Debates of Oct. 6th, 2011

Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act

[Joyce Bateman, Conservative, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I need to clarify a few of the issues that the member has raised.

First of all, he made a comment about gnashing of teeth and rending of garments. When I was campaigning to be elected as a member of the House of Commons, no one was grinding their teeth. They were saying, “Let's get the job done. Let's work together. Let's make sure our young people are not crippled with a mortgage for the rest of their lives, called a big bad deficit”. These were the comments that I heard when I was at the door. I heard people saying that we should get on with the business of Canada, be proud that we're doing so well and work together to make things happen.

That is what I heard when I went to the doors of the good constituents of Winnipeg South Centre, and I am so sorry that the member opposite had a different experience.

His next point was about my past membership in the Liberal Party of Canada. I changed because of its reckless spending approach to Canada and Canadians, and I was joined by hundreds of thousands of Canadians who voted the same way, with their feet, including my colleague here.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I had one question and now, in listening, I have been inspired to comment on something different.

Some of the biggest recognition around the world has been in regard to Canada's banking industry, and there should be no surprise there. We know it was former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien and former Minister of Finance Paul Martin who actually established and guaranteed the strong banking industry that we have today here in Canada.

On balance, in terms of expenditures and revenues, the former Liberal government outperforms the current government on virtually every economic point. In fact, one could argue that the highest unemployment predictions were of Kim Campbell: I can remember the 1993 election, when she said we were going to be into double-digit unemployment, and the Liberals said no.

Would the member not recognize that the Liberals' history in government is actually better than that of the government that we have seen in the last few years?

[Joyce Bateman, Conservative, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, who also comes from Winnipeg and serves Winnipeg North, for his comments.

I beg to differ with him. What was wrong with the approach to deficit reduction taken by past Liberal governments, whether of Mr. Chrétien or Mr. Martin, was that it reduced the deficit on the backs of education and health care. The former Liberal government reduced the deficit on the backs of transfer payments to our partner provinces.

This government, the Harper government--

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

You cannot call it the Harper government.

[Joyce Bateman, Conservative, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize. I am new here.

The government does not want to paralyze the importance of education. I served for ten and a half years as a school trustee in Winnipeg, so I can be trusted when I say it is an important investment. I am proud that the government will not be making any efforts to reduce those investments we make in provinces.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise you that I will be splitting my time today with my colleague from Winnipeg Centre as part of what seems to be the all-party Winnipeg caucus here in the House today.

On this side of the House, we often refer to the Conservative government as being out of touch. That language is often dismissed by the government as rhetorical flourish, but if there was ever evidence of this point it is this bill, Bill C-13, and more broadly the approach of the government to the economy of this country.

Since the Canadian economy came crashing down around us in 2008, very many Canadians have been affected profoundly and in material ways. While in technical terms a recovery of sorts followed, and for some it was in material terms, what never dissipated was a sense of economic insecurity and worry.

In my riding of Beaches—East York, from the neighbourhoods where poverty and unemployment are deep and persistent, through East York and down to the beach, people from all walks of life and living in all sorts of circumstances are worried.

Those who have lived in the hope that they will someday enjoy some material comfort and security see those prospects becoming more remote. Those who have experienced material comfort and security wonder whether it will last. Those who have accumulated some savings wonder whether it will survive for its intended purpose, whether that be retirement or the kids' education.

The worry, of course, is not unfounded. In 2008 we were plunged into the worst recession in over 70 years. The recovery has been tentative and much slower than has historically been the case, with the persistent threat of a second significant economic contraction. Of course we are bombarded daily with news and images of economic catastrophes occurring or threatening to occur all around us, including with our biggest trading partners, the United States and Europe.

It was in this context of well-founded and widespread economic concern that I opened the paper the other day to read that our Minister of Finance had said he is prepared to let these circumstances persist until such time as the technocrats looking in the rear-view mirror tell him that we are, or more properly were, in economic trouble.

Now, what is it that we do not know here? We know that Canada is a small and very open economy, and therefore we are far from immune to global economic turmoil. We know that the largest economies in the world today, Europe and the United States, are in fact experiencing considerable turmoil.

We know also that they are our largest trading partners. With respect to the United States in particular, we know that there is a high correlation between its economic growth and our own. This is particularly the case in my own province of Ontario. For example, had the U.S. recovery from 2008 been a typical recovery, their GDP would be 2.5% higher, and Canadian exports would be 6.5% greater.

With European and U.S. economies struggling and our dollar remaining persistently high, it appears that we will be stuck with a massive current account deficit for some considerable time. Unemployment levels remain stubbornly high, particularly for youth, and are forecast to go higher.

