Debates of March 4th, 2010

The Economy

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Madam Speaker, the comments of the member opposite reflect the views of the vast majority of Canadians who understand that there are always two sides and two opinions to any debate, but often we members of the House do not acknowledge that Canadians have nuance, can understand the intricacies of debate, and can understand that not everything is black and white.

Canada is well positioned, but we do face some very big challenges in the short-term and in the medium-term. The Speech from the Throne signals a focus of the government on those immediate challenges with respect to some of the concerns the member raised.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments on the changes that the finance minister made to the amount of debt. I would like him to talk a little bit about the repercussions of that in comparison with the United States if that was allowed to happen.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Madam Speaker, the heart of the crisis at the border was a balance sheet crisis where household balance sheets were decimated by the plunge, in some cases a 20% or 30% plunge in their core assets, which was their homes and their housing. We have managed to escape that balance sheet shock and the recent actions by the Minister of Finance have only ensured further prudence in that area.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time today with the hon. member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor.

I have appreciated the comments raised in the House today in this take note debate. As we gather as members of Parliament, we all bring certain wisdom and knowledge to this discussion. Some of that wisdom comes from past experience, which some members have a great deal of and have offered. A lot of our knowledge comes from the experiences in our own constituencies as people visit us to talk about the effects of this economy on their personal lives.

I do not think there is a member in the House who does not have someone attend his or her office every day to talk about the effects of this recession and the economy on their lives. It may be a young person facing unemployment at a structural level rarely seen in Canadian history. It may be a senior citizen whose savings have been so dramatically reduced due to falls in the market and he or she is no longer able to take a taxi to go to a funeral of a friend. That happened last week.

We may talk to people whose employment insurance benefits have run out and do not see any other opportunities. They are waiting for the so-called infrastructure spending stimulus to kick in so jobs may actually be created. Every one of us brings that experience to the House.

The particular spotlight I would like to shine on the debate today has to do with the experience of our veterans and their experience of this economy. That is an unusual spotlight to shine on an economic issue, but we are talking about real people with real issues facing real struggles in this economy and beyond.

As the critic for Veterans Affairs, those stories have been coming to me and they take on two different kinds of aspects. One group, of course, is traditional veterans, senior citizens, men and women who served in World War II and the Korean War. They bring the issues that many seniors are facing, sometimes magnified.

At the same time, we have another group of Canadians, modern veterans, young men and women, who have served our country in uniform and have come back to our country ill-prepared at times but often deeply affected and sometimes injured from their experiences in the theatre of war or in other operations that our Canadian armed forces serve in now, even as we speak.

With those two lenses, I would like the House to reflect for a moment on what it means to be economically involved in the lives of Canadians who have particularly or voluntarily served to protect our freedom, democracy, human rights and dignity in our world. The first part of that has to do with the experience of traditional veterans who are senior citizens.

I was interested as the throne speech yesterday addressed some of the profound issues faced by senior citizens. There was mention made of a seniors day. That sounds noble. It sounds a little like Walmart or Shoppers Drug Mart. I am somewhat concerned that we are not going a little more deeply into the lives of seniors and how they are facing this economic recession. The reality is deep and meaningful pension reform is necessary for all seniors. Veterans bring their particular experience of that to us for us to share, debate and try to understand.

I am particularly speaking of veterans in small communities on very fixed incomes, with limited services provided by Veterans Affairs Canada for their particular needs. That may be part of the veterans independence program, or it may be access to the long-term care facilities known as pavilions or other care facilities in our country simply because there is no room and waiting lists are keeping them out. This will also affect modern veterans and I will talk about that in a moment.

Some veterans are coming to us in dire need and extreme experiences of poverty. That is simply not good enough for Canada.

Recently I had the opportunity to go to Calgary to visit the Calgary Drop-In, which is the largest homeless shelter in Alberta. It is a significant facility that deals with people on the streets facing homelessness. Every night there are between 30 and 40 homeless Canadian veterans in that homeless shelter, which is a national disgrace.

From reading the newspapers, we know that the largest and fastest growing population of homeless in the United States is American veterans. Canada has a chance to address that issue immediately and make some changes before we catch up to our American brothers and sisters. Those homeless veterans range in age between 26 and 85 years old. This means we are dealing with both traditional veterans and modern veterans who are on the streets seeking shelter

This implies that we need a national strategy to combat homelessness and to provide affordable housing for all. I want to put at the front of that queue veterans in Canada who need to be housed in safe, adequate housing. It is a shame and a disgrace that the government does not come up with a national housing strategy to improve the lives of all Canadians but also very specifically our veterans.

