Debates of March 9th, 2020

Opposition Motion—Documents on Economic Downturns

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago I had the opportunity to rise and table a petition for seniors. Seniors across the country are important to all of us, and my friend and colleague made reference to the Canada child benefit program.

Along with the increases that we saw there that ultimately lifted children out of poverty, a few years back, through a budgetary motion, we brought forward changes to the guaranteed income supplement. I know that would have also had an impact on the constituents she represented.

I am wondering if she can say just how important that was, in terms of assisting seniors to get out of poverty.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for that question because I have seen the impact of that work. In fact, the Statistics Canada study that came out last year pointed out that the changes to the GIS had actually reduced poverty for seniors living in our communities and across the country. I believe that is reflected once again in the most recent poverty dashboard that was released by Statistics Canada.

Statistically we are seeing it, but we are also seeing it anecdotally. We should actually broaden it and speak about some of the other things we are doing for seniors. One thing I have seen in my own community is that we are building affordable housing for seniors. That is something I know is always top of mind: accessing affordable housing.

Those two pieces, along with other pieces we have been working on, have been helping seniors across our country.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, earlier in the hon. member's comments, she talked about her passion for food security issues, particularly for lower-income people.

To that end, my colleague, the member for Vancouver Kingsway tabled a private member's bill for a school food program. In my riding of Vancouver East, we have many lower-income communities where food is simply not accessible or available for many low-income families. If we could in fact provide for a national food program at the schools, I think that would go a long way toward addressing these concerns.

I wonder if that is something the member would support.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am so happy that a national school food program was raised by my colleague across the way, because that is something I have been quite passionate about.

I was so excited that there was a section in our last budget about a national food policy, in fact Canada's first national food policy. There was a commitment to negotiate with our provinces and territories to support national school food programs across our country, for many reasons. Food programs help kids who go to school without food in their bellies, perhaps for poverty reasons. However, there are many reasons why a kid might go to school without food.

It is actually something that helps education outcomes. It helps with health outcomes and education outcomes. I very much support a national school food program right across our country.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member's speech where she talked, over and over again, about the universal child care benefit.

I was proud to have been part of the government elected in 2006. One of our five priorities in that election campaign was the universal child care benefit. I was pleased that even after we introduced that, we still managed to pay down $40 billion in debt over the next few years while the economy was good. Then, when we went through a rough patch in the global economy, our government introduced a stimulus program and eventually got the budget back to balance.

Year after year, we defended spending for the universal child care benefit. When we wound up with a balanced budget in 2015, the balanced budget that the Liberal government inherited, we still had a very strong universal child care benefit.

I have the document here. After she is done with questions and comments, would the hon. member be interested in sitting down with me so that I could share with her the key to the success of the previous government, of how we managed to protect funding for something as important as the universal child care benefit and still balanced the budget in 2015?

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

Mr. Speaker, let me just say that I am always happy to have a conversation, but the universal child care benefit was taxable and it paid the same exact amount of money to everyone regardless of their income.

Having a means-tested, indexed, non-taxable Canada child benefit has reduced child poverty. The previous program did not.

[James Cumming, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the motion put forward by my colleague, the member for Carleton. I will be splitting my time with my colleague, the member for St. Albert—Edmonton.

It is a very important debate that we are having today, particularly given the circumstances we find ourselves in with the coronavirus, the blockades and a general slowdown in the economy. One thing of note is that the Liberal government has always prided itself on its fiscal anchors. Let us talk a bit about those fiscal anchors that have now put us in a situation where we have limited flexibility to react to crises like these.

The first fiscal anchor the Liberals claimed was that they would balance the budget within five years. They said they would have very small deficits and then they would balance the budget. Of course, that anchor has now fallen off. Next they said they would try to find a balance with debt-to-GDP ratios and continue to see a decline. That fiscal anchor has fallen off the boat as well.

