Debates of Feb. 5th, 2015

Opposition Motion—Job Creation

[An hon. member]

Burger King.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Burger King, yes, that is great, Mr. Speaker. They are comparing Nortel and Burger King, high industry versus the service industry. That is what they are proud of.

By the way, the only reason Burger King is locating here—and it is a small office—is to evade taxes in the United States. We have seen President Barack Obama talk about this situation. It is a joke when Conservatives heckle about Burger King being this great landing of a corporate head office when it is just going to be a branch plant corporate office. We have seen the President of the United States pan Burger King, and Congress and the Senate have started to move legislation forward because it is evading tax in the United States.

That is what we are attracting. The Conservatives' strategy is to bring the head office of tax evaders to our country.

Burger King laid off people. Why? It bought Tim Hortons and now has reduced it. That is the Burger King success story. It will probably get half a floor in some building on Bay Street where head office employees will be out golfing half the time, and that is going to be the Conservatives' victory flag.

Meanwhile, we have lost Nortel and other Canadian institutions that have either moved out or are gone.

The capital cost reduction allowance was something that we all supported and tabled in the chamber. It led to good government policy and support. There were all kinds of comments in support of those issues. There is no doubt that extending it for two years would be a benefit. It is critical right now because we can see what is available in terms of capabilities. With the dollar dropping, we have a chance to win some of our manufacturing jobs back because manufacturing is going to benefit.

Coming from a manufacturing city, I have seen thousands upon thousands of jobs disappear to Mexico, the United States, or overseas. Sadly, just last month we lost a chance for Ford to build a new engine in Canada in Windsor and Essex because the plant went to Mexico. Conservatives blew the deal. We lost a chance for a new engine plant, but now we have—

[An hon. member]

We did not blow the deal.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

You did blow the deal. You started to negotiate in public with some of your members. That is what took place.

I will provide a little snapshot of our trade deficit. These statistics on our trade deficit cover several years. Pertaining to manufacturing goods, I will use the year 2010 because it was significant as the year when things flipped over. The deficit was creeping and creeping, but our manufacturing exports versus our imports at that time went to an $80 billion deficit, and that deficit has continued to grow.

However, we have a chance right now, with the dollar being low and by using the capital cost reduction allowance, to attract some of that investment back. That is what makes us much more successful.

In conclusion, our skills, our abilities, and our support systems, such as health care, are net advantages to attract employers to locate in this country. Dropping the corporate tax rate has not done it. We have witnessed the bleeding of manufacturing jobs and value-added jobs—dirty words to the government—out of this country. Let us act now and take back some of those jobs.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that we need to pay more attention to the issue of manufacturing jobs, among others. However, the manufacturing industry has taken a significant hit over the last number of years.

In my home province of Manitoba, the pork industry has been doing relatively well. It has seen benefits in terms of potential growth and is still growing. One of the things feeding that growth is international trade. International trade is important to the Canadian economy and a lot of different industries in providing the necessary good quality, middle-class jobs that have real value. I wonder if the member could talk about the importance of us expanding our boundaries by looking at trade agreements, and so forth, as a way to help small businesses.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would highlight a couple of things that have taken place over the last number of years.

One is the distain or disconnect the government has with respect to trade with the United States. We have seen the repercussions of that. Whether it has been with regard to coal or cattle, there has been a series of impediments at the border. I agree that we need to reach out internationally and open new markets, but we are watching our number one market close us down. That has been an unfortunate consequence of the government's preoccupation with trying to push pipelines in the face of America and Washington, and not looking after the real projects, such as the new border crossing project in my riding of Windsor West. Of the $3.5 trillion U.S. budget, we could not even get $250 million for the American plaza. Instead, we are paying for the border crossing and for the plazas on both the Canadian and American sides because of neglect.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to say that the heckling across the way is quite annoying. This member has worked a long time on these issues. He has a lot to teach us and he comes from a region that has been hit hard by the bad choices of his friends on the other side.

I have a factual question for him. We have seen a high number of closures. We know about what happened in London with Kellogg, and we see what is now going on with Wrigley.

What does he think explains the closing of these factories that manufacture American products, which we will continue to buy and which will continue to come across our borders?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, a number of significant things took place. We had the peaking of the Canadian dollar based on our raw export resource-based economy, which weakened the the manufacturing sector. We had no plan and no auto strategy. In the area I come from, if there is any potential attempt for auto investment, it becomes a Hail Mary pass, not a plan.

