Debates of Feb. 8th, 2011

Presence in Gallery

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I would like to draw to the attention of hon. members the presence in the gallery of the Honourable Shahbaz Bhatti, Minister for Minorities of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment claimed that he had a plan to fight climate change. Could he table it?

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

It appears that the hon. member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville may have to wait for the return of the minister but I am sure he will note the hon. member's request for tabling in due course.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Tax Rate for Large Corporations

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Before question period, the hon. member for Chambly—Borduas had the floor. He has five minutes remaining for questions and comments.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to ask my colleague from Chambly—Borduas a question on this.

He has been a member of our human resources committee and has been a bit of a champion when it comes to the issue of poverty. He knows that in our committee we came forward with a number of recommendations in a report late last year that could help Canada alleviate poverty.

How much of a difference and an impact does the member think the $6 billion corporate tax cut would have if it were dedicated to the fight against poverty, child poverty and poverty among women, aboriginal Canadians and people with disabilities, and would it be better served in improving the productivity of Canada?

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I thank my colleague from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour for his question, and I congratulate him on his excellent work on the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

He is absolutely right. The money that the government is prepared to give to large corporations could be used to actively work on developing social housing. We know that one of the most challenging factors that contributes to poverty is the lack of housing for low-income individuals. That would be one thing to do. The government could also support persons with disabilities to give them access to social housing, of course, but also to help them find and keep jobs.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the member and, indeed, all the coalition members seem to have a misunderstanding of the subject of taxes on job creating businesses. They seem to be under the impression that the government is proposing additional tax reductions in this area, which, in fact, t is not true.

Back in 2007, this government, with the support of the Liberal Party, reduced business taxes in order to create jobs. Those reductions came into place three years ago and they have been very successful. We have created 460,000 jobs since July 2009. Our unemployment rate is two points lower than the United States.

However, regardless of what they think about business tax reductions, there are no additional business tax reductions to be enacted. Those were all enacted three years ago. That debate is over. That question is resolved. The new question is whether we should raise business taxes in the middle of an economic recovery.

There is no economy and no government in the world that believes that now, in the middle of a fragile global economic recovery, it would be wise for governments to step up and increase taxes.

I want the hon. member to explain why he and the other coalition parties believe it would be responsible, in the middle of an economic recovery, to raise taxes on 110,000 job creating businesses that would be impacted by the proposed tax hike that the Liberals have put forward today.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague does not understand what his government is in the process of doing. On January 1, 2011, the tax rate for large corporations was lowered to 18%. On January 1, 2012, it will be lowered to 15%. Those are his government's planned tax cuts. I do not understand what he does not get. That could explain why he does not realize what kind of damage they are doing.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the wonderful speech given by the member for Chambly—Borduas, which included extremely relevant arguments. He said that the tax breaks given to companies will affect the middle class. As the Liberal member who defends the middle class on the Standing Committee on Human Resources asked earlier, how is it possible to justify the tax breaks given to companies that are already bringing in large profits when the middle class is paying the price?

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is a very relevant question. What the government is doing reflects an ideology aimed at leaving the government with as few financial resources as possible so that it can later justify making cuts to social programs. This has already begun. This is the logic behind the government's action and we do not agree with it.

[Siobhan Coady, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to have the opportunity to speak in favour of the Liberals' opposition day motion today.

I have a background in business and a lot of the discussion today would have had an impact on my business, and I will tell hon. members how.

First, I owned several businesses before coming into politics. I was in the resource industry and in the biotechnology industry. These were small businesses that did not meet the caps to pay the corporate tax rate. The corporate tax rate in Canada is quite competitive, when we look at global affairs.

As important, I spent 10 to 11 years on the board of directors of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. I rose to become chair of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce in 2003-04 and represented 190,000 businesses. The debate and discussion during the 1990s really focused on the debt that this country was in.

Before I continue, Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Cape Breton—Canso.

As I was saying, during the 1990s into the 2000s, the big concern of business was the fact that this country faced serious deficit and debt issues. At the time, the business community fought very aggressively and hard to ensure that this country understood the ramifications and impacts of having a country carrying that much deficit and debt, and the limitations that doing so created for us to either reinvest in our country economically or socially.

It was during those 10 to 11 years on the board of directors of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce that we fought so aggressively to ensure that we got the country out of deficit and started to pay down our debt. That was our number one priority and our number one focus.

