Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for York West.
Thank you for giving me this opportunity to participate in this important debate, Mr. Speaker.
It is the fundamental responsibility of the federal government to instill a sense of confidence in the economy. This is why we need a budget now. This delay is causing uncertainty in the markets and in the minds of Canadians. The Prime Minister has put all his eggs in one basket and now, when economic growth is slowing down and oil prices are falling, it is obvious that he has no plan B. Last week, the Bank of Canada acted, but the Prime Minister is improvising as he goes along, cancelling meetings with our leading trading partners and allies and delaying the introduction of the budget.
By delaying the tabling of the budget, the Prime Minister has thrown up his hands and admitted he has no plan B. Canada’s economic prosperity is at stake, but the Prime Minister is asking middle-class families to make even more sacrifices so that the wealthiest members of our society can get billions of dollars in tax cuts.
Who is the Prime Minister working for these days? His main priority during this difficult period is to protect the gift of more than $2 billion that he gave to the Canadians who need it the least. The Conservatives should start by reversing course on the income-splitting plan, which will cost the government $2 billion a year, and is a tax cut for the middle class that will mainly benefit the wealthiest families in Canada.
During the 2011 election campaign, the Prime Minister promised that when the budget was balanced, his government would let families split their incomes for tax purposes, up to a maximum of $50,000. On October 30, 2014, the government announced a slightly modified plan offering families a theoretical tax credit for income splitting that could reach up to $2,000. This means that 85% of Canadian households will not benefit from income splitting, among them single-parent families, parents with similar incomes and families that have no children under 18. In most cases, the $2,000 maximum benefit will be paid to households where only one person is earning an income, where that income is higher than $100,000 a year.
This program will cost the government $2.4 billion over the 2014-15 fiscal year, and $2 billion a year over the following years.
We need leadership with an intelligent plan to expand our economy in all sectors and in all regions, for all Canadians. The Liberal Party’s priority is clear: we have to improve the security and prosperity of middle-class Canadians who have not seen a decent increase in their incomes for 30 years. Canadian families deserve to have a real and fair chance to succeed.
In its economic vision, this government has failed to take into account what has always made Canada a prosperous country: diversity, balance and partnership among regions and economic sectors.
Canada’s strength should not depend on one thing or one place. It comes from the diversity of its population and the diversity of its economy. Yes, we need the strength of western Canada, but we also need the strength of eastern Canada, the strength of northern Canada and the strength of central Canada.
I would like to thank my colleagues, and particularly the francophone members, for having to listen to my bad French, and I hope it was understandable.
I will continue in English. I thank members for their tolerance. As an anglophone MP representing an anglophone riding, I do apologize for murdering the language of Balzac, but it is important to try. Balzac, by the way, had a Ukrainian wife, so I feel especially close to him.
One of my favourite commentators on the economy is Warren Buffett. In his 2001 letter to shareholders, he had this great line, “Only when the tide goes out do you discover who's been swimming naked.”
In Canada, the tide has gone out. That is what has happened to the government. Now that we see that there is no tide, it is not that pretty. The economic tide that flattered Canada's relative economic performance consisted primarily of two things: high commodity prices, and the fact that Canada alone, of the G7 countries, avoided the financial crisis, thanks, it might be worth noting, to the very wise and prudent decisions, against the conventional wisdom, of the Liberal government to maintain tough banking regulation.
That tide has now gone out because, first of all, the high commodity prices that flattered our economic performance have collapsed, particularly of oil, and the financial crisis that devastated the other G7 countries and really flattered Canada's relative economic performance has now started to abate and is not hitting the other G7 countries so badly.
Particularly in relative terms, we are seeing the true reality of Canada's economic performance and the true reality of the government's economic stewardship. What we are seeing is a government that has failed to understand the central economic challenge of our generation, which is that of adjusting to the new realities of the 21st century economy, the realities of an economy in the age of a technology revolution and globalization.
What is happening in this 21st century economy is a relentless hollowing out of the middle class. We are seeing middle class wages, over the past 30 years, stagnate at the same time that wages and wealth at the very top are increasing.
The government, for years, has been in denial about this. In fact, when the leader of the Liberal Party first started talking about the hollowed-out middle-class, we were met with derision and denial. It is now becoming a truth universally acknowledged that this issue of income inequality and the hollowed out middle class is the central economic challenge, and we have to address it.
I am just going to read a final quote from the World Economic Forum in Davos, not generally seen as a hotbed of pinkos or Communists. This is what they have to say about income inequality:
Across rich and poor countries alike, this inequality is fuelling conflict, corroding democracies and damaging growth itself. Not long ago those who worried about inequality were accused of partaking in the politics of envy. In the past year this concern officially became mainstream as voices from the Pope to Christine Lagarde...cautioned of its impacts. The mounting consensus: left unchecked, economic inequality will set back the fight against poverty and threaten global stability.
Instead of pushing against these economic forces, the government, particularly with its imprudent and unfair income-splitting plan, is exacerbating them. That is why we support the opposition motion.
Let us have a budget. Come clean. The tide is out. We want to see what the government guys have.
