House of Commons Hansard #128 of the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was parks.
Ralph Goodale Liberal Wascana, SK
Mr. Speaker, $1.3 billion. That is how much more employers and employees will pay this year because the Conservatives increased job-killing payroll taxes on January 1. And that is not all.
The extra payroll tax next year will be $3 billion, then $5 billion and then $7 billion. If the government is looking for jobs, why this escalating Conservative tax on jobs, punishing small business? Why waste $6 billion every year on big corporations, which is the least effective way to get jobs?
Stephen Harper ConservativePrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, all that bluster cannot escape a simple fact, and that is that small business in this country supports our government's low tax plan and is absolutely opposed to the high tax plan of the Liberal Party.
The Canadian Federation of Independent Business said so yesterday after it was blatantly misrepresented by the Liberal Party in this House, and it is waiting for an apology from the Liberal Party.
Ralph Goodale Liberal Wascana, SK
Mr. Speaker, 100% of all Canadian businesses will pay billions more in higher job-killing Conservative payroll taxes this year, next year and on and on.
However, only about 1 in 20, 5%, will get an income tax rate cut and they are the biggest and the wealthiest. They already had globally competitive tax rates. They are not the primary job creators.
Every nickel of those big corporate tax cuts are on borrowed money. Why them? Why not small business? Why not families struggling with caregiving, learning and pensions?
Stephen Harper ConservativePrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, small business said yesterday that it does not support the Liberal plan to raise business income taxes.
Let us also talk about payroll taxes because payroll taxes, specifically employment insurance premiums, are set to cover the cost of the EI fund. What small business has said is that it supports our decision not to adopt the Liberal plan to put in a 45-day work year under EI and raise EI premiums by 35%. Small business supports our decision not to adopt the Liberal high tax plan.
Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour, NB
Mr. Speaker, if the F-35 procurement process is so good, then why did the government waste $200,000 on a publicity tour to try and convince those who think it is not? It makes no sense.
The only way to stop wasting money is to hold an open, Canadian competition to determine the best option at the best price.
Why do the Conservatives prefer to waste money travelling across the country instead of saving money that belongs to Canadian families?
Peter MacKay ConservativeMinister of National Defence
Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the member for Beauséjour has against the truth or his previously held position.
His previously held position, as a Liberal parliamentary secretary to defence, was to support this procurement back in 1997.
We are going to proceed with the best aircraft at the best price, which is the best for the Canadian Forces and the best for the Canadian aerospace industry. This is a fifth generation aircraft that will replace an aircraft now approaching 40 years old.
Canadians need to know that the government is behind their Canadian Forces. The member should get back on board with his previous position.
Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour, NB
Mr. Speaker, the Conservative's phoney accounting on the F-35 simply does not add up: $200,000 on a bogus communications exercise; cost overruns, which have almost doubled the price per plane to $90 million from the $50 million originally; and software delays, which we learned of that now make a mockery of the minister's delivery date.
Why waste $200,000 on a publicity road show when holding an open Canadian competition would cost nothing and save taxpayers at least $4 billion?
Peter MacKay ConservativeMinister of National Defence
Mr. Speaker, I will just to put a few facts forward.
Back in 1997, the Liberal Party started the procurement plan and spent almost $150 million on that plan. Why would the hon. member now suggest that we should do anything less than proceed with a competition that has occurred to buy the best aircraft available for the Canadian Forces to ensure mission success and follow along the track that he laid out with his government?
This is what Secretary of Defense Gates said about the air force variant that we are purchasing. He said that it was progressing quite well and that the price was coming down.
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, following the merger of the Toronto and London stock exchanges, political and economic players have been very clear: the derivatives-based Montreal exchange should remain as it is and even grow.
In light of this major transaction, does the Prime Minister realize that, now more than ever, a Canada-wide securities commission based in Toronto and influenced by the Toronto business community is harmful to Montreal, and to Quebec and its economy?
Stephen Harper ConservativePrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, it is clear that these markets are international. Our initiative has the support of 10 provinces and territories, but we are clear: we have turned this controversial issue over to the Supreme Court and we will always respect federal jurisdiction.
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, at last count, four or five provinces were against this plan. The government should take note.
In response to the announcement of the plan to merge the stock markets, business people in Toronto have spoken out in support of a single securities commission based in Toronto, which would mean that all decisions would be made in Toronto, even decisions affecting the Montreal Stock Exchange. Will the Prime Minister face the facts and stop playing into Toronto's hands at Montreal's expense?
