2016-02-04

Again, Mr. Speaker, there is no plan ISIS is a jihadi terrorist organization that is committing mass atrocities against religious and ethnic minorities. These are terrorists who believe in a dangerously radicalized version of Islam. The Liberals are constantly rationalizing their behaviour and making excuses for ISIS. Now the Minister of National Defence is blaming climate change for ISIS.Does the Minister of National Defence actually believe that climate change creates jihadi terrorists?

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence has been causing confusion for weeks now. We still do not know how we are going to combat terrorism. We are not looking for reasons. It is time to find solutions.The minister is confused when he talks about the reasons for the rise in terrorism. Can he tell us how climate change is helping terrorists to cut people's heads off with knives and plant bombs?

Mr. Speaker, in the complexity of conflict and the horrible atrocities that terrorists commit around the world, we have to be smarter in this fight, because these threats are also increasing.I will be taking the time to ensure that we get the right capabilities in the right areas at the right time so we can fight this terrorist threat.

Mr. Speaker, as we know, in the complexities of conflict, we have to look at many different aspects of what causes it. When it comes to ISIL, Taliban, Boko Haram and the atrocities they commit, we have to be smart about it and ensure these atrocities are not committed again.We will take the time to ensure we get this plan right.

Mr. Speaker, we find it pretty ironic that members on the opposite side, who were not able to get resources to tidewater over nine years, are talking about what we are trying to do. We are looking for a way to actually get resources to tidewater. We have been very clear about this point. We are working hard to get the licence required to do that. We are convinced that our approach will make a real difference for people in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Newfoundland and Labrador, and across this country.

Mr. Speaker, contrary to the former government, this government will act together on the issue of fighting terrorism. It is why we are working very hard to have an integrated plan with the Minister of National Defence, who did a great job. The Minister of International Development did a great job, and I did my best as well.With that, we will work in a complementary team with our allies in the coalition to fight this awful terrorist group, and we will do it courageously and with efficacy.

Mr. Speaker, what a surprise to hear a member from that party speaking about attempting to intimidate a court. Canadians were shocked, and international jurists were shocked, when the former government tried to publicly intimidate the chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. That is something we will never do.

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives have, once again, taken the opportunity to put forward real policy on this opposition day and traded it for a chance to talk about themselves and the mirage of their own ostensibly brilliant record. If we take the old books off the Conservative stove long enough to read them, we might find a few entries that make sense. We will not find very many, though. If we have the callouses needed to turn those still-warm pages, we will find a lot of capital assets that were quietly removed from the books, liquidated; that is, sold, trimmed from part of the inventory of supplies the government owns to provide services to the people, to a one-time supply of cash that can be ever so briefly used to show that the government is making money. When the Conservatives tell us that they balanced the budget, what they are not telling us is that they sold the house to pay off the mortgage. Unfortunately for them, Canada has found a new place to live.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member opposite that Canadians pay for too much for prescription drugs. We do, in fact, pay the second highest per capita cost in the world. Part of my mandate is to address the rising cost of drugs to ensure that prescription medicine is affordable and available to Canadians who need it. We intend to do that. We have a number of mechanisms by which we will do that. We have already taken steps in that regard. I will continue to address this issue.

Mr. Speaker, the only people who believe that the previous Conservative government left a surplus are the Conservatives themselves.Canadians will not be fooled. Make no mistake, the Government of Canada is going to run a deficit for the 2015-16 fiscal year, a deficit that will result from the previous government's measures and inaction. That is a fact.

Mr. Speaker, I was struck by the fact that my colleague and a number of her caucus mates had talked about the fact that the government is charged with safeguarding the community, growing the economy, and fairness.However, one of the things that troubles me is exactly what one does when one is in deep deficit. One of the things we have seen in the Province of Ontario is the Kathleen Wynne Liberal government selling off an important asset, that being Ontario Hydro. A government cannot win when it is selling off the assets that are important to sustaining it. Therefore, my question is, does the member agree with the provincial Liberals and their sale of Ontario Hydro, and what would the federal Liberals do in regard to creating that balanced budget? Would they follow their provincial cousins and sell off assets?

Mr. Speaker, this is outrageous. This is political interference in the courts. Is there any court in Canada that can escape the reach of the new Liberal government? No one has ever done this before. No one has even had the gall to attempt something like this before. Every minister in the past who has interfered with these tribunals has resigned. When is he going to get to it?

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have been all over the map on the fight against ISIS. The Minister of National Defence suggested that we would stop ISIS from spreading into Libya. The Minister of Foreign Affairs said that no, we were not. The foreign affairs minister said that Canada would focus on improving security in Jordan and Lebanon and the defence minister said that no, we were going to stay in Iraq. Finally, when the defence minister was asked what the Liberal anti-ISIS plan was, he said that we should ask the Minister of Foreign Affairs who was in in Rome.Now the minister is back from Rome. Has he given the defence minister his marching orders?

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to members opposite on the issue in front of the House right now, talking about how bad Conservative budgets were in the previous government. I would like to ask a quick question. Does she know that the Liberals voted for the Conservatives' first budget in the spring of 2006?

Mr. Speaker, clearly I am not stating things that I think are false. The document speaks for itself. It is time the Liberals start recognizing this and stop the rhetoric, stop blaming the previous government, when the document does show a surplus is there.The fact is that the Liberals have been piling onto the debt with some of the decisions they have made early on. Many times over the last several months I have heard in the House about the middle-class tax increase. The Liberals went through the election saying that it would be revenue neutral when in fact this year there will be a $1.4 billion deficit piled on to any other problems that may exist. Over the course of the next nine years, almost $8.9 billion will be run into deficit because of the decisions the Liberals have made with that middle-class tax cut.I would suggest that the Liberals are piling on the debt, not the Conservative Party. They need to stop blaming us for their mistakes.

Mr. Speaker, I can add to that list. I know the history that I went through in my speech was expedited to make the point that this was a false debate.I can talk about the variety of housing options that are at the brink of crisis because they are expiring. We need an affordable housing commitment from the federal government. What about our commitment to health care? If the Conservatives are such brilliant money managers, they must know that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure and that the Canada accord, a recommitment to health care, and real national leadership in providing health care in Canada is probably the smartest way to maximize our tax resources. We could go on, but the whole point is that to have this kind of debate and to talk about these meaningful items is better done in the context of really advancing some good policies. It is really unfortunate that we are having this meaningful exchange here over something that is such a flagrant misuse of the opposition day.

Mr. Speaker, the previous Conservative government notoriously mismanaged the temporary foreign worker program and allowed abuse to flourish. It meant downward pressure on wages and working conditions for Canadian workers, while encouraging the exploitation of foreign workers.Now the TPP will make this worse. Employers will not even have to show that they could not hire Canadians to do the job before bringing in temporary foreign workers.Will the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour stand today in the House and urge her government not to ratify the TPP unless changes are made in this clause to ensure it will not bring the TFW back to Canada through the back door.

Mr. Speaker, I will be dividing my time today with the hon. member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin.The constituents of my riding, York—Simcoe, are what I like to call severely normal Canadians. They value honesty from those who represent them. They work hard. They pay their taxes. They follow the rules. They want the government to give them the freedom to succeed and build a brighter future for their families. That freedom means having more money for their own priorities through lower taxes. That brighter future means managing their finances and their mortgages, and ensuring their children do not inherit burdens that block their desire to achieve their dreams.The previous Conservative government reflected that mindset and those values. Those constituents knew the Conservative government was on their side. They knew it when they saw life become better as federal taxes fell to their lowest level in half a century, since 1963 when John Diefenbaker led a Conservative government.My constituents knew that the Conservative government was on their side when measures like the universal child care benefit made their lives better. In fact, UNICEF reported that hundreds of thousands of Canadian children climbed out of poverty at that time. That was despite Canada going through the global economic downturn, the most dramatic in my lifetime.Despite that downturn, the Conservative government delivered the stimulus through tax reductions and short-term stimulus spending to make Canada the first major economy to return to growth. Indeed, we were the first G7 economy to recover the jobs that had been lost during the economic downturn, and the first to recover the lost GDP from that downturn.Then we set out with determination to return to a balanced budget, with a surplus of $1.9 billion being achieved in the fiscal year 2014-15, a full year ahead of schedule. However, at the same time, my constituents have been burdened by an Ontario Liberal government that does not share their values, one that sees big spending, deficits and debt as the way to go, both in good times and in bad.As a result, my constituents are drowning under the burdens foisted on them by that Ontario Liberal government, burdens of higher taxes, fees, rafts of red tape, and job-killing regulation, and rocketing hydro rates.Well the hole is so deep now in Ontario, that this same Ontario Liberal crowd, which has left the cupboard bare, has now spotted the surplus in Ottawa. Now those people have come up here to continue to those big spending debt and deficit ways. What is their way of doing things?In Ontario, the debt has reached a staggering $300 billion. That is almost $22,000 for each man, woman, and child in the province. The deficit is $7.5 billion. It is now clear that the Ontario Liberal way of doing things is coming to Ottawa.Three facts are clear from the finance department's report so far. First, in 2014-15, the last full fiscal year under a Conservative government, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion. Second, from April to October of 2015, under a Conservative government, a six month period of time, there was a surplus of $1 billion. The same pattern, the exact same trajectory as the previous year.Third, by the end of March 2016, after just five months of a Liberal government, there will be a deficit of $3 billion. A year later, there will be an even higher deficit.This should not surprise anyone. The Liberal Party actually campaigned on a commitment to run deficits. During that election when I occasionally ran into people who told me they were voting Liberal, I would ask them what they liked, was it the promised deficits or the higher taxes? They would usually say to me that it was none of those things. I would tell them that this was what they would get. In turn they would say they did not think so.I would tell them it was in the Liberal platform, that it was spelled out, and that is what the Liberals had committed. Their comment was that the Liberals always broke their promises. To which I would tell they that they might be surprised, that these might be promises they would actually keep.We are discovering that this is the case. Clearly, whatever new face those Liberals thought they were voting for in the last election, they were not looking for the higher taxes and the deficits that the Liberal government believes is its mandate.Those constituents are, however, correct in at least one regard. Liberal promises are already being broken. The Liberals promised their tax measures would be revenue neutral, but now they have already admitted that they are not revenue neutral. They will in fact dig an additional deficit hole of $1.4 billion to $1.7 billion annually. That is not my number. That comes from the Liberal Minister of Finance. That is his admission of how that Liberal promise is being broken. Unfortunately, that broken promise and others to come will only make deeper the hole into which Canada will be pushed.When I was House leader of the government, I was astounded by the remarkable discipline that our then prime minister and our team, working with two very hard-working finance ministers and in fact the whole team, applied to the question of fiscal discipline. The work to achieve a balanced budget overall was in the interests of all Canadians. When there is a chance to be in government and see how challenging it is to manage the finances and the economy, people see how narrow that margin of manoeuvre is. It is like driving a car down a winding mountain road. It takes only a small amount of recklessness or inattention before going in the ditch or worse.In Ontario, my constituents are waiting for that provincial tow truck to arrive. Their well-grounded fear often expressed to me is that the same crowd who drove Ontario into the ditch now wants to continue that sloppy ride on the federal scene, putting Canada off the solid fiscal road it was on. They know that at the end of the day it is ordinary Canadians like them who will have to pay for it all.It is often said that history is written by the victors. What is said less often is what we hear from the other side of the House today, and that is history being rewritten by the victors. They did it in the Soviet Union. They do it in North Korea. Now the Liberals are trying to do it in Canada. Fortunately, this is Canada and Canadians will not be fooled by this Liberal overreach. That is because Canadians have access to objective facts, objective facts from the Department of Finance and objective facts from the Parliamentary Budget Officer. What are those facts? First, there was a $1.9 billion surplus in 2014-15, the last full fiscal year that the Conservatives were in government. Second, there was a $1 billion surplus over the last six months of the Conservative government, April to November, 2015.The question remains. Why, if the Liberals have promised to run deficits and they make a virtue of it, and there can be no doubt that Liberals see deficits as virtuous, are they so anxious to try to rewrite history, to go into those documents in the library at the finance department and cut out, with their scissors, any reference to past Conservative surpluses? I believe we all know the answer. Liberal deficits will be far higher than anyone thinks and they cannot bear to see the contrast with the Conservatives.The problem with the party that believes that deficits are a good thing, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons said today, is that they just cannot get enough of a good thing. If people believe a small deficit is good, it is not long before they start believing that a bigger deficit is better and before we know it, a huge deficit is just awesome. That, however, is how Liberal thinking always works. Before we know it we will find that the budget does not actually balance itself. That is the path we are already on. It did not take long, but the spending and deficits that the Liberals promise and are now delivering will ensure that at the end of next month we will be solidly in the red politically and fiscally. We will have gone year over year from $2 billion in surplus to $3 billion in deficit.Many out there are critical of our Conservative government's focus on achieving a balanced budget. There can be no doubt that the hard work and discipline of running a tight fiscal ship is not a lot of fun and sometimes people want to have some fun, and some money can buy fun. However, there is much truth in the saying that money cannot buy happiness. While some may argue with it, and some may argue that money can buy at least some happiness, nobody can argue that drowning in debt will do anything other than bringing continual misery.As for my constituents, they would prefer responsible leaders refusing to have fun with their tax dollars to happy politicians spending away, burying Canadians under a mountain of misery, debt, and taxes. Balancing the budget was the right thing to do. A steady hand on the tiller is what Canadians need. Our steady hands, a disciplined prime minister, and our hard-working finance ministers steadied the Canadian ship through the stormy seas of the biggest global economic downturn of my lifetime. We came out the other side with a balanced budget, solid books, low taxes, and a rising tide that was lifting the fortunes of all Canadians. It is a pity that it has taken so little time for that ship of state to start springing leaks and taking on water.

Mr. Speaker, since this is the first time I am rising in the House in this capacity, I want to thank the people of Kanata—Carleton for having placed their confidence in me. I also want to thank my husband, Rob, and my children, Kyle and Brea, for their confidence and support over all these many years.There has been much discussion about Canada's current economic situation and its economic performance over the past decade. This discussion should not be treated as just another example of partisan bickering. It demands serious and in-depth analysis. This analysis is critical, because the consequences of getting it wrong will have a serious impact on all Canadians. Of course, Liberals believe that the previous Conservative approach to the economy was the wrong approach for the country. This is why the economy ended up being a primary issue for most of the recent election campaign.Einstein is quoted as saying that if he had one hour to save the world, he would spend 55 minutes defining the problem and only five minutes trying to find the solution. I believe that we need to be honest with ourselves about the state of the Canadian economy. We need to stop playing politics with the data to create a false sense of security. We also need to be honest with ourselves about the challenges ahead. We need to select a course of action that can help turn around this weak economy and actually help the thousands of Canadians who are currently struggling. Do we want to talk about balanced budgets? We can. Canada may have had one balanced budget since 2007-08, but that was only because of fire sales of Canada's property assets around the world. However, Canada did have balanced budgets from 1996 to 2007, and during that period, we paid down our national debt by almost $70 billion.The previous government delivered deficit after deficit for the budget years 2008 to 2014. During the tenure of the previous government, it added almost $150 billion of new debt to our national debt. If we take that $153 billion and spread it over seven years, it translates to deficits of about $20 billion per year.We need to stop considering snapshots in time as a true indicator of annual performance. We need to stop playing politics with the numbers and the Canadian economy, and together we need to get to work.The level of economic activity in Canada and the government's revenue vary depending on the season. The government receives more revenue during the summer months when all the seasonal industries, such as the fisheries and the agricultural, forestry, construction, and tourism industries, are active. However, expenses have to be paid all year long. As a result, any consideration of the matter of deficit must reflect the entire fiscal year, not just a select period in the most economically active months.I would like to remind members that the 2015 update of economic and fiscal projections indicated that, under the previous government, the Canadian economy shrank in the first quarter of 2015. The gross domestic product dropped by 0.8% in the first quarter and 0.5% in the second. We still do not have the figures for the third quarter, but there is nothing to suggest that the economic conditions have improved.There will also be a deficit of approximately $3 billion for the 2015-16 fiscal year. With the previous government running all of these deficits, including in the 2015-16 fiscal year, what does Canada have to show for it?First, let us talk about job losses. It is estimated that 400,000 good-paying jobs in manufacturing and heavy industry have been lost, and now a further calamitous loss of 70,000 jobs in the once booming oil sector.My colleague from Windsor, Ontario must well know that Windsor was once a booming city of Canada's manufacturing heartland. It now has an unemployment rate of 9.7%, and has had for almost five or six years. Other important facts and figures put together by independent non-partisan officials include those related to Canada's trade deficit. Under the previous government, Canada hit record trade deficits. For a country whose economy has such a strong basis in exports, this demonstrates the failures of the previous government to diversify our economy and make it more resilient.While I acknowledge that the previous government did make efforts toward diversifying which markets we were selling to, it neglected to consider the diversity of the products that we were bringing to the global market. It also neglected to do enough to spur more investment into research and development to help design, build and sell made-in-Canada products and technologies.With respect to the record trade deficits, Canada needs to be an export nation. Canada's all-time trade surplus of $8.5 billion was in 2001 under a Liberal government. The all-time low for Canada was a $3.7 billion deficit in March of 2015. That is a $12.2 billion difference from high to low.It is important to remember that when we sell a raw product, we are only earning 30% of the available equity in that product. For every step we take that product up the value-added chain, we can be earning another 20% to 30% of the equity in that product, while creating jobs at the same time.In order for Canada's economy to be strong and robust, it needs to be flexible and diversified and cannot be left entirely at the mercy of the commodities markets. Economists have warned that the commodities markets are known for being vulnerable to interference, speculation, and manipulation, and that is the situation we are in today, a boom-bust cycle.Workers across Canada are now facing the consequences of the previous government failing to anticipate the current situation and failing to ensure that contingency plans were in place to deal with the possibility of an oil glut. Can we make money with oil at $30 a barrel when we are only getting a discounted price for our product? That is what has been happening for the last few years. Canada has been paid approximately 30% below the world market price for the raw products from our oil sands. One reason may be that there are only two or three nations that can purchase our product: the U.S., China, and maybe India. If members think that any of those countries would actually pay us the world market price, we will be sadly disappointed.The path chosen by the previous government did not produce the desired results: a resilient and flexible economy where we earn a good price for our product because we have a host of customers wanting to purchase our exports and that is the challenge today. We need—

Mr. Speaker, we only sign something if we agree with it.Everyone but the Liberal government understands that.Yesterday morning, Quebeckers woke up to bad news. Rona has been sold to American interests. Rona employees do not know what is going to happen to them tomorrow, but the bosses are pocketing $40 million.Will the minister commit to releasing the mandatory review of this foreign takeover and if so, will he table it here in the House so that everyone will know what is happening with our jobs here at home?

Madam Speaker, I would like to say in this odd way that it is very unfortunate that the hon. member had to use Windsor as her example talking about social consciousness and the fiscal responsibility that we need in moving forward and that it is a tricky mix. In my area though, it really is not. We have to be very open-minded in our perspectives as we are all developing fiscal policy. Unfortunately, some of us who end up here have been in their bubble for an awfully long time. I sat here previous to the hon. member's speech and listened to a member talk about middle-class fiction because the middle class is struggling. Come to my riding and I can say it is not fiction.Another hon. member's speech talked about spending and deficits because money can buy fun. I find that so distasteful and very alarming when the Liberal government will be preparing and presenting a budget that I hope we as parliamentarians will be able to be very meaningfully engaged in. The member used my riding as an excuse. Is she committed in moving forward that conscientiousness for areas like Windsor that need a commitment to health care, that need a recommitment to the—

Mr. Speaker, prescription drug prices in Canada are already the second highest in the world, and the trans-Pacific partnership will increase the cost of prescription medicine even more. A new study released this week estimates that TPP will add over $600 million to drug costs in Canada. Too many Canadians already cannot afford to purchase their medication. We need action to lower prices, not drive them up. Therefore, why is the government signing on to an agreement that would increase drug costs for Canadians?

Madam Speaker, I believe that the member has been engaging in some revisionist history. In fact, if we look at the 10 years that our Conservative government was in office, we consistently strengthened the regulation of the banks. We understood what it took to maintain a strong economy.With respect to his specific question, he has suggested that high spending is what is being recommended as a solution to the world's economic problems. We have seen where that led in places like Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy, and Ireland. Now we hear that there are other countries in Europe that are facing significant headwinds, Norway being one of them.We were very clear for over 10 years. We believed that it was responsible government accountability to taxpayers that would keep us on the right course. That is why, even today, Canada is one of the few countries in the world to still run a budget surplus.

Mr. Speaker, through the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec, an institutional fund management company, the Government of Quebec can sell its Rona shares, which would allow the deal to go through, or it can refuse to sell those shares, which would block the deal. Should it agree to the sale, there is one thing it cannot do: impose conditions to force Lowe's to respect its commitments with regard to its head office, jobs, supply chain, and the SMEs that depend on it. That is, however, something this government can do.Will the minister commit to imposing conditions to protect our SMEs and protect economic activity in Quebec?

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today in favour of this motion. I rise with complete objectivity, not being a part of the previous government. I am, however, very proud in the way the country's finances were run by the Conservatives. That is why I am a Conservative and why I believe the Liberals need to acknowledge the truth in the Department of Finance's report. I also believe that the Liberals have to stop blaming the previous government for the mistakes they are now making and the mistakes that many people in my riding know they are making.I would first like to thank the independent, non-partisan officials from the Department of Finance for their hard work and evidenced-based analysis for the most recent “Fiscal Monitor”, as well as the deputy minister and his team. I want everyone who works in the Department of Finance to know that this Conservative Party and Canadians respect the work they do. We know they do it well. The Conservative Party trusts the information they provide as the truth. We know the work they do is not political. It is a shame, really, that the Liberals are using their efforts for their own political gain.The people of Barrie—Innisfil and from ridings across Canada expect the government to act in their best interest when it comes to spending taxpayers' money. The most important part of fulfilling that fiduciary obligation is to balance the books, just as Canadians have to balance their own household budgets on a monthly basis. Seniors are especially vulnerable and hard hit when the cost of goods and services and taxes rise. In Barrie, 18% of residents have reached the age of 60. In Innisfil, 14.5% of the population are 65 or older. When a senior in this country has to make a decision between heating and eating, we know that something is structurally wrong. It is important to deal with the facts when it comes to managing the economy. The reality is, the previous Conservative government paid down $37 billion in debt before the great recession. Once that global financial tsunami hit our shores, a conscious decision was made to run deficits over the medium term. A comprehensive plan was put in place, and the previous government stuck to it.Members from other parties were screaming for more and more spending, but a balanced approach was taken. The Department of Finance's official findings of the budgetary surplus of $1 billion for 2015-16 is a clear vindication of the Conservatives' strong leadership on the economy through nearly unprecedented tumultuous economic times. It is also relevant to note that the parliamentary budget office has also substantiated that the surplus was received.It is interesting as I sit on this side and listen to government officials talk about the parliamentary budget officer. It is amazing what they used to say when they were in opposition about the PBO. The current President of the Treasury Board said, “That office has become indispensable, both to us as parliamentarians and to Canadians, who want to know what their government is doing with their money.”The current Minister of Foreign Affairs, on April 29, 2013, said, “No one can deny that the Parliamentary Budget Officer produced some excellent analyses. Instead of shooting the messenger, the government should have listened to and respected what he had to say.”The current member for Scarborough—Guildwood said, “Mr. Speaker, in November 2008 the PBO predicted a deficit, the minister a surplus. The PBO was right, the minister wrong.”At another time the member said, “...the PBO tests the numbers against internationally recognized verifiers.... the PBO spends his money on peer-review panels rather than on spin and re-announcements.”It is amazing to me how things can change once the government changes.The studied, measured approach was an important reason why the deficit was reduced from $55.6 billion at the height of the great recession to a projected surplus of over $1 billion by 2016, which we now know was achieved. Our rural areas, small towns, growing cities, and large urban centres all require targeted plans to stimulate the economy and promote economic innovation. I am proud to be a member of a party that has a record of lowering taxes every year after coming into office. This made Canada competitive and allowed job-creating businesses to thrive. The former government recognized the best way to grow the economy and help create more jobs was to keep taxes low and to achieve a balanced budget.The Liberals have not been clear on their plans regarding finances and the economy for Canadians. The new government must present a pro-growth agenda that involves tax cuts, free trade, and key investments in manufacturing, innovation, and infrastructure to get more Canadians working and earning more.Since the election, I have been reminded by business leaders in my riding that their money is portable. One employer with 2,400 employees has told me point-blank that if taxes, debt, and deficits grow in this country and that burden falls on companies like his, he will seriously consider moving his operations. Money is portable.As Canada's official opposition, the Conservative caucus is proud of its record of lowering taxes during its time in government. In fact, Conservatives reduced taxes over 200 times, saving the average Canadian family over $6,600 per year. Those pocketbook-saving measures included roughly $2.7 billion in annual targeted tax relief directly for the benefit of seniors and pensioners.The Conservative caucus has always made lower taxes a priority. The Conservative Party has always recognized the importance of Canadians keeping more of their hard-earned money in their pockets. During the Conservatives' time in government, we removed over one million low-income Canadians, including 400,000 seniors, from tax rolls completely. We increased the amount that Canadians can earn before paying federal income tax at all, and we reduced the lowest personal income tax rate to 15%. We reduced the GST, we increased basic personal income tax exemptions from $8,148 in 2005 to $11,327 by 2015. We removed the $10,000 limit that applies on the amount that caregivers can claim under the medical expense tax credit on behalf of certain dependants.Under the Conservatives, the federal tax burden has been the lowest in half a century. We are the party of lower taxes, lower spending, and strong economic management. The Liberal Party, on the other hand, is the party of big government, big deficits, and certainly big rhetoric. However, the numbers do not lie. If the Liberals run huge deficits, it will be their doing, and theirs alone. They will not be able to point to the previous government, as they so often do. The PBO and finance department are clear that the new Liberal government is beginning its mandate in the black due to hard work of the Conservative Party. Unfortunately, the lack of tangible, clear economic plan for the party opposite spells doom for Canadians. The Liberals' laundry list of election-time promises point to a government that tried to be all things to all people in order to get elected. Their lack of details in governing signals the inevitability of economic instability, massive job losses, and higher taxation for all Canadians.In their arrogance, the Liberals are running around this place and in Canada thinking that Canadians endorse their financial plan to place us deeper into debt and place us in a deep structural situation. I have news for them. There may have been other reasons why they got elected, but this is not one of them. Canadians, by nature, would not pile on debt or put their families into deficit or debt situations purposely and I do not believe they expect their government to do that either. I believe in that in all that I am.In closing, I encourage all members to support this motion. Our economy is not a game. Choices have consequences. The stakes are high. By voting against this motion, the government would be signalling that it does not have any confidence in the employees at the highest levels of Finance Canada. If the Liberal government does not trust its own officials, how can we expect it to prepare the budget or manage the finances of Canadians moving forward?

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are playing with numbers. They can isolate a moment in time and pretend that they are trying to advance ideology, but we all know that this report shows there are surpluses and deficits. This is just so self-indulgent when we could be moving forward.We have shown real discipline in how we would be advancing all of our social causes. We laid that out in a fully costed platform, and we were the only party that did that.

Mr. Speaker, in fairness, I think the hon. member is a little bit confused. Transfers under our government to the provinces increased maximally. In fact, transfers to my province increased some 80% over the time that the Conservative Party was in government, which was in stark contrast to what Paul Martin and the Liberals did when they decided to attack the deficit, which was slash funding to the provinces by over 40%. Does everyone remember that the health care crisis back there in the nineties, 1997 and 1996, when health care was slashed and every single province was struggling, because that was the Liberal approach, to slash transfers to the provinces. We did the opposite. We increased health care transfers to the provinces well ahead than the rate of inflation, in fact, higher than the rate of inflation in health care spending. The federal share of health care funding under our government rose. The provincial share of health care spending under our government fell. We were doing more than our fair share.Our concern is, what happens when another debt and deficit gets built up? We know the Liberals' way: it will hurt people.

Mr. Speaker, when I saw that the Conservatives were tabling this particular motion on their opposition day, part of me wanted to laugh and the other part struggled to fight off a deep frustration and a deep despair. Sure, the motion is factually correct and absolutely we support and salute the work of the officials of the Department of Finance, which the motion references. Yet there is a massive elephant in the room, and that is that this motion is designed to ignore the actual economic record. Yes, that elephant is the actual economic record of the former Conservative government. In fact, this motion seems designed to deflect attention away from the brutal fact that our country is only now emerging from one of the most grievous eras of economic mismanagement that we have ever had the misfortune to endure. The Conservatives like to present themselves as competent economic managers, but honestly, this was always more a public relations effort than fact. They seem to believe that if they just repeat this falsehood enough, people will believe it.Let us talk about this record. According to analysis by economists Jordan Brennan and Jim Stanford, published last September—one that applied standard measures such as job creation, unemployment, GDP growth, productivity, personal incomes, debt, and more—the previous Conservative prime minister ranked or tied for last among all post-war prime ministers. He ranked or tied at second-last in another six cases. Across all 16 of the indicators the study used, the government's average ranking was the worst of any post-war administration—not even close to the second-worst, another Conservative, Brian Mulroney.In a market economy, two of the most strategic components of spending are business spending and exports. The Conservatives' abysmal failure to garner more business investment within Canada and to increase exports has been especially damaging. Conservatives promised that expensive corporate tax cuts costing $15 billion per year would boost investment, and that signing more free trade deals would do the same for exports, but neither has worked, as we all know. Canadian corporations have not used the money saved by the tax cuts to create jobs or expand their infrastructure; they sat on it. Recent figures from Statistics Canada show corporate Canada's pile of dead money now hovers at $680 billion.Exports hardly grew at all under the former prime minister—they were the slowest in post-war history—and business investment was stagnant and is now declining.Government spending cuts, enforced in earnest after the Conservatives won their majority in 2011, only deepened our macroeconomic pit of despair. As noted by economists Scott Clark and Peter DeVries, when the Conservatives first formed government in 2006-2007, they inherited a surplus of $13.8 billion and within two years' time this became a deficit of $5.8 billion. After that point, the Conservatives were in deficit each and every year. If this is competent economic management, I shudder to think how Canadians would live under their conception of incompetence.Economic growth has declined in every year since 2010 and averaged only 1.7% per year. In the previous nine years, economic growth averaged 3.4% per year. In 2014, only 120,000 new jobs were created, less than in 2013. Now these same people stand before us today, hoping that we will forget about all of this and just focus on a tiny moment in time when there was a tiny surplus that the Conservatives managed to obtain during their final weeks in power. Here we must ask ourselves how this surplus was achieved. It was by closing Veterans Affairs offices and by eliminating staff at Service Canada and indeed across every branch of the federal government responsible for delivering vital services to Canadians. The former government even used a flimsy legal technicality to deny claims of thousands of residential school victims.It also turns out that federal departments and agencies helped out by not spending an estimated $8.7 billion for different programs that had been requested and often publicly announced by the government and approved by Parliament, the so-called lapsed funding.Lastly, the surplus was achieved through the sale of General Motors in April-May of 2015, and the NDP opposed this sale. It was essentially the sale of these shares, an estimated $3.5 billion, that enabled the Conservative government to balance its pre-election budget. The main unions criticized this action, calling it short-term political gain for the next federal election—precisely. Therefore, the motion being debated today creates a false debate and is really a missed opportunity to talk about the real issues facing Canadians in these uncertain times. It is a futile effort to misrepresent the record of the former government by its remaining representatives in the House.Canadians are not buying it. They know what is up and they know that this motion is an opposition day motion, with the emphasis on opposition. Meanwhile, there are families, workers, and low-income Canadians who are struggling to make ends meet. Conservatives are welcoming the numbers in this report, while Canadians continue to suffer the consequences of Conservative mismanagement.Low-income Canadians, seniors, veterans, persons with disabilities, and those most vulnerable in our society face long wait times for their benefits, long wait times to have problems with their payments addressed or appealed, and across the board, the departments serving them have been cut to the bone by the former government. However, we are not supposed to think about our grandmothers or the elderly waiting for pension payments. We are supposed to focus on the surplus. Accordingly, this motion is a missed opportunity to discuss real issues facing Canadians. We cannot contradict this motion. It is based on facts, however cherry-picked, and instead of wasting time squabbling over partisan numbers, my question is why the Conservatives and the Liberals are not discussing the issues that are actually affecting Canadians. The NDP is the only progressive party that is actually working on behalf of workers and low-income Canadians. It proposed a number of concrete measures, including the national child benefit supplement, the guaranteed income supplement, $15-a-day child care for all Canadian families, and restoring the labour-sponsored tax credit. Instead of using their opposition day motion to try to rewrite economic and political history, I encourage the Conservatives to consider using such opportunities as a means to advance the real needs and interests of all Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, we learned that after campaigning on a tax increase for the province's well-heeled citizens and then raising their taxes, the Liberal government in New Brunswick is realizing that this is not working and that the government coffers are bare. You cannot create wealth by raising everyone's taxes.Why is this government being so stubborn? Why is the Minister of Finance bent on raising Canadians' taxes?

Mr. Speaker, I am a little confused about why the Conservatives would want to pass self-congratulatory motions for the work they claim to have done.When we look at what Liberal and Conservative governments have done to try to balance their books, it is clear that they have always begun by cutting provincial transfers. So much so that the parliamentary budget officer said that, in 30 years, Ottawa will have paid off all of its debts while the provinces will be on the verge of bankruptcy.That being the case, how can my colleague be proud of the Conservatives' record?

Madam Speaker, I also congratulate the hon. member on his re-election. I gather he is still the youngest member of Parliament, and I congratulate him on that.Of course I supported the hon. Jim Flaherty's policies. When it comes to debt reduction, we paid off $40 billion of the national debt before the global recession struck. To be fair, that is one of the reasons our debt is among the lowest in the world and the lowest of all the G8 countries. We should try to maintain that advantage by continuing to balance the budget and reduce the burden for the taxpayers who foot the bill.I am pleased to say that, when we left office, the federal government burden was at its lowest in 50 years, at about 12% of the economy. That is why we have a free and open economy. I hope the Liberals will stay on that path.

Madam Speaker, there seems to be a disconnect within the Conservative caucus. At worst, it could be seen as audacious doublespeak; at a minimum, it could be a factual misunderstanding among its own members.Over the past two weeks, we have heard member after member from the Conservative caucus stand and tell us how much their ridings, which they characterize as middle class, are hurting. The member and his colleague from Edmonton—Wetaskiwin seem to be suggesting that the middle class is strong. Which is it?

Mr. Speaker, Russia has failed to implement any of its commitments under the Minsk agreement with Ukraine.Fighting continues between Ukrainian forces and pro-Russian rebels despite the ceasefire, and a buildup of additional Russian forces is reported along the border.Ukraine has appealed for tough new sanctions and more weapons. Here the Minister of International Trade and the Liberal MP for Etobicoke Centre are clearly at odds with the Minister of Foreign Affairs.Why are the Liberals leaving the defence of Ukraine to others, just as they are doing in the fight against ISIS terrorists?

Mr. Speaker, the last time was last year. Before that we had balanced budgets that paid down some $40 billion against the national debt when the previous prime minister was in office, so in fact, the Conservative record is solid, and that is clear and widely seen.What I find interesting is hearing Liberals and some new Democrats argue earlier today that it was only the General Motors sale that made this happen. Ironically, the Liberals are arguing that earlier the Ontario Liberals sold all their shares.We were the last ones to sell the shares, and in so doing achieved a far greater share price than the Ontario Liberals did, if the hon. member wants to know who are good managers. What is more, despite the Liberals selling the shares and applying that to the books and selling off Hydro One and applying that to the books and selling off whatever other furniture they could find around Ontario, they are still running a $7.5 billion deficit. There will not be much left if they keep selling off things the way Liberals do.

Mr. Speaker, does the member often sign deals that he does not agree with?After promising openness and accountability, the Liberals signed onto a trade deal negotiated in secret with no economic impact study—he just admitted it: he wants to do the study after signing—and no mandate from Canadians to sign.Now that they have signed, further changes are impossible. Since they are gambling with Canadian jobs, perhaps it was appropriate that they signed it in a casino.Will the government admit that it just signed away any possibility of making changes to the wrongheaded Conservative trade deal?

Mr. Speaker, while we recognize this week as National Suicide Prevention Week, suicide continues to be a major national public health issue in Canada. In December 2012, Bill C-300, An Act respecting a Federal Framework for Suicide Prevention, was passed into law. This framework will help the hundreds of Canadians across Canada who are working with some of Canada's most vulnerable people.Would the Minister of Health inform the House as to when we can expect some information as to when this bill will actually be implemented?

Mr. Speaker, a couple of speeches in a row by hon. members have mentioned that the timing of the General Motors share sale was not ideal. I find it interesting that the members would provide this information to the House considering that the very month that the shares were sold, the price, according to statistics, was $36.63. They said that they should be sold about six months down the road, with the advice they had been given from an economist, and six months down the road it had dropped $6 per share. Today, it has dropped even further.My question is this. Is that the type of economic management we could expect from the NDP?

Mr. Speaker, obviously the Liberal Party is accountable to the House. We have been receiving information through the House and there are also plenty of media reports out there.I go back to the example I gave of the middle class tax cut, the shell game that the Liberals are playing with the middle class. We will be paying for a $1.4 billion deficit as a result of that, yet the Liberals went through the election campaign saying that their tax cut for the middle class would be revenue neutral. We are starting to see those numbers mount. As my colleague from Durham stated earlier, a deficit of many billions of dollars is projected to be incurred throughout this term. It will be up to Canadians to decide in four years when they look at the Conservative plan and the Liberal plan who had the best fiscal plan for managing our economy. People will be awakened in four years.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for his tireless advocacy on behalf of this important issue.I am pleased to inform him that as a result of his work in the past, the Public Health Agency of Canada has been working on the federal framework on suicide prevention. In fact, I have just seen an almost final copy of that framework. I would be happy to meet with the member opposite to discuss it at any time, and we will continue to work to address this very serious matter of preventing suicide in this country.

Mr. Speaker, the only question I have is this. If the parliamentary secretary does not trust his officials at finance now, how will he trust them in 2019, when the Liberals supposedly want to rebalance the budget? Oh, I guess they do not have to worry about that because they will not even attempt to do that. Would the member comment on why he does not believe his own officials?

Mr. Speaker, it is time for the government to clarify its foreign policy positions, given the confusion and contradictions coming from the Liberals. On the one hand, the foreign minister has said that Canada will break from our Conservative government's principled positions on Russia and its illegal occupation of Ukraine. On the other hand, the Liberal MP for Etobicoke Centre said in Kiev this week that there is no change in Canadian policy on Ukraine.Exactly who speaks on behalf of Liberal foreign policy?

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that the TPP is a threat to our economy, and Windsor—Tecumseh and Essex county have already suffered hard blows to the auto sector. We know. Do not dismiss our concerns. We need meaningful consultation. The auto sector supports more than 120,000 good jobs in our province. However, the trade minister, back in 2008, wanted to let the big three go bankrupt, and now the trade minister signed a bad deal that puts our auto jobs at risk again—

Mr. Speaker, Canadians support infrastructure investments, but few Canadians support the unnecessary deficits that result from Liberals funding their pet projects.We know that as deficits increase, confidence in the government's ability to manage decreases. There is every indication that the government is going to post a deficit of more than $20 billion.Will the Minister of Finance tell the House that that is not the case? How large will the Liberal deficit be?

Mr. Speaker, middle-class Canadians need Liberal governments to get out of the way and not raise their taxes. That is simple. If it keeps raising taxes, there will be less revenue and fewer jobs. When will the finance minister realize that taxing Canadians is not a solution for prosperity in this country?

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting. Canadians have a big problem on their hands with the current government. What they have is a government that does not seem to be able to understand and manage money. There is no accountability. When the Liberals ran, as the member mentioned, they were going to run a modest deficit of $10 billion. I would ask that the member clarify whether that, in fact, is the number that the deficit will be.When the Liberals talked about this great tax relief, they said it would be revenue neutral. Even the private business that the finance minister was formerly involved with says it is actually not neutral. It is about a $2 billion deficit. What has happened over the years is that, when Liberals get into trouble, they go back to the people, as they did in the 1990s when they cut the transfers to the provinces, and health care for municipalities, gutted the military, and then took a little swipe out of EI for some $50 billion, which makes it really easy to start to balance budgets.I am wondering if the member could help us understand if that is the route the Liberals are going to go now to help with the deficit and balance the budget at some point.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government signed the trans-Pacific partnership, which the Conservatives negotiated in secret, without conducting an economic impact study. Canadian innovators and creators are afraid of losing billions of dollars by giving the United States the upper hand on intellectual property. The founder of BlackBerry even called the agreement “the worst thing in policy that Canada's ever done”.Why is the Prime Minister bent on signing an agreement that we know will hurt jobs and innovation in Canada?

Mr. Speaker, the U.S. Senate hearing on Canadian fast-tracking of Syrian refugees heard yesterday that it would almost be impossible for Canadian officials to acquire the specialized skills needed to screen refugees under the pressure of the Liberal election timeline.My question is for the chair of the public safety committee. This morning, Liberals on that committee blocked a study on refugee security screening. Why is the safety of Canadians not important enough for the committee to study it immediately?

Mr. Speaker, the media in English Canada are getting involved in the debate on the sale of Rona and telling the government not to take action.Rona employs 23,000 people in Quebec, including 1,000 at the head office in Boucherville, in my riding. Rona makes two billion dollars' worth of purchases from Quebec suppliers.Former Liberal minister Monique Jérôme-Forget, from the Task Force on the Protection of Québec Businesses, has said that head offices are economic drivers.Will the minister commit to protecting our jobs?

Madam Speaker, I suspect if you were to canvass the House you would find the will to see the clock at 6:30.

Mr. Speaker, we have said over and over again that the problem with the performance was the previous government's attempt, at five minutes to midnight, to appoint a whole bunch of people to jobs that took effect after it lost the election.This is a case of projection. The real scandal is on that side of the House and the Conservatives are somehow trying to project it over here.

Mr. Speaker, the member raised questions with respect to the government's understanding in the area of the management of the economy.First and foremost, I would put to the member that it is the Liberal government that understands that an economy needs to be nurtured. If an economy were left to its own devices in this global setting, it would produce the economic record the Conservative government put forward over the last 10 years, which was the worst economic record since the Great Depression. Therefore, in terms of managing the economy and managing money, I do not think the Conservatives should carry too loud a voice.Second, we went back to the people in October. They gave us a resounding mandate to invest in and grow the economy, to use those levers that are in the hands of government to make Canada better, to reach out to and strengthen the middle class, and to have a strategy for the future.

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the historic record that our colleague across the way presented. One was left out, and that had to do with the potential for revenue generation for the government. Internal documents from the Canada Revenue Agency showed that it cut some of its most highly trained staff and folded international tax evasion units because of the 2014 budget freeze. Senior managers and trained auditors, who were considered among the most highly skilled experts at the CRA, were let go, basically. Therefore, the government, through the CRA, backed down from chasing after offshore tax cheats. The offshore money is in the billions of dollars. Is the member aware of how the budget freeze actually affected revenue generation by the government through the method I just talked about?

