Debates of March 31st, 2008

Opposition Motion--The Economy

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

It is not by happenstance or a lack of knowledge about how the economy works. Personally, I think this is the result of deliberate action on the part of the government, of its decision to develop the right-wing American model. This means lowering taxes, having dwindling financial means, no longer having the means to fund social security and other public programs, which means they have to be eliminated, and growing the gap between the haves and the have-nots.

I would like to share an example from my riding concerning the latest one-percentage point cut to the GST. Does anyone really believe that, in a village of 1,000 people, that decrease would give the community another important economic tool? Could a much better balance not have been struck by giving our manufacturers a better tax arrangement, by giving them the means to engage in research and development, for example, through refundable tax credits? That is how jobs can be saved. In a small village of 2,000 or 3,000 people, a business that is given a boost of that nature could offer a competitive product, remain on the market and continue to create jobs.

No. The government decided that, at the end of the year, even with a very good national debt to GDP ratio, it would pay down the debt with the $10 billion surplus. This was of no help at all to the local economies of our communities.

In the medium term, we absolutely must put an end to this practice. The government must understand that it is not the right thing to do. If the government continues to head for disaster, all opposition parties must derail it and fight it in this House, go to the polls and ask the citizens of Quebec and Canada what kind of government they want. Do they want a government that will help them to build prosperity or a government that considers itself to be a spectator and takes no responsibility for organizing society in order to create this wealth? Unfortunately, at present we have this type of inaction by the Conservative government.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to hear the member from the Bloc talk about the Bloc motion that was brought forward to the House in November. It had a strategy to begin to address the crisis in manufacturing and the forestry industry.

I am sure, after hearing the Liberal Party members talk day after day about that crisis themselves, the member was probably quite surprised when it came to a vote that Liberal Party members abstained from voting, even though it was not a confidence measure. We were all shocked because we could have been well under way by now in starting to address that problem.

We all know that oil and gas reserves are finite. When we watch the end of the value added manufacturing in our country, when all the forestry mills and the pulp and paper mills are closed, and the oil and gas reserves are finally exhausted, what then?

We have our opportunity today. I agree with the member opposite when he talks about the fact that we have to come together as an opposition. The Liberals have to take their place in this House, take their responsibility, and vote the Conservative government out of office.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his comments on the motion that was introduced on November 12 by the member for Trois-Rivières. She is well aware of the problems in her own riding, in mine and in many others. Her motion made the House of Commons aware of the need for this debate.

Last fall, we were preparing for the budget that would follow. We expected all the parties in this House to urge the government to take this sort of action. Certainly, the Liberals' wishy-washy position, which is enabling this government to continue to survive, is not in the general interest of Quebeckers and Canadians. This issue remains on the table, and choices will have to be made. In the long term, it is dangerous not only for the economy of Quebec and Ontario, but even for the economy of the west.

We saw this recently, when the Americans passed an energy law that will make the production of oil from oil sands unacceptable in the United States, because of the inaction of the Conservative government, which did not make sure these oil sands could be managed and used under acceptable environmental conditions. This is one more thing that was not considered.

We need to go back to having confidence in people, say that we are capable of putting in place a sustainable development policy, go ahead with ways of promoting new products that meet environmental standards, have a carbon exchange, believe in the abilities of our people and our businesses and, most importantly, change the attitude of this government or, if it does not want to change its attitude, change the government.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, every now and then in the House members of Parliament get an opportunity to discuss issues that are important in the whole context of nation building. Sometimes those issues are prompted by initiatives of government, as they should be. After all, we all aspire to be elected so that we can fulfill an ambition to build this country, to make it greater and to leave a legacy for others to relish in and build from.

Those are the good things that we often cheapen by pure partisanship but they are there nonetheless. They are the bulwarks upon which we build a great society, a society that is the envy still of the entire world. Then there are other occasions when we are engaged in defending some of those ties that bind this country together precisely because the government attempts, either deliberately or perhaps subconsciously or indifferently, to weaken them.

Today we have a debate that is designed to re-strengthen some of the ties that the Minister of Finance has, regrettably, engaged in ripping apart. I say “ripping apart” because it is exactly what some of the statements and comments by the minister have done with respect to Canada's most populous and most important industrial province. That is what the government has accomplished. It has taken the heart and soul of the province and the entrepreneurialship of its people and said, “No, this is not the way we should be running Canada's most important province”.

As another member said earlier, if the finance minister wants to run the province of Ontario he is welcome to abandon his seat and seek election in the province. Why am I excited about this, some members opposite would ask. It is very easy.

Today we have an example of the province of Ontario doing what it can in order to reverse some decisions being made by one of the bulwarks of the manufacturing sector in Canada, by making an investment of $17 million with one of the partners in the automobile sector that has been operating in this country for well over 100 years. Its head office might be in Detroit but it has been operating in Canada for 104 years.

What did it do? It made a strategic decision globally, as many companies do, in the interests of all of its shareholders, of all of the people who work for it and all of its consumers. It said that it would close engine plants in Windsor and Essex, plants that employ some 800-plus people in high technology, highly educated people with high paying types of jobs, jobs that have an impact in the creation of a minimum of at least another two and, more likely than not, another four as a result of its activity. More important, it maintains the educational infrastructure that makes innovation and technology possible in Canada, that makes the educational infrastructure the driving force behind the expansion of an economic engine that is Ontario.