In 2000, we were able to turn our focus, because the Liberal government at the time had done such a fine job of addressing that concern and of realizing, before the International Monetary Fund came into our country, which was threatened in the 1990s, that it had to solely focus on getting down that deficit and debt. We were much better off as a country then. We could put investments where we could not put investments before.

In 2000, we started to focus on bringing down the corporate tax rate. I do not think there is a person who does not recognize that having a competitive tax regime for business is very important. We all agreed with that. From 2000 to 2004, when the Liberals were still in power, they escalated the lowering of that corporate tax rate. It is so important today.

Six years before I was on the board of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, I sat on the St. John's Board of Trade and I rose to become president of the board. In my discussions today, I look at what we are doing in this country through the lens of business. I understand and have a business background so everything I say today is understanding the role that business plays, the role that small business plays and the role that corporate Canada plays. They play a significant role in creating the jobs. They are the job creators, absolutely.

I started to talk about the Liberal Party track record. It is truly an economic track record. As I said, in the 1990s the Liberals swapped Conservative deficits for surpluses. It was a lot of hard work. We had to ask the people of our country to work very hard to do that and it was not easy. We retired the deficit and we began paying down the national debt, saving taxpayers millions upon millions of interest payments that could be spent on pressing priorities for Canadians.

The Liberal government at the time also had a $3 billion contingency fund. A contingency fund is a buffer for when we get into a little bit a trouble and need extra money, such as when there is a flood or a fire in our country or we are in an economic downturn in a certain area. It was a rainy day fund and a very good thing to have.

When we were able to get the debt and deficit under control, we actually started to cut taxes, as I said. We went from 28% in 2000 to 21% four years later. Now fast forward through the Conservative government, and things are very different. We do not have surpluses; we are back in the same battle we had before with a $56 billion deficit. It is shameful.

There was a deficit then, but not the record $56 billion deficit we have today and not billions of dollars in deficit even before the economic downturn. Let me repeat that for those who do not understand we were there too. The Conservatives are apt to say that all of that money went toward turning around the economy, that it was important to reinvest in the economy. However, they had spent the coffers dry, the cupboards bare, before we were in a serious situation, before the economic downturn. Did the government have a $3 billion contingency fund to even help bridge that? No, it did not.

Here we are, faced with a difficult situation. Yes, we want a vibrant business community because it creates the jobs. I fully support and agree with that. At the time we were in good stead in 2006 just after the Liberal government, the Conservatives started to overspend. How much did they increase the size of government by in those few years? It was 40%. Can anyone imagine?

Federal program spending under Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin during his final year in power of 2005-2006 was $175 billion. By 2009-2010 under the Conservatives, it skyrocketed to $245 billion. It is unbelievable that they think they have a strong economic record.

Let me review that record. They overspent. They did not have a contingency fund. They spent us dry before we had an economic downturn. It is unbelievable. Now they have the dubious distinction of setting a record for Canada's largest ever deficit of $56 billion. It would not be a record I would want to hold.

Here it is, the deficit that the finance minister and Prime Minister said we would never have. They even knew at that point they were in serious trouble. Now they are asking Canadians to stay the course with them, that in five years' time they will retire that deficit. However, both the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who is completely non-partisan and completely answerable to this House, has said he is sorry but that they will not meet that budget target and we will not be deficit free in five years' time. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has been right every single time.

Let us also look at what the International Monetary Fund has said, because it has also estimated the deficit to be over $5 billion in five years' time. That does not quite square with what the Conservatives are telling Canadians. They are saying that in 2015-2016 we are going in surplus.

Whether you believe the PBO or the IMF, the point is that two out of three financial analysts are saying that the government will still be in deficit five years from now, and the Conservatives are saying, “Trust us, we will not be”. Well, “trust us, we will not be” is the same thing that the Prime Minister said about the deficit to begin with.

We also know from the Parliamentary Budget Officer there is going to be a structural deficit, which the Conservatives have put us in. That means we are continuing to spend more than we actually take in, even after the recession. We are now racking up debt at an astounding rate. That means we are going to be passing on that debt to our children.

In less than two years, the Conservatives have wiped out all of the hard work of Canadians to pay down the national debt by $105 billion. Since coming to power in 2006, the Conservatives have added $76.5 billion to the national debt.