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Carleton for that excellent intervention. I am very much looking forward to engaging in this debate on the kind of fact and fiction that is often introduced in this House. Before I do, I want to thank the residents of the beautiful city of Abbotsford for re-electing me to a fourth term. I have had a chance to serve them for 10 years, and I am very much looking forward to the next few years being their representative here in Canada's capital city, Ottawa.What we are discussing here is a motion that affirms once and for all that, in fact, the previous Conservative government left the new Liberal government with a balanced budget. In fact, it was more than a balanced budget; we left the new government with a surplus of over $1 billion. Sadly, what we hear from the Minister of Finance, from his parliamentary secretary, and from some of the members on the Liberal side is the perpetuation of this canard that somehow the previous government left the Liberals with a deficit. That is patently false. They can actually ask the highest-serving civil servant in Canada in the finance department. He has said that the previous government left a surplus. In fact, the Parliamentary Budget Officer has said the same thing: the previous government left a surplus to the current Liberal government.Let us talk about how we even got to this point. As members know, back in 2008-09, the world was faced with the worst global economic crisis the world had seen since the Great Depression, and like virtually every other developed country in the world, Canada and our Conservative government did what was right. We invested in infrastructure to make sure that we primed the pump. We were fortunate, because Canada was the last country of the G7 to actually slip into recession, and our policies in responding to that recession actually allowed us to emerge from the recession as the first country to do so. We invested in our economy, made sure that our economy was strong going forward, and created jobs. We made a promise back then, because to invest so heavily in infrastructure at one time to prime that pump I referred to, we had to go into temporary deficit. When we did so, we did something that our Liberal and New Democrat friends opposed: we set a clear goal to return to balance in our budgets. In fact, in 2011, during the election when we were elected as a majority government, we pledged to Canadians that by the year 2015, we would actually return to balanced budgets. In fact, we achieved that a year earlier than expected. Even now, in this fiscal year, we have left the new government with a surplus. How did we achieve that between 2008 and 2015? There are four key things we did. I already mentioned the $33-billion worth of infrastructure we invested in across our country. Much of it was transportation-related infrastructure. Much of it was knowledge infrastructure. By all accounts, that infrastructure investment was made in a timely, efficient way and delivered results.The second thing we did was recognize that in a recession, Canadians do not need extra taxes. In fact, we continued to reduce the tax burden on Canadians. We reduced taxes to the point where today, the tax burden on Canadians is the lowest it has been in over 50 years.The third thing we did is something the Liberals have found tough to do. In fact, a previous leader of the Liberal Party said, “Do you think it's easy to make priorities?” No, we do not believe it is easy to set priorities. Setting priorities is tough, but fortunately, Canadians had a tough-minded government in place that knew how to set priorities and make tough decisions. We were able to control the growth of government. We were able to control government spending.The fourth thing we did, and something I am personally very proud of, was embark upon the most ambitious trade agenda Canada had ever seen. I am glad to see my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade is here. I look forward to working with him to ratify the trans-Pacific partnership, and also our free trade agreement with the European Union.Since our government was elected in 2006, we were able to negotiate trade agreements with 46 countries. We were able to negotiate a megadeal with the European Union. We negotiated a trade agreement with South Korea, which is a market of 50 million well-heeled consumers. We concluded negotiations on the trans-Pacific partnership with 11 other partners within the Asia-Pacific region.We did that because we wanted to open up new opportunities for Canadians in markets around the world, new opportunities for Canadian manufacturers, Canadian investors, Canadian service providers, Canadian innovators. We opened markets for Canadian exporters and importers. Our consumers benefited because tariffs were eliminated.Of the dollar value of known economic benefits and expected economic benefits of all trade agreements that Canada has signed, 98.5% of that value was negotiated under Conservative governments, not Liberal governments.It started with the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement which then morphed into the North American Free Trade Agreement, where we brought Mexico into the fold. Then there were 13 years between 1993 to 2006, where virtually nothing got done, while the rest of the world was moving ahead, full steam, opening up new markets. Our Liberals friends negotiated three small agreements with Chile, Costa Rica and Israel.I am very proud of our record of an additional 46 markets opened up to Canadians, driving economic growth and prosperity in our country. These temporary deficits that we embarked upon provided an impetus to our economy back in 2008-09 and they paid off because we handled it in a responsible way. We returned to surplus budgets one year earlier than expected.We are very proud of that achievement. We are also very sad to see the new Liberal government embark upon a set of policies that are just upending that apple cart of stability, of common sense.The Prime Minister within days of being sworn in, without consultations, without warning to Canadians, made an announcement, not in Canada but in Malta, that he was going to be spending $2.65 billion of taxpayer money on climate change initiatives, vanity projects, not at home, not in our country, but in foreign countries. There is no accountability. The money is going to foreign agencies where we have very little oversight, and there is very little transparency.We see that with the the approach of the Liberals to taxes. We see that in their approach to big spending, and their promises of big deficits. In fact, during the election, the Prime Minister promised Canadians that he would only run deficits of about $10 billion per year each year, and in the fourth year of his term, he would balance the budget. Guess what? Economists are now in agreement that these deficits will be much higher. In fact, many people are predicting deficits in the range of $30 billion to $40 billion a year. So much for making promises.Will the Prime Minister and his government reach a balanced budget in four years? Any economist we might speak to will say that it is virtually impossible unless there is a huge hike in taxes on Canadians.That is not the kind of government Canadians elected. As we discuss the finances of this nation, there are not many things more important than being transparent and forthright about the state of those finances. May I suggest for the Liberal government, the Minister of Finance, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, and all members of the Liberal government that they be truthful when they talk about deficits. I expect the truth might set them free.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to join the debate here today, and after the question from my friend from Scarborough, to hopefully elevate the debate to reality for a few moments.This is a quintessential, classic, political tactic. When a new government comes into office, it usually spends its first number of months blaming the last group of people for all of its woes. We have seen this repeatedly. All parties have engaged in it to a certain degree.What is unique about the debate before us today is that the Liberal Party, the new government, actually does not have support from the very departments that oversee the finances of the nation. Normally, if a new government tries to blame the old guys for the problem, it has some form of evidence provided by the departments. It is usually last-minute spending for an election or that sort of thing. However, this is a case where it is a bridge too far. They are trying the old Liberal tactic, but they do not have the data to support it.What is important to note about this motion is that if anyone in this House is disparaging the work of our professional public service, it is actually the government, because its own officials in Finance Canada and in the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer have confirmed that the previous government left Canada in a small surplus position.Everyone knows that for the last number of years, the global economy has been tight. There was not a tremendous surplus, but it was a surplus. In fact, the revenue stream was positive enough that despite early spending commitments and a willingness for the government to spend, each month is clicking away, and it is still gaining between $500 million and $1 billion in surplus. We saw that when the finance department confirmed a surplus of hundreds of millions of dollars in November.This is one of the cases when the old and tried political trick does not work when its professional departments release information that shows that the trick is a phantom.I would like to say that I am going to split my time with my colleague from Barrie—Innisfil. I should have mentioned it off the top. It is important for Canadians, because this is a government that has a lot of new, eager, and capable members of Parliament. I know that they are here to do the best for the country. Many of them were not here when their leader was leader of the third party. I said this last week in debate about the energy east pipeline. For several years, the Prime Minister, who at the time led the third party in this place, did not support running a deficit at all. In fact, knowing that the Conservative government had set a plan in place during the global recession to get Canada back to a balanced budget position by 2014-15, and seeing that Canadians were behind that position, the Liberal Party, at that time, took a position that they would not run deficits. As I said last week, it took an election campaign for that fundamental principle of the fiscal plan of a party to change. The Prime Minister, during the election, said that he would run, for a couple of years, a modest deficit of up to $10 billion. That was certainly very different from the approach of the Conservative government, which had worked in a steadfast manner to get to balance.After the election, after telling Canadians that it would be one or two years of modest deficits in the $10-billion range, in the first few days of this new Parliament the government's number changed to $20 billion per year. Canadians did not vote for that. Then, if anyone has been following in recent weeks, speculation is coming out that those numbers will be more like $25 billion to $30 billion for two to three years.The real underpinning of the motion before the House today is not just to show that we cannot use the age-old game of blaming the last team. It is that the Liberals are changing their fundamental financial plan for Canada's future by the week. That is deeply concerning.I suggested some time ago in a column I wrote that excessive spending is not sunny ways. When we are dishing out the dough, there may be some sunshine, but if we are putting Canada's financial position in a precarious situation, those are storm clouds on the horizon.What we hear from the government already, in preparation for the budget, is the potential for a $60 billion to $90 billion deficit over the course of its four years. That is certainly different from a year ago, when the Prime Minister said no deficits. Then, during the election campaign, he said up to $20 billion over the first two years, and then they would balance. Now we are in the $60-billion range at a time when the Liberals are also putting so many hurdles in the path of resource projects, or stopping them, that capital is fleeing Canada. Depressed resource prices and our dollar are compounding this, yet they are not changing this reckless plan.The motion today is to set a stark line between the last government in this place and the present government. The Conservative Party believes that a balanced budget should be achieved whenever possible, that stimulus should be limited, and that a plan to end the deficit caused by stimulus in a recession should be clear and attainable.Sometimes I say to my wife that I feel too young to be a “former”. I am a former air force person, a former lawyer, and a former minister. I am a young “former”. Many of the former ministers in this place have talked about the decisions of governing, and this is where I am very concerned that the Prime Minister is not ready to govern, because it takes decisions. A minister in his government is famous for saying that it is not easy to make priorities. That is what Canadians elected them to do. Those priorities need to be getting a proper world price, or better than current price, for our resources. That includes budgets that do not put our future at risk. That includes not eliminating a popular measure for saving, the TFSA, or reducing it dramatically. That includes not driving out talent and our creative class by taxing stock options as income and by raising taxes on those very people. When I was veterans affairs minister, we steadily increased and modernized the department. It is important to note, despite a lot of the rhetoric we hear on this, that the Chrétien government and the Martin government ended with a $2.9 billion budget for Veterans Affairs Canada, and we ended with an approximately $3.4 billion budget. Any way we slice it, despite a global recession and despite our pledge to balance the budget, which we did, we increased that budget by 15%. We spent in different areas, because post-Korean War and during 30 years of the Cold War, PTSD was not even discussed in a responsible way. The previous government went from the two operational stress injury clinics it opened to 27 by the time we left office, addressing a new need. That new spending went to areas of need. We created a family caregiver relief benefit. We created the retirement income security benefit. We created the critical injury benefit, all new benefits passed in the last Parliament to address some of the gaps in the new Veterans Charter, which the previous government created. In fact, it was the now Minister of Immigration. All parliamentarians voted for it, and our government implemented it and fixed it along the way.That took decisions, because when we want to balance the books, when we do not want to raise taxes on Canadians, when we want to lower them, it means making priorities. The motion before the House today draws a line in the sand. The previous government planned; spent in priority areas; tried to get jobs created through innovative new sectors and by supporting our resource sector; spent prudently; created retirement tax planning, with the tax free savings account; and allowed all families a benefit with the universal child care benefit.We made those decisions and balanced the budget. The Department of Finance officials confirm that. It is about time that the new government recognizes that, and starts a new course to make sure the sunny ways do not turn into storm clouds on the horizon.

Mr. Speaker, words are nice, but firm commitments are needed. The port and the National Optics Institute are not the only ones with needs. Université Laval also needs funding for the Institut nordique du Québec.The Liberal Party has yet to follow through on its commitments. The people of Quebec City want answers. The Liberals' track record in Quebec City in the first 100 days is zero plus zero, which equals zero.When will the government follow through on its commitments to the people of Quebec City?

Mr. Speaker, the trade minister just signed the TPP, which will cost tens of thousands of good jobs across Canada. This deal was negotiated in secret and many Canadians still are not aware of the details, but the more they learn, the more they oppose the TPP. Maybe that is the reason the minister rushed to sign it without consulting Canadians and without any study of the economic impacts.How are Canadian workers supposed to trust in consultations, with a minister who is in such a rush to sign away their jobs?

Mr. Speaker, public safety officers put their lives on the line to keep us safe. Yet all too often they cannot access the support they need to cope with the trauma they experience. The results can be devastating. Some 39 first responders died last year from suicide. Hundreds are affected by mental health crises or operational stress injuries every year.Could the Minister of Public Safety update the House on his commitment to help public safety officers and their families deal with the threat of operational stress injuries?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member across the way for the question and certainly the passion he expresses with respect to indigenous people. Without question, I share that same passion, as does our government, to ensure that we implement the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement in a timely and fair way. As the Minister of Justice, I take very seriously my commitment to follow through with our commitments in the election to ensure that we are compliant with the charter and to ensure that there is fairness. I have instructed my hard-working and dedicated officials to come up with options to remedy this situation, working with the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs—

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend opposite, the member for Durham, for his fantastic insight into this debate today. We go way back. We both studied at Dalhousie Law School together, so I am happy to be joining him in the House. My in-laws have the great pleasure of living in the great riding of Durham. I do not believe they took a sign of my friend during the election, but in any event I know he is a bright guy. We obviously have a similar education so he cannot help but be bright.How does he reconcile his position about anti-deficit spending when his government for the last 10 years racked up $150 billion in debt? We must conclude that the Conservative Party when in government has no problem with deficit spending, had no problem during 2007-08 going into deficit because it was necessary at the time because of the economic crisis. How does he reconcile that as his party today speaks constantly about the economic crisis and the job losses in Alberta and throughout Canada? Why is today not appropriate for deficit spending but it was in 2007-08?

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. Since he is a very intelligent man, I am sure that he will not give in to intellectual dishonesty and he will confirm to the House that with the same level of spending, if there had been no change in government and no major changes to fiscal planning, there would have been a deficit at the end of the current fiscal year. Can my colleague confirm that?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his passionate and intelligent speech.It is obvious that the Conservative Party left a financial mess after the election. One of our strategies is to make strategic investments in public infrastructure.Can the hon. member tell us what he thinks of our goal of making major investments in public infrastructure?

Mr. Speaker, the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada website states: The reappointment process for IRB members will continue to reflect a performance evaluation consistent with the merit-based competency criteria. The Minister will continue to recommend the reappointment of members...after taking note of the IRB Chairperson's recommendations concerning performance and operational needs. Could the government House leader tell us this? For the reappointed IRB members he has politically intimidated to resign, what specific problems with their performance were identified?

Madam Speaker, I first want to congratulate the member for some pretty impressive metaphors. He put those together rather well. I am going to avoid the metaphors and stick to the published facts, and I am going to use two sources. One is the “Fiscal Monitor” that his finance minister authorized the publication of just last week. It showed that in the months immediately preceding his government taking office, in fact, Canada had an accumulated surplus of $1 billion. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, in a document that was published in November as well, the PBO had a projected surplus of $1.2 billion for the present fiscal year. These are not Conservative sources and these are not books that were on the Conservative stove. We do not put our books on stoves because we do not believe in burning books. These books tell us that Canada is in surplus and that means sunny ways for us all.

Mr. Speaker, of course, it is about science, it is about evidence, and it is about the public service. I am proud to say that I have been a member of the public service of Canada, and nothing makes me prouder than the women and men in our public service who are working day in and day out crunching statistics and making sure that we have the best available information in front of us. This underpins not only our finances and our budgetary system but our entire approach to government. It is evidence-based, it is forward-looking, and it is aimed at creating a better future for all Canadians.

Madam Speaker, I have been listening to Liberal members criticize Conservative budgets of the previous government over the last 11 years. I find it highly ironic because Liberals supported most of those budgets. As I mentioned earlier in the House during debate, the Liberals supported the budget of 2006. In fact, if we check the news reports from June 6, 2006, it was reported that the House unanimously supported the budget at third reading. In the 2009 budget, CTV News reported on January 28, 2009, “Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff offered his support for the federal budget Wednesday.”In 2010, the Liberals also supported the Conservative government's budget. I quote the Toronto Star of June 9, 2010. The “Conservative government has passed its fifth consecutive federal budget with the tacit support of the Liberal opposition.” It is typical Liberal Party rhetoric to say one thing and do another. This is a good example of that. Liberals supported most of the Conservatives' budgets during those minority Parliaments for one reason, because they were good budgets and they were good for Canada.

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to follow the hon. member for Abbotsford. Let me take a moment to salute his record as the former minister of international trade. We look forward to future collaboration with him.Why are we here? I would rather not focus my closing remarks as they were on this day in Parliament on actual numbers but rather ask what the cost is. I am willing to grant that the previous government did its best to spend as little as possible, but that is not necessarily a good thing, particularly because it did leave us in debt anyway because it failed to balance a single budget between 2008 and 2014, but more importantly, because of the costs that this had in Canada over that period of time. Let us not forget that.Over the past 10 years our economy has been characterized by fundamentally weak growth. Perhaps some of the gains that the hon. member for Abbotsford made acting as minister of international trade in negotiating trade agreements, which our government believes were generally good, could have been better. Had we developed our manufacturing sector, had we put money into innovation, had we put money into becoming a stronger and more diversified economy, then perhaps we would have been able to profit from those agreements much more than we have. We have done the opposite. We effectively cut infrastructure spending over that period of time in real terms and have ended up with an infrastructure deficit that cries out to be rectified. Cuts were also made to veterans affairs and social programs, including programs for social housing.I spent the past 20 years teaching in one of the world's finest law faculties in one of Canada's finest universities. I could see the cuts to university research that the previous government undertook and the devastating impact that had on research programs in pure science, applied science, and the social sciences. That was one of the reasons I decided to put myself on leave from that tenured position in order to go into direct public service: to rectify what I saw as an incredible problem in policy that the previous government chose to follow.Not only did the previous government cut university research for the sake of balancing budgets, but it destroyed archives, weakened research and development in this country, and put our innovation agenda way behind other countries, including countries like Scandinavia for example.Yes, it is fine to talk about budgetary numbers, but let us not forget the costs. When it is time to reinvest in an economy, reinvest in infrastructure, reinvest in Canada's people as it is now, a government needs the courage to do it.

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the hon. member talks about shares. Members will remember that the Conservative government bought shares so that the working people could keep their jobs and the automobile industry could keep going. I know the hon. member realizes that everybody wants jobs. Every party in this House wants jobs. We did that back then.Good for the member to say that we sold the shares and that is why there is a surplus in the budget. We had a surplus, and it should be recorded that in November 2015 the Conservative government left a surplus. Did we look at a crystal ball to decide if we should sell them seven or 10 months later? Good for the member to say that, because all Canadians should have sold their oil stocks a year ago. We do not have a crystal ball. Therefore, I would say this to the hon. member. He can talk about surpluses all he wants. However, he should give us some recognition. When we did buy the shares and saved the automobile industry, is that not what we should have done at the time?

Mr. Speaker, I will ask the question again and maybe we will get an answer.For days now we have been asking the Minister of National Defence what his plan is to deal with the Islamic State. He said that the Minister of Foreign Affairs was dealing with it while he was in Rome. The Minister of Foreign Affairs has returned. Did he submit his plan to the Minister of National Defence and can he share that plan with the rest of us?

Mr. Speaker, I can certainly say that a Conservative government that was selling assets at a loss to make a feigned attempt at a surplus, as it did, is not sound financial management. Even that feigned attempt by the previous government did not result in a balanced budget, but rather a deficit for the 2015-16 fiscal year. That is why the motion has no merit.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asks why we would not want to see the government run a deficit. First of all, it is not exactly the same thing. There was a global financial crisis, and leaders around the world took measures to coordinate their approaches at a fiscal level to ensure that, as a world, we were able to pull forward. Canada took a leadership role in that, along with other countries. New Democrats, who were in the House during that time, demanded more spending all the time, as they do almost every day in the House of Commons.Why is it that we do not want to go down that road today? It is because we saw what happened with Liberal governments in the past. We saw the devastating cuts that they had to make to health care and post-secondary education, and they threw them on the backs of the provinces. Provinces like Ontario and Alberta and others had to respond to that because suddenly the transfers were turned off. As a government, we were able to get our budget back to balance coming out of the global crisis. We were able to do that while dramatically increasing investments at the same time in transfers for health care, social services, and education, as the member for York—Simcoe so aptly mentioned in his comments. That is important. As we move forward as a country, and if we are going to avoid the types of decisions that a previous Liberal government had to make and governments around the world have to make in terms of cutting really important services for their voters, balanced budgets are critical. We hope that NDP members will support this important motion.

Mr. Speaker, I understand the concerns raised by the member opposite. That is why the Investment Canada Act is very clear. Any transaction over $600 million automatically triggers a net benefit analysis. We have the resources and process in place to do that. The Competition Bureau will also examine it from its perspective. The shareholders have to look at it. However, the bottom line is that any decision we make will be in the best interests of Canadians and Quebeckers.

Mr. Speaker, as this is my first time rising in this House in this capacity, I want to briefly highlight my riding of Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, a new riding made up three existing ones. It is a vibrant, energetic, and growing region. I would also like to thank my constituents who placed their trust in me to represent them, and I would like to thank my family members for their unfailing support: my husband and best friend, Ted; and my two children, Christopher whose birthday is tomorrow and Hillary whose birthday is next week.I am honoured to rise in this House to speak to this important topic, and I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Kanata—Carleton.I rise today to underline the decisive steps that our government has taken to address the challenges facing our economy; steps we took immediately after the Canadian people handed us a majority mandate for a new approach that prioritizes long-term economic growth. Since last fall, we have continued to see headlines about the weaknesses in the global economy. Despite volatility in the economy, what Canadians can always count on is the tireless professionalism of many public servants working on their behalf. This is why I am disappointed by the opposition's efforts to drag in the civil servants of the Department of Finance to score a passive-aggressive partisan point.The numbers up to November 2015 are clear. They are in line with a projected small deficit for 2015-2016. Let us take a closer look at the numbers. Revenues for April to November increased by $14.2 billion, or 8.2%, from the same period last year. These numbers are a result of unique circumstances that are no longer congruent with current fiscal realities and that do not reflect the previous government's stewardship of the economy. These circumstances were in part due to the $2.1 billion gain realized on the sale of General Motors common shares and on higher corporate income tax revenues. The opposition cannot bank on one-off situations and claim sound economic management. The reality is that revenue growth is expected to slow over the remainder of the fiscal year, reflecting economic trends of collapsing commodity prices that have not yet recovered and look likely to remain low over the medium term. The only people who believe that the previous Conservative government left behind a surplus are the Conservatives themselves. Canadians know better.Make no mistake, the Government of Canada will post a deficit for the 2015-2016 fiscal year, and that deficit rests squarely on the shoulders of the actions and inactions taken by the previous government. That is a fact. The previous Liberal government left behind a $13 billion surplus in 2006, and the Conservative government squandered that surplus and accumulated an additional $150 billion in new debt while still delivering the worst growth record since the Great Depression. We have been, and will continue to be, proactive managers of the economy. Since our earliest days in office, we have had a plan to grow the economy, create jobs, and invest in communities. It began with the government tabling, as its first order of business on December 7, a notice of ways and means motion to provide a much-needed tax cut for the middle class. This is the first of three major economic planks that we are moving forward on, and they reflect what we feel is the lifeblood of Canadian society, the middle class.I want to remind the opposition that it is our government that has brought tax relief to the middle class during these troubled times, a tax cut that would put money in the pockets of about nine million Canadians a year. This was the right thing to do, and the smart thing to do for our economy. The proposed middle-class tax cut and accompanying proposals would help make the tax system fairer, so that all Canadians have the opportunity to succeed and prosper.Canada is in a strong position to face the future. Our debt-to-GDP ratio is well below the G7 average, and keeping our debt-to-GDP ratio on a downward path throughout our mandate remains a central plank of our economic agenda. We have a well-educated population, we have abundant natural resources, we are fortunate to have the world's largest economy as a neighbour, and diplomatically, Canada is back on the world stage in a big way. We are actively pursuing our long-term vision. Many leading economists agree that strategic planning and investments in bridges, roads, and other building projects are essential ingredients needed for creating long-term growth. This type of investment requires forethought, planning, and most importantly, working with others. The government is working with provinces, municipalities, and indigenous communities to ensure that the funding decisions we make are sensible for the present and future needs of those communities.Going forward, the government will introduce proposals in the budget to create a new Canada child benefit. Payments under the new Canada child benefit would begin in July 2016. In addition to replacing the universal child care benefit, which is not tied to income, the proposed Canada child benefit would simplify and consolidate existing child benefits while ensuring that help is better targeted to those who need it the most.All of these initiatives demonstrate that our sights are clearly set on the future. These actions would help strengthen the middle class and those who are working hard to join it, by putting more in the pockets of Canadians, to save, invest, and grow the economy. More broadly, they would help grow our economy in the context of a difficult global economic climate, so that all Canadians can benefit. We have also brought an open and collaborative approach to how we are going to solve the problems facing us. To ensure that our plans align with Canadians' needs, the government is continuing its pre-budget consultations online and through submissions. We are open to hearing what Canadians have to say and have been encouraged by the record number of people engaged in sharing ideas. So far, Canadians have identified economic growth as their top priority. Canadians know that economic growth means bettering their own circumstances but also bettering those of their communities. Canadians identify economic growth with opportunities not only for themselves but for others in their communities and those across the country.The government will continue to develop measures and pursue a fiscal plan that is responsible, transparent, and suited to challenging economic times. These plans will be most effective when all of us seize the opportunities to grow our economy together and for the benefit of all.The economic and fiscal update presented in November gave Canadians a transparent picture of our economic and fiscal situation. It makes clear that the previous government put the country on track for a $3 billion deficit. It takes into account such factors as low and volatile crude oil prices and weak global environment, risk factors that have become more pronounced in recent months. After 10 years of weak growth, this government has a plan to grow the economy and create jobs by focusing on the middle class, investing in infrastructure, and helping those who need it most. My colleagues have spoken about the support our plan has already received. We will continue our focus, and we aim to grow the economy in a responsible way, with a long-term vision.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.It gives me the opportunity to clarify that we were not against the purchase of shares to bail out the automotive sector. I think this approach should have been considered for bailing out other sectors, such as the forestry industry, for example, which faced similar challenges, but was ignored by the Conservative government at the time.We were not against the purchase of shares to help out the automotive industry, but we have some concerns over how those shares were sold and the reporting that General Motors was required to do.The hon. member just admitted that the sale of the shares was responsible for the surplus reported in the “Fiscal Monitor”. It says as much in that report.I am not the only one to say so, and it is not about having a crystal ball. There are 24 financial analysts on Bay Street who follow General Motors. Only two of those 24 analysts said it was the right time to sell, while the other 22 said it was not. In fact, 14 of the analysts said it was a good time to buy GM shares.When we make decisions based on facts, we have to listen to experts in the field. They are not perfect, but at least their information is better than the information the government wanted to use just to achieve a balanced budget on the eve of the 2015 election campaign.

Mr. Speaker, I would have to look at the record in terms of the actual numbers for that. The member can check the record on this. It is really easy to find news articles. If my colleague was to Google the word “coalition” he might find that in 2008 his leader of the day tried to form a coalition with the Bloc and the NDP to take over the Conservative government of the day, because we could not spend enough to satisfy them at that time, immediately after an election campaign. We took a world-leading approach to the global financial crisis. Organizations around the world, from the OECD to the World Economic Forum to the IMF, praised Canada's approach in that crisis, partly because we delivered the stimulus quickly. We came out of the crisis faster than other countries. We did that despite the fact that Liberal members of Parliament demanded more spending and longer spending. We would still be running deficits today if the Liberals had had their way.

Mr. Speaker, we want to know what the Minister of Finance has to say.Today the House is debating an opposition motion that stems from the “Fiscal Monitor” put out by the Department of Finance, which clearly indicates that the Conservative government left a surplus. However, members of this government continue to deny the truth.Will the Minister of Finance set an example and stand up here to tell the House that he has confidence in his own officials? Will he acknowledge that his government inherited a $1-billion surplus?

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Mississauga—Lakeshore.It is a privilege for me to be here to participate in this important debate on today's motion.I would like to reassure my hon. colleague that we have complete confidence in the abilities of the dedicated officials at the Department of Finance, who are currently working on the 2016 budget.I can say that our budget will flesh out our plan to grow the economy, a plan that has the support of the Canadians who gave us a majority mandate last fall.First of all, the government believes that all Canadians should have real and equal opportunities to succeed. This will be achieved by strengthening and growing the middle class. That is what we said throughout our election campaign, and that is what we are offering Canadians. It will come as no surprise when I say that Canada is going through tough economic times. Although the recent U.S. economic performance is encouraging, emerging economies, especially China, are cause for concern.Many analysts were counting on emerging economies, such as Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, to help stimulate economic growth. We now know that this will unfortunately not be the case.Canada's economic performance was weak in 2015, which can primarily be explained by last year's drop in the price of oil. Make no mistake about it, the Government of Canada will post a deficit for the 2015-16 fiscal year, and this deficit is the result of what the previous government did and did not do. That is a fact.The previous Liberal government left a $13-billion surplus in 2006. The Conservative government wasted this surplus and racked up more than $150 billion in additional debt, all the while managing to achieve the worst growth record since the Great Depression. Those are facts.Our colleagues have told us all kinds of tales this morning, but what I just said is the truth. All of that, with no plan to grow the middle class, no plan to invest, and no plan for growth. That is the Conservative government's disastrous record.It is quite likely that the global economy will remain unfavourable in the future and that the price of commodities will remain low. There is no doubt that, as we begin to put our plan for economic growth and long-term prosperity into action, we are up against fierce headwinds. However, in the face of this real challenge, there is also real opportunity to put in place the conditions to create long-term growth. This growth will create good jobs and help our middle class, the lifeblood of our economy, to prosper. This is a good time to make targeted investments to support our country's economic growth. However, I want to be clear. We are going to focus on smart investments that promote economic growth while maintaining a commitment to fiscal responsibility. We intend to focus on two particularly challenging issues. The first is restoring economic progress for the middle class, the backbone of our economy. We simply cannot claim that our country is prosperous if our middle class is having trouble making ends meet.That is why the government followed through on its promise by making a tax cut for the middle class the first order of business on December 7, 2015. I am proud to say that, as of January 1, approximately nine million Canadians are receiving significant tax relief. This is a fair measure, and it is the smart thing to do for our economy.In order to achieve this goal, we introduced Bill C-2, an act to amend the Income Tax Act. This bill is merely the first step in our plan to grow the economy in the long term, create jobs, and help Canada's middle class prosper.More specifically, Bill C-2 will cut the personal income tax rate, dropping it from 22% to 20.5%, and establish a 33% tax rate for individual taxable incomes above $200,000. We are asking the wealthiest Canadians to contribute a little more.Lastly, we are lowering the annual contribution limit for tax-free savings accounts, TFSAs, from its current $10,000 back to its previous amount, which was $5,500, and we are also reinstating the indexation of that limit. Our middle-class tax cut and the accompanying changes will help make the tax system fairer. As I mentioned, this bill is just the beginning of our government's measures to grow the economy.In the next budget, we will introduce the new Canada child tax benefit, another important measure that will provide increased support to the vast majority of Canadian families and help lift hundreds of thousands of children our of poverty. That is right, I said hundreds of thousands of children. Unlike the existing program, the Canada child tax benefit will be simpler, more generous and more targeted to those who need it most. Plus, it is tax free.Together, these measures will help strengthen the middle class and help those who work hard to be a part of it. As a result of these measures, Canadians will have more money to save, invest, and help grow our economy. More generally, these measures will stimulate economic growth at a time when the global economy is cause for concern, to ensure that all Canadians will benefit.The second challenge we are facing, and this may be the biggest one, has to do with creating the conditions for strong, long-term economic growth. Smart, targeted investments in infrastructure are essential to stimulating economic growth. Furthermore, now is the time to invest, while interest rates are at all-time lows.Canadians made it clear that they want real change. They want their government to govern differently. They want to be able to trust their government and they want leadership that is focused on what is most important to them. We are listening. Since early January, the Minister of Finance and I have been criss-crossing the country holding pre-budget consultations organized by the Department of Finance. We have gathered some very good ideas and excellent comments. Canadians have told us that they are concerned about the state of our infrastructure, including bridges, roads, public transit, sewers, and seniors' homes.Canadian cities are growing rapidly, and all levels of government are facing the same challenge: making infrastructure investments that generate economic benefits for Canada and promote sustainable urban environments.Over the next decade, we will invest $120 billion in public infrastructure. Our investments will focus on making life better for Canadians and developing more lucrative business opportunities for our exporters.To ensure that we are making strategic investments, we will work with the provinces and territories to address their most urgent needs. That is what Canadians expect of us. They want us to work together to make progress and begin building a better Canada.A number of initiatives are important to our government's growth strategy for Canada. First, environmental sustainability will be central to the development of our natural resources sector. Together with our North American partners, Canada can and should be one of the most efficient and responsible energy producers in the world. We will also support growing businesses to help them attract the talent, capital, and innovation they need to capitalize on business opportunities in the global market.We will work with the provinces to develop a skills and labour strategy that promotes greater participation of under-represented groups.We will work with the provinces and territories to improve the Canada Pension Plan and help Canadians achieve their retirement income security goals. These are important objectives that can have a significant impact on our long-term growth.In closing, there is no quick and easy solution. We are lucky to live in such a diverse and prosperous country. However, the challenges we are facing today are real and to overcome them we must find common ground despite our different points of view. I can assure my colleagues that our government is prepared to meet these challenges.

Mr. Speaker, it is particularly ironic that members from a party that inherited a $13 billion surplus from a Liberal government in 2006 and then added $150 billion in debt to Canadians are talking to us about this. On top of that, they did it while creating the lowest rate of growth since the Great Depression, maybe because they spent the money on things like gazebos. We have a different plan. We are going to spend on productive assets that can help our country to do better in the future.

Mr. Speaker, Canadians learned today that it is upwards of 3,000 indigenous people, who suffered abuse in residential schools, who have had their claims denied because of a technicality. It was the Department of Justice that came up with this loophole, and argued against these victims in court. This is contrary to the spirit of reconciliation and a violation of the residential schools agreement.Will the Minister of Justice instruct her officials to back down? Will she also apologize for this tactic and provide the compensation these survivors are entitled to?

Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the passion the hon. member has demonstrated. The bottom line is that we understand the importance of the automotive sector. It creates half a million direct and indirect jobs in Ontario. That is why I went to Detroit to meet with the global heads of the OEMs to talk about investments in Canada. We will use the automotive innovation fund and the automotive supplier innovation fund to attract investments and to create jobs in this very important sector.

Madam Speaker, one thing that we as Conservatives will never do in this House is apologize for keeping government spending under control and keeping the growth of government under control. We wear that as a badge of honour. It is what has allowed us, as a country, to have finances that are the envy of the world. That is why we have a budget surplus, the one the Minister of Finance and his parliamentary secretary want to deny. All the evidence to the contrary, they are still in denial mode.We have a stellar record when it comes to managing the finances of this country.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question. We have already lowered taxes for nine million Canadians. That is exactly what we have done. We will continue to work on our social policies. We will also invest in the Canada child benefit. As we all know, and as we said during the campaign, this measure will help nine out of 10 families. It will be non-taxable and more generous. It will help lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty.On October 19, this government was elected on a clear mandate to invest in the middle class. That is exactly what we will continue to do.

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague went back a bit in history, so I would like to do that myself.He mentioned that we emerged faster and stronger than the other G7 countries from the financial crisis. If we look back in history, one of the reasons for that, among others, is that while the former prime minister, when in opposition, was advocating that we deregulate our financial industry, a former Liberal minister of finance said no. This is one of the reasons our banking industry, our financial sector, was so much stronger than perhaps our southern neighbour.Another reason we emerged from the financial crisis perhaps more rapidly was, as he mentioned, and I give him credit for that, the financial stimulus package to which we agreed. Who else agreed to this financial stimulus package back in 2009-10? The IMF did. I have heard a lot of his colleagues quote and invoke the IMF as a justification for that.This is what the IMF had to say recently: The findings suggest that in countries with infrastructure needs, now is a good time for an infrastructure push. Many advanced economies are stuck in a low growth and high unemployment environment, and borrowing costs are low. Increased public infrastructure investment is one of the few remaining policy levers to support growth. Does the member agree, this time around, that the IMF is right and that we should invest in infrastructure?

Mr. Speaker, Canadians elected a new government on October 19. They recognized that we had a plan. We had a plan to deal with low growth through bringing forward a new approach. We reduced taxes on the middle class, which will stimulate the economy while helping nine million Canadians. We are going to help the most vulnerable people in this country by giving them a Canada child benefit. We are going to stimulate the economy through infrastructure investments that can make a real long-term difference in productivity for this country.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, when the government House leader was asked whether he and the cabinet complied with the law by voting four times last November 5, he said, “I want to assure the House and the member that at all times, everyone on this side complied with all legislation.” However, Canadian Press reported on November 5, that Liberal MPs chose unanimously to defer a decision on the rules. The government House leader is reported as saying, “We didn't think it was appropriate [to vote]”. Could he explain this contradiction? Did he and his cabinet colleagues vote four times, in accordance with the law, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the hon. member, here is the real problem. The real problem is that the Conservatives were not able to do anything over nine years getting resources to market. On what basis do they have any credibility in asking us how we are going to do it? We are going to take an approach that is actually going to get resources to tidewater. We are going to make a difference for the people who need us to make a difference across this country, creating real economic growth through getting our resources to market.

Mr. Speaker, it is true that the previous government negotiated this accord in secret, but it is also true that the hon. member for Outremont decided not to support the agreement without even having read it.We promised the Canadian public during the election that we would study the agreement and we would look at all aspects of the agreement in depth, and that is precisely what we have done and what we are going to continue to do.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport's earlier response regarding funding for the Port of Québec was vague to say the least.The port is not the only organization in Quebec City waiting for news from this government. There is also the National Optics Institute, which is a very important institute that generates jobs. Nearly 4,000 jobs have been generated by this centre for development and applied research. If the port has to wait, will the NOI, which needs its funding by March 31, get a positive response from this government?

Mr. Speaker, the member for York—Simcoe wants to talk about past Conservative surpluses, so let us talk about them.The former Conservative government of the member for Calgary Heritage was the first Conservative government since that of Sir Robert Borden in 1912, the year the Titanic sank, to balance any budget whatsoever. The two governments had something very important in common. Both squandered the surpluses left to them by the previous Liberal governments prior to the onset of significant economic challenges. For Mr. Borden, 1912 saw a surplus inherited from Sir Wilfred Laurier in 1911. In 1913, Borden posted a deficit. In 1914, the First World War broke out. For the former Prime Minister from Calgary Heritage, the Liberal surplus was so significant that it took him two full years to squander it before the onset of the 2008 fiscal crisis the following year. That Conservatives are in any way good fiscal managers is one of the great myths of Canadian political discourse. Does the member know that the last time the Conservatives actually took us from a deficit to a surplus on their own competence was in the 1870s, and does he know that every Liberal Prime Minister to introduce a budget has balanced at least one?

Mr. Speaker, I will begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh.We are debating a Conservative opposition motion, which I am pleased to comment on given my role as the NDP's finance critic.The motion states: That the House: (a) thank the independent non-partisan officials from the Department of Finance for their hard work and evidence-based analysis; We totally agree with that.The motion continues as follows: [That the House:] (b) acknowledge their most recent Fiscal Monitor which informed Members and Canadians that, for the period from April to November 2015 of the 2015-2016 fiscal year, the previous government posted a budgetary surplus of $1.0 billion; and We agree with that. That is what the “Fiscal Monitor” says. We could even add our congratulations to the team at the “Fiscal Monitor” for all the work it has accomplished, and not just for the most recent issue.Finally, the rest of the motion states: [That the House:] (c) concur in its conclusions and express its confidence in the Deputy Minister and his team. We have no problem with that either because that is what the “Fiscal Monitor” says. The report is prepared by the Department of Finance, and we have no trouble believing that in November 2015, there was a surplus of $1 billion.I might as well propose an amendment asking the House to recognize that the sun is yellow, the grass is green, and the sky is blue, because those are facts one would be hard-pressed to deny.I feel like we are kind of wasting the House's time today by talking about something that we all agree on. We have missed a good opportunity to debate issues that really matter to Canadians on their behalf.However, since I have speaking time, I would like to talk about how the Conservatives got that number. There may have been a $1-billion surplus in November 2015, but there is no guarantee that there will still be a surplus at the end of the 2015-16 fiscal year. Actually, knowing whether we will have a surplus or a deficit at that point is pretty important.We should also remember that the government posted a surplus in November 2011 because it sold at a loss the shares in General Motors that it had purchased in order to help save the auto industry. We spoke out against this sale at the time.The government in power at the time sold 73.4 million shares for $3.3 billion. A portion of that was obviously recorded in each part of the fiscal year. It was recorded as income from the sale of shares, and only the sale of shares, putting the Conservative government not in the red, but in the black, and it was solely this exercise that made it possible.We could add that the government continued to dip into the employment insurance fund, which was supposed to be used to help unemployed workers who needed it. It was also included in the final report on the government's consolidated revenue fund. The employment insurance surplus was used to put the government in an overall surplus.Notwithstanding the issue of employment insurance, the sale of GM shares is the one and only reason why there is, or at least there was in November 2015, a budget surplus on the books.However, the shares were sold at a loss. The sale was condemned not only by the opposition parties, but also by a number of financial analysts for being made at the wrong time.I am referring to comments by financial analysts such as John Stephenson, who was the president and CEO of Stephenson & Company Capital Management.He said: If you look at GM, it’s grossly undervalued relative to other global automakers.... I think you could easily squeeze out another $6 to $7 per share in the next 12 months or so, so you’re leaving a fair bit of money on the table if you believe that. In its rush to claim a balanced budget for 2015-16, the government at the time sold our GM shares at a loss, even though it had apparently been advised to wait, hold onto these shares, and sell them at a book value that was beneficial to the government.In order to break even on the purchase and sale of the GM shares, the government would have had to sell the shares for $4 billion in total, in Canadian dollars, of course. The sale totalled $3.3 billion. At the end of the day, the government ended up with a net loss. The shares were sold at a loss, and the whole thing was nothing but an attempt to balance the budget in their last year for purely political reasons. The budget was balanced in November 2015, but it may not remain balanced at the end of the fiscal year in March 2016. In addition, the Auditor General issued a report in November 2014 regarding the sale of the GM shares and, especially, the GM bailout. He said that the government was lax in requiring accountability for how the amounts were spent and how the money was used to bail out GM and also Chrysler. I will not go over the entire report, but there was one thing in particular that blew me away at the time and still does. I am talking about the $4 billion that the federal government gave GM to save or strengthen the GM pension plan. GM used $1 billion to save or strengthen the U.S. pension plan. This means that $1 billion of Canadian money went straight to the United States. There was no oversight at all by the government, no call for accountability.As a result, the Conservatives are trying to win political points with a motion like this one. It is ill-advised, but we cannot help but agree with it, since it sets out some fairly obvious facts. The truth is that the motion is an attempt to draw attention away from the government's mismanagement of the GM and Chrysler bailout, its failure to require accountability, and the political decision it made later to quickly sell shares in order to artificially balance the budget, as we can still see on the books today.Does that mean that the current Liberal government is off the hook? Not really, because the Liberals will have a serious challenge to face with the upcoming budget. During the 2015 election campaign, the Liberals promised to run deficits. Many Canadians think that those deficits will be incurred only for infrastructure, but that is not the case.The Liberals promised deficits of approximately $25 billion over the next four years, with a return to a balanced budget in the fourth year. That is completely unrealistic, given the way things are now, the economic and fiscal update, and particularly the parliamentary budget officer's December 2015 report. When we take those things into account, the Liberal government is currently facing an accumulated deficit of $55 billion at the end of four years, including an $11-billion deficit in the fourth year, because of the promises it made and the current economic climate. That could happen if the Liberals keep their election promises, and it reflects the fiscal framework they presented during the election campaign.I want to say that during the election campaign, the Liberals themselves probably promised too much in relation to Canada's fiscal capacity. At that time, we were extremely cautious with our forecasts, because we knew that the Canadian economy might be facing a struggle. That is why we wanted to be careful about what we promised. That is not what the Liberals did during the election campaign. They were elected based on all the changes they promised to Canadians, so now Canadians want to see some results, including the reversal of the Conservative reforms to employment insurance, as promised, or the reopening of certain things that were closed by the Conservatives. One example would be the marine radio communications centres. The Minister of National Revenue, who is also the member for Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine, promised to reopen the marine communications and traffic services centre in Rivière-au-Renard, which does not appear to be one of her government's priorities.We are taking notes. Obviously, we are going to be watching closely and we will carefully study the Liberal government's upcoming budget. We will be here to make sure that the government keeps the promises on which it was elected, because many of those promises were similar to promises and commitments that we had also made. I can assure the House that we will be here to hold the Liberals to account when the promises that got them here are not honoured.

Mr. Speaker, allow me to make something perfectly clear: the reforms we choose must be designed to address the needs of all Canadians and go far beyond addressing the interests of the parties we represent. I urge all members of the House to adopt the same principle and work with us as we enhance our democratic institutions and serve the best interests of Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in Edmonton, the Prime Minister was asked a very direct question. His response, or his non-response, was very troubling, troubling to every resource worker who is laid off and all of their families that are worrying about where their next paycheque will come from. The Prime Minister could not bring himself to say yes yesterday, so I am going to ask him here one more time. If job-creating energy projects get through his new process at the National Energy Board, will the Liberal cabinet also approve them, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé for her question. Her riding is right next to mine, Saint-Maurice—Champlain.I can assure my colleague that I have been working hard to move forward on the pyrrhotite file every day since I was elected on October 19. It is a complicated file, but things are progressing. I really thank my colleague, as well as the member for Trois-Rivières. The three members from the Mauricie region have raised this issue co-operatively, because we want to move it forward in order to help the victims.

Mr. Speaker, here is the problem. The Prime Minister already has a record of blocking job-creating energy projects. Northern gateway was approved with 204 conditions, but then the Prime Minister killed it with his unilateral transportation ban off the west coast, so that is his record. It would do a lot more for investor confidence and public confidence if the government would stand behind its own process.I ask again, if new projects get through this new process, will they be approved by the Liberal government, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to tell the House that this past week dozens of leading experts, including those from the front line, met at the University of Regina to discuss a national strategy on post-traumatic stress injuries. My parliamentary secretary and I participated. First responders, those we ask to stand in harm's way to keep Canadians safe, rightfully deserve the highest level of care and support. The Minister of Health and I are mandated to ensure that this is in fact the case. We are grateful for all the national support and enthusiasm for that effort.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to underline the decisive steps that our government has taken to address challenges facing our economy, steps we took immediately after the Canadian people handed us a majority mandate for a new approach that prioritizes long-term economic growth. Since last fall, we continue to see headlines about the weakness in the global economy. Despite volatility in this economy, what Canadians can always count on is the tireless professionalism of the many public servants working on their behalf. This is why I am so taken by the opposition's efforts to drag civil servants of the Department of Finance into an effort to score passive aggressive partisan points. It is simply unacceptable.The numbers up to November 2015 are clear. They are in line with a projected small deficit for 2015-2016. Let us take a closer look at the numbers. Revenues for the April to November 2015 period increased by $14.2 billion, or 8.2%, from the same period last year. These numbers are the result of unique circumstances, circumstances that are no longer congruent with the current fiscal realities, circumstances that do not reflect the previous government's stewardship of the economy. These circumstances were in part due to a $2.1 billion gain realized on the sale of General Motors common shares in April and higher corporate income tax revenues.The opposition cannot bank on one-off situations and then claim sound economic management. The reality is that revenue growth is expected to slow over the remainder of the fiscal year, reflecting economic trends of collapsing commodity prices, prices that have not yet recovered and look to remain low over the medium term. The only people who believe that the previous Conservative government left behind a surplus are the Conservatives themselves. Canadians know better.Make no mistake, the Government of Canada will post a deficit for the 2015-2016 fiscal year, and that deficit rests squarely on the shoulders of the actions taken and inaction of the previous government. This is a fact. The previous Liberal government left behind a $13 billion surplus in 2006. The Conservative government squandered that surplus and accumulated an additional $150 billion in new debt, while still managing to deliver the worst growth record since the Great Depression. We have been, and will continue to be, proactive managers of the economy. Since our earliest days in office, we have had a plan to grow the economy, create jobs, and invest in communities. It began with the government, as its first order of business on December 7, tabling a notice of ways and means motion to provide a much-needed tax cut for Canada's middle class. This is the first of three major economic planks on which we are moving forward. They reflect on what we feel is the lifeblood of Canadian society, the middle class. I want to remind the opposition that it is our government that has brought tax relief to the middle class during these troubled times, a tax cut that puts money into the pockets of about nine million Canadians each year. This was the right thing to do and the smart thing to do for our economy. The proposed middle-class tax cut and accompanying proposals will help make the tax system fairer, so that all Canadians have the opportunity to succeed and prosper. Canada is in a strong position to face the future. Our debt-to-GDP ratio is well below the G7 average, and keeping our debt-to-GDP ratio on a downward trajectory throughout our mandate remains a central plank of our economic agenda. We have a well-educated population. We have abundant natural resources. We are fortunate to have the world's largest economy as a neighbour. Also, diplomatically, Canada is back on the world stage in a big way. We are actively pursuing a long-term vision.Many leading economists agree that strategic planning and investment in bridges, roads, and other building projects are essential ingredients for creating long-term economic growth. This type of investment requires forethought, planning, and most importantly, working with others. Our government is committed to working with provinces, municipalities, and indigenous communities to ensure that our funding decisions make sense for the present and future needs of those communities. Going forward, the government will introduce proposals in the budget to create a new Canada child benefit. Payments under the new Canada child benefit would begin in July 2016. In addition to replacing the universal child care benefit, which is not tied to income, the proposed Canada child benefit would simplify and consolidate existing child benefits, while ensuring that help is better targeted to those who need it most.All of these initiatives demonstrate that our sights are clearly set on the future. These actions would help strengthen the middle class and those who are working hard to join it by putting more money in the pockets of Canadians to save, invest, and grow the economy. More broadly, they would help grow our economy in the context of a difficult global economic climate, so that all Canadians can benefit.We have also brought an open and collaborative approach to how we are going to solve the problems that are facing us. To ensure that our plan is aligned with Canadians' needs, the government is continuing its pre-budget consultations online, as well as through submissions. We are open to hearing what Canadians have to say, and we have been encouraged by the record number of people engaged in sharing their ideas. So far, Canadians have identified economic growth as their top priority. Canadians know that economic growth means bettering their own circumstances, but also bettering their communities. Canadians identify economic growth with opportunities not only for themselves but for the people in their communities and, indeed, across our great country. The government will continue to develop measures and pursue a fiscal plan that is responsible, transparent, and suited to these challenging economic times. These plans will be most effective when all of us seize the opportunities to grow our economy together and for the benefit of all. Now is the time to overcome the challenges we face in our economy, in the House, and in Canadian homes. Given the headwinds that the Canadian economy is facing, it makes sense to follow through on our commitment to a strong and growing middle class, because it is central to a healthy economy and helps to ensure that all Canadians have a fair and real chance to succeed.The economic and fiscal update presented in November gave Canadians a transparent picture of our economic and fiscal situation. It makes clear that the previous government put the country on track for a $3 billion deficit. It takes into account such factors as low and volatile crude oil prices and a weak global economic environment, risk factors that have become more pronounced in recent months.After 10 years of weak growth, this government has a plan to grow the economy, to create jobs by focusing on the middle class, by investing in infrastructure, and by helping those who need it most. My colleagues have spoken about the support that our plan has already received and, indeed, that our plan has received in my riding of Mississauga—Lakeshore. We will continue our focus, and we will aim to grow the economy in a responsible way, with a long-term vision.

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to support the work of my colleague, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, as he leads our work on the Marrakesh Treaty. Over one million Canadians who suffer from vision loss, including me, really need to have this kind of alternate format. I am very proud to be part of a government that triumphs and trumpets accessibility and inclusion, and I look forward to bringing this to the House.

Mr. Speaker, I understand the great work done by this institute. It does great work to commercialize innovative ideas to market to help SMEs. We have had a productive conversation with it, and we will provide it with a timely response in regard to funding. We understand the importance of growing the economy. We understand the importance of innovation and creating jobs, and we will continue to work with that institute and other institutes across the country.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage members opposite to Google the Parliament of Canada Act, read section 49, and conclude themselves whether they followed the law on November 5.My question is for the Attorney General. What will she do to uphold the rule of law and ensure that ministers acted in accordance with section 49?

Madam Speaker, 2006 was a good budget. The Conservatives had just inherited a $13-billion surplus from the Liberals before them. We did not expect them to spend it all in one go, but that is exactly what happened.We do acknowledge that 2009 and 2010 were stimulus budgets. We did agree that Canada should invest about $60 billion in stimulus. That was agreed upon, but the government went on to create another $90 billion in debt that we did not agree to. Sometimes agreement is not the worst thing in the world.

Mr. Speaker, I found that really funny. It is going to be hard after that. It is kind of weird.One of the things I did note in committee today, in all fairness, is that we do not want pre-budget consultations at the committee to hold up the budget. Canadians want a budget. They want a plan. They want to know what is going on.My question to the Minister of Finance is pretty simple. Does he feel he has the ability to actually make a decision and tell us when the budget will be?

Mr. Speaker, the committee met for the first time this morning and established a process whereby we will look at all important issues and determine which ones need to come first. Every issue dealing with the safety and security of Canadians will be considered seriously.

Mr. Speaker, going by the information that is in front of us, it is clear that what the motion talks about is that our government has left a surplus. It is time the Liberals started recognizing that.