We also know that things could get worse--much worse, in fact. In the quaint phraseology of the Governor of the Bank of Canada, “The risks...are skewed to the downside”.

According to a September 30 forecast from TD Economics:

In our view, there is a 40% recession risk in the United States over the next year.

This leads to the obvious conclusion that our own risk of a slip back into a recession remains heightened. Thankfully, not all economists are as technocratic and as out of touch as the government. In response to the minister's pledge to wait and see what happened, and note the past tense, BMO capital markets economist Douglas Porter said:

I think the risks of a downturn in North America are serious enough that the government should definitely have a Plan B.

That plan B is, of course, what we on this side of the House have been arguing for: government investment in infrastructure.

Mr. Porter went on to say:

Infrastructure spending is one of the most effective short-term stimulus measures a government can use, but it takes time to get it going and that’s why we should be studying a Plan B right now.

We know that economists can be just as adapt at fighting among themselves as we are in this chamber but there does seem to be near unanimous agreement with the value of infrastructure spending in economic circumstances such as those that we are experiencing today.

As was pointed out at the time of the debate over the budget, even the annex to the government's document entitled, “Canada’s Economic Action Plan Year 2: Built to keep our economy growing”, a seventh report to Canadians, confirms the potency of stimulus spending on infrastructure, particularly in comparison to other measures.

It is not as though we are lacking infrastructure in need of repair. Our cities are experiencing an infrastructure deficit in the order of $123 billion. In addition, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities has estimated new infrastructure requirements totalling $115 billion.

While economists, very gently and generously, urge the development of a plan B, it seems fair and responsible for us to call out first for a plan A, because Bill C-13 does not add up to a plan. What Bill C-13 amounts to is paralysis, not planning. Were it the case that the government was frozen with a plan in place, that would be one thing, but what is frozen in place here is policy confusion.

The central policy piece of the government's response to our economic circumstances is the cut to corporate tax rates. As a stimulus measure, that is, as a measure that is responsive to the economic circumstances of Canadians, we know that this measure does not work.

First, it does not create jobs. A study of almost 200 large Canadian corporations that benefited from corporate tax cuts starting in 2000, showed that by 2009 profits had increased by 50%. Their corporate tax remittances had decreased by 20%, or $12 billion a year, while creating jobs at a rate slower than the national average.

Second, corporate tax cuts do not stimulate investment. Capital spending in Canada has been declining as a share of GDP since the early 1980s despite corporate tax cuts that have reduced the combined federal-provincial tax rate from 50% to just less than 30% last year.

Third, the U.S. treasury loves our corporate tax rates. American corporations repatriating their profits to the United States are obligated to pay 35% corporate tax minus a credit for taxes already paid in Canada. The amount of tax revenue flowing to the U.S. treasury, which is the amount of tax revenue foregone by Canadian jurisdictions owing to our lower corporate tax rate, is estimated to be between $4 billion and $6 billion per year.

Finally, as a policy prescription for our current circumstances, corporate tax cuts miss the mark by a wide margin. In spite of the economic misery and insecurity faced by so many Canadians, corporate profits have continued to increase year over year. Corporations are now sitting on half a trillion dollars of cash, the world is awash with goods, keeping inflation numbers in check, and it is in this context of over-supply that the government is prescribing, of all things, expanding supply. It makes no sense.

The prescription for what ails us is very different. We need to boost demand. While corporate profits increased by 15% in the second quarter of this year, the real disposable income of Canada was shrinking. Real wage growth fell year over year by 1.3% in July. That includes a 2.3% decline in Ontario. Meanwhile, households are finally strapped, carrying record loads of debt.

This is why, in part, our party champions creating jobs through government investment in infrastructure, more profitable pensions for seniors, increasing EI benefit eligibility and free collective bargaining, all measures that are responsive to the needs of the Canadian economy and economic growth.

When we cast our eyes forward, it is clear that this country not only faces some economic challenges, but also some incredible opportunities. Seizing those opportunities for the benefit of Canadians to ensure health and prosperity for Canadians is the responsibility of our government. On this account, the government, like its predecessor, has failed miserably. For years, it has insisted on locking Canada into disadvantageous and disproportionate trading relationships.

Finally, I want to pick up on the words of the Governor of the Bank of Canada. He stated:

...Canada is like a ship. We can be tossed by the waves or pulled by the current, but we are still able to chart our course in even the stormiest of seas.

