how the Liberals are starting to spin this downturn in the economy and blame it on COVID-19, when in fact we saw slow growth in advance of this. We saw the blockades have significant impact on our supply chain.

I am wondering if the hon. member buys into the Liberal spin that somehow COVID-19 is the cause of all that ails us today.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any question that this is not something that just occurred overnight. We have seen the slow erosion of Canada's economy for several years.

In agriculture specifically, trade disruptions and lost markets due to political bungling, like the trip to India, have cost Canadian agriculture more than $5 billion in lost trade. We have seen $150 billion in capital investment in Canada's energy sector leave. These companies are investing in energy, just not in Canada.

That money is somewhere else, but it is not here in Canada. Therefore, to blame this on the coronavirus is misleading. We have seen bad decisions lead to an erosion in our economy for several years, not just several days.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Before we resume debate, it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni, The Environment; the hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, Government Appointments; and the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Foreign Affairs.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once upon a time, a young man wanted to become prime minister of Canada, just like his father. He got elected as a member of Parliament and then ran for leader of his party. In 2015, he decided to make promises to Canadians. He promised three small deficits: $10 billion the first year, $10 billion the second year and $6 billion the third year, before balancing the budget.

He also promised Canadians that the money he borrowed would be put right into building infrastructure, such as bridges and roads, to stimulate the economy. He argued that when the economy is doing well, it is a good time to borrow money to invest in infrastructure. Unfortunately, this fairy tale had a different ending for Canadians. They were disappointed to see the three small deficits become massive, unending deficits. They were also very disappointed to see the government did not invest the money it had promised for infrastructure during its first four years. They did not see one penny of that money in their communities. Canadians were sorely disappointed and rightly wondered where the money went.

Today a hard-working and above all very vigilant member moved a motion in the House of Commons calling on the government to show us where that money went. In that nice fairy tale about a young MP who wanted to become prime minister of a great G7 country and who believed that budgets would balance themselves, did he ever plan to set some money aside for a rainy day?

The member for Carleton moved a very interesting motion today calling for all documents to be released so we could try to understand the Prime Minister's actions. The Prime Minister seemed to think that everything would be fine and he could borrow forevermore since there will always be future generations to pay the debts he has decided to inflict on all Canadians. Now the fairy tale is over and here we are today.

Unfortunately, we do not live in a fantasy land or in a fairy tale. Not every story has a Disney ending. Anyone who takes the time to read any of the Grimm brothers' fairy tales will see that endings are not always happy. Unfortunately, the government does not seem to realize the mess it is creating for our country because of its laissez-faire attitude towards our public finances.

My colleague's motion reads as follows:

That an order of the House do issue for any document prepared by any department, agency and Crown corporation since November 4, 2015, discussing warnings or concerns of economic downturns, their potential impact on the fiscal framework, or advice or recommendations on how to deal with them; and that the documents be provided to the House within 45 days following the adoption of this motion.

It is an entirely realistic motion. Canadians have the right to know how the government, which has so little interest in the country's public finances, will react in tough times, not just the ones before us, but those we are currently going through.

Even before the Canadian economy has started slowing down, we already know how our colleagues across the way are framing this. They claim that COVID-19 and the rail blockades have caused the Canadian economy immeasurable harm. That is true, but it did not start with the blockades or with the coronavirus. It started long before that.

In the last quarter, Canada posted its weakest economic growth in four years. The Liberals have completely abandoned their budgetary targets. The Canadian economy is adrift. The debt-to-GDP ratio is on the rise. The deficit has reached $28 billion. The Liberals have completely abandoned the idea of eventually balancing the budget. By year's end, the Liberals will have added $100 billion to the debt when the economy was strong and job creation was going full tilt in G7 countries. In the United State alone, the unemployment rate is 3.6%; Canada's unemployment rate is around 6%.

The Liberals have been patting themselves on the back since early afternoon, but there is nothing to brag about. Canada's unemployment rate is much higher than that of the United States, Japan, Germany and the United Kingdom, all of which are G7 countries.

The Prime Minister's high taxes together with his out-of-control spending and massive deficits are putting Canada in a weak and vulnerable position. The Prime Minister cleaned out the coffers during a time of economic growth and now there is nothing left. The Liberals wasted Canada's good fortune.

Earlier in my speech, I mentioned infrastructure because the Parliamentary Budget Officer recently informed us that when he asked to see what the Liberals themselves have called Canada's most ambitious infrastructure plan, valued at $186 billion, and to show it to all Canadians, the government told him that this plan does not exist.