Mr. Speaker, our election platform also included significant infrastructure investments because we recognize that there is a serious infrastructure deficit in this country. This is recognized by all municipalities, in Quebec and elsewhere in the country, and also by the general public. The difference between the two programs is that ours provided for more investments in the second, third, and fourth years so that the municipalities could plan their projects. It provided $5 billion for the current new building Canada plan. Doubling this amount in the first year does not mean that there will be enough worthwhile and shovel-ready projects to invest in.We would have preferred that there be more money for the second, third, and fourth years, but the fact that there will be major investments is important in itself.However, this should not become an excuse for wasting money by investing for the sake of investing. We must ensure that the investments are productive and that they boost the economy and Canadian productivity.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say how much I appreciate the question from the hon. member, because it provides me with an opportunity to remind all the people here that we actually lowered taxes on nine million Canadians. As of January 1 this year, nine million Canadians have more money in their pockets.It is true that we raised taxes on a very small proportion of Canadians, whom perhaps the hon. member is talking about. We recognize that we have helped the vast majority of people in this country.

Mr. Speaker, we certainly recognize that the Port of Québec is an important port along the St. Lawrence that is part of Quebec's maritime strategy. This port plays a key role in the delivery of bulk commodities and, as my colleague mentioned, in the ferry sector. We are examining this request and will make a decision in the near future.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that question from my learned friend from Newmarket—Aurora. He was a year behind me at Dalhousie Law School and I am quite sure he graduated. I know he did and he had a very successful law practice before coming to this place.As a lawyer, he knows that before we conclude, as he mentioned in his remarks, we have evidence and the evidence is clear. We did run a deficit, but the previous prime minister was crystal clear with Canadians that our deficit spending was time limited, was stimulative, and was part of a longer term plan to get to balance by 2014-15, which we did. At the time, as I said previously, we lowered taxes on Canadians, particularly families and seniors, and grew the economy modestly. Our success record was stronger than most countries in the G7 through that global recession. The difference and the line in the sand we are drawing is the plan the new Liberal government seems to have deficits going up with no end in sight, not going down. The deficits were estimated to be $10 billion or $20 billion in their election plan, going to $60 billion plus. I would urge that bright young member of the House to speak up on Wednesdays and pull the reins back on spending in his caucus.

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on being re-elected. Since he has been here for some time, I wonder if he agreed with the strategy the late Mr. Flaherty used under the previous government. He implemented an economic action plan to stimulate the economy by investing billions of dollars.I am curious to know if he agreed with the previous government's strategy and if he would agree with a similar strategy to stimulate our economy in 2016 and beyond, if need be.

Mr. Speaker, Statistics Canada estimates that there are over one million blind or partially visually disabled Canadians. However, only 7% of literature is available in accessible formats like Braille, large print, and audio formats. The Marrakesh Treaty amends copyright rules to give visually impaired Canadians access to 285,000 accessible books. We recently introduced legislation in the previous Parliament to adopt this treaty here in Canada, but it was interrupted by the election. I wonder if the government today would consider re-introducing that legislation so it could be passed forthwith.

Mr. Speaker, our position is very clear. It is only my colleague who is a bit confused. I will try to clarify it again for him.Indeed, Canada's support for Ukraine is solid and will remain. Our friendship for Ukraine is not a matter of party or of government. It is a friendship between two countries that will remain.Our ability to help Ukraine will be improved, though, because instead of snubbing Russia and not speaking to it, we will speak to Russia and tell it that what it is doing to Ukraine is wrong, as other countries are saying. Our—

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.First I want to thank him for having pointed out that, in their motion, the Conservatives tried to exploit officials at the Department of Finance for political purposes, which is unfortunate. I would like him to clarify the following point once again for our Conservative colleagues. The Conservatives just picked a number that suited them. If no changes had been made in the estimates, in other words, in the Conservative government's spending, there would have been a deficit at the end of this fiscal year, Can he clarify this matter? I just want it to be clear for our Conservative colleagues. Can he confirm that that is what would have happened without any changes to the government's plans?

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I would like to ask him to explain to the House why the Conservatives are suddenly so afraid of deficits. Today is not the first time we have heard this.The Conservatives are getting all worked up because the government is predicting a deficit, when they racked up $153 billion in debt during their mandate. Furthermore, a Conservative finance minister proposed this strategy to stimulate the economy. They decided to make significant investments as part of what they called Canada's economic action plan.Now, when this government is talking about doing the same thing, the Conservatives seem to be working themselves into a state because the government has an action plan similar to the one they proposed. Why are they suddenly against deficits now, when they themselves racked up $153 billion in debt during their mandate?

The question everyone has been waiting for, Mr. Speaker. I am just wondering if the government House leader could update the House on the business for the rest of the week and for the week that we return after our constituency work week.

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned a few things in her question. The record would show that during the global recession the government eased EI rules to make sure that there was a longer period. Knowing that the economy would be tight, we provided more flexibility for people to qualify. That is something we have been urging the new Prime Minister to extend to Alberta in the challenging situations it has been in. We have made sure that going forward the EI fund will be run prudently and not picked from as the previous Liberal government did regularly.The member also mentioned the auto sector and I am passionate about that, representing the Durham region part of Oshawa. I would note I was born in Quebec. My father worked at General Motors at Sainte-Thérèse and am very proud of that plant, which closed under the Chrétien government. Our trade deals and our deals we signed with the European Union in particular, on top of the loan we provided for the auto sector to help it through the global recession, are causing what is happening now, record sales in autos. Along with Ontario, we took back the money we loaned as was the normal plan. We have an auto sector today, with the Edge vehicle built in Oakville, for around the world new investments, and the auto innovation fund. We secured an industry that was on the precipice. We are not going to let happen to Oshawa what the last Liberal government let happen to Sainte-Thérèse.

Mr. Speaker, most recently in New Brunswick, the minister of finance and government there had to change their income tax rates as a result of changes that were made by the Liberal government to its income tax rates, regarding taxing higher tax brackets. I would like the parliamentary secretary to guarantee for me in the House that, when the Liberals introduce their new child benefit, which will be tax free, they will not be detrimentally affecting the finances of our provinces.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her question. I would like to remind her what happened last year when the budget was actually announced far after the traditional season.This year we are working to listen to Canadians as best we can. We have heard from thousands upon thousands of Canadians. We have had 3,500 submissions. We owe it to Canadians to actually go through those submissions. We are doing so.We will get to the budget as expeditiously as we can, recognizing our challenging economic environment.

Madam Speaker, throughout the debate, we heard a number of Conservatives talking about how they restored a balanced budget. However, they are forgetting to say how they managed to achieve that. The main reason is that they asked each and every department to cut its budget by between 5% and 10%. The member should know something about this, since he was a minister and he must have had to make cuts in his own department to come up with the money that Treasury Board was asking for.I wonder if the member would at least acknowledge that the reason why they might have, possibly, balanced the budget in 2015-16—although the numbers suggest otherwise—was that it would have been done at the expense of services to Canadians and public services in general.

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I seek unanimous consent for the following motion: That, notwithstanding any Standing or Special Order, at the conclusion of the debate on today's opposition motion, all questions necessary to dispose of the motion be deemed put, a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until Tuesday, February 16, 2016, at the conclusion of oral questions.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things my colleague from Barrie—Innisfil outlined is the surplus that was left for the Liberals. A month later the Liberal government outlined a deficit of over $3 billion. Has the Liberal government communicated to my colleague where or how it is spending the money? Has it provided any transparency or accountability to the House or to my colleague as a member of Parliament to date?

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are the only ones who are self-interested. Since my hon. colleague says that we are not following the recommendations made by our officials or departmental staff, I will quote the Update of Economic and Fiscal Projections 2015: The Government will pursue an approach to fiscal management that is realistic, sustainable, prudent and transparent. This Update of Economic and Fiscal Projections reviews the federal government’s economic and fiscal outlook, which has deteriorated since the previous Government presented the budget in April 2015. The Canadian economy contracted in the first half of 2015... These economic developments have led to a downward adjustment to the fiscal outlook. These developments have reduced the projected budgetary balance by about $6.0 billion per year, on average, relative to Budget 2015... These are the fiscal projections inherited by this Government. Why does my colleague opposite keep telling Canadians things that are not true?

Mr. Speaker, government ministers, at all times, must comply with the law, whether they are in caucus or out. The government does not get to pick and choose which laws they get to follow and which laws are appropriate for them to follow. They must follow the law. The rule of law is the most sacrosanct principle of our democracy.I encourage members opposite to Google the Parliament of Canada Act, section 49—

Mr. Speaker, more than anyone else, we do trust the public servants who will help us frame the next budget.I had the privilege to travel with people from the department to listen to Canadians from coast to coast to coast. I had about 50 meetings with officials. We listened to Canadians. I can say that to serve with these people was one of the proudest moments I have had. They are excellent, and I am very proud of the work they are doing. We are working collaboratively to build the best budget. On October 19, 2015, the people gave us a strong mandate, a mandate to work for them, to work for the middle class, and to build infrastructure to grow our economy. That is what the minister is doing, that is what I am doing, and that is what the people of the department are doing.

Mr. Speaker, there are 8,000 jobs in the greater Quebec City area associated with the Port of Québec. The ferry terminal project and the Foulon walkway project, which our party supported during the election campaign, are important to the port's prosperity.The Port of Québec is still waiting for an answer from the Liberal government.Will the Prime Minister assure the people of Quebec City that he will not drag his feet and jeopardize jobs, as he is doing elsewhere in the country?

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for this excellent question.It is not just about numbers. We could discuss and debate numbers all week, if we wanted to.It is principally a question of looking forward and growing our economy. One cannot take a snapshot and say that there is a surplus. No one in business does that. They look at long-term projections. Over the period that the previous government was in power, we clearly saw not only a deficit but also the worst economic record since the Great Depression.Once again, in October Canadians resoundingly told us that the globally integrated Canadian economy needs investment, needs nurturing, and needs active attention on the part of its government.

Mr. Speaker, on January 30, the joint rescue coordination centre in Halifax responded to a distress call from a fishing boat, and the Canadian Coast Guard quickly took action to help the people aboard the Jill Marie.A Canadian Armed Forces aircraft and a Coast Guard vessel, the CCGS Spray, were dispatched to conduct the search and rescue effort. The five fishermen on board were rescued before the boat sank and they are safe and sound, much to the relief of their families. This is one of 9,000 rescue operations conducted by the Canadian Coast Guard each year.I invite all members of the House of Commons to recognize the work done by the men and women of our Coast Guard.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Outremont for his question.Parliament will have an opportunity to study the TPP by means of a parliamentary committee, and there will be consultations with Canadians. We will certainly examine the impact on various sectors, and we will look not only at the challenges, but also at the solutions should we decide to ratify the agreement.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member fully appreciates that provincial decisions are not something the federal government is really in a position to comment on. However, I can say that our government is focused on investment in infrastructure. We believe that social infrastructure, transit, roads, rail, and most importantly, green infrastructure are the lifeblood and the transition that is going to take this economy from where it is now to be well positioned and internationally competitive into the future. By making those investments we are defining the foundation upon which our country was built and what the economy will be built on not only today but into the future. That is why our government is committed to that in the budget.

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member opposite that this government is very committed to making sure that we have strong Canadian businesses from coast to coast to coast. When it comes to this particular transaction, there are clear guidelines set in the Investment Canada Act, the legislative framework that makes it very clear that there is a process in place to deal with these kinds of transactions.The bottom line is that jobs are important and making sure that we have the best interests of Canadians is important. We will make sure that we follow the process, that we have the resources in place, and that what we do is good for Quebeckers and Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, I am a rookie in the House. I believe that the biggest political fiction, since that is the topic, is that the Conservatives deliver balanced budgets while the Liberals do not. The Conservatives talk a lot about delivering balanced budgets but they are not good at delivering them. It is a distinction with a difference.Would my friend agree that, in the last 30 years, Liberal governments have delivered more balanced budgets than Conservative governments have, yes or no?

Madam Speaker, the reality is that overall, Canada's middle class has prospered throughout the last decade. Very recent events that have struck the world economy and have affected our resource sector have caused families to suffer, and that is precisely why we need to continue to lower taxes. We need a strong fiscal position, and we need to free up resource development projects and pipelines that would create new jobs and renewed opportunity for people right across this country.

Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday to the member, this is a very important issue. The Investment Canada Act is very clear when it comes to the net-benefit analysis that is done. Because this transaction is close to $3.2 billion, it would automatically trigger a net-benefit analysis. We will make sure that we have the appropriate resources and process in place to do the analysis. As I mentioned before, the Competition Bureau will look at it, the shareholders will look at it, but the bottom line is that we will do what is in the best interests of Canadians and Quebeckers.

Mr. Speaker, our number one priority is the economy. We will make investments in aerospace, automotive, by-products, biopharmaceuticals, business services, chemicals and plastics, digital media, financial services, food and beverage, media devices, mining industries, oil and gas, renewable energy, retail, and software. I can go on and on, but the bottom line is that we will grow the economy and create jobs.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Saint-Maurice—Champlain on his election and on his fine speech in the House today. I listened to him closely, but unfortunately, I did not hear the word pyrrhotite. In Mauricie, there are victims of the pyrrhotite problem. Nearly 4,000 families may be affected by this crisis.During the election campaign, we promised to help these victims with very large investments. The Liberal Party also made promises to that effect. I hope to see money for this in the upcoming budget.Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance say whether the upcoming budget will include money for the pyrrhotite victims and whether that money will be separate from the money announced for infrastructure?

Mr. Speaker, as this is the first time I am standing in the House in this new Parliament, I will start by thanking the voters of Edmonton—Wetaskiwin for their strong support in this last election. We got just a little more than 45,000 votes, which was the fifth highest vote total in the country. There was strong support for our Conservative record over the past decade for a balanced budget and significant leadership in navigating our country's course through the global economic slowdown of 2008.I want to take the opportunity to thank my kids, Jaden and Jenae, who played an increased role in the campaign and also play an increasing role in my position as a member of Parliament, in coming on the road and helping me do a lot of the work that I do on autism. Many people know that my 20-year-old son has autism, and many people in this room have received a high-five from him at some time or another. I thank them for sharing me with constituents and stakeholders, both in the constituency and across the country.I will also take this chance to thank my mom, Bonnie, and her husband, Dale, for their tireless support. One of the highlights of my week is driving with my mother to the airport. It is our time together. When we do not get any other time to spend together, we get 20 minutes when she comes to pick me up, sometimes at 5:30 in the morning, and takes me to the airport. It is a great opportunity for us to catch up.I will also take the opportunity to thank my staff in both my Edmonton and Ottawa offices, who do and have done phenomenal work over 10 years in support of what we get a chance to do.Finally, and I think it is important in the context of what we are talking about today, I want to thank the officials at Industry Canada. I had the opportunity to be the parliamentary secretary for eight years at Industry, and those public servants were absolutely phenomenal during that time in supporting me. I was always amazed at how they could take a complicated topic and within half an hour give a briefing that would help me look sometimes like an expert, which may be debatable from different sides of the House. However, the work they do is phenomenal and it was a great pleasure to work with them in addition to the ministerial staff and ministers that I got a chance to work with.On the topic we are talking about today, as we went through the election campaign I heard, and have heard a lot since, about the importance of balanced budgets, and the importance of that Conservative leadership that we have shown on the economy over the last decade. I also heard a lot about the strength of the Canadian middle class. There was a recognition of that as I was on the campaign trail. However, there were a lot of things being said during the campaign that were not entirely true. I think we still hear some of that coming from the government side today in the image it is trying to portray.I will focus today on three Liberal fictions that I have seen over the last several months as we have been going through this.First, there is a fiction that Canada's middle class is struggling. Certainly we all want Canadians to be better off. We all want to create an environment where all Canadians can succeed, no matter their level of wealth, their job, or position in life. However, the fact is that Canada's middle class is the strongest in the world. It is not the former Conservative government that is saying that. It is not our Conservative members of Parliament who are saying that. The New York Times reported on the Luxembourg Income Study, which put forward a paper that talked about Canada being number one in the world in terms of income levels at the 30th, 40th, and 50th income percentiles. These are independent organizations that have said that. Notwithstanding that, the Liberals, during the election campaign and even now, continue to talk about the struggling Canadian middle class. Andrew Coyne put it brilliantly when he wrote back in May that: Introducing his “fairness for the middle class” tax plan, [the Liberal leader] waxed lyrical about a golden time, still within memory, when opportunity beckoned and the sun shone year ’round. Coyne continued: Of course, there was no such era. It was just something to say--the same myth-making on which the entire plan is based. In Liberal mythology, the middle class is forever to be “struggling”, forgotten, falling behind. Coyne concluded by saying: But then, every line of the Liberal story is a fraud. The middle class isn't struggling: the $53,000 the median family earned after tax in 2012 is an all-time high--24% more than in 1997, after inflation. The rich aren't pulling away from the rest of us: the share of all income going to the top 1% has been falling steadily since 2006. At 10.3 per cent, it is back to where it was in 1998. I will give the final word to none other than a prominent conservative speaker, Hillary Clinton, who said: Canadian middle-class incomes are now higher than in the United States. They are working fewer hours for more pay, enjoying a stronger safety net, living longer on average, and facing less income inequality. The fact of the matter is that this notion that Canada's middle class is struggling that the Liberals campaigned on is a complete fiction.A second fiction, and the one we are debating today, is the fact that they inherited a deficit. I say “fact”. I put quotation marks around that because the fact is that the Department of Finance has confirmed that Canada posted a $1-billion surplus up to November 2015, when the Liberals took office.That is very important because there have been a lot of things said today and over the course of the last several months. It very important to notice that in addition to the $1-billion surplus, we increased funding for the Canada health transfer by 6% over that year period and a 3% increase in the Canada social transfer over that period. That is a $1.5-billion increase in these two important transfers.After the 2008 global financial crisis, the Conservative government laid out a comprehensive stimulus plan and a seven-year plan to get back to budget balance. It was interesting to hear the Liberal member opposite allude to that earlier in his question. I know he is a new member and that he has maybe not had the benefit of doing a Google search before he asked the question, but if he did, he would find statement after statement by Liberal members of Parliament, from opposition members from all sides, absolutely demanding that the government spend more money, that we spend on a broader range of programs, and that we extend that spending. Of course, during that time, members will remember that our plan was targeted, it was time-limited, and our spending was designed to expire and we laid out a solid plan to get back to budget balance. However, time and again, every single day, Liberal members of Parliament stood and demanded more spending and demanded that spending be made permanent.It is a bit of a mythological world, I guess, that the Liberals live in over there, but hopefully today will clarify some of that record.Finally, I will deal with the last fiction, the fiction that they will only run $10-billion deficits every year.First, I underline the word “only”, because only $10 billion in deficit is a ridiculous way of phrasing it in the first place. Clearly, the Parliamentary Budget Officer has looked at the facts and projected that the deficits will be billions of dollars higher over the years. In fact, we are talking tens of billions of dollars higher—so high, in fact, that Liberal members cannot even clarify it. They have no way of quantifying what those numbers will be.Let me just close by saying that this is my first time in opposition. I very much look forward to holding the government to account. I want to avoid going back to the time when the Liberal government of the day, a former Trudeau government back in the 1970s, took steps to increase deficits and run massive deficits, starting the cycle in the first place and another Liberal government then had to slash spending on health care and social service and education transfers by billions of dollars.We hope that mistake will not be made by the government. We will oppose those types of measures every step of the way. On this important motion, we hope that we will have the support of all members of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Outremont for his question.We will study the impact of the TPP. That is what we have been doing by holding consultations since October 19, as we did during the election campaign, and that is what we will continue to do by means of the Standing Committee on International Trade here in Parliament. The important thing is whether we ratify the agreement. Signing it does not mean much; ratifying it does. We will make that decision after we study the agreement.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for his very important question.This afternoon, we will continue debate on the Conservative Party's opposition motion. Tomorrow, the House will debate Bill C-4, which repeals provisions having to do with unions.On Tuesday, February 16, after our constituency work week, as my colleague says, we will resume debate on this very important bill.On Wednesday, we will commence second reading debate on the bill currently standing on the order paper in the name of the President of the Treasury Board.Lastly, I would like to designate Thursday, February 18, as the fourth opposition day of this supply period.I want to wish you, Mr. Speaker, and colleagues a very productive and hard-working week in your constituencies and look forward to seeing everybody back on February 16.

Mr. Speaker, I want to answer with a quote: “I believe Canada will be direct, strong, and firm in its pressure on Russia.” Who said that? The Prime Minister of Ukraine.That is the point. If the Government of Ukraine understands it, I am sure my colleague will.

Mr. Speaker, governments in the past have chosen conflict over co-operation and have unilaterally changed voting rules in an often self-serving manner. With the commitment that October 19 was the last first-past-the-post election, we must now create a voting system that truly respects and reflects the wishes of Canadians. They expect that the committee tasked with this momentous responsibility must also respect and reflect their wishes.Will the minister agree to our proposal to work with the NDP, the Conservatives, the Bloc, and the Greens and seize this historic opportunity together?

Mr. Speaker, the member is seeking to confuse two issues. The statute to which he referred refers to a caucus vote. A caucus vote is different than a cabinet vote, and the member has been in cabinet and he knows that cabinet does not vote. What he is trying to do is phrase a question to make it properly the business of the government when he knows very well that we answered that question after our first caucus meeting in November.

Mr. Speaker, you know very well that the Minister of Justice acts every day to uphold the rule of law. This is a fundamental responsibility that she takes very seriously. We are proud of the extraordinary way she does that. The hon. member can be assured that at all times ministers, members of the caucus, and surely he would agree all members of Parliament uphold the the of law.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, a fishing boat called the Jill Marie and its crew ran into trouble off the coast of Yarmouth, Nova Scotia.As we know, our oceans can become dangerous for fishermen, with unexpected changes in weather.Would the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard explain to the House the response of the Canadian Coast Guard to this crisis situation?

Mr. Speaker, as the 150th anniversary of our nation's capital draws near, many of my constituents feel that Ottawa has not received equal treatment from the economic development agencies over the last decade to help develop local projects and strengthen the local economy. In fact, Ottawa has received less than a dollar per capita in federal development agency funding. Can the minister assure my constituents and all residents of the Ottawa region that we will be treated fairly when it comes to economic development projects?

Madam Speaker, it is great to be back here, and I would like to take the occasion to thank family and friends who supported me, volunteers who worked to help with my re-election, the electors who chose me, and even those who did not, for the privilege of serving in this august chamber. Most of all, I would like to thank the people of Carleton, my newly constituted riding, for giving me the chance. It is newly constituted, but it is very much a historical place. Sir John A. Macdonald was elected in the riding of Carleton, and the century before, its namesake, Sir Guy Carleton, was the Lieutenant-Governor of Quebec; so in a small sense, history is repeating itself with the re-emergence of these boundaries in this riding, but it is also repeating itself with the new government.We have today, as we did almost a century ago, a Prime Minister who is a Liberal, who is a Quebecker, and who speaks of sunny ways. Of course, sunny ways is not an expression he invented; it is one he inherited from then prime minister Laurier, who of course is one of the greatest prime ministers this country has ever had. Laurier said: Canada shall be the star towards which all men who love progress and freedom shall come. More freedom at that time meant less government. From 1900 to 1910, federal, provincial, and municipal spending was a combined 9% of GDP. Today, it is about 40%. Low-cost government meant a low-tax nation. To quote the authors of The Canadian Century, Crowley, Clemens, and Veldhuis: Laurier believed that the cost of government, and especially the tax burden, needed always to be kept below the level in the United States, so as to create a powerful competitive advantage for Canada. Then, as now, Canada's low-tax plan worked. In the first 20 years of the 20th century, our population grew by an unprecedented two-thirds, and to quote the previous authors, “the wheat yield in the three Prairie provinces rose during Laurier's time...” by 500%, new and repair construction increased by almost 400%, and exports more than doubled. The rate at which the new companies formed and were chartered grew by 12 times during the first decade of that century.That is a good moment in which to say that I will be splitting my time with the member for Abbotsford.If today's Prime Minister were to bring sunny ways such as these, I think we would all rejoice. In fact, despite Laurier's partisan affiliation to what we call the Liberal Party, he would probably have recognized himself more in the policies of the previous government than the current one.Conservatives in the last 10 years brought free trade, free markets, and free people. In fact, we left Canada the freest country in the world, according to the Legatum Prosperity Index. We had the sixth freest economy in the world, according to The Wall Street Journal, and according to the finance department last week, we also had a balanced budget.The Parliamentary Budget Officer has added that the projected surplus for this year, based on all the information available to him on the day that the current Liberal government took office, would have us running a surplus of $1.2 billion, and so in a sense the Prime Minister of today has inherited sunny ways from his predecessors in the recent past.Much has been said about the gap between the rich and the poor and the plight of the middle class. I am glad we should speak of these subjects, because over the last decade the facts are clear: families moved out of poverty and into the middle class. The middle class got ahead and better off than any other country in the world. Between 2005 and 2011, during which time the Conservative government was in power, the take-home pay among low-income families was up 14%, after tax and inflation.Even Andrew Coyne, who had previously endorsed the Liberals, admitted: In 2011, the last year for which StatsCanada has figures, the proportion of the population living on low income...fell to its lowest level—well, ever. At just 8.8%, it beat the previous record of 9.0%, set in 2010. As recently as 1996, it was at 15.2%. In other words, poverty fell by almost half in 20 years.Of course, child poverty would be expected to rise during the great global recession that resulted from the financial crisis of 2008. In fact, according to UNICEF, the opposite happened here in Canada. While children around the world were falling into poverty, here in Canada the child poverty rate decreased from 23% to 21% during the recession, pulling roughly 180,000 children out of poverty.How did this happen?First, the reality is that we increased the amount that Canadians could earn before they started paying taxes and removed one million low-income Canadians from the tax rolls altogether. The parliamentary budget officer said, “In total, cumulative changes have reduced federal tax revenue by $30 billion, or 12 per cent. These changes have been progressive, overall. Low and middle income earners have benefited more, in relative terms, than higher income earners.”The same report points out that the “highest 10 per cent of income earners benefit least, with after-tax gains of...1.4 per cent...”Our government enacted policies to free people from poverty, allowing them to enter the middle class. Yesterday's poor are today's middle class. What is the state of the middle class? The ultra Liberal New York Times had something to say on this subject. “Life in Canada, Home of the World’s Most Affluent Middle Class”, was the screaming headline.The same article went on to say, “After-tax middle-class incomes in Canada — substantially behind in 2000 — now appear to be higher than in the United States.” That must have been a very tough admission for The New York Times.Overall, under the previous government, personal income taxes are down 10%, and take-home pay is up 10% on average across all income levels. The median net worth of Canadians went up by 44%. We reduced poverty and freed middle-class strivers to get ahead, letting families keep more of what they earned. They earned bigger and better wages in a big, open, opportunity-filled, free-enterprise economy.There are other ways than tax relief to free people from despair and poverty and allow them to get ahead. I suggest that all of them are based on three pillars: work, family, and community. It is not government, but work, family, and community. A job is the best anti-poverty program there is; family is the best social safety net we have; and community is what is left to take care of those people who, through no fault of their own, have no work or perhaps cannot rely on family.I would like to share some stories that I heard along the way as we continue with this debate, but the time is now running out and members are anxious to get on with their questions. Therefore, I will just say that we in this country have an opportunity to continue to allow our middle class and our working families to get ahead if we remove the obstacles that government has put in the way, lift off the heavy burden of red tape, and continue to build an economy that is built on free trade, free enterprise, and free people. I say this because of something I learned when I was minister of employment. There was a bureaucratic decision to close a recycling plant not far from here that takes care of all of the used sensitive documents of the Government of Canada. There were 50 special needs people who recycled all of that paper on our behalf. They do it very well and at a very low cost. For some reason there was a bureaucratic decision to end that program. They were, of course, devastated. This was the place where they went, it was the place that gave them purpose, and it was a place, as they say in Cheers, where everybody knew their name. When I announced that I would intervene and save this program, I went to visit these incredible young people. I asked one young man what he liked best about his job. He said, “work”. I asked him how we could make the place better for him. He said, “Send more paper. I don't want it to run out because I want to keep working.” That is the kind of enterprising spirit that inspires us all to build the economy that we all want.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask a question for my hon. colleague across the way. Maybe she has the answer. The Liberal government continues to go on and on about this great engagement of Canadians from coast to coast to coast and meeting with stakeholder groups from communities far and wide. I would like to know the communities that government members are going into and if they can provide us with the geographic data, whether it is the 3,500 Canadians they have heard from, or the 80,000 that the Minister of Finance mentioned, or the 150,000 Canadians that have responded to their online forums. I would like to know the geographic data, where it is coming from, and who is advising the government.

Mr. Speaker, in our consultations thus far in the TPP, we have heard opinions for, we have seen studies for, we have heard opinions against and have had representations against.We are taking all of this into consideration. That will be the work of the committee. That will be a decision made before this Parliament. It will be this Parliament that decides whether we ratify the TPP.

Mr. Speaker, we signed the agreement precisely to give us the time to look at the accord, to look at the treaty in depth, to study it, to get the proper studies done, to do this work through our parliamentary committee. It is ratification that is important. We have not taken a decision on ratification yet. We signed it in order to give us the time to look at this treaty properly.

Mr. Speaker, in reading the motion, it mentions expressing thanks for the hard work of the department and its evidence-based analysis. I wonder whether the motion should be amended to recognize that its hard work and evidence-based analysis was ignored by the previous government.The motion goes on to thank the deputy minister and his team. Maybe we should further amend that and express our sympathies for having had to work with the ministers.Does the member think those would be appropriate amendments that the Conservative Party opposite would appreciate?

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government used a number of questionable strategies to balance the budget. It slashed postal services. It cut the CBC's funding, which has gutted regional news services, for example. It reduced its reserve from $3 billion to $1 billion. It pocketed $1 billion by selling its General Motors shares. It took billions of dollars from the employment insurance fund while just 38% of unemployed workers were entitled to benefits.Is the official opposition willing to pressure the government into keeping the employment insurance fund separate from the consolidated revenue fund and to have it serve those for whom it was created?

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, an American giant bought Rona, a Canadian company with 23,000 employees and many suppliers. At the same time, the government is signing the trans-Pacific partnership, an agreement that will cost us 60,000 good jobs, weaken family farms, and accelerate foreign control of our businesses.Why is the minister signing an agreement that is clearly bad for our jobs and our dairy farms?

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for her question. I can say that I have done an enormous number of pre-budget consultations across this country, in actuality from coast to coast.We have seen people from all sectors of the economy. I have listened more than any minister of finance has ever listened in the history of this country. We have 3,500 budget submissions.

Mr. Speaker, indeed, I was in Rome, where I took part in the coalition meeting. I assured the coalition that Canada would be a strong and committed partner whose approach would complement the work of the other coalition members.This integrated and effective plan was very well received. I cannot provide any details, as the Prime Minister will share the details with us and all Canadians, right here in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for that very important question.The national capital region is not just home to an amazing public service but home to a dynamic, innovative high-tech industry. I am working to support start-ups, scale-ups, and helping high-growth firms in Ottawa and across the country.I look forward to working in partnership with my colleagues as we gear up to celebrate Canada's 150th anniversary here in the national capital region and across Canada.

Mr. Speaker, at the first finance committee meeting today, on our suggestion, it was agreed that we do some pre-budget consultations, bringing in witnesses from across Canada.A suggestion was made as well that the Minister of Finance appear at the committee.My question for the minister is this. Will he take the invitation and appear before the committee for pre-budget consultations?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her question.As I just said, we are signing the agreement to give ourselves the time to have a parliamentary committee study it properly. Should we ratify the agreement, we will work with the sectors affected. That is a commitment we made during the election campaign, and that is exactly what we are doing.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for her answer, but she said “in a timely...way”. Does she not think these victims have already waited enough?Yesterday, the government signed the trans-Pacific partnership, which will add hundreds of millions of dollars to the cost of the public drug insurance plan, according to a recently published study.My question for the government is simple. Does it plan on compensating the provinces for the increased costs of their public drug insurance plans, yes or no?

Madam Speaker, I used Windsor as an example because I was there over the holidays. I went to visit family and friends and had long discussions. It came from their personal experience of what was happening in that city. I felt very strongly for a lot of the people that I had the good privilege to speak with. We need a different future. We need to make investments. We need to get Canadians back to work. The best thing we can do for people is to give them the opportunity to build a better future. That starts with a decent job and that is definitely the direction we are going with our growth packages as we move forward.

Mr. Speaker, we are getting information, feedback, and data from all over the country, from online submissions to emails directly to our constituency office. I was privileged enough to have a public pre-budget consultation in my riding, where a significant number of people attended. We also then met with the region, and others have met with the provincial leaders. We have met with all the stakeholders and are continuing to welcome any feedback. We look forward to members of the House asking their constituents to participate as well. The pre-budget consultation process is vastly important. We are privileged to have the participation of Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence has been causing confusion for weeks now. We still do not know how we are going to combat terrorism. We are not looking for reasons. It is time to find solutions.The minister is confused when he talks about the reasons for the rise in terrorism. Can he tell us how climate change is helping terrorists to cut people's heads off with knives and plant bombs?

Mr. Speaker, what a surprise to hear a member from that party speaking about attempting to intimidate a court. Canadians were shocked, and international jurists were shocked, when the former government tried to publicly intimidate the chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. That is something we will never do.

Mr. Speaker, this is outrageous. This is political interference in the courts. Is there any court in Canada that can escape the reach of the new Liberal government? No one has ever done this before. No one has even had the gall to attempt something like this before. Every minister in the past who has interfered with these tribunals has resigned. When is he going to get to it?

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government signed the trans-Pacific partnership, which the Conservatives negotiated in secret, without conducting an economic impact study. Canadian innovators and creators are afraid of losing billions of dollars by giving the United States the upper hand on intellectual property. The founder of BlackBerry even called the agreement “the worst thing in policy that Canada's ever done”.Why is the Prime Minister bent on signing an agreement that we know will hurt jobs and innovation in Canada?

Mr. Speaker, the U.S. Senate hearing on Canadian fast-tracking of Syrian refugees heard yesterday that it would almost be impossible for Canadian officials to acquire the specialized skills needed to screen refugees under the pressure of the Liberal election timeline.My question is for the chair of the public safety committee. This morning, Liberals on that committee blocked a study on refugee security screening. Why is the safety of Canadians not important enough for the committee to study it immediately?

Mr. Speaker, we only sign something if we agree with it.Everyone but the Liberal government understands that.Yesterday morning, Quebeckers woke up to bad news. Rona has been sold to American interests. Rona employees do not know what is going to happen to them tomorrow, but the bosses are pocketing $40 million.Will the minister commit to releasing the mandatory review of this foreign takeover and if so, will he table it here in the House so that everyone will know what is happening with our jobs here at home?

Mr. Speaker, it is time for the government to clarify its foreign policy positions, given the confusion and contradictions coming from the Liberals. On the one hand, the foreign minister has said that Canada will break from our Conservative government's principled positions on Russia and its illegal occupation of Ukraine. On the other hand, the Liberal MP for Etobicoke Centre said in Kiev this week that there is no change in Canadian policy on Ukraine.Exactly who speaks on behalf of Liberal foreign policy?

Mr. Speaker, governments in the past have chosen conflict over co-operation and have unilaterally changed voting rules in an often self-serving manner. With the commitment that October 19 was the last first-past-the-post election, we must now create a voting system that truly respects and reflects the wishes of Canadians. They expect that the committee tasked with this momentous responsibility must also respect and reflect their wishes.Will the minister agree to our proposal to work with the NDP, the Conservatives, the Bloc, and the Greens and seize this historic opportunity together?

Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, a fishing boat called the Jill Marie and its crew ran into trouble off the coast of Yarmouth, Nova Scotia.As we know, our oceans can become dangerous for fishermen, with unexpected changes in weather.Would the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard explain to the House the response of the Canadian Coast Guard to this crisis situation?

Again, Mr. Speaker, there is no plan ISIS is a jihadi terrorist organization that is committing mass atrocities against religious and ethnic minorities. These are terrorists who believe in a dangerously radicalized version of Islam. The Liberals are constantly rationalizing their behaviour and making excuses for ISIS. Now the Minister of National Defence is blaming climate change for ISIS.Does the Minister of National Defence actually believe that climate change creates jihadi terrorists?

Mr. Speaker, our position is very clear. It is only my colleague who is a bit confused. I will try to clarify it again for him.Indeed, Canada's support for Ukraine is solid and will remain. Our friendship for Ukraine is not a matter of party or of government. It is a friendship between two countries that will remain.Our ability to help Ukraine will be improved, though, because instead of snubbing Russia and not speaking to it, we will speak to Russia and tell it that what it is doing to Ukraine is wrong, as other countries are saying. Our—

Mr. Speaker, the previous Conservative government notoriously mismanaged the temporary foreign worker program and allowed abuse to flourish. It meant downward pressure on wages and working conditions for Canadian workers, while encouraging the exploitation of foreign workers.Now the TPP will make this worse. Employers will not even have to show that they could not hire Canadians to do the job before bringing in temporary foreign workers.Will the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour stand today in the House and urge her government not to ratify the TPP unless changes are made in this clause to ensure it will not bring the TFW back to Canada through the back door.

Mr. Speaker, I will ask the question again and maybe we will get an answer.For days now we have been asking the Minister of National Defence what his plan is to deal with the Islamic State. He said that the Minister of Foreign Affairs was dealing with it while he was in Rome. The Minister of Foreign Affairs has returned. Did he submit his plan to the Minister of National Defence and can he share that plan with the rest of us?

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.First I want to thank him for having pointed out that, in their motion, the Conservatives tried to exploit officials at the Department of Finance for political purposes, which is unfortunate. I would like him to clarify the following point once again for our Conservative colleagues. The Conservatives just picked a number that suited them. If no changes had been made in the estimates, in other words, in the Conservative government's spending, there would have been a deficit at the end of this fiscal year, Can he clarify this matter? I just want it to be clear for our Conservative colleagues. Can he confirm that that is what would have happened without any changes to the government's plans?

Mr. Speaker, the only people who believe that the previous Conservative government left a surplus are the Conservatives themselves.Canadians will not be fooled. Make no mistake, the Government of Canada is going to run a deficit for the 2015-16 fiscal year, a deficit that will result from the previous government's measures and inaction. That is a fact.

Mr. Speaker, middle-class Canadians need Liberal governments to get out of the way and not raise their taxes. That is simple. If it keeps raising taxes, there will be less revenue and fewer jobs. When will the finance minister realize that taxing Canadians is not a solution for prosperity in this country?

Mr. Speaker, Canadians learned today that it is upwards of 3,000 indigenous people, who suffered abuse in residential schools, who have had their claims denied because of a technicality. It was the Department of Justice that came up with this loophole, and argued against these victims in court. This is contrary to the spirit of reconciliation and a violation of the residential schools agreement.Will the Minister of Justice instruct her officials to back down? Will she also apologize for this tactic and provide the compensation these survivors are entitled to?

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have been all over the map on the fight against ISIS. The Minister of National Defence suggested that we would stop ISIS from spreading into Libya. The Minister of Foreign Affairs said that no, we were not. The foreign affairs minister said that Canada would focus on improving security in Jordan and Lebanon and the defence minister said that no, we were going to stay in Iraq. Finally, when the defence minister was asked what the Liberal anti-ISIS plan was, he said that we should ask the Minister of Foreign Affairs who was in in Rome.Now the minister is back from Rome. Has he given the defence minister his marching orders?

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government used a number of questionable strategies to balance the budget. It slashed postal services. It cut the CBC's funding, which has gutted regional news services, for example. It reduced its reserve from $3 billion to $1 billion. It pocketed $1 billion by selling its General Motors shares. It took billions of dollars from the employment insurance fund while just 38% of unemployed workers were entitled to benefits.Is the official opposition willing to pressure the government into keeping the employment insurance fund separate from the consolidated revenue fund and to have it serve those for whom it was created?

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on being re-elected. Since he has been here for some time, I wonder if he agreed with the strategy the late Mr. Flaherty used under the previous government. He implemented an economic action plan to stimulate the economy by investing billions of dollars.I am curious to know if he agreed with the previous government's strategy and if he would agree with a similar strategy to stimulate our economy in 2016 and beyond, if need be.

Mr. Speaker, public safety officers put their lives on the line to keep us safe. Yet all too often they cannot access the support they need to cope with the trauma they experience. The results can be devastating. Some 39 first responders died last year from suicide. Hundreds are affected by mental health crises or operational stress injuries every year.Could the Minister of Public Safety update the House on his commitment to help public safety officers and their families deal with the threat of operational stress injuries?

Mr. Speaker, does the member often sign deals that he does not agree with?After promising openness and accountability, the Liberals signed onto a trade deal negotiated in secret with no economic impact study—he just admitted it: he wants to do the study after signing—and no mandate from Canadians to sign.Now that they have signed, further changes are impossible. Since they are gambling with Canadian jobs, perhaps it was appropriate that they signed it in a casino.Will the government admit that it just signed away any possibility of making changes to the wrongheaded Conservative trade deal?

Mr. Speaker, I can certainly say that a Conservative government that was selling assets at a loss to make a feigned attempt at a surplus, as it did, is not sound financial management. Even that feigned attempt by the previous government did not result in a balanced budget, but rather a deficit for the 2015-16 fiscal year. That is why the motion has no merit.

Mr. Speaker, in the complexity of conflict and the horrible atrocities that terrorists commit around the world, we have to be smarter in this fight, because these threats are also increasing.I will be taking the time to ensure that we get the right capabilities in the right areas at the right time so we can fight this terrorist threat.

Mr. Speaker, Russia has failed to implement any of its commitments under the Minsk agreement with Ukraine.Fighting continues between Ukrainian forces and pro-Russian rebels despite the ceasefire, and a buildup of additional Russian forces is reported along the border.Ukraine has appealed for tough new sanctions and more weapons. Here the Minister of International Trade and the Liberal MP for Etobicoke Centre are clearly at odds with the Minister of Foreign Affairs.Why are the Liberals leaving the defence of Ukraine to others, just as they are doing in the fight against ISIS terrorists?

Madam Speaker, I would like to say in this odd way that it is very unfortunate that the hon. member had to use Windsor as her example talking about social consciousness and the fiscal responsibility that we need in moving forward and that it is a tricky mix. In my area though, it really is not. We have to be very open-minded in our perspectives as we are all developing fiscal policy. Unfortunately, some of us who end up here have been in their bubble for an awfully long time. I sat here previous to the hon. member's speech and listened to a member talk about middle-class fiction because the middle class is struggling. Come to my riding and I can say it is not fiction.Another hon. member's speech talked about spending and deficits because money can buy fun. I find that so distasteful and very alarming when the Liberal government will be preparing and presenting a budget that I hope we as parliamentarians will be able to be very meaningfully engaged in. The member used my riding as an excuse. Is she committed in moving forward that conscientiousness for areas like Windsor that need a commitment to health care, that need a recommitment to the—

Madam Speaker, 2006 was a good budget. The Conservatives had just inherited a $13-billion surplus from the Liberals before them. We did not expect them to spend it all in one go, but that is exactly what happened.We do acknowledge that 2009 and 2010 were stimulus budgets. We did agree that Canada should invest about $60 billion in stimulus. That was agreed upon, but the government went on to create another $90 billion in debt that we did not agree to. Sometimes agreement is not the worst thing in the world.

Mr. Speaker, clearly I am not stating things that I think are false. The document speaks for itself. It is time the Liberals start recognizing this and stop the rhetoric, stop blaming the previous government, when the document does show a surplus is there.The fact is that the Liberals have been piling onto the debt with some of the decisions they have made early on. Many times over the last several months I have heard in the House about the middle-class tax increase. The Liberals went through the election saying that it would be revenue neutral when in fact this year there will be a $1.4 billion deficit piled on to any other problems that may exist. Over the course of the next nine years, almost $8.9 billion will be run into deficit because of the decisions the Liberals have made with that middle-class tax cut.I would suggest that the Liberals are piling on the debt, not the Conservative Party. They need to stop blaming us for their mistakes.

Mr. Speaker, I am a little confused about why the Conservatives would want to pass self-congratulatory motions for the work they claim to have done.When we look at what Liberal and Conservative governments have done to try to balance their books, it is clear that they have always begun by cutting provincial transfers. So much so that the parliamentary budget officer said that, in 30 years, Ottawa will have paid off all of its debts while the provinces will be on the verge of bankruptcy.That being the case, how can my colleague be proud of the Conservatives' record?

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé for her question. Her riding is right next to mine, Saint-Maurice—Champlain.I can assure my colleague that I have been working hard to move forward on the pyrrhotite file every day since I was elected on October 19. It is a complicated file, but things are progressing. I really thank my colleague, as well as the member for Trois-Rivières. The three members from the Mauricie region have raised this issue co-operatively, because we want to move it forward in order to help the victims.

Mr. Speaker, in reading the motion, it mentions expressing thanks for the hard work of the department and its evidence-based analysis. I wonder whether the motion should be amended to recognize that its hard work and evidence-based analysis was ignored by the previous government.The motion goes on to thank the deputy minister and his team. Maybe we should further amend that and express our sympathies for having had to work with the ministers.Does the member think those would be appropriate amendments that the Conservative Party opposite would appreciate?

Madam Speaker, there seems to be a disconnect within the Conservative caucus. At worst, it could be seen as audacious doublespeak; at a minimum, it could be a factual misunderstanding among its own members.Over the past two weeks, we have heard member after member from the Conservative caucus stand and tell us how much their ridings, which they characterize as middle class, are hurting. The member and his colleague from Edmonton—Wetaskiwin seem to be suggesting that the middle class is strong. Which is it?

Mr. Speaker, our number one priority is the economy. We will make investments in aerospace, automotive, by-products, biopharmaceuticals, business services, chemicals and plastics, digital media, financial services, food and beverage, media devices, mining industries, oil and gas, renewable energy, retail, and software. I can go on and on, but the bottom line is that we will grow the economy and create jobs.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for her answer, but she said “in a timely...way”. Does she not think these victims have already waited enough?Yesterday, the government signed the trans-Pacific partnership, which will add hundreds of millions of dollars to the cost of the public drug insurance plan, according to a recently published study.My question for the government is simple. Does it plan on compensating the provinces for the increased costs of their public drug insurance plans, yes or no?

The question everyone has been waiting for, Mr. Speaker. I am just wondering if the government House leader could update the House on the business for the rest of the week and for the week that we return after our constituency work week.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things my colleague from Barrie—Innisfil outlined is the surplus that was left for the Liberals. A month later the Liberal government outlined a deficit of over $3 billion. Has the Liberal government communicated to my colleague where or how it is spending the money? Has it provided any transparency or accountability to the House or to my colleague as a member of Parliament to date?

Madam Speaker, I suspect if you were to canvass the House you would find the will to see the clock at 6:30.

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to members opposite on the issue in front of the House right now, talking about how bad Conservative budgets were in the previous government. I would like to ask a quick question. Does she know that the Liberals voted for the Conservatives' first budget in the spring of 2006?

Mr. Speaker, while we recognize this week as National Suicide Prevention Week, suicide continues to be a major national public health issue in Canada. In December 2012, Bill C-300, An Act respecting a Federal Framework for Suicide Prevention, was passed into law. This framework will help the hundreds of Canadians across Canada who are working with some of Canada's most vulnerable people.Would the Minister of Health inform the House as to when we can expect some information as to when this bill will actually be implemented?

Mr. Speaker, I encourage members opposite to Google the Parliament of Canada Act, read section 49, and conclude themselves whether they followed the law on November 5.My question is for the Attorney General. What will she do to uphold the rule of law and ensure that ministers acted in accordance with section 49?

Mr. Speaker, a couple of speeches in a row by hon. members have mentioned that the timing of the General Motors share sale was not ideal. I find it interesting that the members would provide this information to the House considering that the very month that the shares were sold, the price, according to statistics, was $36.63. They said that they should be sold about six months down the road, with the advice they had been given from an economist, and six months down the road it had dropped $6 per share. Today, it has dropped even further.My question is this. Is that the type of economic management we could expect from the NDP?