Some of the other issues that our veterans face have to do with the experience of younger and modern veterans. They face the job crisis that many are, unprepared for a world that does not know how to transfer the skills and the knowledge they have brought out of the military service and to put them to use creatively in the productivity of a Canadian economy.

We need to invest money in education, job training, skills improvement and even language skills for our veterans so they are part of a mobile workforce ready to address the problems of Canada. They want to build our country in their peaceful activities as much as they built it in their war efforts.

We have a responsibility to invest very specifically in our veterans at this economic juncture. Some of these are young people who joined the services very quickly and have now served in the theatre in Afghanistan for longer periods of time than the whole of World War II. They are coming back to Canada, some of them with shock, with post-traumatic stress disorder, some of them with other injuries, some of them with latent injuries that begin to appear later.

To deal with this, to reflect on this is going to cost money. This is not an expense however. This is an investment, an investment in human resources that are richly trained, experienced, noble and courageous men and women who have served in the armed forces. We need to do that to ensure this economy, this recession does not create more victims, particularly from that group of people.

I am not trying to exclude others who are affected by the recession. Obviously each one of us when we are in our constituencies hear these stories. We know the stories of people being left out.

We are waiting. We hear from the government side about this tremendous infrastructure spending. We also know about jobs money that has been left on the table and unspent. That is money is meant to not only generate one-time jobs, but create a multiplier effect through the economy to create jobs for more and more people.

We are not talking about expenditure money. We are talking about investment in key sectors so people can find work and make work. We will then be a complex society of doing the kind of work we need to do as a Parliament.

We have some very particular issues with which we will need to wrestle. When the Conservatives took office, they had a $13 billion surplus, and I am glad my hon. colleague mentioned that. That surplus has been squandered unreasonably with no sense of planning for an economic downturn, which was known to every economist in our country. Denial reigned on that side of the House and now we are paying for it. With the largest deficit in Canadian history looming, the heads are still buried in the sand. We need to lift the heads and care for Canadians. That means the most vulnerable Canadians. That means the Canadians who have been on the edges of society. That means those who are homeless, those who have faced addiction problems, those who suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder, our seniors, those who have been left out of the job market for too long, youth and women.

Today I hope the government members are listening and hearing the constructive criticism on this side of the House. We are willing to work with them to offer new opportunities to all Canadians.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague. He is somewhat new to this place so he might not remember the number of budgets that his colleagues helped pass, those same Conservative budgets that he just criticized, which spilled billions of dollars into unfortunate areas.

I sense the conviction in my hon. colleague, although he is not listening, when he tries to represent those who are hardest hit by the recession. He made a somewhat unfortunate argument about a national housing strategy. His party was in power for 13 years. It was his party's 1995 budget that everyone will remember, the crippling rebalancing and reshaping of Canada's social fabrics. Those social programs were created in the early seventies by a minority Parliament with the assistance of New Democrats. They were then dismantled in the social transfer payments to the provinces.

While I commend my colleague for his obvious passion for those less fortunate and those struggling to make ends meet, it is a little rich for Canadians to hear this from Liberal members who for so long have supported the Conservative government's agenda, its budgets and essentially its beliefs on how the country ought to be run.

If the words were matched by action, perhaps we on this side of the House could be more sympathetic, but unfortunately they are not.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have no need or any desire to take lessons from members of the New Democratic Party on economics, on social justice or on people.

Very frankly, the discussions that happened in the 1970s, the 1980s and the 1990s may still occupy the minds and imagination of New Democrats, but we have moved on.

The Liberal Party of Canada, the Liberal caucus, is looking at the 21st century. We are planning for a new world. We understand the role of government and business and community groups in partnership with each other, creating the economy, creating a vibrant society, and we will work together for that.

We are not going to take lessons from those who can talk about anything but never have to pay the price of government, never have to make decisions in the real world and never have to actually stand up for what they believe in and make things happen.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague opposite for his appointment as critic of veterans affairs. I agree with him that veterans of the second world war and more recent veterans have made huge contributions to our country for which all of us, myself included, are eternally grateful and thankful. We need to be mindful of their needs and the situations in which they find themselves.

However, we also need to be careful about enhancing or increasing pensions at the expense of other generations. One of the biggest challenges we face as a country is the fact that our young people face high unemployment levels relative to other age groups and furthermore pay far more into pension programs than they will ever get out. The contribution rates of young people into the Canada pension plan is 9.9% and they will never get that money out when they retire at age 65.

