House of Commons Hansard #149 of the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was economy.
Mark Adler Conservative York Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, our Prime Minister has met with the premiers approximately 250 times since 2006. That is a record that will stand in perpetuity.
What is ironic is that the leader of the member's own party refuses to meet with the western premiers and will meet with only those premiers who agree with him, which I suspect is a smaller and smaller group as days go on.
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak to the motion presented today by the leader of my party:
That this House acknowledge that the Canadian economy is facing unprecedented risk and uncertainty; recognize that many regions and industries across Canada have already suffered significant job losses in recent years; urge all levels of government to work together to build a balanced, 21st century Canadian economy; and insist that Canada's Prime Minister meet with his counterparts in Halifax this November at the National Economic Summit being held by the Council of the Federation.
I suppose we could call it a bland motion, or what people like to call a no-brainer, something that we can all agree upon: co-operative federalism in working together to solve the economic problems of the country. This is not something new to Canada. What is new, of course, is that the last time the Prime Minister met with the premiers was in November 2008. The 256 meetings he is talking about—perhaps with individual premiers at photo ops, on election platforms, or who knows where—are not what we are talking about here. We are talking about the premiers of this country who met in July in Halifax and sent an invitation to the Prime Minister to meet them in November to talk about the economic future of the country. I do not know what is so wrong with that.
The premiers' concern about maintaining a strong and growing economy in Canada is a top priority. They are concerned about the weak economic growth with our trading partners and the need to adapt to the growing strength of several economies. They called upon the Prime Minister to meet with them in November, and what we seem to be getting over here is a resounding no, that Conservatives will not meet with the premiers at their request to talk about the future of the economy. That is very surprising. Maybe they want to shy away from some of the facts. The fact of the matter is that when they took power, we had a trade surplus of $25 billion. Now we have a trade deficit of over $50 billion, a slide of some $75 billion under their watch. They continue to brag about being focused on jobs and the economy, yet we have in excess of 300,000 fewer jobs now than before the recession, and that is over a period of four years.
The member for York Centre said a few moments ago that the Conservatives had a plan for economic growth. They had no plan in 2008 when they were elected at the beginning of this crisis. There was no crisis, according to them. There was no crisis, they had no plan and they almost lost office because of it. That is the kind of economic record the government has for economic leadership. It was forced into trying to respond to the economic crisis after it was in denial for several months and throughout an election period.
Why does the government need to meet with the premiers? The premiers have problems of their own. The premier of Newfoundland and Labrador is faced with an unemployment rate that is more than 5% higher than the national average, at 12.7% to be exact, from the latest figures in August from the Newfoundland & Labrador Statistics Agency. The youth unemployment rate in Newfoundland and Labrador is over 20%. That is a shocking statistic.
The motion refers to uncertainty in the economic future. Housing starts in Newfoundland and Labrador are down this year and projected to be down for a further two years, despite a rise in 2010.
We have uncertainty about the oil and gas future in Newfoundland and Labrador in terms of production. Production is going down and a new oil production field at Hebron is not coming into play until 2016-17. These oil production declines are causing economic uncertainty in Newfoundland and Labrador.
We have seen significant job losses in fish plants in Marystown. This fish plant has operated successfully for decades. Port Union has seen permanent job losses, with no replacements in sight.
These are economic uncertainties that seek solutions and co-operation from the Government of Canada and the premier of the province.
Our leader today spoke about the job losses in the manufacturing sector across the country, half a million job losses that have not been attended to by the government.
The member for York Centre talked about how the OECD praised Canada's economic performance. Let us look a little deeper into what the OECD had to say about Canada.
Peter Jarrett, the head of the Canada division at the OECD economic department, had this to say, “Canada is blessed with abundant natural resources”. We would agree. We have them in Newfoundland and Labrador in mining, the fishery and offshore oil and gas. Forestry and mining is throughout the country. Out west we have the oil and gas. He continued to say, “but it needs to do more to develop other sectors of the economy if it is to maintain a high level of employment and equitable distribution of the fruits of growth”. All members of Parliament should be paying attention and listening to that statement.
That is where we are coming from. Our leader has said this. We want prosperity in Canada, but we want prosperity for all. We want the positive benefits of economic activity, natural resources and employment to be spread around. Let there be an equitable distribution of the fruits of our resources and growth.
That is why it is important to meet with the premiers of our country who represent all the various regions in their provinces. We have to listen to what they have to say. We have to listen to their ideas, respond to their concerns about their regions and the employment and economic needs of their regions. What we need is a balanced economy and we will not get that if the Prime Minister wants to go it alone without consulting with other leaders.
Members opposite have thrown disdain on meeting with the premiers.
I heard someone over there say that it would be just a photo op. We have these economic summits with the G8 and the G20 and what do we see on TV? We see a big photo op, a very expensive photo op. Nevertheless the leaders have their picture taken together. What can we expect? However, that is not the purpose of the meetings and neither is that the purpose of meeting with the premiers. To show that kind of disdain for the premiers is to show a shocking level of arrogance on the part of the Government of Canada, not economic leadership.
We need real leadership from the government. We need a government that listens to other people, one that listens to the legitimate concerns that have been raised about an economy that may be performing in some respects reasonably well but showing serious uncertainties for the future and an unbalanced economy with respect to manufacturing versus resource extraction and a failure to recognize that we need to ensure that everyone in all regions of the country gets to participate in a more equitable way in the products of our economic activity and employment.