We have what is called the Canadian Automotive Partnership Council, where the entire industry came together to create report cards and progress cards on how to move the industry forward. We do not use that. Rather, we just wait for that moment as opposed to pushing for it. That is why I like the idea of the capital cost allowance right now, because with that and an organized plan, we could fight to get some of these jobs back. The administration in the United States is doing that; it is rebirthing manufacturing. We do not see that here.

The Liberal leader came to London, Ontario, and talked about how we basically have to diversify away from auto manufacturing because it is a dead industry. Then he came down to Windsor and had no auto strategy, despite the fact there is money still available for such a strategy. We have put one forth before. Our first was a green auto strategy that involved David Suzuki and the CAW. There are 13 countries in the world that have a specific auto strategy. What I mean by an auto strategy is the assigning of targets and measure and referring back to those targets, whether with respect to the environment, production, diversification, or parts supply improvements.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an absolute pleasure for me today to speak to this motion, because it gives me an opportunity to talk about the many measures that our government has taken to improve Canada's economy.

First, let me say that I will be splitting my time with the member for Brant.

As I said, it gives me an opportunity to speak about our low-tax plan for Canadians, which began back in 2006 when our government was first elected. As my hon. colleagues will know, the world was a different place at that time. Markets were booming and economic growth was strong. We took advantage of these good conditions to cut taxes for hard-working families and job-creating businesses, and we paid down the federal debt.

Then in 2009, during the depths of the world's largest global economic recession in a generation, we acted quickly to protect our Canadian economy with targeted and temporary stimulus. We introduced the economic action plan and funded thousands of infrastructure projects across the country, many in my own riding of Mississauga South. These included the construction of roads, bridges and border crossings, as well as innovative knowledge-based infrastructure, like research labs in universities and colleges, and the expansion of broadband Internet in rural areas. That access of course was helpful to businesses of all sizes.

Since that time, we have also been working hard to position Canada as an attractive place to invest and to grow business by systematically putting in place the right conditions for success. I mentioned some of our early tax reductions. These have been a priority of the government since day one. We know that low-tax environments attract business, as well as boost domestic and foreign direct investment. These factors are of course crucial to job creation, innovation, skills development, productivity and growth.

Today Canada is in constant competition for domestic and foreign investment dollars. Our government knows that a low-tax regime helps Canada attract new investment. We are committed to ensuring Canada has the most competitive tax regime possible. In fact, in the past five years alone, we have delivered tax reductions totalling more than $60 billion to job-creating businesses.

For example, we reduced the federal general corporate tax rate from 22% to 15%. We extended the accelerated capital cost allowance for manufacturing and processing machinery and equipment. We implemented a three-year freeze on the EI rate at its 2013 level, saving employers and employees an estimated $660 million last year alone.

In particular, for our small and medium-size businesses, we reduced the small business tax rate from 15% to 11%, and increased the amount of income eligible for this lower rate from $300,000 to $500,000. We also raised the lifetime capital gains exemption for small business owners from $500,000 to $800,000. This new limit is now indexed to inflation, so it will continue to rise.

We expanded and extended temporary hiring credits for small businesses, and have introduced the new small business job credit that will save small businesses more than half a billion dollars over two years.

Today, I am proud to say that all of these actions are paying off. Even in today's still uncertain global economic climate, Canada's economy is widely recognized as one of the world's strongest. Over the past 10 years, we have led the G7 countries in economic growth. We are second only to the U.S. in growth among G7 countries during the recession and recovery. We have a strong record of job creation. In fact, our economy has created almost 1.2 million new jobs since the height of the recession, one of the strongest job creation records in the G7. Moreover, all major rating agencies have affirmed Canada's AAA credit rating.

Clearly, this is a great place to do business. Do not just take my word for it, because the world is taking notice. KPMG reports that total business tax costs in Canada are the lowest in the G7 and over 40% lower than those in the United States. In 2013, Canada leapt from sixth to second place in Bloomberg's ranking of the most attractive destinations for business. Once more, for the seventh consecutive year, the World Economic Forum has declared Canada's banking system to be the soundest in the world.

I think we can all give our former finance minister many of the kudos for that and the policies put in place under this government over the past nine years. Simply put, Canada has a record that investors and business people are confident in.

In addition to mentioning some of the measures we are taking to support our small and medium-size businesses, I want to point out to the House that these businesses represent over 99% of all Canadian businesses and account for nearly nine in ten jobs in the private sector, contributing about 40% to our GDP. They are clearly the lifeblood of the Canadian economy.

I have a great respect for small business owners. My father ran a small business for 40 years, and I started working for him when I was quite young. I saw day to day the struggles that the average small business owner has to deal with in meeting a payroll, paying suppliers, and generally doing business. Of course, when a person runs a business for 40 years, there are going to ups and downs, peaks and valleys. However, our small business owners in Canada not only understand and know how to deal with those, but they also appreciate it when they have a government that understands those struggles and challenges and is there to support them, as this government is.