I do not see a course set here by the government. To the contrary, the government has left Canadians bobbing in stormy economic seas.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his discussion on Bill C-13, even though I completely disagree with his approach.

I want to ensure that the opposition members understand. If they look at the 2009-10 public accounts books, because we are a year behind in public accounts, corporate tax revenue for the Government of Canada is 13.9% and personal income tax is 47.6%.

The opposition members talk about an infrastructure program and so on. Have they set a number for how big a deficit they want this country to carry? How much more would they add to the debt? How much more money would they borrow to make that happen? Will they tell Canadians exactly how much they would increase personal incomes tax to pay for it or cut spending? How would they do it? There is only one way to get money and that is by either cutting spending or increasing revenues.

The opposition members are talking about a huge infrastructure program but they will not tell us what the numbers are. They would need to raise taxes, and the vast majority of taxes in this country are collected from personal income tax.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I heard my friends from across the aisle criticizing our party for a lack of sophistication on economic issues. However, what I think we just saw was an illustration of quite the opposite. Members on the other side of the House seem not only to not understand basic economics but they do not even seem to understand the budget documents that they are putting out.

In the report that I cited, the seventh report to Canadians on the economic action plan, the appendix, or the annex as they call it, for job creation spells out for us what the economic multipliers are of various forms of government investment. This is a way of governments investing in our economy to create jobs and, in doing so, create government revenues. This is basic math. It is basic economics. It is the economics of the Department of Finance. It is the economics of so many economists speaking for the big banks of Canada and for the Bank of Canada itself .

The party opposite should have a closer at economics and how to create jobs and increase economic growth in this country.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I know my friend from the NDP, the member for Beaches—East York, is new to this place but I am sure he is very familiar with what took place a number of years ago with the fall economic update by the present government.

The government at that time did not recognize that there was an economic downturn in our midst. We were pretty much engulfed in an economic downturn globally but the Conservatives refused to come forward with any kind of incentive package, any kind of investment package, anything to try to stimulate the economy At that time, and it was well documented, the opposition parties banded together and said that it was unacceptable and that it would hurt our country. That was prompted by a gross misunderstanding of what was going on in the world and in this country. The opposition parties told the government to get off its duff, put a package together and ensure we invest in Canada.

Now, the Conservatives have almost separated their shoulders by slapping themselves on the back taking credit for it.

Does my colleague see any reason to show confidence in the current government? Has it learned anything since that time?

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it appears that the government has not learned anything from that time. When I came into this House, we had a regurgitated budget that I think over 60% of Canadians effectively rejected in the election. We now have a continuation of the same prescriptions for this economy.

The problem, of course, is that our economic circumstances have taken a significant downward turn, even since June when the budget was passed. What concerns me is that the government seems to have paid no heed to these circumstances.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Beaches—East York for not only sharing his time with me but for the thoughtful presentation he just gave on Bill C-13.

Some members of the House today are newly elected members and so I will begin by prefacing my remarks by saying that there is nothing normal about what they are seeing unfold today. I do not want them to think that the House of Commons debates have been, or should be, curtailed and shut down by use of time allocation motions and closure in the way they may have seen as newly elected members in this 41st Parliament. In fact, closure, in and of itself, is an affront to democracy.

We are seeing a worrisome motif that the government is using, misusing and abusing closure to a point where it is detrimental to the institution of Parliament itself and the fundamental, most basic tenets of democracy.

I am not overstating things when I say that democracy is undermined by the use of closure in such a cavalier manner. Time allocation has always been in the standing orders but it was meant to be used judiciously, only after a matter of debate had been dealt with in a fulsome way and when all members who wished to speak to a bill had the opportunity. When there is deliberate obstruction of parliamentary procedure, that is when a government of the day may contemplate the use of the closure.

However, what we have seen in the 41st Parliament are huge, complicated omnibus bills being given a day or two of consideration by this chamber and then, bam, the heavy hammer comes down and we have the iron fist of time allocation and closure. Nobody should ever accept this as the norm. I hope the Canadian people are taking note because it is worthy to note.

I have been elected six times to this chamber. I was an opposition member during the times when the Liberal government was in majority and we criticized it vigorously for what we thought was an overuse of time allocation and closure. Frankly, the Liberals were pikers at the game because at least when it was introduced by our colleagues, the Liberals, it was after days and days and weeks and weeks of debate on a certain bill. Yes, there were people who would have liked to have spoken again on a bill, but at least every member of the chamber had ample opportunity on behalf of their constituents to wade into a debate.