We need to be careful about intergenerational transfers of wealth, especially on those generations that are at risk of unemployment.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills. When I look at that side of the House, I find the member with the most integrity is actually sitting in that seat, so I take his comments seriously.

I would like to give a little lesson about pensions.

Pensions have the ability to actually stabilize the economy and help us through the troughs. Pensioners add to the economy and hold up the bottom part of society to ensure the troughs of an economic recession are not too deep. They are the people who spend the money on food, shelter, the necessities to keep society going. This is not money that is simply spent and then becomes a burden on the backs of future generations. This is money that is spent, invested and used. It creates jobs, keeps people employed and will help people in the future.

This is something we can work on together. Pension funding is something we have to improve as a House of Commons.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak in this take note debate concerning the economy.

As everyone in the House is well aware, we had a bit of time to explore our constituencies of late because of the proroguing of Parliament. Nonetheless, we certainly got around to many places, some reeling from the recent economic downturn and others not so much.

I have a large riding with over 170 communities, so there are varying degrees of what this economic downturn has meant to people. There are a few things I would like to take note of and put in front of this House today, and I would like to thank my hon. colleague for splitting his time and allowing me to do so.

One of the things that my colleague from Don Valley West aptly pointed out was pensions. He talked about a bridging mechanism, not simply just for the individual who is of concern here, or a pension going from working years to the senior years, but it is also in many cases a vanguard for revitalizing a community. I will give an example.

The community of Grand Falls-Windsor in my riding had a huge setback last year. Close to 1,000 jobs in a mill that was over 100 years old were affected in a smaller community of only 13,000. When a mill shuts down in that particular context, one can well imagine that the ill effects of the economic downturn would be amplified as a result. In the case of Grand Falls-Windsor, it takes time to revitalize that particular economy because it is not as diversified as what other economies would be.

Who steps in to fill that void? The pensioners involved with the AbitibiBowater operation are now the major contributors to the economy, where before they were not as large a contributor as those working currently in the mill. In this particular situation, these individuals have now become that bridge toward revitalizing or diversifying the economy, or getting to that next big industry that is coming to the area.

Government programs help to encourage the revitalization of an economy but it does not happen overnight. It takes a period of time to get there. I hope the government, and it made mention of it in its Speech from the Throne, follows through with a couple of quick fixes here. One involves the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. In the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, having a pensioner be an unsecured creditor is not a great situation. Let me refer back to that case once again.

I have petitions with close to 3,000 signatures to present to the House at a later date on behalf of the pensioners at AbitibiBowater. What they are saying is that the value of their pensions has been decreased by 30% since the economic downturn. Therefore, even though the company is in bankruptcy right now, in a trust agreement, the value of their pensions has decreased by 30% and, if it wound up, they would get 30% less than they were expecting. That is a major hit for a small community that already had that major hit when the mill shut down.

I put pension securities in front of this House. I wanted to take part in this debate because I honestly believe that pension securities are about to become a major issue, not just for smaller communities like I have just mentioned, but for all major urban centres, as well as all regions across this country. I would implore every parliamentarian in this House to get engaged in this debate about pension securities, not just the private ones that I just talked about, but the CPP, the OAS and the guaranteed income supplement.

As a matter of fact, I receive more calls in my office about the guaranteed income supplement than any other issue out there. It is an aging community where the average age is above the average across the nation and pensions are a grave concern because they keep people at an income level that stays above the poverty line.

There are other issues that I would like to mention as far as the economy is concerned. I agree with many of the statements made about the homelessness initiative. I do believe that the national strategy needs to be strengthened. When we consider this to be more of a social concern than an economic concern, we need to consider that with the downturn in the economy the social concerns do rise to the fore.

We need to keep our communities strong in order to bring in innovation, to revitalize, to make economies different and allow them to be a part of the 21st century. In order for that to happen, we need that strong social fabric. I would implore everybody in the House to not isolate the social fabric, which is so strong in this country, to a certain level so that it is not part of the economic debate. That would be a huge mistake.

I recently attended a homelessness seminar in Gander. A lot of people are not aware of just how grave this situation is for people who are not only homeless currently but are about to lose their homes. Energy costs are a major issue. I would ask the government to consider what was done in 2005, which was an energy rebate for those seniors who remained in their homes, especially when it came to the price of oil and electricity.

A lot of indicators show that inflation is going up and that the price of gas, home heating oil and electricity is rising, which will make it that much more difficult, especially for seniors, who live in their own homes. In my riding, a lot of them still live in single dwellings, which are difficult to heat. That is one thing to consider.