This is why we have taken action and implemented all kinds of measures. For example, we have improved access to financing for small business, which of course is critical at all stages of growth for businesses. Most recently, we announced changes to the Canada small business financing program to allow more small businesses to apply for and receive larger loans. We have also brought in the venture capital action plan to improve access to SME financing so that companies have the capital they need to create jobs and growth in the area of venture capital.

We have also introduced the business innovation access program, which speaks in part to the NDP motion today. This is a pilot program that provides $20 million in funding to SMEs to help them access business services or technical assistance to bring bigger and better innovations to market faster.

We established the immigrant investor venture capital pilot program to support innovative Canadian start-ups with high-growth potential. We have made investments in Futurpreneur Canada, formerly known as the Canada Youth Business Foundation, to help Canada's next generation of entrepreneurs. We have invested $100 million in the Canada accelerator and incubator program to help entrepreneurs create new companies and receive intensive mentoring and other resources to develop their business. We have also instructed the Business Development Bank of Canada, BDC, to be more responsive to the unique needs of small business.

Our government is also committed to reducing red tape in order to support a flourishing and healthy business environment, which is the foundation for creating jobs and long-term prosperity. Accordingly, our government introduced the red tape reduction action plan, which we have heard quite a bit about in the House. It addresses specific irritants to small business, reduces their paperwork, and makes the system more transparent and accountable.

Contrast this with the actions of opposition members who voted against lowering the federal corporate income tax rate to 15%. They voted against extending the accelerated capital cost allowance for new investment in manufacturing. They voted against the automotive innovation fund. They voted against the establishment of the national shipbuilding procurement strategy, and they voted against the advanced manufacturing fund. There is such a long list of our initiatives that opposition members have voted against, it is quite disappointing, whether it is the Federal Economic Development Agency, FedDev; the job grant; apprentice loans and grants; the extension of the lifetime capital gains tax that I mentioned or the SR and ED credits.

Our government has been deliberately enacting a whole series of policies and programs to further fuel Canada's economic growth. Unlike the opposition, our government has a sustained approach to responsible fiscal management, which responds directly to the priorities of Canadian business owners.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think all Canadians realized over the last 10 years that the manufacturing sector in Canada has had a difficult time. We have seen a number of Canadian champions, longstanding Canadian companies, close and shed the jobs that come with them, often family-sustaining jobs.

What the New Democrats are calling for today is for the Canadian government to take immediate action to build a balanced economy, support the middle class, and encourage manufacturing and small business creation, specifically by extending the accelerated capital cost allowance by two years; reducing the small business income tax rate from 11% to 10% immediately and then to 9% when finances permit; and finally, by introducing an innovation tax credit to support investment in machinery, equipment, and property for further innovation and to increase productivity. I wonder if my hon. colleague across the way could tell us which of those three proposals her government has a problem with. Is it reducing the tax rate for small business, extending the accelerated capital cost allowance, or introducing an innovation tax credit?

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is an interesting question, because I do not understand why the NDP has voted consistently against the measures we put in place that, to me, sound exactly like the motion being put forward.

We have provided $1.4 billion in tax relief to the manufacturing sector, and total business tax costs in Canada are the lowest in the G7. I am not sure if the member is aware of an industry committee study done here in Parliament, which was released in 2007. It recommended that the accelerated capital cost allowance be extended for five years. Later that year, in the budget, the then finance minister did in fact extend the accelerated capital cost exemption for machinery and equipment for two years; and every two years since then, it has been renewed.

I did speak a bit about innovation. Perhaps I will get a chance later. Absolutely, our government is doing all of those things. I am just left wondering why the opposition did not vote for them if it supports them.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is about priorities, and the government determined its priority in the fall was to give literally hundreds of millions of dollars, totalling $2 billion plus annually, to an income split. This is something we in the Liberal Party have adamantly opposed.

When we look at the priorities, imagine if the government actually invested today in our infrastructure. It would not only directly help small businesses in Canada with the potential for contracts, but indirectly through the improvement of infrastructure we would be better able to export and transport our products.

Why does the member believe that the Prime Minister got the issue of priorities for Canadians wrong?

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that it is indeed about priorities, and our government has its priorities straight.

Absolutely, we believe in tax cuts for families across Canada. In fact, the transfer of income, also known as income splitting, has worked so well for seniors that we have made it a priority to provide that same kind of tax relief to families as well. I certainly make no apologies for that.