I only have limited time, but my point is that in the good times it is absolutely important to bring down tax levels. I completely support that. Canada's tax rate is actually not bad in comparison with the other G7 countries. The following are 2009 figures, when we were at 19% and France was 34.43%; Italy at 27.5%; Japan at 30%; the United Kingdom at 28%; and the United States at 35%.

What I am saying is let us just place a hold on lowering tax rates for the most wealthy businesses in our country. These are businesses that make over $500,000 a year. They make up a very small number, 5% of the 2.2 million companies in our country. That money should be reinvested in things that will work to drive Canada's productivity.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, there were an awful lot of inaccuracies in that particular speech, but I will focus on the last comments the member made.

She talked about our tax rates compared with the rest of the world's and about the G7. If she really looked at it, we are sitting in middle of the pack in terms of the OECD countries.

I ask her how she can think that our being in the middle of the pack of the OECD countries is competitive how it will actually entice businesses to come here and be job creators in Canada?

[Siobhan Coady, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I will use the words of my hon. colleague, “middle of the pack”.

Ireland has a corporate tax rate of 13% and cannot attract businesses to the country. It is having a very difficult time. We know that Ireland is in difficulty right now, we know that for a fact. It has a much lower tax rate than any of the other countries I used in comparison, but it is still unable to attract business because businesses are attracted to countries not only for their tax rates but also for their skills, manpower and other favourable environments, all of which we must have.

I could turn the question back to my hon. colleague. On things like SR&ED, if we want to drive innovation in our country, we really need to address some of the issues with regard to the scientific research and experimental development grants. I am going to talk about productivity when talking about having to drive innovation. We have a widening productivity gap, which lowering tax rates is not necessarily going to address; it is a more fulsome issue. If she had read Red Wilson's report on competitiveness, she would have seen that he talked about our needing to take a more holistic approach to drive productivity.

What we need to do now is to press the pause button on these tax cuts and look at other ways to generate a better environment for businesses, which could be through SR&ED or an accelerated capital cost allowance. These are some other ways we could help businesses in our country. We also have to remember that small business actually drives the numbers of job creators in this country, not necessarily large business.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member and others have mentioned Ireland's 12.5% corporate tax rate. The fact of the matter is that Ireland is practically in bankruptcy right now. It was successful for a number of years and attracted companies basically in a race to the bottom in the corporate tax area and we have seen the final result: a country with huge debts that it cannot pay at this point.

My point regarding the member's speech is that less than a year ago, the Liberals were singing a different tune. Less than a year ago, they were supporting tax reductions. They have been keeping the government in power for the last two years and all of a sudden, just in the last few months, there has been an abrupt change. They might be able to fool members of the public who do not pay attention to debates in the House, but anybody who has been sitting here for the last year or two will know where the Liberals were just a few months ago.

Why the sudden change? Did the leader wake up and look in the mirror one day or did a polling company contact the Liberal Party to say that it had to make a 100% change in its position on corporate taxation? Why have Liberals gone from being pro tax reductions for big corporations to making a total about-face and now not wanting the tax reductions to take place? Why?

[Siobhan Coady, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question because it gives me an opportunity to restate something. It is about priorities. I have said that I spent 15 years during the 1990s and early 2000s trying to battle the debt and deficit of this country because they were driving business and economic uncertainty into our future.

I would say the following. Of course the Liberals support lower taxation. We do support lower taxation. At this point in time, our priorities are to ensure that we address the debt and deficit of our country, which have been driven up by the Conservatives, as well as to address some of the other concerns we have. There are 75% of Canadians without a private pension plan. There is a horrible situation with regard to affordable housing, as there is not enough of it in our country. Family care provisions are very much required to ensure that we take care of our loved ones when they are ill.

There are many priorities to ensure that the families in our country are able to take care of each other. That is what is important right now: to address the debt and deficit and to take care of one another.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will start by framing my comments on this particular motion today and perhaps at the same time answer the earlier question posed by the member for Elmwood—Transcona.

I will steal the words of the famous British economist, the economist whose theories and ideas have, for the most part, shaped a lot of modern financial policy in successful countries around the world, John Maynard Keynes, who said:

When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?

If Mr. Keynes had maybe addressed that question to our current Prime Minister and to the finance minister, their answer would have been, “Well, regardless of the facts, we are going to implement our ideologically driven agenda.”