There is another issue. I mentioned diversification earlier. Atlantic Canada has an organization called ACOA, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. One of the elements of ACOA that has been successful among many has been the idea of community funding. There was a program that recently lapsed called the innovative communities fund. When the traditional industries, the forestry, fishing and mining industries, in smaller communities wrap up, we find that it is hard for these communities to attract new business because a lot of the people who had high paying jobs in those industries have left.

How do we get a particular community to adapt? First, we need to retain the people who have been living there for years and have the skills to allow it to continue. Therein lies the point of investing in communities. When we invest in communities to help diversify, it helps to retain the skilled people who allow that community to survive for the next generation. Everybody wants to pass the community they grew up in to the next generation. Maybe not everybody but most of the people I talk to do.

The government talked about community programs in the Speech from the Throne. I hope it will allow these regional development agencies the autonomy to tailor these programs for that community and allow the people of that community to take charge and be masters of their own destiny. That is essentially what the government needs to do.

However, there is a problem with that and I would like the government to raise the bar on this issue. In the last round, it decided to use what it calls the CAF program, the community adjustment fund. The dollar value itself is fine and dandy. The problem is that these are programs based on national standards that may not particularly fit an individual community. They lacked flexibility for communities to adapt. Therefore, the government may want to consider that when it talks about how it is there for particular communities. I have issues with it but nonetheless there are ways of raising the bar and fixing these particular programs.

As this is a take note debate I would like the government to take note of this problem. When it comes to infrastructure spending, it should try to drift away a little bit from this idea of cost shared programming. Does the government know how difficult it is for a community that has less than 1,000 people to do 50-50 cost-sharing in a particular stadium? Those communities do not have the tax base and, more important, they do not have that business tax base, which is where they get caught.

Those communities must be allowed the flexibility to get some of that federal money. If the government is going to give them $200,000, it is so difficult for them to finance $200,000 on top of that. The government needs to look for ways to help these small communities be a part of this economic stimulus program, which is failing most of them.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor concerning pensions.

I agree with the member that AbitibiBowater employees were treated extremely badly as a result of the close-down last year and their pension crisis. Would the member agree with the position of our party with respect to people who are in receipt of the guaranteed income supplement?

We have costed out the cost of taking every senior in Canada out of the poverty level by changing and cutting out the next corporate tax cut planned by the government which will probably be in today's budget. Would he agree with us that we should forgo yet another corporate tax cut, which is already lower than the United States, and use that money to take every senior out of poverty? It would affect many seniors in Newfoundland and Labrador of whom about 60% rely solely on the old age pension and the GIS.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member has a valid point about the tools available for seniors, such as CPP and the guaranteed income supplement. He links them to a particular situation with corporate tax cuts. Obviously they are against corporate tax cuts. I am not.

I talked earlier about enticing people into our communities. One of the ways to do that is to allow them benefits such as corporate tax cuts to allow them to do that. As far as the Conservatives are concerned, instead of cutting one from the other, why did they not just do it in the first place? However, that is their priority.

I am assuming that the NDP would also consider the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. I know some of its members do have legislation available so I hope the NDP keep pushing forward on that because in many cases when it comes to pension securities it may be on the right path.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to get back to the crux of the big challenge that we have in the country today and the failure of the government to address it.

All of us are telling the government on behalf of our citizens that its failure to deal with the storm clouds that are before us will result in catastrophic problems economically and socially across our great nation. Those storm clouds are the increasing deficit, increasing debt, the impact upon the inability to pay for the social programs that we need and an aging population that will go from a ratio of 4 workers to 2.5 workers for every retiree.

Is the government's primary responsibility to address the storm clouds of an aging population, increasing demand, increasing health care costs, a contracting workforce and an inability to develop a manufacturing and economic strategy for Canada that would enable us to maximize the economic potential that we have in this country?

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Madam Speaker, one of the problems we have in rural areas and smaller communities based farther apart is the delivery of primary health care. It is a difficult task to fund the hospitals while at the same time there are people who are starving for better home care and better ways of maintaining young children, schools, education and that sort of thing. These are factors that manufacturers look at when they set up in a community. Yes, there is a competitive advantage based on whether it is a resource or a certain amount of talent, but the social concerns are now factored in and studied more carefully.

The member has an incredibly valid point. We do need to strengthen that system in smaller communities in order for it to be attractive for that bigger industry to arrive.