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Mr. Speaker, the remarks of the member for St. John's East are well-thought out. I especially agree with his points on the growing inequity within Canada and the need for a first ministers meeting.
When the premiers made the request in June, they thought it through. They did not ask to meet the Prime Minister on areas of disagreement they had, which may be equalization and some other areas. They asked the Prime Minister to meet on the economy and trade, areas which are important to all Canadians.
There is nothing like having the whole group of first ministers come together and bounce ideas, from all political perspectives, off one another and come up with a plan. The premiers know at their level that the spin they are getting from the government on trade, as the member for St. John's East mentioned, is just that, spin.
We have had the biggest July trade deficit in the history of recording of trade deficits. Under the government's watch, our trade deficit has been increasing consistently, even though the minister travels the world.
Those are important points, and I agree with the member. Could he expand his views on real activities on trade versus—
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Mr. Speaker, I will note, as I am sure the hon. member is well aware, that in his province, the unemployment rate is 11.7%. That shows again the inequitable nature of the distribution of employment and opportunities across the country.
It is not surprising that his premier, Premier Ghiz, along with Premier Dunderdale and the others, would want to meet with the Prime Minister to discuss ideas as to how to resolve some of these economic issues. Part of the role in a federation like ours is that there be the kind of co-operation, particularly, as the member points out, when they are not here to pick a fight. They want to work together. We have a Prime Minister who says that the government will not to co-operate with the provinces, that it will not sit down and talk about how to solve some of the underlying problems in our economy, and that is a shame.
Opposition Motion—Canadian EconomyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
Newmarket—Aurora Ontario
Conservative
Lois Brown ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation
Mr. Speaker, I find it a little hypocritical when the opposition wants to talk about trade.
I would first highlight an article that was in last week's Economist, which talked about international trade: “The IMF, for example, thinks that trade will grow by 5.1% in 2013 on the back of a strengthening economy”. Although the article itself in total is not positive about trade, it sees there is expansion for 2013.
Recently, the IMF said, “The 188-country organization expects Canada’s economy will grow modestly, by 2.1% this year and 2.2% next year – virtually unchanged from the IMF's forecast in April”.
Our government has put forward a very pro-trade forecast for what we want to see happen. If the New Democrats are so interested in trade, could the member please tell me why they oppose every trade agreement we try to negotiate?
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Mr. Speaker, there is a difference between supporting trade and supporting particular agreements that do not meet the needs of Canadians.
Assuming the government was doing a great job on all these trade agreements, why are we $75 billion worse off in trading now than when the it took power? These trade agreements themselves cannot be very effective if they are putting us into a tailspin in economic trade.
We are suggesting the government is failing to do what it says it is planning to do. We support international trade. Otherwise we would not be complaining about the trade deficit that the government has been running up ever since it has been in power.
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to the NDP's opposition motion, which states:
That this House acknowledge that the Canadian economy is facing unprecedented risk and uncertainty; recognize that many regions and industries across Canada have already suffered significant job losses in recent years; urge all levels of government to work together to build a balanced, 21st century Canadian economy; and insist that Canada's Prime Minister meet with his counterparts in Halifax this November at the National Economic Summit being held by the Council of the Federation.
It is unbelievable that we are forced to table a motion in the House of Commons calling on the Prime Minister of Canada to meet with the provincial premiers. In my memory, this is the first time that a Canadian prime minister has travelled so much to meet with foreign prime ministers and presidents. He spends his time everywhere except Canada. Sometimes we have to wonder whether he truly wants to be Prime Minister of Canada.
The Prime Minister is more interested in meeting at the G20, G8, G7 and all the other meetings except meeting with the premiers of our country who represent every Canadian across the country. My province has economic problems and it is not going that well.
When the Conservatives say that they have created 770,000 jobs, they are not talking about the fact that we lost 430,000 jobs. They are not talking about Canada Post laying off people in Fredericton, New Brunswick at the call centre and then opening a centre in Bathurst, paying workers $12 an hour with no benefits at all. The Conservatives are not talking about those jobs. The workers lost all their benefits and Conservatives are not talking about that. They are not talking about the closure in New Brunswick of VIA Rail service three days a week from Halifax to Montreal. They are not talking about CN wanting to remove the rails in 2014.
The Conservatives do not talk about that. They do not talk about the 430,000 jobs lost in Canada. They do not talk about the cheap-labour jobs created or the people who have lost their benefits and pension funds.
What did workers in this country do to be hated so much by the Conservatives?
The Conservatives do not meet with workers, but instead pass all kinds of laws that hurt all of the organizations that provide benefits to workers.
They are not talking about cutting VIA Rail service by three days a week in northeastern New Brunswick, between Halifax and Montreal, or about CN's plans to remove the railway tracks between Moncton and Bathurst.
What will happen to economic development in the regions if the best infrastructure needed for economic development is eliminated? What are we to make of cuts to employment insurance that will force workers to accept jobs that pay 70% of what they normally earn?
The government says that it is a pilot project to encourage people to work. They had the nerve to send a letter to workers informing them that if they earn $450 a week while receiving EI benefits, they will receive $225 in benefits.
However, what they do not mention is that if a person earns $80 a week for eight hours of work at $10 an hour—the minimum wage—$40 will be deducted. The person will receive $5 an hour less than the minimum wage. That is what they will receive. It was this government that introduced this bill that does not help the economy or workers.
Employers have told me that they would call people to work one day a week when they needed their services. Now these workers are telling them that they do not want to go to work because they do not want to be paid $5 an hour. That is what the Conservative government has put in the Employment Insurance Act.