The one anchor they have left is when they talk about employment numbers. I would suggest there is a weakening in the employment numbers and, when we compare ourselves against some of the other G7 countries, Canada's unemployment rate does not look as favourable. Here is a government priding itself on fiscal anchors. I would say the anchor has fallen through the boat, the boat has a big hole, the boat is sinking and the Liberals do not even see it happening.

The Minister of Finance keeps saying that we are in good shape and we have this great reserve built up so that we can weather these storms. I am wondering if we will ever find out what that reserve is because, from the numbers Conservatives are looking at, we do not see that being the case.

The leadership of the government and the regulations that are stopping the growth of business have resulted in over 200,000 job losses in my province of Saskatchewan. There is $150 billion in capital that has gone elsewhere.

I always hear that it is because the commodity price is low. The fact is that the money went somewhere. Norway has now opened up another field and says it will pump oil for as long as it is needed. It put that investment in. The Russians have just put a big capital investment into the resource sector, and we know the Americans have been very successful growing their resource business and market share, which is something the Liberal government has not been able to recognize.

There is also the tax structure that has been put in place, burdening small businesses with increases in CPP, EI and particularly the carbon tax. The carbon tax is a tax on everything. These hard-working small businesses are trying to produce products, trying to be competitive in the global market and are restrained by the government continuing to increase taxes. By throwing in the TOSI rules and limiting the ability of husbands and wives to split income through those corporations, it strikes me that we are doing everything we can to try to slow down these hard-working individuals and great businesses that are the strength of Canada.

Under the Liberal government's weak leadership, the energy sector alone has lost over $150 billion in investment. I can name off the projects: $20 billion for Teck, $8 billion for northern gateway, $16 billion for energy east, $36 billion for Pacific NorthWest, $28 billion for Aurora and $25 billion for WCC LNG. The list goes on and on.

I can give the government a little help. There is a quick fix to send the right message that it supports resource development, that it supports these great Canadian companies getting to market. The government can support my bill, which would take away the tanker ban and allow companies to export their products through a deepwater port, be competitive and export our clean energy to other countries.

Last week, I was in Toronto at the mining conference. There again I heard great concern about the regulatory process in this country. Project after project talked about how the current government does not understand the importance of investments. I hope it is listening to the extraction sector, whether it be the oil and gas or mining businesses. If it wants to get this economy going, it is time it recognizes these businesses are its lifeblood. They are the ones that produce the revenue, can help this economy and will pay for all these programs I continually hear about. At the finance committee, submission after submission was about spending. At some point, we have to have an economy that is growing at a rate to be able to pay for all that spending.

While I am on spending, there is spending that can work toward growing the economy and then there is outright waste. The government seems to be the expert on waste. We can talk about the $50 million to Mastercard, the $12 million to Loblaws or the $40 million to BlackBerry. It goes on and on. Those types of investments are not what we need; we need the government to invest in less regulation, to empower the private sector and let these people get back to work.

We have an infrastructure program. I will acknowledge that the Conservatives also had an infrastructure program. Here is the difference. When the Liberals put out their infrastructure program, they talked about the three anchors they wanted to have within that program: investments in productivity; a reduction in greenhouse gases; and an increase in GDP. When we had a discussion with the PBO about this program, we asked if they were hitting the mark on any of those measures. There is no evidence they are hitting the mark on the measures, particularly in the area of productivity, which is the way we can get this economy going. Putting an infrastructure program together that has a lack of accountability, focus and measurables makes it really difficult to see if it is working. I hope the government will reverse its course on the infrastructure program and recognize that it should be focusing on allowing companies to be more productive, giving them better access to markets and making sure we have the most competitive regime of any country out there.

This program is full of flaws. Now is the time to push the reset button and start to deliver on programs that would be effective, allow us to grow the economy and help industry grow, rather than grow the government's budget.

With respect to the future outlook, beyond anything else we need to see a plan that gets us back to a balanced budget. It is not unreasonable to ask government when it will finally get back to balance, and I think there is an opportunity for it to do that. We need the government to get out of the way of the private sector. The private sector offered to build the pipeline and government ended up having to buy the pipeline because of the regulatory burden the government put on that company. The private sector wants to invest in Canada and believes in Canada, but it needs the government to send the right message to say we are open for business again.