Also on the subject of priorities, I would like the member opposite to know that small and medium-sized businesses are indeed a priority. That is why we have lowered taxes for SMEs from 15% to 11%, to make it easier for them. We have also put in place the three-year freeze on the EI rate, which I mentioned, again making it easier for businesses in Canada to do business, to make money, and then create those jobs, those almost 1.2 million jobs that our economy has created since the depths of the recession in 2009.

These are the kinds of initiatives and programs, measures that our government has taken, that have consistently put us at the head of the G7 in terms of economic growth and job creation. I am very proud of that.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to rise today to talk about manufacturing across this great country of ours and how our government has set the proper balance. It puzzled me when I read this motion today that says New Democrats, through this motion, want to move toward somewhat of a balanced economy. I am not certain that I understand that term in NDP terms.

Perhaps it is best explained by the New Democrats, who have said it publicly, and will campaign on raising the taxes of the largest corporations in Canada. Many of them would be directly involved in manufacturing and creating the thousands of jobs that manufacturing supports in communities like mine: the city of Brantford, the County of Brant, the Six Nations of the Grand River, and Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation.

My community has a distinct story to tell about manufacturing. At the turn of the century, manufacturing in Brantford was the third largest in all of Canada, producing all the farm implements that went around the world, all of the heavy manufacturing that went along with the industrial revolution. It was only behind Montreal and Toronto in those years. Much of the transport of those goods went down the Grand River, into Lake Erie, into the Great Lakes, and then to Europe and other parts of the world where the farms were revolutionized.

I set this context for a reason. When that industry was in its worst condition, suffering because of poor public policy and other economic factors, and had its demise, my community had 30% unemployment, in the late 1970s, early 1980s, and beyond. The good news is that today my community has one of the lowest rates it has ever had, at 6.7% unemployment. Why is that? It is because we have set the platform in this country for manufacturers to succeed.

Let me talk about some of the things our government has done in my community, specifically through economic development initiatives through FedDev Ontario, which is the economic development arm of southwestern Ontario.

I am going to talk about two specific heavy manufacturing companies in my community. The first one is Patriot Forge. Patriot Forge makes large castings for all types of resource industries across the world. Back in 2008 when I was running in the election, it had been saying it owned manufacturing plants as well in the United States, Ohio and Michigan, and it would move the company out of Canada if a carbon tax were imposed, which the Liberals promised to bring in at the time. At the time, it had 224 employees, and it had done the calculation that the Liberals were proposing during that election. Had the carbon tax come to fruition, it would have added $9,000 a year per employee to the cost of its overhead. That is how much fuel it consumes in its forging furnaces.

Thank goodness it did not happen. Thank goodness our government and the Canadian people resisted it and the Conservatives formed government. I can say that what Patriot Forge has gone on to do within the last three weeks—an announcement was made during the last constituency week—is double the size of its corporation right here in Canada, in Brantford, Ontario. It is moving toward a whole new customer base because of the free trade agreements our government has put in place around the world to expand its markets, and over the next five years it will hire another 150 employees in that expansion, a $63 million expansion.

What role did FedDev Ontario play? It provided it with a $10 million repayable loan. This is what governments should be doing when they can support manufacturing that is on the cutting edge to be able to move its product into new markets. We should be supporting it with repayable loans.

The second company I would like to talk about is Hematite. This is a company that, when I first met it three years ago, had 12 employees. The company was recycling the waste materials from auto manufacturing and making them into parts for auto manufacturing. Primarily, it was making the parts that would be under the hood or in the wheel wells of a vehicle, those kinds of acoustic parts. It was grinding the waste and making these parts.

When the minister for FedDev Ontario was in my riding, we paid a visit to see how business was going from three years ago and 12 employees. Today, three years later, it has 120 employees. The company was successful three years ago in having an application approved by FedDev Ontario to develop economically. It had a business plan that it put it into place, and we supported it with a $500,000 repayable loan.

I am happy to tell this House today, by the way, that the money has been repaid and is now being recycled back into other companies to create manufacturing jobs.

My community, as well, I should say, has attracted many people. Another company that has recently located there is Massilly, which makes the tops to jars and cans and all of the basic materials that go into all of our consumer products. It creates the metal tops that go onto these things. That company brought more than 200 jobs to our community. The reason it has not moved to the United States and has expanded in Canada into my community is the corporate tax rate and what we have done in terms of reducing corporate taxes, plus the skilled labour force that we have in my community.

We are talking about a heritage of proud manufacturing families that goes back over 100 years. These are the kinds of jobs that the opposition is directly talking about. Yet, it is talking about them flying off to different parts of the world, while we are watching, in my community and other parts of southern Ontario.

