Debates of April 15th, 2013

Opposition Motion—Budget 2013

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier this afternoon.

I want to thank the member for Victoria for putting forward this motion for debate today for a couple of reasons.

First, the motion goes to the heart of what we as the official opposition are meant to be doing in the House, which is holding the government to account for the promises that it made to Canadians and identifying promises gone unfulfilled or breaches of promises made. This is a government with such little respect for Canadians and for the truth that there is no shortage of these.

In this instance, I am talking about the Prime Minister's promise not to raise taxes and his breach of that promise, a breach repeated by his finance minister while tabling the budget and, in turn, by his parliamentary secretary. Budget 2013 contains almost $8 billion of tax increases on nearly 1,300 types of goods, from hospital parking to bicycles to baby strollers to coffee makers to other goods and services, including MP3 players and iPods.

Second, the motion invites us to talk about what could be done, about what would be possible if only we had a government with some sense of policy innovation or creativity, if only we had a government with an eye to the future of this country, or if only we had a government that was sufficiently humble to look at what other governments are doing around the world as those governments turn their eyes to the future.

I want to take a look this afternoon at just one of the almost 1,300 consumer products that are going to become more expensive because of the tax increases in this budget. That product is the bike.

It is estimated that the cost to Canadians as a result of the government increasing the tariff on bicycles from 8% to 13% will be in the range of $5 million to $6 million annually. It is, in fact, a $5 million to $6 million disincentive to a healthy, active, environmentally friendly form of transportation at precisely the time when cities across this country—including, if not especially, my own city of Toronto—are struggling enormously with the very costly and frustrating combination of traffic congestion and underfunded, and consequently overcrowded, public transit.

When we as a country are struggling with a high and growing rate of obesity and chronic diseases related to obesity and the world is hurtling toward a radically different future owing to greenhouse gas emissions and the consequent climate change—a problem the government refuses to even acknowledge, much less address—enter the bicycle, the modest bike, as at least part of the solution to these issues.

I have spoken many times in the House about the economic implications of traffic congestion in Toronto. As of 2006, Toronto's traffic congestion was estimated to cost the economy about $6 billion per year in lost productivity. The Toronto Region Board of Trade has further reported that this cost will increase to $15 billion by 2030 in the absence of some significant change. The members of the Toronto Region Board of Trade identify the issue as their greatest concern. It is a problem that ought to be addressed, and quickly.

With respect to the issue of health, Toronto Public Health's 2012 report, entitled “Road to Health: Improving Walking and Cycling in Toronto”, advises that 70% of Torontonians commute by car. Toronto Public Health further advises that about 55% of all trips in Toronto are less than seven kilometres and are therefore conducive to cycling. We know that physical activity aids in preventing or ameliorating a number of conditions, including obesity, cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes and cancer. Collectively, improved health leads to lower health care costs, and Toronto Public Health estimates that savings in direct medical costs arising from citizens engaging in active forms of transit such as walking and cycling would provide a further economic benefit of $110 million to $160 million each year in Toronto alone.

The environmental impact of Toronto's traffic congestion is huge. For every litre of gas burned, approximately 2.4 kilograms of carbon dioxide are released into the atmosphere. That adds up quickly in a city of nearly three million people stuck in traffic.

Data from the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group shows that Toronto emits 29.1 million tonnes annually of CO₂ alone. Of that amount, 35% comes from transportation. It is by no means just a Toronto problem. Countries and cities around the world are confronting the same challenges and making their own unfortunate contributions to climate change.

However, countries around the world are also recognizing that within the simple, modest bicycle is embedded great opportunities to mitigate these challenges. In part, the response has been one of investing in cycling infrastructure. Denmark is a prime example. In April 2012, Denmark opened its new bicycle superhighway to facilitate commutes between Copenhagen and its outer suburbs. The first of 26 such planned routes, it aims to encourage more and more citizens to choose cycling over other methods of travel.

The city of London, England, is on a similar path. About his revolutionary cycling plan for the city, London's mayor said “Cycling will be treated not as a niche...but what it is: an integral part of the transport network”. London's transport commissioner adds “this is about so much more than routes for cyclists. It is about the huge health and economic benefits that cycling can bring”.

It is in part at least, with an eye to the economic benefits, that a number of countries have implemented plans to make cycling, in fact, less expensive. That is the opposite of what the government is doing with budget 2013.

In 2009, for example, Ireland initiated a national cycle to work program. This program provides a way for employers and employees to receive tax breaks for getting out of cars and onto bikes as their means for commuting to work. Under the program, the benefit, that is the bicycle itself, is not subject to a benefit in kind taxation. Employees can save up to 52% of the cost of the bike, while employers save about 11% in pay related social insurance contributions.

