10653 OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 163 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Tuesday, January 27, 2015 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES January 27, 2015 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 163 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 163 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 163 (Version officielle) 147 163 27 01 2015 2015/01/27 10:00:00 House of Commons Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates 41 2 The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS Routine Proceedings (1005) [ English ] Petitions Agriculture Hon. Michael Chong (Wellington—Halton Hills, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have a petition here from about 150 constituents in my riding of Wellington—Halton Hills. They are calling on the Government of Canada and the House of Commons to adopt policies that will aid small family farmers in developing countries and will protect the right of these small family farmers in the global south to use and exchange seeds.

Genetically Modified Alfalfa Mr. Ted Hsu (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I have four petitions today. The first one is asking Parliament to impose a moratorium on the release of genetically modified alfalfa.

Health Mr. Ted Hsu (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition is calling on the federal government to rescind its cuts to the interim federal health program.

Agriculture Mr. Ted Hsu (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the third petition is asking the federal government to adopt international aid policies that protect the right of small family farmers in the global south to preserve, use, and freely exchange seeds.

Census Mr. Ted Hsu (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the last petition is from Canadians who are appalled that we spent an extra $22 million on the national household survey to collect data that was of poorer quality than the data collected through the last long form census. The petitioners are asking for the restoration of the long form census.

Prescription Drugs Ms. Kirsty Duncan (Etobicoke North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, each year in Canada, 10,000 people die from prescription drugs taken exactly as prescribed, and some 3.5 million Canadians have inadequate drug coverage or no coverage at all. The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to establish a committee with the necessary authority, mandate, expertise, and funding to make recommendations to reduce the number of deaths by prescription drugs; to work with the provinces and territories to ensure that all Canadians have a drug plan that covers the cost of prescription drugs; and to expand catastrophic drug coverage for all Canadians.

Agriculture Mr. Ray Boughen (Palliser, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the residents of Moose Jaw and the surrounding area. The petitioners would like to bring to the attention of the House that multinational seed companies are threatening the ability of family farmers to produce the amount of food required to feed their families and communities. The petitioners are calling upon the Government of Canada to adopt international aid policies that support small family farmers, especially women, and recognize their vital role in the struggle against hunger and poverty.

They want the government to ensure that Canadian policies are developed in consultation with small family farmers.

Questions on the Order Paper Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand. The Speaker : Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

GOVERNMENT ORDERS Business of Supply [ English ] Business of Supply Opposition Motion—The Economy Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP) moved: Motion That the House call on the government to (

a) immediately present an Economic and Fiscal Update to Parliament outlining the state of the nation’s finances in light of the unstable economic situation, including job losses, falling oil prices, and declining government revenues; and (

b) prepare a budget that addresses the economic challenges facing the middle class by creating more good-quality full-time jobs, and by encouraging economic diversification. He said: Mr. Speaker, at the outset, I thank my colleagues. I will be splitting my time with my hon. friend from Beauport—Limoilou . [ Translation ] I want to thank him for his work and the work we will do together in the future. [ English ] Today we present our first opposition day motion of 2015, which we think comes at a critical juncture for this country and our economy.

Our expectation is that the government would actually support this motion, because it clearly addresses the needs of this country in response to the moment we are in. Let us take that moment for what it is. The last time the government came to Canadians with its economic update, the world oil prices were at $86 for world and $81 for WTI. Those prices have subsequently dropped to $48 and $46 respectively. That is a $4.3 billion hit to the current government's treasury, as estimated by the OECD.

Calling for accountability and action is the job of all parliamentarians, and New Democrats take this job incredibly seriously. We have seen over the last number of weeks serious job losses in the retail sector, the energy sector, and other sectors across the economy. The TD Bank has concluded the following: The conclusion is unambiguous. In the absence of new measures to raise revenues or cut spending, TD is projecting budget deficits in fiscal 2015-16 and 2016-17 as opposed to the surpluses expected at the time of the [last fiscal] Update. The government needs a reality check.

It needs to address the situation that is in front of it rather than the one it wishes to see. It is important, because we have seen this movie before from the Conservatives. Canadians will remember that on the eve of the last global recession, as the world was dipping into negative territory, that rather than paying attention to the facts in front of them, and the indications were clear from the private sector economists, the World Bank, and the OECD that Canada too was falling into a recession, the Conservatives chose to ignore that and brought in an austerity budget.

This made the Conservative government unique in the developed world, a uniqueness we did not wish to enjoy, in not responding to the reality in front of us. Only at the threat of losing their government did the Conservatives reassemble a budget that was in fact a stimulus budget in response to the times of the day. The Minister of Finance recently sent a letter to us asking for ideas and solutions to help fix the economic weakness in Canada. Let us take a snapshot of the Canadian economy in 2014, a year that was meant to be a year of recovery and coming through the global recession.

The population in Canada grew faster than the number of jobs in Canada in 2014. The youth unemployment rate remained twice the national average, a rate seen during the worst times of the global downturn. Canadian youth are still experiencing those very difficult times. Canadian individuals are carrying more debt than they ever have in our history. We carry this debt, and that is a great encumbrance on the economy, and the Governor of the Bank of Canada has rightly pointed out that this is a concern and adds greater weakness and fragility.

In these long nine years since the Conservatives took power, Canada has lost 400,000 manufacturing jobs alone. These are good-paying jobs that support families. These are jobs that add value to our natural resources. All that time, we never heard a whit of concern from the Conservatives. With their all-eggs-in-one-basket approach to the economy, it was all pipelines all the time. So much of our effort in our relationship with our greatest trading partner, the United States, fixated on one job-exporting pipeline, namely Keystone.

There was a loss of social licence with Canadians with regard to natural resources as Conservatives tried to force through job-exporting pipelines to the west coast.

(1010) This has been the fixation of the government. We have seen that it built a house of cards, and it spent a surplus in the fall before it had it. What did the government spend it on? It spent it on a $2.5 billion income-splitting scheme that would do nothing for 85% of Canadians and that would skew proportionally toward the wealthiest Canadians, those who have a large income and a spouse that has very low or no income. That is what income splitting supports.

The Conservatives called it a lie, but I remember that it was Jim Flaherty who stood in the House and other places and said that his problem with income splitting was its deep unfairness. His problem with income splitting was that 15% of Canadians who do not need the help were suddenly getting $2.5 billion in help from the Conservatives in the last budget. That is what the Conservatives chose to spend their now illusionary surplus on, and now they are talking about dipping into their rainy day fund, the emergency fund, to paper over their mistake.

They had better hope that there are no floods or natural disasters, because that is what it was originally set aside for. It was for unforseen circumstances. Well, this was not unforeseen. This was a choice the Conservatives made. They chose to dig a $2.5 billion hole in their budget that they thought they could pay for, and now they cannot.

An intelligent and responsive government would say that the circumstances have dramatically changed and that maybe this unfair tax cut for the wealthiest Canadians is not timely, because it would do nothing for job creation, which is something that every private sector economist and the Governor of the Bank of Canada is calling for right now. Is it spending on infrastructure? No, not at all. The Conservatives did not choose that. Does it create jobs in small and medium businesses in this country? No, it does nothing like that. It is a political effort to buy votes on the eve of an election, clearly and simply.

That is why they rushed it and backdated it. It was to help their electoral fortunes come next fall. This is not about the Conservative Party anymore. This is about the Canadian economy, and it is time for the Conservatives to adapt to the reality in front of them. Today's motion calls for them to simply bring us a fiscal update and tell us what the books say and to then bring forward a budget that responds to the reality in front of Canadians. According to the Governor of the Bank of Canada, Canada has low or zero job growth recovery. That should be concerning to everybody.

Even in the midst of a recovery, the Canadian economy right now is not creating jobs. That is according to the governor of the bank. The governor acted last week with one of the major tools available to the bank. He lowered interest rates. It is unprecedented. Over the last almost five years, there have been more than 30 opportunities for the Bank of Canada to do this, and it was just last week that the governor chose to act, to move more money into the economy to stimulate growth because of the concern the bank had about Canada's future.

The finance minister yesterday was bragging that we may achieve as much as 2% growth this year, compared to more than 3% in the United States and almost 4% globally. Those guys are patting themselves on the back rather than acting. When it comes time to actually deliver the budget, the Conservatives have said that they are going to cross their fingers, hide under the covers, and hope that things just get better in a few months' time. They have said that maybe in April they will bring it. Maybe after April they will bring it, but do not worry; they have plan B.

After years and years of plan A, which was $50 billion in corporate tax cuts that have contributed to almost $600 billion in dead money in this economy, Canada has one of the lowest reinvestment rates in research and development and one of the lowest rates of job growth, and this does not seem to concern the Conservative government. Solutions are required, and New Democrats are offering those solutions to the government and to Canadians. We are offering $15-a-day affordable child care for all Canadians, not the 15% the Conservatives are focused on at the top.

We are offering a $15-an-hour minimum wage for federal workers. We recognize that since 1974, adjusted for real dollars, people at the lowest end earning minimum wage have received exactly a one penny raise in all of that time, yet the Conservatives think they concern themselves with average Canadians. Hardly. We have brought forward ideas on the small business hiring tax credit, which for a couple of years the Conservatives picked up and then cancelled, a hiring tax credit that was connected to a company actually creating a job.

We have connected the idea that when the government acts on the economy, it should focus on creating jobs, not simply focus on partisan activity and trying to buy votes just before an election. The motion presented today is clear. It is acceptable. It is smart. It asks the government to bring forward an update, level with Canadians, show us the books, and then for heaven's sake, bring forward a budget that actually responds to the reality that Canadians and our economy face today.

(1015) Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party would ultimately argue that it is a fundamental responsibility of the federal government to provide a sense of confidence in our economy. One of the tools by which it provides that is a federal budget brought in a timely fashion. This is something that has escaped this particular Prime Minister and Minister of Finance . It is something of critical importance on many different fronts.

Provinces are making up their budgets today and are very much reliant on some of those national figures that would be incorporated into the federal budget. I wonder if the NDP critic for finance might want to provide some comment on the need for a national budget, which has an impact on other budgets in Canada. Mr. Nathan Cullen : Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for his comments.

First, with the Conservatives, who pride themselves in being somewhat disciplined about the messaging, almost robot-like at times, there has been nothing but confusion not only with respect to this budget that is meant to come at some point in the spring—maybe toward the summer; we are not sure—but there has been utter chaos. One minister gets up saying they are going to bring in a budget that will likely bring in more cuts to services that Canadians need, like food inspection, rail inspection, and veterans affairs. We have seen that already. They are going to cut again.

Then we have another minister saying no, not at all. We have another minister saying we have to spend our rainy day fund to make up for the wasteful promises they made. Then the next minister says no, not at all. With respect to timing, we have seen the government download more than $36 billion in health care cuts to the provinces. It has just recently announced that disaster programs are going to be cut by hundreds of millions of dollars more to the provinces.