The auto industry was mentioned, on the other side, and the types of things that are happening. Let me talk about the auto industry as I see it from my frame of reference in my community. All of Hematite's 120 jobs are to supply the auto industry, which is booming. It is booming in Oakville, where Ford has just added 1,000 new jobs at its plant. Toyota expanded its operations over the past number of years in Woodstock, Ontario, to meet the market demand. It did not move off to Mexico or somewhere else. It has a huge plant in Woodstock, Ontario, just down the road from my community. Chrysler has invested $2 billion in its plant in Windsor, securing all of the jobs in that plant, but also adding, again, a whole new level of employment for people in manufacturing.

Generations of families exist in my community who have spent their lives in manufacturing, and we are at one of the lowest unemployment rates we have seen in 50 years.

I think my colleague who just spoke before me mentioned that really the rubber meets the road with the opposition when it comes to voting. It really does. As a member of Parliament, I can say that. Also, as a businessman myself, owning my own company my whole working life, I can tell members that a lot of what is said is rhetoric, but the rubber meets the road when we vote.

It is all these things. Let me underscore some of the things the opposition voted against: lowering the federal corporate income tax rate to 15%; extending the accelerated capital cost allowance for new investment in machinery and equipment, which is today what the opposition is proposing—it is bizarre because it voted against it; the automotive innovation fund; establishing the national shipbuilding procurement strategy; the advanced manufacturing fund; the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario. The list goes on.

Our government has set the platform for success in manufacturing; in particular, I have given some examples today from my part of the world, southern Ontario.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member is right. There is a lot of rhetoric here. The rubber meets the road when one votes. The part that those members keep forgetting to mention is that all of the policies we voted against were part of omnibus budget bills. They were a part of bills that contained some really erroneous and terrible things for Canadians, whether it was degrading environmental protections, cuts to assistance and to services on which Canadians rely or cuts to veterans services.

The member talked about how the rate of unemployment in his neck of the woods was low, but my area of Scarborough is a totally different story. Our unemployment rates are the highest we have ever had. The manufacturing sector in my riding in particular has been absolutely eviscerated. I am speaking of an area called the Golden Mile, which over many years has lost a GM van plant, Alcan, Thermos and Eaton's. General Electric used to be there as were John Inglis and Frigidaire. The auto manufacturing sector has also lost opportunities because of the Conservative government with the Ford engine. GM is pulling out of Oshawa again.

Conservative policies have led to more unemployed Canadians now than there were before the recession, at 1.3 million. Half of all employed people in Toronto are in precarious positions and half of the unemployed cannot even get EI.

Why do the Conservatives not start fixing things by supporting today's motion, which endorses good public policy?

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I find it fairly bizarre that the member would end his statement by stating “good public policy” This is something we previously introduced and those members voted against it.

Let me be clear about the NDP. The New Democrats have publicly stated many times that they are about taxing the largest corporations. Quite frankly, large corporations are not the devil. They create the most jobs, yet they would tax them higher. We have reduced the tax.

Here is what Jayson Myers, the president and CEO of Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters, said, “the programs the Conservative government has put in place do support manufacturing, and do it very well”. Need I say more.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would differ with the comments made by the member in regard to the role large corporations play in our economy. There is no doubt that they play an important role, but the backbone of job creation, and future job creation, is our small and medium-sized businesses. The growth in that area will provide the valuable jobs on which Canadians count. That is one of the reasons why, in principle, the Liberal Party sees international trade as a positive.

One of the ways in which we can support our small businesses is by investing in infrastructure. Why does the member believe the government's decision to cut infrastructure spending year over year by 90% will help small businesses? I do not believe it will.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

As I mentioned during my speech, Mr. Speaker, I have been blessed in my life. I started a business that employed approximately 20 people for over 25 years. Let me speak as a small businessman.

Small businesses need all levels of government to cut the red tape and the bureaucratic rules and regulations that are foisted upon them. They do not have the resources to deal with it and many of them struggle because of the amount of it.

Of course we want to keep taxes low for all corporations, be they small, medium or large, because it is the entrepreneurs of this world, the business owners, who create the good paying jobs.

The member wants to tie that to infrastructure. This government has made an historic investment in infrastructure, much more than any previous government has made. We stand by our investment in infrastructure and what it has meant to the growth of Canada's economy.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to share my time with the member for Victoria.

I will start by talking about the Lower Laurentians region, where the riding of Marc-Aurèle-Fortin is found. My riding is strategically located, and there are a number of major highways crossing the riding, including the 15, 13 and 640. We are not far from the Port of Montreal, which, I remind members, is the primary port in central Canada's industrial zone. We are a few kilometres from two major airports, Mirabel and Montreal, which bears the name of someone who shall not be named. In short, this is a flourishing region. At this time, we hope to increase our population by 34%. The only other region in Quebec that has experienced more growth is the Lanaudière region. I am confident that we will overtake that region.