What did the province do? It said that because the Government of Canada was reluctant in Ontario to promote the interests of the province and its industries, it would make a contribution of only $17 million because it said that it would come in with 10% of the requirement possible if Ford would only change a mandate.

Ford closed 16 plants around the world. This was the first time that an automobile company, an assembler, a generator of research and development, changed its mandate in order to accommodate what the provincial government wanted it to do. The company did not do it all. The company said that many states in the United States were looking for this technology, looking for this activity and looking to build an infrastructure for manufacturing and education, and those states would do it.

Some members opposite think that the only thing that will drive these companies is lower taxes. Sometimes that works, especially when those companies are trying to build up the physical infrastructure, the educational infrastructure and the human resources training infrastructure required in order to bring that kind of activity into their midst.

My colleague from Quebec lamented the fact that there were some decisions by the automobile sector and the manufacturing sector that abandoned Quebec. I think in terms of Hyundai that a few years ago pulled out of Quebec because it complained about the kinds of infrastructure, education and training that was available to it. Where did Hyundai go? It made a $1.4 billion investment in Tennessee. Why? Tennessee is spending gazillions of dollars in order to build the kind of infrastructure that we already have here in Ontario.

The Minister of Finance said that the only thing that should be done in Ontario would be to cut taxes. All he needed to do was find the rounding error in order to come up with the same amount of money for those plants in Windsor and in Essex that would get people back to work and would generate the kind of educational research and training that could result from that kind of activity to ensure that the manufacturing sector in southwestern Ontario would remain healthy. We do not make investments only when times are good. We make investments like this for a generation down the road.

The automobile sector is important for southern Ontario and for Ontario in general. There are 350,000 direct and indirect jobs created by that sector, which means 350,000 families are dependent on that sector for vitality, for their future. Only eight cities in all of Canada are bigger than that number. If I include the members in those families who are dependent upon those 350,000 jobs, that gives me a population greater than every single province in Atlantic Canada and almost greater than Manitoba and Saskatchewan.

That is the kind of population base that the Minister of Finance and his government are ignoring and depreciating by simply saying that the only thing that will work is tax cuts. If tax cuts were part of the investment, I would say it is part of the solution, but that is not what is involved here. One needs to make the kinds of investment in infrastructure that will make things work for tomorrow. Generational decisions will be made in the next little while by those big drivers in the manufacturing sector.

It is not just the automobile sector or the auto parts sector. It is the physical infrastructure. We need to ensure that we can get goods from point A to point B without great difficulty. It means as well that CBSA needs to ensure that the border crossings work properly.

It is no longer credible for the government to say that we created all these problems. The Conservatives have been in government for two years and what have they done? What has the government done in two years to enhance the economic vitality of Ontario which has been the mainstay of Canadian wealth and health?

Over the course of the last two years, the minister has said that Ontario is in bad shape. He said that it used to be responsible for 41.2% of the economic welfare of Canada and now it has dropped down to 38.4%. He said that with great pride. He is in government. What did he do while all of this erosion was taking place?

I am looking at CAW, Ford, General Motors and Chrysler. They are beginning to sit down at the table to resolve the problems associated with an appreciating dollar and much more expensive human resources costs for the manufacturing sector. They can get along. Why can the federal government not get along with its provincial counterpart? Why can it not build a partnership that is required to build for tomorrow, to generate an investment in our province that will translate into benefits around the country? We know that to be the case.

Seventeen thousand Ontarians left Ontario to seek work elsewhere in Canada and they took their families with them. Ten thousand of those were people who had a university degree or better. Do we know what that means when we lose that kind of a resource?

It is useless to hear the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development crow about all of the investments the government has made. It has not made any. It cannot. It forgot to tell everyone that all of the labour market development agreements have already been signed with the provinces and what have the provinces been doing with that money. What have they been doing in the last two years? Has the minister asked? He has not told the House. Has he given us an indication of what those 10,000 people with university credentials who have left Ontario means?

It means a loss of $1.6 million of investment that the province of Ontario has already made in educating those people. It means that we have lost a critical mass of creative thinkers and experienced people. It means that we have transferred wealth generators from Ontario into other parts of the country. That may all be well and good provided it was a strategic decision on the part of the Government of Canada to ensure that there was a development of that kind of wealth creator and wealth generator in one province and then to ship them to some place else in order to bring greater wealth and benefit to Canadians at large.

Those were decisions that were made by individuals in part and maybe entirely because the government has not done what it could have done by way of investing in the proverbial creator of wealth that is Ontario.

I know what will happen as the members opposite get into this question. They will want to know what we did when we were there. I guess, rather than give a litany of all of those items, I will do them all. I am going to refer members to my website where they will see all our record in terms of human resources. I will also talk about immigration in a moment and what we did in terms of investment in the industrial sector. The question here is whether the government has a strategy that goes beyond parroting a very simple phrase, tax cuts.

I saw the numbers that the Minister of Finance gave us, $60 billion in the last two years. If he takes a look at what he got for the cuts that he says exists, I would like to see them. He cannot generate them. He cannot say what those tax cuts resulted in other than a declining economy in Ontario, other than a declining economy in Quebec, other than a transfer of population from Atlantic Canada over to Alberta primarily, secondarily to British Columbia and now, thank heavens, even Saskatchewan. He cannot give us those facts. He refuses to give us those because in part those facts do not exist.