The United Kingdom, Germany, Denmark and cities in other countries have similar and similarly named programs to incent cycling as a form of commuting.

A study done by the Irish Bicycle Business Association called the scheme in Ireland a “massive success” measured against a number of different criteria, including benefits to local economies and, importantly, net revenue benefit to the government. This was mainly through increases in sales tax revenues from increased bike sales, safety accessories sales and servicing and income tax revenues from job creation.

I noted in a recent column by Lisa Rochon, the architecture critic for The Globe and Mail, about the values of young people living in Toronto, Vancouver and Calgary, that the issue of bike lanes was identified as one of a number of urban features of great importance to the millennial generation. It is reflective of a new way that they want to live in, own and experience their urban environment.

That all of this escapes the Conservative government is reflective of a government that is a poor economic manager, one that fails to understand or care about cities and how they work and one that is deaf to voices young and old alike who want to talk about the future, what the future looks like and what we need to do now to preserve a healthy and prosperous one for coming generations.

Some might say that I have made too much of the bicycle here today. It is, after all, just one of about 1,300 consumer goods that would be made more expensive to Canadians under budget 2013. However, the modest bike represents opportunities for economic growth and productivity, along with healthier living, healthier cities and a healthier planet.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, could my colleague comment on what I believe is an important issue? When we put in tariffs, there is another significant impact in terms of increasing the price gap between American retailers versus Canadian retailers. Many Canadians, especially those who live along the border, will travel to the United States because they believe the price is so much cheaper there. Their belief is true in many different ways.

Many of the tariffs that are being put into place will in fact increase that price gap. Could he comment on that?

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

Mr. Speaker, I grew up in Kingston, Ontario, home of his colleague, the member for Kingston and the Islands. Crossing the border was a daily fact of life for folks in Kingston shopping because of the price gap, even back when I was much younger.

In Toronto the American border is not far away. In fact, it is not far away from the vast majority of Canadians.

Doug Porter, the Bank of Montreal chief economist, had this to say about the tax increases in budget 2013 about which we have been talking:

One wonders if this doesn't potentially lead to even more of a problem on the price gap. I have to wonder if this isn't taking from one hand and piling on to the other... aggravating cross-border shopping.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Minister of State (Transport)]

Mr. Speaker, why does the member support providing aid to countries that build aircraft carriers and have nuclear weapons rather than countries that need it. Also, in one fell swoop is also attacking Canadian manufacturers?

Russia, India and China are all nuclear powers and all have nuclear aircraft carriers. Brazil just got one as well. The hon. member is supporting countries that are advanced enough for nuclear weaponry, but he will not support manufacturing here. Why will he not support the funds for the Detroit-Windsor bridge?

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

There was a whole bunch of questions in there, Mr. Speaker, but all of them in fact outline the hypocrisy of the government.

The minister is championing protectionist measures now. That is the party that trumpets itself as the great free traders as its members stand and advertise all the free trade agreements, never mind the huge trade deficit they have created for the government. Now they are suggesting that we should be erecting tariff barriers to trade.

I do not know if the Conservatives know whether they are coming or going, sucking or blowing, but it is not good economic management, that much is for sure, and they are not keeping their promises to Canadians.

On the issue of the countries affected by the GPT, the government caucus has continually raised 4 of 72 countries that are subject to those preferential tariffs. What they do not mention are the other 68 countries. I would like to hear members of the government stand and defend how preferential tariffs should not continue to apply to the other 68 countries.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today, I am proud to join my NDP colleagues in denouncing the hidden tax hikes that the Conservatives are trying to impose on Canadians in their new budget.

I would first like to congratulate the hon. member for Victoria for moving the motion today, because the issue at hand is of the utmost importance to the families in my riding of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, but also to families across the country.

It has already been mentioned on a number of occasions in the House that, once again, this government has broken its promises to Canadians. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance had promised that Canadians would not have to pay any new taxes under a Conservative government. Just recently, the Minister of State for Finance challenged us to find tax increases in his budget. People took on the challenge and looked at the budget. Their findings were very troubling.

The Conservatives' budget 2013 is actually filled with tax and tariff hikes on more than 1,200 types of product, which will hit Canadian families right in their wallets. We are talking about bicycles, baby strollers, shoes, clothes, coffee makers, plastic school supplies, iPods, hospital parking and so on. It is all fair game.

Because of this government's misguided economic decisions, Canadians will have to take on an additional tax burden of nearly $8 billion over the next five years. Eight billion dollars. Once again, we are confronted with the Conservatives' bad faith and hypocrisy when it comes to the economy. However, does this really come as a surprise to us?