It is getting to be a matter of privilege, and I would like to see that researched. It gets to be a matter of parliamentary privilege when members are systematically denied the right to stand in this chamber and voice the concerns of the people who sent them here to represent them.

I am being allowed 10 minutes to debate a bill of this magnitude and substance. Frankly, Bill C-13 is perhaps the most important bill of Parliament in that it is the introduction of the manifestation of the whole financial cycle of estimates, to budgets to budget implementation, et cetera. No bill put forward by a government within the parliamentary cycle is more critical than the budget implementation act and we are being denied the right to give it a thorough vetting in the House.

Having said that, and with such limited time, I will limit my remarks to broad-brushed impressions of what the bill seeks to do.

I saw a bumper sticker when I was in Washington, D.C. last year that kind of says it all. It said, “At least the war on the middle class is going well”. That sums up the attitude that we are seeing in the government's introduction of its budgetary process and the frustration that has manifested itself and is playing out on Wall Street as we speak.

The Americans were quicker to go into this blind faith that the corporate world had their best interests at heart. They were first to go into it, but they seem to be the first to come out of it as well. Americans are sick of rewarding the very architects of the economic malaise they find themselves in, whereas we are plowing ahead with that exact same mindset by rewarding corporate Canada, which has failed us with its wretched excess, greed and failure to provide the leadership in its own corporate sector. We are going to reward that sector. The biggest ticket item in this fiscal year's spending priority is in fact another $6 billion tax cut for corporations.

I come from the province of Manitoba. The small business tax in Manitoba was 11% when the New Democrats took power in 1999. That small business tax has been systematically reduced to zero. The NDP has just been re-elected to its fourth majority government in that province partly because the targeted tax cuts which the NDP government put in place were in an area that would in fact generate jobs and stimulate the economy. That is giving a break to small entrepreneurs who will in fact reinvest in their businesses and create jobs. No such empirical evidence exists about the much larger tax giveaway that is contemplated by the government in this fiscal year of $6 billion more in corporate tax cuts.

My colleague from Beaches—East York said that the Department of Finance itself recognizes that infrastructure investment has five times the economic impact of corporate income tax cuts. This fact is published in the appendix to budget 2009. We know full well where the bang for the buck is and yet the government seems to feel some obedient subservience to the very architects of the economic malaise we are experiencing. It rewards bad behaviour with even more handouts, the biggest corporate giveaway, by the way, since the review of the drug patent law in the mid-1990s when drug patents were extended from 17 years to 20 years. That was a corporate handout to Pfizer and others by the Liberal government of the day.

The Conservatives are plowing ahead by borrowing $6 billion because they do not have it. We are in a deficit situation so they do not have the $6 billion to give to corporate Canada, but they are going to give it anyway.

As my colleague from Beaches—East York pointed out, that profit is not even domestic. In fact, very often these corporations are actually foreign corporations. They take that money and expatriate it back to the United States where they came from and the United States taxes them at a reasonable rate of 35% on their foreign earnings abroad.

The government of the day is not thinking of the big picture. We have a shrinking middle class. Wages are shrinking from year to year when adjusted for inflation. When I began my remarks I said that at least the war on the middle class is going well, but have the Conservatives thought through what it will do to the economy when they injure the consuming middle class, when they fail to promote and expand the consuming middle class? If it is a low wage, low cost economy they are striving for, let me remind them that we cannot shrink our way to prosperity. No country has ever shrunk its way to prosperity. Countries grow their way to prosperity. Even Henry Ford understood that workers with money in their pockets are going to buy one of the products they create. Somehow we seem to have lost that mindset.

The Conservatives' war on labour and the left is another example of what they intend to do. When Ronald Reagan was in power, he managed to reduce the unionized workforce in the United States from 33% to 12%. It is now at 5%. The war on labour and the left is just beginning with the Conservatives' majority government. This bill is the first indication of the type of financial planning they intend to do. It is deficient. It is faulty. It is old-school thinking. It is so last century that it does not serve the needs of the working people I represent.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the speech by my colleague from Winnipeg Centre and I was a little confused. I have heard him speak before and he sometimes is confusing. I would like him to clarify.

In one part of his speech he said he was opposed to business tax deductions that would help stimulate the economy and create jobs. Then he went on to talk about his home province, which happens to have an NDP government, and I congratulate the NDP on its re-election, and it has reduced its business taxes to zero on some levels. That has been great for Manitoba's economy and has created jobs for small business.