What is his demographic policy? He has the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration giving him some tidbits to throw into the budget document so that we can talk about demographic movement. What are we talking about? It is about reducing a waiting list.

In an environment that sees fewer and fewer people landing in Canada, the minister is talking about reducing a waiting list, as if that were the demographic, the strategic policy for bringing wealth creators into the country.

I have news for him. He should read the document. The 350,000 people who came here between 2001 and 2006 had a university degree or better. It would take our country $50 billion and 22 years to generate the same kind of talent. We did it all in the space of five years. Of all of those men and women who came to this country between 2001 and 2006, between the ages of 25 and 64, the most productive years of their lives, 51% already had a university degree or better.

The shame of all that is 23% of native born Canadians have the same qualifications. It is scandalous because it speaks to the government's inability and unwillingness to invest in the creation of a true human resources potential for unlocking the wealth of this nation.

I heard one of the members opposite say that we did not recognize their credentials. How do we recognize their credentials by eliminating the backlog? Does that improve their chances of getting jobs? We have a pool of 350,000 people who have a university degree or better and this is what the Conservatives have come up with.

Of those 350,000, 25%, or roughly 70,000 men and women, have an engineering degree. Countries like China, India, Brazil, South Africa, Russia are trying to generate wealth by getting more and more of their people to study engineering, the applied math and the applied sciences. We have them, 70,000.

Now the minister says that under the budget document they want to ensure that they do not get any more of them. The Conservatives want to go ahead and eliminate the backlog. As the member opposite said, there are too many people here who are not working and that we should invest in ensuring they get the kind of jobs that we would want.

We made a decision in that regard, already $88 million to go into enhanced language training. What that means is we are making an investment in the kind of language that is used on the job, the language of mathematicians, of engineers, of scientists, of medical practitioners. We should make an investment in bringing on side all those sectors and professional organizations that are encouraged then to utilize the talent they have to wait tens of years to develop.

We do not see any of that in the budget. We see instead the Minister of Finance ridiculing a province because it is actually making efforts to integrate that wealth generated, that demographic talent into the economic engine and the economic activity of the province. I do not know whether that is good government. I know for sure it is not good nation building.

Rather than be partisan, I encourage the Minister of Finance to come up with the kind of strategy that utilizes the talent that is there and to build on that, to expand that talent. Most important, I ask him to do what I can tell him is difficult, but it is still realizable, and that is to build a partnership with willing jurisdictions.

The province of Ontario is a willing jurisdiction. It has been the mainstay of Confederation since its inception. It is not productive to engage in partisanship with a jurisdiction that is willing to be a nation builder. As I said earlier, if the CAW can work with Ford, why can the Government of Canada not work with the government of Ontario? It owes it to its citizens.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed the masterful performance by my colleague across the way. It was worthy of The Young and the Restless, or in this case, the old and the ranting.

However, I want to pick up on one thing, and there are some others, and that is immigration and the comments he made.

Last year the government brought in 430,000 people to Canada, more than any government in history by a long shot. Yes, we want to get all those folks in with engineering degrees and so on, but we are faced with a constipated system. The former government went from a 50,000 person backlog to well over 800,000. Therefore, it has taken five or six years to get those people into the country.

We are making our best effort to do that. The new program we are bringing into force, with the help of the Liberals by the way, is going to improve that. This is going to be good for Canada because we are fixing the immigration system that they plugged up for 13 years.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I always try not to ask questions of those who actually know the answers. Maybe the hon. member might keep that in mind.

First, the numbers he is talking about are those that existed 15 years ago. When we left office, there were 700,000 in a backlog that people had not yet identified. That number has grown from 700,000 to 900,000, according to the minister.

What the member ignores is that there was $2 billion already put into the system, $1.2 billion for integration purposes, with all the provinces signed on and with the agreements already put to paper, and an additional $700 million to “fix the system” and make it ready. By that I mean to put in place the infrastructure necessary to find out how many of the 700,000 were still live applicants, those who still wanted their application to be there, and then to process those who were in the system.

Regarding how many we have landed, there is a difference between how many came here and how many landed. I would be embarrassed to say that only 450,000 people came to our country last year. We have landed less in Canada last year than we landed when I was minister in 2005. Therefore, we are going backwards. Thankfully many of the people whom we have encouraged to come here are as a result of the policies that I put in place for recruiting students and seasonal workers. However, I will—

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Sackville—Eastern Shore.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have had the privilege over the last 10 and a half years to listen to my hon. colleague, when he was in government and now in opposition. In this case he brings up some very valid points. However, all the rhetoric, all the theatrics, all the discussions mean absolutely nothing if he is not prepared to stand in the House, at the very first opportunity, and stand up for Dalton McGuinty and the Ontario Liberals.

On a more personal level, he and I know what it is like to immigrate to Canada. He and I know what it is like to have the privilege of being elected as a member of Parliament although we were not born here. He and I know that there are probably many other immigrants out there who may themselves have that golden opportunity. However, if the government gets its way, they may not have that opportunity.

The way it could be stopped is quite simple. He and his party could stand up and vote against the government at the first confidence vote. Will he now tell the House, tell his constituents and tell all those immigrants he so eloquently talked about that he will do the right thing and bring down the government at the very first opportunity?

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I always welcome the siren song of seduction. The first example of the siren song of seduction is a compliment, backhanded though it may be. However, without undue immodesty, that it was probably in one of these cases well deserved.