Now Conservatives are saying, for their own political fortunes and their own political timing, that the provinces are just going to have to wait and guess what contributions may be coming from the federal government. These are provinces that are struggling to make ends meet, much like Canadian families. The responsible thing, the right thing to do is react, act, and take some leadership when it comes to responding to our economy right now. Mrs. Cathy McLeod (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour and for Western Economic Diversification, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, the NDP, for the last four or five years, since I have been in the House, has consistently talked down the Canadian economy and the great work we have done in terms of seeing ourselves through a global recession and seeing the largest number of net new jobs. We see New Democrats on the picket lines protesting against every resource project out there. Really, their plan is absolutely a plan that will not move Canadians forward. It is a plan that is anti-resource and anti-job and includes massive government spending.

I would like the opposition member to talk about the massive government programs they plan to bring in and where they intend to get the revenue for them when they are against every project and almost every job I have seen come forward.

(1020) Mr. Nathan Cullen : Mr. Speaker, it would be like a Canadian going to a doctor and getting a health check and the doctor saying, “You should cut down on fats a little bit, and we're worried about this” and the person saying, “Well, don't talk down my health.” This is the reality check that Conservatives need. They can choose to ignore it, like they did in the last global downturn in 2008. It was not that long ago. It is recent memory. We are not anti-resource development. We are anti stupid resource development.

When it comes up that the Conservatives think they can bulldoze their way through Canadian communities doing whatever it is they want and gut environmental laws and run over the rights of first nations, that somehow that is a resource plan, well, that plan ends up in court. Congratulations on the energy superpower that the Prime Minister promised Canadians in 2006. How is it going for him? It is an absolute unmitigated disaster.

There are tensions with our largest trading partner, the United States, no pipeline is getting approved, and there is increasing public opposition to their plans, because there they go again with all their eggs in one basket. This is all they know. When we ask for help for the manufacturing sector, where are the Conservatives? With the value added sector, where are the Conservatives? They are nowhere.

This motion is asking for an action plan from the government, finally, not the billion dollars the Conservatives spent on self-promoting ads, but a real action plan that will help Canadians get back to work. [ Translation ] Mr. Raymond Côté (Beauport—Limoilou, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley for sharing his precious speaking time with me because I am sure he could have made good use of his 20 minutes to touch on other subjects. There is so much to say about our motion. My colleague read the motion, so I will not reread it.

However, I will begin my speech by saying that the Conservative government has been setting Canadians up for some hard times for quite a while now. I am not just saying that. That statement is based on well-established, well-documented facts. I can point to a source that I hope my Conservative colleagues will not dispute: the Bank of Canada's “Monetary Policy Report”, which was released a few days ago. This is the January 2015 report. I am going to focus on issues that directly affect the middle class, specifically, labour market issues.

In this report the Bank of Canada indicates that the labour market index has been held back by other developments, such as long-term unemployment, which is still close to its post-crisis peak. Not pre-crisis; post-crisis. The situation has clearly not improved. In addition, the number of hours worked remains low, and the proportion of involuntary part-time workers continues to be elevated. The government needs to face this distressing fact. It has nothing to do with the present circumstances, which are related to plummeting oil prices.

This situation is the direct result of the current Conservative government's policies. It cannot hide from that fact. The Governor of the Bank of Canada wrote it right there in black and white. To that I will add another very troubling bit of information. I think it is probably the most troubling part of all and what makes our debate today so urgent and important. The participation rate is low relative to what would be suggested by purely demographic forces.

The report indicates that the participation rate of prime-age workers, those aged 25-54, fell substantially in 2014, suggesting that at least some of the decrease in labour force attachment is unrelated to demographic forces. It is therefore not related to the normal changes we might expect in the labour market or to the changes in Canadian demographics. This is the result of the conditions created by the measures adopted by the Conservative government.

The Conservative government is to blame for the current state of affairs, for putting us on the brink, perhaps not of a perfect storm, but of a very worrisome turbulent situation where Canadians, families and the middle class will pay a high price in various parts of the country. Mr. Preston: That is false. Mr. Raymond Côté: Mr. Speaker, I hear my colleague saying that is false. He is therefore saying that the findings of the Bank of Canada's Monetary Policy Report are false. I would ask him to read that report and then tell me the facts are false. I am not making this up.

I am just quoting the Bank of Canada report. The job market has not been this unstable since the end of the economic crisis. I would describe it as a sink-or-swim job market, which is really too bad for a country as wealthy as ours. Canada is well positioned with its natural resources, its human resources, its expertise, and its extraordinary and renowned industries with a number of a leading-edge sectors. There is also the tourism industry, which made Canada a leader. That leadership has been lost because we are in the middle of the pack with truly dismal tourism growth rates.

Despite all these assets, we have been falling behind for years now.

(1025) Now the context has changed drastically, since there has been a massive drop in oil prices. Indeed, the price per barrel on global markets has dropped by 50%, and in just a few months' time, which is really brutal. There is no other way to describe it. I do not think anyone in this House would challenge me on that. With that in mind, it is clear that the government has basically abandoned the middle class, and we are going to have to change course completely.

This change in course should come from the Government of Canada, which is in the best position to do it, as it has the best tools to fix the situation and ensure that the middle class can reclaim its rightful place. This means getting back to real prosperity, the long-term security it no longer has because of the precarious nature of the labour market, and to conditions that allow middle-class Canadians to hope for the same for their children, since this is no longer a sure thing.

Over the holiday break, many of my colleagues probably had an opportunity not only to take a few days or weeks of vacation, but also to talk to people who are still very worried for their children. They worry about what will happen to them, even when their children are getting an advanced education. The labour market is not very strong; in fact, it can no longer really accommodate most young people after they finish their studies. Furthermore, the monetary policy report was very clear on that. The situation did improve somewhat for young people, but only a little.

We are lagging so far behind that we cannot actually talk about good opportunities for young people entering the workforce. These observations apply to the situation right now, which is already distressing, so what are we passing on to future generations? Right now, the House has the wonderful opportunity to discuss and debate the legacy that we are going to build and pass on to future generations. However, no such legacy exists. The only legacy that we are passing on is a legacy of liabilities or a social debt on the labour market that is going to haunt us long after the budget is balanced.

Even a balanced budget is rather unlikely given that the ministers have made contradictory statements on the issue and we have no idea whether the budget will be balanced within the timeframe that the government set for itself. The government is seeking to balance the budget, but we do not know whether it will do so in these conditions, which are even more terrible than what we have been living through over the past 10 years.

The reality—and this is why the NDP is positioning itself to become the next Government of Canada—is that we already need to be sending strong signals in order to improve the situation and build this legacy. As my esteemed colleague said, we can do this by implementing rather simple, but strong and practical, measures, such as a $15 minimum wage. Obviously, this will be implemented gradually so as to not disrupt the market, but we will set an ambitious, yet realistic, timeline. Clearly, setting up $15-a-day child care is important.

Canadian families are struggling to make ends meet with low incomes and part-time jobs, and yet they still have to pay astronomical child care costs, which vary across the country from hundreds of dollars to even a thousand dollars a month. That is truly ridiculous. It is absolutely unacceptable, and the government is not doing anything to stop it.

However, the most serious problem—and likely the most important point in the debate about our economic future—is that the Bank of Canada has taken action to address the upheaval we are experiencing but has been left to fight alone because the government has not given any indication that it is prepared to support the Bank of Canada's plan. That is completely unacceptable because the Bank of Canada should not have to bear the burden of trying to remedy the situation.

On the contrary, we need direct action from the government in order to weather this storm while ensuring that people have better living conditions and get through this difficult situation under reasonable conditions.

(1030) [ English ] Mrs. Cathy McLeod (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour and for Western Economic Diversification, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest, but again the NDP is not reflecting on the facts. The facts are that we have the best job-creation record in the G7 and that in spite of the challenges of oil prices, our growth rate is predicted to be in the 2% of GDP range, so we will continue to be on a positive track. We have a low-tax plan that will continue to support businesses and encourage growth in all sectors of our economy.

In my riding, it looks as though the low dollar will have a positive impact on the tourism industry. Therefore, I think we have to recognize that there is some balance here and that we are on the right track. What I hear from New Democrats are plans for a $15 minimum wage and universal child care that will maybe only help 10% of the population. I hear a lot of plans in which they intend to take money out of the pockets of Canadians, but I have not heard anything that would actually support growth in Canada. [ Translation ] Mr. Raymond Côté : Mr.

Speaker, I have the impression that my esteemed colleague missed part of my speech. My presentation was about the labour market. I did not give my own estimates or assessments, but the facts presented by the Bank of Canada. I invite my colleague to consult the Bank of Canada's January 2015 Monetary Policy Report, where she will find the quotes and data pertaining to the precarious labour market that I described. It is not even a question of opinion. She can refuse to accept reality if she so wishes and if those are the instructions from the PMO.

However, the reality has been laid out by the Governor of the Bank of Canada. That is not debatable. [ English ] Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on a commitment by the Prime Minister to give hundreds of millions of dollars—I believe the total is $2 billion—in a tax break to some of Canada's wealthiest people, less than 15% of the population. This is the income splitting. It is a commitment that needs to be reversed. The government is in essence taxing Canada's middle class, with $2 billion going to support less than 15% of Canada's population.

Would the member like to comment and put on record very clearly that the NDP would in fact reverse the income-splitting tax commitment. (1035) [ Translation ] Mr. Raymond Côté : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. He is right: income splitting is a very bad idea. I would simply say that over the past 20 years Liberal and Conservative governments have practically been in lockstep as they have benefited the wealthiest by lowering their taxes and especially by eliminating some tax brackets. Furthermore, large corporations have had their taxes cut in half.

For 20 years we have been promised a brighter future and forced to wear rose-coloured glasses. That brighter future has not materialized. In fact, the record of the Liberal and Conservative governments is clear. According to the Bank of Canada's Monetary Policy Report, the current labour market is very precarious. In fact, the future of our workers is uncertain at this time. With the pending turbulence, people will suffer a great deal. What hope is there for our young people who want to enter the labour market, given the conditions created over 20 years by the Liberal and Conservative governments?

That is my question. [ English ] Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the official opposition choosing today to have a special debate on the current economic situation and the absence of an economic update. Going to first principles in this debate, I would put it to my friend that fundamental to our form of democracy is that Parliament controls the public purse. The first parliamentary budgetary officer, Kevin Page, has made it clear that is no longer true.