Mr. Speaker, since this is the first time I am rising in the House in this capacity, I want to thank the people of Kanata—Carleton for having placed their confidence in me. I also want to thank my husband, Rob, and my children, Kyle and Brea, for their confidence and support over all these many years.There has been much discussion about Canada's current economic situation and its economic performance over the past decade. This discussion should not be treated as just another example of partisan bickering. It demands serious and in-depth analysis. This analysis is critical, because the consequences of getting it wrong will have a serious impact on all Canadians. Of course, Liberals believe that the previous Conservative approach to the economy was the wrong approach for the country. This is why the economy ended up being a primary issue for most of the recent election campaign.Einstein is quoted as saying that if he had one hour to save the world, he would spend 55 minutes defining the problem and only five minutes trying to find the solution. I believe that we need to be honest with ourselves about the state of the Canadian economy. We need to stop playing politics with the data to create a false sense of security. We also need to be honest with ourselves about the challenges ahead. We need to select a course of action that can help turn around this weak economy and actually help the thousands of Canadians who are currently struggling. Do we want to talk about balanced budgets? We can. Canada may have had one balanced budget since 2007-08, but that was only because of fire sales of Canada's property assets around the world. However, Canada did have balanced budgets from 1996 to 2007, and during that period, we paid down our national debt by almost $70 billion.The previous government delivered deficit after deficit for the budget years 2008 to 2014. During the tenure of the previous government, it added almost $150 billion of new debt to our national debt. If we take that $153 billion and spread it over seven years, it translates to deficits of about $20 billion per year.We need to stop considering snapshots in time as a true indicator of annual performance. We need to stop playing politics with the numbers and the Canadian economy, and together we need to get to work.The level of economic activity in Canada and the government's revenue vary depending on the season. The government receives more revenue during the summer months when all the seasonal industries, such as the fisheries and the agricultural, forestry, construction, and tourism industries, are active. However, expenses have to be paid all year long. As a result, any consideration of the matter of deficit must reflect the entire fiscal year, not just a select period in the most economically active months.I would like to remind members that the 2015 update of economic and fiscal projections indicated that, under the previous government, the Canadian economy shrank in the first quarter of 2015. The gross domestic product dropped by 0.8% in the first quarter and 0.5% in the second. We still do not have the figures for the third quarter, but there is nothing to suggest that the economic conditions have improved.There will also be a deficit of approximately $3 billion for the 2015-16 fiscal year. With the previous government running all of these deficits, including in the 2015-16 fiscal year, what does Canada have to show for it?First, let us talk about job losses. It is estimated that 400,000 good-paying jobs in manufacturing and heavy industry have been lost, and now a further calamitous loss of 70,000 jobs in the once booming oil sector.My colleague from Windsor, Ontario must well know that Windsor was once a booming city of Canada's manufacturing heartland. It now has an unemployment rate of 9.7%, and has had for almost five or six years. Other important facts and figures put together by independent non-partisan officials include those related to Canada's trade deficit. Under the previous government, Canada hit record trade deficits. For a country whose economy has such a strong basis in exports, this demonstrates the failures of the previous government to diversify our economy and make it more resilient.While I acknowledge that the previous government did make efforts toward diversifying which markets we were selling to, it neglected to consider the diversity of the products that we were bringing to the global market. It also neglected to do enough to spur more investment into research and development to help design, build and sell made-in-Canada products and technologies.With respect to the record trade deficits, Canada needs to be an export nation. Canada's all-time trade surplus of $8.5 billion was in 2001 under a Liberal government. The all-time low for Canada was a $3.7 billion deficit in March of 2015. That is a $12.2 billion difference from high to low.It is important to remember that when we sell a raw product, we are only earning 30% of the available equity in that product. For every step we take that product up the value-added chain, we can be earning another 20% to 30% of the equity in that product, while creating jobs at the same time.In order for Canada's economy to be strong and robust, it needs to be flexible and diversified and cannot be left entirely at the mercy of the commodities markets. Economists have warned that the commodities markets are known for being vulnerable to interference, speculation, and manipulation, and that is the situation we are in today, a boom-bust cycle.Workers across Canada are now facing the consequences of the previous government failing to anticipate the current situation and failing to ensure that contingency plans were in place to deal with the possibility of an oil glut. Can we make money with oil at $30 a barrel when we are only getting a discounted price for our product? That is what has been happening for the last few years. Canada has been paid approximately 30% below the world market price for the raw products from our oil sands. One reason may be that there are only two or three nations that can purchase our product: the U.S., China, and maybe India. If members think that any of those countries would actually pay us the world market price, we will be sadly disappointed.The path chosen by the previous government did not produce the desired results: a resilient and flexible economy where we earn a good price for our product because we have a host of customers wanting to purchase our exports and that is the challenge today. We need—

Mr. Speaker, Canadians support infrastructure investments, but few Canadians support the unnecessary deficits that result from Liberals funding their pet projects.We know that as deficits increase, confidence in the government's ability to manage decreases. There is every indication that the government is going to post a deficit of more than $20 billion.Will the Minister of Finance tell the House that that is not the case? How large will the Liberal deficit be?

Mr. Speaker, we find it pretty ironic that members on the opposite side, who were not able to get resources to tidewater over nine years, are talking about what we are trying to do. We are looking for a way to actually get resources to tidewater. We have been very clear about this point. We are working hard to get the licence required to do that. We are convinced that our approach will make a real difference for people in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Newfoundland and Labrador, and across this country.

Mr. Speaker, I will begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh.We are debating a Conservative opposition motion, which I am pleased to comment on given my role as the NDP's finance critic.The motion states: That the House: (a) thank the independent non-partisan officials from the Department of Finance for their hard work and evidence-based analysis; We totally agree with that.The motion continues as follows: [That the House:] (b) acknowledge their most recent Fiscal Monitor which informed Members and Canadians that, for the period from April to November 2015 of the 2015-2016 fiscal year, the previous government posted a budgetary surplus of $1.0 billion; and We agree with that. That is what the “Fiscal Monitor” says. We could even add our congratulations to the team at the “Fiscal Monitor” for all the work it has accomplished, and not just for the most recent issue.Finally, the rest of the motion states: [That the House:] (c) concur in its conclusions and express its confidence in the Deputy Minister and his team. We have no problem with that either because that is what the “Fiscal Monitor” says. The report is prepared by the Department of Finance, and we have no trouble believing that in November 2015, there was a surplus of $1 billion.I might as well propose an amendment asking the House to recognize that the sun is yellow, the grass is green, and the sky is blue, because those are facts one would be hard-pressed to deny.I feel like we are kind of wasting the House's time today by talking about something that we all agree on. We have missed a good opportunity to debate issues that really matter to Canadians on their behalf.However, since I have speaking time, I would like to talk about how the Conservatives got that number. There may have been a $1-billion surplus in November 2015, but there is no guarantee that there will still be a surplus at the end of the 2015-16 fiscal year. Actually, knowing whether we will have a surplus or a deficit at that point is pretty important.We should also remember that the government posted a surplus in November 2011 because it sold at a loss the shares in General Motors that it had purchased in order to help save the auto industry. We spoke out against this sale at the time.The government in power at the time sold 73.4 million shares for $3.3 billion. A portion of that was obviously recorded in each part of the fiscal year. It was recorded as income from the sale of shares, and only the sale of shares, putting the Conservative government not in the red, but in the black, and it was solely this exercise that made it possible.We could add that the government continued to dip into the employment insurance fund, which was supposed to be used to help unemployed workers who needed it. It was also included in the final report on the government's consolidated revenue fund. The employment insurance surplus was used to put the government in an overall surplus.Notwithstanding the issue of employment insurance, the sale of GM shares is the one and only reason why there is, or at least there was in November 2015, a budget surplus on the books.However, the shares were sold at a loss. The sale was condemned not only by the opposition parties, but also by a number of financial analysts for being made at the wrong time.I am referring to comments by financial analysts such as John Stephenson, who was the president and CEO of Stephenson & Company Capital Management.He said: If you look at GM, it’s grossly undervalued relative to other global automakers.... I think you could easily squeeze out another $6 to $7 per share in the next 12 months or so, so you’re leaving a fair bit of money on the table if you believe that. In its rush to claim a balanced budget for 2015-16, the government at the time sold our GM shares at a loss, even though it had apparently been advised to wait, hold onto these shares, and sell them at a book value that was beneficial to the government.In order to break even on the purchase and sale of the GM shares, the government would have had to sell the shares for $4 billion in total, in Canadian dollars, of course. The sale totalled $3.3 billion. At the end of the day, the government ended up with a net loss. The shares were sold at a loss, and the whole thing was nothing but an attempt to balance the budget in their last year for purely political reasons. The budget was balanced in November 2015, but it may not remain balanced at the end of the fiscal year in March 2016. In addition, the Auditor General issued a report in November 2014 regarding the sale of the GM shares and, especially, the GM bailout. He said that the government was lax in requiring accountability for how the amounts were spent and how the money was used to bail out GM and also Chrysler. I will not go over the entire report, but there was one thing in particular that blew me away at the time and still does. I am talking about the $4 billion that the federal government gave GM to save or strengthen the GM pension plan. GM used $1 billion to save or strengthen the U.S. pension plan. This means that $1 billion of Canadian money went straight to the United States. There was no oversight at all by the government, no call for accountability.As a result, the Conservatives are trying to win political points with a motion like this one. It is ill-advised, but we cannot help but agree with it, since it sets out some fairly obvious facts. The truth is that the motion is an attempt to draw attention away from the government's mismanagement of the GM and Chrysler bailout, its failure to require accountability, and the political decision it made later to quickly sell shares in order to artificially balance the budget, as we can still see on the books today.Does that mean that the current Liberal government is off the hook? Not really, because the Liberals will have a serious challenge to face with the upcoming budget. During the 2015 election campaign, the Liberals promised to run deficits. Many Canadians think that those deficits will be incurred only for infrastructure, but that is not the case.The Liberals promised deficits of approximately $25 billion over the next four years, with a return to a balanced budget in the fourth year. That is completely unrealistic, given the way things are now, the economic and fiscal update, and particularly the parliamentary budget officer's December 2015 report. When we take those things into account, the Liberal government is currently facing an accumulated deficit of $55 billion at the end of four years, including an $11-billion deficit in the fourth year, because of the promises it made and the current economic climate. That could happen if the Liberals keep their election promises, and it reflects the fiscal framework they presented during the election campaign.I want to say that during the election campaign, the Liberals themselves probably promised too much in relation to Canada's fiscal capacity. At that time, we were extremely cautious with our forecasts, because we knew that the Canadian economy might be facing a struggle. That is why we wanted to be careful about what we promised. That is not what the Liberals did during the election campaign. They were elected based on all the changes they promised to Canadians, so now Canadians want to see some results, including the reversal of the Conservative reforms to employment insurance, as promised, or the reopening of certain things that were closed by the Conservatives. One example would be the marine radio communications centres. The Minister of National Revenue, who is also the member for Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine, promised to reopen the marine communications and traffic services centre in Rivière-au-Renard, which does not appear to be one of her government's priorities.We are taking notes. Obviously, we are going to be watching closely and we will carefully study the Liberal government's upcoming budget. We will be here to make sure that the government keeps the promises on which it was elected, because many of those promises were similar to promises and commitments that we had also made. I can assure the House that we will be here to hold the Liberals to account when the promises that got them here are not honoured.

Mr. Speaker, here is the problem. The Prime Minister already has a record of blocking job-creating energy projects. Northern gateway was approved with 204 conditions, but then the Prime Minister killed it with his unilateral transportation ban off the west coast, so that is his record. It would do a lot more for investor confidence and public confidence if the government would stand behind its own process.I ask again, if new projects get through this new process, will they be approved by the Liberal government, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, I am a rookie in the House. I believe that the biggest political fiction, since that is the topic, is that the Conservatives deliver balanced budgets while the Liberals do not. The Conservatives talk a lot about delivering balanced budgets but they are not good at delivering them. It is a distinction with a difference.Would my friend agree that, in the last 30 years, Liberal governments have delivered more balanced budgets than Conservative governments have, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are the only ones who are self-interested. Since my hon. colleague says that we are not following the recommendations made by our officials or departmental staff, I will quote the Update of Economic and Fiscal Projections 2015: The Government will pursue an approach to fiscal management that is realistic, sustainable, prudent and transparent. This Update of Economic and Fiscal Projections reviews the federal government’s economic and fiscal outlook, which has deteriorated since the previous Government presented the budget in April 2015. The Canadian economy contracted in the first half of 2015... These economic developments have led to a downward adjustment to the fiscal outlook. These developments have reduced the projected budgetary balance by about $6.0 billion per year, on average, relative to Budget 2015... These are the fiscal projections inherited by this Government. Why does my colleague opposite keep telling Canadians things that are not true?

Mr. Speaker, when I saw that the Conservatives were tabling this particular motion on their opposition day, part of me wanted to laugh and the other part struggled to fight off a deep frustration and a deep despair. Sure, the motion is factually correct and absolutely we support and salute the work of the officials of the Department of Finance, which the motion references. Yet there is a massive elephant in the room, and that is that this motion is designed to ignore the actual economic record. Yes, that elephant is the actual economic record of the former Conservative government. In fact, this motion seems designed to deflect attention away from the brutal fact that our country is only now emerging from one of the most grievous eras of economic mismanagement that we have ever had the misfortune to endure. The Conservatives like to present themselves as competent economic managers, but honestly, this was always more a public relations effort than fact. They seem to believe that if they just repeat this falsehood enough, people will believe it.Let us talk about this record. According to analysis by economists Jordan Brennan and Jim Stanford, published last September—one that applied standard measures such as job creation, unemployment, GDP growth, productivity, personal incomes, debt, and more—the previous Conservative prime minister ranked or tied for last among all post-war prime ministers. He ranked or tied at second-last in another six cases. Across all 16 of the indicators the study used, the government's average ranking was the worst of any post-war administration—not even close to the second-worst, another Conservative, Brian Mulroney.In a market economy, two of the most strategic components of spending are business spending and exports. The Conservatives' abysmal failure to garner more business investment within Canada and to increase exports has been especially damaging. Conservatives promised that expensive corporate tax cuts costing $15 billion per year would boost investment, and that signing more free trade deals would do the same for exports, but neither has worked, as we all know. Canadian corporations have not used the money saved by the tax cuts to create jobs or expand their infrastructure; they sat on it. Recent figures from Statistics Canada show corporate Canada's pile of dead money now hovers at $680 billion.Exports hardly grew at all under the former prime minister—they were the slowest in post-war history—and business investment was stagnant and is now declining.Government spending cuts, enforced in earnest after the Conservatives won their majority in 2011, only deepened our macroeconomic pit of despair. As noted by economists Scott Clark and Peter DeVries, when the Conservatives first formed government in 2006-2007, they inherited a surplus of $13.8 billion and within two years' time this became a deficit of $5.8 billion. After that point, the Conservatives were in deficit each and every year. If this is competent economic management, I shudder to think how Canadians would live under their conception of incompetence.Economic growth has declined in every year since 2010 and averaged only 1.7% per year. In the previous nine years, economic growth averaged 3.4% per year. In 2014, only 120,000 new jobs were created, less than in 2013. Now these same people stand before us today, hoping that we will forget about all of this and just focus on a tiny moment in time when there was a tiny surplus that the Conservatives managed to obtain during their final weeks in power. Here we must ask ourselves how this surplus was achieved. It was by closing Veterans Affairs offices and by eliminating staff at Service Canada and indeed across every branch of the federal government responsible for delivering vital services to Canadians. The former government even used a flimsy legal technicality to deny claims of thousands of residential school victims.It also turns out that federal departments and agencies helped out by not spending an estimated $8.7 billion for different programs that had been requested and often publicly announced by the government and approved by Parliament, the so-called lapsed funding.Lastly, the surplus was achieved through the sale of General Motors in April-May of 2015, and the NDP opposed this sale. It was essentially the sale of these shares, an estimated $3.5 billion, that enabled the Conservative government to balance its pre-election budget. The main unions criticized this action, calling it short-term political gain for the next federal election—precisely. Therefore, the motion being debated today creates a false debate and is really a missed opportunity to talk about the real issues facing Canadians in these uncertain times. It is a futile effort to misrepresent the record of the former government by its remaining representatives in the House.Canadians are not buying it. They know what is up and they know that this motion is an opposition day motion, with the emphasis on opposition. Meanwhile, there are families, workers, and low-income Canadians who are struggling to make ends meet. Conservatives are welcoming the numbers in this report, while Canadians continue to suffer the consequences of Conservative mismanagement.Low-income Canadians, seniors, veterans, persons with disabilities, and those most vulnerable in our society face long wait times for their benefits, long wait times to have problems with their payments addressed or appealed, and across the board, the departments serving them have been cut to the bone by the former government. However, we are not supposed to think about our grandmothers or the elderly waiting for pension payments. We are supposed to focus on the surplus. Accordingly, this motion is a missed opportunity to discuss real issues facing Canadians. We cannot contradict this motion. It is based on facts, however cherry-picked, and instead of wasting time squabbling over partisan numbers, my question is why the Conservatives and the Liberals are not discussing the issues that are actually affecting Canadians. The NDP is the only progressive party that is actually working on behalf of workers and low-income Canadians. It proposed a number of concrete measures, including the national child benefit supplement, the guaranteed income supplement, $15-a-day child care for all Canadian families, and restoring the labour-sponsored tax credit. Instead of using their opposition day motion to try to rewrite economic and political history, I encourage the Conservatives to consider using such opportunities as a means to advance the real needs and interests of all Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I would like to ask him to explain to the House why the Conservatives are suddenly so afraid of deficits. Today is not the first time we have heard this.The Conservatives are getting all worked up because the government is predicting a deficit, when they racked up $153 billion in debt during their mandate. Furthermore, a Conservative finance minister proposed this strategy to stimulate the economy. They decided to make significant investments as part of what they called Canada's economic action plan.Now, when this government is talking about doing the same thing, the Conservatives seem to be working themselves into a state because the government has an action plan similar to the one they proposed. Why are they suddenly against deficits now, when they themselves racked up $153 billion in debt during their mandate?

Mr. Speaker, Statistics Canada estimates that there are over one million blind or partially visually disabled Canadians. However, only 7% of literature is available in accessible formats like Braille, large print, and audio formats. The Marrakesh Treaty amends copyright rules to give visually impaired Canadians access to 285,000 accessible books. We recently introduced legislation in the previous Parliament to adopt this treaty here in Canada, but it was interrupted by the election. I wonder if the government today would consider re-introducing that legislation so it could be passed forthwith.

Mr. Speaker, going by the information that is in front of us, it is clear that what the motion talks about is that our government has left a surplus. It is time the Liberals started recognizing that.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, an American giant bought Rona, a Canadian company with 23,000 employees and many suppliers. At the same time, the government is signing the trans-Pacific partnership, an agreement that will cost us 60,000 good jobs, weaken family farms, and accelerate foreign control of our businesses.Why is the minister signing an agreement that is clearly bad for our jobs and our dairy farms?

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport's earlier response regarding funding for the Port of Québec was vague to say the least.The port is not the only organization in Quebec City waiting for news from this government. There is also the National Optics Institute, which is a very important institute that generates jobs. Nearly 4,000 jobs have been generated by this centre for development and applied research. If the port has to wait, will the NOI, which needs its funding by March 31, get a positive response from this government?

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.It gives me the opportunity to clarify that we were not against the purchase of shares to bail out the automotive sector. I think this approach should have been considered for bailing out other sectors, such as the forestry industry, for example, which faced similar challenges, but was ignored by the Conservative government at the time.We were not against the purchase of shares to help out the automotive industry, but we have some concerns over how those shares were sold and the reporting that General Motors was required to do.The hon. member just admitted that the sale of the shares was responsible for the surplus reported in the “Fiscal Monitor”. It says as much in that report.I am not the only one to say so, and it is not about having a crystal ball. There are 24 financial analysts on Bay Street who follow General Motors. Only two of those 24 analysts said it was the right time to sell, while the other 22 said it was not. In fact, 14 of the analysts said it was a good time to buy GM shares.When we make decisions based on facts, we have to listen to experts in the field. They are not perfect, but at least their information is better than the information the government wanted to use just to achieve a balanced budget on the eve of the 2015 election campaign.

Mr. Speaker, Canadians elected a new government on October 19. They recognized that we had a plan. We had a plan to deal with low growth through bringing forward a new approach. We reduced taxes on the middle class, which will stimulate the economy while helping nine million Canadians. We are going to help the most vulnerable people in this country by giving them a Canada child benefit. We are going to stimulate the economy through infrastructure investments that can make a real long-term difference in productivity for this country.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asks why we would not want to see the government run a deficit. First of all, it is not exactly the same thing. There was a global financial crisis, and leaders around the world took measures to coordinate their approaches at a fiscal level to ensure that, as a world, we were able to pull forward. Canada took a leadership role in that, along with other countries. New Democrats, who were in the House during that time, demanded more spending all the time, as they do almost every day in the House of Commons.Why is it that we do not want to go down that road today? It is because we saw what happened with Liberal governments in the past. We saw the devastating cuts that they had to make to health care and post-secondary education, and they threw them on the backs of the provinces. Provinces like Ontario and Alberta and others had to respond to that because suddenly the transfers were turned off. As a government, we were able to get our budget back to balance coming out of the global crisis. We were able to do that while dramatically increasing investments at the same time in transfers for health care, social services, and education, as the member for York—Simcoe so aptly mentioned in his comments. That is important. As we move forward as a country, and if we are going to avoid the types of decisions that a previous Liberal government had to make and governments around the world have to make in terms of cutting really important services for their voters, balanced budgets are critical. We hope that NDP members will support this important motion.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his passionate and intelligent speech.It is obvious that the Conservative Party left a financial mess after the election. One of our strategies is to make strategic investments in public infrastructure.Can the hon. member tell us what he thinks of our goal of making major investments in public infrastructure?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Outremont for his question.Parliament will have an opportunity to study the TPP by means of a parliamentary committee, and there will be consultations with Canadians. We will certainly examine the impact on various sectors, and we will look not only at the challenges, but also at the solutions should we decide to ratify the agreement.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Saint-Maurice—Champlain on his election and on his fine speech in the House today. I listened to him closely, but unfortunately, I did not hear the word pyrrhotite. In Mauricie, there are victims of the pyrrhotite problem. Nearly 4,000 families may be affected by this crisis.During the election campaign, we promised to help these victims with very large investments. The Liberal Party also made promises to that effect. I hope to see money for this in the upcoming budget.Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance say whether the upcoming budget will include money for the pyrrhotite victims and whether that money will be separate from the money announced for infrastructure?

Mr. Speaker, we have said over and over again that the problem with the performance was the previous government's attempt, at five minutes to midnight, to appoint a whole bunch of people to jobs that took effect after it lost the election.This is a case of projection. The real scandal is on that side of the House and the Conservatives are somehow trying to project it over here.

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are playing with numbers. They can isolate a moment in time and pretend that they are trying to advance ideology, but we all know that this report shows there are surpluses and deficits. This is just so self-indulgent when we could be moving forward.We have shown real discipline in how we would be advancing all of our social causes. We laid that out in a fully costed platform, and we were the only party that did that.

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to follow the hon. member for Abbotsford. Let me take a moment to salute his record as the former minister of international trade. We look forward to future collaboration with him.Why are we here? I would rather not focus my closing remarks as they were on this day in Parliament on actual numbers but rather ask what the cost is. I am willing to grant that the previous government did its best to spend as little as possible, but that is not necessarily a good thing, particularly because it did leave us in debt anyway because it failed to balance a single budget between 2008 and 2014, but more importantly, because of the costs that this had in Canada over that period of time. Let us not forget that.Over the past 10 years our economy has been characterized by fundamentally weak growth. Perhaps some of the gains that the hon. member for Abbotsford made acting as minister of international trade in negotiating trade agreements, which our government believes were generally good, could have been better. Had we developed our manufacturing sector, had we put money into innovation, had we put money into becoming a stronger and more diversified economy, then perhaps we would have been able to profit from those agreements much more than we have. We have done the opposite. We effectively cut infrastructure spending over that period of time in real terms and have ended up with an infrastructure deficit that cries out to be rectified. Cuts were also made to veterans affairs and social programs, including programs for social housing.I spent the past 20 years teaching in one of the world's finest law faculties in one of Canada's finest universities. I could see the cuts to university research that the previous government undertook and the devastating impact that had on research programs in pure science, applied science, and the social sciences. That was one of the reasons I decided to put myself on leave from that tenured position in order to go into direct public service: to rectify what I saw as an incredible problem in policy that the previous government chose to follow.Not only did the previous government cut university research for the sake of balancing budgets, but it destroyed archives, weakened research and development in this country, and put our innovation agenda way behind other countries, including countries like Scandinavia for example.Yes, it is fine to talk about budgetary numbers, but let us not forget the costs. When it is time to reinvest in an economy, reinvest in infrastructure, reinvest in Canada's people as it is now, a government needs the courage to do it.

Mr. Speaker, the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada website states: The reappointment process for IRB members will continue to reflect a performance evaluation consistent with the merit-based competency criteria. The Minister will continue to recommend the reappointment of members...after taking note of the IRB Chairperson's recommendations concerning performance and operational needs. Could the government House leader tell us this? For the reappointed IRB members he has politically intimidated to resign, what specific problems with their performance were identified?

Madam Speaker, throughout the debate, we heard a number of Conservatives talking about how they restored a balanced budget. However, they are forgetting to say how they managed to achieve that. The main reason is that they asked each and every department to cut its budget by between 5% and 10%. The member should know something about this, since he was a minister and he must have had to make cuts in his own department to come up with the money that Treasury Board was asking for.I wonder if the member would at least acknowledge that the reason why they might have, possibly, balanced the budget in 2015-16—although the numbers suggest otherwise—was that it would have been done at the expense of services to Canadians and public services in general.

Mr. Speaker, as this is my first time rising in this House in this capacity, I want to briefly highlight my riding of Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, a new riding made up three existing ones. It is a vibrant, energetic, and growing region. I would also like to thank my constituents who placed their trust in me to represent them, and I would like to thank my family members for their unfailing support: my husband and best friend, Ted; and my two children, Christopher whose birthday is tomorrow and Hillary whose birthday is next week.I am honoured to rise in this House to speak to this important topic, and I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Kanata—Carleton.I rise today to underline the decisive steps that our government has taken to address the challenges facing our economy; steps we took immediately after the Canadian people handed us a majority mandate for a new approach that prioritizes long-term economic growth. Since last fall, we have continued to see headlines about the weaknesses in the global economy. Despite volatility in the economy, what Canadians can always count on is the tireless professionalism of many public servants working on their behalf. This is why I am disappointed by the opposition's efforts to drag in the civil servants of the Department of Finance to score a passive-aggressive partisan point.The numbers up to November 2015 are clear. They are in line with a projected small deficit for 2015-2016. Let us take a closer look at the numbers. Revenues for April to November increased by $14.2 billion, or 8.2%, from the same period last year. These numbers are a result of unique circumstances that are no longer congruent with current fiscal realities and that do not reflect the previous government's stewardship of the economy. These circumstances were in part due to the $2.1 billion gain realized on the sale of General Motors common shares and on higher corporate income tax revenues. The opposition cannot bank on one-off situations and claim sound economic management. The reality is that revenue growth is expected to slow over the remainder of the fiscal year, reflecting economic trends of collapsing commodity prices that have not yet recovered and look likely to remain low over the medium term. The only people who believe that the previous Conservative government left behind a surplus are the Conservatives themselves. Canadians know better.Make no mistake, the Government of Canada will post a deficit for the 2015-2016 fiscal year, and that deficit rests squarely on the shoulders of the actions and inactions taken by the previous government. That is a fact. The previous Liberal government left behind a $13 billion surplus in 2006, and the Conservative government squandered that surplus and accumulated an additional $150 billion in new debt while still delivering the worst growth record since the Great Depression. We have been, and will continue to be, proactive managers of the economy. Since our earliest days in office, we have had a plan to grow the economy, create jobs, and invest in communities. It began with the government tabling, as its first order of business on December 7, a notice of ways and means motion to provide a much-needed tax cut for the middle class. This is the first of three major economic planks that we are moving forward on, and they reflect what we feel is the lifeblood of Canadian society, the middle class.I want to remind the opposition that it is our government that has brought tax relief to the middle class during these troubled times, a tax cut that would put money in the pockets of about nine million Canadians a year. This was the right thing to do, and the smart thing to do for our economy. The proposed middle-class tax cut and accompanying proposals would help make the tax system fairer, so that all Canadians have the opportunity to succeed and prosper.Canada is in a strong position to face the future. Our debt-to-GDP ratio is well below the G7 average, and keeping our debt-to-GDP ratio on a downward path throughout our mandate remains a central plank of our economic agenda. We have a well-educated population, we have abundant natural resources, we are fortunate to have the world's largest economy as a neighbour, and diplomatically, Canada is back on the world stage in a big way. We are actively pursuing our long-term vision. Many leading economists agree that strategic planning and investments in bridges, roads, and other building projects are essential ingredients needed for creating long-term growth. This type of investment requires forethought, planning, and most importantly, working with others. The government is working with provinces, municipalities, and indigenous communities to ensure that the funding decisions we make are sensible for the present and future needs of those communities.Going forward, the government will introduce proposals in the budget to create a new Canada child benefit. Payments under the new Canada child benefit would begin in July 2016. In addition to replacing the universal child care benefit, which is not tied to income, the proposed Canada child benefit would simplify and consolidate existing child benefits while ensuring that help is better targeted to those who need it the most.All of these initiatives demonstrate that our sights are clearly set on the future. These actions would help strengthen the middle class and those who are working hard to join it, by putting more in the pockets of Canadians, to save, invest, and grow the economy. More broadly, they would help grow our economy in the context of a difficult global economic climate, so that all Canadians can benefit. We have also brought an open and collaborative approach to how we are going to solve the problems facing us. To ensure that our plans align with Canadians' needs, the government is continuing its pre-budget consultations online and through submissions. We are open to hearing what Canadians have to say and have been encouraged by the record number of people engaged in sharing ideas. So far, Canadians have identified economic growth as their top priority. Canadians know that economic growth means bettering their own circumstances but also bettering those of their communities. Canadians identify economic growth with opportunities not only for themselves but for others in their communities and those across the country.The government will continue to develop measures and pursue a fiscal plan that is responsible, transparent, and suited to challenging economic times. These plans will be most effective when all of us seize the opportunities to grow our economy together and for the benefit of all.The economic and fiscal update presented in November gave Canadians a transparent picture of our economic and fiscal situation. It makes clear that the previous government put the country on track for a $3 billion deficit. It takes into account such factors as low and volatile crude oil prices and weak global environment, risk factors that have become more pronounced in recent months. After 10 years of weak growth, this government has a plan to grow the economy and create jobs by focusing on the middle class, investing in infrastructure, and helping those who need it most. My colleagues have spoken about the support our plan has already received. We will continue our focus, and we aim to grow the economy in a responsible way, with a long-term vision.

Mr. Speaker, it is true that the previous government negotiated this accord in secret, but it is also true that the hon. member for Outremont decided not to support the agreement without even having read it.We promised the Canadian public during the election that we would study the agreement and we would look at all aspects of the agreement in depth, and that is precisely what we have done and what we are going to continue to do.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for this excellent question.It is not just about numbers. We could discuss and debate numbers all week, if we wanted to.It is principally a question of looking forward and growing our economy. One cannot take a snapshot and say that there is a surplus. No one in business does that. They look at long-term projections. Over the period that the previous government was in power, we clearly saw not only a deficit but also the worst economic record since the Great Depression.Once again, in October Canadians resoundingly told us that the globally integrated Canadian economy needs investment, needs nurturing, and needs active attention on the part of its government.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the hon. member, here is the real problem. The real problem is that the Conservatives were not able to do anything over nine years getting resources to market. On what basis do they have any credibility in asking us how we are going to do it? We are going to take an approach that is actually going to get resources to tidewater. We are going to make a difference for the people who need us to make a difference across this country, creating real economic growth through getting our resources to market.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to join the debate here today, and after the question from my friend from Scarborough, to hopefully elevate the debate to reality for a few moments.This is a quintessential, classic, political tactic. When a new government comes into office, it usually spends its first number of months blaming the last group of people for all of its woes. We have seen this repeatedly. All parties have engaged in it to a certain degree.What is unique about the debate before us today is that the Liberal Party, the new government, actually does not have support from the very departments that oversee the finances of the nation. Normally, if a new government tries to blame the old guys for the problem, it has some form of evidence provided by the departments. It is usually last-minute spending for an election or that sort of thing. However, this is a case where it is a bridge too far. They are trying the old Liberal tactic, but they do not have the data to support it.What is important to note about this motion is that if anyone in this House is disparaging the work of our professional public service, it is actually the government, because its own officials in Finance Canada and in the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer have confirmed that the previous government left Canada in a small surplus position.Everyone knows that for the last number of years, the global economy has been tight. There was not a tremendous surplus, but it was a surplus. In fact, the revenue stream was positive enough that despite early spending commitments and a willingness for the government to spend, each month is clicking away, and it is still gaining between $500 million and $1 billion in surplus. We saw that when the finance department confirmed a surplus of hundreds of millions of dollars in November.This is one of the cases when the old and tried political trick does not work when its professional departments release information that shows that the trick is a phantom.I would like to say that I am going to split my time with my colleague from Barrie—Innisfil. I should have mentioned it off the top. It is important for Canadians, because this is a government that has a lot of new, eager, and capable members of Parliament. I know that they are here to do the best for the country. Many of them were not here when their leader was leader of the third party. I said this last week in debate about the energy east pipeline. For several years, the Prime Minister, who at the time led the third party in this place, did not support running a deficit at all. In fact, knowing that the Conservative government had set a plan in place during the global recession to get Canada back to a balanced budget position by 2014-15, and seeing that Canadians were behind that position, the Liberal Party, at that time, took a position that they would not run deficits. As I said last week, it took an election campaign for that fundamental principle of the fiscal plan of a party to change. The Prime Minister, during the election, said that he would run, for a couple of years, a modest deficit of up to $10 billion. That was certainly very different from the approach of the Conservative government, which had worked in a steadfast manner to get to balance.After the election, after telling Canadians that it would be one or two years of modest deficits in the $10-billion range, in the first few days of this new Parliament the government's number changed to $20 billion per year. Canadians did not vote for that. Then, if anyone has been following in recent weeks, speculation is coming out that those numbers will be more like $25 billion to $30 billion for two to three years.The real underpinning of the motion before the House today is not just to show that we cannot use the age-old game of blaming the last team. It is that the Liberals are changing their fundamental financial plan for Canada's future by the week. That is deeply concerning.I suggested some time ago in a column I wrote that excessive spending is not sunny ways. When we are dishing out the dough, there may be some sunshine, but if we are putting Canada's financial position in a precarious situation, those are storm clouds on the horizon.What we hear from the government already, in preparation for the budget, is the potential for a $60 billion to $90 billion deficit over the course of its four years. That is certainly different from a year ago, when the Prime Minister said no deficits. Then, during the election campaign, he said up to $20 billion over the first two years, and then they would balance. Now we are in the $60-billion range at a time when the Liberals are also putting so many hurdles in the path of resource projects, or stopping them, that capital is fleeing Canada. Depressed resource prices and our dollar are compounding this, yet they are not changing this reckless plan.The motion today is to set a stark line between the last government in this place and the present government. The Conservative Party believes that a balanced budget should be achieved whenever possible, that stimulus should be limited, and that a plan to end the deficit caused by stimulus in a recession should be clear and attainable.Sometimes I say to my wife that I feel too young to be a “former”. I am a former air force person, a former lawyer, and a former minister. I am a young “former”. Many of the former ministers in this place have talked about the decisions of governing, and this is where I am very concerned that the Prime Minister is not ready to govern, because it takes decisions. A minister in his government is famous for saying that it is not easy to make priorities. That is what Canadians elected them to do. Those priorities need to be getting a proper world price, or better than current price, for our resources. That includes budgets that do not put our future at risk. That includes not eliminating a popular measure for saving, the TFSA, or reducing it dramatically. That includes not driving out talent and our creative class by taxing stock options as income and by raising taxes on those very people. When I was veterans affairs minister, we steadily increased and modernized the department. It is important to note, despite a lot of the rhetoric we hear on this, that the Chrétien government and the Martin government ended with a $2.9 billion budget for Veterans Affairs Canada, and we ended with an approximately $3.4 billion budget. Any way we slice it, despite a global recession and despite our pledge to balance the budget, which we did, we increased that budget by 15%. We spent in different areas, because post-Korean War and during 30 years of the Cold War, PTSD was not even discussed in a responsible way. The previous government went from the two operational stress injury clinics it opened to 27 by the time we left office, addressing a new need. That new spending went to areas of need. We created a family caregiver relief benefit. We created the retirement income security benefit. We created the critical injury benefit, all new benefits passed in the last Parliament to address some of the gaps in the new Veterans Charter, which the previous government created. In fact, it was the now Minister of Immigration. All parliamentarians voted for it, and our government implemented it and fixed it along the way.That took decisions, because when we want to balance the books, when we do not want to raise taxes on Canadians, when we want to lower them, it means making priorities. The motion before the House today draws a line in the sand. The previous government planned; spent in priority areas; tried to get jobs created through innovative new sectors and by supporting our resource sector; spent prudently; created retirement tax planning, with the tax free savings account; and allowed all families a benefit with the universal child care benefit.We made those decisions and balanced the budget. The Department of Finance officials confirm that. It is about time that the new government recognizes that, and starts a new course to make sure the sunny ways do not turn into storm clouds on the horizon.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, we learned that after campaigning on a tax increase for the province's well-heeled citizens and then raising their taxes, the Liberal government in New Brunswick is realizing that this is not working and that the government coffers are bare. You cannot create wealth by raising everyone's taxes.Why is this government being so stubborn? Why is the Minister of Finance bent on raising Canadians' taxes?

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to underline the decisive steps that our government has taken to address challenges facing our economy, steps we took immediately after the Canadian people handed us a majority mandate for a new approach that prioritizes long-term economic growth. Since last fall, we continue to see headlines about the weakness in the global economy. Despite volatility in this economy, what Canadians can always count on is the tireless professionalism of the many public servants working on their behalf. This is why I am so taken by the opposition's efforts to drag civil servants of the Department of Finance into an effort to score passive aggressive partisan points. It is simply unacceptable.The numbers up to November 2015 are clear. They are in line with a projected small deficit for 2015-2016. Let us take a closer look at the numbers. Revenues for the April to November 2015 period increased by $14.2 billion, or 8.2%, from the same period last year. These numbers are the result of unique circumstances, circumstances that are no longer congruent with the current fiscal realities, circumstances that do not reflect the previous government's stewardship of the economy. These circumstances were in part due to a $2.1 billion gain realized on the sale of General Motors common shares in April and higher corporate income tax revenues.The opposition cannot bank on one-off situations and then claim sound economic management. The reality is that revenue growth is expected to slow over the remainder of the fiscal year, reflecting economic trends of collapsing commodity prices, prices that have not yet recovered and look to remain low over the medium term. The only people who believe that the previous Conservative government left behind a surplus are the Conservatives themselves. Canadians know better.Make no mistake, the Government of Canada will post a deficit for the 2015-2016 fiscal year, and that deficit rests squarely on the shoulders of the actions taken and inaction of the previous government. This is a fact. The previous Liberal government left behind a $13 billion surplus in 2006. The Conservative government squandered that surplus and accumulated an additional $150 billion in new debt, while still managing to deliver the worst growth record since the Great Depression. We have been, and will continue to be, proactive managers of the economy. Since our earliest days in office, we have had a plan to grow the economy, create jobs, and invest in communities. It began with the government, as its first order of business on December 7, tabling a notice of ways and means motion to provide a much-needed tax cut for Canada's middle class. This is the first of three major economic planks on which we are moving forward. They reflect on what we feel is the lifeblood of Canadian society, the middle class. I want to remind the opposition that it is our government that has brought tax relief to the middle class during these troubled times, a tax cut that puts money into the pockets of about nine million Canadians each year. This was the right thing to do and the smart thing to do for our economy. The proposed middle-class tax cut and accompanying proposals will help make the tax system fairer, so that all Canadians have the opportunity to succeed and prosper. Canada is in a strong position to face the future. Our debt-to-GDP ratio is well below the G7 average, and keeping our debt-to-GDP ratio on a downward trajectory throughout our mandate remains a central plank of our economic agenda. We have a well-educated population. We have abundant natural resources. We are fortunate to have the world's largest economy as a neighbour. Also, diplomatically, Canada is back on the world stage in a big way. We are actively pursuing a long-term vision.Many leading economists agree that strategic planning and investment in bridges, roads, and other building projects are essential ingredients for creating long-term economic growth. This type of investment requires forethought, planning, and most importantly, working with others. Our government is committed to working with provinces, municipalities, and indigenous communities to ensure that our funding decisions make sense for the present and future needs of those communities. Going forward, the government will introduce proposals in the budget to create a new Canada child benefit. Payments under the new Canada child benefit would begin in July 2016. In addition to replacing the universal child care benefit, which is not tied to income, the proposed Canada child benefit would simplify and consolidate existing child benefits, while ensuring that help is better targeted to those who need it most.All of these initiatives demonstrate that our sights are clearly set on the future. These actions would help strengthen the middle class and those who are working hard to join it by putting more money in the pockets of Canadians to save, invest, and grow the economy. More broadly, they would help grow our economy in the context of a difficult global economic climate, so that all Canadians can benefit.We have also brought an open and collaborative approach to how we are going to solve the problems that are facing us. To ensure that our plan is aligned with Canadians' needs, the government is continuing its pre-budget consultations online, as well as through submissions. We are open to hearing what Canadians have to say, and we have been encouraged by the record number of people engaged in sharing their ideas. So far, Canadians have identified economic growth as their top priority. Canadians know that economic growth means bettering their own circumstances, but also bettering their communities. Canadians identify economic growth with opportunities not only for themselves but for the people in their communities and, indeed, across our great country. The government will continue to develop measures and pursue a fiscal plan that is responsible, transparent, and suited to these challenging economic times. These plans will be most effective when all of us seize the opportunities to grow our economy together and for the benefit of all. Now is the time to overcome the challenges we face in our economy, in the House, and in Canadian homes. Given the headwinds that the Canadian economy is facing, it makes sense to follow through on our commitment to a strong and growing middle class, because it is central to a healthy economy and helps to ensure that all Canadians have a fair and real chance to succeed.The economic and fiscal update presented in November gave Canadians a transparent picture of our economic and fiscal situation. It makes clear that the previous government put the country on track for a $3 billion deficit. It takes into account such factors as low and volatile crude oil prices and a weak global economic environment, risk factors that have become more pronounced in recent months.After 10 years of weak growth, this government has a plan to grow the economy, to create jobs by focusing on the middle class, by investing in infrastructure, and by helping those who need it most. My colleagues have spoken about the support that our plan has already received and, indeed, that our plan has received in my riding of Mississauga—Lakeshore. We will continue our focus, and we will aim to grow the economy in a responsible way, with a long-term vision.

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague went back a bit in history, so I would like to do that myself.He mentioned that we emerged faster and stronger than the other G7 countries from the financial crisis. If we look back in history, one of the reasons for that, among others, is that while the former prime minister, when in opposition, was advocating that we deregulate our financial industry, a former Liberal minister of finance said no. This is one of the reasons our banking industry, our financial sector, was so much stronger than perhaps our southern neighbour.Another reason we emerged from the financial crisis perhaps more rapidly was, as he mentioned, and I give him credit for that, the financial stimulus package to which we agreed. Who else agreed to this financial stimulus package back in 2009-10? The IMF did. I have heard a lot of his colleagues quote and invoke the IMF as a justification for that.This is what the IMF had to say recently: The findings suggest that in countries with infrastructure needs, now is a good time for an infrastructure push. Many advanced economies are stuck in a low growth and high unemployment environment, and borrowing costs are low. Increased public infrastructure investment is one of the few remaining policy levers to support growth. Does the member agree, this time around, that the IMF is right and that we should invest in infrastructure?

Mr. Speaker, I will be dividing my time today with the hon. member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin.The constituents of my riding, York—Simcoe, are what I like to call severely normal Canadians. They value honesty from those who represent them. They work hard. They pay their taxes. They follow the rules. They want the government to give them the freedom to succeed and build a brighter future for their families. That freedom means having more money for their own priorities through lower taxes. That brighter future means managing their finances and their mortgages, and ensuring their children do not inherit burdens that block their desire to achieve their dreams.The previous Conservative government reflected that mindset and those values. Those constituents knew the Conservative government was on their side. They knew it when they saw life become better as federal taxes fell to their lowest level in half a century, since 1963 when John Diefenbaker led a Conservative government.My constituents knew that the Conservative government was on their side when measures like the universal child care benefit made their lives better. In fact, UNICEF reported that hundreds of thousands of Canadian children climbed out of poverty at that time. That was despite Canada going through the global economic downturn, the most dramatic in my lifetime.Despite that downturn, the Conservative government delivered the stimulus through tax reductions and short-term stimulus spending to make Canada the first major economy to return to growth. Indeed, we were the first G7 economy to recover the jobs that had been lost during the economic downturn, and the first to recover the lost GDP from that downturn.Then we set out with determination to return to a balanced budget, with a surplus of $1.9 billion being achieved in the fiscal year 2014-15, a full year ahead of schedule. However, at the same time, my constituents have been burdened by an Ontario Liberal government that does not share their values, one that sees big spending, deficits and debt as the way to go, both in good times and in bad.As a result, my constituents are drowning under the burdens foisted on them by that Ontario Liberal government, burdens of higher taxes, fees, rafts of red tape, and job-killing regulation, and rocketing hydro rates.Well the hole is so deep now in Ontario, that this same Ontario Liberal crowd, which has left the cupboard bare, has now spotted the surplus in Ottawa. Now those people have come up here to continue to those big spending debt and deficit ways. What is their way of doing things?In Ontario, the debt has reached a staggering $300 billion. That is almost $22,000 for each man, woman, and child in the province. The deficit is $7.5 billion. It is now clear that the Ontario Liberal way of doing things is coming to Ottawa.Three facts are clear from the finance department's report so far. First, in 2014-15, the last full fiscal year under a Conservative government, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion. Second, from April to October of 2015, under a Conservative government, a six month period of time, there was a surplus of $1 billion. The same pattern, the exact same trajectory as the previous year.Third, by the end of March 2016, after just five months of a Liberal government, there will be a deficit of $3 billion. A year later, there will be an even higher deficit.This should not surprise anyone. The Liberal Party actually campaigned on a commitment to run deficits. During that election when I occasionally ran into people who told me they were voting Liberal, I would ask them what they liked, was it the promised deficits or the higher taxes? They would usually say to me that it was none of those things. I would tell them that this was what they would get. In turn they would say they did not think so.I would tell them it was in the Liberal platform, that it was spelled out, and that is what the Liberals had committed. Their comment was that the Liberals always broke their promises. To which I would tell they that they might be surprised, that these might be promises they would actually keep.We are discovering that this is the case. Clearly, whatever new face those Liberals thought they were voting for in the last election, they were not looking for the higher taxes and the deficits that the Liberal government believes is its mandate.Those constituents are, however, correct in at least one regard. Liberal promises are already being broken. The Liberals promised their tax measures would be revenue neutral, but now they have already admitted that they are not revenue neutral. They will in fact dig an additional deficit hole of $1.4 billion to $1.7 billion annually. That is not my number. That comes from the Liberal Minister of Finance. That is his admission of how that Liberal promise is being broken. Unfortunately, that broken promise and others to come will only make deeper the hole into which Canada will be pushed.When I was House leader of the government, I was astounded by the remarkable discipline that our then prime minister and our team, working with two very hard-working finance ministers and in fact the whole team, applied to the question of fiscal discipline. The work to achieve a balanced budget overall was in the interests of all Canadians. When there is a chance to be in government and see how challenging it is to manage the finances and the economy, people see how narrow that margin of manoeuvre is. It is like driving a car down a winding mountain road. It takes only a small amount of recklessness or inattention before going in the ditch or worse.In Ontario, my constituents are waiting for that provincial tow truck to arrive. Their well-grounded fear often expressed to me is that the same crowd who drove Ontario into the ditch now wants to continue that sloppy ride on the federal scene, putting Canada off the solid fiscal road it was on. They know that at the end of the day it is ordinary Canadians like them who will have to pay for it all.It is often said that history is written by the victors. What is said less often is what we hear from the other side of the House today, and that is history being rewritten by the victors. They did it in the Soviet Union. They do it in North Korea. Now the Liberals are trying to do it in Canada. Fortunately, this is Canada and Canadians will not be fooled by this Liberal overreach. That is because Canadians have access to objective facts, objective facts from the Department of Finance and objective facts from the Parliamentary Budget Officer. What are those facts? First, there was a $1.9 billion surplus in 2014-15, the last full fiscal year that the Conservatives were in government. Second, there was a $1 billion surplus over the last six months of the Conservative government, April to November, 2015.The question remains. Why, if the Liberals have promised to run deficits and they make a virtue of it, and there can be no doubt that Liberals see deficits as virtuous, are they so anxious to try to rewrite history, to go into those documents in the library at the finance department and cut out, with their scissors, any reference to past Conservative surpluses? I believe we all know the answer. Liberal deficits will be far higher than anyone thinks and they cannot bear to see the contrast with the Conservatives.The problem with the party that believes that deficits are a good thing, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons said today, is that they just cannot get enough of a good thing. If people believe a small deficit is good, it is not long before they start believing that a bigger deficit is better and before we know it, a huge deficit is just awesome. That, however, is how Liberal thinking always works. Before we know it we will find that the budget does not actually balance itself. That is the path we are already on. It did not take long, but the spending and deficits that the Liberals promise and are now delivering will ensure that at the end of next month we will be solidly in the red politically and fiscally. We will have gone year over year from $2 billion in surplus to $3 billion in deficit.Many out there are critical of our Conservative government's focus on achieving a balanced budget. There can be no doubt that the hard work and discipline of running a tight fiscal ship is not a lot of fun and sometimes people want to have some fun, and some money can buy fun. However, there is much truth in the saying that money cannot buy happiness. While some may argue with it, and some may argue that money can buy at least some happiness, nobody can argue that drowning in debt will do anything other than bringing continual misery.As for my constituents, they would prefer responsible leaders refusing to have fun with their tax dollars to happy politicians spending away, burying Canadians under a mountain of misery, debt, and taxes. Balancing the budget was the right thing to do. A steady hand on the tiller is what Canadians need. Our steady hands, a disciplined prime minister, and our hard-working finance ministers steadied the Canadian ship through the stormy seas of the biggest global economic downturn of my lifetime. We came out the other side with a balanced budget, solid books, low taxes, and a rising tide that was lifting the fortunes of all Canadians. It is a pity that it has taken so little time for that ship of state to start springing leaks and taking on water.