Our energy sector and the province I come from are proud of what they do. They do it well, they do it clean and they have an opportunity to gain market share if we let them. We need to expand our ability to ship. I ask the government to seriously consider making revisions to Bill C-69 to make sure there is confidence in the markets here, as well as eliminate the tanker ban off the west coast. It is certainly not there.

A pay-as-we-go principle would bring some discipline back to government. If government is going to add something new, it has to be able to pay for it, so it should be able to balance those things, which would ensure discipline in the government and make sure it gets back on a path of balancing the budget.

On the tax front for small businesses, we have to eliminate the input taxes, lower the burdens on these businesses and allow them to succeed.

[Gagan Sikand, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague cited in the billions of dollars, 28, 16, 36, 28 and 25, as a loss to the economy. This is a yes-or-no question. Does he have a number to cite if we have a lack of climate change initiative, other than the cost to the future of our children?

[James Cumming, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely I have a number. We currently contribute 1.6% to global emissions, so there is a number for him to realize. The balance that they always talk about on the other side is balancing the environment with resource development. Let us start talking about that balance.

The member can come to my province. I would be glad to entertain him and I would be able to show him what is going on in this province. We have businesses there that are world class, and we can bring those levels down if we allow them to do what they can do, by the export of LNG and displacing the market that is captured by those countries that do not have the standards that we have. We will have that ability to lower emissions globally if we get on the bandwagon.

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we live in a free market, so determining what we might gain from royalties from certain industries is kind of a bet on the system. We are seeing right now in the free market that the price of oil has been collapsing. When Teck Resources was putting forward its proposal, the price for a barrel of oil was $99.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

It was $45.

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, now it is under $50.

The stats I was looking at from the oil industry show it was up to $99.

How many oil sands projects have been approved that are not going forward because investors have backed out, based on the price per barrel of producing in Alberta?

[James Cumming, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very narrow look at what the current state is. I will acknowledge that prices have come off, but this is a longer-term play for most of these businesses. If the price is at $45 or $55, I can say that our companies have been driving their costs down to be competitive. The oil sands companies have done an outstanding job doing that. I believe the price will come back. These investors look at it as the long term; they do not look at it over a three-month period.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton Mill Woods, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Edmonton Centre is well known and well respected in the Edmonton business community. The Liberals are saying that the current economic situation is really because of the coronavirus or even because of the current oil prices. What is the member hearing from the Edmonton business community or Alberta business community?

[James Cumming, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the question is very pertinent to why I am here today. I stood for election five years ago, and was unsuccessful. I stood because I was concerned about the economy. I decided that I would give myself again for public service because of exactly that.

These business owners have talked to me and have suggested that they are very concerned about their livelihood. They are very concerned about their standard of living. They see that the direction the government is going is the absolute wrong thing for them. They want to see investment and they want to play. However, they need the government to get out of the way, and certainly that has not been the case.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is a simple question. How much public subsidy does the industry need? I would like to know from the member.

We have invested in a pipeline. Export Development Canada does a lot of promotion for the oil industry. The Business Development Bank of Canada does as well. There is also the Province of Alberta. What is the threshold in terms of the commitment for the public to contribute to this industry's success?

[James Cumming, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

First, Mr. Speaker, we did hear at the finance committee that it is a fallacy of this subsidy that it is being considered for the oil and gas business. That was cleared up by the officials who presented.

Let me say this. I will not apologize for the contribution that the oil and gas sector has made to this country toward infrastructure and to fund all the programs we want, and it has my full support.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to speak today on our opposition motion. We have a government across the way that for the last four and a half years has governed as if the good times would never come to an end. It appears that the government's luck has run out in the face of a slowing economy, soaring deficits and debt, and economic uncertainties arising from the coronavirus, the illegal blockades and today the collapse in the price of oil.