He talks about the storm clouds and the deficit. In order to establish a social fabric and keep it at the level that it is will be hard to do with this particular storm cloud and the current government.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Madam Speaker, please note that I will be splitting my time today with the hon. member for Niagara West—Glanbrook.

Last month Canada hosted the world in Vancouver at the 2010 Winter Olympic Games. Canadians showed the world what they are all about. Canada is a kind and caring nation. Canada is also a society that strives for excellence in sport, culture, business, science, education, and every facet of modern-day life. The Olympic Games were made all the more magical by the exceptional performance of Canada's athletes. Canada's athletes won 14 gold medals, showing the world that Canadians can compete and win against the very best. Winning all those medals brought Canadians a sense of accomplishment, determination, confidence, and national pride.

What if, in addition to leading the world in speed skating and ice hockey, Canada led the world in economic growth? What if, as well as being home to the world's most competitive athletes, Canada were home to the world's most competitive exporters? The short answer is more jobs. Competitive businesses lead to economic growth. Economic growth leads to jobs. Jobs lead to prosperity for Canadian families. As Canadians navigate through these challenging economic times and start to recover from the global economic recession, job creation should be and is the first priority of this government.

Canadian businesses will create more jobs if they can produce and sell more goods and services; that much is obvious. As a government, how can we help Canadian businesses accomplish this?

The first thing the government can do is to widen Canada's export markets. As hon. members heard yesterday in the Speech from the Throne, our government has been remarkably successful in securing new trade agreements. Recently, Canada has signed new free trade agreements with seven other countries. This is remarkable at a time of increased global protectionism elsewhere.

Why is it important? It means that Canadian chemical producers, for example, will now be in a better position than others to export to countries such as Switzerland. It means that Canadian aircraft parts can be marketed at a better price in Norway, as can Canadian paper in Peru. Free trade agreements are fundamental to Canada's competitiveness. Quite simply, more trade and commerce with more trading partners mean more jobs for Canadians, and more jobs mean more financial security for Canadian families. That is why this government will continue to aggressively pursue free trade, as set out in yesterday's throne speech.

The last year has underscored the idea that when it comes to Canada's trading partners, diversity is essential. Canada cannot rely on having constantly strong economic conditions in the United States. That is why Canada is engaged in trade negotiations with the EU, India, Korea, the Caribbean community and others.

I was fortunate to be able to visit South Korea late last year with the Prime Minister. Korea has an advanced and rapidly growing economy, the 15th largest in the world. South Korea and Canada have very close social ties, which are particularly evident in my part of the country. Canada is well positioned to sell Canadian goods and services to Korea, and could be even better positioned in the future, thanks to the good work our government is doing in this regard.

On that same trip we also visited China. We know that Canada's future prosperity is intimately linked to its ability to do business with such an enormous economy. There is much Canada has to offer the rapidly growing Chinese market. That is why our state visit to China was so important, and that is why it matters that we came back with agreements to lift restrictions on Canadian agricultural exports.

The Prime Minister was also able to achieve approved destination status for Canada. This means that Canada will become a new destination for thousands of Chinese tourists and investors. We proved that strong relationships lead to increased trade, and we know that trade creates jobs.

How else can the government help Canadian businesses compete in order to grow Canada's economy and boost job creation? Madam Speaker, I can tell you what does not work, and that is higher taxes. I know higher taxes are quite popular with some hon. members of the official opposition, but higher taxes do nothing to create jobs; indeed, they have quite the opposite effect. Before the start of the economic downturn, this government laid out a plan to reduce the general rate of income tax for Canadian businesses to 15% by the year 2012. The government eliminated the job-killing capital tax. The government is removing import tariffs on business inputs, which is a truly exciting development. These are important reasons that Canada has weathered this global economic downturn so much better than many other nations.

We hear the NDP say that we should cancel the tax relief for Canadian businesses. Talk about missing the point. Fundamentally, tax relief is a job creation strategy.

What happens when businesses pay lower taxes? There are a number of possibilities. First, they can bring goods and services to market at a lower cost, which increases competitiveness and raises sales production and labour demand. By lowering taxes, we are helping our businesses compete with the world, just as we helped our athletes. When our businesses win, they may not get a medal, but Canadians certainly get employed.

Businesses might also boost free cash flow, leading to capital investment, expanded capacity and improved productivity, leading thereby to higher wages and, yes, to more jobs.

Businesses do not hoard money; they invest money to become better businesses. When businesses invest, more Canadians get employed.