Since the beginning of this debate, the beginning of their mandate in fact, the Conservatives have been trying to confuse Canadians and obscure the facts. Unable to defend their record and justify their bad decisions, they prefer to spend millions of dollars of public money to spread their propaganda and demonize the opposition parties.

As I was listening to the Conservatives' presentations this afternoon, I felt I was back in a McCarthy-era hearing or in the middle of a witch hunt for communists worthy of the 1950s. Their rhetoric was incredibly demagogic, but they were not able to justify why they were going after Canadian families in this way. It is easy to blame the opposition parties for all the wrongs and accuse them of not wanting to co-operate with the government.

How can we support the decisions of a government that brings in those types of measures, which directly and negatively affect our Canadian families?

The Conservatives spent all day accusing the NDP of wanting a carbon tax. This accusation is refuted almost daily in newspapers across the country. I find it rather ironic to hear a number of Conservative members talking about freedom of speech and the right to speak and asking that these be upheld in the House. They rise every chance they get to spout half-truths or facts made up right in the Prime Minister's Office, without even thinking twice about it.

That is what we have seen in the House again today. They want their freedom of expression, but as soon as they have it, they are not prepared to use it properly and intelligently to clearly explain the truth to Canadians.

They are going to bring in taxes on nearly all goods that Canadian families consider necessities. They would have us believe that Canada's general preferential tariff for developing countries is a program that financed foreign companies, but Canadians are not stupid. They know the truth and know that this government would rather put its friends' interests ahead of the interests of Canadians.

Since the Conservatives won a majority, it has become increasingly clear to Canadians that they cannot trust this government. In 2010, the Minister of Industry and the Minister of Heritage proudly declared:

During this fragile economic recovery, the last thing Canadian families and consumers need is a massive new tax on iPods.

What do we have in the Conservatives' latest budget? Ironically, there is a bona fide iPod tax. The Conservatives claim that we are twisting the truth. Editorials have analyzed this situation. Mr. Moffatt's name comes up often in the House.

I urge the Conservatives to go read the research. It is very enlightening and may help them understand what this government is truly doing to Canadians. The facts are clear. In a long list of tariff increases imposed by the Conservatives, there is a new 5% tax on MP3 players and iPods imported to Canada.

The exemption that currently exists under law, that applies to certain imported products and that could have prevented this unfortunate situation, does not really apply to this type of product.

Eligibility for this exemption is prohibitively expensive, and applying for the exemption requires the importer to obtain a signed certificate from every user, therefore every consumer. This certificate has to indicate their name, address, occupation, and even what they use the merchandise for.

For a party that constantly boasts about wanting to cut red tape for our Canadian businesses, it seems rather absurd to want to subject importers to such an administrative burden just so that they can keep telling Canadians that there is no tax on iPods. That is not true.

Sony Canada, to name just one company, has already warned Canadian consumers that they can expect the price of this type of device to go up by 5% to 6%, because this so-called exemption is not realistically applicable in this situation. This is just one example of tariff increases in disguise in the Conservatives' recent budget. Unfortunately, there are many more.

These tax increases will affect the wallets of thousands of Canadians and will also have a major impact on Canadian businesses, which will have a harder time competing with their U.S. competitors, as the cross-border price gap continues to widen.

A number of my colleagues who live in border regions across the country are already seeing this happen, and the changes have not even come into effect yet. We can only imagine the repercussions that these new tariff barriers will have on the Canadian economy when they actually come into force. That is when we might see some very unfortunate consequences for a number of regions in this country.

Another troubling aspect of budget 2013 is without question the application of GST and HST on parking lots that were previously exempt, such as school and hospital parking lots. This is an example of a tax that did not exist before and will be applied as a result of this Conservative government and its 2013-14 budget.

We hear them say that they are keeping their promises and that they are not increasing taxes, but the example we are providing here is very clear. They are eliminating an exemption simply to apply a new tax.

One of the factors restricting access to health care services in our country is certainly the expenses related to a hospital visit, particularly parking costs. We do not yet know how much revenue the government hopes to take in with this new tax, but we do know that it will directly affect thousands of vulnerable Canadians and families that are facing hard times.

Last week, in my riding of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, I had the opportunity to meet the families representing the latest Leucan shaved head challenge. I met the parents of two children in my riding who fought cancer and overcame it. These parents were courageous enough to devote their time and energy to helping other families facing the same challenges they faced. We had the chance to speak at length. They told me of their journey, filled with obstacles. It required perseverance and caused a lot stress within the family. As you can well imagine, they spent countless hours at the hospital to ensure that their children received the care they needed. Just imagine the cost of these numerous trips to the hospital. Then add the rising costs of parking and the wigs given to those fighting cancer. These taxes will directly affect those families and people going through extremely difficult situations.

