I thank my colleague for attempting to make his point of order. I've sat on committee with him for many years, and we've had a very good working relationship. I respect him as a parliamentarian. Our voters have voted us here.
I disagree with the intent of his motion because he relates it as corporate welfare; it is most definitely not. It is investing in Canada. It is creating a set of policies to help grow our economy. I'm a big proponent of the agricultural sector. I'm an economist by training and have come here to ensure one thing, that we have a strong economy for me, my family, our kids and all the children across Canada.
The policies we've put in place are aimed at creating jobs. When I think of the situation with Mastercard specifically, if I can speak to that, that is a situation where I fundamentally disagree with the notion that this is corporate welfare. I fundamentally disagree that utilizing resources on behalf of the federal government to create long-term jobs that produce tax revenues at the federal, provincial and municipal level is a bad thing and defined as corporate welfare.
I do believe in creating an environment where companies undertake those types of investments and decide to locate in Canada. That's why I've alluded to immigration and investment policies and certain regulatory environments. We need to do that.
On the motion put forward here by the member from the Ottawa area in studying corporate welfare, he hasn't defined what corporate welfare means. He hasn't defined why he would want to study it, other than to say it's bad. I fundamentally disagree with that. I wouldn't be supporting this kind of motion because it doesn't add anything of value. It's an open-ended motion.
I go back to the Alberta situation with the investments that have taken place in the area south of Edmonton and in the industrial heartland. When those companies come to the table and sit down with our provincial counterparts and the federal government, they say they want to invest in Canada. Do they say this is corporate welfare? No. They are investing in Canada and Canadians.
Why? Because they know Canada is a great place to invest. We know we have those natural resources, whether they are by-products like ethylene or propylene, or further down the stream like polypropylene and other products in the chemistry stream that we can contribute and are in other products including plastics. Canadians need to know that we as a government are looking at investments all over this country to help grow our economy.
The member opposite has defined it as corporate welfare. I fundamentally disagree, so I would be voting against a motion of this nature because it really produces nothing. I look to my colleague from one of the ridings in Burnaby, Mr. Julian, where my—