I think that would probably be their answer to that question, because the facts have changed. They have changed considerably since 2007. I know that the current government and the finance minister in particular have trouble picking up on some trends and some of the trend lines, not just nationally but also globally.

We know that prior to the last election the Prime Minister had stated the country's finances were in great shape, in good order, and that we were going to have a surplus. We went into a national federal election and the tune changed a little bit, as it was then going to be a balanced budget. By the time the fall update came out, it was going to be a small deficit.

What we and all Canadians know now is that what we have received under the guidance of the government is a record amount of debt, a $58 billion deficit currently. That goes toward the accrued debt, which further handcuffs the federal government from making any kind of investment to better the lot of Canadians.

The government is driven by tax cuts and is trying to sell Canadians on life being better with tax cuts and on government being able to influence behaviour by cutting taxes. We have not seen any truth to that.

There are two cases in particular. One they put forward was the tax cut for registering our sons and daughters in sport in this country. The government said that would lead to an onslaught in participation and a noticeable spike in the participation numbers in this country.

That has not happened. The growth rates of sport in this country have continued to be gradual in many sports, just continuing to climb somewhat. We have seen no discernible spike because of that tax cut. We saw more of a spike back in 2003. That could probably be attributed to the gold medal the women's hockey team won in Salt Lake City. The women brought home the gold and motivated the next generation of young female athletes.

We said at that time when the government was putting forward those tax cuts that we should invest in facilities and leaders and coaches to give the young people an opportunity to go out and participate in a quality experience. That is what would motivate Canadians to take part in sport and lead to a healthier lifestyle. However, the government went with the tax cuts and missed the mark on that.

Let us talk about child care. We all know the story on child care. I believe the government was going to create 150,000 new child care positions with its tax cut for child care, which amounts to about $70 a month. That one is an easy one to tabulate, because I think the number of spaces created was a grand total of zero.

The tax cuts are not working. We are not opposed to corporate tax cuts, but this certainly is not the time to proceed with $3 billion in corporate tax cuts.

It is time to invest in Canadians. So many Canadians are experiencing hardship right now. If any of the 308 members of the House have not dealt with this issue in their constituency, then they should consider themselves fortunate.

Seniors in this country are against corporate tax cuts. They are having a tough time. They have to decide whether to fill their cupboards, fill their oil tanks, or fill their prescriptions. No Canadian senior should be put in that situation.

We need to invest in our seniors. Seniors give money back to their communities thereby giving back to the economy. Some of the pressure and anxiety on our seniors right now would be relieved if we invested in them.

Between 2005 and 2009 the number of Canadian seniors living in poverty increased by 25%. As lawmakers in this country we have to pay attention to that stark number.

Canadian families are finding it hard. Canadians want to receive extended care in their homes. These are quality of life issues. There are economic benefits to keeping people in their homes longer. Canadians want to help out. The facts show that a greater number of Canadians are having trouble with this.

A study was done by the Canadian Cancer Society. It was not a push poll, which the government likes to do when it wishes a desired outcome. The numbers that were brought forward in the study were very revealing. The study showed that 22% of Canadian families have been involved in unpaid caregiving. It also showed that 41% of Canadian families used their own personal savings to provide care to a family member and encountered financial hardship because of that. Sixty-five per cent of caregivers earn under $45,000 a year. I do not know how they do it. It amazes me. Almost 30% of those caregivers experienced financial difficulty and 30% said they could not afford to take time off work.

If we are looking at quality of life for the people who built our communities, built our country, then we should be looking at investing in seniors, investing in families. That is where we should be going.

I have said before, and it was well articulated by my colleague from St. John's South—Mount Pearl, that our party has no ideological opposition to tax cuts for corporations. Between 1998 and 2005 we were able to bring corporate taxes down from 29% to 21%, and that was substantive. That was a period of time when we saw balanced and surplus budgets.

Before that we made tough decisions. We made the necessary cuts. We invested in other areas such as research and development. We helped grow the economy and brought the unemployment rate down. We put money into a prudence account to pay down the debt. The Liberal Party did those things first and then went forward with corporate tax cuts.

We in the Liberal Party are not opposed to corporate tax cuts. What we are opposed to is corporate tax cuts at this moment.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is tough to hear the hon. member talk about making the tough decisions when we all know that the Liberals balanced the budgets on the backs of the provinces, on health care and social spending. That is how they actually did it. But now it is starting to crystallize what the actual plan of the Liberal Party is. The Liberals are opposed to big business since this government outlawed fundraising from big business because we know that is where their money came from. They are so opposed to big business that they want to tax them into becoming smaller and smaller. That is the Liberal agenda, to throw hundreds of thousands of Canadians out of work.