Take the example of Canada Business - New Brunswick, an organization that supports regional economic development in New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Nova Scotia with 60% funding from ACOA. The Conservatives cut all funding. They cut the 60% to Canada Business—New Brunswick. How can there be economic development when ACOA, which is supposed to support regional economic development, had budget cuts of $18 million?
Furthermore, our premiers have asked to meet with the Prime Minister of Canada and the answer is no. What an insult to the premiers of our provinces. They want to meet with the national leader to find solutions.
The Conservatives just said that the NDP is against free trade, against trade with foreign nations. We do not oppose all agreements with other countries.
What we are saying is that we do not believe in free trade; we believe in fair trade. That is what has to be negotiated. It has to be fair, not just open to sending our jobs to other countries and getting nothing back.
In New Brunswick three pulp mills have closed in Miramichi, Bathurst and Dalhousie. The whole fishery has gone down the tubes. Why can we not have a secondary industry, such as processing, and keep the jobs at home? Instead of having free trade and sending our fish to Japan, why can we not process the fish here at home? Instead of sending our logs to Finland, why can we not do secondary processing of our wood and keep the jobs at home? Why can we not do that? Why can we not work together?
The Prime Minister has said that he is not going to meet with the premiers of the provinces. That is a shame. The Conservative members of Parliament should talk to their leader and tell him that the premiers want to meet with him.
There are eight Conservative members of Parliament from New Brunswick. They know that the premier of New Brunswick wants to meet with the premiers of all the provinces. What are they telling the Prime Minister? Are they telling him that the premier would like to meet with him and the other premiers, or are they just following suit and not saying anything, because their captain, the Prime Minister, has said no? Are they scared of being disciplined? What is the problem? Are they worried?
This is the first Prime Minister I have seen who hates workers. When Canada Post was going to give its workers an increase of 2%, the Prime Minister introduced a bill in the House to bring the increase down to 1.5%, and all the Conservatives voted with him. Those workers already had a promise from their employer that they would receive 2%.
I really hope the Prime Minister will change his mind. Instead of having meetings just with world leaders, I hope he will also have meetings with the premiers of our country. Is he ashamed? Is he shy? Is he ashamed of the leaders in our country? Is he worried about his image? Is he worried that they will say something bad about him? Is he worried that people will tell him that they do not agree with him? Is that what he is worried about?
I hope that members will vote in favour of our motion and tell the Prime Minister to be polite and to meet with the premiers of the provinces. He should meet with them. It is the right thing to do as the leader of our country. He is the leader of Canada, not the leader of the world. He should have that meeting out of respect.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier, the Liberal caucus will be voting in favour of the motion because we have long believed there is a great deal of benefit when a prime minister recognizes the need to meet with the premiers in order to achieve consensus and build our country. An excellent example of that is the health accord, to which I made reference earlier, which was a 10-year pact which in essence provided long-term funding.
The question I have for the member is one of consistency. He said what an insult it is to the premiers when the Prime Minister refuses to meet with them. How does he contrast with his own leader, the leader of the New Democratic Party, who refused to meet with premiers based on his allegations about natural resources taking away jobs from eastern Canada, pitting different regions of Canada against each other? Then as the leader of the New Democratic Party he in essence accused the premiers of being lapdogs to the Prime Minister. How does he reconcile his position in this motion?
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Mr. Speaker, if anyone has pitted one region against another, it is the Conservative Party and the Prime Minister. He could have done something good for the Atlantic region instead of saying that we are a bunch of people who do not want to work. Government ministers rise here, in public, and say that the people down home prefer to go on EI and go hunting instead of working, and that people should have their grade 12 to go on employment insurance. If the Conservatives would stop making those insulting comments, maybe we would not be as divided as we are.
Instead of bringing unity to our country, the Prime Minister is dividing us. He is the one who is doing it. Instead of helping our country and helping people get jobs, we are losing all our jobs down east. It is not fun to see what is happening. Our people have to go out west to find work and earn a living while we are losing jobs down home. He has a job to do to bring unity. He is the Prime Minister.
Kyle Seeback Conservative Brampton West, ON
Mr. Speaker, I find it very curious that the member would stand and say not to be divisive and try to lecture to the members on this side and our great Prime Minister when Mr. Mulcair refused to--
The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin
Order. I remind the hon. member not to use the given names of other members of this place.
Kyle Seeback Conservative Brampton West, ON
Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition refused to meet with the premiers of Alberta, British Columbia and Saskatchewan after he talked about Dutch disease. He said he would not meet with them because they are just messengers. Is that the message of unity the member is trying to lecture to us about?
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister of our country refused to have a meeting with all the premiers, is that respect for the people of our country? The Prime Minister was elected, not with 38% of the vote as he says, but with 22%, because 38% of 60% of people who voted makes 22%. He was asked by all the premiers of the country. He did not say no to one. He did not say no to two. He said no to every one of them. We are asking him as the Prime Minister of the country to meet with the premiers.
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the enthusiasm of my colleagues, including my colleagues across the way.
I appreciate the opportunity to talk about this issue. Right off the bat it seems interesting that we are here today, especially after what we have heard from provincial leaders and the Chamber of Commerce in relation to some of the remarks that the NDP leader made before the session closed for the summer.
I take issue with the NDP leader's non-stop bashing and talking down of the Canadian economy. As I and many Canadians know, the stock market and the confidence of consumers are based on the confidence of the leaders. That gentleman wants to lead the country. He is applying for the job of prime minister. I think that a person who is mature enough to recognize what he needs to do for the country would also be mature enough not to downgrade our economy and not pit one part of the country against another, or province against province. It is not helpful at all.