Since I entered this place, none of us, as members of Parliament, have received sufficient information to vote on any budget. In the last number of years, the budgets have been missing something. They are generally referred to as “budgets”, but there have been no total statements of revenues, no total statements of expenses, and no bottom lines. In other words, I think the so-called spring budget should be called the “annual thick brochure”. It contains a lot of political promises, but none of the information that the finance minister claims he needs to present a budget. [ Translation ] Mr. Raymond Côté : Mr.

Speaker, I thank my colleague for her comment. As the member for Beauport—Limoilou, I experience that same lack of transparency when trying to deal with my constituents' issues with the dust coming from the Port of Québec. Unfortunately, this is a trend we have been seeing for decades from our governments in Canada. They care less and less about transparency. This trend has become more prevalent and has really picked up steam under the Conservatives' rule these last nine years. This trend is so strong that it has become quite worrisome.

There is a lot that will have to change so that the books can be opened back up and people can know where they stand for the future and are aware of topics that should be public. [ English ] Mr. Andrew Saxton (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, in my time today, let me reassure all hon. members that our government remains focused on the economy and the next budget. As our finance minister recently said: Given the current market instability, I will not bring forward our budget earlier than April. We need all the information we can obtain before finalizing our decisions.

If the members opposite can practise some patience, we will certainly provide them with our vision for the future in due course. However, let me start by describing where we are and how we got here. Canada was able to weather the recent recession relatively well, but that recession's impact is still weighing heavily on the global economy. After the most severe global recession since the Great Depression has come the weakest global recovery. In the eurozone, the recovery remains elusive and inflation has fallen significantly, reaching -0.2% last December.

The continent's three largest economies, Germany, France and Italy, all saw their economies contract in the second quarter of 2014 and have remained weak in the third quarter as well. Just last week the European Central Bank significantly expanded its bond-buying program or quantitative easing, which it is estimated will now reach $1.1 trillion euros, plus possible extensions in an attempt to resuscitate a struggling eurozone economy. Beyond Europe, the growth rates of key emerging economies, China and Brazil, are slowing as well.

Geopolitical conflicts in Ukraine, Iraq, and Syria have complicated the economic recovery and fuel global uncertainty. However, after a weak start last year, the outlook for our American neighbours has strengthened considerably and bodes well for Canada. Still, the International Monetary Fund warns that economic risks remain elevated. The global economy is still very fragile and we are not immune from global shocks. We have been saying this for years and it remains valid today, perhaps more so than ever.

Many countries face difficult decisions ahead, yet in these challenging global times Canada has fared much better than most. A downturn that did not originate here hit us later than most and affected us less. Moreover, we emerged from the downturn more quickly and in better shape than other developed economies. How, one might ask? With a prudent and long-term plan for economic growth and job creation, Canada has recovered all of the jobs lost during the great recession and more.

In fact, over 1.2 million net new jobs have been created since the depths of the recession, jobs that are overwhelmingly full-time, high-paying, private sector jobs. Since taking office in 2006, we have been carefully crafting a more confident Canada. That confidence is shown in the fact that Canadians are wealthier. A recent New York Times analysis found that after-tax middle-class incomes in Canada are higher than those in the United States. That is the first time that has happened. In fact, the Canadian middle class is among the richest in the developed world.

The median net worth of Canadian families has increased by 45% since we took office and our government has been committed to taking less of that hard-earned money away with the lowest federal tax burden in over 50 years. We have also put an emphasis on free trade, which is tremendously valuable and important to the state of the Canadian economy. When our government took office in 2006, Canada had free trade agreements with only five countries. We now have free trade deals with 43 countries, a network that touches every corner of the globe. Let me be clear: we are not in a crisis.

In fact, Canada has performed better than other G7 economies over the recovery. Both the IMF and OECD are still expecting Canada to be among the strongest economies in the G7 in 2014-15. As the Prime Minister has repeatedly said, we have a choice: act to create jobs, growth, and resilience in a competitive global economy or risk long-term economic decline. As has been evident since our government came to power, we have been choosing long-term prosperity and are achieving results through our low-tax plan for jobs and growth.

At the end of the day, the Canadian families I have talked to are concerned about jobs and economic growth, and rightfully so. However, our economic action plan is working and we are doing that by keeping taxes low.

(1040) The Liberals and the NDP would both institute high-tax and high-debt agendas, which would be devastating for the economy, killing jobs, and undermining all the work we have done so far. Our government's plan does not include raising taxes or slashing transfers to the provinces like our predecessors did. To the contrary, we have cut taxes 180 times and have increased transfer payments by 55% since 2006, reaching $65 billion this year, the highest ever. These transfers are used for key priorities, such as health care and post-secondary education.

We remain committed to keeping taxes down and increasing transfers as the economy grows. We controlled government spending, something that few nations have done in decades, and we have done it while maintaining the programs and services Canadians rely upon. Contrast that to the opposition, which would drive the economy into deeper deficits with bureaucratic and inefficient spending schemes. With this plan, we have been able to provide even more direct support for hard-working Canadians families.

The opposition will tell us today that it should be trusted to help the middle class, that it knows what is best for Canadian families. Our government's track record speaks for itself. We have always been committed to putting more money back into the pockets of hard-working Canadian families. Our new family tax cut would benefit 100% of families with children under the age of 18, at a time when the cost of raising a family is at an all-time high. This alone would work out to an average of over $1,100 per year for families to spend on their own priorities.

We will not apologize for building on our record of historic tax relief for Canadians. It is our Conservative government that increased the amount Canadians can earn tax-free. We introduced the tax-free savings account, the most popular savings vehicle since RRSPs. We introduced pension income splitting for seniors. Combined, these measures are saving Canadian families, on average, over $3,400 per year. What would all this mean for over four million Canadian families with kids? Every one of them would benefit. Take for example, a two-earner couple with children aged seven and three.

One spouse earns $95,000, and the other earns $25,000. For the 2015 tax year alone, such a family would be better off by $2,835. Or take a single mom earning $30,000, with a four-year-old and an eight-year-old. She would receive $1,224 in additional benefits this year alone. Here is an important point that I am proud of, namely that two-thirds of these benefits would go to low- and middle-income Canadians, with 25% going to families earning less than $30,000. We are providing families this financial relief for a simple reason. Across Canada, Canadians are telling us the same thing, that costs are going up.

It is our government that understands that for a more affordable life, Canadians need a more affordable tax burden. The fact is, according to a Fraser Institute report released last August, Canadians are paying, on average, about 42% of their income in taxes to all levels of government, which is more than on food, clothing, and lodging combined. On this side of the House, we just do not believe that government needs more of that money. However, we know what the opposition would do. It would take these benefits away, cancelling the tax breaks and increasing taxes on those very same people.

It said it would do precisely that. Everything we have learned from the post-recession history proves that the opposition's policies would be damaging to the Canadian economy and hurt the very people the NDP and the Liberals claim to stand up for, which brings us back to the economy. One thing I can tell the opposition today is that we will be presenting a balanced budget to Canadians. We promised Canadians that we would return to a balanced budget, because it is important for Canadians and our economy.

It would mean that more funding would be available for important programs that Canadians need, and it would keep the debt burden low. This is another way that our government would be protecting Canada from international shocks. While the opposition ignores these basic economic principles, our government will keep our promises and commitments to the Canadian people. In the worst of the recession, Canada's deficit stood at over $55 billion. Today, it has been reduced by over 90%, to just over $5 billion, and it is still falling.

(1045) Yes, crude oil prices have fallen since last year, and this will impact our government's flexibility. However, we have noted that lower oil prices do have benefits for consumers at the pumps, for example, and they also mean lower energy prices for the manufacturing sector. Despite this volatile market, our government is confident that the fluctuation in oil prices will not stop our government from achieving a budgetary balance in 2015. This is truly a remarkable achievement when so many other countries are still locked in deep deficits. It is not easy to return to a balanced budget.

Contrary to what some may believe, budgets do not balance themselves. Balancing a budget requires a plan and the discipline to follow that plan. It is why the Minister of Finance has said that we are using the next months to hear from Canadians, hear from private sector economists, and gather all the information to make an informed decision. Given the current market instability, we will do everything necessary before we finalize our decisions.

With all of the pessimism and negativity emanating from the opposition, it may be hard for some people to get a good grasp of the real economic situation we are faced with today. Let me assure Canadians that now is not the time to be pessimistic. Canada has a diverse economy and is not solely driven by the oil sector. Federal revenues are equally diverse; Canada has a highly diverse economy.

That is why our government supports jobs and growth by connecting Canadians with available jobs; fostering job creation, innovation, and trade; and providing record investments in manufacturing, infrastructure, and transportation. However, if the opposition members had their way, they would institute higher taxes and put us back into deficit just as we are recovering from the global recession. We must remember that these tax hikes would have a destructive effect on all sectors of the economy.

They would be an unnecessary job killer and would take money away from Canadians that would be better reinvested in the economy. Both the Liberals' and the New Democrats' reckless commitment to raising taxes and spending beyond our means is not an economic plan, and Canadians expect and deserve better. We simply cannot afford to return to a mindset that assumes governments can tax and spend as they please without economic consequences. We know what has happened in other countries where governments thought that way.

We understand these basic truths: no government can tax its way to prosperity, and no government can indefinitely spend more than it takes in. We cannot take prosperity for granted. Higher debt today means higher taxes and service cuts for our children and our grandchildren down the road. We have a duty to manage our finances responsibly. That is why we will get back to balance and stay there, all the while keeping our promise to provide continuous tax relief to Canadians. Our government is well on its way to achieving our goal of reducing the federal debt to 25% of GDP by 2021.

Indeed, the ratio is expected to fall below its pre-recession level by 2017. The IMF projects that our total government net debt-to-GDP ratio will remain the lowest of any G7 country. In fact, it is about half of the average. As members can see, our government is delivering, and we are providing the leadership that is required during these challenging times. Now is not the time for risky experiments or a flighty trip back to discarded ideas and failed policies of the past. Canada has come a long way, but we are not in the clear yet.

Our government has a plan to meet these challenges, a plan that is working, and we must stay the course. We survived the great recession; now we will take the action necessary to secure prosperity for this generation and the next. To conclude, Canada is on the right track. Canadians are aware of the benefits our government is providing, and we will soon present our vision for the future in economic action plan 2015.

(1050) Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I may have missed it, but I do not know if my friend across the way said he was supporting the motion or not. I like the idea that there is a budget forthcoming—no kidding— but the question is when, and does the government seek to act on and respond to the reality that is facing us in these uncertain times, as the governor of the bank has been able to do? The minister keeps referring to unstable markets. The markets are not just “unstable” in oil; they are low.

If they had climbed 60% or 70%, I am sure the government would have enthusiastically presented a budget. My question is about the choices the government has made. It wants to spend upwards of $2 billion on an income-splitting scheme that helps 15%, the overwhelmingly wealthiest Canadians, as was pointed out by the new Minister of Veterans Affairs . It is great for him, since he is earning $180,000 a year. It will help out his situation to the tune of almost $3,500, yet the government is spending 30 times less on the increase to child support payments, at $65 million.