Of course the member needs to be reminded that it was this party that actually brought in free trade. It was this party that ended structural deficits in the early 1990s. It was this party that allowed income splitting. It was this party that paid down $40 billion worth of debt in advance of the economic downturn. It was this party that ended the manufacturers' sales tax. It was this party that reduced the GST from 7%, to 6%, to 5%. It was this party that has done everything that has allowed the Canadian economy to be one of the best economies.

My question for the member is this. If the Liberals are flip-flopping yet again on this, how can Canadians trust anything that they have to say? They flip-flopped on day care. They flip-flopped on the Canadian armed forces. They flip-flopped on the economy. They--

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. The hon. member for Cape Breton—Canso.

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

Madam Speaker, he just left out that it was that party which was referred to as the party that drove Canada into a third world nation because of the financial mess that it left in 1993. That is a fact that cannot be argued.

The Conservatives said they changed the fiscal framework of this country. They certainly did. We have a $58 billion deficit this year.

I do not know how we are going to dig out of this one because they have changed the field. The reality is different now and the field has been changed. It was difficult in 1995, when we sent 45,000 civil servants home. The Conservative Party said we did not go deep enough, but now the member says the cuts were harsh.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. Order. I would like all members to know that I will not recognize those who persist in making comments and asking questions when they have not been asked to.

The hon. member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour.

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

Madam Speaker, a couple of months ago a constituent told me of a circumstance that I think of today. He and his family started saving for a vacation a few years ago. It was going to be their 25th anniversary. They put money away. They planned it over three or four years. When it was time for the vacation, the wife had lost her job in the Conservative recession. They had to change their plans. Would it have made sense for them to go on vacation, even though they had saved up for it, even though they planned for it?

It is the same thing that my colleague referred to, in terms of events changing.

I wonder if he would comment on that. Does it make sense to continue with the plan? It may have been very prudent in 2007 before we were hit with the recession. However, like families, we have to make decisions. The decision that we have made is this is not affordable at this time. It does not make sense at this time. It does not invest in Canadian families the way Canadian families would like.

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

Madam Speaker, the question nails the issue perfectly. If the roof is leaking, if the windows are whistling, if the basement is crumbling, it is not the time to put in a swimming pool.

Again, the facts are there. The history is there. Through the corporate tax cuts that have taken place in the past, we have made Canada an attractive place to invest, an attractive place to do business and grow business. Most Canadians understand and support Canadian corporations, but this is not the time. There are too many Canadians who are tightening their belts. There are too many Canadians who are up against it, who are having trouble just getting by week to week, paycheque to paycheque. This is not the time to go forward with these tax cuts.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

I am thankful for the opportunity to speak today against the tax and spend Liberals' latest attack on job creators with a motion calling for punishing new taxes. I really appreciate this opportunity to share some important information with Canadians.

First, let me state that one of my main concerns as the member for Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar is keeping families strong and secure. We all know one of the best ways to make that happen is to ensure there are good quality jobs and a strong local economy.

The global economy has been going through some very rough times lately as we have come through the worst recession since the 1930s. I am proud that our Conservative government has worked tirelessly over the past few years on improving the economy to help create and protect jobs.

At the centre of this effort was Canada's economic action plan, a massive $60 billion response to the global recession and a plan coordinated with provincial and territorial governments across Canada.

I encourage Canadians to visit www.actionplan.gc.ca to learn more about it, including all the great work and exciting job-creating projects that are benefiting many areas.

The plan has proved effective and actually helped Canada come through the recent worldwide economic recession in better shape than most of the industrialized world. Indeed, since July 2009, Canada has created over 460,000 net new jobs, far and above the strongest job growth in the G7 countries.

As an editorial in my local newspaper, the Saskatoon StarPhoenix proclaimed:

But [the Prime Minister] and the government deserve credit for getting such a massive undertaking underway in a timely fashion and, in spite of complaints from opposition benches...the program was balanced and effective.