Is he for it or against it? Does he know? Does he understand that the vast majority of businesses in this country are incorporated and that they will all benefit from corporate tax deductions? If he could clarify, that would be great, but I am not sure he can.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague would know, if he had been listening to the NDP for the last three, four or five years, that we have always said we would support the government in a small business tax cut, a reduction in small business taxes. What the government of the day has done year after year is it has given big corporate tax cuts. The beneficiaries of that are not the small entrepreneur and the small businessman who are struggling. Frankly, the companies that need the support and help are not earning and paying taxes on earnings anyway. It is the big profitable corporations that are getting it.

If the Conservatives want social benefit and social change from their spending and to put more money into circulation to stimulate the economy, the single most important thing they could do is to elevate all seniors out of poverty. For $700 million, for less than one-tenth essentially of the corporate tax cut, all seniors could have been at least lifted to the poverty line. Seniors do not squirrel that money away in an offshore tax haven. They spend it in the local economy and it gets re-spent four times before it finds its natural state of repose in some rich man's pocket.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, earlier a Conservative member made reference to the fact that we have a choice between raising taxes or borrowing money. One of the things that is often overlooked is the issue of spending smarter. The Conservative budget is lacking in terms of how we could do a better job with the scarce resources that we have. I look for comment from the member because in many ways we represent neighbourhoods of a similar nature.

If the Government of Canada were to invest in housing stock through revitalization programs and provide the tax incentives to encourage urban revitalization of some of our older communities, we would be generating jobs and improving the housing conditions of our communities. Would the member agree that is a good way of spending smarter? It would cost taxpayers less money and would create more jobs. Would the member agree with that assessment?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, sometimes I think the government of the day is channelling Brian Mulroney--give those members some Gucci shoes and the transformation will be complete--when it comes to gold-plated business cards or grandiose, overinflated, wild, irresponsible and reckless spending. Targeted, specific, useful spending on infrastructure or, as my colleague suggested, low-income housing stock is the kind of targeted spending that would stimulate the economy and put more people back to work. Perhaps it does not have the cachet of 65 new F-35 fighter jets or the wheelbarrows full of dough the Conservatives dutifully dump into Bay Street on a regular basis. Maybe it is the job of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance to deliver the booty to Bay Street on his way to work in the morning. Those of us on this side of the House know that we cannot afford that kind of dutiful obligation to the Conservatives' corporate masters.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, It is a pleasure to speak to this important bill.

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the exciting new member for Okanagan—Coquihalla. It is not that I could not speak for 20 minutes. In fact, as the previous speaker said, I could speak at length about all the wonderful measures contained in this document, but I want to share that opportunity with an exciting new member of Parliament.

The previous speaker, a member of the NDP who is not short on colourful metaphors when describing things, indicated if we had just listened to the NDP the budget would look quite different. I would argue that I have been listening to the NDP. That is why I knew I had to win my election in Peterborough. Heaven forbid the New Democrats would ever have any say on the economics of this country, because where they would take it certainly would not be the leading position within the G7. It would not be a position which the IMF says is enviable. It would not be, as Forbes magazine declared just this week, the best place in the world to invest.

That is our Canada. That is the Canada our Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, with the support of this caucus, have worked hard to create. I would also note that the Minister of State for Finance has also played a very big role in that.

This bill is important. We heard the previous member talk a little about business. He talked about corporations. How he speaks about corporations in this country disturbs me. Corporations, investments, and obviously the jobs they create are critically important to communities. Those job creators are constantly being slammed and talked about as if they were entities that should be attacked by the state. That seems to be the NDP's mantra.

A few moments ago my colleague from Burlington indicated in his question that many corporations in Canada, some of them quite small, are benefiting from the tax measures we have put in place in our budgets. I would be remiss if I did not mention a specific example.

This budget extends the accelerated capital cost allowance for manufacturers. That allows manufacturers to upgrade their equipment sooner and to do it in a more economical fashion, but it is only a tax deferral. However, it makes the business case better for investing right here in Canada. On top of that, we have also reduced the overall corporate tax rates.

When those two things are put together, it helps companies in my riding like McCloskey International, a very significant equipment manufacturer that is growing. I would invite any member to visit that plant to see the kind of growth it has experienced since 2006, to see the kind of growth that plant has experienced since we came forward with Advantage Canada, our blueprint economic plan for Canada. We brought that forward in 2007. We made it clear. We made a promise to Canada's employers and to Canadians as to how we would govern the finances of this country.

That company, McCloskey International in Peterborough, has grown by leaps and bounds. When I have talked to its owner, Paschal McCloskey, he has told me that in no small measure the amount of growth we have seen in Canada is due to the actions our government has taken to reduce his costs of manufacturing and doing business in Canada.