I would suggest that as a result of his negative comments our stock markets have been affected. I cannot see how they could not be affected. People invest as a result of confidence in their leaders and confidence in the economy. Our country is a world leader when it comes to economic confidence, but that did not appear in the NDP leader's comments.
The global challenges that we face are real. The world is in an economic crisis, which we hope we will see the end of very soon. It has an impact on Canada. On this side of the House for the last five years we have been saying that Canada is certainly not immune to the financial burden it places on the other economies, especially with regard to the United States and the amount of trade that we do with it, as well as Europe and the amount of trade that we want to do with it. However, the opposition parties, the NDP in particular, are opposing free trade agreements even though there is an obvious net benefit to Canada and Canadians. We are trying to grow our economy through trade because that is simply the best way to do it, especially given our natural resources, our competitive advantages in farming and agriculture, and manufacturing and resource materials. We have a tremendous opportunity to be a world leader for many years when it comes to economic drivers and Canada's economy.
The leader of the NDP should step back and first apologize for degrading our economy and trying to pit one part of the country against another, province against province, the west against the east and the east against the west. It has been tried before. He should be ashamed of himself for doing that.
The facts are very substantive in relation to our performance over the last five or six years. Canada is the economic leader in the G7. In fact, we have heard many comments from world leaders about how well Canada's economy is doing and how others want to emulate our economy. Even the largest economies in the world have suggested that they want to emulate some of the steps that we have taken in Canada.
I want to mention three or four important facts before I get into the substantive part of my speech.
Since July 2009 we have had 770,000 net new jobs created, 90% of which are full-time jobs and 75% of which are in the private sector. Any economist will tell us that those are good fundamentals coming into a world economic crisis. This speaks to the steps we have taken in cutting our debt and stimulating our economy. This speaks volumes in relation to our government's control of the economy and our understanding of the economy and what we have done in relation to that.
On that note, I have been here for over eight years and I do not understand the position taken by the NDP in the past. I hope that it changes in the future.
Mr. Speaker, you may not remember but the New Democratic Party actually voted against Canada's economic action plan. Mr. Speaker, I see the look of surprise on your face. There was $45 billion of economic stimulus injected into the economy by this government over a period of some years and the NDP voted against that. It included things such as waste water treatment centres across the country to clean our water, the clean energy fund and the green infrastructure fund. Billions of dollars went into the economy to create jobs, for such things as green energy, roads and bridges, a better quality of life for Canadians. The NDP voted against those initiatives.
If the NDP had its way right now, Canadians need to recognize that we would not be in the great economic position we are in. We would be in a much different position. There would be unemployment lines and lineups for food. Quite frankly, we are the leader in the world right now as far as having the best economy, the best economic record, and the best employment rates overall.
Third, both the IMF and OECD project that Canada will be among the strongest in growth of the G7 in the future. It is not just the past or present, but it is projected into the future by two independent world economic forums and organizations that Canada is going to be number one in the future as well.
The list goes on, but those are three obvious fundamentals to our economy. Any economist can point to those things and judge an economy based on that performance.
I want to talk about some of the references that have been made by world leaders. The largest economy in the world, Germany, has lauded Canada, and I quote Chancellor Merkel:
Canada’s path of great budgetary discipline and a very heavy emphasis on growth and overcoming the crisis, not living on borrowed money, can be an example for the way in which problems on the other side of the Atlantic can be addressed. This is also the right solution for Europe.
I appreciate that from the Chancellor, from an independent person who has nothing to gain by applauding Canada's position, our economic fundamentals and the steps we have taken. She has said clearly to the world that we are doing the right job and that other countries in Europe in particular should follow suit. I think that is a great thing to say about our Prime Minister and cabinet and what they have been doing.
As I mentioned earlier, I think we do have a problem in this place. That problem is the Leader of the Opposition and his trying to pit one part of this country against another.
I lived through the national energy program in northern Alberta and saw the devastation that caused, not just to the economy of Alberta or the west but to the economy of the entire nation. I think he clearly needs to step back and reassess what he is doing and what his position is on these particular matters. Not only does it hurt our economic fundamentals but it also speaks to the separatist agenda. I am not prepared to step forward in any way and position in a positive light what the Leader of the Opposition is doing for this country. It is just not healthy nor beneficial.
I want to refer to a report put out in June by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. As most people in this place know, the Chamber of Commerce represents the business community of the country. The business community, through the chamber, wanted to talk about Canada and see whether it was suffering from Dutch disease. This is an article I read. However, this particular article says that the Leader of the Opposition, the NDP leader, is wrong about his assumptions of Canada's suffering from Dutch disease.
I also want to talk briefly about some of the benefits that the Canadian oil sands generate in economic benefits across the country. I will quote directly from page 7 of this report, which states:
TD Economics estimates increased exports of Canadian oil and investment in machinery and equipment and in infrastructure in the Canadian oil sands accounted for one-third of the economic growth in Canada in 2010 and 2011.
That is right, 33% of the economic growth.
I represent that area. Right now, I think that 99% of the oil sands are in my riding, the parts that are being extracted, which is one-third of the economic growth in 2010-11, which is no small effect to the Canadian economy.
