Martha Hall Findlay

[Budget Implementation Act, 2008, June 3rd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I will respond to the member opposite by pointing out two things.

First, the very fact that there are immigration provisions in the budget implementation bill is a significant Americanization of the Canadian process. It is not something we are supportive of at all. It should not be in the budget implementation bill in the first place.

I will also add that trying to deal with a backlog by only addressing new applications does not deal with the backlog at all. There is absolutely nothing in the provisions put forward by the Conservative government that will, notwithstanding all the rhetoric, deal with the backlog.

This country needs some very concrete proposals and funding associated with those proposals to legitimately deal with the acknowledged backlog of immigrant applications that we have in this country.

We need skills and we need people willing to put those skills to work. We need that backlog addressed. The Conservative government, notwithstanding all of the rhetoric, has put nothing in the bill to address that backlog.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2008, June 3rd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I will remind the member opposite that I just finished explaining a very significant recommendation that the Liberal government had made with respect to infrastructure investment, which the current Conservative government completely ignored.

I will repeat what I said. We support the concept of reducing debt but not when the walls are cracking and the roof is leaking.

How can we trust a finance minister who, only two weeks ago, assured Canadians that everything was wonderful, that they should not worry and, arguably, with a little pat on the head to Canadians? He said that they should not worry, that the economy was doing great and that the Americans were the problem and they are suffering. The finance minister said that two weeks ago and, sure enough, in the first quarter of 2008 the American GDP grew and the Canadian GDP shrank.

Notwithstanding the efforts by the member opposite to somehow connect currency, he has exhibited a sorely lacking understanding of economics.

How can Canadians trust the finance minister and the government when only two weeks ago they were trying to assure Canadians that the economy was growing when we have clear evidence now that the Canadian economy shrank in the first quarter and is in danger, if it happens in the second quarter, of officially putting Canada in a recession? Is that Conservative government prudence?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2008, June 3rd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, before this budget, we Liberals had in fact recommended a few things, one of which was a recommendation to lower corporate taxes. I have to say we are glad the Conservatives took that good Liberal advice. Unfortunately, we had also recommended a number of other things, among which were some recommendations to deal with infrastructure.

The prior Liberal government had allocated $10 billion to debt reduction. Do not get us wrong, we are all in favour of reducing debt, but not when the walls are cracking and the roof is leaking.

Liberals had recommended that of that $10 billion, $7 billion would go to infrastructure. We had also suggested that $3 billion go into a contingency, which would have been a continuation of the Liberal prudence of keeping a few billion dollars as an annual contingency. Unfortunately, the current Conservative government did not take that particularly good Liberal advice.

The rest of this budget, in large measure, does in fact reflect past Liberal initiatives, albeit what we see is extremely watered down. I would, however, like to highlight a significant concern, notwithstanding all of the finance minister's rhetoric and recent efforts to, quite frankly, mislead the Canadian public. Only two weeks ago, in fact, he was quoted as saying that the Canadian economy is growing in every region of this country, yet we have now learned that the Canadian economy in the first quarter of 2008 has declined.

I would like to remind the finance minister that two quarters of shrinkage makes a recession. Therefore, notwithstanding the finance minister's rhetoric, false support, and statements encouraging the view that somehow the government has been a strong economic steward, the opposite is true.

I will go back to the infrastructure deficit. In this country we have an infrastructure deficit of $123 billion. That is a lot of money. In fact, two cuts of two points in the GST over the course of 10 years and one point a year would have been worth $6 billion. That is interesting math. Adding interest to that, $6 billion a year per point is $12 billion. That would have meant the ability to reduce and eliminate the infrastructure deficit in this country over the course of the next 10 years, but no.

What we desperately need in this country are the initiatives to encourage a strong economy. Virtually every economist has acknowledged investment in infrastructure is critical. It is critical to enhance productivity and I will add that productivity is critical to global competitiveness in the growth of our economy.

Productivity does not mean working harder. Canadians work extremely hard as it is. However, productivity does mean working better, more effectively and efficiently. It is absolutely acknowledged everywhere that in order to encourage productivity, we must in this country address the infrastructure deficit. The current Conservative government has not done so.

The government now faces a challenge given the cuts in the GST, the imprudent management of the current economy, and the fiscal situation in this country. Not only has the economy shrunk in the first quarter, and not only are we in danger if it happens in the second quarter of officially being in a recession as we have not invested in the critical infrastructure and other investments in innovation and research and development that are so critical to enhance a Canadian economy but we have also seen that the economy as a whole is now suffering.

Notwithstanding all of the rhetoric, the government has simply not done what it should have been doing, what we have been asking it to do, and what this country deserves.

[June 2nd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know how the member opposite can possibly say everything that he has been saying with a straight face in the face of hundreds of thousands of jobs having been lost in the manufacturing sector and a shrinking Canadian economy.