Mr. Speaker, in our consultations thus far in the TPP, we have heard opinions for, we have seen studies for, we have heard opinions against and have had representations against.We are taking all of this into consideration. That will be the work of the committee. That will be a decision made before this Parliament. It will be this Parliament that decides whether we ratify the TPP.

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that the TPP is a threat to our economy, and Windsor—Tecumseh and Essex county have already suffered hard blows to the auto sector. We know. Do not dismiss our concerns. We need meaningful consultation. The auto sector supports more than 120,000 good jobs in our province. However, the trade minister, back in 2008, wanted to let the big three go bankrupt, and now the trade minister signed a bad deal that puts our auto jobs at risk again—

Mr. Speaker, the last time was last year. Before that we had balanced budgets that paid down some $40 billion against the national debt when the previous prime minister was in office, so in fact, the Conservative record is solid, and that is clear and widely seen.What I find interesting is hearing Liberals and some new Democrats argue earlier today that it was only the General Motors sale that made this happen. Ironically, the Liberals are arguing that earlier the Ontario Liberals sold all their shares.We were the last ones to sell the shares, and in so doing achieved a far greater share price than the Ontario Liberals did, if the hon. member wants to know who are good managers. What is more, despite the Liberals selling the shares and applying that to the books and selling off Hydro One and applying that to the books and selling off whatever other furniture they could find around Ontario, they are still running a $7.5 billion deficit. There will not be much left if they keep selling off things the way Liberals do.

Mr. Speaker, the member raised questions with respect to the government's understanding in the area of the management of the economy.First and foremost, I would put to the member that it is the Liberal government that understands that an economy needs to be nurtured. If an economy were left to its own devices in this global setting, it would produce the economic record the Conservative government put forward over the last 10 years, which was the worst economic record since the Great Depression. Therefore, in terms of managing the economy and managing money, I do not think the Conservatives should carry too loud a voice.Second, we went back to the people in October. They gave us a resounding mandate to invest in and grow the economy, to use those levers that are in the hands of government to make Canada better, to reach out to and strengthen the middle class, and to have a strategy for the future.

Mr. Speaker, obviously the Liberal Party is accountable to the House. We have been receiving information through the House and there are also plenty of media reports out there.I go back to the example I gave of the middle class tax cut, the shell game that the Liberals are playing with the middle class. We will be paying for a $1.4 billion deficit as a result of that, yet the Liberals went through the election campaign saying that their tax cut for the middle class would be revenue neutral. We are starting to see those numbers mount. As my colleague from Durham stated earlier, a deficit of many billions of dollars is projected to be incurred throughout this term. It will be up to Canadians to decide in four years when they look at the Conservative plan and the Liberal plan who had the best fiscal plan for managing our economy. People will be awakened in four years.

Mr. Speaker, the member is seeking to confuse two issues. The statute to which he referred refers to a caucus vote. A caucus vote is different than a cabinet vote, and the member has been in cabinet and he knows that cabinet does not vote. What he is trying to do is phrase a question to make it properly the business of the government when he knows very well that we answered that question after our first caucus meeting in November.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for his tireless advocacy on behalf of this important issue.I am pleased to inform him that as a result of his work in the past, the Public Health Agency of Canada has been working on the federal framework on suicide prevention. In fact, I have just seen an almost final copy of that framework. I would be happy to meet with the member opposite to discuss it at any time, and we will continue to work to address this very serious matter of preventing suicide in this country.

Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the passion the hon. member has demonstrated. The bottom line is that we understand the importance of the automotive sector. It creates half a million direct and indirect jobs in Ontario. That is why I went to Detroit to meet with the global heads of the OEMs to talk about investments in Canada. We will use the automotive innovation fund and the automotive supplier innovation fund to attract investments and to create jobs in this very important sector.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member fully appreciates that provincial decisions are not something the federal government is really in a position to comment on. However, I can say that our government is focused on investment in infrastructure. We believe that social infrastructure, transit, roads, rail, and most importantly, green infrastructure are the lifeblood and the transition that is going to take this economy from where it is now to be well positioned and internationally competitive into the future. By making those investments we are defining the foundation upon which our country was built and what the economy will be built on not only today but into the future. That is why our government is committed to that in the budget.

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I seek unanimous consent for the following motion: That, notwithstanding any Standing or Special Order, at the conclusion of the debate on today's opposition motion, all questions necessary to dispose of the motion be deemed put, a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until Tuesday, February 16, 2016, at the conclusion of oral questions.

Mr. Speaker, in fairness, I think the hon. member is a little bit confused. Transfers under our government to the provinces increased maximally. In fact, transfers to my province increased some 80% over the time that the Conservative Party was in government, which was in stark contrast to what Paul Martin and the Liberals did when they decided to attack the deficit, which was slash funding to the provinces by over 40%. Does everyone remember that the health care crisis back there in the nineties, 1997 and 1996, when health care was slashed and every single province was struggling, because that was the Liberal approach, to slash transfers to the provinces. We did the opposite. We increased health care transfers to the provinces well ahead than the rate of inflation, in fact, higher than the rate of inflation in health care spending. The federal share of health care funding under our government rose. The provincial share of health care spending under our government fell. We were doing more than our fair share.Our concern is, what happens when another debt and deficit gets built up? We know the Liberals' way: it will hurt people.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member across the way for the question and certainly the passion he expresses with respect to indigenous people. Without question, I share that same passion, as does our government, to ensure that we implement the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement in a timely and fair way. As the Minister of Justice, I take very seriously my commitment to follow through with our commitments in the election to ensure that we are compliant with the charter and to ensure that there is fairness. I have instructed my hard-working and dedicated officials to come up with options to remedy this situation, working with the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs—

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say how much I appreciate the question from the hon. member, because it provides me with an opportunity to remind all the people here that we actually lowered taxes on nine million Canadians. As of January 1 this year, nine million Canadians have more money in their pockets.It is true that we raised taxes on a very small proportion of Canadians, whom perhaps the hon. member is talking about. We recognize that we have helped the vast majority of people in this country.

Mr. Speaker, our election platform also included significant infrastructure investments because we recognize that there is a serious infrastructure deficit in this country. This is recognized by all municipalities, in Quebec and elsewhere in the country, and also by the general public. The difference between the two programs is that ours provided for more investments in the second, third, and fourth years so that the municipalities could plan their projects. It provided $5 billion for the current new building Canada plan. Doubling this amount in the first year does not mean that there will be enough worthwhile and shovel-ready projects to invest in.We would have preferred that there be more money for the second, third, and fourth years, but the fact that there will be major investments is important in itself.However, this should not become an excuse for wasting money by investing for the sake of investing. We must ensure that the investments are productive and that they boost the economy and Canadian productivity.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her question.As I just said, we are signing the agreement to give ourselves the time to have a parliamentary committee study it properly. Should we ratify the agreement, we will work with the sectors affected. That is a commitment we made during the election campaign, and that is exactly what we are doing.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Carleton for that excellent intervention. I am very much looking forward to engaging in this debate on the kind of fact and fiction that is often introduced in this House. Before I do, I want to thank the residents of the beautiful city of Abbotsford for re-electing me to a fourth term. I have had a chance to serve them for 10 years, and I am very much looking forward to the next few years being their representative here in Canada's capital city, Ottawa.What we are discussing here is a motion that affirms once and for all that, in fact, the previous Conservative government left the new Liberal government with a balanced budget. In fact, it was more than a balanced budget; we left the new government with a surplus of over $1 billion. Sadly, what we hear from the Minister of Finance, from his parliamentary secretary, and from some of the members on the Liberal side is the perpetuation of this canard that somehow the previous government left the Liberals with a deficit. That is patently false. They can actually ask the highest-serving civil servant in Canada in the finance department. He has said that the previous government left a surplus. In fact, the Parliamentary Budget Officer has said the same thing: the previous government left a surplus to the current Liberal government.Let us talk about how we even got to this point. As members know, back in 2008-09, the world was faced with the worst global economic crisis the world had seen since the Great Depression, and like virtually every other developed country in the world, Canada and our Conservative government did what was right. We invested in infrastructure to make sure that we primed the pump. We were fortunate, because Canada was the last country of the G7 to actually slip into recession, and our policies in responding to that recession actually allowed us to emerge from the recession as the first country to do so. We invested in our economy, made sure that our economy was strong going forward, and created jobs. We made a promise back then, because to invest so heavily in infrastructure at one time to prime that pump I referred to, we had to go into temporary deficit. When we did so, we did something that our Liberal and New Democrat friends opposed: we set a clear goal to return to balance in our budgets. In fact, in 2011, during the election when we were elected as a majority government, we pledged to Canadians that by the year 2015, we would actually return to balanced budgets. In fact, we achieved that a year earlier than expected. Even now, in this fiscal year, we have left the new government with a surplus. How did we achieve that between 2008 and 2015? There are four key things we did. I already mentioned the $33-billion worth of infrastructure we invested in across our country. Much of it was transportation-related infrastructure. Much of it was knowledge infrastructure. By all accounts, that infrastructure investment was made in a timely, efficient way and delivered results.The second thing we did was recognize that in a recession, Canadians do not need extra taxes. In fact, we continued to reduce the tax burden on Canadians. We reduced taxes to the point where today, the tax burden on Canadians is the lowest it has been in over 50 years.The third thing we did is something the Liberals have found tough to do. In fact, a previous leader of the Liberal Party said, “Do you think it's easy to make priorities?” No, we do not believe it is easy to set priorities. Setting priorities is tough, but fortunately, Canadians had a tough-minded government in place that knew how to set priorities and make tough decisions. We were able to control the growth of government. We were able to control government spending.The fourth thing we did, and something I am personally very proud of, was embark upon the most ambitious trade agenda Canada had ever seen. I am glad to see my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade is here. I look forward to working with him to ratify the trans-Pacific partnership, and also our free trade agreement with the European Union.Since our government was elected in 2006, we were able to negotiate trade agreements with 46 countries. We were able to negotiate a megadeal with the European Union. We negotiated a trade agreement with South Korea, which is a market of 50 million well-heeled consumers. We concluded negotiations on the trans-Pacific partnership with 11 other partners within the Asia-Pacific region.We did that because we wanted to open up new opportunities for Canadians in markets around the world, new opportunities for Canadian manufacturers, Canadian investors, Canadian service providers, Canadian innovators. We opened markets for Canadian exporters and importers. Our consumers benefited because tariffs were eliminated.Of the dollar value of known economic benefits and expected economic benefits of all trade agreements that Canada has signed, 98.5% of that value was negotiated under Conservative governments, not Liberal governments.It started with the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement which then morphed into the North American Free Trade Agreement, where we brought Mexico into the fold. Then there were 13 years between 1993 to 2006, where virtually nothing got done, while the rest of the world was moving ahead, full steam, opening up new markets. Our Liberals friends negotiated three small agreements with Chile, Costa Rica and Israel.I am very proud of our record of an additional 46 markets opened up to Canadians, driving economic growth and prosperity in our country. These temporary deficits that we embarked upon provided an impetus to our economy back in 2008-09 and they paid off because we handled it in a responsible way. We returned to surplus budgets one year earlier than expected.We are very proud of that achievement. We are also very sad to see the new Liberal government embark upon a set of policies that are just upending that apple cart of stability, of common sense.The Prime Minister within days of being sworn in, without consultations, without warning to Canadians, made an announcement, not in Canada but in Malta, that he was going to be spending $2.65 billion of taxpayer money on climate change initiatives, vanity projects, not at home, not in our country, but in foreign countries. There is no accountability. The money is going to foreign agencies where we have very little oversight, and there is very little transparency.We see that with the the approach of the Liberals to taxes. We see that in their approach to big spending, and their promises of big deficits. In fact, during the election, the Prime Minister promised Canadians that he would only run deficits of about $10 billion per year each year, and in the fourth year of his term, he would balance the budget. Guess what? Economists are now in agreement that these deficits will be much higher. In fact, many people are predicting deficits in the range of $30 billion to $40 billion a year. So much for making promises.Will the Prime Minister and his government reach a balanced budget in four years? Any economist we might speak to will say that it is virtually impossible unless there is a huge hike in taxes on Canadians.That is not the kind of government Canadians elected. As we discuss the finances of this nation, there are not many things more important than being transparent and forthright about the state of those finances. May I suggest for the Liberal government, the Minister of Finance, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, and all members of the Liberal government that they be truthful when they talk about deficits. I expect the truth might set them free.

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting. Canadians have a big problem on their hands with the current government. What they have is a government that does not seem to be able to understand and manage money. There is no accountability. When the Liberals ran, as the member mentioned, they were going to run a modest deficit of $10 billion. I would ask that the member clarify whether that, in fact, is the number that the deficit will be.When the Liberals talked about this great tax relief, they said it would be revenue neutral. Even the private business that the finance minister was formerly involved with says it is actually not neutral. It is about a $2 billion deficit. What has happened over the years is that, when Liberals get into trouble, they go back to the people, as they did in the 1990s when they cut the transfers to the provinces, and health care for municipalities, gutted the military, and then took a little swipe out of EI for some $50 billion, which makes it really easy to start to balance budgets.I am wondering if the member could help us understand if that is the route the Liberals are going to go now to help with the deficit and balance the budget at some point.

Mr. Speaker, I found that really funny. It is going to be hard after that. It is kind of weird.One of the things I did note in committee today, in all fairness, is that we do not want pre-budget consultations at the committee to hold up the budget. Canadians want a budget. They want a plan. They want to know what is going on.My question to the Minister of Finance is pretty simple. Does he feel he has the ability to actually make a decision and tell us when the budget will be?

Mr. Speaker, the committee met for the first time this morning and established a process whereby we will look at all important issues and determine which ones need to come first. Every issue dealing with the safety and security of Canadians will be considered seriously.

Mr. Speaker, we certainly recognize that the Port of Québec is an important port along the St. Lawrence that is part of Quebec's maritime strategy. This port plays a key role in the delivery of bulk commodities and, as my colleague mentioned, in the ferry sector. We are examining this request and will make a decision in the near future.

Mr. Speaker, as this is the first time I am standing in the House in this new Parliament, I will start by thanking the voters of Edmonton—Wetaskiwin for their strong support in this last election. We got just a little more than 45,000 votes, which was the fifth highest vote total in the country. There was strong support for our Conservative record over the past decade for a balanced budget and significant leadership in navigating our country's course through the global economic slowdown of 2008.I want to take the opportunity to thank my kids, Jaden and Jenae, who played an increased role in the campaign and also play an increasing role in my position as a member of Parliament, in coming on the road and helping me do a lot of the work that I do on autism. Many people know that my 20-year-old son has autism, and many people in this room have received a high-five from him at some time or another. I thank them for sharing me with constituents and stakeholders, both in the constituency and across the country.I will also take this chance to thank my mom, Bonnie, and her husband, Dale, for their tireless support. One of the highlights of my week is driving with my mother to the airport. It is our time together. When we do not get any other time to spend together, we get 20 minutes when she comes to pick me up, sometimes at 5:30 in the morning, and takes me to the airport. It is a great opportunity for us to catch up.I will also take the opportunity to thank my staff in both my Edmonton and Ottawa offices, who do and have done phenomenal work over 10 years in support of what we get a chance to do.Finally, and I think it is important in the context of what we are talking about today, I want to thank the officials at Industry Canada. I had the opportunity to be the parliamentary secretary for eight years at Industry, and those public servants were absolutely phenomenal during that time in supporting me. I was always amazed at how they could take a complicated topic and within half an hour give a briefing that would help me look sometimes like an expert, which may be debatable from different sides of the House. However, the work they do is phenomenal and it was a great pleasure to work with them in addition to the ministerial staff and ministers that I got a chance to work with.On the topic we are talking about today, as we went through the election campaign I heard, and have heard a lot since, about the importance of balanced budgets, and the importance of that Conservative leadership that we have shown on the economy over the last decade. I also heard a lot about the strength of the Canadian middle class. There was a recognition of that as I was on the campaign trail. However, there were a lot of things being said during the campaign that were not entirely true. I think we still hear some of that coming from the government side today in the image it is trying to portray.I will focus today on three Liberal fictions that I have seen over the last several months as we have been going through this.First, there is a fiction that Canada's middle class is struggling. Certainly we all want Canadians to be better off. We all want to create an environment where all Canadians can succeed, no matter their level of wealth, their job, or position in life. However, the fact is that Canada's middle class is the strongest in the world. It is not the former Conservative government that is saying that. It is not our Conservative members of Parliament who are saying that. The New York Times reported on the Luxembourg Income Study, which put forward a paper that talked about Canada being number one in the world in terms of income levels at the 30th, 40th, and 50th income percentiles. These are independent organizations that have said that. Notwithstanding that, the Liberals, during the election campaign and even now, continue to talk about the struggling Canadian middle class. Andrew Coyne put it brilliantly when he wrote back in May that: Introducing his “fairness for the middle class” tax plan, [the Liberal leader] waxed lyrical about a golden time, still within memory, when opportunity beckoned and the sun shone year ’round. Coyne continued: Of course, there was no such era. It was just something to say--the same myth-making on which the entire plan is based. In Liberal mythology, the middle class is forever to be “struggling”, forgotten, falling behind. Coyne concluded by saying: But then, every line of the Liberal story is a fraud. The middle class isn't struggling: the $53,000 the median family earned after tax in 2012 is an all-time high--24% more than in 1997, after inflation. The rich aren't pulling away from the rest of us: the share of all income going to the top 1% has been falling steadily since 2006. At 10.3 per cent, it is back to where it was in 1998. I will give the final word to none other than a prominent conservative speaker, Hillary Clinton, who said: Canadian middle-class incomes are now higher than in the United States. They are working fewer hours for more pay, enjoying a stronger safety net, living longer on average, and facing less income inequality. The fact of the matter is that this notion that Canada's middle class is struggling that the Liberals campaigned on is a complete fiction.A second fiction, and the one we are debating today, is the fact that they inherited a deficit. I say “fact”. I put quotation marks around that because the fact is that the Department of Finance has confirmed that Canada posted a $1-billion surplus up to November 2015, when the Liberals took office.That is very important because there have been a lot of things said today and over the course of the last several months. It very important to notice that in addition to the $1-billion surplus, we increased funding for the Canada health transfer by 6% over that year period and a 3% increase in the Canada social transfer over that period. That is a $1.5-billion increase in these two important transfers.After the 2008 global financial crisis, the Conservative government laid out a comprehensive stimulus plan and a seven-year plan to get back to budget balance. It was interesting to hear the Liberal member opposite allude to that earlier in his question. I know he is a new member and that he has maybe not had the benefit of doing a Google search before he asked the question, but if he did, he would find statement after statement by Liberal members of Parliament, from opposition members from all sides, absolutely demanding that the government spend more money, that we spend on a broader range of programs, and that we extend that spending. Of course, during that time, members will remember that our plan was targeted, it was time-limited, and our spending was designed to expire and we laid out a solid plan to get back to budget balance. However, time and again, every single day, Liberal members of Parliament stood and demanded more spending and demanded that spending be made permanent.It is a bit of a mythological world, I guess, that the Liberals live in over there, but hopefully today will clarify some of that record.Finally, I will deal with the last fiction, the fiction that they will only run $10-billion deficits every year.First, I underline the word “only”, because only $10 billion in deficit is a ridiculous way of phrasing it in the first place. Clearly, the Parliamentary Budget Officer has looked at the facts and projected that the deficits will be billions of dollars higher over the years. In fact, we are talking tens of billions of dollars higher—so high, in fact, that Liberal members cannot even clarify it. They have no way of quantifying what those numbers will be.Let me just close by saying that this is my first time in opposition. I very much look forward to holding the government to account. I want to avoid going back to the time when the Liberal government of the day, a former Trudeau government back in the 1970s, took steps to increase deficits and run massive deficits, starting the cycle in the first place and another Liberal government then had to slash spending on health care and social service and education transfers by billions of dollars.We hope that mistake will not be made by the government. We will oppose those types of measures every step of the way. On this important motion, we hope that we will have the support of all members of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Mississauga—Lakeshore.It is a privilege for me to be here to participate in this important debate on today's motion.I would like to reassure my hon. colleague that we have complete confidence in the abilities of the dedicated officials at the Department of Finance, who are currently working on the 2016 budget.I can say that our budget will flesh out our plan to grow the economy, a plan that has the support of the Canadians who gave us a majority mandate last fall.First of all, the government believes that all Canadians should have real and equal opportunities to succeed. This will be achieved by strengthening and growing the middle class. That is what we said throughout our election campaign, and that is what we are offering Canadians. It will come as no surprise when I say that Canada is going through tough economic times. Although the recent U.S. economic performance is encouraging, emerging economies, especially China, are cause for concern.Many analysts were counting on emerging economies, such as Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, to help stimulate economic growth. We now know that this will unfortunately not be the case.Canada's economic performance was weak in 2015, which can primarily be explained by last year's drop in the price of oil. Make no mistake about it, the Government of Canada will post a deficit for the 2015-16 fiscal year, and this deficit is the result of what the previous government did and did not do. That is a fact.The previous Liberal government left a $13-billion surplus in 2006. The Conservative government wasted this surplus and racked up more than $150 billion in additional debt, all the while managing to achieve the worst growth record since the Great Depression. Those are facts.Our colleagues have told us all kinds of tales this morning, but what I just said is the truth. All of that, with no plan to grow the middle class, no plan to invest, and no plan for growth. That is the Conservative government's disastrous record.It is quite likely that the global economy will remain unfavourable in the future and that the price of commodities will remain low. There is no doubt that, as we begin to put our plan for economic growth and long-term prosperity into action, we are up against fierce headwinds. However, in the face of this real challenge, there is also real opportunity to put in place the conditions to create long-term growth. This growth will create good jobs and help our middle class, the lifeblood of our economy, to prosper. This is a good time to make targeted investments to support our country's economic growth. However, I want to be clear. We are going to focus on smart investments that promote economic growth while maintaining a commitment to fiscal responsibility. We intend to focus on two particularly challenging issues. The first is restoring economic progress for the middle class, the backbone of our economy. We simply cannot claim that our country is prosperous if our middle class is having trouble making ends meet.That is why the government followed through on its promise by making a tax cut for the middle class the first order of business on December 7, 2015. I am proud to say that, as of January 1, approximately nine million Canadians are receiving significant tax relief. This is a fair measure, and it is the smart thing to do for our economy.In order to achieve this goal, we introduced Bill C-2, an act to amend the Income Tax Act. This bill is merely the first step in our plan to grow the economy in the long term, create jobs, and help Canada's middle class prosper.More specifically, Bill C-2 will cut the personal income tax rate, dropping it from 22% to 20.5%, and establish a 33% tax rate for individual taxable incomes above $200,000. We are asking the wealthiest Canadians to contribute a little more.Lastly, we are lowering the annual contribution limit for tax-free savings accounts, TFSAs, from its current $10,000 back to its previous amount, which was $5,500, and we are also reinstating the indexation of that limit. Our middle-class tax cut and the accompanying changes will help make the tax system fairer. As I mentioned, this bill is just the beginning of our government's measures to grow the economy.In the next budget, we will introduce the new Canada child tax benefit, another important measure that will provide increased support to the vast majority of Canadian families and help lift hundreds of thousands of children our of poverty. That is right, I said hundreds of thousands of children. Unlike the existing program, the Canada child tax benefit will be simpler, more generous and more targeted to those who need it most. Plus, it is tax free.Together, these measures will help strengthen the middle class and help those who work hard to be a part of it. As a result of these measures, Canadians will have more money to save, invest, and help grow our economy. More generally, these measures will stimulate economic growth at a time when the global economy is cause for concern, to ensure that all Canadians will benefit.The second challenge we are facing, and this may be the biggest one, has to do with creating the conditions for strong, long-term economic growth. Smart, targeted investments in infrastructure are essential to stimulating economic growth. Furthermore, now is the time to invest, while interest rates are at all-time lows.Canadians made it clear that they want real change. They want their government to govern differently. They want to be able to trust their government and they want leadership that is focused on what is most important to them. We are listening. Since early January, the Minister of Finance and I have been criss-crossing the country holding pre-budget consultations organized by the Department of Finance. We have gathered some very good ideas and excellent comments. Canadians have told us that they are concerned about the state of our infrastructure, including bridges, roads, public transit, sewers, and seniors' homes.Canadian cities are growing rapidly, and all levels of government are facing the same challenge: making infrastructure investments that generate economic benefits for Canada and promote sustainable urban environments.Over the next decade, we will invest $120 billion in public infrastructure. Our investments will focus on making life better for Canadians and developing more lucrative business opportunities for our exporters.To ensure that we are making strategic investments, we will work with the provinces and territories to address their most urgent needs. That is what Canadians expect of us. They want us to work together to make progress and begin building a better Canada.A number of initiatives are important to our government's growth strategy for Canada. First, environmental sustainability will be central to the development of our natural resources sector. Together with our North American partners, Canada can and should be one of the most efficient and responsible energy producers in the world. We will also support growing businesses to help them attract the talent, capital, and innovation they need to capitalize on business opportunities in the global market.We will work with the provinces to develop a skills and labour strategy that promotes greater participation of under-represented groups.We will work with the provinces and territories to improve the Canada Pension Plan and help Canadians achieve their retirement income security goals. These are important objectives that can have a significant impact on our long-term growth.In closing, there is no quick and easy solution. We are lucky to live in such a diverse and prosperous country. However, the challenges we are facing today are real and to overcome them we must find common ground despite our different points of view. I can assure my colleagues that our government is prepared to meet these challenges.

Mr. Speaker, I would have to look at the record in terms of the actual numbers for that. The member can check the record on this. It is really easy to find news articles. If my colleague was to Google the word “coalition” he might find that in 2008 his leader of the day tried to form a coalition with the Bloc and the NDP to take over the Conservative government of the day, because we could not spend enough to satisfy them at that time, immediately after an election campaign. We took a world-leading approach to the global financial crisis. Organizations around the world, from the OECD to the World Economic Forum to the IMF, praised Canada's approach in that crisis, partly because we delivered the stimulus quickly. We came out of the crisis faster than other countries. We did that despite the fact that Liberal members of Parliament demanded more spending and longer spending. We would still be running deficits today if the Liberals had had their way.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member opposite that Canadians pay for too much for prescription drugs. We do, in fact, pay the second highest per capita cost in the world. Part of my mandate is to address the rising cost of drugs to ensure that prescription medicine is affordable and available to Canadians who need it. We intend to do that. We have a number of mechanisms by which we will do that. We have already taken steps in that regard. I will continue to address this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that question from my learned friend from Newmarket—Aurora. He was a year behind me at Dalhousie Law School and I am quite sure he graduated. I know he did and he had a very successful law practice before coming to this place.As a lawyer, he knows that before we conclude, as he mentioned in his remarks, we have evidence and the evidence is clear. We did run a deficit, but the previous prime minister was crystal clear with Canadians that our deficit spending was time limited, was stimulative, and was part of a longer term plan to get to balance by 2014-15, which we did. At the time, as I said previously, we lowered taxes on Canadians, particularly families and seniors, and grew the economy modestly. Our success record was stronger than most countries in the G7 through that global recession. The difference and the line in the sand we are drawing is the plan the new Liberal government seems to have deficits going up with no end in sight, not going down. The deficits were estimated to be $10 billion or $20 billion in their election plan, going to $60 billion plus. I would urge that bright young member of the House to speak up on Wednesdays and pull the reins back on spending in his caucus.

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives have, once again, taken the opportunity to put forward real policy on this opposition day and traded it for a chance to talk about themselves and the mirage of their own ostensibly brilliant record. If we take the old books off the Conservative stove long enough to read them, we might find a few entries that make sense. We will not find very many, though. If we have the callouses needed to turn those still-warm pages, we will find a lot of capital assets that were quietly removed from the books, liquidated; that is, sold, trimmed from part of the inventory of supplies the government owns to provide services to the people, to a one-time supply of cash that can be ever so briefly used to show that the government is making money. When the Conservatives tell us that they balanced the budget, what they are not telling us is that they sold the house to pay off the mortgage. Unfortunately for them, Canada has found a new place to live.

Mr. Speaker, as the 150th anniversary of our nation's capital draws near, many of my constituents feel that Ottawa has not received equal treatment from the economic development agencies over the last decade to help develop local projects and strengthen the local economy. In fact, Ottawa has received less than a dollar per capita in federal development agency funding. Can the minister assure my constituents and all residents of the Ottawa region that we will be treated fairly when it comes to economic development projects?

Madam Speaker, it is great to be back here, and I would like to take the occasion to thank family and friends who supported me, volunteers who worked to help with my re-election, the electors who chose me, and even those who did not, for the privilege of serving in this august chamber. Most of all, I would like to thank the people of Carleton, my newly constituted riding, for giving me the chance. It is newly constituted, but it is very much a historical place. Sir John A. Macdonald was elected in the riding of Carleton, and the century before, its namesake, Sir Guy Carleton, was the Lieutenant-Governor of Quebec; so in a small sense, history is repeating itself with the re-emergence of these boundaries in this riding, but it is also repeating itself with the new government.We have today, as we did almost a century ago, a Prime Minister who is a Liberal, who is a Quebecker, and who speaks of sunny ways. Of course, sunny ways is not an expression he invented; it is one he inherited from then prime minister Laurier, who of course is one of the greatest prime ministers this country has ever had. Laurier said: Canada shall be the star towards which all men who love progress and freedom shall come. More freedom at that time meant less government. From 1900 to 1910, federal, provincial, and municipal spending was a combined 9% of GDP. Today, it is about 40%. Low-cost government meant a low-tax nation. To quote the authors of The Canadian Century, Crowley, Clemens, and Veldhuis: Laurier believed that the cost of government, and especially the tax burden, needed always to be kept below the level in the United States, so as to create a powerful competitive advantage for Canada. Then, as now, Canada's low-tax plan worked. In the first 20 years of the 20th century, our population grew by an unprecedented two-thirds, and to quote the previous authors, “the wheat yield in the three Prairie provinces rose during Laurier's time...” by 500%, new and repair construction increased by almost 400%, and exports more than doubled. The rate at which the new companies formed and were chartered grew by 12 times during the first decade of that century.That is a good moment in which to say that I will be splitting my time with the member for Abbotsford.If today's Prime Minister were to bring sunny ways such as these, I think we would all rejoice. In fact, despite Laurier's partisan affiliation to what we call the Liberal Party, he would probably have recognized himself more in the policies of the previous government than the current one.Conservatives in the last 10 years brought free trade, free markets, and free people. In fact, we left Canada the freest country in the world, according to the Legatum Prosperity Index. We had the sixth freest economy in the world, according to The Wall Street Journal, and according to the finance department last week, we also had a balanced budget.The Parliamentary Budget Officer has added that the projected surplus for this year, based on all the information available to him on the day that the current Liberal government took office, would have us running a surplus of $1.2 billion, and so in a sense the Prime Minister of today has inherited sunny ways from his predecessors in the recent past.Much has been said about the gap between the rich and the poor and the plight of the middle class. I am glad we should speak of these subjects, because over the last decade the facts are clear: families moved out of poverty and into the middle class. The middle class got ahead and better off than any other country in the world. Between 2005 and 2011, during which time the Conservative government was in power, the take-home pay among low-income families was up 14%, after tax and inflation.Even Andrew Coyne, who had previously endorsed the Liberals, admitted: In 2011, the last year for which StatsCanada has figures, the proportion of the population living on low income...fell to its lowest level—well, ever. At just 8.8%, it beat the previous record of 9.0%, set in 2010. As recently as 1996, it was at 15.2%. In other words, poverty fell by almost half in 20 years.Of course, child poverty would be expected to rise during the great global recession that resulted from the financial crisis of 2008. In fact, according to UNICEF, the opposite happened here in Canada. While children around the world were falling into poverty, here in Canada the child poverty rate decreased from 23% to 21% during the recession, pulling roughly 180,000 children out of poverty.How did this happen?First, the reality is that we increased the amount that Canadians could earn before they started paying taxes and removed one million low-income Canadians from the tax rolls altogether. The parliamentary budget officer said, “In total, cumulative changes have reduced federal tax revenue by $30 billion, or 12 per cent. These changes have been progressive, overall. Low and middle income earners have benefited more, in relative terms, than higher income earners.”The same report points out that the “highest 10 per cent of income earners benefit least, with after-tax gains of...1.4 per cent...”Our government enacted policies to free people from poverty, allowing them to enter the middle class. Yesterday's poor are today's middle class. What is the state of the middle class? The ultra Liberal New York Times had something to say on this subject. “Life in Canada, Home of the World’s Most Affluent Middle Class”, was the screaming headline.The same article went on to say, “After-tax middle-class incomes in Canada — substantially behind in 2000 — now appear to be higher than in the United States.” That must have been a very tough admission for The New York Times.Overall, under the previous government, personal income taxes are down 10%, and take-home pay is up 10% on average across all income levels. The median net worth of Canadians went up by 44%. We reduced poverty and freed middle-class strivers to get ahead, letting families keep more of what they earned. They earned bigger and better wages in a big, open, opportunity-filled, free-enterprise economy.There are other ways than tax relief to free people from despair and poverty and allow them to get ahead. I suggest that all of them are based on three pillars: work, family, and community. It is not government, but work, family, and community. A job is the best anti-poverty program there is; family is the best social safety net we have; and community is what is left to take care of those people who, through no fault of their own, have no work or perhaps cannot rely on family.I would like to share some stories that I heard along the way as we continue with this debate, but the time is now running out and members are anxious to get on with their questions. Therefore, I will just say that we in this country have an opportunity to continue to allow our middle class and our working families to get ahead if we remove the obstacles that government has put in the way, lift off the heavy burden of red tape, and continue to build an economy that is built on free trade, free enterprise, and free people. I say this because of something I learned when I was minister of employment. There was a bureaucratic decision to close a recycling plant not far from here that takes care of all of the used sensitive documents of the Government of Canada. There were 50 special needs people who recycled all of that paper on our behalf. They do it very well and at a very low cost. For some reason there was a bureaucratic decision to end that program. They were, of course, devastated. This was the place where they went, it was the place that gave them purpose, and it was a place, as they say in Cheers, where everybody knew their name. When I announced that I would intervene and save this program, I went to visit these incredible young people. I asked one young man what he liked best about his job. He said, “work”. I asked him how we could make the place better for him. He said, “Send more paper. I don't want it to run out because I want to keep working.” That is the kind of enterprising spirit that inspires us all to build the economy that we all want.

Mr. Speaker, the member for York—Simcoe wants to talk about past Conservative surpluses, so let us talk about them.The former Conservative government of the member for Calgary Heritage was the first Conservative government since that of Sir Robert Borden in 1912, the year the Titanic sank, to balance any budget whatsoever. The two governments had something very important in common. Both squandered the surpluses left to them by the previous Liberal governments prior to the onset of significant economic challenges. For Mr. Borden, 1912 saw a surplus inherited from Sir Wilfred Laurier in 1911. In 1913, Borden posted a deficit. In 1914, the First World War broke out. For the former Prime Minister from Calgary Heritage, the Liberal surplus was so significant that it took him two full years to squander it before the onset of the 2008 fiscal crisis the following year. That Conservatives are in any way good fiscal managers is one of the great myths of Canadian political discourse. Does the member know that the last time the Conservatives actually took us from a deficit to a surplus on their own competence was in the 1870s, and does he know that every Liberal Prime Minister to introduce a budget has balanced at least one?

Mr. Speaker, words are nice, but firm commitments are needed. The port and the National Optics Institute are not the only ones with needs. Université Laval also needs funding for the Institut nordique du Québec.The Liberal Party has yet to follow through on its commitments. The people of Quebec City want answers. The Liberals' track record in Quebec City in the first 100 days is zero plus zero, which equals zero.When will the government follow through on its commitments to the people of Quebec City?

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today in favour of this motion. I rise with complete objectivity, not being a part of the previous government. I am, however, very proud in the way the country's finances were run by the Conservatives. That is why I am a Conservative and why I believe the Liberals need to acknowledge the truth in the Department of Finance's report. I also believe that the Liberals have to stop blaming the previous government for the mistakes they are now making and the mistakes that many people in my riding know they are making.I would first like to thank the independent, non-partisan officials from the Department of Finance for their hard work and evidenced-based analysis for the most recent “Fiscal Monitor”, as well as the deputy minister and his team. I want everyone who works in the Department of Finance to know that this Conservative Party and Canadians respect the work they do. We know they do it well. The Conservative Party trusts the information they provide as the truth. We know the work they do is not political. It is a shame, really, that the Liberals are using their efforts for their own political gain.The people of Barrie—Innisfil and from ridings across Canada expect the government to act in their best interest when it comes to spending taxpayers' money. The most important part of fulfilling that fiduciary obligation is to balance the books, just as Canadians have to balance their own household budgets on a monthly basis. Seniors are especially vulnerable and hard hit when the cost of goods and services and taxes rise. In Barrie, 18% of residents have reached the age of 60. In Innisfil, 14.5% of the population are 65 or older. When a senior in this country has to make a decision between heating and eating, we know that something is structurally wrong. It is important to deal with the facts when it comes to managing the economy. The reality is, the previous Conservative government paid down $37 billion in debt before the great recession. Once that global financial tsunami hit our shores, a conscious decision was made to run deficits over the medium term. A comprehensive plan was put in place, and the previous government stuck to it.Members from other parties were screaming for more and more spending, but a balanced approach was taken. The Department of Finance's official findings of the budgetary surplus of $1 billion for 2015-16 is a clear vindication of the Conservatives' strong leadership on the economy through nearly unprecedented tumultuous economic times. It is also relevant to note that the parliamentary budget office has also substantiated that the surplus was received.It is interesting as I sit on this side and listen to government officials talk about the parliamentary budget officer. It is amazing what they used to say when they were in opposition about the PBO. The current President of the Treasury Board said, “That office has become indispensable, both to us as parliamentarians and to Canadians, who want to know what their government is doing with their money.”The current Minister of Foreign Affairs, on April 29, 2013, said, “No one can deny that the Parliamentary Budget Officer produced some excellent analyses. Instead of shooting the messenger, the government should have listened to and respected what he had to say.”The current member for Scarborough—Guildwood said, “Mr. Speaker, in November 2008 the PBO predicted a deficit, the minister a surplus. The PBO was right, the minister wrong.”At another time the member said, “...the PBO tests the numbers against internationally recognized verifiers.... the PBO spends his money on peer-review panels rather than on spin and re-announcements.”It is amazing to me how things can change once the government changes.The studied, measured approach was an important reason why the deficit was reduced from $55.6 billion at the height of the great recession to a projected surplus of over $1 billion by 2016, which we now know was achieved. Our rural areas, small towns, growing cities, and large urban centres all require targeted plans to stimulate the economy and promote economic innovation. I am proud to be a member of a party that has a record of lowering taxes every year after coming into office. This made Canada competitive and allowed job-creating businesses to thrive. The former government recognized the best way to grow the economy and help create more jobs was to keep taxes low and to achieve a balanced budget.The Liberals have not been clear on their plans regarding finances and the economy for Canadians. The new government must present a pro-growth agenda that involves tax cuts, free trade, and key investments in manufacturing, innovation, and infrastructure to get more Canadians working and earning more.Since the election, I have been reminded by business leaders in my riding that their money is portable. One employer with 2,400 employees has told me point-blank that if taxes, debt, and deficits grow in this country and that burden falls on companies like his, he will seriously consider moving his operations. Money is portable.As Canada's official opposition, the Conservative caucus is proud of its record of lowering taxes during its time in government. In fact, Conservatives reduced taxes over 200 times, saving the average Canadian family over $6,600 per year. Those pocketbook-saving measures included roughly $2.7 billion in annual targeted tax relief directly for the benefit of seniors and pensioners.The Conservative caucus has always made lower taxes a priority. The Conservative Party has always recognized the importance of Canadians keeping more of their hard-earned money in their pockets. During the Conservatives' time in government, we removed over one million low-income Canadians, including 400,000 seniors, from tax rolls completely. We increased the amount that Canadians can earn before paying federal income tax at all, and we reduced the lowest personal income tax rate to 15%. We reduced the GST, we increased basic personal income tax exemptions from $8,148 in 2005 to $11,327 by 2015. We removed the $10,000 limit that applies on the amount that caregivers can claim under the medical expense tax credit on behalf of certain dependants.Under the Conservatives, the federal tax burden has been the lowest in half a century. We are the party of lower taxes, lower spending, and strong economic management. The Liberal Party, on the other hand, is the party of big government, big deficits, and certainly big rhetoric. However, the numbers do not lie. If the Liberals run huge deficits, it will be their doing, and theirs alone. They will not be able to point to the previous government, as they so often do. The PBO and finance department are clear that the new Liberal government is beginning its mandate in the black due to hard work of the Conservative Party. Unfortunately, the lack of tangible, clear economic plan for the party opposite spells doom for Canadians. The Liberals' laundry list of election-time promises point to a government that tried to be all things to all people in order to get elected. Their lack of details in governing signals the inevitability of economic instability, massive job losses, and higher taxation for all Canadians.In their arrogance, the Liberals are running around this place and in Canada thinking that Canadians endorse their financial plan to place us deeper into debt and place us in a deep structural situation. I have news for them. There may have been other reasons why they got elected, but this is not one of them. Canadians, by nature, would not pile on debt or put their families into deficit or debt situations purposely and I do not believe they expect their government to do that either. I believe in that in all that I am.In closing, I encourage all members to support this motion. Our economy is not a game. Choices have consequences. The stakes are high. By voting against this motion, the government would be signalling that it does not have any confidence in the employees at the highest levels of Finance Canada. If the Liberal government does not trust its own officials, how can we expect it to prepare the budget or manage the finances of Canadians moving forward?

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned a few things in her question. The record would show that during the global recession the government eased EI rules to make sure that there was a longer period. Knowing that the economy would be tight, we provided more flexibility for people to qualify. That is something we have been urging the new Prime Minister to extend to Alberta in the challenging situations it has been in. We have made sure that going forward the EI fund will be run prudently and not picked from as the previous Liberal government did regularly.The member also mentioned the auto sector and I am passionate about that, representing the Durham region part of Oshawa. I would note I was born in Quebec. My father worked at General Motors at Sainte-Thérèse and am very proud of that plant, which closed under the Chrétien government. Our trade deals and our deals we signed with the European Union in particular, on top of the loan we provided for the auto sector to help it through the global recession, are causing what is happening now, record sales in autos. Along with Ontario, we took back the money we loaned as was the normal plan. We have an auto sector today, with the Edge vehicle built in Oakville, for around the world new investments, and the auto innovation fund. We secured an industry that was on the precipice. We are not going to let happen to Oshawa what the last Liberal government let happen to Sainte-Thérèse.

Mr. Speaker, the media in English Canada are getting involved in the debate on the sale of Rona and telling the government not to take action.Rona employs 23,000 people in Quebec, including 1,000 at the head office in Boucherville, in my riding. Rona makes two billion dollars' worth of purchases from Quebec suppliers.Former Liberal minister Monique Jérôme-Forget, from the Task Force on the Protection of Québec Businesses, has said that head offices are economic drivers.Will the minister commit to protecting our jobs?

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the historic record that our colleague across the way presented. One was left out, and that had to do with the potential for revenue generation for the government. Internal documents from the Canada Revenue Agency showed that it cut some of its most highly trained staff and folded international tax evasion units because of the 2014 budget freeze. Senior managers and trained auditors, who were considered among the most highly skilled experts at the CRA, were let go, basically. Therefore, the government, through the CRA, backed down from chasing after offshore tax cheats. The offshore money is in the billions of dollars. Is the member aware of how the budget freeze actually affected revenue generation by the government through the method I just talked about?

Mr. Speaker, contrary to the former government, this government will act together on the issue of fighting terrorism. It is why we are working very hard to have an integrated plan with the Minister of National Defence, who did a great job. The Minister of International Development did a great job, and I did my best as well.With that, we will work in a complementary team with our allies in the coalition to fight this awful terrorist group, and we will do it courageously and with efficacy.

Madam Speaker, I believe that the member has been engaging in some revisionist history. In fact, if we look at the 10 years that our Conservative government was in office, we consistently strengthened the regulation of the banks. We understood what it took to maintain a strong economy.With respect to his specific question, he has suggested that high spending is what is being recommended as a solution to the world's economic problems. We have seen where that led in places like Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy, and Ireland. Now we hear that there are other countries in Europe that are facing significant headwinds, Norway being one of them.We were very clear for over 10 years. We believed that it was responsible government accountability to taxpayers that would keep us on the right course. That is why, even today, Canada is one of the few countries in the world to still run a budget surplus.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for his very important question.This afternoon, we will continue debate on the Conservative Party's opposition motion. Tomorrow, the House will debate Bill C-4, which repeals provisions having to do with unions.On Tuesday, February 16, after our constituency work week, as my colleague says, we will resume debate on this very important bill.On Wednesday, we will commence second reading debate on the bill currently standing on the order paper in the name of the President of the Treasury Board.Lastly, I would like to designate Thursday, February 18, as the fourth opposition day of this supply period.I want to wish you, Mr. Speaker, and colleagues a very productive and hard-working week in your constituencies and look forward to seeing everybody back on February 16.

Madam Speaker, the reality is that overall, Canada's middle class has prospered throughout the last decade. Very recent events that have struck the world economy and have affected our resource sector have caused families to suffer, and that is precisely why we need to continue to lower taxes. We need a strong fiscal position, and we need to free up resource development projects and pipelines that would create new jobs and renewed opportunity for people right across this country.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question. We have already lowered taxes for nine million Canadians. That is exactly what we have done. We will continue to work on our social policies. We will also invest in the Canada child benefit. As we all know, and as we said during the campaign, this measure will help nine out of 10 families. It will be non-taxable and more generous. It will help lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty.On October 19, this government was elected on a clear mandate to invest in the middle class. That is exactly what we will continue to do.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Outremont for his question.We will study the impact of the TPP. That is what we have been doing by holding consultations since October 19, as we did during the election campaign, and that is what we will continue to do by means of the Standing Committee on International Trade here in Parliament. The important thing is whether we ratify the agreement. Signing it does not mean much; ratifying it does. We will make that decision after we study the agreement.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in Edmonton, the Prime Minister was asked a very direct question. His response, or his non-response, was very troubling, troubling to every resource worker who is laid off and all of their families that are worrying about where their next paycheque will come from. The Prime Minister could not bring himself to say yes yesterday, so I am going to ask him here one more time. If job-creating energy projects get through his new process at the National Energy Board, will the Liberal cabinet also approve them, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, we signed the agreement precisely to give us the time to look at the accord, to look at the treaty in depth, to study it, to get the proper studies done, to do this work through our parliamentary committee. It is ratification that is important. We have not taken a decision on ratification yet. We signed it in order to give us the time to look at this treaty properly.

Mr. Speaker, through the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec, an institutional fund management company, the Government of Quebec can sell its Rona shares, which would allow the deal to go through, or it can refuse to sell those shares, which would block the deal. Should it agree to the sale, there is one thing it cannot do: impose conditions to force Lowe's to respect its commitments with regard to its head office, jobs, supply chain, and the SMEs that depend on it. That is, however, something this government can do.Will the minister commit to imposing conditions to protect our SMEs and protect economic activity in Quebec?