Therefore, we have put forward a very straightforward motion, a motion in the name of transparency, calling on the government to do something it should be quite enthusiastic to do, which is to release all documents whereby it may have been provided advice or input about the possibility of an economic downturn. Canadians deserve to see those documents to know whether the government heeded those warnings, whether the government took precautionary measures or whether the government did what it appears to have done, which is to ignore those warnings altogether.

I say that the government should be quite enthusiastic because it is what is in the mandate letter from the Prime Minister to the Minister of Finance wherein the Prime Minister states, “I also expect us to continue to raise the bar on openness, effectiveness and transparency in government. This means a government that is open by default.” Surely consistent with the finance minister's mandate letter would be a government that would be welcoming our timely motion here today.

When the Liberals came to office in 2015, they inherited a strong economy from the previous Conservative government. They also benefited, in 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018, a period of strong global economic growth, from low interest rates and a return in terms of commodity prices from a low at the earlier part of the decade.

When I got here in 2015, I know that my Conservative colleagues and I provided advice to the Liberals in terms of encouraging them in the face of a relatively strong economy to take a responsible approach, to pay down debt and prepare for a rainy day. That is precisely the approach that Prime Minister Stephen Harper took when the times were good in 2006 and 2007. Between 2006 and 2008, the Harper government paid down $38 billion of debt, which constituted the largest debt repayment of any government in Canadian history.

Why did the Harper government do that? It was because it recognized that the good times would not last forever. As it turned out, they did not, because in 2008-09, we saw the largest global economic recession since the Great Depression. However, because of Stephen Harper's foresight, Canada had the fiscal capacity to respond to that global economic downturn, later resulting in a recovery that was faster and stronger than that of any other G7 country.

That was the Conservatives' approach. That was the approach that we encouraged the government to take, but it had different ideas. The Liberals' approach, contrary to ours, was to spend, spend, spend and spend some more. One could say that the Liberals spent like drunken sailors. However, as Ronald Reagan used to say, that would be an insult to drunken sailors.

The Liberal government has added $75 billion of new debt in just four years. By the end of this fiscal year, Canada will be on track to adding $100 billion of new debt.

The finance minister said that we should not worry, that the good times would continue. It is not so, as dark clouds are on the horizon for Canada's economy.

We have seen a significant slowdown in the Canadian economy. Indeed, in the fourth quarter of 2019, Canada experienced just 0.3% GDP growth. That constitutes negative per capita GDP growth. In fact, in November we actually saw a decline in the Canadian economy, and 71,000 jobs were lost.

While Canada grew at only 0.3% in the last quarter of 2019, our biggest trading partner, our biggest economic competitor, the United States, saw a GDP growth of 2.1%. There is quite a contrast between the growth in the United and the dismal performance of the Canadian economy.

That pattern of lagging behind the United States is projected to continue into this year. Indeed, the Canadian economy is expected to grow at only half the rate of the United States'. Meanwhile, unemployment is 30% higher in Canada than in the United States. Indeed, under the Liberal government's watch, Canada has the unenviable position of having the highest unemployment rate of any G7 country, save for Italy and France. These are hardly jurisdictions we should be seeking to emulate in terms of economic performance, yet that is precisely the approach the government seems to want to take.

The over four and a half years of spending and more spending, without any plan for a rainy day, has left the Canadian economy weak and vulnerable.

In the face of that, Canadians deserve to know the government's plan. What is the government's plan to get beyond per capita negative GDP growth of a pathetic 0.3%? What is the government's plan to stimulate the economy and restore some level of fiscal responsibility? We know that today's $30-billion deficit could very easily translate into $50-billion or $60-billion deficits if there is a further slowdown.

I know that unlike the Liberals, we on this side of the House do have a plan. It involves unleashing the Canadian economy by cutting taxes for workers and small businesses, repealing the anti-development bills, Bill C-69 and Bill C-48, and reducing red tape with a two-for-one rule that builds on the legislated one-for-one rule and is consistent with what has been undertaken by the Province of Manitoba and our largest competitor, the United States.

