Response to Economic Statement

Response to Economic and Fiscal Statement
Mr. Speaker
I rise to implore the House to support the motion taking note of the Economic and Fiscal Statement.  In doing so, I acknowledge that the Statement does not identify the details of every stimulus expenditure planned.  It does not identify every specific stimulus infrastructure project.  It does not identify the limits of new unplanned stimulus spending.
I ask the Members of this House to recognize that none of that should be expected in an Economic and Fiscal Statement - for two reasons:
            The first is obvious.  An Economic and Fiscal Statement is not a budget.  Many of the details I have heard some Members request, will be available in the Budget to be presented, probably on January 27, a short 7 weeks after we complete this debate.
            In this respect the Statement is similar to the Speech from the Throne.  I listened as Members opposite criticized the Throne Speech for lacking details.  Then the House approved it anyway, recognizing that it was intended to provide direction, with details to follow in legislation.  In the same way, we should take note of the Economic and Fiscal Statement recognizing that it provides the direction we need, with details to follow in the budget.
            Second, Statement is an evolution of a plan that our Government began with the update a year ago.  If there are no surprises, it`s because we are already pursuing appropriate measures.  If there are no flashy new proposals, it`s because the plans we've made in the last year are coming to fruition.  If there are no panicky new responses, it's because we have laid out solid preparedness and panic is unnecessary.
Instead of criticizing the Government for failing to introduce new measures for 2009, the Members of this House should praise the Government for having already put in motion stimulus measures for 2009.
For example, available federal funding for infrastructure projects rose by 40% this year and will rise by another 40% next year, hitting a record of $6 billion in that year.  This is double the amount spent in 2007-08.
Taken together, these tax reductions and infrastructure investments represent a substantial fiscal stimulus.  The Government could have waited.  It could have held off any increase this past year and not planned any increase for next year.  Then it could have announced the whole doubling of spending - some $10 ½ billion.  But while that might have satisfied the thirst of some for sensationalist measures, it would have done no more for the economy than planning ahead has done. 
As it is, with a stimulus plan already in place since last year, the Prime Minister was able to meet already with other First Ministers and work with them to identify by next month - just a few short weeks from now - specific infrastructure projects.  He has secured their commitment to tackle barriers to these specific projects.
This is, really, amazing planning and foresight.  This is careful, considered planning and foresight that was set out in the Throne Speech already approved by this House.  This is planning and foresight that Canada needs most in uncertain times.
Consider the alternatives.  If this Economic and Fiscal Statement is censored, what will happen to our Government's carefully laid plans?  Will these plans simply be abandoned by whatever Government emerges?  Will the implementation of these measures be, at the very least, delayed while a new government scrambles to forge a new consensus?  Or will the country be plunged into yet another election mere weeks after the Government's carefully laid plans received the support of the largest number of Canadians in the last election?
Every one of these alternatives would inflict further damage upon our economy.  The fact that we are even forced to ask these questions means that the Members of this House have foisted a higher level of uncertainty on our nation.  This is an entirely unnecessary and damaging thing to do to economy and to our fellow Canadians.
Also, if this Statement is defeated, the many needed fiscal measures it proposes will be lost, or at least delayed.  RRIF withdrawal relief for seniors?  Lost or delayed.  ($350 million to support) $1.5 billion increased credit capacity for Canada's export sector, most notably in auto-related and other manufacturing?  Lost or delayed.  An increased borrowing limit to protect insured deposits?  Lost or delayed.
These measures and others in the Statement are all measures this House should neither abandon nor delay.
What will happen if we do take note of this Economic and Fiscal Statement?  Well, first, all of its beneficial measures will proceed immediately.  Second, the work of detailed budget planning will be allowed to proceed unhindered.  Finance Ministers from across the country will be consulted in a week or two.  First Ministers will identify priority infrastructure projects.  The usual pre-budget consultations with stakeholders will occur.
Third, several important new pieces will complete the picture.  Economic variables have been changing with lightning speed.  Remember that long ago era when gasoline prices were hitting $1.35 per litre?  Well, that was just two months ago.  Within a week or two we will received the detailed funding plan that the Government has requested from the automotive sector, affecting 10% of our economy.  Within a few weeks the Americans will decide both their plan for the auto sector and their broader stimulus package.  Because so much of our economic ills are made in the USA, our largest trading partner, their medicine will have a beneficial effect on our economy too.  It is simple prudence to have this information before finalizing our budget.
Finally, there is some merit in keeping some of our powder dry.  If the downturn is prolonged, we will be ill-served by using all of our ammunition now at the outset.
Also, remember - if the waters we're in are uncharted, they may turn out to be less dangerous than everyone fears.  Let's act accordingly.
I'm glad our Government has shown flexibility in withdrawing its proposal to eliminate the subsidy to political parties.  This demonstrates a willingness to work together with the Opposition, and I hope this will encourage a mutual effort.
In passing, however, I want to take strong issue with those who described eliminating the subsidy as undemocratic.  In fact, the subsidy itself is an attack on democracy.  Democracy should be a level playing field where all citizens have equal opportunity to make themselves heard politically.  State-funded parties are more associated with totalitarian dictatorships than with democracies.  A subsidy to any party discriminates against those citizens struggling to compete without a similar subsidy and is therefore elitist and anti-democratic.  Replacing corporate and union subsidies with government subsidies simply replaced one anti-democratic elitism with another.  I hope the day will come when all Canadian political parties will rise or fall based solely upon their support among Citizens and not upon unequal government subsidies.
Democracy also works best when elected parties deliver, as nearly as possible, the leader and the policies they promised to voters.  A vote for a party or a candidate is the voter's consent to that party to that party or candidate's policies and leader.  Violating that consent in any significant way is a violation of democracy.
No party in Canada today has the consent of Canadians to govern in a coalition or to abdicate to the leader of another party.  This would be a government no one voted for.  It would be a government that has simply usurped power. No circumstances in Canada today are so extreme as to justify any such violation of voters' consent.  This is a bad time to experiment precipitously with uncertain measures.
The better course for Canadians is to let our Government govern, with the strengthened mandate it gained in the last election.
In a letter to the editor , one of my constituents, Sherri Helmka put it very succinctly when she said the following:  "My message is to all politicians in this country:  Put your differences aside and deal with the future uncertainty facing all Canadians.  In other words, do your job!
We can do that by taking note of the Economic and Fiscal Statement as an outline of direction, and by waiting a short 7 weeks or so from the conclusion of debate for the government to propose its detailed budget.  That would be prudent.  That would be restrained.  This is what Canadians expect of us.  That is the course I urge upon the House.
Thank you.