We have made investments in partnership with him through programs like the eastern Ontario development program and through the new Southern Ontario development agency, FedDev Ontario. We have made targeted investments in education. The Canadian universities association was very supportive of the budget. The colleges were very supportive of the budget. Students recognized that the budget made fundamental investments.

There are many items in the budget that are so important. This implementation bill is the actual meat of the budget being put into action.

When we follow through on these commitments, companies like McCloskey International can continue to grow. What it told me was that because of the measures we put in place, it could manufacture equipment cheaper and more efficiently on the east side of Peterborough than it could in Ireland, or at one of their other European facilities. That has allowed the company to expand its workforce dramatically. It has more than doubled in the last three years. A lot of middle-class families now have an income.

I would invite the hon. member from Winnipeg to come back and ask me a question about the middle-class families in my riding that have a job directly attributable to the government's economic leadership. It is fundamental and important.

We talk about promoting jobs and economic growth by providing a temporary hiring credit for small business to encourage additional hiring. The NDP has indicated that it would like to see this, but it will vote against it. It just does not make any sense. As a former owner and operator of a small business that had a couple of dozen employees, this is the type of incentive that encourages people to hire. It reduces the overall cost of employment. It is not just the wages paid, it is the employment taxes on top of that which also have to be taken into account. This kind of incentive is very important for small business.

I would also note that the member from Winnipeg also indicated that he would like to see lower taxes on businesses. I remember, and I am sure some of my colleagues who have been here since 2006 remember it well, that the member voted against small business tax reductions every time we introduced them. When we raised the cap for capital gains that small businesses could in fact be exempt from, the member voted against it. When we reduced the tax rate from 12% to 11%, the member voted against it. When we moved the limits from $300,000 to $400,000 when the tax rates would change over, which were big moves for small business, the NDP consistently voted against it.

The NDP also voted against all the infrastructure investments and the things on which small businesses thrive, such as good roads, good infrastructure for things like the Internet. I note the Speaker has been a strong advocate for eastern Ontario. The government has made a fundamental investment into broadband Internet in our region. This is an infrastructure investment that will help us encourage more investment, on top of the tax measures that we have put in place, even on top of things like the volunteer firefighters tax credit. This encourages the building of small communities.

We are following a plan that encourages economic growth and job creation, and it is balanced. When we are reducing taxes, building infrastructure, helping people who live in the communities to undertake their volunteer positions, or just to live in those communities, we are coming forward with a balanced economic plan. That is why that balanced economic plan is leading the G7. That is why we are going to stay the course. Only by staying the course, continuing to keep taxes low, eliminating debt and making the investments for the future that need to be made, will Canada continue to lead all nations. That is our goal. We have said it many times.

I remember just a couple of weeks ago, the British prime minister spoke in the House and said that the 21st century may very well belong to Canada. It is because of the leadership of this government, of this caucus, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance.

I will close with just a couple of quotes, which I think are important. Here is what the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters had to say:

The extension of the two year write-off for investments in manufacturing and processing technologies announced in...[Budget 2011] is critical to sustaining Canada's economic recovery.

The member said that our party was attacking unions. This is what the Canadian Labour Congress had to say:

—the CLC has pushed hard for an increase in the Guaranteed Income Supplement...paid to 1.6 million low income seniors. [The Finance] Minister has made a modest improvement to the GIS in this budget. This is a win for every senior living in poverty...

The NDP voted against it.

I also point out that the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, a huge organization that does so much promoting an outdoor lifestyle, and is based in Peterborough, said, among other things, that it applauded the inclusion of items in budget 2011 that would benefit the outdoor community across Canada. I cannot understand why the NDP would vote against that.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member opposite for his speech and ask him a question about the budget.

The members talk a lot about investments and the economy but I find it very sad that they do not talk about the people in this country who are using food banks. Over 850,000 people used food banks last year, which is an increase of 70,000 people in one year.

What do the members opposite think they can do in the new budget to help these people who desperately need food and assistance?

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are going to continue on our focus toward promoting economic growth and job creation because that is the surest path to helping those less fortunate. In my community I participate in fundraisers for groups like Kawartha Food Share that help those less fortunate. We have worked to raise significant funding for them.

However, the ability for a government and a community to help those less fortunate is in building a stronger community and having a stronger government. We cannot give from a position of weakness. The positions put forward by the NDP to take on more debt, more spending and higher taxes would weaken Canada's economy and Canada's government and leave us unable to help those less fortunate in our communities.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a few questions for the hon. member.