Then it derides the NDP for having the audacity to propose a universal and affordable child care plan that would actually help boost the economy. Which is the clear choice: $2 billion on income splitting that does nothing to help put people back to work, or an affordable $15-a-day child care plan that allows those who want to enter the workforce to do so, which has been pointed out by the TD Bank and others as an excellent way to help the economy when it needs help, which it does right now? Why make such a bad and partisan choice in this time of such serious situations? Mr. Andrew Saxton : Mr.

Speaker, our family tax plan will help all Canadian families with children under the age of 18. The NDP's plan would only help 10% of Canadian families. Furthermore, its plan would cost over $5 billion—at least, that is what was projected; it could be much more than that. Ours is a plan to put money back in the pockets of Canadian families so that they can choose how to invest or spend that money on their own priorities, not those of the NDP or our government. We are putting money back in the pockets of Canadian families,

whereas the NDP has said it would take that money back out of their pockets and use it for their own schemes. We do not think that is a prudent way to go. We believe Canadians know best how to spend their own money.

(1055) Hon. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I find it fascinating to listen to my colleague when he also talks about the issue of child care and what the $3,200 would do when it comes to trying to find child care. I suggest the Conservatives should spend a few days out there knocking on doors and looking at just what child care costs today. The issue I wanted to ask my hon. colleague about is this. Yesterday the Minister of Finance proudly stood here saying in a really blusterous way that the budget would be balanced, that there would be no cuts.

He talked about the commitments to small business and income splitting, saying that everything would be in that budget and that everything would be fine. If that is the case, then why is the government not introducing it today? What are you waiting for, if you have it all figured out? Are you just waiting for June so that you can spin it into an election campaign? The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : Order, please. Before I go to the parliamentary secretary, I would like to remind all hon. members to direct their comments to the Chair rather than directly to their colleagues. The hon. parliamentary secretary.

Mr. Andrew Saxton : Mr. Speaker, unlike the Liberal Party, when we make a promise, we keep that promise, and that is what we will be doing with our family tax cuts and keeping taxes low. As the Minister of Finance stated, we will not bring the budget forward any earlier than April. Declining oil prices will have an impact on the government's flexibility, but we will balance the budget in 2015. Because of the volatility in the oil market, we will not bring forward the budget any earlier than April. It is desirable to have all the information available to make informed decisions.

Our government will proceed prudently. At a time when the global economy is uncertain, Canada is not immune to the economic challenges beyond our borders. That is why it is important that we take the time to listen to Canadians and to the economists before we come out with budget 2015. Members should stay tuned; it will come out after April. Mr. Peter Braid (Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure and Communities, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as the member of Parliament for Kitchener—Waterloo , I am proud to come from a community that has one of the strongest local economies not only in the province but in the country.

It is a local economy with diversified strengths. It has strength in advanced manufacturing, in financial services, and in our technology and innovation sector. When I hear the opposition claim that we as a government are putting all of our eggs in one basket, I laugh out loud. I want to ask the parliamentary secretary if he could please speak to the important diversification of Canada's economy. Mr. Andrew Saxton : Mr. Speaker, it is true that Canada does have a highly diverse economy.

We are not dependent on just one sector, and that is why our government supports jobs and growth by connecting Canadians with available jobs. It is why we have invested in infrastructure, manufacturing, and transportation. Unlike the Liberals, who encourage manufacturers in southwestern Ontario simply to close up shop, our government recognizes that they are some of the most innovative manufacturers in the world. That is why we are supporting the Canadian economy with lower taxes. There are 780,000 small businesses that will benefit from the small business tax credit.

We understand that this is a diverse economy and that it runs on many different cylinders, and that is why we are supporting all of those cylinders with lower taxes and support for Canadian manufacturers and Canadian exporters. In addition, we have opened up 38 new trade markets for Canadian businesses. We have signed 38 new trade agreements. That compares to just three trade agreements that were signed by the Liberals back in the 1980s and 1990s. We are proud of this record because it gives Canadian businesses the opportunity to expand globally and to grow. [ Translation ] Mr.

Dany Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I thank my Conservative colleague for his speech. However, I am not sure that he responded to the question asked by my NDP colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley . Today, the NDP is calling on the government to immediately present an economic and fiscal update to Parliament outlining the state of the nation's finances in light of the unstable economic situation, including job losses, falling oil prices and declining government revenues.

To show how important this is, I want to add that according to Statistics Canada, the unemployment rate in Saguenay is very high—9.6%—which puts my region of Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean last among all metropolitan regions in Canada when it comes to job creation. A region like mine, the riding I represent, needs a message from the Conservative government. It needs investments. It needs to know that the federal government knows what it is doing. We are now living in great uncertainty, in both Parliament and my riding.

Could my Conservative colleague tell me whether the government will present an economic and fiscal update to outline the state of Canada's finances? (1100) [ English ] Mr. Andrew Saxton : Mr. Speaker, we had an economic and fiscal update just nine weeks ago, and as the Minister of Finance has said, we are going to have a full budget sometime after April. I want to assure my colleague opposite that at the same time we continue to manage the economy and we continue to invest in Canadians' jobs and future prosperity.

We have a $75 billion infrastructure plan to help create jobs across the country, the largest and longest infrastructure plan in Canadian history. At the same time, Canada does have the best job creation record in the G7. Our government will continue to monitor the situation and continue to manage the economy to make sure that our job creation record continues. Mr. Adam Vaughan (Trinity—Spadina, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I keep hearing the government tell us to quote the facts. Conservatives continually cite an

article in The New York Times that talks about Canada's middle class in comparison to the middle class in the United States. The

article says that Canada's middle class has never been more frightened than any other time in the country's history. That is because the cost of education is going up, the cost of transit is going up, the cost of housing is going up, and the cost of medical care is going up, yet when the government deals with the budget, nothing changes. No matter what happens to the price of oil, no matter what happens to the economic outlook, no matter what changes, the ideology stays the same.

If everything the Conservatives promised to do is no different than it was last week, regardless of the facts, why are we not discussing a budget? Mr. Andrew Saxton : Mr. Speaker, we recognize that costs are going up, which is precisely the reason we are putting money back in the pockets of Canadian families. In fact, we put over $3,400 back in Canadians' pockets this year alone. We are proud of our low-tax plan to create jobs and long-term prosperity. We are proud of the fact that the Canadian middle class is doing better now than it ever has in Canadian history. Hon. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, today I will speak about the Canadian economy and the challenges faced by middle-class Canadian families. Conservative government mismanagement and also its lack of vision for the Canadian economy and its future has dashed the hopes of middle-class Canadian families. I would like to take a moment to reflect on the reality of Conservative management of the economy. [ Translation ] When it came to power in 2006, the Conservative government inherited a decade's worth of balanced budgets from Liberal governments as well as an annual surplus of $13 billion.

It took the Conservatives just two years to turn that surplus into a deficit, and that was before the recession hit. [ English ] The Conservatives actually put Canada on the edge of deficit prior to the global financial crisis in 2008. Even in the most recent economic update, the government forecast shows that the economy's rate of growth would slow from one year to the next. That is the latest forecast from the government. The economy is facing long-term structural challenges. These structural challenges existed before plummeting oil prices.

The Bank of Canada has forecast that the economy's growth will decline in 2015 to 2.1% from the previously forecasted 2.6%. The TD's forecast is actually even lower, at 2%. The Conservatives like to take credit for the country's favourable performance relative to other industrialized economies in weathering the 2008 recession, and it is true that we did get through the 2008 financial crisis better than other countries.

However, the Economist magazines tells us that there are three principal reasons for that: first, Canada's banking system and the decision made by Prime Minister Chrétien and Finance Minister Martin not to follow the global trend of deregulation in the 1990s; second, with the fiscal management of the previous government, having taken more than $80 billion off the national debt, the Conservative government inherited the best incoming fiscal situation of any incoming government in the history of Canada; and third, oil, gas and minerals.

Those are the three factors that helped Canada get through the 2008 financial crisis, and they have one thing in common: the Conservatives actually are not responsible for any of them. It is important to realize that the more time has passed since the recession, the less robust Canada's economic recovery has been, especially in comparison with the U.S. In fact, the Economist magazine's

article was “Canada's economy, Maple, resting on its laurels. Canada's post-crisis glow is fading”. That

article was from last spring, a long time before plummeting oil prices. Now it is clear, with the recent collapse of oil prices, that we cannot simply rely on fossil fuels, pipelines and minerals to be the sole drivers of the Canadian economy. The Conservatives have had a three-prong strategy. It has been oil, oil and oil. They have actually shortchanged other sectors, totally ignoring the manufacturing sector, where we have lost almost half a million jobs under the government. Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Markham—Unionville .

Again, even before plummeting oil prices, Canada faced significant challenges, slow growth and a soft employment market. The number of Canadian jobless for over a year or more had actually doubled since 2008, and that was before plummeting oil prices. Even before plummeting oil prices, there were 200,000 fewer jobs for young Canadians than in 2008. More young Canadians with good educations were unable to support themselves and were living at home with their parents.

More Canadian parents and grandparents were going deeper in debt, in fact record levels of personal debt, because of their direct financial support of children and grandchildren. This was, again, before plummeting oil prices.

(1105) The reality is that the Conservative government has also raised taxes. It imposed a $330 million increase in Canadian tariffs in the previous budget implementation act. In fact, that took effect this month. Now the government's fiscal position is eroding. The TD Bank has forecast a potential $4.7 billion deficit if oil prices do not recover. Similarly, the Conference Board of Canada has issued a report saying that the drop in oil prices will reduce government revenues by $4.3 billion. These economic circumstances call for vision and leadership from the federal government, and certainty.

In fact, we have had anything but certainty from the Minister of Finance or the government. The Minister of Finance postponed the tabling of a budget to April, at the earliest. Even in the best case scenario, where a budget is tabled in April, there will be a lack of parliamentary scrutiny as the House of Commons is due for a two week break in April. [ Translation ] Also troubling is the apparent rift within the government when it comes to how to cope with the budget surplus that is now evaporating. [ English ] The Minister of Employment and Social Development said: We won’t be using a contingency fund.

A contingency fund is there for unforeseen circumstances like natural disasters. On the other hand, the Minister of Finance said: The contingency fund is there for unexpected and unavoidable shocks to the system [like] the oil price decline--which was a dramatic one--would fall in that category. The fact that two senior Conservative economic ministers have two totally separate and different positions on something as fundamental as the budget does not inspire confidence among the investment community or among consumers.