Mr. Speaker, I want to answer with a quote: “I believe Canada will be direct, strong, and firm in its pressure on Russia.” Who said that? The Prime Minister of Ukraine.That is the point. If the Government of Ukraine understands it, I am sure my colleague will.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her question. I would like to remind her what happened last year when the budget was actually announced far after the traditional season.This year we are working to listen to Canadians as best we can. We have heard from thousands upon thousands of Canadians. We have had 3,500 submissions. We owe it to Canadians to actually go through those submissions. We are doing so.We will get to the budget as expeditiously as we can, recognizing our challenging economic environment.

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the hon. member talks about shares. Members will remember that the Conservative government bought shares so that the working people could keep their jobs and the automobile industry could keep going. I know the hon. member realizes that everybody wants jobs. Every party in this House wants jobs. We did that back then.Good for the member to say that we sold the shares and that is why there is a surplus in the budget. We had a surplus, and it should be recorded that in November 2015 the Conservative government left a surplus. Did we look at a crystal ball to decide if we should sell them seven or 10 months later? Good for the member to say that, because all Canadians should have sold their oil stocks a year ago. We do not have a crystal ball. Therefore, I would say this to the hon. member. He can talk about surpluses all he wants. However, he should give us some recognition. When we did buy the shares and saved the automobile industry, is that not what we should have done at the time?

Mr. Speaker, we want to know what the Minister of Finance has to say.Today the House is debating an opposition motion that stems from the “Fiscal Monitor” put out by the Department of Finance, which clearly indicates that the Conservative government left a surplus. However, members of this government continue to deny the truth.Will the Minister of Finance set an example and stand up here to tell the House that he has confidence in his own officials? Will he acknowledge that his government inherited a $1-billion surplus?

Mr. Speaker, the trade minister just signed the TPP, which will cost tens of thousands of good jobs across Canada. This deal was negotiated in secret and many Canadians still are not aware of the details, but the more they learn, the more they oppose the TPP. Maybe that is the reason the minister rushed to sign it without consulting Canadians and without any study of the economic impacts.How are Canadian workers supposed to trust in consultations, with a minister who is in such a rush to sign away their jobs?

Madam Speaker, I used Windsor as an example because I was there over the holidays. I went to visit family and friends and had long discussions. It came from their personal experience of what was happening in that city. I felt very strongly for a lot of the people that I had the good privilege to speak with. We need a different future. We need to make investments. We need to get Canadians back to work. The best thing we can do for people is to give them the opportunity to build a better future. That starts with a decent job and that is definitely the direction we are going with our growth packages as we move forward.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend opposite, the member for Durham, for his fantastic insight into this debate today. We go way back. We both studied at Dalhousie Law School together, so I am happy to be joining him in the House. My in-laws have the great pleasure of living in the great riding of Durham. I do not believe they took a sign of my friend during the election, but in any event I know he is a bright guy. We obviously have a similar education so he cannot help but be bright.How does he reconcile his position about anti-deficit spending when his government for the last 10 years racked up $150 billion in debt? We must conclude that the Conservative Party when in government has no problem with deficit spending, had no problem during 2007-08 going into deficit because it was necessary at the time because of the economic crisis. How does he reconcile that as his party today speaks constantly about the economic crisis and the job losses in Alberta and throughout Canada? Why is today not appropriate for deficit spending but it was in 2007-08?

Mr. Speaker, prescription drug prices in Canada are already the second highest in the world, and the trans-Pacific partnership will increase the cost of prescription medicine even more. A new study released this week estimates that TPP will add over $600 million to drug costs in Canada. Too many Canadians already cannot afford to purchase their medication. We need action to lower prices, not drive them up. Therefore, why is the government signing on to an agreement that would increase drug costs for Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, at the first finance committee meeting today, on our suggestion, it was agreed that we do some pre-budget consultations, bringing in witnesses from across Canada.A suggestion was made as well that the Minister of Finance appear at the committee.My question for the minister is this. Will he take the invitation and appear before the committee for pre-budget consultations?

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for her question. I can say that I have done an enormous number of pre-budget consultations across this country, in actuality from coast to coast.We have seen people from all sectors of the economy. I have listened more than any minister of finance has ever listened in the history of this country. We have 3,500 budget submissions.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, when the government House leader was asked whether he and the cabinet complied with the law by voting four times last November 5, he said, “I want to assure the House and the member that at all times, everyone on this side complied with all legislation.” However, Canadian Press reported on November 5, that Liberal MPs chose unanimously to defer a decision on the rules. The government House leader is reported as saying, “We didn't think it was appropriate [to vote]”. Could he explain this contradiction? Did he and his cabinet colleagues vote four times, in accordance with the law, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to tell the House that this past week dozens of leading experts, including those from the front line, met at the University of Regina to discuss a national strategy on post-traumatic stress injuries. My parliamentary secretary and I participated. First responders, those we ask to stand in harm's way to keep Canadians safe, rightfully deserve the highest level of care and support. The Minister of Health and I are mandated to ensure that this is in fact the case. We are grateful for all the national support and enthusiasm for that effort.

Mr. Speaker, as we know, in the complexities of conflict, we have to look at many different aspects of what causes it. When it comes to ISIL, Taliban, Boko Haram and the atrocities they commit, we have to be smart about it and ensure these atrocities are not committed again.We will take the time to ensure we get this plan right.

Madam Speaker, one thing that we as Conservatives will never do in this House is apologize for keeping government spending under control and keeping the growth of government under control. We wear that as a badge of honour. It is what has allowed us, as a country, to have finances that are the envy of the world. That is why we have a budget surplus, the one the Minister of Finance and his parliamentary secretary want to deny. All the evidence to the contrary, they are still in denial mode.We have a stellar record when it comes to managing the finances of this country.

Mr. Speaker, I can add to that list. I know the history that I went through in my speech was expedited to make the point that this was a false debate.I can talk about the variety of housing options that are at the brink of crisis because they are expiring. We need an affordable housing commitment from the federal government. What about our commitment to health care? If the Conservatives are such brilliant money managers, they must know that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure and that the Canada accord, a recommitment to health care, and real national leadership in providing health care in Canada is probably the smartest way to maximize our tax resources. We could go on, but the whole point is that to have this kind of debate and to talk about these meaningful items is better done in the context of really advancing some good policies. It is really unfortunate that we are having this meaningful exchange here over something that is such a flagrant misuse of the opposition day.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask a question for my hon. colleague across the way. Maybe she has the answer. The Liberal government continues to go on and on about this great engagement of Canadians from coast to coast to coast and meeting with stakeholder groups from communities far and wide. I would like to know the communities that government members are going into and if they can provide us with the geographic data, whether it is the 3,500 Canadians they have heard from, or the 80,000 that the Minister of Finance mentioned, or the 150,000 Canadians that have responded to their online forums. I would like to know the geographic data, where it is coming from, and who is advising the government.

Madam Speaker, I also congratulate the hon. member on his re-election. I gather he is still the youngest member of Parliament, and I congratulate him on that.Of course I supported the hon. Jim Flaherty's policies. When it comes to debt reduction, we paid off $40 billion of the national debt before the global recession struck. To be fair, that is one of the reasons our debt is among the lowest in the world and the lowest of all the G8 countries. We should try to maintain that advantage by continuing to balance the budget and reduce the burden for the taxpayers who foot the bill.I am pleased to say that, when we left office, the federal government burden was at its lowest in 50 years, at about 12% of the economy. That is why we have a free and open economy. I hope the Liberals will stay on that path.

Madam Speaker, I have been listening to Liberal members criticize Conservative budgets of the previous government over the last 11 years. I find it highly ironic because Liberals supported most of those budgets. As I mentioned earlier in the House during debate, the Liberals supported the budget of 2006. In fact, if we check the news reports from June 6, 2006, it was reported that the House unanimously supported the budget at third reading. In the 2009 budget, CTV News reported on January 28, 2009, “Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff offered his support for the federal budget Wednesday.”In 2010, the Liberals also supported the Conservative government's budget. I quote the Toronto Star of June 9, 2010. The “Conservative government has passed its fifth consecutive federal budget with the tacit support of the Liberal opposition.” It is typical Liberal Party rhetoric to say one thing and do another. This is a good example of that. Liberals supported most of the Conservatives' budgets during those minority Parliaments for one reason, because they were good budgets and they were good for Canada.

Mr. Speaker, it is particularly ironic that members from a party that inherited a $13 billion surplus from a Liberal government in 2006 and then added $150 billion in debt to Canadians are talking to us about this. On top of that, they did it while creating the lowest rate of growth since the Great Depression, maybe because they spent the money on things like gazebos. We have a different plan. We are going to spend on productive assets that can help our country to do better in the future.

Mr. Speaker, indeed, I was in Rome, where I took part in the coalition meeting. I assured the coalition that Canada would be a strong and committed partner whose approach would complement the work of the other coalition members.This integrated and effective plan was very well received. I cannot provide any details, as the Prime Minister will share the details with us and all Canadians, right here in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, we are getting information, feedback, and data from all over the country, from online submissions to emails directly to our constituency office. I was privileged enough to have a public pre-budget consultation in my riding, where a significant number of people attended. We also then met with the region, and others have met with the provincial leaders. We have met with all the stakeholders and are continuing to welcome any feedback. We look forward to members of the House asking their constituents to participate as well. The pre-budget consultation process is vastly important. We are privileged to have the participation of Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

Mr. Speaker, you know very well that the Minister of Justice acts every day to uphold the rule of law. This is a fundamental responsibility that she takes very seriously. We are proud of the extraordinary way she does that. The hon. member can be assured that at all times ministers, members of the caucus, and surely he would agree all members of Parliament uphold the the of law.

Mr. Speaker, I understand the concerns raised by the member opposite. That is why the Investment Canada Act is very clear. Any transaction over $600 million automatically triggers a net benefit analysis. We have the resources and process in place to do that. The Competition Bureau will also examine it from its perspective. The shareholders have to look at it. However, the bottom line is that any decision we make will be in the best interests of Canadians and Quebeckers.

Mr. Speaker, most recently in New Brunswick, the minister of finance and government there had to change their income tax rates as a result of changes that were made by the Liberal government to its income tax rates, regarding taxing higher tax brackets. I would like the parliamentary secretary to guarantee for me in the House that, when the Liberals introduce their new child benefit, which will be tax free, they will not be detrimentally affecting the finances of our provinces.

Mr. Speaker, of course, it is about science, it is about evidence, and it is about the public service. I am proud to say that I have been a member of the public service of Canada, and nothing makes me prouder than the women and men in our public service who are working day in and day out crunching statistics and making sure that we have the best available information in front of us. This underpins not only our finances and our budgetary system but our entire approach to government. It is evidence-based, it is forward-looking, and it is aimed at creating a better future for all Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. Since he is a very intelligent man, I am sure that he will not give in to intellectual dishonesty and he will confirm to the House that with the same level of spending, if there had been no change in government and no major changes to fiscal planning, there would have been a deficit at the end of the current fiscal year. Can my colleague confirm that?

Mr. Speaker, allow me to make something perfectly clear: the reforms we choose must be designed to address the needs of all Canadians and go far beyond addressing the interests of the parties we represent. I urge all members of the House to adopt the same principle and work with us as we enhance our democratic institutions and serve the best interests of Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, the only question I have is this. If the parliamentary secretary does not trust his officials at finance now, how will he trust them in 2019, when the Liberals supposedly want to rebalance the budget? Oh, I guess they do not have to worry about that because they will not even attempt to do that. Would the member comment on why he does not believe his own officials?

Madam Speaker, I first want to congratulate the member for some pretty impressive metaphors. He put those together rather well. I am going to avoid the metaphors and stick to the published facts, and I am going to use two sources. One is the “Fiscal Monitor” that his finance minister authorized the publication of just last week. It showed that in the months immediately preceding his government taking office, in fact, Canada had an accumulated surplus of $1 billion. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, in a document that was published in November as well, the PBO had a projected surplus of $1.2 billion for the present fiscal year. These are not Conservative sources and these are not books that were on the Conservative stove. We do not put our books on stoves because we do not believe in burning books. These books tell us that Canada is in surplus and that means sunny ways for us all.

Mr. Speaker, on January 30, the joint rescue coordination centre in Halifax responded to a distress call from a fishing boat, and the Canadian Coast Guard quickly took action to help the people aboard the Jill Marie.A Canadian Armed Forces aircraft and a Coast Guard vessel, the CCGS Spray, were dispatched to conduct the search and rescue effort. The five fishermen on board were rescued before the boat sank and they are safe and sound, much to the relief of their families. This is one of 9,000 rescue operations conducted by the Canadian Coast Guard each year.I invite all members of the House of Commons to recognize the work done by the men and women of our Coast Guard.

Mr. Speaker, there are 8,000 jobs in the greater Quebec City area associated with the Port of Québec. The ferry terminal project and the Foulon walkway project, which our party supported during the election campaign, are important to the port's prosperity.The Port of Québec is still waiting for an answer from the Liberal government.Will the Prime Minister assure the people of Quebec City that he will not drag his feet and jeopardize jobs, as he is doing elsewhere in the country?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for that very important question.The national capital region is not just home to an amazing public service but home to a dynamic, innovative high-tech industry. I am working to support start-ups, scale-ups, and helping high-growth firms in Ottawa and across the country.I look forward to working in partnership with my colleagues as we gear up to celebrate Canada's 150th anniversary here in the national capital region and across Canada.

Mr. Speaker, government ministers, at all times, must comply with the law, whether they are in caucus or out. The government does not get to pick and choose which laws they get to follow and which laws are appropriate for them to follow. They must follow the law. The rule of law is the most sacrosanct principle of our democracy.I encourage members opposite to Google the Parliament of Canada Act, section 49—

Mr. Speaker, I was struck by the fact that my colleague and a number of her caucus mates had talked about the fact that the government is charged with safeguarding the community, growing the economy, and fairness.However, one of the things that troubles me is exactly what one does when one is in deep deficit. One of the things we have seen in the Province of Ontario is the Kathleen Wynne Liberal government selling off an important asset, that being Ontario Hydro. A government cannot win when it is selling off the assets that are important to sustaining it. Therefore, my question is, does the member agree with the provincial Liberals and their sale of Ontario Hydro, and what would the federal Liberals do in regard to creating that balanced budget? Would they follow their provincial cousins and sell off assets?

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member opposite that this government is very committed to making sure that we have strong Canadian businesses from coast to coast to coast. When it comes to this particular transaction, there are clear guidelines set in the Investment Canada Act, the legislative framework that makes it very clear that there is a process in place to deal with these kinds of transactions.The bottom line is that jobs are important and making sure that we have the best interests of Canadians is important. We will make sure that we follow the process, that we have the resources in place, and that what we do is good for Quebeckers and Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, more than anyone else, we do trust the public servants who will help us frame the next budget.I had the privilege to travel with people from the department to listen to Canadians from coast to coast to coast. I had about 50 meetings with officials. We listened to Canadians. I can say that to serve with these people was one of the proudest moments I have had. They are excellent, and I am very proud of the work they are doing. We are working collaboratively to build the best budget. On October 19, 2015, the people gave us a strong mandate, a mandate to work for them, to work for the middle class, and to build infrastructure to grow our economy. That is what the minister is doing, that is what I am doing, and that is what the people of the department are doing.

Mr. Speaker, I understand the great work done by this institute. It does great work to commercialize innovative ideas to market to help SMEs. We have had a productive conversation with it, and we will provide it with a timely response in regard to funding. We understand the importance of growing the economy. We understand the importance of innovation and creating jobs, and we will continue to work with that institute and other institutes across the country.

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to support the work of my colleague, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, as he leads our work on the Marrakesh Treaty. Over one million Canadians who suffer from vision loss, including me, really need to have this kind of alternate format. I am very proud to be part of a government that triumphs and trumpets accessibility and inclusion, and I look forward to bringing this to the House.

Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday to the member, this is a very important issue. The Investment Canada Act is very clear when it comes to the net-benefit analysis that is done. Because this transaction is close to $3.2 billion, it would automatically trigger a net-benefit analysis. We will make sure that we have the appropriate resources and process in place to do the analysis. As I mentioned before, the Competition Bureau will look at it, the shareholders will look at it, but the bottom line is that we will do what is in the best interests of Canadians and Quebeckers.

Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday to the member, this is a very important issue. The Investment Canada Act is very clear when it comes to the net-benefit analysis that is done. Because this transaction is close to $3.2 billion, it would automatically trigger a net-benefit analysis. We will make sure that we have the appropriate resources and process in place to do the analysis. As I mentioned before, the Competition Bureau will look at it, the shareholders will look at it, but the bottom line is that we will do what is in the best interests of Canadians and Quebeckers.

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to support the work of my colleague, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, as he leads our work on the Marrakesh Treaty. Over one million Canadians who suffer from vision loss, including me, really need to have this kind of alternate format. I am very proud to be part of a government that triumphs and trumpets accessibility and inclusion, and I look forward to bringing this to the House.

Mr. Speaker, I understand the great work done by this institute. It does great work to commercialize innovative ideas to market to help SMEs. We have had a productive conversation with it, and we will provide it with a timely response in regard to funding. We understand the importance of growing the economy. We understand the importance of innovation and creating jobs, and we will continue to work with that institute and other institutes across the country.

Mr. Speaker, more than anyone else, we do trust the public servants who will help us frame the next budget.I had the privilege to travel with people from the department to listen to Canadians from coast to coast to coast. I had about 50 meetings with officials. We listened to Canadians. I can say that to serve with these people was one of the proudest moments I have had. They are excellent, and I am very proud of the work they are doing. We are working collaboratively to build the best budget. On October 19, 2015, the people gave us a strong mandate, a mandate to work for them, to work for the middle class, and to build infrastructure to grow our economy. That is what the minister is doing, that is what I am doing, and that is what the people of the department are doing.

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member opposite that this government is very committed to making sure that we have strong Canadian businesses from coast to coast to coast. When it comes to this particular transaction, there are clear guidelines set in the Investment Canada Act, the legislative framework that makes it very clear that there is a process in place to deal with these kinds of transactions.The bottom line is that jobs are important and making sure that we have the best interests of Canadians is important. We will make sure that we follow the process, that we have the resources in place, and that what we do is good for Quebeckers and Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, I was struck by the fact that my colleague and a number of her caucus mates had talked about the fact that the government is charged with safeguarding the community, growing the economy, and fairness.However, one of the things that troubles me is exactly what one does when one is in deep deficit. One of the things we have seen in the Province of Ontario is the Kathleen Wynne Liberal government selling off an important asset, that being Ontario Hydro. A government cannot win when it is selling off the assets that are important to sustaining it. Therefore, my question is, does the member agree with the provincial Liberals and their sale of Ontario Hydro, and what would the federal Liberals do in regard to creating that balanced budget? Would they follow their provincial cousins and sell off assets?

Mr. Speaker, government ministers, at all times, must comply with the law, whether they are in caucus or out. The government does not get to pick and choose which laws they get to follow and which laws are appropriate for them to follow. They must follow the law. The rule of law is the most sacrosanct principle of our democracy.I encourage members opposite to Google the Parliament of Canada Act, section 49—

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for that very important question.The national capital region is not just home to an amazing public service but home to a dynamic, innovative high-tech industry. I am working to support start-ups, scale-ups, and helping high-growth firms in Ottawa and across the country.I look forward to working in partnership with my colleagues as we gear up to celebrate Canada's 150th anniversary here in the national capital region and across Canada.

Mr. Speaker, there are 8,000 jobs in the greater Quebec City area associated with the Port of Québec. The ferry terminal project and the Foulon walkway project, which our party supported during the election campaign, are important to the port's prosperity.The Port of Québec is still waiting for an answer from the Liberal government.Will the Prime Minister assure the people of Quebec City that he will not drag his feet and jeopardize jobs, as he is doing elsewhere in the country?

Mr. Speaker, on January 30, the joint rescue coordination centre in Halifax responded to a distress call from a fishing boat, and the Canadian Coast Guard quickly took action to help the people aboard the Jill Marie.A Canadian Armed Forces aircraft and a Coast Guard vessel, the CCGS Spray, were dispatched to conduct the search and rescue effort. The five fishermen on board were rescued before the boat sank and they are safe and sound, much to the relief of their families. This is one of 9,000 rescue operations conducted by the Canadian Coast Guard each year.I invite all members of the House of Commons to recognize the work done by the men and women of our Coast Guard.

Mr. Speaker, allow me to make something perfectly clear: the reforms we choose must be designed to address the needs of all Canadians and go far beyond addressing the interests of the parties we represent. I urge all members of the House to adopt the same principle and work with us as we enhance our democratic institutions and serve the best interests of Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, the only question I have is this. If the parliamentary secretary does not trust his officials at finance now, how will he trust them in 2019, when the Liberals supposedly want to rebalance the budget? Oh, I guess they do not have to worry about that because they will not even attempt to do that. Would the member comment on why he does not believe his own officials?

Madam Speaker, I first want to congratulate the member for some pretty impressive metaphors. He put those together rather well. I am going to avoid the metaphors and stick to the published facts, and I am going to use two sources. One is the “Fiscal Monitor” that his finance minister authorized the publication of just last week. It showed that in the months immediately preceding his government taking office, in fact, Canada had an accumulated surplus of $1 billion. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, in a document that was published in November as well, the PBO had a projected surplus of $1.2 billion for the present fiscal year. These are not Conservative sources and these are not books that were on the Conservative stove. We do not put our books on stoves because we do not believe in burning books. These books tell us that Canada is in surplus and that means sunny ways for us all.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. Since he is a very intelligent man, I am sure that he will not give in to intellectual dishonesty and he will confirm to the House that with the same level of spending, if there had been no change in government and no major changes to fiscal planning, there would have been a deficit at the end of the current fiscal year. Can my colleague confirm that?

Mr. Speaker, of course, it is about science, it is about evidence, and it is about the public service. I am proud to say that I have been a member of the public service of Canada, and nothing makes me prouder than the women and men in our public service who are working day in and day out crunching statistics and making sure that we have the best available information in front of us. This underpins not only our finances and our budgetary system but our entire approach to government. It is evidence-based, it is forward-looking, and it is aimed at creating a better future for all Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, most recently in New Brunswick, the minister of finance and government there had to change their income tax rates as a result of changes that were made by the Liberal government to its income tax rates, regarding taxing higher tax brackets. I would like the parliamentary secretary to guarantee for me in the House that, when the Liberals introduce their new child benefit, which will be tax free, they will not be detrimentally affecting the finances of our provinces.

Mr. Speaker, I understand the concerns raised by the member opposite. That is why the Investment Canada Act is very clear. Any transaction over $600 million automatically triggers a net benefit analysis. We have the resources and process in place to do that. The Competition Bureau will also examine it from its perspective. The shareholders have to look at it. However, the bottom line is that any decision we make will be in the best interests of Canadians and Quebeckers.

Mr. Speaker, you know very well that the Minister of Justice acts every day to uphold the rule of law. This is a fundamental responsibility that she takes very seriously. We are proud of the extraordinary way she does that. The hon. member can be assured that at all times ministers, members of the caucus, and surely he would agree all members of Parliament uphold the the of law.

Mr. Speaker, we are getting information, feedback, and data from all over the country, from online submissions to emails directly to our constituency office. I was privileged enough to have a public pre-budget consultation in my riding, where a significant number of people attended. We also then met with the region, and others have met with the provincial leaders. We have met with all the stakeholders and are continuing to welcome any feedback. We look forward to members of the House asking their constituents to participate as well. The pre-budget consultation process is vastly important. We are privileged to have the participation of Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

Mr. Speaker, indeed, I was in Rome, where I took part in the coalition meeting. I assured the coalition that Canada would be a strong and committed partner whose approach would complement the work of the other coalition members.This integrated and effective plan was very well received. I cannot provide any details, as the Prime Minister will share the details with us and all Canadians, right here in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, it is particularly ironic that members from a party that inherited a $13 billion surplus from a Liberal government in 2006 and then added $150 billion in debt to Canadians are talking to us about this. On top of that, they did it while creating the lowest rate of growth since the Great Depression, maybe because they spent the money on things like gazebos. We have a different plan. We are going to spend on productive assets that can help our country to do better in the future.

Madam Speaker, I have been listening to Liberal members criticize Conservative budgets of the previous government over the last 11 years. I find it highly ironic because Liberals supported most of those budgets. As I mentioned earlier in the House during debate, the Liberals supported the budget of 2006. In fact, if we check the news reports from June 6, 2006, it was reported that the House unanimously supported the budget at third reading. In the 2009 budget, CTV News reported on January 28, 2009, “Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff offered his support for the federal budget Wednesday.”In 2010, the Liberals also supported the Conservative government's budget. I quote the Toronto Star of June 9, 2010. The “Conservative government has passed its fifth consecutive federal budget with the tacit support of the Liberal opposition.” It is typical Liberal Party rhetoric to say one thing and do another. This is a good example of that. Liberals supported most of the Conservatives' budgets during those minority Parliaments for one reason, because they were good budgets and they were good for Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask a question for my hon. colleague across the way. Maybe she has the answer. The Liberal government continues to go on and on about this great engagement of Canadians from coast to coast to coast and meeting with stakeholder groups from communities far and wide. I would like to know the communities that government members are going into and if they can provide us with the geographic data, whether it is the 3,500 Canadians they have heard from, or the 80,000 that the Minister of Finance mentioned, or the 150,000 Canadians that have responded to their online forums. I would like to know the geographic data, where it is coming from, and who is advising the government.

Madam Speaker, I also congratulate the hon. member on his re-election. I gather he is still the youngest member of Parliament, and I congratulate him on that.Of course I supported the hon. Jim Flaherty's policies. When it comes to debt reduction, we paid off $40 billion of the national debt before the global recession struck. To be fair, that is one of the reasons our debt is among the lowest in the world and the lowest of all the G8 countries. We should try to maintain that advantage by continuing to balance the budget and reduce the burden for the taxpayers who foot the bill.I am pleased to say that, when we left office, the federal government burden was at its lowest in 50 years, at about 12% of the economy. That is why we have a free and open economy. I hope the Liberals will stay on that path.

Mr. Speaker, I can add to that list. I know the history that I went through in my speech was expedited to make the point that this was a false debate.I can talk about the variety of housing options that are at the brink of crisis because they are expiring. We need an affordable housing commitment from the federal government. What about our commitment to health care? If the Conservatives are such brilliant money managers, they must know that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure and that the Canada accord, a recommitment to health care, and real national leadership in providing health care in Canada is probably the smartest way to maximize our tax resources. We could go on, but the whole point is that to have this kind of debate and to talk about these meaningful items is better done in the context of really advancing some good policies. It is really unfortunate that we are having this meaningful exchange here over something that is such a flagrant misuse of the opposition day.

Mr. Speaker, at the first finance committee meeting today, on our suggestion, it was agreed that we do some pre-budget consultations, bringing in witnesses from across Canada.A suggestion was made as well that the Minister of Finance appear at the committee.My question for the minister is this. Will he take the invitation and appear before the committee for pre-budget consultations?

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for her question. I can say that I have done an enormous number of pre-budget consultations across this country, in actuality from coast to coast.We have seen people from all sectors of the economy. I have listened more than any minister of finance has ever listened in the history of this country. We have 3,500 budget submissions.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, when the government House leader was asked whether he and the cabinet complied with the law by voting four times last November 5, he said, “I want to assure the House and the member that at all times, everyone on this side complied with all legislation.” However, Canadian Press reported on November 5, that Liberal MPs chose unanimously to defer a decision on the rules. The government House leader is reported as saying, “We didn't think it was appropriate [to vote]”. Could he explain this contradiction? Did he and his cabinet colleagues vote four times, in accordance with the law, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to tell the House that this past week dozens of leading experts, including those from the front line, met at the University of Regina to discuss a national strategy on post-traumatic stress injuries. My parliamentary secretary and I participated. First responders, those we ask to stand in harm's way to keep Canadians safe, rightfully deserve the highest level of care and support. The Minister of Health and I are mandated to ensure that this is in fact the case. We are grateful for all the national support and enthusiasm for that effort.

Mr. Speaker, as we know, in the complexities of conflict, we have to look at many different aspects of what causes it. When it comes to ISIL, Taliban, Boko Haram and the atrocities they commit, we have to be smart about it and ensure these atrocities are not committed again.We will take the time to ensure we get this plan right.

Madam Speaker, one thing that we as Conservatives will never do in this House is apologize for keeping government spending under control and keeping the growth of government under control. We wear that as a badge of honour. It is what has allowed us, as a country, to have finances that are the envy of the world. That is why we have a budget surplus, the one the Minister of Finance and his parliamentary secretary want to deny. All the evidence to the contrary, they are still in denial mode.We have a stellar record when it comes to managing the finances of this country.

Mr. Speaker, prescription drug prices in Canada are already the second highest in the world, and the trans-Pacific partnership will increase the cost of prescription medicine even more. A new study released this week estimates that TPP will add over $600 million to drug costs in Canada. Too many Canadians already cannot afford to purchase their medication. We need action to lower prices, not drive them up. Therefore, why is the government signing on to an agreement that would increase drug costs for Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend opposite, the member for Durham, for his fantastic insight into this debate today. We go way back. We both studied at Dalhousie Law School together, so I am happy to be joining him in the House. My in-laws have the great pleasure of living in the great riding of Durham. I do not believe they took a sign of my friend during the election, but in any event I know he is a bright guy. We obviously have a similar education so he cannot help but be bright.How does he reconcile his position about anti-deficit spending when his government for the last 10 years racked up $150 billion in debt? We must conclude that the Conservative Party when in government has no problem with deficit spending, had no problem during 2007-08 going into deficit because it was necessary at the time because of the economic crisis. How does he reconcile that as his party today speaks constantly about the economic crisis and the job losses in Alberta and throughout Canada? Why is today not appropriate for deficit spending but it was in 2007-08?

Madam Speaker, I used Windsor as an example because I was there over the holidays. I went to visit family and friends and had long discussions. It came from their personal experience of what was happening in that city. I felt very strongly for a lot of the people that I had the good privilege to speak with. We need a different future. We need to make investments. We need to get Canadians back to work. The best thing we can do for people is to give them the opportunity to build a better future. That starts with a decent job and that is definitely the direction we are going with our growth packages as we move forward.

Mr. Speaker, the trade minister just signed the TPP, which will cost tens of thousands of good jobs across Canada. This deal was negotiated in secret and many Canadians still are not aware of the details, but the more they learn, the more they oppose the TPP. Maybe that is the reason the minister rushed to sign it without consulting Canadians and without any study of the economic impacts.How are Canadian workers supposed to trust in consultations, with a minister who is in such a rush to sign away their jobs?

Mr. Speaker, we want to know what the Minister of Finance has to say.Today the House is debating an opposition motion that stems from the “Fiscal Monitor” put out by the Department of Finance, which clearly indicates that the Conservative government left a surplus. However, members of this government continue to deny the truth.Will the Minister of Finance set an example and stand up here to tell the House that he has confidence in his own officials? Will he acknowledge that his government inherited a $1-billion surplus?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her question. I would like to remind her what happened last year when the budget was actually announced far after the traditional season.This year we are working to listen to Canadians as best we can. We have heard from thousands upon thousands of Canadians. We have had 3,500 submissions. We owe it to Canadians to actually go through those submissions. We are doing so.We will get to the budget as expeditiously as we can, recognizing our challenging economic environment.

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the hon. member talks about shares. Members will remember that the Conservative government bought shares so that the working people could keep their jobs and the automobile industry could keep going. I know the hon. member realizes that everybody wants jobs. Every party in this House wants jobs. We did that back then.Good for the member to say that we sold the shares and that is why there is a surplus in the budget. We had a surplus, and it should be recorded that in November 2015 the Conservative government left a surplus. Did we look at a crystal ball to decide if we should sell them seven or 10 months later? Good for the member to say that, because all Canadians should have sold their oil stocks a year ago. We do not have a crystal ball. Therefore, I would say this to the hon. member. He can talk about surpluses all he wants. However, he should give us some recognition. When we did buy the shares and saved the automobile industry, is that not what we should have done at the time?

Mr. Speaker, I want to answer with a quote: “I believe Canada will be direct, strong, and firm in its pressure on Russia.” Who said that? The Prime Minister of Ukraine.That is the point. If the Government of Ukraine understands it, I am sure my colleague will.

Mr. Speaker, we signed the agreement precisely to give us the time to look at the accord, to look at the treaty in depth, to study it, to get the proper studies done, to do this work through our parliamentary committee. It is ratification that is important. We have not taken a decision on ratification yet. We signed it in order to give us the time to look at this treaty properly.

Mr. Speaker, through the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec, an institutional fund management company, the Government of Quebec can sell its Rona shares, which would allow the deal to go through, or it can refuse to sell those shares, which would block the deal. Should it agree to the sale, there is one thing it cannot do: impose conditions to force Lowe's to respect its commitments with regard to its head office, jobs, supply chain, and the SMEs that depend on it. That is, however, something this government can do.Will the minister commit to imposing conditions to protect our SMEs and protect economic activity in Quebec?

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in Edmonton, the Prime Minister was asked a very direct question. His response, or his non-response, was very troubling, troubling to every resource worker who is laid off and all of their families that are worrying about where their next paycheque will come from. The Prime Minister could not bring himself to say yes yesterday, so I am going to ask him here one more time. If job-creating energy projects get through his new process at the National Energy Board, will the Liberal cabinet also approve them, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Outremont for his question.We will study the impact of the TPP. That is what we have been doing by holding consultations since October 19, as we did during the election campaign, and that is what we will continue to do by means of the Standing Committee on International Trade here in Parliament. The important thing is whether we ratify the agreement. Signing it does not mean much; ratifying it does. We will make that decision after we study the agreement.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question. We have already lowered taxes for nine million Canadians. That is exactly what we have done. We will continue to work on our social policies. We will also invest in the Canada child benefit. As we all know, and as we said during the campaign, this measure will help nine out of 10 families. It will be non-taxable and more generous. It will help lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty.On October 19, this government was elected on a clear mandate to invest in the middle class. That is exactly what we will continue to do.

Madam Speaker, the reality is that overall, Canada's middle class has prospered throughout the last decade. Very recent events that have struck the world economy and have affected our resource sector have caused families to suffer, and that is precisely why we need to continue to lower taxes. We need a strong fiscal position, and we need to free up resource development projects and pipelines that would create new jobs and renewed opportunity for people right across this country.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for his very important question.This afternoon, we will continue debate on the Conservative Party's opposition motion. Tomorrow, the House will debate Bill C-4, which repeals provisions having to do with unions.On Tuesday, February 16, after our constituency work week, as my colleague says, we will resume debate on this very important bill.On Wednesday, we will commence second reading debate on the bill currently standing on the order paper in the name of the President of the Treasury Board.Lastly, I would like to designate Thursday, February 18, as the fourth opposition day of this supply period.I want to wish you, Mr. Speaker, and colleagues a very productive and hard-working week in your constituencies and look forward to seeing everybody back on February 16.

Madam Speaker, I believe that the member has been engaging in some revisionist history. In fact, if we look at the 10 years that our Conservative government was in office, we consistently strengthened the regulation of the banks. We understood what it took to maintain a strong economy.With respect to his specific question, he has suggested that high spending is what is being recommended as a solution to the world's economic problems. We have seen where that led in places like Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy, and Ireland. Now we hear that there are other countries in Europe that are facing significant headwinds, Norway being one of them.We were very clear for over 10 years. We believed that it was responsible government accountability to taxpayers that would keep us on the right course. That is why, even today, Canada is one of the few countries in the world to still run a budget surplus.

Mr. Speaker, contrary to the former government, this government will act together on the issue of fighting terrorism. It is why we are working very hard to have an integrated plan with the Minister of National Defence, who did a great job. The Minister of International Development did a great job, and I did my best as well.With that, we will work in a complementary team with our allies in the coalition to fight this awful terrorist group, and we will do it courageously and with efficacy.

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the historic record that our colleague across the way presented. One was left out, and that had to do with the potential for revenue generation for the government. Internal documents from the Canada Revenue Agency showed that it cut some of its most highly trained staff and folded international tax evasion units because of the 2014 budget freeze. Senior managers and trained auditors, who were considered among the most highly skilled experts at the CRA, were let go, basically. Therefore, the government, through the CRA, backed down from chasing after offshore tax cheats. The offshore money is in the billions of dollars. Is the member aware of how the budget freeze actually affected revenue generation by the government through the method I just talked about?

Mr. Speaker, the media in English Canada are getting involved in the debate on the sale of Rona and telling the government not to take action.Rona employs 23,000 people in Quebec, including 1,000 at the head office in Boucherville, in my riding. Rona makes two billion dollars' worth of purchases from Quebec suppliers.Former Liberal minister Monique Jérôme-Forget, from the Task Force on the Protection of Québec Businesses, has said that head offices are economic drivers.Will the minister commit to protecting our jobs?

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned a few things in her question. The record would show that during the global recession the government eased EI rules to make sure that there was a longer period. Knowing that the economy would be tight, we provided more flexibility for people to qualify. That is something we have been urging the new Prime Minister to extend to Alberta in the challenging situations it has been in. We have made sure that going forward the EI fund will be run prudently and not picked from as the previous Liberal government did regularly.The member also mentioned the auto sector and I am passionate about that, representing the Durham region part of Oshawa. I would note I was born in Quebec. My father worked at General Motors at Sainte-Thérèse and am very proud of that plant, which closed under the Chrétien government. Our trade deals and our deals we signed with the European Union in particular, on top of the loan we provided for the auto sector to help it through the global recession, are causing what is happening now, record sales in autos. Along with Ontario, we took back the money we loaned as was the normal plan. We have an auto sector today, with the Edge vehicle built in Oakville, for around the world new investments, and the auto innovation fund. We secured an industry that was on the precipice. We are not going to let happen to Oshawa what the last Liberal government let happen to Sainte-Thérèse.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today in favour of this motion. I rise with complete objectivity, not being a part of the previous government. I am, however, very proud in the way the country's finances were run by the Conservatives. That is why I am a Conservative and why I believe the Liberals need to acknowledge the truth in the Department of Finance's report. I also believe that the Liberals have to stop blaming the previous government for the mistakes they are now making and the mistakes that many people in my riding know they are making.I would first like to thank the independent, non-partisan officials from the Department of Finance for their hard work and evidenced-based analysis for the most recent “Fiscal Monitor”, as well as the deputy minister and his team. I want everyone who works in the Department of Finance to know that this Conservative Party and Canadians respect the work they do. We know they do it well. The Conservative Party trusts the information they provide as the truth. We know the work they do is not political. It is a shame, really, that the Liberals are using their efforts for their own political gain.The people of Barrie—Innisfil and from ridings across Canada expect the government to act in their best interest when it comes to spending taxpayers' money. The most important part of fulfilling that fiduciary obligation is to balance the books, just as Canadians have to balance their own household budgets on a monthly basis. Seniors are especially vulnerable and hard hit when the cost of goods and services and taxes rise. In Barrie, 18% of residents have reached the age of 60. In Innisfil, 14.5% of the population are 65 or older. When a senior in this country has to make a decision between heating and eating, we know that something is structurally wrong. It is important to deal with the facts when it comes to managing the economy. The reality is, the previous Conservative government paid down $37 billion in debt before the great recession. Once that global financial tsunami hit our shores, a conscious decision was made to run deficits over the medium term. A comprehensive plan was put in place, and the previous government stuck to it.Members from other parties were screaming for more and more spending, but a balanced approach was taken. The Department of Finance's official findings of the budgetary surplus of $1 billion for 2015-16 is a clear vindication of the Conservatives' strong leadership on the economy through nearly unprecedented tumultuous economic times. It is also relevant to note that the parliamentary budget office has also substantiated that the surplus was received.It is interesting as I sit on this side and listen to government officials talk about the parliamentary budget officer. It is amazing what they used to say when they were in opposition about the PBO. The current President of the Treasury Board said, “That office has become indispensable, both to us as parliamentarians and to Canadians, who want to know what their government is doing with their money.”The current Minister of Foreign Affairs, on April 29, 2013, said, “No one can deny that the Parliamentary Budget Officer produced some excellent analyses. Instead of shooting the messenger, the government should have listened to and respected what he had to say.”The current member for Scarborough—Guildwood said, “Mr. Speaker, in November 2008 the PBO predicted a deficit, the minister a surplus. The PBO was right, the minister wrong.”At another time the member said, “...the PBO tests the numbers against internationally recognized verifiers.... the PBO spends his money on peer-review panels rather than on spin and re-announcements.”It is amazing to me how things can change once the government changes.The studied, measured approach was an important reason why the deficit was reduced from $55.6 billion at the height of the great recession to a projected surplus of over $1 billion by 2016, which we now know was achieved. Our rural areas, small towns, growing cities, and large urban centres all require targeted plans to stimulate the economy and promote economic innovation. I am proud to be a member of a party that has a record of lowering taxes every year after coming into office. This made Canada competitive and allowed job-creating businesses to thrive. The former government recognized the best way to grow the economy and help create more jobs was to keep taxes low and to achieve a balanced budget.The Liberals have not been clear on their plans regarding finances and the economy for Canadians. The new government must present a pro-growth agenda that involves tax cuts, free trade, and key investments in manufacturing, innovation, and infrastructure to get more Canadians working and earning more.Since the election, I have been reminded by business leaders in my riding that their money is portable. One employer with 2,400 employees has told me point-blank that if taxes, debt, and deficits grow in this country and that burden falls on companies like his, he will seriously consider moving his operations. Money is portable.As Canada's official opposition, the Conservative caucus is proud of its record of lowering taxes during its time in government. In fact, Conservatives reduced taxes over 200 times, saving the average Canadian family over $6,600 per year. Those pocketbook-saving measures included roughly $2.7 billion in annual targeted tax relief directly for the benefit of seniors and pensioners.The Conservative caucus has always made lower taxes a priority. The Conservative Party has always recognized the importance of Canadians keeping more of their hard-earned money in their pockets. During the Conservatives' time in government, we removed over one million low-income Canadians, including 400,000 seniors, from tax rolls completely. We increased the amount that Canadians can earn before paying federal income tax at all, and we reduced the lowest personal income tax rate to 15%. We reduced the GST, we increased basic personal income tax exemptions from $8,148 in 2005 to $11,327 by 2015. We removed the $10,000 limit that applies on the amount that caregivers can claim under the medical expense tax credit on behalf of certain dependants.Under the Conservatives, the federal tax burden has been the lowest in half a century. We are the party of lower taxes, lower spending, and strong economic management. The Liberal Party, on the other hand, is the party of big government, big deficits, and certainly big rhetoric. However, the numbers do not lie. If the Liberals run huge deficits, it will be their doing, and theirs alone. They will not be able to point to the previous government, as they so often do. The PBO and finance department are clear that the new Liberal government is beginning its mandate in the black due to hard work of the Conservative Party. Unfortunately, the lack of tangible, clear economic plan for the party opposite spells doom for Canadians. The Liberals' laundry list of election-time promises point to a government that tried to be all things to all people in order to get elected. Their lack of details in governing signals the inevitability of economic instability, massive job losses, and higher taxation for all Canadians.In their arrogance, the Liberals are running around this place and in Canada thinking that Canadians endorse their financial plan to place us deeper into debt and place us in a deep structural situation. I have news for them. There may have been other reasons why they got elected, but this is not one of them. Canadians, by nature, would not pile on debt or put their families into deficit or debt situations purposely and I do not believe they expect their government to do that either. I believe in that in all that I am.In closing, I encourage all members to support this motion. Our economy is not a game. Choices have consequences. The stakes are high. By voting against this motion, the government would be signalling that it does not have any confidence in the employees at the highest levels of Finance Canada. If the Liberal government does not trust its own officials, how can we expect it to prepare the budget or manage the finances of Canadians moving forward?

Mr. Speaker, words are nice, but firm commitments are needed. The port and the National Optics Institute are not the only ones with needs. Université Laval also needs funding for the Institut nordique du Québec.The Liberal Party has yet to follow through on its commitments. The people of Quebec City want answers. The Liberals' track record in Quebec City in the first 100 days is zero plus zero, which equals zero.When will the government follow through on its commitments to the people of Quebec City?

Mr. Speaker, the member for York—Simcoe wants to talk about past Conservative surpluses, so let us talk about them.The former Conservative government of the member for Calgary Heritage was the first Conservative government since that of Sir Robert Borden in 1912, the year the Titanic sank, to balance any budget whatsoever. The two governments had something very important in common. Both squandered the surpluses left to them by the previous Liberal governments prior to the onset of significant economic challenges. For Mr. Borden, 1912 saw a surplus inherited from Sir Wilfred Laurier in 1911. In 1913, Borden posted a deficit. In 1914, the First World War broke out. For the former Prime Minister from Calgary Heritage, the Liberal surplus was so significant that it took him two full years to squander it before the onset of the 2008 fiscal crisis the following year. That Conservatives are in any way good fiscal managers is one of the great myths of Canadian political discourse. Does the member know that the last time the Conservatives actually took us from a deficit to a surplus on their own competence was in the 1870s, and does he know that every Liberal Prime Minister to introduce a budget has balanced at least one?

Madam Speaker, it is great to be back here, and I would like to take the occasion to thank family and friends who supported me, volunteers who worked to help with my re-election, the electors who chose me, and even those who did not, for the privilege of serving in this august chamber. Most of all, I would like to thank the people of Carleton, my newly constituted riding, for giving me the chance. It is newly constituted, but it is very much a historical place. Sir John A. Macdonald was elected in the riding of Carleton, and the century before, its namesake, Sir Guy Carleton, was the Lieutenant-Governor of Quebec; so in a small sense, history is repeating itself with the re-emergence of these boundaries in this riding, but it is also repeating itself with the new government.We have today, as we did almost a century ago, a Prime Minister who is a Liberal, who is a Quebecker, and who speaks of sunny ways. Of course, sunny ways is not an expression he invented; it is one he inherited from then prime minister Laurier, who of course is one of the greatest prime ministers this country has ever had. Laurier said: Canada shall be the star towards which all men who love progress and freedom shall come. More freedom at that time meant less government. From 1900 to 1910, federal, provincial, and municipal spending was a combined 9% of GDP. Today, it is about 40%. Low-cost government meant a low-tax nation. To quote the authors of The Canadian Century, Crowley, Clemens, and Veldhuis: Laurier believed that the cost of government, and especially the tax burden, needed always to be kept below the level in the United States, so as to create a powerful competitive advantage for Canada. Then, as now, Canada's low-tax plan worked. In the first 20 years of the 20th century, our population grew by an unprecedented two-thirds, and to quote the previous authors, “the wheat yield in the three Prairie provinces rose during Laurier's time...” by 500%, new and repair construction increased by almost 400%, and exports more than doubled. The rate at which the new companies formed and were chartered grew by 12 times during the first decade of that century.That is a good moment in which to say that I will be splitting my time with the member for Abbotsford.If today's Prime Minister were to bring sunny ways such as these, I think we would all rejoice. In fact, despite Laurier's partisan affiliation to what we call the Liberal Party, he would probably have recognized himself more in the policies of the previous government than the current one.Conservatives in the last 10 years brought free trade, free markets, and free people. In fact, we left Canada the freest country in the world, according to the Legatum Prosperity Index. We had the sixth freest economy in the world, according to The Wall Street Journal, and according to the finance department last week, we also had a balanced budget.The Parliamentary Budget Officer has added that the projected surplus for this year, based on all the information available to him on the day that the current Liberal government took office, would have us running a surplus of $1.2 billion, and so in a sense the Prime Minister of today has inherited sunny ways from his predecessors in the recent past.Much has been said about the gap between the rich and the poor and the plight of the middle class. I am glad we should speak of these subjects, because over the last decade the facts are clear: families moved out of poverty and into the middle class. The middle class got ahead and better off than any other country in the world. Between 2005 and 2011, during which time the Conservative government was in power, the take-home pay among low-income families was up 14%, after tax and inflation.Even Andrew Coyne, who had previously endorsed the Liberals, admitted: In 2011, the last year for which StatsCanada has figures, the proportion of the population living on low income...fell to its lowest level—well, ever. At just 8.8%, it beat the previous record of 9.0%, set in 2010. As recently as 1996, it was at 15.2%. In other words, poverty fell by almost half in 20 years.Of course, child poverty would be expected to rise during the great global recession that resulted from the financial crisis of 2008. In fact, according to UNICEF, the opposite happened here in Canada. While children around the world were falling into poverty, here in Canada the child poverty rate decreased from 23% to 21% during the recession, pulling roughly 180,000 children out of poverty.How did this happen?First, the reality is that we increased the amount that Canadians could earn before they started paying taxes and removed one million low-income Canadians from the tax rolls altogether. The parliamentary budget officer said, “In total, cumulative changes have reduced federal tax revenue by $30 billion, or 12 per cent. These changes have been progressive, overall. Low and middle income earners have benefited more, in relative terms, than higher income earners.”The same report points out that the “highest 10 per cent of income earners benefit least, with after-tax gains of...1.4 per cent...”Our government enacted policies to free people from poverty, allowing them to enter the middle class. Yesterday's poor are today's middle class. What is the state of the middle class? The ultra Liberal New York Times had something to say on this subject. “Life in Canada, Home of the World’s Most Affluent Middle Class”, was the screaming headline.The same article went on to say, “After-tax middle-class incomes in Canada — substantially behind in 2000 — now appear to be higher than in the United States.” That must have been a very tough admission for The New York Times.Overall, under the previous government, personal income taxes are down 10%, and take-home pay is up 10% on average across all income levels. The median net worth of Canadians went up by 44%. We reduced poverty and freed middle-class strivers to get ahead, letting families keep more of what they earned. They earned bigger and better wages in a big, open, opportunity-filled, free-enterprise economy.There are other ways than tax relief to free people from despair and poverty and allow them to get ahead. I suggest that all of them are based on three pillars: work, family, and community. It is not government, but work, family, and community. A job is the best anti-poverty program there is; family is the best social safety net we have; and community is what is left to take care of those people who, through no fault of their own, have no work or perhaps cannot rely on family.I would like to share some stories that I heard along the way as we continue with this debate, but the time is now running out and members are anxious to get on with their questions. Therefore, I will just say that we in this country have an opportunity to continue to allow our middle class and our working families to get ahead if we remove the obstacles that government has put in the way, lift off the heavy burden of red tape, and continue to build an economy that is built on free trade, free enterprise, and free people. I say this because of something I learned when I was minister of employment. There was a bureaucratic decision to close a recycling plant not far from here that takes care of all of the used sensitive documents of the Government of Canada. There were 50 special needs people who recycled all of that paper on our behalf. They do it very well and at a very low cost. For some reason there was a bureaucratic decision to end that program. They were, of course, devastated. This was the place where they went, it was the place that gave them purpose, and it was a place, as they say in Cheers, where everybody knew their name. When I announced that I would intervene and save this program, I went to visit these incredible young people. I asked one young man what he liked best about his job. He said, “work”. I asked him how we could make the place better for him. He said, “Send more paper. I don't want it to run out because I want to keep working.” That is the kind of enterprising spirit that inspires us all to build the economy that we all want.