The member is probably recalling, as I was saying earlier on, the moneys that we invested in enhancing the program to recruit more and more students to study in our country. We were aiming for an additional 40,000 per annum to come and take advantage of unused capacity in this country, to bring the amount of money they would normally invest in their own education. Keep in mind that foreign students would come here and pay their own way to the tune currently of about $1.5 billion annually. Therefore, we would make that kind of investment, and we did.

We thought of establishing a plan that would see the growth of workers who would meet an immediate need. Some people call them seasonal workers, but I prefer to think of them as temporary workers. We worked with all the sector councils, put money into those sector councils to ensure that people would be brought in so the number would increase from 106,000 to about 150,000. I am happy to hear the government admit that the plan actually worked.

In terms of whether we would want to continue to enhance that, I would ask the member this in kind. Since he is singing such sweet songs, perhaps he would want to reflect on whether he would prefer my plan or whether he would applaud the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration plan?

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentioned a few times that we constantly, as a government, kept throwing back that the Liberals had 13 years. We say that over and over again because it is true. They had 13 years.

A case in point is Hyundai, which the member mentioned in his speech. Hyundai was a plant that had all the trappings of government, all the grants and still was not able to make it. As a matter of fact it packed up, left and went home because it could not sell cars. The second thing the member said, which was incorrect, was it went to Tennessee. It went to Alabama years later because the taxes were lower.

We are doing the same thing. We have witnessed exactly what we have been saying as a government that we cannot subsidize plants into making it in the market. The car was not selling. The company packed up and went home. Then when it came back to our country, it looked across North America and chose Alabama because it gave those tax concessions.

We as a government are proposing the same thing. Why would the hon. member not support such a motion?

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows quite well that if we are going to offer a tax incentive or reduction for someone, it means that someone has already made an investment, is producing some well and is getting a subsidy by way of a tax reduction. If we offer a tax cut for people who are going to make an investment to begin with, the member is talking about making an investment.

We have already gone beyond the fiscal infrastructure that Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, New Mexico and other states in the United States are trying to get. We already have that. We need to have a different strategy. If what the hon. member wants to do is discuss with me what the best strategy is for ensuring that we keep alive the dynamic that I mentioned earlier on, where we have 350,000 people who directly and indirectly are employed in the automotive sector, then I am willing to have that discussion.

However, those states that have nothing by way of infrastructure are trying to buy those manufacturers to install themselves in their states to our detriment. If we do not do something constructive and proactive, they will continue to go down.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the issue of immigration is an important element of the motion today. Being a former minister, the member may want to remind the House that we can still land people we need for jobs, but we cannot ignore the importance of family reunification, which the current government has totally and absolutely abandoned in this policy. Would the member comment on that?

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the answer, of course, is that it is true. I am not being partisan, but I would like to remind that member, the member from Cape Breton as well, who asked me if I would vote for this particular plan or not, and all members of this House, that when I put forward that plan on behalf of the last government he and his members in the NDP voted against that plan and brought down the government. They wanted to build a different House. This is the House that Jack built--

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Peterborough.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I would like to inform the House that I will be splitting my time with the member for Niagara West—Glanbrook.

I am not sure what the purpose of today's motion is other than some belated political theatre from the member for Markham—Unionville, something he is starting to familiarize himself with in his role of opposition finance critic, a job, I might add, that he seems to enjoy and which we on this side of the House hope he has for years to come.

To call into question as this motion does the confidence of the House in the economic vitality of the country's industrial heartland illustrates the extent of the challenges facing not only Ontario but all of Canada during this period of global economic volatility.

These challenges are significant, somewhat unprecedented and due largely to variables outside the control of government: the rapid weakening of the U.S. dollar; the softening in the U.S. economy; high energy prices; and increasing competition from emerging economies such as those of China and India.

Fortunately, Canada has resilient and innovative entrepreneurs along with an industrious workforce that has the capacity to overcome such challenges. Complemented by a Conservative government that is committed to creating a business climate where Canadians can succeed and prosper, we are confident that the challenges of today will prove merely to be the path of the opportunities of tomorrow.

To achieve such, our Conservative government is committed to working cooperatively with all provinces and territories. This is in stark contrast to the federal Liberal opposition, whose time in government was largely marred by unparalleled acrimonious relations with the provinces. From that record of unprecedented cuts to federal transfer payments to the near loss of the 1995 Quebec referendum, to the lowering of Canadian flags and the appalling and repeated denial of a fiscal imbalance, this Conservative government has absolutely nothing to learn from the official opposition when it comes to federal-provincial relations.

Our record of strong support is in deeds, not in words or empty rhetoric. I would like to take a moment to look at these deeds for the benefit of the opposition.

First, this Conservative government has brought total transfers to all provinces and territories to historic highs following the unprecedented transfer reductions introduced by the former Liberal government.

Second, budget 2007 restored fiscal balance and did so in a manner that is fair to all provinces and territories--what the Liberal leader still arrogantly dismisses as a myth. The budget strengthened federal support to the provinces by over $39 billion for shared priorities, including equalization, post-secondary education, social programs, support for children, labour market training, infrastructure, and the environment.

Provinces have also benefited from the 2007 budget's new equalization system, which returns the system to a fair and principled basis and helps ensure that all provinces have the resources to provide reasonably comparable programs and services at reasonably comparable levels of taxation.