The dilemma over how to avoid a fiscal deficit would not have presented itself in the first place if the government had not recklessly painted itself into a corner with pre-election commitments to income splitting and other tax expenditures. This was the opposite of leadership. The government was pandering to its base for political advantage. It was doing everything it could to create a notional surplus on the eve of an election to fund its pre-election spending. It took no account of the potential volatility of commodity prices. It is plain and simple. The government mismanaged the fiscal situation.

It let Conservative ideology and politics take priority over the practical demands of governing and fiscal responsibility. The government should now prepare and table a budget that acknowledges the uncertainty and provides some level of leadership. It should not wait until April to do this. The government should retreat from its income splitting commitment because it is costly and it would benefit only 15% of Canadians. We heard from the former minister of finance, Jim Flaherty, on this, and he expressed concerns that it was unfair. Before plummeting oil prices, income splitting was unfair.

After plummeting oil prices and its fiscal impact, it is unaffordable. It is important to realize that any tax cut like income splitting, which only benefits 15% of the richest families, and deficit financing will require all Canadians to pay higher taxes in the future. The Bank of Canada has shown leadership. It recognized the turbulence faced by the Canadian economy and it cut the key interest for the first time in almost five years. Despite the warning from economists, the TD Bank and others, the Minister of Finance said, “the Canadian economy is in good space”.

This is out of touch with the emerging reality, and out of sync with the concerns of middle-class Canadian families. It is also indifferent to the needs of average Canadians. It is important to realize that the Conservative government has not provided certainty to Canadians, and it has not provided a plan for jobs and growth. A plan for jobs and growth was needed before plummeting oil prices. We need a plan for jobs and growth even more today. A Liberal government would invest in plans for jobs and growth in three principal ways. It would invest in infrastructure.

We have never had a better time to invest in infrastructure than today. We would invest in people and skills. We would invest in innovation.

(1110) A Liberal government would invest in jobs and growth. Canadian families are looking for leadership and investment in jobs and growth, a real plan. Mr. Andrew Saxton (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the hon. member said that he was so proud that the Liberals balanced the budgets in the 1990s. How did the Liberals balance the budgets? They did it by slashing transfers to the provinces and territories. Those were transfers that were supposed to be used for health care and education.

They increased taxes on seniors by forcing them to remove their savings from their RRSPs and RRIFs two years earlier. They did it by raiding the EI fund of almost $60 billion. Also, they did it by not cancelling the GST, which they promised they would do. They did it by not tearing up the free trade agreement, which they promised they would do as well. That is how the Liberals balanced the budgets in the 1990s. My question for my hon. colleague is this.

Will the Liberals raise taxes on Canadian families by cancelling our family tax plan, or will they get on board and help Canadian families by supporting our family tax plan? Hon. Scott Brison : Mr. Speaker, we have been very clear. We do not support income splitting, which is unfair because it only benefits 15% Canada's richest. It does nothing for the other 85% of Canadians. However, it puts 100% of Canadian families deeper in debt by putting the government deeper in debt, because it is deficit financing.

A tax cut like income splitting, which is highly regressive today, will be paid for through higher taxes in the future, and we do not support that. The member spoke of free trade. We agree free trade is very important. The NAFTA is extremely important to the Canadian economy. Our relationship with the U.S. and Mexico are critically important, which is why I find it curious that the Prime Minister would have cancelled the upcoming summit of President Peña Nieto, President Obama and the Prime Minister in Ottawa.

Why would he have damaged further our relations with our key trading partners in the NAFTA by cancelling that meeting? (1115) [ Translation ] Mr. Pierre Nantel (Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, since we have been focusing on issues that are closely tied to fossil fuels, I would like to read today's motion again: That the House call on the government to (

a) immediately present an Economic and Fiscal Update to Parliament outlining the state of the nation’s finances in light of the unstable economic situation, including job losses, falling oil prices, and declining government revenues; and (

b) prepare a budget that addresses the economic challenges facing the middle class by creating more good-quality full-time jobs, and by encouraging economic diversification. I listened to my colleague's speech, and he is right, those were indeed the days. We can speak of those days nostalgically, but they are the ones who got rid of the federal minimum wage. Will they at least support our initiative to introduce a $15 minimum wage at the federal level? Hon. Scott Brison : Mr. Speaker, in the current situation, it is very important that the government put forward an economic plan.

I therefore support the NDP motion in that respect. At the same time, we need to work more closely with the provincial governments on issues like minimum wage. I agree that middle-class families are having trouble making ends meet at a time when incomes have stagnated while the cost of living continues to rise. This is a problem in Canada and around the world. The government should be working very closely with the provincial governments to develop post-secondary education programs, for example, in order to ensure that workers have the skills they need for the future.

That would be another way to ensure progress for middle-class Canadians. [ English ] Hon. John McCallum (Markham—Unionville, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak on this NDP motion, which as my colleague indicated, the Liberal Party will support. The basic point is that it is the responsibility of a government to lead, and it is especially the responsibility of a government to lead when economic times become tough and uncertain. Therefore, there is absolutely no reason to delay the budget in the way the government has.

Indeed, the tougher the economic times, the sooner Canadians want to see resolute action and a concrete plan from the government. It is not at all clear from an economic point of view what the government will gain from delay. Members can correct me if I am wrong, but I do not think anybody on the planet predicted that oil prices would suddenly collapse from over $100 a barrel to less than $50. This was not foreseen by anyone, to my knowledge.

Therefore, if that collapse in oil prices was not foreseen by anyone, why should we believe anyone who claims to know the pace at which oil prices will recover, if indeed they will recover? For all we know, oil prices could drop even lower. Simply to wait to buy time, because in waiting a month or two one thinks one will have a better idea of what oil prices will do in the future, I think is a fool's game. It is just an excuse for the government not having a plan.

The Conservatives did not know what to do, and so rather than present a concrete plan based on the most defensible assumptions they could make in an uncertain world, they just decided to delay. In so doing, they increased the uncertainty felt by Canadians in this time of uncertainty. I think that is indeed an irresponsible move. Whether the Conservatives present the budget in February, March, April, or May, the world is and will remain a place of uncertainty.

Nobody will know, whatever the month of the budget presentation, exactly or even approximately what oil prices or other things will be in a year, two years, or three years from now. However, the function of the government, the function of a budget, is to present a credible plan. It is to make assumptions as required on these things that cannot be known and to forge ahead with a plan. I think the Conservative government's inaction in presenting its budget shows a lack of a plan, a lack of an idea of where it thinks the economy will go.

I think the Conservatives only had one plan, and that plan was based on oil at $100 a barrel. Their plan was based on Canada being an energy superpower. However, when that plan collapsed with the price of oil around the world, the government did not have a plan B. It has no alternative plan, and so the Conservatives are delaying and figuring out what to do. In the meantime, the Conservatives operate on the fly.

One of their most senior ministers—if not the most senior minister and certainly the one who is talked about most to become the next leader of the party over there—has said that they would have to make cuts in the near future in order to balance the books, and then he was promptly contradicted. I think that dissension at the highest levels about the budget, which is the most important document for the government in the whole year, is another sign of disarray and disorganization on the part of the government. (1120) [ Translation ] The budget is important and there is no reason to delay it.

The fact that the government has not presented it and has said it plans to wait a few months is not good for Canadians. This shows a lack of leadership, because in two or three months' time, we will not know any more than we do now about what will become of our economy or the price of oil on world markets. Furthermore, the government already announced its tax measures without even knowing what the budget will be.

That was also a mistake. [ English ] The fact that the government announced this income-splitting measure some time ago and all of a sudden maybe does not have the money to do it is another sign of incompetence and irresponsibility on its part. We on this side do not object to the income-splitting plan just because it was incompetently announced before the facts were on the table, but we also object to it because we think substantively it is a bad move.

Yes, middle-class families are struggling and they do require measures to support them going forward, and that is the cornerstone of the policy of the Liberal Party. However, the solution to the woes and the challenges and the difficulties of middle-class Canadians is not to present a tax cut that would benefit only 15% of Canadian households. The C.D.

Howe Institute, which is hardly a socialist, left-leaning institute, has come down strongly against this policy, pointing out that only 15% of Canadian households would receive anything at all and those that would receive the lion's share of the benefits are high-income households with children, such as the families of the Prime Minister and the leader of the third party, the Liberal Party. Their families would receive the $2,000 maximum benefit, and yet they are not the ones evidently in greatest need. This is a wrong-headed policy.

It would be a wrong-headed policy even in the best of economic times, but it is doubly a wrong-headed policy when it is presented at these times of great economic uncertainty. We support the NDP motion in the sense that it is a by-product. Our primary concern is not the NDP motion but the lack of responsibility, the lack of leadership, displayed by the Conservative government in deferring the budget in uncertain times.

It is precisely when times are uncertain that Canadians need their government to step up to the plate and present a clear plan to go forward under these difficult circumstances in which we live. (1125) [ Translation ] Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have a feeling of déjà vu when I listen to the Liberals. In 1992—quite some time ago—when they were in opposition, Brian Mulroney was the prime minister and many cuts were being made, the Liberals said that they wanted to get elected so that they could do things differently. They said that they wanted to take care of the middle class.

They made cuts to unemployment insurance and stole $57 billion from workers to balance the budget. They said that they would not do that. In 1998, they cut CBC's budget by $357 million, so that it could no longer function. Then, the Conservatives cut CBC's budget by an additional $115 million. In 1994, the Liberals made such drastic cuts to health care spending that they made our health care system sick. At the time, the Liberals were saying that they wanted to replace the Conservatives because the Conservatives were not on the right track. The Liberals said that they wanted to do better.

My question for the Liberals is this: are they still the same Liberals or have they changed? After all that, there was the sponsorship scandal. I think that the Liberals need to be honest with Canadians and tell them that if they are elected, they are going to forget all about Canadians six months after the election, like they did in 1993. Hon. John McCallum : Mr. Speaker, I think that if the member has to go all the way back to 1992, he is feeling desperate. I can tell him that I am very proud of the Liberal Party's performance at that time.

The member is forgetting that the Liberals inherited a $43 billion deficit from the Conservatives and that something had to be done. We eliminated that deficit in just a few years, and we reduced the debt for 10 years. The Canadian government's fiscal position was a thousand times better under the Liberals than under the Conservatives. As a result, we were able to reduce taxes and increase health care spending by 6% per year for 10 years. I am therefore very proud of what the Liberals did in the past. I am also proud of what we will do in the future. [ English ] Mr. Adam Vaughan (Trinity—Spadina, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, the only thing funnier than watching the finance minister bolt from the House yesterday and head off in all directions at once, not knowing which way to go—which is probably poetically symbolic of the government's position on the economy right now—is watching both sides of the House in this debate look at the Liberals with amazement because we balanced the budget: the government side that never encounters a problem that it does not respond to with a cut, and the official opposition that never encounters a problem that does not require spending more. The question for my colleague is this.