Our government has done much to support job creation. The 12,000 stimulus projects across this country come to mind right away. Those projects are employing many Canadians, who are putting a lot of shovels in the ground. They are also employing accountants, project managers, engineers and architects, and in my riding, shipbuilders who are refitting a coast guard ship.

Many of these projects will create jobs in the future, too. North Vancouver is home to port industries that, collectively, are a major employer in my community. Stimulus money as well as gateway money is presently being used to build port infrastructure, which will boost efficiency and capacity. More efficient transportation of Canadian goods to Asian markets has the potential to create jobs literally everywhere in Canada; and more goods moving through North Vancouver ports will mean more jobs in my community.

The government has also made significant investments in education and skills training. It may sound odd, but creating jobs is only half of the solution to unemployment. Having the skilled workers in place to fill the new jobs that are created is just as important a factor. In fact, just having skilled workers in place can sometimes create jobs for them to fill.

In my riding, the beautiful riding of North Vancouver, we have one of Canada's largest film industries and some of the world's biggest film stages. For many years, this industry prospered by luring Hollywood productions north with the enticement of a weak Canadian dollar, but with a 97 cent loonie, this is no longer working. We need new selling points and a new competitive advantage. That advantage is the availability of skills.

Thanks in part to the investments of the economic action plan in post-secondary infrastructure, Capilano University is building a whole new state-of-the-art $30 million film centre, creating 200 construction jobs right now, and many more jobs in the future as the availability of skilled film industry workers attracts more productions up north.

Education and training go hand in hand with job creation. That is why our government has placed so much emphasis on skills development as part of its plan to combat unemployment.

With that said and all that our government is doing to get Canadians working and in support of our economy, in my view nothing is more important to the long-term national prosperity of, and employment growth in, Canada than our measures to expand trade and lower taxes. The work that our government is doing today will create and sustain jobs for decades to come. The Government of Canada, led by our Prime Minister, is on the right track.

There are no gold medals awarded for business competitiveness, but there are jobs to be won and economic growth to be enjoyed. That is what Canadians want, and those are the priorities of the government.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened very carefully to the member's comments.

I am going to quote him before I ask him a question. He said, “I can tell you what does not work, and that is higher taxes”. None of us disagree with him.

Government members say that taxes kill jobs. Those are the words of the Minister of Finance, which I can get for the minister. However, the government has just announced a tax on jobs of almost $7 billion in EI premiums.

Does the hon. member agree that is how to create jobs? If the hon. member believes in what he says, the government should take that $7 billion away and not burden small businesses.

On income trusts, the tax is to be 31.5%, the highest tax increase.

I will close with this: when the lowest income tax rate was at 15% under a Liberal government, the government of the members opposite increased it to 15.5% and called it a tax decrease.

Can the hon. member please answer for of us, and for Canadians who are listening, is that a tax increase or decrease the government is giving us?

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, since coming into government four years ago, we have lowered taxes by over $220 billion for Canadians. We have lowered taxes for seniors by over $1 billion by allowing income splitting and other measures. We brought in the new horizons program and income supplements.

We believe that lower taxes are the way the government should be going and that is where we intend to go.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague concluded earlier by saying that his government wants to create jobs.

Does he intend to explain how the Conservatives plan to create jobs, and how they will create jobs in the forestry sector in Quebec, a sector that desperately needs jobs and one that they have been ignoring for several years?

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, through Canada's economic action plan, we have created 12,000 infrastructure projects across this country, many of which are in the riding of my hon. colleague. Those jobs are being created as a result of the investments of the government in jobs and job creation.

We intend to continue that. We are one year into a two-year program, and we continue to stay the course for the second year of that two-year program.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, one of the things the Conservatives are fond of asking the opposition when we propose various ideas for government is: has it been costed out? Has the concept been put forward and run through the numbers?

In view of the concern of the government for job creation, has it costed out what the HST will cost taxpayers, what it will cost the economy, and how many jobs will be impacted by that tax increase? By any measure, there is no economist in the country who can look at an increase in taxation on consumers and say it is not a tax increase, except for the wonderkids over in the government.

The question for my hon. colleague is, has the government costed out the impacts and effects of raising taxes on Canadian consumers at this most fragile of times in our economy?

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague asked a question about the HST, which is not within federal government jurisdiction, but provincial government jurisdiction. I recommend he ask the same question of the Province of British Columbia, since it was its decision to go that route.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Madam Speaker, I have a quick question. The government wants to attain savings through departmental measures, efficiencies, cuts and the like, to get back to a position of fiscal strength and away from our $65 billion deficit.