He talked about the most vulnerable in society and I find that group somehow was overlooked. He talked about the CLC and that it was quoted as saying “a modest increase”. That is not the increase it was looking for. That is rather disingenuous. He should quote it in its entirety because we are looking at an increase that is well over that, in fact a little over two times that, in order to bring most of these seniors out of that vulnerable stage.

I will take one example, and I hope he talks to this specifically. The volunteer firefighter tax credit that the Conservatives brag about so much is a non-refundable tax credit. This basically means that the most vulnerable in society, those low-income people, will not benefit one dollar from this tax credit. A person would have to make above a certain level of income in order to get any benefit from this tax credit. Why is this tax credit not a refundable tax credit, much like the other tax credits budgeted, so the most vulnerable would share in that benefit?

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if the member speaks to the volunteer firefighters in his community, and I have spoken to mine, this is a very significant move. It is not a new program, but we have increased the program that previously existed. Firefighters in my community have come forward to let me know that they appreciate this and that they know their voices have been heard.

On the other point brought forward by the member regarding old age security and GIS, this is a significant increase in GIS and the Liberal Party voted against it. I wonder why the Liberals would do that. The bottom line is when people are in need, we do what we can to help them. The government made a very significant increase in GIS and all parties should have been able to rally around that and support it. It is unfortunate that they did not.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House today to speak in support of Bill C-13, keeping Canada's economy and jobs growing act.

As this is my first time as a member of Parliament to have the opportunity to speak in support of a bill, I would like to say what an honour it is to be here on behalf of the citizens in my riding of Okanagan—Coquihalla.

While it is easy to cite statistics and quote numbers in support of the bill, Canada's economic performance and job creation record are without equal under the leadership of this government. However, it is more important to share with members of the House how the policies and direction contained in the bill would create jobs and support our Canadian economy.

Before I begin, I feel the need to share something that is important. Day in and day out in the House we consistently hear the opposition attack the very notion that any form of tax relief or tax incentive for a business is somehow a bad thing. Yet it is the same business community that provides the jobs that keep our citizens employed and our economy strong.

Perhaps I am too new, but I believe that members opposite care about jobs and keeping citizens employed in their ridings that they represent. However, it is not talk or increases in taxation that create jobs. It is economic policy and investment that will help create employment. That is why I will be supporting the bill.

I would like to speak to a very specific example of one of the many important job creation aspects contained in Bill C-13 and how that would create jobs in my riding of Okanagan--Coquihalla.

Bill C-13 proposes to extend the accelerated capital cost allowance for investments in manufacturing and processing machinery and equipment for two years.

The community of Okanagan Falls in my riding was particularly hard hit by the collapse of the U.S. lumber industry. The economic fall-out resulted in the community's largest employer Weyerhaeuser lumber mill to shut down. I am certain that other members in the House know first-hand what kind of economic devastation that can create in a small community such as a loss of jobs, the decrease to the total tax base and the increase of incidents of domestic violence. These are some of the unfortunate byproducts of unemployment.

To add insult to injury, the mountain beetle epidemic also threatened much of the local timber supply around Okanagan Falls and many forest-dependent communities in British Columbia.

This past June I was back in Okanagan Falls to attend the opening of Canada's, and in fact North America's, first large scale, state-of-the-art cross-laminated timber manufacturing production facility. This new plant created many vitally needed well-paying jobs in Okanagan Falls.

However, we have to recognize that this plant represents a multi-million dollar investment. The machinery and equipment alone are highly specialized and critical to the operation and success of this plant. The big master is the world's largest planer. It is one of the keys to the success of cross-laminated construction. Unfortunately, it is also incredibly expensive.

That is why it is critically important to extend the accelerated capital cost allowance for investments in manufacturing machinery and equipment, exactly as Bill C-13 proposes. In fact, it is precisely these tax incentives and relief policies that ensure that big businesses invest in big equipment like the big master. The big master, that mammoth-sized planer, creates jobs. The opposition sees big business as nothing more than a source to increase taxes, but increasing taxes means more money flows to Ottawa instead of investing in jobs and equipment like the big master.

This is a really important success story and I hope all members, especially the opposition, will listen carefully as I continue.

The new jobs and machinery at this cross-laminated timber manufacturing plant will create highly specialized cross-lam panels that are used in commercial and industrial applications as a replacement for concrete. Compared to concrete the cross-lam panels are six to seven times lighter and, as a result, are much more easier and economical to transport. They also require considerably less energy to produce and generate less waste, so it is also a more environmentally friendly product.

