Jim Flaherty

[The Economy, April 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question.

He is asking, of course, about the number one priority for Canadians, which is creating jobs, economic growth and long-term prosperity. It is the first question this week on that subject. I have been so lonely over here. We have to get the opposition asking questions about what really matters to Canadians.

Today we introduced the first budget bill, the jobs, growth and long-term prosperity act, to implement key measures from economic action plan 2012. This includes responsible resource development, helping build a fast and flexible economic immigration system, promoting the stability of the financial system and the housing market, and so much more.

[Employment, April 3rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, here is what we are doing in the budget. We are looking at long-term growth, jobs and prosperity in Canada. We have the track record on this side of the House with 610,000 net new jobs in Canada since the end of the recession.

What is the prescription from the other side of the House? It is a $10 billion tax hike. That is what the New Democratic opposition recommends for Canada, a huge job-killing tax. That is not what we are doing, which is jobs, growth and prosperity.

[Employment, April 3rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, there are some spending reductions of course in the budget that was tabled on Thursday. The actual number of federal public servants who will be leaving the public service is about 12,000.

The so-called study to which the member refers is by the Canadian Association of Professional Employees, which is using a wild number of 40,825 Canadians. However, that is not as wild as the number they used in February, which was not fewer than 116,000 Canadians. That is a long way from the truth: 12,000, as documented in the budget.

[The Budget, April 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, of course, it is just the opposite. We are looking at the longer term. We are looking all the way up to 2020 and beyond, to make sure that we have a solid fiscal track for our country.

Our country is in one of the best positions in the entire world. We are leading the advanced economies in the economic recovery. We are leading in job creation. We have a brilliant future. The budget will help ensure that this future is brilliant, not just for the next year or two but for the next decade and beyond.

[The Budget, April 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to summon the courage to respond to the question from the member opposite.

I can assure the member that if he wants to review this interesting book, it is 498 pages long, the largest of our seven budgets. In it he will see, in table 3.0 on page 50, expenditures of more $3 billion over the next three years to support jobs and growth in Canada. That is because we are trying to strike the balance between getting to a balanced budget in the medium term and supporting jobs—

[The Budget, April 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I was hoping that the weekend would afford the members opposite an opportunity to read the budget, but it is apparent from the questions we are getting that they have not had an opportunity to read about the hiring credit for small business to encourage more than 500,000 small business owners to hire more people; to read about the youth employment strategy to assist more young people to gain work experience in the workforce and to join the workforce on a full-time basis; the opportunities for aboriginal youth that are in the budget; the opportunities fund to help persons with disabilities, young people and older people all across the country.

Why have they not read—

[The Budget, March 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is time, perhaps, for the application of some common sense.

Times have changed. People are living much longer and healthier lives. This is actually a good thing. This is something we should celebrate. This is a joyful thing. On average Canadians are able to work longer if they choose to work longer. We need to use common sense and adjust for the times.

I would just remind the Liberal member that the reforms to the Canada pension plan were done by his party in the 1990s. Perhaps he ought to remember that even the Liberal Party historically, from time to time, has recognized factual realities.

Having said that—

[The Budget, March 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite, of course, has a point. There will be consequences in moving the age from 65 to 67. It is far away. It is not very soon, 2023, not to me.

I realize members opposite have not had a chance to review the budget in detail. They will see that there is a commitment to permitting the option of people delaying receiving OAS for up to five years and therefore receiving higher benefits. There is also a recognition that there will be some consequences for the provinces. The government will compensate the provinces for that.

[The Budget, March 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the people of Scarborough Centre for sending such a great new member. I thank all the people in the GTA for sending such a strong contingent of government members to the House of Commons.

We have been working on infrastructure and working with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. The Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities has been consulting with it. Our $33 billion Canada building plan continues until 2014.

We are introducing a new plan for the next year with respect to community centres, infrastructure and improvements and renovations. That will be important for small community-based facilities across Canada. We are also continuing with the gas tax sharing, which we have made permanent for municipalities.

[The Budget, March 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from the member of the third party, the Liberal Party, who has the nerve to purport to care about health care, education and social services.

It was in 1995 that the Liberal Party brought forth a budget in the House that cut transfers for health care, for education and for social services to the provinces and territories. Shame is right. Shame it was. The consequences were felt by Canadians coast to coast to coast. The Liberals did not care then and they do not care now.