Without looking at notes, without looking at some talking points, can the member tell me, face to face, right here, exactly what he has in mind as a very good example of what to cut? Can he give one example right here?

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, if my hon. colleague will come back at 4 o'clock this afternoon, he will hear the budget in its entirety and will get the answer to his question.

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

Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to talk about the motion before the House. Let me say wholeheartedly that I agree with it. The motion reads:

That this House take note that, while Canada is starting to recover from the global economic recession, the recovery is tentative and uncertain and the number one priority of Canadians remains jobs and economic growth, now and for the future.

Canada is certainly showing signs of economic recovery, but while these signs appear to be better than predicted, they are still not strong enough to warrant switching our government's focus from economic stimulus spending to that of deficit reduction. The stimulus to the economy through Canada's economic action plan is proving to be effective. Jobs are being created, consumers are spending more, and there is hope that brighter days are ahead for Canada.

Across Canada there are 12,000 stimulus projects, which are creating and preserving jobs. Just as planning and taking action by our government before this recession meant a softer landing than many other countries have faced with their economies, so too will the strategies we are now taking enable us to have a stronger economy in the future.

Since coming into office, we have lowered taxes for both individuals and corporations, given more tax dollars to the provinces and implemented innovative new ideas, such as the tax-free savings account. These measures, among many others, have enabled Canadians to have a more secure financial footing when the global economic recession hit, but the government has also taken steps to assist Canadians who need our help the most. Those are Canadians living in poverty.

We have provided low-income Canadians with tax relief, we have brought forth a child tax credit to go along with the universal child care plan already introduced, and we have made significant investments that have targeted groups prone to poverty, such as seniors, aboriginals and the working poor.

Seniors have further been helped by the action plan as we raised the age credit amount. We reduced the required minimal RRIF withdrawal and injected investment of $400 million over two years for the construction of social housing units for low-income seniors. This was on top of previous initiatives by our government that dramatically reduced the number of seniors living in poverty, such as pension income splitting and doubling the pension income credit.

Social housing concerns have been addressed as our government has invested an extra $2 billion over previously announced programs that will help many of our most disadvantaged, including aboriginals, low-income seniors and people living with disabilities, to have access to affordable housing. Construction of social housing, and repairs and renovations to existing units is well underway and this will lead to the creation of more than 11,000 new homes, as well as upgrades to tens of thousands of others.

When the current economic storm first hit, our government acted quickly, along with other nations, to loosen credit and invest billions of dollars in infrastructure and stimulus spending. We not only met but exceeded recommended targets of such spending set out by the International Monetary Fund.

As was mentioned yesterday in the Speech from the Throne, we have taken and will continue to take steps to encourage corporations to settle in Canada. The benefits of this strategy are obvious as stable, well-paying jobs are created for Canadians. Our government remains committed to continuing this thoughtful and forward-looking strategy.

We are committed to implementing the second year of the economic action plan to ensure the recovery we have witnessed so far continues to gain strength. This plan has already reaped huge rewards for communities across Canada and will continue to do so. For example, in my riding of Niagara West—Glanbrook, I have been honoured to take part in many positive announcements of new funding and I would like to share some of these success stories with you.

Just a couple of weeks ago I participated in an announcement in Hamilton, Ontario, with the Minister of State for Science and Technology and Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario. The minister announced a federal government contribution of $2 million toward planning costs for the Canada Bread Company to build a $100 million facility in the southern part of Hamilton, in my riding of Niagara West—Glanbrook. This project will create close to 300 construction jobs and almost 300 full-time production positions once the facility is built and fully operational.

Needless to say, this is wonderful news for the greater Hamilton area, which has been hit hard not just by economic circumstances over the last two years but even before by a steady erosion of manufacturing jobs. Another part of my riding, the communities of Grimsby and West Lincoln, will greatly benefit from $12 million in joint provincial and federal funding that was announced just before Christmas to help build a new YMCA in Grimsby.

I am pleased to announce that construction is slated to begin early next month. We all know the benefits to families and communities that have a YMCA where they can participate in a wide range of fun and healthy activities. Not only do the construction jobs provide short-term relief from the current recession but with the wide range of full-time jobs that will become available once the project is completed it will provide the area with long-term sustainability and the opportunity for growth that will continue to keep the local economy firmly on track.

The eastern tip of my riding has also seen the very real benefits of the government's stimulus as there have been millions of dollars flowing into the communities of Pelham and Fonthill to help with everything from major road construction, which is a part of the downtown revitalization, to funding several parks in the area through the popular recreational infrastructure Canada program, better known as RINC.