Third, to complement these increases to equalization, we also moved to ensure that the Canada social transfer and the Canada health transfer treat all Canadians fairly by moving to equal per capita cash support, eliminating the past situation under the previous government whereby Ontario got a proportionately less than per capita transfer, something known as back door equalization.

Ontario's Liberal premier called on the former Liberal government to remedy this situation. It did not. Its solution? Deny it existed and send out the member for Markham—Unionville, the very sponsor of today's motion, to claim its provincial Liberal cousins were aiding and abetting Quebec separatists for even daring to raise the issue in 2005. It was scandalous.

In sharp contrast, this Conservative government acted in the best interests of fairness, and we resolved Ontario's concerns.

Our new equalization system responds to other concerns raised by Ontario by guaranteeing that equalization transfers are capped at the level of the lowest non-receiving province, which is Ontario. This means, in effect, that Ontario taxpayers will not be subsidizing provinces with a higher fiscal capacity than theirs. All provinces and territories are benefiting from this significantly increased, more equitable and more principles-based transfer support.

As a result of restoring fiscal balance in Ontario, Ontario will receive $13.9 billion in 2008-09, an increase of $1.4 billion from just last year, and more than $2.7 billion since 2005-06, the last year of the Liberal administration.

That does not mean our work is done.

We believe that to secure Canada's and Ontario's economic future we must become one of the most competitive business tax regimes in the world. This Conservative government has made enormous strides in this regard.

Anticipating current economic volatility, we took aggressive action in the fall of 2007 to stimulate and bolster the economy with more than $60 billion in tax cuts. We cut corporate income taxes. We cut personal income taxes. And we cut the GST, just as we promised.

Combined with prior measures, the total actions taken by this government to date are approaching $200 billion in tax cuts over this and the next five years. These actions will bring Canada's federal taxes to their lowest level in nearly half a century. In the coming year alone, we will have provided $21 billion in tax relief, roughly 1.4% of Canada's total economy.

Observers have been widespread in their praise for our Conservative government's pre-emptive action, such as BMO economic Doug Porter, who stated of the fall economic statement that:

It was brilliantly timed. Just as the economy was running into serious heavy weather...we had some serious financial stimulus.

The Institute for Policy Analysis said:

Helping offset the weakness [in Canada] will be the “fortuitous” injection of stimulus from the tax cuts and spending increases announced in the [fall economic statement].

The Conference Board of Canada said:

The Canadian economy will weather the storm of uncertainty...recent changes, such as tax reductions announced by the federal government...will maintain the momentum.

TD economist Don Drummond said that “the federal government I think has already done what it can do...it did do an awful lot of financial stimulus in its” fall economic statement, “including the one point off the GST”.

Key to our objectives for a strong business environment is the reduction of federal corporate taxes to 15% by 2012. This will make Canada's corporate income tax rate the lowest among the world's major developed economies and give Canada a substantial tax advantage over the United States.

Along with a reduction in the corporate income tax, we have also eliminated the corporate surtax for all corporations. We have eliminated the federal capital tax two years ahead of schedule. We have provided an incentive to encourage provinces to eliminate their capital taxes, which Ontario did in its most recent budget. We have reduced the small business tax rate to 11% ahead of schedule. We have increased the small business tax limit from $300,000 to $400,000. This is job-creating stuff.

This competitive tax regime will be a powerful brand for Canada globally, but we cannot do it alone. We need the provinces to follow suit, especially Ontario, the province most out of line compared with other provinces in areas that matter most.

For example, in 2012, Ontario's marginal effective tax rate will be 30.7%, one of the highest in the country and well above Quebec's marginal effective tax rate of 18.8% in 2012. That is substantial. The federal tax system accounts for only one-third of Ontario's marginal effective tax rate, with Ontario's taxes responsible for two-thirds.

For those who would question the words of a Conservative politician on this matter, I ask them to consider the words of the Province of Ontario's very own task force on competitiveness, which in 2007 reported the following:

Combining a relatively high provincial corporate income tax, a capital tax, and a sales tax on capital goods, Ontario has the highest tax rate on new business investment among the provinces...Ontario's tax regime is one of the least conducive to business investment in the developed world.

I want to repeat that. These are the words of is the province's own task force: “Ontario's tax regime is one of the least conducive to business investment in the developed world”. That is what the finance minister has been talking about.

While we want to applaud Ontario's plan to take advantage of our incentive to eliminate its capital taxes by 2010, clearly more can be done if we are to secure Ontario's competitive future.

In the spirit of open federalism, this Conservative government will work with Ontario, along with all provinces and territories, to build a more prosperous home for all. We want to build a safer, better, stronger Canada. That includes Ontario.

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, as a member of Parliament who is not from Ontario, I find this debate somewhat bizarre. We have a federal government attacking one of the provinces. It seems to me that a dispute which probably arose in the Ontario legislature has spilled over to this assembly. It has reached new lows in the last month. The premier of Ontario has been called the low man of Confederation, and the Minister of Finance, presumably speaking on behalf of the government, has said that Ontario is “the last place” that a person should look to for investment.

Therefore, my question to the member across is very simple. It should get a very simple answer. It has to do with the last statement I referred to made, by the Minister of Finance, which was that the province of Ontario is “the last place” that a person should look at for investment. Is the member in agreement with that statement? Is he prepared to tell the residents of Peterborough that he agrees with it?