Somehow this budget is going to be balanced with a combination of both cuts and expenditures, and I am curious to hear his perspective as to how to nuance that so that we end up with a balanced budget but also support growth, the creation of jobs, and the middle class in this country. Hon. John McCallum : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague very much for his question. For those who may have forgotten, he is the newly elected member for Trinity—Spadina and has a passion for housing.

Therefore, let me answer that question in terms of how to address the concerns of middle-class families by talking about the member's own field of interest, which is housing. I have conducted round tables across the country, and I have spoken to mayors across the country, and all of them are passionately concerned about the lack of affordable housing.

Let us take the income-splitting tax cut, which does nothing for ordinary families and is particularly limited to those at the top end, and compare that with the member's proposals on affordable housing, which would do great good for middle-class Canadian families and seniors across the country. Yes, we have to live within our means. We in the Liberal Party have learned that and we have taught the Conservatives that. The NDP will never learn that, but we have done it.

While we have to live within our means, the kinds of things we want to do to support middle-class families are the kinds of things my colleague from Trinity—Spadina has proposed in the area of affordable housing.

(1130) Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims (Newton—North Delta, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to this opposition day motion today because after spending more than a month away from this place, almost exclusively in my beautiful riding of Newton—North Delta, I heard a pattern of comments from my constituents. They are very worried about the harmful effects of the Conservative government's economic mismanagement. Our economy is damaged. Middle-class families are working harder than ever, yet falling further behind.

The people of Surrey want to know where the police are that the government promised our community in 2006. They want to know why they have so much difficulty bringing siblings and parents into Canada to say goodbye to dying relatives and to attend their funerals. People want to know why the government made cuts to literacy programs when half of the adult Canadian population right now does not have sufficient literacy skills to read the prescription on a bottle of pills.

They want to know why community groups fear closure and loss of services for the most vulnerable, when the government does not bother to inform them whether their skills link funding will be renewed. People want to know why it will be five years before they can get a hearing on their appeal before the Social Security Tribunal. They want to know why the government has not yet fixed the temporary foreign worker program. They want to know why the government is doing nothing to make daycare more affordable for families.

People want to know why the Conservative government is pushing an income-splitting scheme that would give billions to the wealthy few and absolutely nothing to more than 85% of Canadian families. Honestly, I would love to know, too. I love representing Surrey and North Delta here in Parliament. Right now, I am hurting for my constituents. By the way, I forgot to say that I will be splitting my time with the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue . Too many constituents in my riding are struggling to make ends meet. Income inequality in our country is spiralling out of control.

The incomes of the top 1% have been surging for decades. It is embarrassing. The typical Canadian family has seen their income fall over the last 35 years. How is that fair? High levels of income inequality and slow growth have hurt communities like Surrey-Newton and North Delta, preventing millions of Canadians from achieving their full potential. It is no surprise, sadly, that when the data is examined, 94% of the increase in inequality over the last 35 years occurred under federal Liberal governments.

The Conservative government and the Liberal governments that preceded it have taken our country in the wrong direction. Billions of dollars of cuts to social programs by Liberal and Conservative governments have made things worse by reducing services to all Canadians. The NDP motion today calls on the Conservative government to release an economic update. Canadian taxpayers deserve an honest account of how the drop in the price of oil has impacted the state of this country's finances.

Budgets are about making choices, and the Conservative government has chosen to make cuts at every turn, cuts to programs and services that Canadians rely on. The government has also gutted Canada's fiscal capacity to help families in need through tough times. Meanwhile, it is worth noting the government is proceeding with reckless handouts to the wealthiest Canadians. The NDP wants an economy that is fair to the middle class. We want a budget that focuses on diversifying the Canadian economy, rather than putting all our eggs in one basket.

We find it wasteful to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on government advertising to advance a political party's interest. Indeed, just last week I submitted a letter to Advertising Standards Canada, asking them to investigate the government's apprenticeship ads. We find it wasteful to spend tens of millions a year on an unelected, unaccountable, and under investigation Senate. We find it wasteful to give away billions in subsidies to oil companies and handouts to the most profitable corporations.

(1135) The former parliamentary budget officer, Kevin Page, said recently that “In the last 10 years, we have virtually made no progress on all our big issues, long-term economic challenges. We have not closed innovation gaps in our country, dealt with an aging demographic that will put pressure on health care, nor dealt with environmental sustainability.

We have not even had the discussions or proposals from this government.” While my New Democrat colleagues and I continue to roll out concrete proposals to support working and middle-class Canadians, the Liberals are continuing to cower with no ideas to propose other than their same old feeling of entitlement to power. New Democrats have a plan for the middle class, including a $15 minimum wage and child care that costs no parent more than $15 a day. We are ready to make the economy work for average hard-working Canadians, not just the rich few.

We have a practical plan that would repair the damage the current government has done to our social programs, our environment, and our economy. I came to this country in my early twenties with very little. I started to teach immediately and have not stopped working yet, many years later. I know what it is to work hard, and I know the anxiety and stress that surround job losses, and serious illnesses and precarious employment within families. Under the current Conservative government and previous Liberal governments, too many families have lived through this kind of stress.

Not only do I have the immense privilege of representing people of Newton—North Delta, but I am also very proud to act as an opposition critic for employment and social development. In this capacity, I see first-hand, on an almost hourly basis, the impact of the current government's fiscal mismanagement on Canadians all over the country. The Conservative government has both driven down wages and reduced support for unemployed Canadians through its cuts to EI, a fund that most Canadians pay into and which only about four in ten people can now access.

The current government has expanded the temporary foreign worker program, even though youth unemployment is at an all-time high, and it has failed to fix it. As well, the Conservatives have totally ignored the importance of keeping current labour market information. They have introduced a “job creator tax cut” that would only create 800 jobs at a cost of half a billion dollars. I need help to wrap my head around that one. In real terms, the average minimum wage in Canada has increased by just 1% over the last 40 years.

Do the Conservatives honestly believe that someone who works 40 hours a week should be left living below the poverty line? Without action to boost minimum wages for workers in federal jurisdictions, that is essentially what the Conservatives are telling us. What do we tell our youth about this government? What do I tell young graduates who cannot get a job? What do I tell someone whose job application was not even considered because it was cheaper for the employer to use the government's temporary foreign worker program? I would like to be able to tell them something.

I would like the Conservatives to vote in favour of our opposition day motion and immediately present an economic and fiscal update to Parliament that outlines the state of this nation's finances in light of the unstable economic situation, including job losses, falling oil prices, and declining government revenues. Further, we are asking the current government to prepare a budget that would address the economic challenges faced by the middle class, by creating more good-quality, full-time jobs, and by encouraging economic diversification.

Despite poor economic forecasts by others, the Conservatives continue to claim they will achieve a balanced budget. We are asking for a fiscal update. We want to ensure that their agenda does not get achieved on the backs of hard-working Canadians. Clearly, the Conservatives government is conflicted, because even ministers cannot agree among themselves on to how face the challenges. The mixed messaging only continued as the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Employment and Social Development explicitly put forward two different agendas.

(1140) I would like to finish with a very brief quote from Kevin Page, who said that “When you're spending somebody else's money, you need to show them the plan. When you're spending someone else's money, that plan needs to be scrutinized, and that's okay. That's just good fiscal management.” Give us the plan. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, a number of New Democrats will often comment about the previous Liberal administration, but there is nothing really to compare it with, because the federal NDP has not been in power here. However, we can take a look at the provincial NDP in Manitoba.

According to a quote in a Winnipeg newspaper, the leader of the official opposition says that “I'm going to do whatever I can to keep the Manitoba government in place to help keep the NDP in power in Manitoba.” He praises the Greg Selinger government for its financial prowess and how well it manages the Manitoba economy. Let us take a look at the provincial debt. The debt was $10.6 billion in 2007 and it has increased every year, to $16.3 billion in 2012. Then last year Greg Selinger actually increased the provincial sales tax in Manitoba, from 7% to 8%.

Does the NDP have any appreciation or understanding of the need to balance the budget and, second, is it part of the NDP platform to increase— The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : Order, please. The hon. member for Newton—North Delta . Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims : Mr. Speaker, I am always in awe when colleagues from that end of the House stand, because they always go into denial about the reality of what it was like for Canadians when they were in government. They forget about all the scandals and all the insider stuff that happened while they were in government.

They forget the fact that they stole billions and billions of dollars from the EI Fund. They forget the fact that they are the ones who started the cuts to all the social services. I will finish on a positive note. When we look at the data and actually examine it, we see that the unemployment rate has been much lower under NDP governments than Liberal ones, which have always had the highest unemployment, or under Conservative governments, so let us talk about reality. [ Translation ] Mr. Raymond Côté (Beauport—Limoilou, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech, which focused on her constituents.

In my speech, I talked about the Bank of Canada monetary policy report. It indicated that the participation rate of workers between 24 and 54, the largest and most active age group on the labour market, fell sharply in 2014. In fact, everything in the report indicates that the labour market is becoming increasingly unstable. I agree with my colleague that people are concerned and, contrary to what it claims, the Conservative government is not responding to those concerns whatsoever. This is a critical situation.

I would like my colleague to comment on the facts established by the Governor of the Bank of Canada, facts that the government refuses to acknowledge, as we have heard in the debates since this morning. [ English ] Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims : Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hard-working colleague for the work he does back in his riding. I would bet that other MPs from coast to coast were hearing the same kind of concerns and questions back in their ridings that I heard in my riding. I am really glad that my colleague asked me this question because it reminds me of something from the previous two weeks.

Through an ATIP request, I had a response from the government. The response was that the government knew exactly that what jobs that youth usually access were being filled by temporary foreign workers, yet we had the minister in the House acting really surprised when the CBC shone the light on the McDonald's in Victoria. I think we have to take a look at the kind of policies we have had with the expansion of the temporary foreign worker program and, of course, the decimation of our training and apprenticeship programs. We need to start looking at growing decent-paying jobs right here in Canada.

We need to diversify our economies. We have to start looking at investments in clean energy. We have prime examples around the world right now showing that these lead to more and better-paying jobs than we have right now. That is why we need this fiscal update, and in that fiscal update the current government needs to come to us with a plan. (1145) [ Translation ] Ms. Christine Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak, especially when it comes to the economy. I think this is a major issue, and it is important to question what the Conservatives are doing.

When the economy is doing well, then it is thanks to their good management. When it is not doing so well, then it is because of international factors beyond their control. In my opinion, this is not a responsible government, and it has become patently clear that the Conservatives are not willing to take responsibility. The NDP is ready to make good decisions and accept our responsibilities. It is easy to blame others, but if we want to correct the situation then we have to make choices and be transparent about it. That is the best way to show respect for the Canadian public.