The report goes on to say:
High levels of investment in the resource sector have led to strong demand for parts, machinery and equipment, fabricated metal and other durable goods, as well as for services—professional, technical and in finance and transportation, for example. Businesses across the country have benefitted from this increased demand, not just those in Western Canada. For example, one out of 12 oil sands manufacturers and suppliers are from the Kitchener-Waterloo region...
That is one out of twelve; one out of twelve are from Kitchener-Waterloo. The report goes on:
According to the Canadian Energy Research Institute (CERI), between 2010 and 2035, new oil sands projects are expected to contribute $63 billion to Ontario’s GDP.
That is speaking of the future and our economic performance in the future, and that is not Canada's GDP; that is Ontario's GDP. Clearly, it is a great future to look forward to.
Not only do we make sure we have economic performance and job growth in this country but we also make sure we take care of the environment, have environmental integrity and put that obligation on the resource sector in particular and on the businesses that are creating these issues.
However, the report from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce goes on to say:
Employment...as a result of new oil sands investments is projected to grow from 75,000 jobs in 2010 to 905,000 jobs in 2035.
I know that most scientists in northern Alberta and most companies are pessimistic. I can tell members that because I see what they do. They also under-project their figures, for the most part.
It is amazing that there will be 905,000 jobs in 2035. We are going to have a tremendous growth in the oil sands sector.
Indeed, I want to reiterate a couple of other things the report says.
The report quotes Pierre Duguay, the Deputy Governor of the Bank of Canada:
“From a macroeconomic point of view, the reallocation of resources is a sign of health...”
This is talking about Dutch disease, in particular, and is found on page 8 of the report:
“...is a sign of health, not disease — it is a sign of a vibrant, dynamic economy adjusting to significant shifts in demand by putting resources to their most profitable use.”
Mr. Duguay made that statement to the Canadian Association for Business Economics on August 28, 2006.
The report goes on to state:
As for the Netherlands, where the term “Dutch disease” was originally applied, “very little systematic and long-term net adverse consequences of natural gas development on the manufacturing sector were found.”
So, even his suggestion that the Dutch disease is working against the economy and the manufacturing sector in the Netherlands is a bogus claim. Clearly, our economy is doing extremely well.
I think what I would like to do, as well, is talk about some of the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition and about what our premiers have said in relation to them, because as I said, there have been attacks on western Canada by the Leader of the Opposition. He is trying to pit one part of the country against another. It has worked before for some previous leaders, but I think Canadians are sick and tired of that kind of situation and that kind of proposition, because we understand that it is one Canada and that we all speak with the same voice for the benefit of Canada.
Let us listen to what British Columbia Premier Christy Clark said of the Dutch disease and the campaign by the Leader of the Opposition, the leader of the New Democratic Party, against the natural resource sector. She said:
I really thought that this type of thinking was discredited and it had been discredited for a long time. It's so backwards...
She went on to say, “I think that's just goofy”.
What I hear him saying is, “you know Western Canada, we don't want you to make that big contribution anymore...”. I'm sorry, that is not what this country was built on.
The Premier of Saskatchewan, Brad Wall, declared that the NDP leader's “facts are wrong and what he's doing is very divisive for the country”.
Even my own premier, Alison Redford, who of course has to protect the interests of the province, is a premier who is new and understands the fundamentals of economics and certainly what this country is built on and how we are much better together, stronger than when we are separated. She declared, referring to the comments by the leader of the New Democratic Party:
To have this idea that you want to be a national leader, and then target a particular province or a particular resource that is fundamental to the economic development not only of Alberta, but Canada, is ridiculous, and I'm terribly disappointed.... It's not appropriate, and it's not based on a real understanding of either Alberta's role in Canada, or Canada's role in the world.
I myself can clearly see that this is an opportunity to try to divide to be better for himself. I think it is very negative for the country and it certainly does not befit a person who wants to lead the country and be the prime minister of all peoples of Canada. I think it is, quite frankly, an embarrassment and not a position that a national leader should take.
As members know, I do represent the oil sands. I have about 5,000 Quebeckers, for instance, in my riding and probably about 35,000 people from Newfoundland and Labrador in my riding. I have many people from Cape Breton, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. I talk to these people on the street, because I have lived in Fort McMurray for 45 to 46 years now. Originally when he got elected a year ago, people laughed because they thought some of the positions he took were a bit of a joke, saying that it was Dutch disease and trying to pit one part of the country against the other.
I explained to them that he is actually a leader who is sworn into the Privy Council. He is a leader who is actually brought in on the secrets of the country, able to make decisions on them and advise the Queen and the Prime Minister. He is an individual who leads a large caucus in this area. A big part of Quebec is obviously represented by that leader, and yet he wants to pit one part of the country against the other. Not only is it immature, quite frankly, but he and his party should seriously look at it as their strategy for the future, whether they want to go down that road, because the road has certainly been destroyed and I do not think any Canadians want to do that.
With the natural gas situation in British Columbia, oil and mining on the Prairies, the Ring of Fire in Ontario, Plan Nord in Quebec, the hydro power in Atlantic Canada and mining in Canada's north, Canada's resource sector presents greater potential to create even more jobs and more economic growth from today and into tomorrow, not just in Alberta and British Columbia but all across this great country of ours, whether it be northern Quebec, Ontario or, indeed, the Northwest Territories. We have a great opportunity to identify and make the world a better place.
