Madam Speaker, although I do not take particular exception to being told that I do not know what I am talking about, I will tell the member for Calgary Centre that I have been collecting and paying EI, CPP and WSIB on behalf of employees since 1997 and turning them over to the government.
To his point, what I said was that if I were to collect a benefit and hold on to that, which would later be turned over to that employee at another point, what I was holding on to would have been considered an asset. I did not say paying those source deductions would be considered an asset, which is the way he characterized the answer to my question.
Nonetheless, I am thrilled to have the opportunity today to talk about this particular motion. I want to congratulate the Conservatives for bringing forward a motion once again that actually has substance. This is the second time I am saying this within two weeks. Yes, they deserve to applaud themselves for that, because quite often what we see coming before the House are grandiose motions that really just look to paint individuals into a corner and to put people in a certain negative light. This is actually talking about substance, so I can appreciate their interest and I can appreciate that they have actually brought something forward.
This is an issue of whether or not we agree with this concept. I will explain where my issues lie with the motion. I am going to start by addressing some of the premises that the motion is based on.
I have been listening to the discussion. Earlier today, I heard the member for Brandon—Souris say that only a Liberal government could increase tax on those making over $200,000 a year and bring in less revenue. I would say in response to the member that only a Conservative MP could not understand the very simple logic of empowering the middle class that moves our economy forward. It is giving the middle class a break, which is what we did and what he was referring to, that has driven forward the economy. That has given us one of the best economies, if not the best economy, in the G7 over the last six years. It is what has delivered us to the point of being able to have the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7.
As a matter of fact, as I mention the debt-to-GDP ratio, I would note that Canada is currently in the best position among our G7 partners. It is very interesting. I sound like a broken record, I realize that, and I know the Conservatives think that I do, but I hear them once again go back to discussing the debt, and how much debt there currently is, and how this government is running a deficit.
I would tell them, and I have told them many times in the House before, that Brian Mulroney never ran a surplus. He ran a deficit. Stephen Harper had one surplus. That was when he was first elected. That was actually Paul Martin's surplus, but whatever. Then Mr. Harper did “balance” the budget just before the 2015 election. How did he do that? He slashed veterans' services and sold off GM stock at bargain prices. Yes, he got himself to a position where he could say that he balanced the budget, if that is what we are measuring success by, but I would argue that was only to run in that 2015 election so he could appease his base who were pushing him in that direction.
Why do we do that? Why do we run deficits? Why do governments run deficits, typically speaking? They do it because they are looking for opportunities and they want to make sure that we can continue to invest in our economy, because they know that if the economy is growing at a faster pace than the deficit, we are actually generating a net positive at the end of the day. That is why all of the OECD countries are always pinning themselves against the debt-to-GDP ratio. At the end of the day, that is what matters.
What did we do? We brought in meaningful programs before COVID hit. We brought in programs that asked the top income earners, the 1%, to pay more. Yes, we did. We gave a tax break to middle-income Canadians, because we knew that they fuel the economy.
What did we see out of that? We saw economic activity grow at an astronomical pace in Canada. We were among the best in the world for a domestic economy.
Then what happened when COVID hit? COVID hit and instantly everything came to a halt because people were understandably concerned. They were not aware of what was going to happen and there was a great pulling back in what people were willing to spend their money on and invest in, and I am talking about businesses specifically.
Afterward, we made sure that the supports were there to give businesses and Canadians, and quite frankly those investing in the Canadian economy, the confidence they needed to know that the Canadian government would be there for them to get them through this and out on the other side.
Within five weeks, we were the first to deliver supports to Canadians. When I say “we”, I want to give credit where credit is due, because the Conservatives voted in favour of that. Had they not come forward and said, yes, they would give unanimous consent to spend this money immediately, it would have dragged the process down and it would have taken a lot longer to get the supports. A lot more doubt would have been put into businesses and Canadians.
Conservatives should take the credit for that, the credit that they are rightfully owed, in terms of their participation in that.
That is what gave the confidence and the economy the confidence it needed to continue going. Where have we found ourselves afterward, as we have started to come out of COVID? We have started to see that we are rebounding back. We have recovered 114% of jobs lost since the pandemic. We have the best GDP in the G7 right now.