Here is what is really exciting. Cross-laminated timber can actually use surplus pine beetle killed timber as a fibre source. This is potentially the first commercially viable application for beetle wood in a structural application. What is more, cross-laminated construction can create in the very near future an entire wood sourced building that has vastly superior earthquake resistance than anything currently on the market. Think about the job potential of state-of-the-art, economically constructed earthquake resistant structures for a province like British Columbia that is strategically located to the Asia-Pacific gateway. The potential is huge.

All that stands in the way is another multi-million dollar investment in equipment and machinery from business. That is why the proposal in this bill to extend the accelerated capital cost allowance for investments in manufacturing and processing machinery equipment is so critically important. It creates jobs and has the potential to create a whole new industry, an innovative value-added sector that could be a boon to many forest-dependent communities.

Bill C-13 also proposes to extend the mineral exploration tax credit for flow-through share investors by one year to support Canada's mining sector.

Recently the premier of British Columbia announced that more provincial resources would be allocated to help the opening of eight new mines.

Let us also recognize that big business is the same big business that the opposition likes to try to tax out of existence. These are the very companies that are needed to invest literally hundreds of millions of dollars in machinery and equipment which in turn create not just jobs but high-paying jobs, even jobs for working people. We all know the term “working people” includes the exclusive worker who the opposition members consistently place ahead of all others.

Before we can have mines that lead to jobs we need mineral exploration. The mineral exploration tax credit helps create mines which help create these jobs.

In my riding of Okanagan—Coquihalla is the Highland Valley copper mine. It provides hundreds of well-paying jobs.

Recently big business announced its intention to invest $475 million to upgrade Highland Valley's mill to extend its output and its ore recovery. This announcement also allowed for a five year new tentative agreement between big business and the workers who are members of the United Steelworkers Union.

Instead of sending more money to Ottawa, as the opposition is calling for, big business is investing money directly into my riding where it continues to create more well-paying jobs. I raise this because it is important for the members of the opposition to realize that we cannot tax business out of existence. Business has to have the funds to reinvest and create jobs.

I have briefly touched on just two points in Bill C-13 to illustrate how this bill can and will help to create jobs in my riding of Okanagan—Coquihalla, as well as continue to help keep our economy strong.

There are over 20 other measures contained in Bill C-13 that will also create jobs and support the local economy in my region. The temporary hiring credit for small business, the permanent annual investment of $2 billion in the gas tax fund, the family caregiver tax, and the new children's arts tax credit are a few examples.

I also believe Bill C-13 will support jobs and the economy as well as provide a balance that will help families and seniors improve their quality of life. I thank the members opposite for listening to my comments and the reasons that I will be supporting Bill C-13, which will support the economy in my riding of Okanagan—Coquihalla.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge the very passionate speech made by my colleague from British Columbia.

At the same time, I am rising today because I am hearing from the business community in Newton—North Delta, which is a very large section of that riding, that more breaks are needed for small- and medium-size businesses. We know that small- and medium-size businesses are the backbone of our economy. They create jobs that remain in our communities and that also add to the wealth and diversity of our nation.

I know there is a temporary tax credit for small- and medium-size businesses. However, what else is in this plan to help small- and medium-size businesses create jobs that will stay in Canada and help sustain our communities right across the nation?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, simply put, the government has taken more action to help small business and has been doing so since taking office in 2006. In this particular budget it is providing a temporary hiring credit for small business to encourage that additional hiring.

All our members are thinking about the economy. We are focused on jobs and economic growth. We are listening to people, such as those from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, who are solidly behind us because they know it is the right thing for our economy and for Canada.

I call upon my hon. colleague to support this measure and all of the measures in our budget.

[Parm Gill, Conservative, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his passionate speech as well as his hard work on behalf of his constituents.

There is also a very large manufacturing base in my riding where I am hearing a lot of positive feedback from businesses, especially with regard to the accelerated capital allowance.

For those businesses as well as the members in the House who may not be fully aware, I would appreciate if the member would elaborate on what it would do and how it would benefit small business.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of particulars in Bill C-13 that we can all support.

A temporary hiring credit for small business would encourage additional hiring. Right now businesses are in a state of uncertainty. They read things in the newspaper. We want to encourage them to hire new people by reducing those costs. By reducing those costs we give them more certainty which allows them to expand their business, which could be by getting more sales or providing better service.

Going back to the accelerated manufacturing credit, I would also mention that it is those kinds of business decisions that we want to encourage where they can buy that new equipment, such as a big master planer. We want to ensure that businesses feel encouraged that now is the time to be supporting economic growth and getting those jobs.