Madam Speaker, today in the House, the government tabled the 2024 fall economic statement. Whose economic statement is it, exactly? Did the former finance minister, who announced her resignation this morning, draft it? I am not sure, because she chose to resign rather than endorse it. Is it the economic statement of the new finance minister, who was probably just sworn in moments ago and was the Minister of Public Safety? Has he even read it?
It was the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons who came to table the document in the House, without making a speech or delivering the speech that was probably already prepared. Does the government House leader endorse this economic statement, given that she decided to table it but did bother getting up to defend it? In a few minutes, will the now Minister of Finance, who was the Minister of Public Safety, come in and defend this document? Does he know how many pages it has? Does he know what is on the cover? Has he held it in his hands? We do not know.
This statement is obviously very disappointing, even if we do not know who wrote it. Perhaps it was the Prime Minister, but we do not know. One thing is certain, this statement does not tell us much. This government has run out of steam and has little direction. It is a bit like a rudderless ship with a torn sail, and its only hope is to rely on a lucky star to get it where it needs to go. That is what it feels like, reading this document. We do not know whose responsibility it is at the moment, because no one is defending it.
There are two interesting numbers in this document. There is the deficit for the current year, but, most importantly, the fall statement—which is more like a sad Christmas statement, the Christmas of a grinch government, we might say—includes the amount of last year's deficit. We finally have the figure for last year's deficit. We can read that amount in this document. To reassure the economic class in English Canada and the economic interests of Canada, the former finance minister said she would put in a fiscal anchor. She said it was true that they kept exceeding the deficit since 2015, that they kept spending too much, that they would set an anchor at $40 billion and that we had her word.
Last year's deficit is $61.9 billion. We found that out just before leaving for the holidays in a document tabled at the last minute and defended by who knows who. Why? Because the government still has not tabled the public accounts. They are usually tabled in September, but I think we are not going to get them before the end of this year. It will surely be in the first sitting days of next year. If not, there is still tomorrow. We are talking about a $61.9-billion deficit for last year. The former finance minister, however, hand on her heart, said it would be $40 billion, that it was time to stop spending money left and right, and that we had her word.
Now, she has stepped down and we are seeing that last year's deficit was $61.9 billion. What will it be this year? The year is not over yet. As the House leader of the Bloc Québécois was saying a few moments ago, there are still three and half months left in the year and the government has already exceeded the $40-billion mark, despite a solemn promise to the contrary. The deficit is now just over $48 billion. I am anxious to see what it will be at the end of March. When will we find out? Will it be next Christmas or after the election? That is how lax the current government is. That is what we have been seeing. This is truly ridiculous. It makes no sense. This economic statement is going to go down in history for all the wrong reasons. The former finance minister chose to step down rather than endorse this economic statement, which discredits everything the government has done.
The government made a commitment. Apart from the appalling figures, that is about all we saw. We were told that a border plan would be presented. That did not happen in this document. It is not a plan, it is a number. It says $1.3 billion for the borders over the next six years. Why $1.3 billion? Because, converted into U.S. dollars, that is $1 billion. President-elect Trump will be happy; $1 billion is good. We tried to grill officials a bit by asking what the money will be used for. Will it be for drones, guards, helicopters?
There is no plan. Officials said that they would put a number on it and that, eventually, there would be a plan. The former finance minister wrote that, but she resigned so she would not have to endorse it, and the new Minister of Finance has no idea what is in the document. It is really embarrassing. Why did the minister resign? It is because she had promised not to exceed $40 billion, but her government keeps resorting to vote-buying measures, like the $1.64 billion for the GST break. That is in there.
The government is going further into debt to give people gifts in hopes of boosting its standing in the polls, but it is not working. Meanwhile, all the business owners are having to adjust to this, for just two months. It makes no sense. People think it is not significant enough to make them change their spending choices. When we look at the items that are zero-rated, there are some good ones, such as diapers and children's clothing, but the focus seems to be on restaurants, alcohol and junk food. Is that responsible? The Prime Minister announced that he wanted to send $250 cheques to everyone earning up to $150,000 net income, which amounts to $270,000 gross income per year, but not to people who really need it. He thought this would give him a boost in the polls. In the end, he is all alone. I do not think there is a single line in that statement about the infamous cheques. The measure has simply been forgotten and will never be mentioned again.
Another thing missing from the economic statement is capital gains. Members will recall that the government said in its last budget that it would be implementing this measure to try to balance the books. That was supposed to happen in June 2024. There was a notice of ways and means, but ultimately it was no good. No bill ever followed. Then we were told about another notice of ways and means, but ultimately, it also failed and was never introduced. I was really looking forward to going in camera to read this document and find out the details.
When are we going to get to see the details? There is not a single line about that either. We know that it amounts to $7 billion this year. If this measure is not implemented, it means another $7 billion will be added to the deficit. That is not to mention all the businesses and individuals who made decisions based on this measure. Frankly, none of it makes any sense. This government is a ship drifting off course with no rudder and no sail. I think that, out of respect, as the former finance minister said in her letter to the Prime Minister, we must work for the public first, ahead of party and personal interests. In the interests of the common good, an election must be called, because right now we see nothing but an endless parade of debacles, ineptitude and infighting.
There are a few measures in the economic statement, but nothing really new or meaningful. It is mostly about extending programs. The bulk of the spending it sets out is for 2028, 2029 and 2030, at the end of the next term in office or after that. The minister must have thought that the Liberals would win a majority government because it seems the Liberals were already planning what they will do in the final years of that majority term. As the House leader of the Bloc Québécois was saying earlier, St. Jude is the patron saint of hopeless causes. I think that, at this point, the government should go light some candles to ask for help from St. Jude, although even St. Jude no longer has confidence in this government.
In the meantime, the needs are there. What is more, some needs, such as supply management, would not cost the government anything. The supply management bill is still stuck in the Senate. Are we ever going to see it pass? Is the government doing its job? No, it is not. The religious exemption for hate speech would not cost a penny. It is urgently needed, considering what we are seeing in the streets, considering what is happening, yet the government is not doing anything to eliminate it. The help we wanted for seniors aged 65 to 74 would have cost half as much as the election goodies that the government is proposing, and it would have been a game-changer. We can say the same thing about social housing, where there are still significant needs. None of that was addressed. We expected a plan for protecting the border, but there was nothing. Then there are all the challenges with Canada-U.S. relations and EI reform. The government completely neglected all of those concerns.