The economic infrastructure in the beginning put things in the right place. Because of what we did during the pandemic, we are going to reap the rewards coming out of this. We are in a better position than our counterparts throughout the globe and as a result Canadians, Canadian businesses and those that invest in Canadian businesses will be the net beneficiaries of that.
The motion talks about a path to balance. This party ran in an election six months ago promising to spend more than we were spending. The member for Durham, the leader of the official opposition during that election, and maybe this is why they got rid of him, said that he would balance the budget in 10 years.
That was the member for Durham. That was his commitment, to balance the budget in 10 years. I understand the frustration of some members, perhaps those that are responsible for this motion, and where they are coming from, because maybe they did not agree with that, but the reality is that this is where this particular political party, the Conservative Party of Canada, was less than a year ago, only six months ago, during that election.
One of the problematic parts of this motion is specifically with respect to item (ii). I know it has come up a couple of times and that NDP members have raised it, as well as members from this side of the House. I have asked a couple questions on this, and section (ii) is where it refers to the Canadian pension plan as a tax.
If this was just about semantics, and if this was just about terminology and payroll taxes and source deductions meaning the same thing, I would be totally fine with it. The problem is that they explicitly refer to it as a tax and then later on they say “no new taxes”. What they are basically saying in here is that CPP will not go up.
It is ironic, because the member for Barrie—Innisfil just stood there and was reading clips he had received from constituents. One of them, and I do not know if he had read them in advance, but I wrote it down when he said it, was from a gentleman by the name of John. John wrote and complained about the costs of living right now, saying that the only thing he would have to survive on later was his measly CPP.
The member for Barrie—Innisfil read that out less than 40 minutes ago right in the House. Meanwhile, his motion is calling on reducing the contributions toward CPP.
CPP is paid for not just by the employee but also by the employer. It is a well-regarded, well-respected plan that has been in this country for a long time. I understand the previous speaker from Calgary Centre, and I understand that he has an immense background in business. I can truly and genuinely appreciate that his logic or his position on the way that businesses should operate, in seeing only its value and thinking that a business will make a decision to leave Canada or start reducing payroll employees just because of a CPP increase.
I would suggest to him that our economic environment, our country and our social fabric represents so much in this country in terms of why businesses want to be here. Businesses are not just here because of taxes. I know that from when I was the mayor of Kingston. Quite often we would have businesses trying to come to Kingston and they would say they wanted to talk about how much we charge for water or they wanted to talk about property taxes.
At the end of the day, even though we were more expensive than Brockville or Belleville and a number of other locations, they saw the value in establishing their business in our community. I would offer to the member for Calgary Centre that businesses do not just look at what it is going to cost from a strictly monetary perspective. They also look at employee retention. People loved setting up businesses in Kingston because they knew that the employment base was there. They knew that there was a labour force there that was ready and willing to work.
If we can make sure that we have the right programs in place to make sure that throughout Canada we have the right employees who are trained properly and willing to work, I would suggest to the member for Calgary Centre that the increases in the CPP will be looked at as an investment in people, not strictly a cost of doing business, as he suggested.
I also want to talk about was price on pollution. I will also correct the member for Barrie—Innisfil on something he said earlier. Again, I was listening very closely, as I try to do with everyone when they are speaking. He said the cost per litre was going to go up by 11¢. That is not true. The cost is currently 8.8¢ and will go up to 11¢, so the cost is only increasing by 2.2¢. I will give the member for Barrie—Innisfil the benefit of the doubt. He probably said it very quickly and did not realize what he was saying, but it is important for people to know that it is not an increase of 11¢, as he said earlier.
More importantly, pricing pollution is such a widely accepted and regarded policy. Half of the G20 countries have some form of pricing pollution. The former leader, the member for Durham, ran on pricing pollution. I know it was not exactly the same plan. The member for St. Catharines referred to it earlier as a plan that said the more that is burned the more that is earned. That is true because it was a plan that basically said, if someone spends x number of dollars on their version of carbon pricing, they would get some form of credits, Air Miles or something, where they could then go to a boutique somewhere, I imagine, and start buying these green products.
I do not understand how these members who ran on this just six months ago cannot understand that this is exactly what we have now. The only difference is that we are not encouraging people to go out and spend more so they could get more Air Miles. We are encouraging people to look for ways to spend less and pay a smaller price for carbon. If we do that, then it will drive people to actually spend less, but they will have a net benefit because the amount to be redistributed is equal.
I just want to say—