Stephen Harper ConservativePrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, the federal proposal is for a decentralized commission. That is the nature of our country; we do not want a centralizing agency. This issue has been handed over to the Supreme Court and we will respect its decision. We will move forward only in accordance with our jurisdictions.
Daniel Paillé Bloc Hochelaga, QC
Mr. Speaker, the London Stock Exchange's potential acquisition of the Toronto Stock Exchange will mean that the new stock exchange will operate in many countries and territories. This new entity will be accountable to several regulatory authorities. Thus, the Conservatives' desire to eliminate the Autorité des marchés financiers du Québec no longer makes any sense. The financial community is accustomed to dealing with multiple jurisdictions.
Does the Minister of Finance realize that this plan for a new stock exchange calls into question the relevance and pertinence of his Canada-wide commission?
Tony Clement ConservativeMinister of Industry
Mr. Speaker, regarding that merger, we are looking into how the Investment Canada Act applies to the proposed transaction.
Daniel Paillé Bloc Hochelaga, QC
Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but notice that the Minister of Finance and the Minister of State for Finance still remain silent.
Several financial authorities would regulate the new stock exchange. The passport system exists in Europe, as it does here. Although the minister may not like it, that is the solution and it works very well.
Will the Minister of Finance abandon his predatory project and leave in place a passport system among the various financial market authorities, a system that works just as well in Europe as it does in Canada?
Ted Menzies ConservativeMinister of State (Finance)
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for pointing out the fact that there are actually 10 provinces working with the federal government to protect Canadians. The whole role behind securities regulation is to provide a mechanism for investment to come into this country, investments that do not have to go through 13 different processes coming into this country.
We need to protect Canadians as they put their money away for their retirement. That is the most important thing we need to do for Canadians.
Jack Layton NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister likes to say that the reason the banks of Canada weathered the recession so well was that Canada has strict rules, particularly with regard to controls on foreign ownership, and that banks have major strategic importance here in Canada.
If they are so important, why not apply the same concept to the Toronto and Montreal stock exchanges?
Stephen Harper ConservativePrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday, there are procedures for reviewing this very complex proposal. The provinces will have a decision to make under the Investment Canada Act and so will we. I cannot comment without conducting a thorough review of this transaction.
Jack Layton NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister may still be having trouble figuring out whether this investment needs to be reviewed or not but experts do not have any problem with it. The executive director of the Rotman School of Management says that this is a takeover, not a merger.
According to the Investment Canada Act, the Conservatives must agree to review the proposed takeover.
When will they stop dragging their feet and actually conduct a full review and make it a public, transparent process, the way it should be?
Stephen Harper ConservativePrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, the review will take place according to the laws that we have. That is what has been done in the past.
As this government has made clear, both in words and through its actions in past transactions, we will approve only transactions that are in the net benefit of this country.
Jack Layton NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
Mr. Speaker, he spoke of words. We all remember the bizarre remarks of the Prime Minister with regard to the Potash takeover.
New Democrats raised the issue first and he first dismissed the claims saying that it was an American company, for heaven's sake. Luckily, Canadians brought him to his senses on this and eventually the Prime Minister agreed with New Democrats that the Investment Canada Act actually needed to be rewritten.
Canadians do not want another decision about our economic future made behind closed doors. That is clear. Will the Prime Minister commit to Canadians that we will have an open and transparent process?
Stephen Harper ConservativePrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, once again, there is a law on the books and that law will be respected.
We have a couple of parties opposite. We know the Liberal Party approved every transaction that was ever put before it. The NDP we know would oppose every transaction that was ever put before it. Our position has been clear. We will only approve those transactions that are in the best interests of this country.
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' drug bill is a textbook example of Reagan's failed war on drugs. When 12 church groups and 500 health care professionals oppose the bill, the Conservatives ignore them. They refuse to admit how much it will really cost Canadian taxpayers. It just does not add up, not their failed war on drug policy and not their phoney numbers on the costs.
Will the minister finally come clean about the real costs of his failed war on drugs bill?
Rob Nicholson ConservativeMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and her party are unbelievable. This bill targets drug traffickers, the people who are out to exploit people and sell drugs to children. It deals with date rape drugs.
The hon. member and her colleagues stood in this House and supported this bill. If we cannot trust them on that, what can we trust them on?
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives war on drugs bill is not tough on crime, it is dumb on crime. A young person with six pot plants would be treated the same way as a mob boss. An 18-year-old who abuses Tylenol 3 just once could face a minimum of two years in prison.
Estimates peg the real costs of this bill at over $200 million just for B.C.
Will the Conservatives finally reveal what the real costs are to the Canadian taxpayers because they are the ones who will pay the bill?