Mr. Speaker, you were at the dinner in northern Alberta, in my riding of Fort McMurray—Athabasca, where almost $1 million was raised to send to Africa. It was very touching to see the oil sands companies and local businesses of all stripes come to the table and donate significant money for one dinner on one night and be able to send $1 million to Africa. I say that only because in the finance committee last year, I think it was October, I heard evidence from three or four different groups that the oil sands area I represent is the most generous area in Canada per capita. It donates more money per capita than anywhere else in Canada through the United Way and many other great groups. It was clear from listening to the witnesses that they appreciate what the people in Fort McMurray are doing. They do have great jobs and opportunities.
When I moved to Fort McMurray, there were 1,700 people. Today, there are more than 100,000 people. Those people are not from Alberta. The majority of them are from areas in Canada that are disadvantaged as far as jobs go. They are bringing their families to Fort McMurray and are staying. They have grandchildren there. They are building a much better part of the province. I very much enjoy them. They are bringing cultures from all over Canada, whether they be from the north or Newfoundland. I would suggest that my community has more people from Newfoundland and Labrador than anywhere else in the world. I spoke to a former premier from Newfoundland and Labrador yesterday, who said when he met me that Fort McMurray is the second largest town in Newfoundland. It is not actually in Newfoundland, but driving down the streets of Fort McMurray, people would think it is.
I am saying this because those people are looking for a new future. They see the gold rush. They see what can be brought in. The people going to Fort McMurray are going there for a better quality of life, and they send money home. I was told by one individual at one of the plant sites that the oil sands industry is the number one economic generator in Cape Breton, for instance, suggesting that somewhere around $6 million a week goes to Cape Breton from Fort McMurray oil sands workers who travel back and forth between the communities.
When I say back and forth, I want to emphasize that what is happening in northern Alberta is going to be happening across northern Quebec, northern Ontario, British Columbia and, of course, Newfoundland and Labrador. Canadians are going from one part of this country to the other to find jobs, to find a better quality of life and to find what their ancestors came to Canada for, which was to have a better quality of life. They want to make sure our government is concentrating on the economy and what is best for them, and that is exactly what we are doing.
I would ask the NDP leader to step up, stand up and apologize to the people of the west, Canada and Quebec for trying to pit one part of this country against the other. It is shameful.
Rosane Doré Lefebvre NDP Alfred-Pellan, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague opposite for his speech, even though I completely disagree with almost everything he said.
I have a very simple question for him. I do not know if he read the premise of today's motion, but what it is calling for is simply that the Prime Minister meet with the provincial premiers in Halifax in November.
First of all, why do the Conservatives not want to support this motion? Also, will the member give us a real answer, instead of simply insulting the Leader of the Opposition, and tell us the real reason the Prime Minister of Canada does not want to meet with the provincial premiers, all together, in November?
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Mr. Speaker, I assure the member that I know what our cabinet is doing. I know our parliamentary secretaries went to over 10 meetings this summer with individuals across the country to ensure that we get the message of Canadians, of provinces and of provincial leaders. That is why the Prime Minister and all of the cabinet meet regularly with premiers as is necessary. This is no surprise. We see these summits on TV. They are meeting constantly.
As a previous parliamentary secretary, I know that I was speaking to many cabinet ministers in Saskatchewan, British Columbia, Alberta, from time to time Ontario and other places, even the mayor of Montreal and cabinet ministers from the previous Quebec government. I met with those people regularly. Many of them had my cellphone number and they would call me.
I am certain that it is no different for cabinet ministers in this particular case because the business of the country is not done in one day a year. It is done on a consistent basis, 365 days per year. This is a government that listens to Canadians and acts in the best interests of Canadians on a consistent basis.
Sean Casey Liberal Charlottetown, PE
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to be able to pose a question for the member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca. Being from Prince Edward Island, I know many of the well-paying jobs for Islanders are also in Fort McMurray. Certainly the member referred to Newfoundlanders, but there are a fair number of Islanders there as well.
The member talked passionately about the strength and the potential in our country and in the various regions. Coming from an area as rich as Fort McMurray, I suppose it is easier to have such optimism. Here in the Liberal Party we believe in a prosperous Canada but a prosperity that is profoundly shared. I regret to say that we are not feeling that sharing in Prince Edward Island. Some of the other well-paying jobs that are actually in Prince Edward Island are in the civil service. When the government cut the civil service, it cut it by 5% across the country but 10% in Prince Edward Island.
My question for the member comes back to the motion. The speech was a very good speech about national unity and about not dividing the country. What is wrong with having the first ministers of this country in the same room to compare notes and to try to find solutions? What is wrong with bringing them all together? That is what the motion is about and that is what I would like to hear the member talk about.
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Mr. Speaker, I was not going to refer to the last time that a leader of this country pitted one part of the country against the other, but I will say it now. It was a previous Liberal leader. If members were in Alberta during the national energy program that the Liberals imposed on Alberta over our own resources, they would have found that it devastated not just communities but entire sectors of the province, and in particular Fort McMurray.
I was there at the time. There were about 600 businesses in Fort McMurray, but after the NEP came in there were two businesses left: a government-run monopoly of 649 tickets and my parents' business. It clearly says that under a Liberal regime businesses can only succeed if they are run by the cheapest people in the world, a.k.a. my parents who are great, hard-working people, or a government-run monopoly. That is the record of the previous Liberal government.
We are not going to pit one part of this country against another. We are going to work together on a consistent basis, not when they try to jiggle our chain to make us do it by some political motion in this place but on a consistent, day-to-day basis as we need to do from issue to issue. For the best interests of Canadians, for the best interests of the long-term economy of Canada, we are going to do that job. We are not going to take lessons from the Liberal government that pitted parts of this country against each other and ruined our economy in Alberta for 20 years.