The Conservatives have a plan to, in a reasonable way, get spending under control by eliminating waste, reducing red tape and reducing the burden of government to eventually get to what the Liberal government inherited from our previous Conservative government: a balanced budget.

In closing, where is the government's plan? It has no plan beyond spending and spending some more. In the face of that plan versus our plan to unleash the Canadian economy, I will take our plan any day.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the intervention by my colleague today, but I think some of his facts are wrong.

He said that the former Stephen Harper government had prepared for a rainy day, but let us put the facts on the table. What really happened, and I know the member is very good with the data and knows what went on, is that the former Martin government left a $13-billion surplus. The member is basically saying that over a two-year period, the Conservative government continued to save in preparation for a rainy day. However, what it did in 2007 and 2008, before the recession hit, was decrease the surplus. The former government was already on its way down, by decreasing the surplus and going into a deficit position.

The member suggests that Stephen Harper was saving for a rainy day, but the facts do not support that claim.

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

Mr. Speaker, the facts speak for themselves: Stephen Harper's government presided over the largest debt repayment in Canadian history of $38 billion. That is a fact.

My friend from Kingston and the Islands cites the Paul Martin government, and it is true that under Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin the government did move toward a balanced budget and a surplus budget, with a lot of pressure from the Conservatives and the Reformers at the time. Nonetheless, they did that and deserve credit where credit is due.

The government does not deserve such credit. The Liberals have totally disassociated themselves from that legacy, inheriting a surplus and leaving the cupboard bare. At a time when the economy is in a downturn, the government has left the cupboard bare with nothing to show.

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my hon. colleague. This is hardly a Paul Martin Liberal government. This is way beyond anything that Paul Martin would have ever done or imagined to do.

I want to bring my question back to the motion we are debating today. My hon. colleague from St. Albert—Edmonton spoke about the fact that the Minister of Finance's mandate letter, just like all of the ministers' mandate letters, speaks to the issue of transparency and that the government would be open by default. Is there any reason at all why the government should not support the motion that is on the table, if openness is indeed the will of the Prime Minister to his ministers and the will of the Prime Minister himself?

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

Mr. Speaker, simply put, if the government means what it says and says what it means, it would support the motion and release the documents. It is expressly there for all Canadians to see in the mandate letter. What is more, in addition to transparency, if the government has actually been doing its work, then surely it would be very enthusiastic to show all of the contingency measures that are in the works, all of the preparatory measures. However, I suspect that the government is so resistant because it does not have any.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the member says that the Conservatives have a plan to reduce taxes for the middle class, yet they actually voted against the tax reduction to the middle class. They said part of the plan is to reduce small business tax. This government has done just that, yet the Conservatives voted against the budget.

I am wondering if my friend would agree there is a little inconsistency between the Conservative plan and reality.

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

Mr. Speaker, what we voted against were record deficits and debt. We voted against the government's reckless spending and the government's reckless budget.

Our plan is a comprehensive one. It involves tax cuts. It involves repealing anti-energy legislation. It involves attracting investments in the most vital sector in our economy, the energy sector, by providing for an accelerated capital cost allowance regime comparable to that offered to the manufacturing sector. It also involves reducing all of the waste that the government has given its Liberal corporate friends, like the $372 million to Bombardier. What happened in that case? As a result, 3,000 jobs were lost while executives gave themselves a 50% pay hike. That is some value for the taxpayer.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Kings—Hants.

I am very pleased to rise today to speak about the government's actual record rather than the selective statistics chosen by the hon. member for Carleton.

The results of the government's investment in people, communities and hard-working Canadians are clear. Canada's economy is sound and growing, the unemployment rate is low, business investment is recovering and there are more full-time, well-paying jobs, with more women working today than ever before in Canada's history.

In fact, I would like to draw the House's attention to the recent job numbers from Statistics Canada. In February, the economy added 30,300 net new jobs. All of the national gains were in full-time work.