This is rather surprising considering that, in a recent article published in several Canadian newspapers, the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities gave an update on her mandate. According to the mandate letter, her mandate is to ensure that infrastructure investments are delivered as quickly as possible. The Liberals have been in power for four years. Why, after four years, does the mandate letter for the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities still include ensuring that investments get to the regions, on the ground?

That is unacceptable. It means that the Prime Minister has acknowledged that absolutely nothing has happened over the past four years and the Liberals are in panic mode.

The problem is that that money has already been spent. Where did it go?

After looking at the government's numbers, we realized that we are currently dealing with the biggest-spending Prime Minister in the history of Canada. Spending for government programs has increased by $80 billion since 2015. It went from $273.6 billion to $353.6 billion under this government. This money was not spent on small communities, for example to help connect the regions to the Internet in places like Newfoundland and Labrador or ridings in Quebec or Canada's north. Instead, the Liberals spent even more on various government programs.

That is what we will remember. This was the biggest-spending government in the history of Canada, even when the economy was doing well and the government could have made investments with the tax revenue alone. It could have created jobs across the country without burdening future generations with debt. That is the problem.

Today, we are facing a serious crisis with a projected deficit of approximately $30 billion at the end of this year. If we are not careful, the crisis could drive that deficit up to $60 billion.

Who is going to be on the hook for all that spending? All Canadians. Unfortunately, waiting until the very end is no longer an option, and letting our children and grandchildren pay is no longer an option. If deficits get that big, people will pay for it.

One Liberal got that. His name is Paul Martin. That Liberal knew that fixing things meant cutting $25 billion in government spending. He cut 45,000 government jobs in Ottawa. That was a 14% cut. Corporate subsidies shrank, and government operations had to be run like a business.

A Liberal understood that nothing lasts forever and that the country's finances must be kept in order. That is what we are asking for.

What did this government do to anticipate setbacks, like the Liberals did back then?

I cannot wait to hear that answer. I am especially eager to get a look at the Liberals' plan for dealing with the crisis when we get all the documents 45 days from now. I have a feeling it will be a pretty short stack of documents, because nothing government members have said today or done since 2015 leads me to believe they ever saw a crisis coming or set any rainy day money aside.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to key in on a couple of things. I was doing my best to keep up with the member's French as I learn the language myself.

He mentioned infrastructure and said it has not happened, but will he recognize that there have been four times more projects built in the last four years than under the Harper government? He mentioned we could have created jobs. Will he recognize that we have created 1.2 million jobs? He talked as well about cuts under Paul Martin. Which cuts he would start with? He can tell Canadians where he would start.

Those are the three questions. He can answer any one of the three that he wants to.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague for making an effort to learn French. I would advise him to listen carefully to my speeches and to understand the arguments I make.

I can say it in English if the member wants. Only a very few of those jobs were created through infrastructure spending. It was supposed to be a big deal from the current Liberal government, and that did not happen.

These infrastructure investments were supposed to save us a lot of money. We were supposed to make sure our gross domestic product soared. Sadly, only half of those expectations were fulfilled.

When we are on the ground talking to mayors in all of our communities, we hear that they did not get any money. Where did the money go? That is what we want to know.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about the Liberals being asked for their infrastructure plan and the discovery that the plan did not exist.

With these frightening ripples going through not only Canadians but global investors, I want to talk briefly about the $20-billion Teck project and Warren Buffett pulling out of the Quebec LNG project. They both commented that part of the reason they pulled out of those projects was political instability. Those are comments one would hear about Mozambique or Venezuela, not a developed western country, a democracy like Canada.

I would ask my colleague this: What are the ramifications of these types of comments and this lack of clarity and transparency? What impact has he heard in his constituency in Quebec?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, all the abandoned projects in Alberta, Vancouver and Quebec are having an impact on all Canadians. If the country's economy is not doing well, then the economies of Quebec, Alberta and British Columbia are not doing well either.

If we want Canada to be recognized as a prosperous G7 nation, we need to act accordingly. The problem is that because of the Liberals, no one is confident enough to invest in major projects in Canada. Nobody wants to invest in Canada anymore. That is the reality.

The government is seeing the world through rose-coloured glasses, and we are eager to find out what is behind those glasses. That is why we are requesting all these documents. I hope the Liberals have them. Otherwise, Canadians will see the Liberals' true face.

We are in a Grimm fairy tale, not a Disney fairy tale.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about this Prime Minister being among the highest in spending. If he is going to go down that road, would he also recognize that we have had one of the fastest-growing economies in the world? Would he recognize that we have among the lowest debt-to-GDP ratios among the G7 countries? Would he recognize the fact that in the last year, we have had the lowest unemployment rate since we started recording unemployment? Would he at least recognize that spending and investing in people, when done properly, produces results?