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Of course, Mr. Speaker, that is a quote taken out of context. It is from a much larger statement made by the finance minister. He was referring to the findings of the provincial government's own task force. That is what the provincial government's own task force said. These are not the words of the Minister of Finance. He is quoting from the provincial government's own task force, which said that the marginal effective tax rate in Ontario is the least competitive in the industrialized world, and it is not just how high Ontario's taxes are, it is how it collects them.

We have to change. Ontario has to get away from the retail sales tax, that old PST. We have to get to a value added tax or, even better, a harmonized sales tax in Ontario, so that we do not tax investment in the province of Ontario, so that business people will not have the reins taken away from them. They can compete, create jobs and wealth, and create the Ontario that has long been the shining star of Canada's economy and the economy of the entire G-7.

That is what was inherited. That is what we want back. That is why the Minister of Finance is out there talking about what can be done to recreate that strong, robust Ontario economy. I believe in it. He believes in it. So do the members of the Conservative government.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened intently to the speeches and the questions. The hon. member for Peterborough and I have just come from a finance committee meeting, where we were hearing witnesses report to us about tax structures and whether we are in fact levying taxes in the right way.

Today we had two very interesting witnesses who provided some criticisms and suggested some improvements but had some very positive comments about what the Conservative government has done to reduce taxes. They had some suggestions for more and better ways and of course they all agreed that we should continue reducing personal income taxes.

I would like the hon. member for Peterborough to perhaps share with us some of the positive comments those two witnesses had for us today.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Indeed, Mr. Speaker, we heard an awful lot of positive remarks about the measures this government has taken and the very important stimulus we brought forward with the fall economic statement. People spoke about the reduction of taxes as an impetus to encourage people to invest. They talked about the after-tax savings account that this government has brought forward and what a benefit that is going to be to Canadians.

That is something I am hearing in my riding, by the way. People are very excited about this new tax-free savings account the federal government has created and about what an impetus that will be for regular people to save in a tax-sheltered manner that is really going to build wealth. They spoke really positively about that.

Again, they talked about what the provinces can do to really enable businesses. At the top of the list was the transition from a retail sales tax to a value added tax. They talked about how that will take away the taxes from investment and put it on the end result, on production and consumption, as opposed to investment. Those are taxes that kill jobs. That is what people talked about. That is what we want the Government of Ontario to hear. That is how we want the Government of Ontario to act.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak today on what our Conservative government has done to ensure that Ontario's economic vitality remains vibrant and robust with a special focus on what we are doing to assist Ontario's manufacturing sector and its workers.

Ensuring the enhanced prosperity and well-being of all Canadians, including Ontarians, is a key priority of our government and we are delivering. Canada's economic fundamentals are solid. We are the only G-7 country not running a deficit. We have reduced the federal debt by $37 billion. We have had over a decade of sustained economic growth. Inflation remains low and unemployment is near its lowest level in 30 years.

However, there are clearly some sectors that are not benefiting from today's prosperity largely due to variables beyond our control, indeed beyond our own borders.

A volatile global economy, a weakening U.S. export market, the strength of the Canadian dollar against a weak U.S. dollar, high energy prices along with fierce competition from emerging economies like Brazil, China and India, have left several sectors located in Ontario struggling.

Canada's manufacturing heartland in Ontario has been negatively impacted with significant job losses. While we have seen job gains in other well-paying sectors to offset them, manufacturing job losses are nevertheless a concern.

Before continuing, I will note that the instability in the manufacturing sector is not a recent phenomenon but one that has been lingering well before our government came to power. As the United Steelworkers national director Ken Neumann recently observed, “The crisis didn't just start when the Conservatives took office...The Liberals had 12 years to deal with this stuff and they did nothing”.

Unlike the former Liberal government that ignored the plight of Ontario manufacturers, we have taken aggressive action to help create a more competitive and productive business environment, measures in the best interest of job creation, growth and investment.

For instance, we have provided tax relief in every way the government collects taxes that will total almost $200 billion. Yes, that is correct, $200 billion over this and the next five years, ensuring Canada's corporate taxes will become among the lowest in the major industrialized economies.

We are proud to note our actions have been roundly applauded by a wide range of organizations such as the Canadian Bankers Association who declared that this Conservative government “continues to take steps to establish a solid financial foundation that will allow Canada to generate further economic growth and remain competitive in a global economy”.

What is more, since 2006, over $9 billion of that tax relief will help the manufacturing sector meet current economic challenges and ensure their long term success, such as: reducing the corporate income tax rate in 2008, followed by ongoing reductions that will bring the tax rate down to 15% by 2012 from more than 22%; introducing a temporary accelerated capital cost allowance for investment in manufacturing and processing machinery and equipment that will provide $1.75 billion of assistance to the manufacturing sector; increasing the capital cost allowance rate to 10% for buildings used in manufacturing and processing and to 55% for computers; eliminating the corporate surtax for all corporations; eliminating the federal capital tax; reducing the small business income tax rate to 11%; providing greater accessibility to the enhanced scientific research and experimental development tax incentive program, while also improving administration of the program.

We are also providing more direct support to help the manufacturing sector and affected workers adjust to ongoing challenges: for the automotive sector a $250 million automotive innovation fund to support large scale research and development projects to develop innovative, greener and more fuel efficient vehicles, thereby helping our automotive industry to maintain its leadership position.