Almost 60,000 jobs have been created, including 37,000 to fill vacancies created by retirements. Nevertheless, there are 22,000 new jobs. What is extraordinary is the nature of these jobs. Although there are many precarious jobs, there are also some very good jobs, such as those at Canadair, Bell Helicopter and Parker Hannifin. Every pharmaceutical company is located in our area. Those are not $12-an-hour jobs. They are jobs that pay more than $60,000 a year and that come with job security, benefits and collective agreements. Furthermore, these major employers purchase goods and services, and there is a long list of SMEs that supply them with parts and other goods.

A little help is needed from time to time— not just a speech, but concrete action—to keep things rolling along. We have talked a lot recently about aerospace and shipbuilding policies. That is all fine and well. However, as far as I know, not many ships are being built in Halifax right now. The government has not even been able to produce the final plans for the Arctic patrol ships. There were supposed to be eight, and that dropped to six, and now it might be five, poorly outfitted vessels. From time to time, you have to deliver the goods. This government boasts that it wants to provide good aircraft for our soldiers. They can try again, because the aircraft has not been delivered. We were expecting them to do a little better. We were also expecting a policy to promote technological innovation in the aerospace sector. This is not just about ordering equipment abroad and spinning off subcontracts with no value added in Canada. We were expecting better and we did not get it.

That is what leads the NDP to say that this will support bad jobs. Some people are telling us that they created 1,200,000 jobs. What they forget to say is that, during the recession, they lost 700,000 jobs. The remaining 500,000 new jobs are precarious, poorly paid and part-time jobs. Jobs that paid $25 an hour are being replaced with jobs that pay $13 or $14 an hour. Something is not working.

When middle-class Canadians are earning $30,000 a year rather than $50,000 or $60,000, it is not easy for them to make their mortgage payments. It is hard to believe but it is true: banks look at what kind of job you have before they will give you a mortgage. They check to see if you have a good, stable job. Generally speaking, the middle class is having more and more trouble going to the bank and proving that they have what it takes to buy a house. You cannot buy a house if you do not have a good, stable, well-paying job.

Because of this problem, we are saying that we are going to provide real support, not just talk about it. We are going to take action to create good jobs, particularly in the manufacturing sector, where a huge number of jobs have been lost.

There will always be a few wealthy people who say that everything is going well. However, the people that worked at the Electro-Motive plant in London, or for GM, Ford or Chrysler, do not share that view. They had good jobs and would have liked to keep them, but that did not happen. We are going to take action in that area.

We propose a two-year extension for the accelerated capital cost allowance, to help people who want to buy equipment improve their productivity. We also plan to lower the small business tax rate. Just now, someone said that the big companies create most of the jobs, but that is no longer true. The vast majority of good jobs are created by SMEs. We are not talking about small food service companies that provide five or six jobs, but firms that have 100 or 200 employees. They have a well-established economic network, they specialize in a specific area, and they create good jobs. I believe that everyone in this House would be happy if every Canadian had a good job.

I am sure that the vast majority of members of this House are interested in seeing people no longer having to rely on food banks. I am sure it gives pleasure to no one to learn that some Canadians are losing their homes because they have lost their livelihood. Sometimes, you have to act and follow through—you have to walk the talk. Therefore, we have to talk about this and provide direction.

We want to support our traditional sectors of resource extraction and manufacturing, while also providing opportunities for innovation. That has to be supported. That is why we are in favour of investments of that kind. We want to create jobs to replace the 400,000 we lost. However, we will be able to do so only if we engage in the primary, secondary and tertiary processing of our resources. It is not a question of loading them on a boat and shipping them as quickly as possible. We have to compel companies to make appropriate investments, and create employment here, so that the added value is generated here.

In the lower Laurentians area, the federal government is virtually absent in terms of job creation. We want to build factories, but this requires land. The federal government is the largest owner of non-agricultural land in the riding, and it is a nightmare to try to get it to take action and provide support.

I would like to take this opportunity to sing the praises of my region, which is the home of the Paccar truck company, the latest Canadian truck manufacturer. This is an important business. It creates employment, even though this is not easy to do. When the company was on the brink of closing, Bernard Landry, Quebec’s former finance minister, said he wanted to keep it open at any price because it was very important and that we should act accordingly. This is exactly what happened. He acted accordingly and he kept this company going.