Mr. Speaker, as the 150th anniversary of our nation's capital draws near, many of my constituents feel that Ottawa has not received equal treatment from the economic development agencies over the last decade to help develop local projects and strengthen the local economy. In fact, Ottawa has received less than a dollar per capita in federal development agency funding. Can the minister assure my constituents and all residents of the Ottawa region that we will be treated fairly when it comes to economic development projects?

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives have, once again, taken the opportunity to put forward real policy on this opposition day and traded it for a chance to talk about themselves and the mirage of their own ostensibly brilliant record. If we take the old books off the Conservative stove long enough to read them, we might find a few entries that make sense. We will not find very many, though. If we have the callouses needed to turn those still-warm pages, we will find a lot of capital assets that were quietly removed from the books, liquidated; that is, sold, trimmed from part of the inventory of supplies the government owns to provide services to the people, to a one-time supply of cash that can be ever so briefly used to show that the government is making money. When the Conservatives tell us that they balanced the budget, what they are not telling us is that they sold the house to pay off the mortgage. Unfortunately for them, Canada has found a new place to live.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that question from my learned friend from Newmarket—Aurora. He was a year behind me at Dalhousie Law School and I am quite sure he graduated. I know he did and he had a very successful law practice before coming to this place.As a lawyer, he knows that before we conclude, as he mentioned in his remarks, we have evidence and the evidence is clear. We did run a deficit, but the previous prime minister was crystal clear with Canadians that our deficit spending was time limited, was stimulative, and was part of a longer term plan to get to balance by 2014-15, which we did. At the time, as I said previously, we lowered taxes on Canadians, particularly families and seniors, and grew the economy modestly. Our success record was stronger than most countries in the G7 through that global recession. The difference and the line in the sand we are drawing is the plan the new Liberal government seems to have deficits going up with no end in sight, not going down. The deficits were estimated to be $10 billion or $20 billion in their election plan, going to $60 billion plus. I would urge that bright young member of the House to speak up on Wednesdays and pull the reins back on spending in his caucus.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member opposite that Canadians pay for too much for prescription drugs. We do, in fact, pay the second highest per capita cost in the world. Part of my mandate is to address the rising cost of drugs to ensure that prescription medicine is affordable and available to Canadians who need it. We intend to do that. We have a number of mechanisms by which we will do that. We have already taken steps in that regard. I will continue to address this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I would have to look at the record in terms of the actual numbers for that. The member can check the record on this. It is really easy to find news articles. If my colleague was to Google the word “coalition” he might find that in 2008 his leader of the day tried to form a coalition with the Bloc and the NDP to take over the Conservative government of the day, because we could not spend enough to satisfy them at that time, immediately after an election campaign. We took a world-leading approach to the global financial crisis. Organizations around the world, from the OECD to the World Economic Forum to the IMF, praised Canada's approach in that crisis, partly because we delivered the stimulus quickly. We came out of the crisis faster than other countries. We did that despite the fact that Liberal members of Parliament demanded more spending and longer spending. We would still be running deficits today if the Liberals had had their way.

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Mississauga—Lakeshore.It is a privilege for me to be here to participate in this important debate on today's motion.I would like to reassure my hon. colleague that we have complete confidence in the abilities of the dedicated officials at the Department of Finance, who are currently working on the 2016 budget.I can say that our budget will flesh out our plan to grow the economy, a plan that has the support of the Canadians who gave us a majority mandate last fall.First of all, the government believes that all Canadians should have real and equal opportunities to succeed. This will be achieved by strengthening and growing the middle class. That is what we said throughout our election campaign, and that is what we are offering Canadians. It will come as no surprise when I say that Canada is going through tough economic times. Although the recent U.S. economic performance is encouraging, emerging economies, especially China, are cause for concern.Many analysts were counting on emerging economies, such as Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, to help stimulate economic growth. We now know that this will unfortunately not be the case.Canada's economic performance was weak in 2015, which can primarily be explained by last year's drop in the price of oil. Make no mistake about it, the Government of Canada will post a deficit for the 2015-16 fiscal year, and this deficit is the result of what the previous government did and did not do. That is a fact.The previous Liberal government left a $13-billion surplus in 2006. The Conservative government wasted this surplus and racked up more than $150 billion in additional debt, all the while managing to achieve the worst growth record since the Great Depression. Those are facts.Our colleagues have told us all kinds of tales this morning, but what I just said is the truth. All of that, with no plan to grow the middle class, no plan to invest, and no plan for growth. That is the Conservative government's disastrous record.It is quite likely that the global economy will remain unfavourable in the future and that the price of commodities will remain low. There is no doubt that, as we begin to put our plan for economic growth and long-term prosperity into action, we are up against fierce headwinds. However, in the face of this real challenge, there is also real opportunity to put in place the conditions to create long-term growth. This growth will create good jobs and help our middle class, the lifeblood of our economy, to prosper. This is a good time to make targeted investments to support our country's economic growth. However, I want to be clear. We are going to focus on smart investments that promote economic growth while maintaining a commitment to fiscal responsibility. We intend to focus on two particularly challenging issues. The first is restoring economic progress for the middle class, the backbone of our economy. We simply cannot claim that our country is prosperous if our middle class is having trouble making ends meet.That is why the government followed through on its promise by making a tax cut for the middle class the first order of business on December 7, 2015. I am proud to say that, as of January 1, approximately nine million Canadians are receiving significant tax relief. This is a fair measure, and it is the smart thing to do for our economy.In order to achieve this goal, we introduced Bill C-2, an act to amend the Income Tax Act. This bill is merely the first step in our plan to grow the economy in the long term, create jobs, and help Canada's middle class prosper.More specifically, Bill C-2 will cut the personal income tax rate, dropping it from 22% to 20.5%, and establish a 33% tax rate for individual taxable incomes above $200,000. We are asking the wealthiest Canadians to contribute a little more.Lastly, we are lowering the annual contribution limit for tax-free savings accounts, TFSAs, from its current $10,000 back to its previous amount, which was $5,500, and we are also reinstating the indexation of that limit. Our middle-class tax cut and the accompanying changes will help make the tax system fairer. As I mentioned, this bill is just the beginning of our government's measures to grow the economy.In the next budget, we will introduce the new Canada child tax benefit, another important measure that will provide increased support to the vast majority of Canadian families and help lift hundreds of thousands of children our of poverty. That is right, I said hundreds of thousands of children. Unlike the existing program, the Canada child tax benefit will be simpler, more generous and more targeted to those who need it most. Plus, it is tax free.Together, these measures will help strengthen the middle class and help those who work hard to be a part of it. As a result of these measures, Canadians will have more money to save, invest, and help grow our economy. More generally, these measures will stimulate economic growth at a time when the global economy is cause for concern, to ensure that all Canadians will benefit.The second challenge we are facing, and this may be the biggest one, has to do with creating the conditions for strong, long-term economic growth. Smart, targeted investments in infrastructure are essential to stimulating economic growth. Furthermore, now is the time to invest, while interest rates are at all-time lows.Canadians made it clear that they want real change. They want their government to govern differently. They want to be able to trust their government and they want leadership that is focused on what is most important to them. We are listening. Since early January, the Minister of Finance and I have been criss-crossing the country holding pre-budget consultations organized by the Department of Finance. We have gathered some very good ideas and excellent comments. Canadians have told us that they are concerned about the state of our infrastructure, including bridges, roads, public transit, sewers, and seniors' homes.Canadian cities are growing rapidly, and all levels of government are facing the same challenge: making infrastructure investments that generate economic benefits for Canada and promote sustainable urban environments.Over the next decade, we will invest $120 billion in public infrastructure. Our investments will focus on making life better for Canadians and developing more lucrative business opportunities for our exporters.To ensure that we are making strategic investments, we will work with the provinces and territories to address their most urgent needs. That is what Canadians expect of us. They want us to work together to make progress and begin building a better Canada.A number of initiatives are important to our government's growth strategy for Canada. First, environmental sustainability will be central to the development of our natural resources sector. Together with our North American partners, Canada can and should be one of the most efficient and responsible energy producers in the world. We will also support growing businesses to help them attract the talent, capital, and innovation they need to capitalize on business opportunities in the global market.We will work with the provinces to develop a skills and labour strategy that promotes greater participation of under-represented groups.We will work with the provinces and territories to improve the Canada Pension Plan and help Canadians achieve their retirement income security goals. These are important objectives that can have a significant impact on our long-term growth.In closing, there is no quick and easy solution. We are lucky to live in such a diverse and prosperous country. However, the challenges we are facing today are real and to overcome them we must find common ground despite our different points of view. I can assure my colleagues that our government is prepared to meet these challenges.

Mr. Speaker, as this is the first time I am standing in the House in this new Parliament, I will start by thanking the voters of Edmonton—Wetaskiwin for their strong support in this last election. We got just a little more than 45,000 votes, which was the fifth highest vote total in the country. There was strong support for our Conservative record over the past decade for a balanced budget and significant leadership in navigating our country's course through the global economic slowdown of 2008.I want to take the opportunity to thank my kids, Jaden and Jenae, who played an increased role in the campaign and also play an increasing role in my position as a member of Parliament, in coming on the road and helping me do a lot of the work that I do on autism. Many people know that my 20-year-old son has autism, and many people in this room have received a high-five from him at some time or another. I thank them for sharing me with constituents and stakeholders, both in the constituency and across the country.I will also take this chance to thank my mom, Bonnie, and her husband, Dale, for their tireless support. One of the highlights of my week is driving with my mother to the airport. It is our time together. When we do not get any other time to spend together, we get 20 minutes when she comes to pick me up, sometimes at 5:30 in the morning, and takes me to the airport. It is a great opportunity for us to catch up.I will also take the opportunity to thank my staff in both my Edmonton and Ottawa offices, who do and have done phenomenal work over 10 years in support of what we get a chance to do.Finally, and I think it is important in the context of what we are talking about today, I want to thank the officials at Industry Canada. I had the opportunity to be the parliamentary secretary for eight years at Industry, and those public servants were absolutely phenomenal during that time in supporting me. I was always amazed at how they could take a complicated topic and within half an hour give a briefing that would help me look sometimes like an expert, which may be debatable from different sides of the House. However, the work they do is phenomenal and it was a great pleasure to work with them in addition to the ministerial staff and ministers that I got a chance to work with.On the topic we are talking about today, as we went through the election campaign I heard, and have heard a lot since, about the importance of balanced budgets, and the importance of that Conservative leadership that we have shown on the economy over the last decade. I also heard a lot about the strength of the Canadian middle class. There was a recognition of that as I was on the campaign trail. However, there were a lot of things being said during the campaign that were not entirely true. I think we still hear some of that coming from the government side today in the image it is trying to portray.I will focus today on three Liberal fictions that I have seen over the last several months as we have been going through this.First, there is a fiction that Canada's middle class is struggling. Certainly we all want Canadians to be better off. We all want to create an environment where all Canadians can succeed, no matter their level of wealth, their job, or position in life. However, the fact is that Canada's middle class is the strongest in the world. It is not the former Conservative government that is saying that. It is not our Conservative members of Parliament who are saying that. The New York Times reported on the Luxembourg Income Study, which put forward a paper that talked about Canada being number one in the world in terms of income levels at the 30th, 40th, and 50th income percentiles. These are independent organizations that have said that. Notwithstanding that, the Liberals, during the election campaign and even now, continue to talk about the struggling Canadian middle class. Andrew Coyne put it brilliantly when he wrote back in May that: Introducing his “fairness for the middle class” tax plan, [the Liberal leader] waxed lyrical about a golden time, still within memory, when opportunity beckoned and the sun shone year ’round. Coyne continued: Of course, there was no such era. It was just something to say--the same myth-making on which the entire plan is based. In Liberal mythology, the middle class is forever to be “struggling”, forgotten, falling behind. Coyne concluded by saying: But then, every line of the Liberal story is a fraud. The middle class isn't struggling: the $53,000 the median family earned after tax in 2012 is an all-time high--24% more than in 1997, after inflation. The rich aren't pulling away from the rest of us: the share of all income going to the top 1% has been falling steadily since 2006. At 10.3 per cent, it is back to where it was in 1998. I will give the final word to none other than a prominent conservative speaker, Hillary Clinton, who said: Canadian middle-class incomes are now higher than in the United States. They are working fewer hours for more pay, enjoying a stronger safety net, living longer on average, and facing less income inequality. The fact of the matter is that this notion that Canada's middle class is struggling that the Liberals campaigned on is a complete fiction.A second fiction, and the one we are debating today, is the fact that they inherited a deficit. I say “fact”. I put quotation marks around that because the fact is that the Department of Finance has confirmed that Canada posted a $1-billion surplus up to November 2015, when the Liberals took office.That is very important because there have been a lot of things said today and over the course of the last several months. It very important to notice that in addition to the $1-billion surplus, we increased funding for the Canada health transfer by 6% over that year period and a 3% increase in the Canada social transfer over that period. That is a $1.5-billion increase in these two important transfers.After the 2008 global financial crisis, the Conservative government laid out a comprehensive stimulus plan and a seven-year plan to get back to budget balance. It was interesting to hear the Liberal member opposite allude to that earlier in his question. I know he is a new member and that he has maybe not had the benefit of doing a Google search before he asked the question, but if he did, he would find statement after statement by Liberal members of Parliament, from opposition members from all sides, absolutely demanding that the government spend more money, that we spend on a broader range of programs, and that we extend that spending. Of course, during that time, members will remember that our plan was targeted, it was time-limited, and our spending was designed to expire and we laid out a solid plan to get back to budget balance. However, time and again, every single day, Liberal members of Parliament stood and demanded more spending and demanded that spending be made permanent.It is a bit of a mythological world, I guess, that the Liberals live in over there, but hopefully today will clarify some of that record.Finally, I will deal with the last fiction, the fiction that they will only run $10-billion deficits every year.First, I underline the word “only”, because only $10 billion in deficit is a ridiculous way of phrasing it in the first place. Clearly, the Parliamentary Budget Officer has looked at the facts and projected that the deficits will be billions of dollars higher over the years. In fact, we are talking tens of billions of dollars higher—so high, in fact, that Liberal members cannot even clarify it. They have no way of quantifying what those numbers will be.Let me just close by saying that this is my first time in opposition. I very much look forward to holding the government to account. I want to avoid going back to the time when the Liberal government of the day, a former Trudeau government back in the 1970s, took steps to increase deficits and run massive deficits, starting the cycle in the first place and another Liberal government then had to slash spending on health care and social service and education transfers by billions of dollars.We hope that mistake will not be made by the government. We will oppose those types of measures every step of the way. On this important motion, we hope that we will have the support of all members of the House.

Mr. Speaker, we certainly recognize that the Port of Québec is an important port along the St. Lawrence that is part of Quebec's maritime strategy. This port plays a key role in the delivery of bulk commodities and, as my colleague mentioned, in the ferry sector. We are examining this request and will make a decision in the near future.

Mr. Speaker, the committee met for the first time this morning and established a process whereby we will look at all important issues and determine which ones need to come first. Every issue dealing with the safety and security of Canadians will be considered seriously.

Mr. Speaker, I found that really funny. It is going to be hard after that. It is kind of weird.One of the things I did note in committee today, in all fairness, is that we do not want pre-budget consultations at the committee to hold up the budget. Canadians want a budget. They want a plan. They want to know what is going on.My question to the Minister of Finance is pretty simple. Does he feel he has the ability to actually make a decision and tell us when the budget will be?

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting. Canadians have a big problem on their hands with the current government. What they have is a government that does not seem to be able to understand and manage money. There is no accountability. When the Liberals ran, as the member mentioned, they were going to run a modest deficit of $10 billion. I would ask that the member clarify whether that, in fact, is the number that the deficit will be.When the Liberals talked about this great tax relief, they said it would be revenue neutral. Even the private business that the finance minister was formerly involved with says it is actually not neutral. It is about a $2 billion deficit. What has happened over the years is that, when Liberals get into trouble, they go back to the people, as they did in the 1990s when they cut the transfers to the provinces, and health care for municipalities, gutted the military, and then took a little swipe out of EI for some $50 billion, which makes it really easy to start to balance budgets.I am wondering if the member could help us understand if that is the route the Liberals are going to go now to help with the deficit and balance the budget at some point.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Carleton for that excellent intervention. I am very much looking forward to engaging in this debate on the kind of fact and fiction that is often introduced in this House. Before I do, I want to thank the residents of the beautiful city of Abbotsford for re-electing me to a fourth term. I have had a chance to serve them for 10 years, and I am very much looking forward to the next few years being their representative here in Canada's capital city, Ottawa.What we are discussing here is a motion that affirms once and for all that, in fact, the previous Conservative government left the new Liberal government with a balanced budget. In fact, it was more than a balanced budget; we left the new government with a surplus of over $1 billion. Sadly, what we hear from the Minister of Finance, from his parliamentary secretary, and from some of the members on the Liberal side is the perpetuation of this canard that somehow the previous government left the Liberals with a deficit. That is patently false. They can actually ask the highest-serving civil servant in Canada in the finance department. He has said that the previous government left a surplus. In fact, the Parliamentary Budget Officer has said the same thing: the previous government left a surplus to the current Liberal government.Let us talk about how we even got to this point. As members know, back in 2008-09, the world was faced with the worst global economic crisis the world had seen since the Great Depression, and like virtually every other developed country in the world, Canada and our Conservative government did what was right. We invested in infrastructure to make sure that we primed the pump. We were fortunate, because Canada was the last country of the G7 to actually slip into recession, and our policies in responding to that recession actually allowed us to emerge from the recession as the first country to do so. We invested in our economy, made sure that our economy was strong going forward, and created jobs. We made a promise back then, because to invest so heavily in infrastructure at one time to prime that pump I referred to, we had to go into temporary deficit. When we did so, we did something that our Liberal and New Democrat friends opposed: we set a clear goal to return to balance in our budgets. In fact, in 2011, during the election when we were elected as a majority government, we pledged to Canadians that by the year 2015, we would actually return to balanced budgets. In fact, we achieved that a year earlier than expected. Even now, in this fiscal year, we have left the new government with a surplus. How did we achieve that between 2008 and 2015? There are four key things we did. I already mentioned the $33-billion worth of infrastructure we invested in across our country. Much of it was transportation-related infrastructure. Much of it was knowledge infrastructure. By all accounts, that infrastructure investment was made in a timely, efficient way and delivered results.The second thing we did was recognize that in a recession, Canadians do not need extra taxes. In fact, we continued to reduce the tax burden on Canadians. We reduced taxes to the point where today, the tax burden on Canadians is the lowest it has been in over 50 years.The third thing we did is something the Liberals have found tough to do. In fact, a previous leader of the Liberal Party said, “Do you think it's easy to make priorities?” No, we do not believe it is easy to set priorities. Setting priorities is tough, but fortunately, Canadians had a tough-minded government in place that knew how to set priorities and make tough decisions. We were able to control the growth of government. We were able to control government spending.The fourth thing we did, and something I am personally very proud of, was embark upon the most ambitious trade agenda Canada had ever seen. I am glad to see my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade is here. I look forward to working with him to ratify the trans-Pacific partnership, and also our free trade agreement with the European Union.Since our government was elected in 2006, we were able to negotiate trade agreements with 46 countries. We were able to negotiate a megadeal with the European Union. We negotiated a trade agreement with South Korea, which is a market of 50 million well-heeled consumers. We concluded negotiations on the trans-Pacific partnership with 11 other partners within the Asia-Pacific region.We did that because we wanted to open up new opportunities for Canadians in markets around the world, new opportunities for Canadian manufacturers, Canadian investors, Canadian service providers, Canadian innovators. We opened markets for Canadian exporters and importers. Our consumers benefited because tariffs were eliminated.Of the dollar value of known economic benefits and expected economic benefits of all trade agreements that Canada has signed, 98.5% of that value was negotiated under Conservative governments, not Liberal governments.It started with the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement which then morphed into the North American Free Trade Agreement, where we brought Mexico into the fold. Then there were 13 years between 1993 to 2006, where virtually nothing got done, while the rest of the world was moving ahead, full steam, opening up new markets. Our Liberals friends negotiated three small agreements with Chile, Costa Rica and Israel.I am very proud of our record of an additional 46 markets opened up to Canadians, driving economic growth and prosperity in our country. These temporary deficits that we embarked upon provided an impetus to our economy back in 2008-09 and they paid off because we handled it in a responsible way. We returned to surplus budgets one year earlier than expected.We are very proud of that achievement. We are also very sad to see the new Liberal government embark upon a set of policies that are just upending that apple cart of stability, of common sense.The Prime Minister within days of being sworn in, without consultations, without warning to Canadians, made an announcement, not in Canada but in Malta, that he was going to be spending $2.65 billion of taxpayer money on climate change initiatives, vanity projects, not at home, not in our country, but in foreign countries. There is no accountability. The money is going to foreign agencies where we have very little oversight, and there is very little transparency.We see that with the the approach of the Liberals to taxes. We see that in their approach to big spending, and their promises of big deficits. In fact, during the election, the Prime Minister promised Canadians that he would only run deficits of about $10 billion per year each year, and in the fourth year of his term, he would balance the budget. Guess what? Economists are now in agreement that these deficits will be much higher. In fact, many people are predicting deficits in the range of $30 billion to $40 billion a year. So much for making promises.Will the Prime Minister and his government reach a balanced budget in four years? Any economist we might speak to will say that it is virtually impossible unless there is a huge hike in taxes on Canadians.That is not the kind of government Canadians elected. As we discuss the finances of this nation, there are not many things more important than being transparent and forthright about the state of those finances. May I suggest for the Liberal government, the Minister of Finance, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, and all members of the Liberal government that they be truthful when they talk about deficits. I expect the truth might set them free.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her question.As I just said, we are signing the agreement to give ourselves the time to have a parliamentary committee study it properly. Should we ratify the agreement, we will work with the sectors affected. That is a commitment we made during the election campaign, and that is exactly what we are doing.

Mr. Speaker, our election platform also included significant infrastructure investments because we recognize that there is a serious infrastructure deficit in this country. This is recognized by all municipalities, in Quebec and elsewhere in the country, and also by the general public. The difference between the two programs is that ours provided for more investments in the second, third, and fourth years so that the municipalities could plan their projects. It provided $5 billion for the current new building Canada plan. Doubling this amount in the first year does not mean that there will be enough worthwhile and shovel-ready projects to invest in.We would have preferred that there be more money for the second, third, and fourth years, but the fact that there will be major investments is important in itself.However, this should not become an excuse for wasting money by investing for the sake of investing. We must ensure that the investments are productive and that they boost the economy and Canadian productivity.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say how much I appreciate the question from the hon. member, because it provides me with an opportunity to remind all the people here that we actually lowered taxes on nine million Canadians. As of January 1 this year, nine million Canadians have more money in their pockets.It is true that we raised taxes on a very small proportion of Canadians, whom perhaps the hon. member is talking about. We recognize that we have helped the vast majority of people in this country.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member across the way for the question and certainly the passion he expresses with respect to indigenous people. Without question, I share that same passion, as does our government, to ensure that we implement the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement in a timely and fair way. As the Minister of Justice, I take very seriously my commitment to follow through with our commitments in the election to ensure that we are compliant with the charter and to ensure that there is fairness. I have instructed my hard-working and dedicated officials to come up with options to remedy this situation, working with the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs—

Mr. Speaker, in fairness, I think the hon. member is a little bit confused. Transfers under our government to the provinces increased maximally. In fact, transfers to my province increased some 80% over the time that the Conservative Party was in government, which was in stark contrast to what Paul Martin and the Liberals did when they decided to attack the deficit, which was slash funding to the provinces by over 40%. Does everyone remember that the health care crisis back there in the nineties, 1997 and 1996, when health care was slashed and every single province was struggling, because that was the Liberal approach, to slash transfers to the provinces. We did the opposite. We increased health care transfers to the provinces well ahead than the rate of inflation, in fact, higher than the rate of inflation in health care spending. The federal share of health care funding under our government rose. The provincial share of health care spending under our government fell. We were doing more than our fair share.Our concern is, what happens when another debt and deficit gets built up? We know the Liberals' way: it will hurt people.

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I seek unanimous consent for the following motion: That, notwithstanding any Standing or Special Order, at the conclusion of the debate on today's opposition motion, all questions necessary to dispose of the motion be deemed put, a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until Tuesday, February 16, 2016, at the conclusion of oral questions.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member fully appreciates that provincial decisions are not something the federal government is really in a position to comment on. However, I can say that our government is focused on investment in infrastructure. We believe that social infrastructure, transit, roads, rail, and most importantly, green infrastructure are the lifeblood and the transition that is going to take this economy from where it is now to be well positioned and internationally competitive into the future. By making those investments we are defining the foundation upon which our country was built and what the economy will be built on not only today but into the future. That is why our government is committed to that in the budget.

Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the passion the hon. member has demonstrated. The bottom line is that we understand the importance of the automotive sector. It creates half a million direct and indirect jobs in Ontario. That is why I went to Detroit to meet with the global heads of the OEMs to talk about investments in Canada. We will use the automotive innovation fund and the automotive supplier innovation fund to attract investments and to create jobs in this very important sector.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for his tireless advocacy on behalf of this important issue.I am pleased to inform him that as a result of his work in the past, the Public Health Agency of Canada has been working on the federal framework on suicide prevention. In fact, I have just seen an almost final copy of that framework. I would be happy to meet with the member opposite to discuss it at any time, and we will continue to work to address this very serious matter of preventing suicide in this country.

Mr. Speaker, the member is seeking to confuse two issues. The statute to which he referred refers to a caucus vote. A caucus vote is different than a cabinet vote, and the member has been in cabinet and he knows that cabinet does not vote. What he is trying to do is phrase a question to make it properly the business of the government when he knows very well that we answered that question after our first caucus meeting in November.

Mr. Speaker, obviously the Liberal Party is accountable to the House. We have been receiving information through the House and there are also plenty of media reports out there.I go back to the example I gave of the middle class tax cut, the shell game that the Liberals are playing with the middle class. We will be paying for a $1.4 billion deficit as a result of that, yet the Liberals went through the election campaign saying that their tax cut for the middle class would be revenue neutral. We are starting to see those numbers mount. As my colleague from Durham stated earlier, a deficit of many billions of dollars is projected to be incurred throughout this term. It will be up to Canadians to decide in four years when they look at the Conservative plan and the Liberal plan who had the best fiscal plan for managing our economy. People will be awakened in four years.

Mr. Speaker, the member raised questions with respect to the government's understanding in the area of the management of the economy.First and foremost, I would put to the member that it is the Liberal government that understands that an economy needs to be nurtured. If an economy were left to its own devices in this global setting, it would produce the economic record the Conservative government put forward over the last 10 years, which was the worst economic record since the Great Depression. Therefore, in terms of managing the economy and managing money, I do not think the Conservatives should carry too loud a voice.Second, we went back to the people in October. They gave us a resounding mandate to invest in and grow the economy, to use those levers that are in the hands of government to make Canada better, to reach out to and strengthen the middle class, and to have a strategy for the future.

Mr. Speaker, the last time was last year. Before that we had balanced budgets that paid down some $40 billion against the national debt when the previous prime minister was in office, so in fact, the Conservative record is solid, and that is clear and widely seen.What I find interesting is hearing Liberals and some new Democrats argue earlier today that it was only the General Motors sale that made this happen. Ironically, the Liberals are arguing that earlier the Ontario Liberals sold all their shares.We were the last ones to sell the shares, and in so doing achieved a far greater share price than the Ontario Liberals did, if the hon. member wants to know who are good managers. What is more, despite the Liberals selling the shares and applying that to the books and selling off Hydro One and applying that to the books and selling off whatever other furniture they could find around Ontario, they are still running a $7.5 billion deficit. There will not be much left if they keep selling off things the way Liberals do.

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that the TPP is a threat to our economy, and Windsor—Tecumseh and Essex county have already suffered hard blows to the auto sector. We know. Do not dismiss our concerns. We need meaningful consultation. The auto sector supports more than 120,000 good jobs in our province. However, the trade minister, back in 2008, wanted to let the big three go bankrupt, and now the trade minister signed a bad deal that puts our auto jobs at risk again—

Mr. Speaker, in our consultations thus far in the TPP, we have heard opinions for, we have seen studies for, we have heard opinions against and have had representations against.We are taking all of this into consideration. That will be the work of the committee. That will be a decision made before this Parliament. It will be this Parliament that decides whether we ratify the TPP.

Mr. Speaker, I will be dividing my time today with the hon. member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin.The constituents of my riding, York—Simcoe, are what I like to call severely normal Canadians. They value honesty from those who represent them. They work hard. They pay their taxes. They follow the rules. They want the government to give them the freedom to succeed and build a brighter future for their families. That freedom means having more money for their own priorities through lower taxes. That brighter future means managing their finances and their mortgages, and ensuring their children do not inherit burdens that block their desire to achieve their dreams.The previous Conservative government reflected that mindset and those values. Those constituents knew the Conservative government was on their side. They knew it when they saw life become better as federal taxes fell to their lowest level in half a century, since 1963 when John Diefenbaker led a Conservative government.My constituents knew that the Conservative government was on their side when measures like the universal child care benefit made their lives better. In fact, UNICEF reported that hundreds of thousands of Canadian children climbed out of poverty at that time. That was despite Canada going through the global economic downturn, the most dramatic in my lifetime.Despite that downturn, the Conservative government delivered the stimulus through tax reductions and short-term stimulus spending to make Canada the first major economy to return to growth. Indeed, we were the first G7 economy to recover the jobs that had been lost during the economic downturn, and the first to recover the lost GDP from that downturn.Then we set out with determination to return to a balanced budget, with a surplus of $1.9 billion being achieved in the fiscal year 2014-15, a full year ahead of schedule. However, at the same time, my constituents have been burdened by an Ontario Liberal government that does not share their values, one that sees big spending, deficits and debt as the way to go, both in good times and in bad.As a result, my constituents are drowning under the burdens foisted on them by that Ontario Liberal government, burdens of higher taxes, fees, rafts of red tape, and job-killing regulation, and rocketing hydro rates.Well the hole is so deep now in Ontario, that this same Ontario Liberal crowd, which has left the cupboard bare, has now spotted the surplus in Ottawa. Now those people have come up here to continue to those big spending debt and deficit ways. What is their way of doing things?In Ontario, the debt has reached a staggering $300 billion. That is almost $22,000 for each man, woman, and child in the province. The deficit is $7.5 billion. It is now clear that the Ontario Liberal way of doing things is coming to Ottawa.Three facts are clear from the finance department's report so far. First, in 2014-15, the last full fiscal year under a Conservative government, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion. Second, from April to October of 2015, under a Conservative government, a six month period of time, there was a surplus of $1 billion. The same pattern, the exact same trajectory as the previous year.Third, by the end of March 2016, after just five months of a Liberal government, there will be a deficit of $3 billion. A year later, there will be an even higher deficit.This should not surprise anyone. The Liberal Party actually campaigned on a commitment to run deficits. During that election when I occasionally ran into people who told me they were voting Liberal, I would ask them what they liked, was it the promised deficits or the higher taxes? They would usually say to me that it was none of those things. I would tell them that this was what they would get. In turn they would say they did not think so.I would tell them it was in the Liberal platform, that it was spelled out, and that is what the Liberals had committed. Their comment was that the Liberals always broke their promises. To which I would tell they that they might be surprised, that these might be promises they would actually keep.We are discovering that this is the case. Clearly, whatever new face those Liberals thought they were voting for in the last election, they were not looking for the higher taxes and the deficits that the Liberal government believes is its mandate.Those constituents are, however, correct in at least one regard. Liberal promises are already being broken. The Liberals promised their tax measures would be revenue neutral, but now they have already admitted that they are not revenue neutral. They will in fact dig an additional deficit hole of $1.4 billion to $1.7 billion annually. That is not my number. That comes from the Liberal Minister of Finance. That is his admission of how that Liberal promise is being broken. Unfortunately, that broken promise and others to come will only make deeper the hole into which Canada will be pushed.When I was House leader of the government, I was astounded by the remarkable discipline that our then prime minister and our team, working with two very hard-working finance ministers and in fact the whole team, applied to the question of fiscal discipline. The work to achieve a balanced budget overall was in the interests of all Canadians. When there is a chance to be in government and see how challenging it is to manage the finances and the economy, people see how narrow that margin of manoeuvre is. It is like driving a car down a winding mountain road. It takes only a small amount of recklessness or inattention before going in the ditch or worse.In Ontario, my constituents are waiting for that provincial tow truck to arrive. Their well-grounded fear often expressed to me is that the same crowd who drove Ontario into the ditch now wants to continue that sloppy ride on the federal scene, putting Canada off the solid fiscal road it was on. They know that at the end of the day it is ordinary Canadians like them who will have to pay for it all.It is often said that history is written by the victors. What is said less often is what we hear from the other side of the House today, and that is history being rewritten by the victors. They did it in the Soviet Union. They do it in North Korea. Now the Liberals are trying to do it in Canada. Fortunately, this is Canada and Canadians will not be fooled by this Liberal overreach. That is because Canadians have access to objective facts, objective facts from the Department of Finance and objective facts from the Parliamentary Budget Officer. What are those facts? First, there was a $1.9 billion surplus in 2014-15, the last full fiscal year that the Conservatives were in government. Second, there was a $1 billion surplus over the last six months of the Conservative government, April to November, 2015.The question remains. Why, if the Liberals have promised to run deficits and they make a virtue of it, and there can be no doubt that Liberals see deficits as virtuous, are they so anxious to try to rewrite history, to go into those documents in the library at the finance department and cut out, with their scissors, any reference to past Conservative surpluses? I believe we all know the answer. Liberal deficits will be far higher than anyone thinks and they cannot bear to see the contrast with the Conservatives.The problem with the party that believes that deficits are a good thing, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons said today, is that they just cannot get enough of a good thing. If people believe a small deficit is good, it is not long before they start believing that a bigger deficit is better and before we know it, a huge deficit is just awesome. That, however, is how Liberal thinking always works. Before we know it we will find that the budget does not actually balance itself. That is the path we are already on. It did not take long, but the spending and deficits that the Liberals promise and are now delivering will ensure that at the end of next month we will be solidly in the red politically and fiscally. We will have gone year over year from $2 billion in surplus to $3 billion in deficit.Many out there are critical of our Conservative government's focus on achieving a balanced budget. There can be no doubt that the hard work and discipline of running a tight fiscal ship is not a lot of fun and sometimes people want to have some fun, and some money can buy fun. However, there is much truth in the saying that money cannot buy happiness. While some may argue with it, and some may argue that money can buy at least some happiness, nobody can argue that drowning in debt will do anything other than bringing continual misery.As for my constituents, they would prefer responsible leaders refusing to have fun with their tax dollars to happy politicians spending away, burying Canadians under a mountain of misery, debt, and taxes. Balancing the budget was the right thing to do. A steady hand on the tiller is what Canadians need. Our steady hands, a disciplined prime minister, and our hard-working finance ministers steadied the Canadian ship through the stormy seas of the biggest global economic downturn of my lifetime. We came out the other side with a balanced budget, solid books, low taxes, and a rising tide that was lifting the fortunes of all Canadians. It is a pity that it has taken so little time for that ship of state to start springing leaks and taking on water.

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague went back a bit in history, so I would like to do that myself.He mentioned that we emerged faster and stronger than the other G7 countries from the financial crisis. If we look back in history, one of the reasons for that, among others, is that while the former prime minister, when in opposition, was advocating that we deregulate our financial industry, a former Liberal minister of finance said no. This is one of the reasons our banking industry, our financial sector, was so much stronger than perhaps our southern neighbour.Another reason we emerged from the financial crisis perhaps more rapidly was, as he mentioned, and I give him credit for that, the financial stimulus package to which we agreed. Who else agreed to this financial stimulus package back in 2009-10? The IMF did. I have heard a lot of his colleagues quote and invoke the IMF as a justification for that.This is what the IMF had to say recently: The findings suggest that in countries with infrastructure needs, now is a good time for an infrastructure push. Many advanced economies are stuck in a low growth and high unemployment environment, and borrowing costs are low. Increased public infrastructure investment is one of the few remaining policy levers to support growth. Does the member agree, this time around, that the IMF is right and that we should invest in infrastructure?

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to underline the decisive steps that our government has taken to address challenges facing our economy, steps we took immediately after the Canadian people handed us a majority mandate for a new approach that prioritizes long-term economic growth. Since last fall, we continue to see headlines about the weakness in the global economy. Despite volatility in this economy, what Canadians can always count on is the tireless professionalism of the many public servants working on their behalf. This is why I am so taken by the opposition's efforts to drag civil servants of the Department of Finance into an effort to score passive aggressive partisan points. It is simply unacceptable.The numbers up to November 2015 are clear. They are in line with a projected small deficit for 2015-2016. Let us take a closer look at the numbers. Revenues for the April to November 2015 period increased by $14.2 billion, or 8.2%, from the same period last year. These numbers are the result of unique circumstances, circumstances that are no longer congruent with the current fiscal realities, circumstances that do not reflect the previous government's stewardship of the economy. These circumstances were in part due to a $2.1 billion gain realized on the sale of General Motors common shares in April and higher corporate income tax revenues.The opposition cannot bank on one-off situations and then claim sound economic management. The reality is that revenue growth is expected to slow over the remainder of the fiscal year, reflecting economic trends of collapsing commodity prices, prices that have not yet recovered and look to remain low over the medium term. The only people who believe that the previous Conservative government left behind a surplus are the Conservatives themselves. Canadians know better.Make no mistake, the Government of Canada will post a deficit for the 2015-2016 fiscal year, and that deficit rests squarely on the shoulders of the actions taken and inaction of the previous government. This is a fact. The previous Liberal government left behind a $13 billion surplus in 2006. The Conservative government squandered that surplus and accumulated an additional $150 billion in new debt, while still managing to deliver the worst growth record since the Great Depression. We have been, and will continue to be, proactive managers of the economy. Since our earliest days in office, we have had a plan to grow the economy, create jobs, and invest in communities. It began with the government, as its first order of business on December 7, tabling a notice of ways and means motion to provide a much-needed tax cut for Canada's middle class. This is the first of three major economic planks on which we are moving forward. They reflect on what we feel is the lifeblood of Canadian society, the middle class. I want to remind the opposition that it is our government that has brought tax relief to the middle class during these troubled times, a tax cut that puts money into the pockets of about nine million Canadians each year. This was the right thing to do and the smart thing to do for our economy. The proposed middle-class tax cut and accompanying proposals will help make the tax system fairer, so that all Canadians have the opportunity to succeed and prosper. Canada is in a strong position to face the future. Our debt-to-GDP ratio is well below the G7 average, and keeping our debt-to-GDP ratio on a downward trajectory throughout our mandate remains a central plank of our economic agenda. We have a well-educated population. We have abundant natural resources. We are fortunate to have the world's largest economy as a neighbour. Also, diplomatically, Canada is back on the world stage in a big way. We are actively pursuing a long-term vision.Many leading economists agree that strategic planning and investment in bridges, roads, and other building projects are essential ingredients for creating long-term economic growth. This type of investment requires forethought, planning, and most importantly, working with others. Our government is committed to working with provinces, municipalities, and indigenous communities to ensure that our funding decisions make sense for the present and future needs of those communities. Going forward, the government will introduce proposals in the budget to create a new Canada child benefit. Payments under the new Canada child benefit would begin in July 2016. In addition to replacing the universal child care benefit, which is not tied to income, the proposed Canada child benefit would simplify and consolidate existing child benefits, while ensuring that help is better targeted to those who need it most.All of these initiatives demonstrate that our sights are clearly set on the future. These actions would help strengthen the middle class and those who are working hard to join it by putting more money in the pockets of Canadians to save, invest, and grow the economy. More broadly, they would help grow our economy in the context of a difficult global economic climate, so that all Canadians can benefit.We have also brought an open and collaborative approach to how we are going to solve the problems that are facing us. To ensure that our plan is aligned with Canadians' needs, the government is continuing its pre-budget consultations online, as well as through submissions. We are open to hearing what Canadians have to say, and we have been encouraged by the record number of people engaged in sharing their ideas. So far, Canadians have identified economic growth as their top priority. Canadians know that economic growth means bettering their own circumstances, but also bettering their communities. Canadians identify economic growth with opportunities not only for themselves but for the people in their communities and, indeed, across our great country. The government will continue to develop measures and pursue a fiscal plan that is responsible, transparent, and suited to these challenging economic times. These plans will be most effective when all of us seize the opportunities to grow our economy together and for the benefit of all. Now is the time to overcome the challenges we face in our economy, in the House, and in Canadian homes. Given the headwinds that the Canadian economy is facing, it makes sense to follow through on our commitment to a strong and growing middle class, because it is central to a healthy economy and helps to ensure that all Canadians have a fair and real chance to succeed.The economic and fiscal update presented in November gave Canadians a transparent picture of our economic and fiscal situation. It makes clear that the previous government put the country on track for a $3 billion deficit. It takes into account such factors as low and volatile crude oil prices and a weak global economic environment, risk factors that have become more pronounced in recent months.After 10 years of weak growth, this government has a plan to grow the economy, to create jobs by focusing on the middle class, by investing in infrastructure, and by helping those who need it most. My colleagues have spoken about the support that our plan has already received and, indeed, that our plan has received in my riding of Mississauga—Lakeshore. We will continue our focus, and we will aim to grow the economy in a responsible way, with a long-term vision.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, we learned that after campaigning on a tax increase for the province's well-heeled citizens and then raising their taxes, the Liberal government in New Brunswick is realizing that this is not working and that the government coffers are bare. You cannot create wealth by raising everyone's taxes.Why is this government being so stubborn? Why is the Minister of Finance bent on raising Canadians' taxes?

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to join the debate here today, and after the question from my friend from Scarborough, to hopefully elevate the debate to reality for a few moments.This is a quintessential, classic, political tactic. When a new government comes into office, it usually spends its first number of months blaming the last group of people for all of its woes. We have seen this repeatedly. All parties have engaged in it to a certain degree.What is unique about the debate before us today is that the Liberal Party, the new government, actually does not have support from the very departments that oversee the finances of the nation. Normally, if a new government tries to blame the old guys for the problem, it has some form of evidence provided by the departments. It is usually last-minute spending for an election or that sort of thing. However, this is a case where it is a bridge too far. They are trying the old Liberal tactic, but they do not have the data to support it.What is important to note about this motion is that if anyone in this House is disparaging the work of our professional public service, it is actually the government, because its own officials in Finance Canada and in the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer have confirmed that the previous government left Canada in a small surplus position.Everyone knows that for the last number of years, the global economy has been tight. There was not a tremendous surplus, but it was a surplus. In fact, the revenue stream was positive enough that despite early spending commitments and a willingness for the government to spend, each month is clicking away, and it is still gaining between $500 million and $1 billion in surplus. We saw that when the finance department confirmed a surplus of hundreds of millions of dollars in November.This is one of the cases when the old and tried political trick does not work when its professional departments release information that shows that the trick is a phantom.I would like to say that I am going to split my time with my colleague from Barrie—Innisfil. I should have mentioned it off the top. It is important for Canadians, because this is a government that has a lot of new, eager, and capable members of Parliament. I know that they are here to do the best for the country. Many of them were not here when their leader was leader of the third party. I said this last week in debate about the energy east pipeline. For several years, the Prime Minister, who at the time led the third party in this place, did not support running a deficit at all. In fact, knowing that the Conservative government had set a plan in place during the global recession to get Canada back to a balanced budget position by 2014-15, and seeing that Canadians were behind that position, the Liberal Party, at that time, took a position that they would not run deficits. As I said last week, it took an election campaign for that fundamental principle of the fiscal plan of a party to change. The Prime Minister, during the election, said that he would run, for a couple of years, a modest deficit of up to $10 billion. That was certainly very different from the approach of the Conservative government, which had worked in a steadfast manner to get to balance.After the election, after telling Canadians that it would be one or two years of modest deficits in the $10-billion range, in the first few days of this new Parliament the government's number changed to $20 billion per year. Canadians did not vote for that. Then, if anyone has been following in recent weeks, speculation is coming out that those numbers will be more like $25 billion to $30 billion for two to three years.The real underpinning of the motion before the House today is not just to show that we cannot use the age-old game of blaming the last team. It is that the Liberals are changing their fundamental financial plan for Canada's future by the week. That is deeply concerning.I suggested some time ago in a column I wrote that excessive spending is not sunny ways. When we are dishing out the dough, there may be some sunshine, but if we are putting Canada's financial position in a precarious situation, those are storm clouds on the horizon.What we hear from the government already, in preparation for the budget, is the potential for a $60 billion to $90 billion deficit over the course of its four years. That is certainly different from a year ago, when the Prime Minister said no deficits. Then, during the election campaign, he said up to $20 billion over the first two years, and then they would balance. Now we are in the $60-billion range at a time when the Liberals are also putting so many hurdles in the path of resource projects, or stopping them, that capital is fleeing Canada. Depressed resource prices and our dollar are compounding this, yet they are not changing this reckless plan.The motion today is to set a stark line between the last government in this place and the present government. The Conservative Party believes that a balanced budget should be achieved whenever possible, that stimulus should be limited, and that a plan to end the deficit caused by stimulus in a recession should be clear and attainable.Sometimes I say to my wife that I feel too young to be a “former”. I am a former air force person, a former lawyer, and a former minister. I am a young “former”. Many of the former ministers in this place have talked about the decisions of governing, and this is where I am very concerned that the Prime Minister is not ready to govern, because it takes decisions. A minister in his government is famous for saying that it is not easy to make priorities. That is what Canadians elected them to do. Those priorities need to be getting a proper world price, or better than current price, for our resources. That includes budgets that do not put our future at risk. That includes not eliminating a popular measure for saving, the TFSA, or reducing it dramatically. That includes not driving out talent and our creative class by taxing stock options as income and by raising taxes on those very people. When I was veterans affairs minister, we steadily increased and modernized the department. It is important to note, despite a lot of the rhetoric we hear on this, that the Chrétien government and the Martin government ended with a $2.9 billion budget for Veterans Affairs Canada, and we ended with an approximately $3.4 billion budget. Any way we slice it, despite a global recession and despite our pledge to balance the budget, which we did, we increased that budget by 15%. We spent in different areas, because post-Korean War and during 30 years of the Cold War, PTSD was not even discussed in a responsible way. The previous government went from the two operational stress injury clinics it opened to 27 by the time we left office, addressing a new need. That new spending went to areas of need. We created a family caregiver relief benefit. We created the retirement income security benefit. We created the critical injury benefit, all new benefits passed in the last Parliament to address some of the gaps in the new Veterans Charter, which the previous government created. In fact, it was the now Minister of Immigration. All parliamentarians voted for it, and our government implemented it and fixed it along the way.That took decisions, because when we want to balance the books, when we do not want to raise taxes on Canadians, when we want to lower them, it means making priorities. The motion before the House today draws a line in the sand. The previous government planned; spent in priority areas; tried to get jobs created through innovative new sectors and by supporting our resource sector; spent prudently; created retirement tax planning, with the tax free savings account; and allowed all families a benefit with the universal child care benefit.We made those decisions and balanced the budget. The Department of Finance officials confirm that. It is about time that the new government recognizes that, and starts a new course to make sure the sunny ways do not turn into storm clouds on the horizon.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the hon. member, here is the real problem. The real problem is that the Conservatives were not able to do anything over nine years getting resources to market. On what basis do they have any credibility in asking us how we are going to do it? We are going to take an approach that is actually going to get resources to tidewater. We are going to make a difference for the people who need us to make a difference across this country, creating real economic growth through getting our resources to market.