In addition to the automotive innovation fund, we have provided substantial funding for an access road to the new Windsor-Detroit border crossing to promote E85 fuel commercialization along with an enhanced EDC export guarantee program to increase guaranteed coverage to 90%.

I note such measures, all contained in budget 2008, have been very well received by the sector. General Motors of Canada praised them remarking, “Directionally it's very, very positive...they've really shown they're listening and they're moving forward”.

Leading industry analyst Dennis DesRosiers highly commended them, stating that together with previous budgets they revealed that the feds actually dedicated a significant amount of resources and political capital to the automotive sector and that, for the most part, this government was taking a proactive and positive approach to helping this industry.

We have also undertaken similarly targeted measures to assess the forestry sector. For instance, we are investing $127.5 million in the forestry industry's long term competitive initiative to support innovation and assist the forestry sector to shift toward higher value products to tap into new markets.

We have established a $25 million forest communities program that will assist 11 forest-based communities to make informed decisions on the forest land base.

We are also providing $10 million over two years to Natural Resources Canada to promote the forestry sector in international markets.

As Avrim Lazar of the Forest Products Association of Canada recently attested to during a recent appearance at the finance committee, when it comes to the forestry sector this Conservative government “--has done many positive things in the past and we're looking forward to many positive things in the future”.

While the previously mentioned examples of targeted support will help sectors generally, we also recognize that workers and communities affected by a changing global economic landscape also need assistance.

That is why we are simultaneously putting in place measures like the targeted initiative for older workers, a program that supports provinces in helping unemployed older workers who live in vulnerable communities stay in the workplace, a program we extended in 2012 in budget 2008 with $90 million in funding.

Similarly, we have also introduced a $1 billion community development trust to provide provincial government support to assist communities and workers affected by global economic instability. Ontario will receive $358 million under this trust.

I will point out that Ontario has already committed all of that federal funding for programs to support workers and communities in agriculture, forestry, and manufacturing, including the automotive sector, for initiatives such as new, up-to-date skills training for unemployed Ontario workers, including those communities in northwestern Ontario that have been hard hit by layoffs in the forestry sector.

Ontario's Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty has expressed his appreciation to our Conservative government for working cooperatively with his government to help Ontario adjust to new global economic challenges, stating the trust was “--good for the people of Ontario. [The Prime Minister] has done something which we've been asking of him”.

Let me just say here that the premier has rightfully been talking about the need for the two governments to partner more together. Partnership is an important aspect in our federation, but partnership works both ways.

In my riding of Niagara West--Glanbrook, fruit farmers have been eagerly awaiting money from a transition program designed to help them grow more profitable crops. Earlier this year I had the pleasure of announcing the federal portion of the program on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture, but we are still waiting for the province of Ontario to partner with us.

Other provinces have reached agreements with our government including British Columbia, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Quebec, and I urge the premier of Ontario to move quickly to join with us in this important program.

Clearly, we have demonstrated our Conservative government's commitment to helping Ontario's manufacturing sector and workers. We have a shared interest working alongside the government of Ontario in this regard.

We also believe the provincial government has an important role to help create the right economic conditions through lowering the tax burden on Ontario businesses.

Moreover, it is important to note that the federal government is not alone in such suggestions. Economists and business leaders have been at the forefront of this charge.

As I conclude, I am actually rather surprised that the sponsor of today's motion and his Liberal colleagues, alleged proponents of lower corporate taxation, are now suggesting that the calls for lower corporate taxation in Ontario by the federal Minister of Finance are somehow wrong.

Consider the Liberal member for Kings—Hants who has stated, “There is no better tax reform in terms of its ability to attract investment and improve productivity, prosperity and the standard of living than corporate tax reform”.

Consider the leader of the Liberal Party who has proclaimed, “A low corporate tax rate is not a right wing policy or a left wing policy. It is a sound policy--”.

Consider the Liberal member for Markham—Unionville who has declared, “corporate tax cuts are one of the best strategies to attract investment and help manufacturers battered by the high Canadian dollar--”.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, tax cuts have a role to play, there is no question about it, but when the circumstances are that we have lost 100,000 manufacturing jobs in Ontario in 2007, another 20,000 jobs since this past February, and last year a 3.4% decline in sales, we have to wonder what the reason is for the finance minister to make such a visceral attack on the province of Ontario.

Why has he started to call the province of Ontario a have not province? Why is he saying that this is the last province anyone would want to invest in? This is not the kind of behaviour we would expect when a province is in jeopardy of having a significant increase in its unemployment.

Could the member explain to the House why the finance minister has attacked the province of Ontario in such a fashion? What is the reason for that? Could it be that he is expecting that there will be a severe economic downturn as a result of high crude prices and the general malaise, the U.S. recession, and that he would like to have the blame put on the provinces rather than where it belongs, on the Government of Canada?

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is mistaken in terms of the approach we are taking. We are trying to encourage the provincial government to really just follow its own report that it commissioned to determine its level of productivity and how it can do a better job.

I do not know if the hon. member disagrees with the leader of his own party who has proclaimed once again, “A low corporate tax rate is not a right wing policy or a left wing policy. It is a sound policy”. My question back to the hon. member is, does he disagree with his own leader?