The Liberals' and Conservatives' choices have made Canada an economic giant with feet of clay. They have reduced our ability to adapt when times are tough, what with our increasingly mono-industrial economy largely based on the energy and oil sector. I would like to take a moment to provide a bit of background on natural resource development in Canada. At first, the economy was based mainly on agriculture and forestry. Then development shifted from the farms and forests to Canada's underground resources.

The importance of metals and minerals increased over time with the evolution of technology, which was mainly spurred by the introduction of hydroelectricity and improved railways, roads and infrastructure. Furthermore, improvements in mining machinery and drilling techniques led to greater knowledge of mineral deposits, improved access to minerals and lower transportation costs. Between 1886 and 1947, agriculture was joined by forestry, then mining and finally energy.

With the exception of the early appearance of the oil industry in Oil Springs, Ontario, oil was not a major component of energy production in Canada until 1947, the year oil was discovered in Leduc, Alberta. After the 1973 oil price shock, the production of conventional energy sources increased and technological innovation led to the development of Canada's oil sands. When we look at the evolution of resource development as a percentage of Canadian production, we can see that the sectors were balanced from the late 1960s to the mid-1970s.

We then saw an imbalance in energy sector compared to the other economic sectors in the 1980s and in the 1990s under the liberal government. This imbalance consolidated Canada's economic dependence on oil, which we has become clear over the past 10 years under the Conservatives. Now, the oil and gas industry is concentrated in Alberta and Saskatchewan. However, offshore production also plays an important role in Newfoundland and Labrador's economy. Although the importance of energy products has soared over the past 40 years, Canada's economic history has been shaped by the wealth of all of our resources.

Energy is the latest example of the major dependence Canada has developed in a global, integrated economy. Although natural resources financed Canada's development for generations, all of our eggs are now in the energy sector basket, which confirms what the Leader of the Opposition said in 2012. In 2014, when the price of crude oil reached a high of around $114 U.S. a barrel and a low of $55 U.S., Canada's exchange rate fluctuated from more than 91¢ U.S. to approximately 86¢. Yesterday's rate was 81¢ U.S., as it was 10 years ago when the Conservatives came to power.

In light of the background I just shared, I think it is important to understand a few things. The current drop in the price of oil is closely linked to the fact that there is more supply from other countries, such as Saudi Arabia.

(1150) That is what has led to lower prices. It should be remembered, however, that there has also been a reduction in demand, because a number of countries have elected to move towards a greener economy and reduce their dependence on oil. The reduction in demand is going to continue. If there have been major changes in our business to reduce our energy requirements and the cost of energy falls, we are not going to revert to what we have just changed. That is obvious.

Countries are therefore going to continue to move towards a greener economy, because the price of oil fluctuates widely and makes budget planning difficult for many businesses and economies around the world. Demand will therefore continue to fall. Even when oil prices are high again, there is no certainty that demand will be what it once was. It is therefore very important to diversify our economy, not just when the going is tough, but also when things are going well. We have to plan appropriately when things are going well in order to cope with adversity.

Unfortunately, the Conservatives did not do so, and we are therefore in a critical situation. It is essential for people to have an idea of exact prices and of the general situation. That is why we introduced this motion. The Conservative government said that we had to encourage the manufacturing industry to take up the slack and stimulate the economy. Unfortunately, one of the problems caused by the drop in the price of oil is a drop in the Canadian dollar. At the present time, manufacturing businesses are already at the limit of their productivity.

If they want to buy equipment to improve their productivity, which they have not done previously, they have to pay for it in U.S. dollars. They are therefore losing 20%, as compared with when the U.S. dollar was roughly at par with the Canadian dollar. Manufacturing firms will have to pay 20% more to buy equipment, which is in most cases purchased outside Canada and thus priced in U.S. dollars.

Even if we rely on manufacturing firms to stimulate the Canadian economy, there is an additional challenge, because the situation in which they have been placed means that they no longer have the same buying power to increase their productivity. In short, we are in a bind, and our freedom of action is limited. To conclude, if we want a reliable economic plan for the future, we have to understand that it must be based on a green, prosperous and sustainable economy. Greener and more sustainable energy choices must be made, and the opportunity must be made available on a worldwide scale.

The more green energy opportunities are made available, the more people will be able to do business. When our economy is based on oil, it becomes unstable and unpredictable, because the price of oil fluctuates. World economies are going to endeavour increasingly to eliminate at least a portion of their dependence on oil in order to move towards more reliable energy sources. That should be one of the priorities for the Canadian economy. Forward-looking measures must be taken to support the middle class and prevent it from being subjected to the adverse consequences of Conservative mismanagement.

Canadian companies must be supported in their efforts to improve production capacity, even at times when things are going well. This was not done when the Canadian and U.S. dollars were roughly at par. If investment had been stimulated when it cost much less for companies to acquire new technology, thanks to the strength of our dollar, they would now have the ability to increase their productivity and cope with the current situation.

(1155) We must also support economic diversification, particularly with regard to natural resources. We should avoid focusing only on the sector that is doing well, neglecting the others and finding ourselves, as we do now, with an oil patch that is not doing well and other sectors that have been so underfunded and given so little support that they are hard pressed to take up the slack. [ English ] Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, to be very clear, it is a fundamental responsibility of the federal government to instill a sense of confidence in the economy.

There is absolutely no question about that. We have fluctuating oil prices, and that in part seems to be the driving decision factor for the government, for the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister , in indefinitely delaying the introduction of a budget. This provides a great of discomfort and uncertainty about Ottawa and our economy. There is a sense that the government is missing the boat by not coming forward and stating when the budget is coming down in a timely fashion.

Could the member tell us how important it was for the government to have come to this House and indicated when the budget was to be presented, and to do so in a timely fashion? [ Translation ] Ms. Christine Moore : Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out that from the beginning, with the Liberal government in the 1990s, economic choices were made that painted our economy into a corner, so to speak. There was a refusal to diversify proportionally and to acknowledge that there could be negative consequences if we moved towards an economy based essentially on oil.

When succeeding governments make choices that are not sensible or diversified, that creates uncertainty. Any economist can see that if there is a problem one day, we will face adversity and will not be ready to deal with it. It is obvious now that the government must be very clear about the situation we find ourselves in. It should present an economic update, and clarify when the budget will be tabled, in order to reduce uncertainty. I wish to point out, however, that this uncertainty has been building up over the years. Mr. Raymond Côté (Beauport—Limoilou, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I thank my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue for her speech. She talked about increasing productivity and our ability to take advantage of lower energy costs, and the Bank of Canada report reflects that too. It is very clear to me that businesses do not have enough confidence to hire people for the long term in order to benefit from improved export conditions. The Bank of Canada stated very clearly that long-term unemployment is still near its post-crisis peak. It has been five years; that is a long time.

That hints at how business people are feeling and the fact that they are not ready to invest in human capital or in upgrading their equipment to take advantage of the economic recovery. Very clearly, that is because of the decisions made by this government, which put all of its eggs in the oil basket instead of supporting diversity in our economy as a way of preparing for the kind of transition we are seeing now. I would like my colleague to talk about this long-term unemployment problem and the fact that people are being shut out of economic opportunities.

(1200) Ms. Christine Moore : Mr. Speaker, my colleague raised an issue that I talked about in my speech. When things were going well, they failed to plan. When the dollar was high, that was the right time to buy more equipment so that when the time was right, companies could boost productivity and hire people to help with that. That lack of planning has resulted in uncertainty, and companies do not feel confident about hiring more workers and acquiring more equipment. Those things come at a hefty price, and there is no guarantee that those costs can be recovered in the current economic context.

This is a very difficult situation, and we are in it because the government failed to plan strategically. [ English ] Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton—Leduc, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to take

part in this debate on this topic today. At the outset, I want to inform you that I will be splitting my time with the member of Parliament for Yukon . I am very much looking forward to his remarks today. I appreciate this opportunity to discuss the government's top priority, which is one shared by all Canadians: creating jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity; securing Canada's economic future; and continuing to make Canada the best place in the world to live, work, raise children, invest, and achieve all of our dreams.

Since taking office in 2006, the government has taken decisive action to secure Canada's future. We have done this in the face of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. This great recession annihilated $10 trillion in global market value worldwide. It cost 62 million jobs globally, a damage that was so harsh that it is difficult to clearly see each and every life behind the statistics. For millions around the world, the recession meant destroyed livelihoods and destroyed stability. The devastating nature of this first economic crisis of the 21st century cannot be overstated.

Many around the world still feel that today. Whether it is slow growth in China and India or a stalled recovery in the eurozone, where I was last week, many of our partners and friends around the world are still suffering. This crisis did not start in Canada, but it occurred later in this country and affected us much later than it did other countries. We emerged earlier than other countries, but it did certainly hit us and it hit us very hard. The government responded. It launched Canada's economic action plan, a low-tax plan for jobs and growth, which came in stages.

In the worst of the crisis, we launched a timely and targeted stimulus package to jump-start economic activity and create jobs through investing in infrastructure and in research and development and protect jobs through such initiatives as the work-sharing program through various companies across the country. Then, as the worst of the crisis passed and even at the beginning, Jim Flaherty, the finance minister at the time, established a medium-term plan to bring the government back to balanced budgets.

Even at that time, way back in January 2009, we set out on a clear path to move back to balanced budgets over the medium term. That plan is working. The plan established back then was to move to balanced budgets over time, but at the same time as doing that it was to protect key transfers to the provinces for health care, education, and social services. Since this government has taken office in 2006, health care transfers to the provinces have increased 6% year over year. Transfers for education and social services have increased 3% year over year and will continue to do so.

At the same time, we protected family benefits and protected and enhanced seniors' benefits with the largest single increase in the guaranteed income supplement that has occurred in Canada's history. The government looked at about $70 billion of discretionary spending and asked departments to come forward with 5% to 10% cost-saving efficiencies within those departments to move the government back to a balanced budget over the medium term.

My proposition is that this is working, despite the fact that oil prices have fallen dramatically this year from a high of about $100 per barrel, if we look at West Texas Intermediate, to about $46 per barrel. The Minister of Finance and the government have been explicitly clear that, taking this into consideration, they will balance the budget this year. Balanced budgets are empowering. They empower the country as a whole. They have a huge impact on the branding of the country.

When I was in the U.K. last week, there were parliamentarians from across the political aisle coming forward who were impressed by how Canada has done in terms of economic performance and also its fiscal plan in terms of getting back to a balanced budget. Therefore, balanced budgets not only empower Canada as a nation but also empower governments with the fiscal room to provide much-needed tax relief and spending in critical areas that serve to enhance our jobs, growth, and productivity. They also empower us to make targeted investments in things that will ensure that this prosperity continues.