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
Mr. Speaker, our Prime Minister has been named “world statesman of the year”. He has been declared “a champion of democracy, freedom and human rights”, so we do understand why the premiers would want to meet with him. However, he is doing even better. He is meeting with them one-on-one, and that is face time with a world statesman.
The member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca has articulated very well how the oil sands are contributing to the jobs, growth and future prosperity of Canada but I would like him to explain how the oil sands are helping pensioners across Canada.
Opposition Motion—Canadian EconomyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
September 20th, 2012 / 1:30 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Mr. Speaker, the member's question is very good because 25% of the Toronto Stock Exchange is made up of oil sands companies. The people who own those oil sands companies are teachers' pensions and pensions of seniors in many different sectors of the country. Those are the people who own the oil sands. They are doing very well by it.
I would like to answer the question in another way. I have been there a long time and those people who came from around Canada to work in Fort McMurray during the late 1970s and early 1980s are retiring now. Their children and grandchildren are staying in Fort McMurray and it is great news indeed. I have many friends who are 55 or 56 years old who are retiring with pensions of $3,500 or $4,000 a month after 20 years of service with some of the bigger plants such as Syncrude and Suncor. They have great pensions. Many of my friends now are travelling the world and coming back to Fort McMurray to visit their grandchildren.
Is that opportunity available in other parts of the country? Yes, it is, but clearly the oil sands has done very well for many people. Many middle-class lower income earners from around the country who were looking for a positive future came to the area 20 or 25 years ago, and they are coming to the area today. They are getting better pensions, a better return on investments for their stocks and a much better quality of life.
I say, come to Fort McMurray and work. It is a great place to start. It is a great place to have a family. It is a great place to live.
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca seems to have a rather selective memory since he comes from the same region as the Prime Minister, who, not all that long ago, described the Atlantic provinces as having a culture of dependence and talked about building a firewall around Alberta. We have no lessons to learn from this government on issues of national unity and how to create a balanced economy in this country.
I am a member of the Standing Committee on Finance alongside the member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca, and I found that interesting. We want to have national policies that help all Canadian industries, but the Conservatives seem to have forgotten a few things. One example is employment insurance. Last spring's reform has resulted in labour shortages in some regions. I completely understand the problem, which the member has explained several times.
But the changes hurt regions like mine, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, and the Atlantic provinces. Business people are telling me that they are going to lose skilled workers they trained themselves. These workers are leaving the region for various reasons related to the development of seasonal work, which still accounts for a significant number of jobs.
I would like the member to comment on the changes that were supposed to help the economy as a whole but are helping just some regions and hurting others. That is what the Conservatives have offered up to date.
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Mr. Speaker, I understand the member's concern but I would suggest that he do a bit of light reading. It is called the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, so the businesses in his area are represented by this group. It talks about whether Canada is suffering from Dutch disease and it speaks generally about the NDP's position and the leader's position. It says it very clearly. These are business people representing business people doing the job for him. I think he should do the job for himself.
I have a copy here and if he would like it, I would be happy to table it. It is very clear. It sets out what Canada's economy is doing and how great it is doing in every part of the country, how Quebec is benefiting from it, how Ontario is benefiting from it and how Atlantic Canada and Newfoundland and Labrador are benefiting from it.
Clearly, all of Canada is benefiting from the natural resource sector and I wish the member would take a copy of the report, read it and understand it.
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Mr. Speaker, I hope that the member will pay closer attention to the speech I am about to give than he did to the question I just asked him. I will be sharing my time with the member for Hull—Aylmer.
The motion has already been read in the House. We are asking the Prime Minister to show some leadership for once and meet with the premiers who are members of the Council of the Federation during a conference to be held this November in Halifax about how to address the economic uncertainty that Canada is still experiencing. Such proof of leadership is critical given that, contrary to what the government would have us believe, there has been very little communication between the federal government and the provinces and territories concerning economic issues.
The government can talk about individual meetings all it wants, but some issues need to be discussed and explored in depth by all of the regions together. Unfortunately, despite the promises it made in the past, the Conservative government has done nothing to make this happen. We think that this is critical to raising awareness of the flaws in the Conservatives' economic policy regardless of all of the claims they have made so far today and will likely continue to make for the rest of the day.
At the end of the day, the Conservatives did nothing and brag about being responsible for getting Canada through the last recession—even though things are still uncertain now—and for getting Canada through this period relatively unscathed in comparison to the global economy.
But according to most economists and analysts, this is not because of the policies they are implementing, but simply because of Canada's existing financial, economic and banking structures.
Before I continue, I will give some examples of bad Conservative economic policies, policies that represent opportunities the Canadian economy could have had if the right decisions had been made. I will start with their arrival to power in 2006. Members will recall that we had a budget surplus. During their first mandate, the Conservatives decided to reduce the GST by 2%. This was a political and economic move that they bragged about, even though economists said that it was probably the worst way to stimulate the economy. They did it. Since 2006, this has represented a dead loss for the Canadian treasury of between $8 billion and $10 billion a year, so nearly $60 billion overall.
But the Conservatives chose the worst way to invest this $13 billion surplus to best stimulate the Canadian economy. That is what economists told them. That is what we told them. And that is what everyone who knows a thing or two about economics told them.
I mentioned in one of my questions that for every dollar lost in GST revenue, the Department of Finance and most people who study the multiplier effect of such decisions are clear: only 30¢ is put back into the economy. This means that economic growth represents only 30¢ on the dollar of what we lose in revenue.