This backs a recent study done by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development that complimented Canada for its stimulus program and for navigating the troubled waters of the global downturn better than almost any other developed nation...Canada stepped up quickly this time and, by doing so, was able to avoid the worst of the short-term damage from the recession... the current administration can take a bow for the effectiveness of its stimulus program.

We know the global economic recovery is still very fragile and too many Canadians are still looking for work. That is why our Conservative government is staying focused on the economy and that means helping create even more jobs for Canadians.

One way we are strengthening the economy and helping create jobs is making Canada a low-tax environment.

First, we lowered taxes for hard-working Canadians, everything from lowering personal income taxes, increasing the amount Canadians earn tax-free, lowering the GST from 7% to 5%, creating the tax-free savings accounts and much more.

Additionally, we removed over one million low-income Canadians completely from the tax rolls. In total, since forming government in 2006, we have helped typical families by putting $3,000 back in their pockets where it belongs.

Ensuring Canadians keep more of their hard-earned money in their local economy instead of a big government in Ottawa helps keep households strong and supports their local economies.

Second, we lowered taxes for Canadian businesses both small and large. This helps entrepreneurs and businesses to create jobs for Canadians. Lowering taxes for these job creators means they keep more of their money to grow their business and hire more Canadians.

As the Liberal member for Kings—Hants once noted in the House:

There is no better tax reform in terms of its ability to attract investment and improve productivity, prosperity and the standard of living than corporate tax reform--

Some politicians, like the Liberal leader, say lower taxes are not what Canada needs. They want to go back to the era of big spending and big taxing government of the 1960s and 1970s. Who is going to pay for that big government spending in Ottawa?

Members may have guessed, it would be everyday Canadians through higher and higher taxes.

I do not believe that families in Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar should be forced to send more of their hard-earned money to Ottawa, neither do the job creators in my home province.

Let me share with the House what the Saskatchewan Chamber of Commerce, which represents nearly 1,000 businesses in my province, had to say. It said:

The Chamber...is extremely disappointed to see that the issue of planned business tax reductions, and the ability of Canada's businesses to foster sustainable economic growth, has become hostage to political manoeuvring...

Following through on the business tax reduction agenda is critical to moving from government- and Canadian taxpayer-funded stimulus to a private sector-led recovery. The Saskatchewan Chamber of Commerce believes improving the business climate to trigger private sector investment is the most significant economic issue now confronting Canada....

The alternative to that, of course, is an increase in taxes. We do not believe raising taxes would be good for growth or employment. Sustainable growth requires private sector investment that can generate new jobs and federal revenues to pay down the deficit....

If parliamentarians renege on their commitment to continue with promised tax decreases, you can be certain that many businesses will not be able to pursue their plans...

Businesses across the country have invested with the understanding that taxes would decline. A sudden change of course would constitute a broken promise to thousands of businesses and the many people they have employed based on that promise.

We agree with the Saskatchewan Chamber of Commerce and job creators right across Canada. That is why we are fighting back against the Liberal tax hike plan. Our Conservative government believes that lower taxes are a key part of a plan to make our economy stronger and create good long-term jobs for today and for our kids tomorrow.

Recent independent third-party studies have supported that view. For instance, University of Calgary professor Jack Mintz, one of Canada's most respected academics, released a study showing that hundreds of thousands of jobs would be created by lowering business taxes.

The Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters also recently released a major report confirming that lower business taxes would mean more jobs and would increase the per capita income of Canadian workers by nearly $900.

Newspapers, politicians and businesses worldwide are noticing that Canada is a great place to invest and create jobs. That is good news for our economy and Canadian families.

The facts are clear. Canada has weathered the global economic recession better than most, and we are doing it with the help of our low tax plan. Hiking taxes and moving back to the failed era of big spending government, like the Liberal leader is pushing for, would mean hundreds of thousands of good Canadian jobs would be lost. That would only hurt and jeopardize the financial security of hard-working Canadian families.

If the Liberals do not believe what I have to say or what the businesses in Saskatchewan have to say, maybe they should listen to one of their own.

The member for Kings—Hants said that a country like Canada could not afford to have higher capital taxes, higher taxes on investment and ultimately on productivity and higher corporate taxes. He said:

—we cannot increase corporate taxes without losing corporate investment. If we lose corporate investment, we have a less productive economy....That means fewer jobs. That means more poverty.

Canadian families do not want more poverty, they cannot afford higher taxes and they surely cannot afford politicians, like the Liberal leader, trying to kill jobs.