RINC has provided funds to other projects and one that has been close to my heart is Marydale Park in Glanbrook which will serve the greater Hamilton area. Federal and provincial funding of $2 million means that this park will become a reality. As its website states, people of any age or ability, including those of us who use wheelchairs, scooters or walkers, will be able to fully and independently enjoy the playing fields, trails, pools, boating, fishing and much more.

Marydale Park will be one of the first barrier-free parks in the province of Ontario and not only will be barrier-free, which means more than just wheelchair accessible but truly barrier-free, but it will also have an eco-friendly design. This park will be powered by natural renewable energy through wind, solar and geothermal resources. I think that is impressive in terms of the original design. Marydale will also allow for increased freedom to roughly 90,000 or so citizens of the greater Hamilton area who for one reason or another are limited in the activities that they can participate in.

This is a great example of win-win projects that our government has focused on with its funding priorities. Construction jobs are being created during the building process, permanent jobs are being provided once the facility is open and perhaps more importantly there is a real and lasting benefit to the surrounding community as it uses the new facilities.

By placing an emphasis on economic growth both for now and the future, as this motion states, our government is committed to the jobs and the economic climate that will help pay down the deficit in future years. As was so well stated in the Speech from the Throne yesterday, “Spending designed for a rainy day should not become an all-weather practice”. Our government is well aware that stimulus spending is not forever, but it is crucial that we must do all that we can to ensure that the primer we have now, given to jump start the economy, is just not taken away too soon before the recovery gains a proper foothold and continues to build momentum.

Another thing that I am encouraged about in the Speech from the Throne as well is the focus on jobs and some of the things that we are looking at, namely, trying to commercialize new technologies. One of the things we hear as we talk to people around the province and across the country is that as we struggle with manufacturing jobs that are not what they used to be. We need to learn how to commercialize the technology that we are producing in our fine institutions across the country.

Our government spends a lot of money on research and development and on technology. I believe that the jobs of the future are going to come from how we can commercialize some of these things.

One of the things that the government talked about in the Speech from the Throne was looking at the digital medium as one of these areas. I can assure the House that these are important things and I believe a lot of the new jobs can come from that.

I believe there is a two pronged approach. We have been able to invest in the poor, we have been able to invest in affordable housing. and I believe those are very important because those people need a leg up and an opportunity to get back on their feet so that they can also find work.

Equally important is creating jobs. If we do not have jobs it puts a tremendous amount of pressure on people who cannot find work, and so I believe it is a two-tiered approach. We can lower taxes to attract more corporations and businesses, and then with those jobs we will continue to help people rise out of poverty and be able to get a leg up which I believe is so very important.

I believe that this is what the motion before the House and this debate recognizes. Therefore, I applaud it being brought forward for debate and I certainly appreciate this opportunity to speak to it

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Madam Speaker, we all have different points of view in this place. There are people who may not be in our party but whom we respect and whose work we admire, and the member for Niagara West—Glanbrook is one of those people. He was the chair of the human resources committee and did an exemplary job in many areas. He has been very fair. With the reconstitution of committees, I do not know whether he will continue to be chair of that committee.

One of the things that all members of that committee worked on together was an anti-poverty strategy for this country, which is desperately needed. My colleague and I would disagree on how the government has approached poverty. I think it has been a dismal failure at helping people in need.

Reports from food banks and the need for a national housing strategy indicate that we should be doing a whole lot more. My concern is that the government will make cuts against people who did not feel the benefit of stimulus. There was just not very much for those most in need.

Whether my colleague continues as chair of human resources committee or not, will he encourage members of that committee and people on his side to step up and demand an anti-poverty strategy for this country and continue the work of the human resources committee so we can get that report out as soon as possible?

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour for those kind words.

A number of issues came to light as we studied poverty across the country and I appreciated the different perspectives. One of the things that we saw as we crossed the country was the need for affordable housing. Some parts of the country are certainly worse than others. I would encourage the government to continue with the steps it has taken so far by setting billions of dollars aside for affordable housing.

We are going to continue to need more affordable housing over time. I do not believe it is all or nothing. We can continue to foster jobs and continue to reduce taxes, but we also need to continue to invest in those who are most vulnerable.

I would encourage those who will be on the human resources committee going forward to continue with the great work that we started and get that report out. There may not be things in that report that everyone would agree on, but I think all parties here in the House would agree that those who are less fortunate, those who need our help, are worthy of it. Government does need to play a role.