If the Conservatives truly wanted to effectively stimulate jobs, if they wanted to go in this direction by eliminating the surplus, they could have made other decisions. They could have invested in infrastructure. Canada has an infrastructure deficit of about $130 billion. If they had taken every surplus dollar and invested it in Canadian infrastructure, every dollar would have brought in $1.50 in economic growth. That would put us in the black.
If they had wanted to invest in housing, the return would have been $1.50 for each dollar invested in housing infrastructure. If they had wanted to take measures intended directly for the disadvantaged and the unemployed, the return would have been even better still: for each dollar invested in these measures for the least fortunate, the unemployed and the most disadvantaged people, $1.70 in economic growth would have been generated.
By lowering the GST, the government generated economic growth of 30¢ for each dollar lost. In addition, in terms of revenue from the tax on company profits, the economic growth is also 30¢ for each dollar eliminated or lost.
So the choices the Conservatives made are economic. They tried to justify them but, at the end of the day, instead of investing the $13 billion surplus in paying down the debt, they could have made better choices that would have done more for the Canadian economy.
The government's choices were not made in consultation with the provinces, even though this government and the members who have spoken so far are talking about great communication. It is a unilateral gesture.
I was talking about the $13 billion surplus that had been eliminated in a year and a half because the GST was lowered by two percentage points, among other things. We were in a deficit situation even before the recession, even before the economic stimulus packages. This government claims to be the appropriate manager of public finances. But it must realize that, aside from that period of a year and a half when this government had a budget surplus that it inherited when it was elected and that it changed into a deficit, we still have a deficit. We are celebrating a very important anniversary in 2012. It is the 100th anniversary of a balanced federal Conservative budget, because the last balanced budget under the Conservatives, before the one they inherited in 2006, was in 1912. Do you know who the prime minister was then? Robert Borden.
I know that the Conservatives really enjoy talking about the NDP's economic performance. If we look at the Department of Finance's own figures in the performance analysis of the federal and provincial governments in terms of balanced budgets and proper management of public funds, we can see that all the NDP provincial governments have the best performance economically, as well as in fiscal management and balanced budgets. They are far ahead of the Conservative and Liberal governments. It has been so since 1982 or 1987, depending on which year you choose as a reference.
Once again, in terms of sound management of public funds, the Conservative government has nothing to teach us and we have nothing to learn from it.
We also have to realize that what the Conservatives are doing—once again, generally without consulting the provinces and using a completely one-sided approach—is an impediment to the country's potential growth. I am talking about the restraint measures during this period, among other things. Let me refer you to the last budget and probably the upcoming budget, if we rely on the rumours going around. The Conservative government has started to promote its restraint measures and to talk about cutting 20,000 jobs in the public service, as well as cutting the budget of various departments by 5% to 10%.
Once again, we are talking about general cuts of 5% to 10% at all levels and no notice is being taken of whether we are cutting the fat, as the Conservatives are fond of saying, or whether we are cutting into the bone. I can tell you that, in plenty of departments, many of the austerity measures implemented—the budget cuts—were cuts into the bone. The Conservatives do not care. They are applying the 5% to 10% cuts to everyone, regardless of the impact it will have.
The Conservative government's austerity measures have been criticized by this side of the House, of course, but also by rating agencies. Fitch and Moody's condemned the austerity measures and warned the government not to go too far because austerity measures are dangerous in times of economic uncertainty, such as those we are still facing in Canada. However, the Conservatives turns a deaf ear to all the economic wisdom that is shared with them. We on this side of the House are not surprised. The government refuses to listen to anything we say. We saw this before with the budget consultations and in the different stages of Bill C-38, the mammoth bill. The fact that the Conservatives are turning a deaf ear to wise advice such as that provided by Fitch and Moody's is completely irresponsible.
I would like to end by talking once again about the lack of leadership and communication with regard to employment insurance. The measures proposed in Bill C-38 are there to address a local labour shortage problem that is affecting western Canada and other areas. We agree on that. We are waiting for the minister to provide administrative regulations for employment insurance. The implementation of a Canada-wide employment insurance reform with all these measure that have a negative impact on regions such as eastern Quebec demonstrates a blatant lack of vision for the different economic realities of the specific regions. Although it is becoming more economically diverse, my riding of Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, like those of the Atlantic provinces and others, still depends on seasonal work, whether it is in the forestry, fishing, agricultural or tourism sectors. The Conservative are blind. I will tell you who opposed this reform: most of the provincial premiers, including those of the Atlantic provinces.
For us, it is essential that the government choose the path of co-operation, of working together with the provinces, and that is why we are moving this motion calling on the Prime Minister to attend the economic summit being held by the Council of the Federation in November.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, there are many things I could bring up that the member made reference to, one being a New Democrat budget, possibly in the province of Manitoba.
I was in the Manitoba legislature for many years when Mr. Doer was, and Mr. Selinger has been, premier. I can assure the member that if it were not for the cash cow coming from Ottawa, in terms of transfer payments to the province, Manitoba would have some very serious problems.
That leads to what we are talking about today in today's motion, which the Liberal caucus does support. We do need to see greater communication between the provincial governments and the national government, and part of that communication strategy is to recognize the need for first ministerial meetings.
We have seen the Liberal administrations from Pierre Elliott Trudeau to Jean Chrétien and others where these meetings have had direct benefits, such as the Kelowna accord and the health care accord. I am wondering if the member could highlight the importance of having those types of meetings to achieve national goals, such as the health care accord.