I would like the government to show us that it is willing to defend the industry and the jobs that it creates. It must defend it tooth and nail. I do not see any sign that the Conservatives are acting aggressively or proactively. They are just standing on the sidelines, watching as the train goes by, and it is not even going in the right direction.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member made reference to aerospace, which is a very important industry for my home province and particularly for the city of Winnipeg and for many regions of our country.

The first thing that comes to my mind are the lost manufacturing jobs in Air Canada's overhaul maintenance centres. This law that was in place applied not only to Winnipeg but to Montreal and somewhere just outside of Toronto. I think it was Mississauga. While the turmoil was taking place and those jobs were being lost, even though we had legislation to protect those jobs, the Prime Minister chose to do nothing and allowed those manufacturing jobs to disappear.

Because of the area the member represents, he might be familiar with the issue. Those were real, valuable jobs, and it was unfortunate that we did not have a government that came to the plate to protect them. The member made reference to the families and communities that were affected. There was a direct connection to the Prime Minister.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his question.

As we all know, it was not for nothing that Winnipeg’s hockey club was called the Jets. The city of Winnipeg played an historic role in the development of Canada’s aerospace and air transportation industry in Canada.

My colleague has given an excellent example of something that did not work. We had not only the authority, but also the right to intervene to compel Air Canada to protect jobs here in Canada. They say that manufacturing is important in the aerospace sector, but when we purchase an aircraft, it is for 20 years. Over that 20-year period, the aircraft will require heavy maintenance four or five times. It will be completely overhauled. This amounts to just as many well-paying jobs as in the manufacturing sector. Unfortunately, the government took no action.

What I criticize the government for most often is that it does nothing. It makes wishes and even when it has the power to make them come true, it says it does not want to hurt the feelings of a big company executive. It is very sad.

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Minister of International Development and Minister for La Francophonie]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague’s speech.

Of course, my eyebrows went up at some of his statements, especially when he reminded us about the sad episodes of the Parti Québécois government, toward the end of the 1990s and early in the new millennium with Bernard Landry. I do not know if he was referring to what happened with Gaspésia, where there was a financial hole of some $300 million. If this is really the way in which the NDP plans to govern the country, I find it alarming, to say the least.

Right now, the NDP is putting forward a lot of measures involving tax cuts. In this regard, we in the Conservative Party are putting forward a coherent, appropriately timed plan that respects taxpayers’ ability to pay while at the same time giving impetus to the economy.

With all the time they have spent opposing business tax cuts, now we are wondering where they are going, because they are saying just about anything.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I feel a bit awkward. I do not understand the member’s attack on his colleague, the minister and member of Parliament for Beauce. He is the one who was responsible for Gaspésia in Mr. Landry’s cabinet. I do not understand why he is attacking him publicly here.

However, I can say that we are going to fight. We may not always win, but we will not be content to say that we are destined to get the short end of the stick and that we have to live with that. No, we will not. The working class deserves to be defended tooth and nail and with concrete measures. We will not be content with letting economic prosperity pass us by.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak to the motion by my colleague, the member for Parkdale—High Park. I will be speaking in strong support of her motion.

The specifics of her motion bear repetition. It is the notion that we would call on the government to take immediate steps to build a balanced economy and to encourage manufacturing and small business job creation by three measures.

I am going to speak to each of these measures. However, I would like to start with some general observations about Canada's economy at the moment. Then I would like to delve into what this means in my community, in a couple of sectors, namely the university research sector and the high-tech sector. Finally, I would like to delve into the specific proposals, time permitting.

To give some indication of just how grim our economic situation has become under the Conservatives' watch, it does not take much more than a cursory examination of today's Globe and Mail articles. I draw the House's attention to four articles that just randomly came out of the paper.

The first one is entitled, “New alarm bells over household debt as Canada faces 'downward spiral'. It talks about the single biggest jump in the household debt-to-income ratio of any country other than Greece between 2007 and 2014.

The second article from today's paper is entitled, “Currency volatility ‘flirting with levels typically reserved for crisis’”. Those are the words of Bank of Nova Scotia’s chief currency strategist.

The third article in today's paper is entitled, “Power to inspect TFW employers without a warrant hasn’t been used”. Although introduced with great fanfare, of course, by the minister responsible for employment, promising that Canadians would always be first in line for jobs and that this would be a very strong power, it has never been used.

Fourth is an article called, “For Ottawa, it is time to invest, not cut”. The article talks about the strange disconnect between fiscal policy and our changing economic circumstances. Balancing the budget seems to remain the key political priority, as if nothing has changed. It goes on to talk about the Toronto Dominion Bank's forecasting slow growth of just 2% this year and about an increase in unemployment being prophesied.