We are hearing all of the rhetoric about what has been proposed and what has been planned but I would suggest that there are a lot of people in the automotive sector who would like to actually know where the cheques are and where the action really is.

I will go back to the question of infrastructure. We have heard a great deal of talk and much ballyhoo about an investment of $33 million but very little of that is new money. Almost all of it is a continuation of much needed Liberal programs. The majority of the rest is a continuation of originally announced Liberal initiatives. Only $1.3 billion of all of the announcement can even remotely be categorized as new money, and that is spread over seven years. This is simply not enough.

[June 2nd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, we find ourselves in difficult times in a number of sectors including the automotive sector. I would like to about what the current government is planning to do, given these challenges.

All of us should be concerned about the economic challenges facing the country as it adjusts to the rapid and unexpected rise of the Canadian dollar. Because of high commodity prices and a falling U.S. dollar, we have seen a historic rise in the value of our currency. This challenge combined with higher energy prices, the United States struggling with the subprime mortgage crisis, and increased competition from emerging economies has created a perfect storm that is hammering our export sectors. Manufacturing, forestry, tourism and other vital industries are struggling, and again I would like to stress, our automotive sector.

We have a government that pretends there are no problems in the current economy. We have the current finance minister who only a couple of weeks ago said that the Canadian economy is growing in every sector, only to discover that in fact in the first quarter of this year, although the American economy grew, the Canadian economy shrank.

It is not the government's role to run business; we acknowledge that. That is the job of business. But the government does have a role in creating an environment where businesses can prosper and where businesses themselves can be encouraged to invest in the infrastructure, the equipment, the new and green technologies that can help them make cars that are more competitive and more in demand.

The government's answer is, “We do not think there is a problem. The Canadian economy is growing. Ontario”-- which is in fact significantly reliant on the automotive sector--“is the last place to invest”. The current finance minister and indeed other ministers have criticized Ontario on a number of fronts. The finance minister has criticized Ontario for not lowering corporate taxes, which already are lower than the current federal corporate tax rate. Overall there is a general environment of criticism, of throwing stones. There is a complete lack of cooperation with provincial and municipal governments and indeed with any of the other stakeholders. The Conservative government has done nothing other than pretend that the problem does not exist.

The Liberal proposal, on the other hand, which we refer to as the advanced manufacturing prosperity fund, is a billion dollars that would support major investments in manufacturing and in R and D facilities that would serve as an anchor for clusters of economic activity. In order to receive AMP fund investment, facilities would have to satisfy three criteria. They would have to leverage significant private investment and in so doing create jobs. They would have to be in anchor facilities that would attract significant secondary industries, supplier services and other support businesses. They must help position Canada as a leader in the manufacture of greener technologies and products. The AMP fund is designed indeed to help Canada become a champion of the green industrial revolution. All of our manufacturing sectors would benefit from this. But again, no.

The government certainly had shown a surplus. Before the budget was proposed we as Liberals had asked that at least $7 billion of the $10 billion allocated to debt be put into infrastructure. That was not done. I would like to ask the government--

[The Economy, June 2nd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, despite the finance minister's effort to avoid the question and the fact that he has it backwards, in the first quarter of this year, the U.S. economy actually grew and Canada's shrank.

I will remind the finance minister that two quarters of shrinkage make a recession. Canada's economy is not okay. According to the Conference Board, consumer confidence has plummeted.

How can we trust anything the minister or the government says or does about the Canadian economy?

[The Economy, June 2nd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, it is a matter of trust and judgment, trust in the Minister of Finance and in the government.

Just two weeks ago this minister incorrectly stated that the economy was still growing: “Our economy continues to grow and to grow in all regions of Canada.” However, the truth of the matter is that the Canadian economy, the GDP, shrank during the first quarter.

How can Canadians trust this minister and this government when it comes to the economy?

[Business of Supply, May 28th, 2008]

Mr. Chair, I would like to have it on the record that despite my request to have that statement repeated while the minister looked me in the eye, the finance minister was, in fact, unable to do so.

[Business of Supply, May 28th, 2008]

Mr. Chair, it is actually helpful to have a bit of history.

Before the current Prime Minister inherited large Liberal surpluses, the last Conservative prime minister to actually balance the books, even in one year, was not Kim Campbell, not Brian Mulroney, not Joe Clark, nor John Diefenbaker. It was not even R. B. Bennett or Arthur Meighen. We have to go all the way back to Sir Robert Borden in 1912 to find a Conservative government that actually balanced the books.

I will now remind the Minister of Finance of his earlier statement about Liberal governments raising taxes and running deficits. I would ask the minister to repeat that statement while looking me in the eye.

[Business of Supply, May 28th, 2008]

Mr. Chair, I would like to see us adhere to the rule of the answer taking the same amount of time as the question.

I would like to ask the finance minister if he can tell me, who was the last Conservative prime minister to actually show a surplus?