Mr. Speaker, it is true that the previous government negotiated this accord in secret, but it is also true that the hon. member for Outremont decided not to support the agreement without even having read it.We promised the Canadian public during the election that we would study the agreement and we would look at all aspects of the agreement in depth, and that is precisely what we have done and what we are going to continue to do.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for this excellent question.It is not just about numbers. We could discuss and debate numbers all week, if we wanted to.It is principally a question of looking forward and growing our economy. One cannot take a snapshot and say that there is a surplus. No one in business does that. They look at long-term projections. Over the period that the previous government was in power, we clearly saw not only a deficit but also the worst economic record since the Great Depression.Once again, in October Canadians resoundingly told us that the globally integrated Canadian economy needs investment, needs nurturing, and needs active attention on the part of its government.

Mr. Speaker, as this is my first time rising in this House in this capacity, I want to briefly highlight my riding of Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, a new riding made up three existing ones. It is a vibrant, energetic, and growing region. I would also like to thank my constituents who placed their trust in me to represent them, and I would like to thank my family members for their unfailing support: my husband and best friend, Ted; and my two children, Christopher whose birthday is tomorrow and Hillary whose birthday is next week.I am honoured to rise in this House to speak to this important topic, and I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Kanata—Carleton.I rise today to underline the decisive steps that our government has taken to address the challenges facing our economy; steps we took immediately after the Canadian people handed us a majority mandate for a new approach that prioritizes long-term economic growth. Since last fall, we have continued to see headlines about the weaknesses in the global economy. Despite volatility in the economy, what Canadians can always count on is the tireless professionalism of many public servants working on their behalf. This is why I am disappointed by the opposition's efforts to drag in the civil servants of the Department of Finance to score a passive-aggressive partisan point.The numbers up to November 2015 are clear. They are in line with a projected small deficit for 2015-2016. Let us take a closer look at the numbers. Revenues for April to November increased by $14.2 billion, or 8.2%, from the same period last year. These numbers are a result of unique circumstances that are no longer congruent with current fiscal realities and that do not reflect the previous government's stewardship of the economy. These circumstances were in part due to the $2.1 billion gain realized on the sale of General Motors common shares and on higher corporate income tax revenues. The opposition cannot bank on one-off situations and claim sound economic management. The reality is that revenue growth is expected to slow over the remainder of the fiscal year, reflecting economic trends of collapsing commodity prices that have not yet recovered and look likely to remain low over the medium term. The only people who believe that the previous Conservative government left behind a surplus are the Conservatives themselves. Canadians know better.Make no mistake, the Government of Canada will post a deficit for the 2015-2016 fiscal year, and that deficit rests squarely on the shoulders of the actions and inactions taken by the previous government. That is a fact. The previous Liberal government left behind a $13 billion surplus in 2006, and the Conservative government squandered that surplus and accumulated an additional $150 billion in new debt while still delivering the worst growth record since the Great Depression. We have been, and will continue to be, proactive managers of the economy. Since our earliest days in office, we have had a plan to grow the economy, create jobs, and invest in communities. It began with the government tabling, as its first order of business on December 7, a notice of ways and means motion to provide a much-needed tax cut for the middle class. This is the first of three major economic planks that we are moving forward on, and they reflect what we feel is the lifeblood of Canadian society, the middle class.I want to remind the opposition that it is our government that has brought tax relief to the middle class during these troubled times, a tax cut that would put money in the pockets of about nine million Canadians a year. This was the right thing to do, and the smart thing to do for our economy. The proposed middle-class tax cut and accompanying proposals would help make the tax system fairer, so that all Canadians have the opportunity to succeed and prosper.Canada is in a strong position to face the future. Our debt-to-GDP ratio is well below the G7 average, and keeping our debt-to-GDP ratio on a downward path throughout our mandate remains a central plank of our economic agenda. We have a well-educated population, we have abundant natural resources, we are fortunate to have the world's largest economy as a neighbour, and diplomatically, Canada is back on the world stage in a big way. We are actively pursuing our long-term vision. Many leading economists agree that strategic planning and investments in bridges, roads, and other building projects are essential ingredients needed for creating long-term growth. This type of investment requires forethought, planning, and most importantly, working with others. The government is working with provinces, municipalities, and indigenous communities to ensure that the funding decisions we make are sensible for the present and future needs of those communities.Going forward, the government will introduce proposals in the budget to create a new Canada child benefit. Payments under the new Canada child benefit would begin in July 2016. In addition to replacing the universal child care benefit, which is not tied to income, the proposed Canada child benefit would simplify and consolidate existing child benefits while ensuring that help is better targeted to those who need it the most.All of these initiatives demonstrate that our sights are clearly set on the future. These actions would help strengthen the middle class and those who are working hard to join it, by putting more in the pockets of Canadians, to save, invest, and grow the economy. More broadly, they would help grow our economy in the context of a difficult global economic climate, so that all Canadians can benefit. We have also brought an open and collaborative approach to how we are going to solve the problems facing us. To ensure that our plans align with Canadians' needs, the government is continuing its pre-budget consultations online and through submissions. We are open to hearing what Canadians have to say and have been encouraged by the record number of people engaged in sharing ideas. So far, Canadians have identified economic growth as their top priority. Canadians know that economic growth means bettering their own circumstances but also bettering those of their communities. Canadians identify economic growth with opportunities not only for themselves but for others in their communities and those across the country.The government will continue to develop measures and pursue a fiscal plan that is responsible, transparent, and suited to challenging economic times. These plans will be most effective when all of us seize the opportunities to grow our economy together and for the benefit of all.The economic and fiscal update presented in November gave Canadians a transparent picture of our economic and fiscal situation. It makes clear that the previous government put the country on track for a $3 billion deficit. It takes into account such factors as low and volatile crude oil prices and weak global environment, risk factors that have become more pronounced in recent months. After 10 years of weak growth, this government has a plan to grow the economy and create jobs by focusing on the middle class, investing in infrastructure, and helping those who need it most. My colleagues have spoken about the support our plan has already received. We will continue our focus, and we aim to grow the economy in a responsible way, with a long-term vision.

Madam Speaker, throughout the debate, we heard a number of Conservatives talking about how they restored a balanced budget. However, they are forgetting to say how they managed to achieve that. The main reason is that they asked each and every department to cut its budget by between 5% and 10%. The member should know something about this, since he was a minister and he must have had to make cuts in his own department to come up with the money that Treasury Board was asking for.I wonder if the member would at least acknowledge that the reason why they might have, possibly, balanced the budget in 2015-16—although the numbers suggest otherwise—was that it would have been done at the expense of services to Canadians and public services in general.

Mr. Speaker, the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada website states: The reappointment process for IRB members will continue to reflect a performance evaluation consistent with the merit-based competency criteria. The Minister will continue to recommend the reappointment of members...after taking note of the IRB Chairperson's recommendations concerning performance and operational needs. Could the government House leader tell us this? For the reappointed IRB members he has politically intimidated to resign, what specific problems with their performance were identified?

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to follow the hon. member for Abbotsford. Let me take a moment to salute his record as the former minister of international trade. We look forward to future collaboration with him.Why are we here? I would rather not focus my closing remarks as they were on this day in Parliament on actual numbers but rather ask what the cost is. I am willing to grant that the previous government did its best to spend as little as possible, but that is not necessarily a good thing, particularly because it did leave us in debt anyway because it failed to balance a single budget between 2008 and 2014, but more importantly, because of the costs that this had in Canada over that period of time. Let us not forget that.Over the past 10 years our economy has been characterized by fundamentally weak growth. Perhaps some of the gains that the hon. member for Abbotsford made acting as minister of international trade in negotiating trade agreements, which our government believes were generally good, could have been better. Had we developed our manufacturing sector, had we put money into innovation, had we put money into becoming a stronger and more diversified economy, then perhaps we would have been able to profit from those agreements much more than we have. We have done the opposite. We effectively cut infrastructure spending over that period of time in real terms and have ended up with an infrastructure deficit that cries out to be rectified. Cuts were also made to veterans affairs and social programs, including programs for social housing.I spent the past 20 years teaching in one of the world's finest law faculties in one of Canada's finest universities. I could see the cuts to university research that the previous government undertook and the devastating impact that had on research programs in pure science, applied science, and the social sciences. That was one of the reasons I decided to put myself on leave from that tenured position in order to go into direct public service: to rectify what I saw as an incredible problem in policy that the previous government chose to follow.Not only did the previous government cut university research for the sake of balancing budgets, but it destroyed archives, weakened research and development in this country, and put our innovation agenda way behind other countries, including countries like Scandinavia for example.Yes, it is fine to talk about budgetary numbers, but let us not forget the costs. When it is time to reinvest in an economy, reinvest in infrastructure, reinvest in Canada's people as it is now, a government needs the courage to do it.

Mr. Speaker, we have said over and over again that the problem with the performance was the previous government's attempt, at five minutes to midnight, to appoint a whole bunch of people to jobs that took effect after it lost the election.This is a case of projection. The real scandal is on that side of the House and the Conservatives are somehow trying to project it over here.

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are playing with numbers. They can isolate a moment in time and pretend that they are trying to advance ideology, but we all know that this report shows there are surpluses and deficits. This is just so self-indulgent when we could be moving forward.We have shown real discipline in how we would be advancing all of our social causes. We laid that out in a fully costed platform, and we were the only party that did that.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Saint-Maurice—Champlain on his election and on his fine speech in the House today. I listened to him closely, but unfortunately, I did not hear the word pyrrhotite. In Mauricie, there are victims of the pyrrhotite problem. Nearly 4,000 families may be affected by this crisis.During the election campaign, we promised to help these victims with very large investments. The Liberal Party also made promises to that effect. I hope to see money for this in the upcoming budget.Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance say whether the upcoming budget will include money for the pyrrhotite victims and whether that money will be separate from the money announced for infrastructure?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Outremont for his question.Parliament will have an opportunity to study the TPP by means of a parliamentary committee, and there will be consultations with Canadians. We will certainly examine the impact on various sectors, and we will look not only at the challenges, but also at the solutions should we decide to ratify the agreement.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his passionate and intelligent speech.It is obvious that the Conservative Party left a financial mess after the election. One of our strategies is to make strategic investments in public infrastructure.Can the hon. member tell us what he thinks of our goal of making major investments in public infrastructure?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asks why we would not want to see the government run a deficit. First of all, it is not exactly the same thing. There was a global financial crisis, and leaders around the world took measures to coordinate their approaches at a fiscal level to ensure that, as a world, we were able to pull forward. Canada took a leadership role in that, along with other countries. New Democrats, who were in the House during that time, demanded more spending all the time, as they do almost every day in the House of Commons.Why is it that we do not want to go down that road today? It is because we saw what happened with Liberal governments in the past. We saw the devastating cuts that they had to make to health care and post-secondary education, and they threw them on the backs of the provinces. Provinces like Ontario and Alberta and others had to respond to that because suddenly the transfers were turned off. As a government, we were able to get our budget back to balance coming out of the global crisis. We were able to do that while dramatically increasing investments at the same time in transfers for health care, social services, and education, as the member for York—Simcoe so aptly mentioned in his comments. That is important. As we move forward as a country, and if we are going to avoid the types of decisions that a previous Liberal government had to make and governments around the world have to make in terms of cutting really important services for their voters, balanced budgets are critical. We hope that NDP members will support this important motion.

Mr. Speaker, Canadians elected a new government on October 19. They recognized that we had a plan. We had a plan to deal with low growth through bringing forward a new approach. We reduced taxes on the middle class, which will stimulate the economy while helping nine million Canadians. We are going to help the most vulnerable people in this country by giving them a Canada child benefit. We are going to stimulate the economy through infrastructure investments that can make a real long-term difference in productivity for this country.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.It gives me the opportunity to clarify that we were not against the purchase of shares to bail out the automotive sector. I think this approach should have been considered for bailing out other sectors, such as the forestry industry, for example, which faced similar challenges, but was ignored by the Conservative government at the time.We were not against the purchase of shares to help out the automotive industry, but we have some concerns over how those shares were sold and the reporting that General Motors was required to do.The hon. member just admitted that the sale of the shares was responsible for the surplus reported in the “Fiscal Monitor”. It says as much in that report.I am not the only one to say so, and it is not about having a crystal ball. There are 24 financial analysts on Bay Street who follow General Motors. Only two of those 24 analysts said it was the right time to sell, while the other 22 said it was not. In fact, 14 of the analysts said it was a good time to buy GM shares.When we make decisions based on facts, we have to listen to experts in the field. They are not perfect, but at least their information is better than the information the government wanted to use just to achieve a balanced budget on the eve of the 2015 election campaign.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport's earlier response regarding funding for the Port of Québec was vague to say the least.The port is not the only organization in Quebec City waiting for news from this government. There is also the National Optics Institute, which is a very important institute that generates jobs. Nearly 4,000 jobs have been generated by this centre for development and applied research. If the port has to wait, will the NOI, which needs its funding by March 31, get a positive response from this government?

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, an American giant bought Rona, a Canadian company with 23,000 employees and many suppliers. At the same time, the government is signing the trans-Pacific partnership, an agreement that will cost us 60,000 good jobs, weaken family farms, and accelerate foreign control of our businesses.Why is the minister signing an agreement that is clearly bad for our jobs and our dairy farms?

Mr. Speaker, going by the information that is in front of us, it is clear that what the motion talks about is that our government has left a surplus. It is time the Liberals started recognizing that.

Mr. Speaker, Statistics Canada estimates that there are over one million blind or partially visually disabled Canadians. However, only 7% of literature is available in accessible formats like Braille, large print, and audio formats. The Marrakesh Treaty amends copyright rules to give visually impaired Canadians access to 285,000 accessible books. We recently introduced legislation in the previous Parliament to adopt this treaty here in Canada, but it was interrupted by the election. I wonder if the government today would consider re-introducing that legislation so it could be passed forthwith.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I would like to ask him to explain to the House why the Conservatives are suddenly so afraid of deficits. Today is not the first time we have heard this.The Conservatives are getting all worked up because the government is predicting a deficit, when they racked up $153 billion in debt during their mandate. Furthermore, a Conservative finance minister proposed this strategy to stimulate the economy. They decided to make significant investments as part of what they called Canada's economic action plan.Now, when this government is talking about doing the same thing, the Conservatives seem to be working themselves into a state because the government has an action plan similar to the one they proposed. Why are they suddenly against deficits now, when they themselves racked up $153 billion in debt during their mandate?

Mr. Speaker, when I saw that the Conservatives were tabling this particular motion on their opposition day, part of me wanted to laugh and the other part struggled to fight off a deep frustration and a deep despair. Sure, the motion is factually correct and absolutely we support and salute the work of the officials of the Department of Finance, which the motion references. Yet there is a massive elephant in the room, and that is that this motion is designed to ignore the actual economic record. Yes, that elephant is the actual economic record of the former Conservative government. In fact, this motion seems designed to deflect attention away from the brutal fact that our country is only now emerging from one of the most grievous eras of economic mismanagement that we have ever had the misfortune to endure. The Conservatives like to present themselves as competent economic managers, but honestly, this was always more a public relations effort than fact. They seem to believe that if they just repeat this falsehood enough, people will believe it.Let us talk about this record. According to analysis by economists Jordan Brennan and Jim Stanford, published last September—one that applied standard measures such as job creation, unemployment, GDP growth, productivity, personal incomes, debt, and more—the previous Conservative prime minister ranked or tied for last among all post-war prime ministers. He ranked or tied at second-last in another six cases. Across all 16 of the indicators the study used, the government's average ranking was the worst of any post-war administration—not even close to the second-worst, another Conservative, Brian Mulroney.In a market economy, two of the most strategic components of spending are business spending and exports. The Conservatives' abysmal failure to garner more business investment within Canada and to increase exports has been especially damaging. Conservatives promised that expensive corporate tax cuts costing $15 billion per year would boost investment, and that signing more free trade deals would do the same for exports, but neither has worked, as we all know. Canadian corporations have not used the money saved by the tax cuts to create jobs or expand their infrastructure; they sat on it. Recent figures from Statistics Canada show corporate Canada's pile of dead money now hovers at $680 billion.Exports hardly grew at all under the former prime minister—they were the slowest in post-war history—and business investment was stagnant and is now declining.Government spending cuts, enforced in earnest after the Conservatives won their majority in 2011, only deepened our macroeconomic pit of despair. As noted by economists Scott Clark and Peter DeVries, when the Conservatives first formed government in 2006-2007, they inherited a surplus of $13.8 billion and within two years' time this became a deficit of $5.8 billion. After that point, the Conservatives were in deficit each and every year. If this is competent economic management, I shudder to think how Canadians would live under their conception of incompetence.Economic growth has declined in every year since 2010 and averaged only 1.7% per year. In the previous nine years, economic growth averaged 3.4% per year. In 2014, only 120,000 new jobs were created, less than in 2013. Now these same people stand before us today, hoping that we will forget about all of this and just focus on a tiny moment in time when there was a tiny surplus that the Conservatives managed to obtain during their final weeks in power. Here we must ask ourselves how this surplus was achieved. It was by closing Veterans Affairs offices and by eliminating staff at Service Canada and indeed across every branch of the federal government responsible for delivering vital services to Canadians. The former government even used a flimsy legal technicality to deny claims of thousands of residential school victims.It also turns out that federal departments and agencies helped out by not spending an estimated $8.7 billion for different programs that had been requested and often publicly announced by the government and approved by Parliament, the so-called lapsed funding.Lastly, the surplus was achieved through the sale of General Motors in April-May of 2015, and the NDP opposed this sale. It was essentially the sale of these shares, an estimated $3.5 billion, that enabled the Conservative government to balance its pre-election budget. The main unions criticized this action, calling it short-term political gain for the next federal election—precisely. Therefore, the motion being debated today creates a false debate and is really a missed opportunity to talk about the real issues facing Canadians in these uncertain times. It is a futile effort to misrepresent the record of the former government by its remaining representatives in the House.Canadians are not buying it. They know what is up and they know that this motion is an opposition day motion, with the emphasis on opposition. Meanwhile, there are families, workers, and low-income Canadians who are struggling to make ends meet. Conservatives are welcoming the numbers in this report, while Canadians continue to suffer the consequences of Conservative mismanagement.Low-income Canadians, seniors, veterans, persons with disabilities, and those most vulnerable in our society face long wait times for their benefits, long wait times to have problems with their payments addressed or appealed, and across the board, the departments serving them have been cut to the bone by the former government. However, we are not supposed to think about our grandmothers or the elderly waiting for pension payments. We are supposed to focus on the surplus. Accordingly, this motion is a missed opportunity to discuss real issues facing Canadians. We cannot contradict this motion. It is based on facts, however cherry-picked, and instead of wasting time squabbling over partisan numbers, my question is why the Conservatives and the Liberals are not discussing the issues that are actually affecting Canadians. The NDP is the only progressive party that is actually working on behalf of workers and low-income Canadians. It proposed a number of concrete measures, including the national child benefit supplement, the guaranteed income supplement, $15-a-day child care for all Canadian families, and restoring the labour-sponsored tax credit. Instead of using their opposition day motion to try to rewrite economic and political history, I encourage the Conservatives to consider using such opportunities as a means to advance the real needs and interests of all Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are the only ones who are self-interested. Since my hon. colleague says that we are not following the recommendations made by our officials or departmental staff, I will quote the Update of Economic and Fiscal Projections 2015: The Government will pursue an approach to fiscal management that is realistic, sustainable, prudent and transparent. This Update of Economic and Fiscal Projections reviews the federal government’s economic and fiscal outlook, which has deteriorated since the previous Government presented the budget in April 2015. The Canadian economy contracted in the first half of 2015... These economic developments have led to a downward adjustment to the fiscal outlook. These developments have reduced the projected budgetary balance by about $6.0 billion per year, on average, relative to Budget 2015... These are the fiscal projections inherited by this Government. Why does my colleague opposite keep telling Canadians things that are not true?

Mr. Speaker, I am a rookie in the House. I believe that the biggest political fiction, since that is the topic, is that the Conservatives deliver balanced budgets while the Liberals do not. The Conservatives talk a lot about delivering balanced budgets but they are not good at delivering them. It is a distinction with a difference.Would my friend agree that, in the last 30 years, Liberal governments have delivered more balanced budgets than Conservative governments have, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, here is the problem. The Prime Minister already has a record of blocking job-creating energy projects. Northern gateway was approved with 204 conditions, but then the Prime Minister killed it with his unilateral transportation ban off the west coast, so that is his record. It would do a lot more for investor confidence and public confidence if the government would stand behind its own process.I ask again, if new projects get through this new process, will they be approved by the Liberal government, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, I will begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh.We are debating a Conservative opposition motion, which I am pleased to comment on given my role as the NDP's finance critic.The motion states: That the House: (a) thank the independent non-partisan officials from the Department of Finance for their hard work and evidence-based analysis; We totally agree with that.The motion continues as follows: [That the House:] (b) acknowledge their most recent Fiscal Monitor which informed Members and Canadians that, for the period from April to November 2015 of the 2015-2016 fiscal year, the previous government posted a budgetary surplus of $1.0 billion; and We agree with that. That is what the “Fiscal Monitor” says. We could even add our congratulations to the team at the “Fiscal Monitor” for all the work it has accomplished, and not just for the most recent issue.Finally, the rest of the motion states: [That the House:] (c) concur in its conclusions and express its confidence in the Deputy Minister and his team. We have no problem with that either because that is what the “Fiscal Monitor” says. The report is prepared by the Department of Finance, and we have no trouble believing that in November 2015, there was a surplus of $1 billion.I might as well propose an amendment asking the House to recognize that the sun is yellow, the grass is green, and the sky is blue, because those are facts one would be hard-pressed to deny.I feel like we are kind of wasting the House's time today by talking about something that we all agree on. We have missed a good opportunity to debate issues that really matter to Canadians on their behalf.However, since I have speaking time, I would like to talk about how the Conservatives got that number. There may have been a $1-billion surplus in November 2015, but there is no guarantee that there will still be a surplus at the end of the 2015-16 fiscal year. Actually, knowing whether we will have a surplus or a deficit at that point is pretty important.We should also remember that the government posted a surplus in November 2011 because it sold at a loss the shares in General Motors that it had purchased in order to help save the auto industry. We spoke out against this sale at the time.The government in power at the time sold 73.4 million shares for $3.3 billion. A portion of that was obviously recorded in each part of the fiscal year. It was recorded as income from the sale of shares, and only the sale of shares, putting the Conservative government not in the red, but in the black, and it was solely this exercise that made it possible.We could add that the government continued to dip into the employment insurance fund, which was supposed to be used to help unemployed workers who needed it. It was also included in the final report on the government's consolidated revenue fund. The employment insurance surplus was used to put the government in an overall surplus.Notwithstanding the issue of employment insurance, the sale of GM shares is the one and only reason why there is, or at least there was in November 2015, a budget surplus on the books.However, the shares were sold at a loss. The sale was condemned not only by the opposition parties, but also by a number of financial analysts for being made at the wrong time.I am referring to comments by financial analysts such as John Stephenson, who was the president and CEO of Stephenson & Company Capital Management.He said: If you look at GM, it’s grossly undervalued relative to other global automakers.... I think you could easily squeeze out another $6 to $7 per share in the next 12 months or so, so you’re leaving a fair bit of money on the table if you believe that. In its rush to claim a balanced budget for 2015-16, the government at the time sold our GM shares at a loss, even though it had apparently been advised to wait, hold onto these shares, and sell them at a book value that was beneficial to the government.In order to break even on the purchase and sale of the GM shares, the government would have had to sell the shares for $4 billion in total, in Canadian dollars, of course. The sale totalled $3.3 billion. At the end of the day, the government ended up with a net loss. The shares were sold at a loss, and the whole thing was nothing but an attempt to balance the budget in their last year for purely political reasons. The budget was balanced in November 2015, but it may not remain balanced at the end of the fiscal year in March 2016. In addition, the Auditor General issued a report in November 2014 regarding the sale of the GM shares and, especially, the GM bailout. He said that the government was lax in requiring accountability for how the amounts were spent and how the money was used to bail out GM and also Chrysler. I will not go over the entire report, but there was one thing in particular that blew me away at the time and still does. I am talking about the $4 billion that the federal government gave GM to save or strengthen the GM pension plan. GM used $1 billion to save or strengthen the U.S. pension plan. This means that $1 billion of Canadian money went straight to the United States. There was no oversight at all by the government, no call for accountability.As a result, the Conservatives are trying to win political points with a motion like this one. It is ill-advised, but we cannot help but agree with it, since it sets out some fairly obvious facts. The truth is that the motion is an attempt to draw attention away from the government's mismanagement of the GM and Chrysler bailout, its failure to require accountability, and the political decision it made later to quickly sell shares in order to artificially balance the budget, as we can still see on the books today.Does that mean that the current Liberal government is off the hook? Not really, because the Liberals will have a serious challenge to face with the upcoming budget. During the 2015 election campaign, the Liberals promised to run deficits. Many Canadians think that those deficits will be incurred only for infrastructure, but that is not the case.The Liberals promised deficits of approximately $25 billion over the next four years, with a return to a balanced budget in the fourth year. That is completely unrealistic, given the way things are now, the economic and fiscal update, and particularly the parliamentary budget officer's December 2015 report. When we take those things into account, the Liberal government is currently facing an accumulated deficit of $55 billion at the end of four years, including an $11-billion deficit in the fourth year, because of the promises it made and the current economic climate. That could happen if the Liberals keep their election promises, and it reflects the fiscal framework they presented during the election campaign.I want to say that during the election campaign, the Liberals themselves probably promised too much in relation to Canada's fiscal capacity. At that time, we were extremely cautious with our forecasts, because we knew that the Canadian economy might be facing a struggle. That is why we wanted to be careful about what we promised. That is not what the Liberals did during the election campaign. They were elected based on all the changes they promised to Canadians, so now Canadians want to see some results, including the reversal of the Conservative reforms to employment insurance, as promised, or the reopening of certain things that were closed by the Conservatives. One example would be the marine radio communications centres. The Minister of National Revenue, who is also the member for Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine, promised to reopen the marine communications and traffic services centre in Rivière-au-Renard, which does not appear to be one of her government's priorities.We are taking notes. Obviously, we are going to be watching closely and we will carefully study the Liberal government's upcoming budget. We will be here to make sure that the government keeps the promises on which it was elected, because many of those promises were similar to promises and commitments that we had also made. I can assure the House that we will be here to hold the Liberals to account when the promises that got them here are not honoured.

Mr. Speaker, we find it pretty ironic that members on the opposite side, who were not able to get resources to tidewater over nine years, are talking about what we are trying to do. We are looking for a way to actually get resources to tidewater. We have been very clear about this point. We are working hard to get the licence required to do that. We are convinced that our approach will make a real difference for people in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Newfoundland and Labrador, and across this country.

Mr. Speaker, Canadians support infrastructure investments, but few Canadians support the unnecessary deficits that result from Liberals funding their pet projects.We know that as deficits increase, confidence in the government's ability to manage decreases. There is every indication that the government is going to post a deficit of more than $20 billion.Will the Minister of Finance tell the House that that is not the case? How large will the Liberal deficit be?

Mr. Speaker, since this is the first time I am rising in the House in this capacity, I want to thank the people of Kanata—Carleton for having placed their confidence in me. I also want to thank my husband, Rob, and my children, Kyle and Brea, for their confidence and support over all these many years.There has been much discussion about Canada's current economic situation and its economic performance over the past decade. This discussion should not be treated as just another example of partisan bickering. It demands serious and in-depth analysis. This analysis is critical, because the consequences of getting it wrong will have a serious impact on all Canadians. Of course, Liberals believe that the previous Conservative approach to the economy was the wrong approach for the country. This is why the economy ended up being a primary issue for most of the recent election campaign.Einstein is quoted as saying that if he had one hour to save the world, he would spend 55 minutes defining the problem and only five minutes trying to find the solution. I believe that we need to be honest with ourselves about the state of the Canadian economy. We need to stop playing politics with the data to create a false sense of security. We also need to be honest with ourselves about the challenges ahead. We need to select a course of action that can help turn around this weak economy and actually help the thousands of Canadians who are currently struggling. Do we want to talk about balanced budgets? We can. Canada may have had one balanced budget since 2007-08, but that was only because of fire sales of Canada's property assets around the world. However, Canada did have balanced budgets from 1996 to 2007, and during that period, we paid down our national debt by almost $70 billion.The previous government delivered deficit after deficit for the budget years 2008 to 2014. During the tenure of the previous government, it added almost $150 billion of new debt to our national debt. If we take that $153 billion and spread it over seven years, it translates to deficits of about $20 billion per year.We need to stop considering snapshots in time as a true indicator of annual performance. We need to stop playing politics with the numbers and the Canadian economy, and together we need to get to work.The level of economic activity in Canada and the government's revenue vary depending on the season. The government receives more revenue during the summer months when all the seasonal industries, such as the fisheries and the agricultural, forestry, construction, and tourism industries, are active. However, expenses have to be paid all year long. As a result, any consideration of the matter of deficit must reflect the entire fiscal year, not just a select period in the most economically active months.I would like to remind members that the 2015 update of economic and fiscal projections indicated that, under the previous government, the Canadian economy shrank in the first quarter of 2015. The gross domestic product dropped by 0.8% in the first quarter and 0.5% in the second. We still do not have the figures for the third quarter, but there is nothing to suggest that the economic conditions have improved.There will also be a deficit of approximately $3 billion for the 2015-16 fiscal year. With the previous government running all of these deficits, including in the 2015-16 fiscal year, what does Canada have to show for it?First, let us talk about job losses. It is estimated that 400,000 good-paying jobs in manufacturing and heavy industry have been lost, and now a further calamitous loss of 70,000 jobs in the once booming oil sector.My colleague from Windsor, Ontario must well know that Windsor was once a booming city of Canada's manufacturing heartland. It now has an unemployment rate of 9.7%, and has had for almost five or six years. Other important facts and figures put together by independent non-partisan officials include those related to Canada's trade deficit. Under the previous government, Canada hit record trade deficits. For a country whose economy has such a strong basis in exports, this demonstrates the failures of the previous government to diversify our economy and make it more resilient.While I acknowledge that the previous government did make efforts toward diversifying which markets we were selling to, it neglected to consider the diversity of the products that we were bringing to the global market. It also neglected to do enough to spur more investment into research and development to help design, build and sell made-in-Canada products and technologies.With respect to the record trade deficits, Canada needs to be an export nation. Canada's all-time trade surplus of $8.5 billion was in 2001 under a Liberal government. The all-time low for Canada was a $3.7 billion deficit in March of 2015. That is a $12.2 billion difference from high to low.It is important to remember that when we sell a raw product, we are only earning 30% of the available equity in that product. For every step we take that product up the value-added chain, we can be earning another 20% to 30% of the equity in that product, while creating jobs at the same time.In order for Canada's economy to be strong and robust, it needs to be flexible and diversified and cannot be left entirely at the mercy of the commodities markets. Economists have warned that the commodities markets are known for being vulnerable to interference, speculation, and manipulation, and that is the situation we are in today, a boom-bust cycle.Workers across Canada are now facing the consequences of the previous government failing to anticipate the current situation and failing to ensure that contingency plans were in place to deal with the possibility of an oil glut. Can we make money with oil at $30 a barrel when we are only getting a discounted price for our product? That is what has been happening for the last few years. Canada has been paid approximately 30% below the world market price for the raw products from our oil sands. One reason may be that there are only two or three nations that can purchase our product: the U.S., China, and maybe India. If members think that any of those countries would actually pay us the world market price, we will be sadly disappointed.The path chosen by the previous government did not produce the desired results: a resilient and flexible economy where we earn a good price for our product because we have a host of customers wanting to purchase our exports and that is the challenge today. We need—

Mr. Speaker, a couple of speeches in a row by hon. members have mentioned that the timing of the General Motors share sale was not ideal. I find it interesting that the members would provide this information to the House considering that the very month that the shares were sold, the price, according to statistics, was $36.63. They said that they should be sold about six months down the road, with the advice they had been given from an economist, and six months down the road it had dropped $6 per share. Today, it has dropped even further.My question is this. Is that the type of economic management we could expect from the NDP?

Mr. Speaker, I encourage members opposite to Google the Parliament of Canada Act, read section 49, and conclude themselves whether they followed the law on November 5.My question is for the Attorney General. What will she do to uphold the rule of law and ensure that ministers acted in accordance with section 49?

Mr. Speaker, while we recognize this week as National Suicide Prevention Week, suicide continues to be a major national public health issue in Canada. In December 2012, Bill C-300, An Act respecting a Federal Framework for Suicide Prevention, was passed into law. This framework will help the hundreds of Canadians across Canada who are working with some of Canada's most vulnerable people.Would the Minister of Health inform the House as to when we can expect some information as to when this bill will actually be implemented?

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to members opposite on the issue in front of the House right now, talking about how bad Conservative budgets were in the previous government. I would like to ask a quick question. Does she know that the Liberals voted for the Conservatives' first budget in the spring of 2006?

Mr. Speaker, our number one priority is the economy. We will make investments in aerospace, automotive, by-products, biopharmaceuticals, business services, chemicals and plastics, digital media, financial services, food and beverage, media devices, mining industries, oil and gas, renewable energy, retail, and software. I can go on and on, but the bottom line is that we will grow the economy and create jobs.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for her answer, but she said “in a timely...way”. Does she not think these victims have already waited enough?Yesterday, the government signed the trans-Pacific partnership, which will add hundreds of millions of dollars to the cost of the public drug insurance plan, according to a recently published study.My question for the government is simple. Does it plan on compensating the provinces for the increased costs of their public drug insurance plans, yes or no?

The question everyone has been waiting for, Mr. Speaker. I am just wondering if the government House leader could update the House on the business for the rest of the week and for the week that we return after our constituency work week.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things my colleague from Barrie—Innisfil outlined is the surplus that was left for the Liberals. A month later the Liberal government outlined a deficit of over $3 billion. Has the Liberal government communicated to my colleague where or how it is spending the money? Has it provided any transparency or accountability to the House or to my colleague as a member of Parliament to date?

Madam Speaker, I suspect if you were to canvass the House you would find the will to see the clock at 6:30.

Madam Speaker, there seems to be a disconnect within the Conservative caucus. At worst, it could be seen as audacious doublespeak; at a minimum, it could be a factual misunderstanding among its own members.Over the past two weeks, we have heard member after member from the Conservative caucus stand and tell us how much their ridings, which they characterize as middle class, are hurting. The member and his colleague from Edmonton—Wetaskiwin seem to be suggesting that the middle class is strong. Which is it?

Mr. Speaker, in reading the motion, it mentions expressing thanks for the hard work of the department and its evidence-based analysis. I wonder whether the motion should be amended to recognize that its hard work and evidence-based analysis was ignored by the previous government.The motion goes on to thank the deputy minister and his team. Maybe we should further amend that and express our sympathies for having had to work with the ministers.Does the member think those would be appropriate amendments that the Conservative Party opposite would appreciate?

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé for her question. Her riding is right next to mine, Saint-Maurice—Champlain.I can assure my colleague that I have been working hard to move forward on the pyrrhotite file every day since I was elected on October 19. It is a complicated file, but things are progressing. I really thank my colleague, as well as the member for Trois-Rivières. The three members from the Mauricie region have raised this issue co-operatively, because we want to move it forward in order to help the victims.

Mr. Speaker, I am a little confused about why the Conservatives would want to pass self-congratulatory motions for the work they claim to have done.When we look at what Liberal and Conservative governments have done to try to balance their books, it is clear that they have always begun by cutting provincial transfers. So much so that the parliamentary budget officer said that, in 30 years, Ottawa will have paid off all of its debts while the provinces will be on the verge of bankruptcy.That being the case, how can my colleague be proud of the Conservatives' record?

Mr. Speaker, clearly I am not stating things that I think are false. The document speaks for itself. It is time the Liberals start recognizing this and stop the rhetoric, stop blaming the previous government, when the document does show a surplus is there.The fact is that the Liberals have been piling onto the debt with some of the decisions they have made early on. Many times over the last several months I have heard in the House about the middle-class tax increase. The Liberals went through the election saying that it would be revenue neutral when in fact this year there will be a $1.4 billion deficit piled on to any other problems that may exist. Over the course of the next nine years, almost $8.9 billion will be run into deficit because of the decisions the Liberals have made with that middle-class tax cut.I would suggest that the Liberals are piling on the debt, not the Conservative Party. They need to stop blaming us for their mistakes.

Madam Speaker, 2006 was a good budget. The Conservatives had just inherited a $13-billion surplus from the Liberals before them. We did not expect them to spend it all in one go, but that is exactly what happened.We do acknowledge that 2009 and 2010 were stimulus budgets. We did agree that Canada should invest about $60 billion in stimulus. That was agreed upon, but the government went on to create another $90 billion in debt that we did not agree to. Sometimes agreement is not the worst thing in the world.

Madam Speaker, I would like to say in this odd way that it is very unfortunate that the hon. member had to use Windsor as her example talking about social consciousness and the fiscal responsibility that we need in moving forward and that it is a tricky mix. In my area though, it really is not. We have to be very open-minded in our perspectives as we are all developing fiscal policy. Unfortunately, some of us who end up here have been in their bubble for an awfully long time. I sat here previous to the hon. member's speech and listened to a member talk about middle-class fiction because the middle class is struggling. Come to my riding and I can say it is not fiction.Another hon. member's speech talked about spending and deficits because money can buy fun. I find that so distasteful and very alarming when the Liberal government will be preparing and presenting a budget that I hope we as parliamentarians will be able to be very meaningfully engaged in. The member used my riding as an excuse. Is she committed in moving forward that conscientiousness for areas like Windsor that need a commitment to health care, that need a recommitment to the—

Mr. Speaker, Russia has failed to implement any of its commitments under the Minsk agreement with Ukraine.Fighting continues between Ukrainian forces and pro-Russian rebels despite the ceasefire, and a buildup of additional Russian forces is reported along the border.Ukraine has appealed for tough new sanctions and more weapons. Here the Minister of International Trade and the Liberal MP for Etobicoke Centre are clearly at odds with the Minister of Foreign Affairs.Why are the Liberals leaving the defence of Ukraine to others, just as they are doing in the fight against ISIS terrorists?

Mr. Speaker, in the complexity of conflict and the horrible atrocities that terrorists commit around the world, we have to be smarter in this fight, because these threats are also increasing.I will be taking the time to ensure that we get the right capabilities in the right areas at the right time so we can fight this terrorist threat.

Mr. Speaker, does the member often sign deals that he does not agree with?After promising openness and accountability, the Liberals signed onto a trade deal negotiated in secret with no economic impact study—he just admitted it: he wants to do the study after signing—and no mandate from Canadians to sign.Now that they have signed, further changes are impossible. Since they are gambling with Canadian jobs, perhaps it was appropriate that they signed it in a casino.Will the government admit that it just signed away any possibility of making changes to the wrongheaded Conservative trade deal?

Mr. Speaker, I can certainly say that a Conservative government that was selling assets at a loss to make a feigned attempt at a surplus, as it did, is not sound financial management. Even that feigned attempt by the previous government did not result in a balanced budget, but rather a deficit for the 2015-16 fiscal year. That is why the motion has no merit.

Mr. Speaker, public safety officers put their lives on the line to keep us safe. Yet all too often they cannot access the support they need to cope with the trauma they experience. The results can be devastating. Some 39 first responders died last year from suicide. Hundreds are affected by mental health crises or operational stress injuries every year.Could the Minister of Public Safety update the House on his commitment to help public safety officers and their families deal with the threat of operational stress injuries?

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on being re-elected. Since he has been here for some time, I wonder if he agreed with the strategy the late Mr. Flaherty used under the previous government. He implemented an economic action plan to stimulate the economy by investing billions of dollars.I am curious to know if he agreed with the previous government's strategy and if he would agree with a similar strategy to stimulate our economy in 2016 and beyond, if need be.

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government used a number of questionable strategies to balance the budget. It slashed postal services. It cut the CBC's funding, which has gutted regional news services, for example. It reduced its reserve from $3 billion to $1 billion. It pocketed $1 billion by selling its General Motors shares. It took billions of dollars from the employment insurance fund while just 38% of unemployed workers were entitled to benefits.Is the official opposition willing to pressure the government into keeping the employment insurance fund separate from the consolidated revenue fund and to have it serve those for whom it was created?

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have been all over the map on the fight against ISIS. The Minister of National Defence suggested that we would stop ISIS from spreading into Libya. The Minister of Foreign Affairs said that no, we were not. The foreign affairs minister said that Canada would focus on improving security in Jordan and Lebanon and the defence minister said that no, we were going to stay in Iraq. Finally, when the defence minister was asked what the Liberal anti-ISIS plan was, he said that we should ask the Minister of Foreign Affairs who was in in Rome.Now the minister is back from Rome. Has he given the defence minister his marching orders?

Mr. Speaker, Canadians learned today that it is upwards of 3,000 indigenous people, who suffered abuse in residential schools, who have had their claims denied because of a technicality. It was the Department of Justice that came up with this loophole, and argued against these victims in court. This is contrary to the spirit of reconciliation and a violation of the residential schools agreement.Will the Minister of Justice instruct her officials to back down? Will she also apologize for this tactic and provide the compensation these survivors are entitled to?

Mr. Speaker, the only people who believe that the previous Conservative government left a surplus are the Conservatives themselves.Canadians will not be fooled. Make no mistake, the Government of Canada is going to run a deficit for the 2015-16 fiscal year, a deficit that will result from the previous government's measures and inaction. That is a fact.

Mr. Speaker, middle-class Canadians need Liberal governments to get out of the way and not raise their taxes. That is simple. If it keeps raising taxes, there will be less revenue and fewer jobs. When will the finance minister realize that taxing Canadians is not a solution for prosperity in this country?

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.First I want to thank him for having pointed out that, in their motion, the Conservatives tried to exploit officials at the Department of Finance for political purposes, which is unfortunate. I would like him to clarify the following point once again for our Conservative colleagues. The Conservatives just picked a number that suited them. If no changes had been made in the estimates, in other words, in the Conservative government's spending, there would have been a deficit at the end of this fiscal year, Can he clarify this matter? I just want it to be clear for our Conservative colleagues. Can he confirm that that is what would have happened without any changes to the government's plans?

Mr. Speaker, I will ask the question again and maybe we will get an answer.For days now we have been asking the Minister of National Defence what his plan is to deal with the Islamic State. He said that the Minister of Foreign Affairs was dealing with it while he was in Rome. The Minister of Foreign Affairs has returned. Did he submit his plan to the Minister of National Defence and can he share that plan with the rest of us?

Mr. Speaker, the previous Conservative government notoriously mismanaged the temporary foreign worker program and allowed abuse to flourish. It meant downward pressure on wages and working conditions for Canadian workers, while encouraging the exploitation of foreign workers.Now the TPP will make this worse. Employers will not even have to show that they could not hire Canadians to do the job before bringing in temporary foreign workers.Will the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour stand today in the House and urge her government not to ratify the TPP unless changes are made in this clause to ensure it will not bring the TFW back to Canada through the back door.

Mr. Speaker, our position is very clear. It is only my colleague who is a bit confused. I will try to clarify it again for him.Indeed, Canada's support for Ukraine is solid and will remain. Our friendship for Ukraine is not a matter of party or of government. It is a friendship between two countries that will remain.Our ability to help Ukraine will be improved, though, because instead of snubbing Russia and not speaking to it, we will speak to Russia and tell it that what it is doing to Ukraine is wrong, as other countries are saying. Our—

Again, Mr. Speaker, there is no plan ISIS is a jihadi terrorist organization that is committing mass atrocities against religious and ethnic minorities. These are terrorists who believe in a dangerously radicalized version of Islam. The Liberals are constantly rationalizing their behaviour and making excuses for ISIS. Now the Minister of National Defence is blaming climate change for ISIS.Does the Minister of National Defence actually believe that climate change creates jihadi terrorists?

Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, a fishing boat called the Jill Marie and its crew ran into trouble off the coast of Yarmouth, Nova Scotia.As we know, our oceans can become dangerous for fishermen, with unexpected changes in weather.Would the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard explain to the House the response of the Canadian Coast Guard to this crisis situation?

Mr. Speaker, governments in the past have chosen conflict over co-operation and have unilaterally changed voting rules in an often self-serving manner. With the commitment that October 19 was the last first-past-the-post election, we must now create a voting system that truly respects and reflects the wishes of Canadians. They expect that the committee tasked with this momentous responsibility must also respect and reflect their wishes.Will the minister agree to our proposal to work with the NDP, the Conservatives, the Bloc, and the Greens and seize this historic opportunity together?

Mr. Speaker, it is time for the government to clarify its foreign policy positions, given the confusion and contradictions coming from the Liberals. On the one hand, the foreign minister has said that Canada will break from our Conservative government's principled positions on Russia and its illegal occupation of Ukraine. On the other hand, the Liberal MP for Etobicoke Centre said in Kiev this week that there is no change in Canadian policy on Ukraine.Exactly who speaks on behalf of Liberal foreign policy?

Mr. Speaker, we only sign something if we agree with it.Everyone but the Liberal government understands that.Yesterday morning, Quebeckers woke up to bad news. Rona has been sold to American interests. Rona employees do not know what is going to happen to them tomorrow, but the bosses are pocketing $40 million.Will the minister commit to releasing the mandatory review of this foreign takeover and if so, will he table it here in the House so that everyone will know what is happening with our jobs here at home?

Mr. Speaker, the U.S. Senate hearing on Canadian fast-tracking of Syrian refugees heard yesterday that it would almost be impossible for Canadian officials to acquire the specialized skills needed to screen refugees under the pressure of the Liberal election timeline.My question is for the chair of the public safety committee. This morning, Liberals on that committee blocked a study on refugee security screening. Why is the safety of Canadians not important enough for the committee to study it immediately?

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government signed the trans-Pacific partnership, which the Conservatives negotiated in secret, without conducting an economic impact study. Canadian innovators and creators are afraid of losing billions of dollars by giving the United States the upper hand on intellectual property. The founder of BlackBerry even called the agreement “the worst thing in policy that Canada's ever done”.Why is the Prime Minister bent on signing an agreement that we know will hurt jobs and innovation in Canada?

Mr. Speaker, this is outrageous. This is political interference in the courts. Is there any court in Canada that can escape the reach of the new Liberal government? No one has ever done this before. No one has even had the gall to attempt something like this before. Every minister in the past who has interfered with these tribunals has resigned. When is he going to get to it?

Mr. Speaker, what a surprise to hear a member from that party speaking about attempting to intimidate a court. Canadians were shocked, and international jurists were shocked, when the former government tried to publicly intimidate the chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. That is something we will never do.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence has been causing confusion for weeks now. We still do not know how we are going to combat terrorism. We are not looking for reasons. It is time to find solutions.The minister is confused when he talks about the reasons for the rise in terrorism. Can he tell us how climate change is helping terrorists to cut people's heads off with knives and plant bombs?