That is the status quo. The Conservatives, as has been pointed out often in this place, still have not deigned to give Canadians a budget. They still appear to have no coherent plan to deal with what, for the middle class, is becoming a problem of crisis proportions.

When I go and walk in the streets of Victoria, people say to me that they are not sure they are going to have enough money to look after their aging parents in a long-term care facility. Others say that they are not sure they have enough money for tuition for college or university. People also say that they cannot seem to save, as their debt level is already overcharged.

Then I hear people tell me that they notice that the gap between the poor and the rich is getting greater. We see it in our community. Seniors feel it and bring it to my attention regularly. Victoria is not immune.

Meanwhile, our national debt, $600 billion, is the largest ever, under the Conservatives. The service cost of that debt is almost approaching $30 billion this year.

In short, people understand that the economy is in dire straits, that we have economic uncertainty, and that the economy may be working for the top 15%, for whom the Conservatives are content to provide income splitting relief, but not for most of the middle-class people.

There are 1.3 million people unemployed. The youth unemployment rate is twice the average. These are not just statistics. I could go on with these statistics, but what is problematic is what it means to real people on the street.

People tell me all the time that they believe that the Conservatives have been putting all of Canada's eggs in a bitumen basket, to use an expression I have heard frequently. That is why the plan that is the subject of this motion, the NDP plan to support manufacturing and to get people back to work, is so timely.

I want to talk about what these concrete measures I listed before mean for a place like Victoria. We are talking about an innovation tax credit, about what is called rapid writeoffs, or accelerated capital cost allowance improvements, and we are talking about a cut in taxes for small business, which is the engine, of course, of the vast majority of jobs in our country.

It is critical to know that Victoria is not what Canadians think. It is a hotbed of innovation and a hotbed of high tech.

I would like to focus on a couple of key drivers in our community. The University of Victoria, as an example, has an innovation centre for entrepreneurs that provides on-campus incubator services designed to help students, faculty and staff, and recent grads take business concepts from idea to industrial reality. What does that mean? It means in practice that the university has spun out over 70 companies, 877 inventions, and 429 patent applications.

We have two things I would like to focus on in the university context: energy systems, and ocean research and technology innovation.

We have an institute for integrated energy systems that has been ranked fifth in the world, beating places like Princeton, Cornell, Yale, and MIT, for what is called citation impact ranking, the number of learned articles that refer to work coming out of it. It is a world-class research institute, and they are contributing to sustainable energy systems that are used across the planet.

What about the university's research on oceans? Ocean Networks Canada has developed and hosts the first regional scale cabled deep ocean observation network, funded by the governments of Canada and British Columbia as well as by the university and corporate partners. That innovation has turned out many applications, again across the planet.

I have a couple of other examples. Working with the Vancouver-based BioMark Technologies, UVic researchers have developed a non-invasive way to detect lung cancer at the molecular level. Working closely with engineers and research teams, they can detect a particular cancer molecule in a simple urine sample from patients. This is groundbreaking technological innovation. We want to support, through innovation grants and the like, and incubate small business with these measures to enhance that level of innovation.

The other thing I am so proud of is what biotech has done in helping create this vibrant high-tech sector in our economy. I doubt that members would have any idea of just how important this sector is in Victoria's economy. There is $3.15 billion in annual revenue derived from this sector. That is right. According to a recent economic impact study, there are 884 local companies that make up greater Victoria's advanced technology sector, generating $3.15 billion in annual sales. It has just an astounding impact on our economy.

Here is another astounding number. The combined revenues of the top 25 firms, according to that study, those headquartered in Victoria, was $1.16 billion last year alone. That is a 20% growth in combined reported revenues since last year.

The plan the NDP has proposed in this motion would cut the small-business tax from 11% to 9% and would drive that economic change that other members, of course, have talked about. Extending the accelerated capital cost allowance is not just for manufacturing, critical as that sector is, particularly in central Canada. It is for these startups in these small industries that can take advantage of the rapid writeoff. A columnist in the Vancouver Sun, Don Cayo said:

His promise to extend for two years an accelerating capital cost allowance for manufacturing machinery and equipment is both a big thing and a good one.

Third, as I said, the manufacturing innovation tax credit to boost investment in machinery and equipment and the like would help drive R and D.

These are practical measures to get Canadians back to work. I have tried to highlight what they mean to at least two sectors, the research sector and the high-tech sector in my community, and I commend this motion to the House for its adoption.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Victoria represents a beautiful riding where, just like in my own riding, there is a great future for good jobs.

Could the member tell us how this government’s lack of support and assistance for research and the manufacturing sector has been detrimental to his riding?