The government is focused on building an economy that works for everyone and will continue to make progress on the things that matter most to Canadians, while being sensitive and responsible with new investments. In the face of emerging global risks, our approach will be practical and prudent, maintaining Canada's strong fiscal position and our ability to protect Canada from risk both today and tomorrow.

As a former business owner, I understand the importance of tax competitiveness. Small businesses thrive when there is a competitive tax environment. That is why we have lowered the small business tax rate, first to 10%, effective January 1, 2018, and then to 9%, effective January 1, 2019. Canada's combined federal-provincial-territorial average income tax rate for small business is one of the lowest in the G7. In the face of ongoing global developments, it is essential that Canada continues to innovate so that businesses seeking to expand and grow can confidently choose to invest in Canada.

In last year's fall economic statement, the government took important and timely action in this regard. This included allowing businesses to immediately write off the full cost of specific clean energy equipment to spur new investment and the adoption of advanced clean technology in the Canadian economy. It also included allowing businesses to immediately write off the full cost of machinery and equipment used for the manufacturing or processing of goods. The government also introduced the accelerated investment incentive, which allows businesses of all sizes and in all sectors of the economy to write off a larger share of the costs of newly acquired assets in the year the investment is made.

What does this mean for businesses? Taken together, the incentives announced in last year's fall economic statement made it more attractive for businesses to invest in assets that help drive growth, thereby freeing up capital that businesses can use to create better, well-paying jobs for Canadians.

In budget 2019, the government introduced a measure to improve the scientific research and experimental development tax incentive program. It is a very important program. It encourages innovation by giving investment tax credits to businesses in all sectors that conduct scientific research and experimental development in Canada. With this measure, the program will more effectively support growing small and medium-sized firms as they scale up. It is a very important measure.

In today's global economy, new technology and innovation can reshape whole industries, and we want to make sure Canada is a central player in those transformations. We believe concrete, comprehensive and systematic measures such as the ones I have mentioned are more effective for continuing the strong growth seen in our economy.

The Canadian economy remains fundamentally strong, but we must also ensure that it remains strong as we work to combat the very real threats posed by climate change and the transition toward a greener economy. Building a strong economy can go hand in hand with protecting the environment.

The global challenge of climate change requires an innovative solution, one that can create jobs. That is why in November 2018, the government announced the creation of the advisory council on climate action to help identify fiscally sustainable opportunities to reduce carbon pollution in the transportation sector and the building sector. The advisory council presented its final report to the government, which identifies a number of opportunities to reduce emissions and build a competitive clean growth economy that provides Canadians with good jobs.

The council identifies ways that the government can help Canadians switch to zero-emissions vehicles, like the federal purchase incentive and a scaled-up investment in enabling measures such as charging infrastructure and research and development.

Most important, our budget 2019 addressed the recommendations with investments to help make zero-emission vehicles more affordable by establishing a new federal purchase incentive of up to $5,000 for battery-electric, hydrogen fuel cell and longer range plug-in hybrid vehicles; make zero-emission vehicles more viable by expanding the network of charging and refuelling stations in workplaces, public parking spots, commercial and multi-unit residential buildings and in remote locations; attract and support new high-quality, job-creating investments in zero-emission vehicle manufacturing in Canada by accessing funding through the strategic innovation fund; and finally, work with auto manufacturers to secure voluntary zero-emission vehicle sales targets to ensure vehicle supply meets increased demand.

The government will continue to cut pollution, create jobs and support clean growth. Cleaner transportation will help ensure a heathier and more prosperous future for our kids and grandkids.

The government is committed to growing the economy by helping all Canadians. We believe in pressing forward with various measures that will help to keep Canada's economy strong and resilient in the face of new challenges, both at home and abroad.

More so than any other country in the G7, Canada has the economic resiliency and fiscal firepower at its disposal to withstand potential challenges. We have invested in the things that matter most to Canadians. The government has prioritized investing wisely in order to ensure prosperity for all and to grow the economy, while rejecting the failed policies of austerity.

I can assure all hon. members in the House that this government will continue along a path to growth that works for everyone.