With respect to tax relief, the Conservative government has reduced taxes to the point where the overall federal tax burden is now the lowest it has been in more than 50 years. Not since John Diefenbaker was the prime minister of this great country have Canadians paid so little tax to Ottawa. We have provided tax relief over 180 times since taking office, which means more money in the pockets of individuals, of Canadian families, and of businesses to invest in their future.

(1205) I would like to review some of those tax measures. One of the first measures was reducing the goods and services tax from 7% to 5%. Another was increasing the amount of income that all Canadians could earn without paying federal income tax. This removed approximately 1 million Canadians from the tax rolls entirely. Another measure was increasing the upper limit of the two lowest personal income tax brackets so that individuals could earn more income before being subject to higher tax rates. A further measure was reducing the lowest personal income tax rate to 15% from 16%.

I would say that this measure was the biggest change in personal taxation since the introduction of the RSP: introducing the tax-free savings account. I understand that nearly 10 million Canadians have now opened a tax-free savings account, which helps Canadians save for their futures by earning tax-free investment income. In the fall of 2006, the government introduced pension income splitting for seniors.

Having talked to seniors in my riding, I can tell members that many of them have come to me to say that this one measure has enhanced their futures and livelihoods more than any other measure that they have seen in their lifetime. Building on that success, which is very much linked to the philosophy of allowing seniors to split their income, is what we did recently. Conservatives were very proud to provide targeted tax relief for hard-working Canadian families. It is tax relief that will benefit every single family with children.

That includes introducing the family tax cut, introducing and expanding the universal child care benefit, and increasing the child care expense deduction dollar limits. In addition to this, we also reduced taxes on businesses so that they could create more jobs. This ambitious agenda aims to build a competitive tax system that fuels job creation, grows the economy, and lets Canadians keep more of what they earn. We have cut taxes not only for businesses above the higher rate but also for small business owners. As we know, they are the prime generators of jobs in the country.

We want entrepreneurs to create good jobs at home. We want them to be more competitive both at home and abroad, and that is why we have embarked upon a very ambitious program through the Minister of International Trade to sign a record number of trade agreements and work on market access in those countries where we do not have formal trade agreements. I will just return to some of the business tax measures. The plan reduced the federal corporate income tax rate from over 22% in 2007 to just 15% today.

Combining that with the provinces' rates, which vary, the intention was to brand Canada as a 25% tax jurisdiction across the country for businesses. If we look at small businesses, which I mentioned earlier, the rate was reduced from 12% to 11%. At the same time, the amount of the money that small businesses could earn was raised from $300,000 to $500,000, which is an increase as well. This is important for other parties to realize. They say that large businesses pay that 15% corporate tax rate, but that is for any business where the income is above $500,000.

In the upcoming election campaign and debate over the budget, other parties will have to defend themselves if they are willing to raise that rate above the $500,000. That would impact an awful lot of middle-class businesses. If we look at Canada's tax competitiveness and overall business environment, we see we have made major gains. In fact, today, Canada stands as having the lowest overall tax rate on new business investment in the G7. At the same time, I would like to emphasize something that some of the previous speakers mentioned about the government's support for the manufacturing sector.

Every single budget has mentioned the importance of Canada's manufacturing sector. Going back to the 2007 period, when I was the chair of the industry committee, we prepared a unanimous report on the manufacturing sector and tabled it in February 2007. The government acted very quickly on that in the March 2007 budget by introducing accelerated capital cost allowance changes for that sector. It introduced a two-year timeline writeoff for investing in new machinery and equipment.

Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters and well respected individuals like Jay Myers have pointed out that it has been crucial in allowing businesses in that sector to invest, reinvest, and weather through this very tough economic period, and to come through it in a much stronger position than they would have otherwise. We want to marry that as well with investments in the automotive sector, something that has been very strong. I see that I have only 30 seconds left. I will just wrap up and say that the government has had a long-term plan. It did an economic fiscal update in mid-November.

It will present its budget this spring. The government will continue with this plan to move to a balanced budget, continue to invest in key sectors, continue to protect transfers to provinces, and continue to build on this low-tax plan, which is generating millions of jobs for Canadians.

(1210) [ Translation ] Ms. Ève Péclet (La Pointe-de-l'Île, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague. I read a number of articles this morning. The Canadian Association of Oilwell Drilling Contractors published a report last week saying that with the price of gas these days, more than 23,000 jobs will be lost in the coming months wherever oil is extracted—mostly in Alberta, but also in the Atlantic provinces. The Parliamentary Budget Officer said today that, unfortunately, the government cannot hide from this and will have to run a deficit.

I would like to know what my colleague's plan is for the 23,000 jobs that the Canadian Association of Oilwell Drilling Contractors says we are going to lose. Unfortunately, try as they might to hide from this for as long as possible, the Conservatives will have to declare a deficit, perhaps in April or May. What is their plan? They say that the Liberals and the NDP criticize the government and that they are on the same page on this, but what are the Conservatives going to do for the people who are going to lose their jobs in the coming months?

What are they going to do about the deficit they will be forced to declare in the coming months? [ English ] Mr. James Rajotte : I find it astonishing, Mr. Speaker, that New Democrats are standing in the House of Commons and starting to actually defend the oil industry. It is astonishing that they are now the protectors of this great energy industry in this country. The fact of the matter is that we have seen a decline in world oil prices. Canada does not determine world oil prices. The oil prices are obviously determined outside of this country. Canada is, in fact, a price taker on this measure.

However, no government has done more to invest, whether it is investing in job-creation measures through lowering taxes, investing in research and development, or investing in true labour training initiatives to ensure that companies are as competitive as possible. Since the depth of the recession in July 2009, the economy has created more than one million jobs. We have a very good job-creation record. When compared with the OECD, the G7, or any other international partners, this is a very good record. With respect to the Parliamentary Budget Office report, I would respectfully disagree with my colleague.

I actually read the report, and that is not what the report said. The report said that the government is within its framework in terms of balancing its budget going forward. Obviously, something like a decline in oil prices from $100 per barrel down to $46 per barrel was unforeseen. In the finance committee last fall, there was not one witness I can recall who said this is going to be where oil prices are in January of 2015. That was not the case. This was unforeseen.

This is exactly why governments have contingency reserves in their budgets, and this in fact follows the long-term medium plan the government has had with respect to continuing to invest and create jobs and at the same time returning to a balanced budget in the medium term.

(1215) Mr. Adam Vaughan (Trinity—Spadina, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the presentation was interesting and just as the member was getting to the part about the auto sector, much like the government's policy, the statement ended. I am curious. The government opposite has said that the auto sector is strong, and yet in southern Ontario 50% of the jobs that were in the auto sector when the government took power disappeared through the recession. There has been a lack of strategy and a lack of emphasis on strategic and advanced manufacturing, and in fact, auto workers and auto plants are disappearing in southern Ontario.

They have not recovered. My questions are very simple. What is the strategy, why has the strategy failed, what are Conservatives going to do differently as they prepare for the budget, and why will they not come to the House with a strategy? Mr. James Rajotte : Mr. Speaker, the strategy can be found in any budget document. Budget 2013 had a very expansive strategy with respect to the manufacturing sector. In fact, going back to 2007, the number one request of the manufacturing sector was to change the rate at which it invests in its own machinery and equipment. That was number one. Mr.

Adam Vaughan : No, transportation infrastructure, border crossings, rail. Mr. James Rajotte : Mr. Speaker, if he wants to review the hearings at the industry committee, he is welcome to do so. He can also talk to Jayson Myers, who is head of the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters. This was its number one request. The government did this in budget 2007 and has, in fact, extended this every single two-year period. Besides that, the government has invested in the automotive innovation fund and research and development in the automotive sector.

The government has partnered with companies like General Motors and Chrysler in terms of investing in plants. The government has partnered with Ford in terms of investing in its plant in Oakville. The government has partnered with auto parts manufacturers in the recent announcement that the transport minister made in January 2015. There is an automotive sector that is working for Canada, and the hon. member should get behind it and support it. Mr. Ryan Leef (Yukon, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House to speak to the opposition day motion.

Contrary to what the hon. member who brought this motion forward may claim in the House of Commons, our Conservative government has an outstanding record on job creation and economic growth. Canadians elected our government with clear instructions in 2011: navigate the global economy, create jobs and economic growth, and keep taxes low. I am pleased to tell the House that this is exactly what our government has done. Promise made; promise kept. Since we have been elected, we have had the strongest economic growth of any country in the G7.

We have created over 1.2 million net new jobs, 82% of which are full-time, and 84% of those have been in the private sector and 66% have been in high-wage industries. That is an outstanding record, and we are going to continue on that track. Bloomberg ranks Canada as the second best country in the world in which to do business. The IMF and the OECD both project that Canada will be among those with the strongest growth in the G7 for years ahead. This success, of course, does not come easily.

Canada has faced challenging times and continues to face a very fragile global economy, but we have made the right decisions for Canadian businesses, families, and communities. The results of those decisions are clear: debt is low and deficits are falling. We have half the debt, on average, in relation to our GDP, of the G7 countries. We are on track to balance the federal budget in 2015. We promised Canadians that we would return to a balanced budget, because it is important for Canadians, and it is important for our economy.

It means more funding will be available for important programs and services Canadians rely on and it means not paying more interest on debt. It will protect our credit standing, and it will protect Canadians from international shocks, just as we are doing right now. It is fair to our children and our grandchildren by not burdening them with debt to pay for our expenditures. It is unfortunate that the Liberal leader does not understand these basic financial principles. When he was asked about balancing the multibillion federal budget, his response was that somehow it would magically balance itself.

While the Liberal leader may have never had to balance his own budgets, ordinary families know what it takes, and so does this government. It takes discipline. It takes a focus on priorities, and it takes sound judgment. The Canadian Council of Chief Executives noted how important it is to balance the budget.

It said: “Balancing the federal budget and maintaining discipline to pay down the debt are not only the right things to do, they are essential for Canada's global competitiveness.” The Canadian Federation of Independent Business stated: “Small business owners know that today's deficits are tomorrow's taxes, so they are pleased that the government's commitment to a balanced budget in 2015 remains solid.” Not only are we on track to a balanced budget, but we have done it while keeping taxes low. Year after year we have lowered taxes, not just for businesses but for families and all Canadians.

We have cut taxes in every way government can collect them: personal, consumption, business, excise taxes, and more. We have reduced the small business tax rate from 12% to 11%. We introduced pension income splitting and cut the GST from 7% to 5%. We established the landmark tax-free savings account, and over 10 million Canadians have opened accounts allowing them to save tax free. We also increased the amount Canadians can earn tax free. Our government took action to remove over $1 million low-income Canadians, including approximately 380,000 seniors, from the tax rolls completely.

Under the leadership of our Prime Minister , the fede