The challenge we have is that when the Liberals are in government, they are doing one thing and when they are in opposition, they are talking exactly the opposite way. It creates a lot of confusion among the voters. The Liberals talk about how important tax cuts are on one hand and in the next moment when we cut taxes, they say that maybe it is not the right way to handle it.

Canadians would like to know exactly where the Liberals stand. Are they for tax cuts? Are they against them? Do they support them? Where do they really stand?

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the member across cites a number of statistics, but I want to remind the member that the last time his party was in power, it left an annual deficit of $43 billion, interest rates were at 12%, unemployment was at 11%, the GDP to debt ratio was 73%, and we were all left wondering what programs, what policies, and what initiatives caused this to happen.

Then of course, when the present Minister of Finance was in Ontario, he left a deficit of $5.6 billion, and we are all left wondering what policies, what programs, and what initiatives caused this momentous disaster for the province of Ontario.

Now we have this bizarre situation of the Government of Canada attacking the province of Ontario. My question to the member across, is this a policy issue or is this really an ongoing dispute that started in the Ontario Legislature that spilled over to this assembly and leaves most Canadians shaking their heads?

My second question to the member, as an Ontario member of Parliament, does he agree with those statements? Does he agree with that stance? Does he think it will help the workers and families who live in the province of Ontario?

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I definitely agree that taxes should be lowered in Ontario. I think it is very important. I would also like to talk to the hon. member for Charlottetown in terms of deficits, et cetera. We need to go back in history to Mr. Trudeau and what his governments left in terms of the orgy of spending that was undertaken during his time in office. That was a pretty abusive time.

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my last question, I am sure that people watching this debate on TV are thinking that this is a very bizarre situation we are dealing with in the House of Commons today.

The federal government, led by the Minister of Finance, has made a full frontal attack on the province of Ontario and the workers, families and people who live in that province. The premier has been called the small man of Confederation. The Minister of Finance has stated publicly that the province of Ontario should be the last province in which a person would look to invest.

I pointed out previously in my question the history of the Conservative Party in dealing with debt. There are younger members who do not recall the situation that we went through back in 1993. The annual deficit was $43 billion, and that was annual, not accumulated. Interest rates were in the 11% to 12% range. Unemployment was over 10%. The debt to GDP ratio was 73%. The World Bank had an active file on this country. In other words, we were probably minutes from bankruptcy.

The right monetary and fiscal policy was implemented and thankfully, things were turned around. I am not going to go over the statistics on that particular issue, but another thing happened too, when the present Minister of Finance became the minister of finance for the province of Ontario. His government left an annual deficit of $5.6 billion.

We are all left asking ourselves, what policies, programs and initiatives led to the Conservative Government of Canada having an annual deficit of $43 billion? What policies, programs and initiatives led to the province of Ontario having an annual deficit of $5.6 billion? Does anyone in this assembly or in Canada know the answer to those particular questions?

It was an unfortunate time for the people living in Canada back in 1993. I recall it vividly. It was an unfortunate time for the people living in Ontario at the end of the Michael Harris Conservative government era. Thankfully, that has been corrected also, so we do have a new era in this province, but we have this crazy attack by the federal government on the province of Ontario.

Everyone I talk to just shakes his or her head and asks what is going on in Ottawa. Why is the government doing that? What is it attempting to accomplish by attacking one of the provinces? People are asking, would it not be interesting if the Minister of Finance and the government House leader went to the province of Quebec and attempted a similar attack in that province? Would it not be interesting if the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, accompanied by the government House leader, went to the province of Newfoundland and Labrador and attacked Premier Williams on that basis? Would it not be interesting if those parties went to the province of British Columbia and had a similar attack?

It is going on right here in Ottawa against the province of Ontario. I and a lot of people in this House, and a lot of people right across the country of Canada, are just shaking our heads, some in amusement, some in shock, and a lot in disappointment. It is certainly not the work of this House. We are just puzzled. I listened to the debate all day and I am trying to get some semblance of why this is going on. What is the purpose of it? What is behind it? What are we trying to accomplish by this attack on the people who live in the province of Ontario?

I listened to every word and all we are getting is a bunch of statistics that really do not go to why this is going on. I am still shaking my head as to why the government is attempting to do this.

A situation that I find equally bizarre is that not one Conservative member of Parliament elected by the people of Ontario will get up in this House and disassociate in any way with the remarks coming from the government House leader and the Minister of Finance. They are just given a bunch of statistics and prepared documents to read. The people watching this on TV, especially the people of Ontario, are saying, “Maybe the member is standing up for Canada, but we in this riding elected that member to go to Ottawa to represent us, to represent our interests, our businesses, our families, our workers. We did not send the member to Ottawa to read speeches prepared by the office of the Prime Minister”.

If there are any Conservative members of Parliament from Ontario in this House, they should take the last few minutes of the debate to clarify their position. They should tell the people they represent that they do not associate in any way, shape or manner with those comments from the Minister of Finance, who I pointed out is a member of Parliament from the province of Ontario. Members should take this opportunity to disassociate themselves because people are shaking their heads.

I submit that the House collectively and the government are not working in the best interests of the people who live and work in this province.

I am thankful to have participated in this debate. As I said, I do not live in Ontario, but I am shaking my head as to the nature of the attack that has been going on over the last four or five weeks. I am wondering when this attack is going to stop, or if it is going to continue. I hope for the sake of this House and for the sake of the people who live in Canada and Ontario that the attack stops today.