This is not the first time the Conservatives have broken their promises to Canadians, and if nothing changes, it will not be the last. We need to do better for Canadian families, and that is what the NDP is trying to do.

Instead of raising the taxes of honest Canadians who are working hard and paying their fair share into the system, it is time this government stopped breaking its promises and reversed its bad decision to stick Canadian families with nearly $8 billion in new taxes. It is unacceptable that the government is so proud of its unwavering support for big business and big oil, providing them with excessive tax breaks while forcing these tariffs on Canadians.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Before moving on to questions and comments, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona, Public Works and Government Services; the hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, International Cooperation; and the hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River, Citizenship and Immigration.

The hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou for questions and comments.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier for her heartfelt speech on this important issue.

I had the opportunity to ask one of my Conservative colleagues a question about the regressive nature of the hike in customs charges that will be imposed by the Conservative budget. Clearly, my Conservative colleague just does not get it. For the benefit of all my colleagues—who should be listening to the interpretation in order to ensure that they understand correctly—a regressive tax is one that hits those with low incomes much harder than it does those with higher incomes.

That means the middle class, as well as small and medium-sized businesses, will be hit particularly hard by the changes to the tariffs, as established. I would like my colleague to comment and give her opinion on this situation.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou for this important question because it is extremely important that everyone understand the regressive tax issue.

A 15% hike on a specific product will have much more of an impact on low-income households than it will on wealthier ones. Tariff hikes—even small ones—will make it much harder to get these necessary consumer products. Perhaps a 3% hike does not mean much and will not make a very big difference to the monthly budgets of the wealthy, but such is not the case for middle-class families with lower incomes.

The Conservatives often tell us that they have already proposed a number of measures to help families. Yet what they propose 99% of the time are tax credits that do not help low-income families because they are not eligible for them. On top of being unable to benefit from the help that the Conservatives are trying to give, as minimal as it may be, families will now have to spend even more to continue to accomplish their daily tasks and meet their needs. That is completely unacceptable.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is important that we are clear that every year the government coffers are going to be enhanced by $300 million because of this new tax increase. That is really and truly what it is. Some might argue it is indirect. Some might argue that it is not a tax increase; that being the Conservatives. However, at the end of the day, government revenues are going to be increasing by $300 million because the government has made the decision to put a tariff increase on 1,300-plus items.

My question for the member is, does she not recognize, as we do, and I believe she does, that this tariff increase is another way of grabbing revenue, another way of having an increase in taxes? Would she not agree?

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question.

Indeed, the NDP has been talking about this from the beginning. If you read the motion, that is exactly what it says. We are talking about a tax hike. I said so in my speech. Parking at hospitals and schools was tax-exempt. However, the government is introducing a new tax. As for tariff increases, they are another form of hidden taxes. Just because it is not specifically called a tax does not mean that is not what it is, considering the very real impact of these measures.

There are other ways the government could go about increasing revenues to replenish its coffers. Since the NDP became the official opposition, we have been working hard on the whole issue of tax havens. We are asking the government once again to do something to recover the money that is being hidden outside the country, money that should be used for the benefit of honest Canadians who pay into our system.

The government could also cut back drastically on the tax breaks it gives the oil companies and big banks, which do not need them. There are ways of finding money. The government could have reviewed the F-35 contract a lot sooner and saved loads of money there.

There are many things the government could be doing differently in this country to replenish its coffers and guarantee Canadians the services they need, without digging directly into their pockets in such a hypocritical matter, as it is doing right now.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our thoughts and prayers are with the people of Boston right now and all those who travelled there to take part in today's Boston marathon. As law enforcement works to determine responsibility for this terrible tragedy, we extend our support to the men and women in emergency services who are working tirelessly to help those in need. Our thoughts and prayers are with our American friends and their families at this time.

I appreciate this time to speak to the opposition motion and speak against the high tax agenda of the NDP. Let us be clear from the start. The NDP supports higher taxes on Canadians. It has opposed our low tax agenda. The facts also show in no uncertain terms that the economic action plan 2013 and our low tax agenda are the right steps in building on our record of creating jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity while keeping taxes low for families and businesses and balancing the budget by 2015.

Let us look at the facts. Unlike the tax-and-spend NDP opposition, we do not believe Canadians should pay more taxes. Since coming to office in 2006 our Conservative government has taken action that leaves more money in the pockets of Canadians. Today a typical family is receiving more than $3,200 in extra tax savings.

How did we accomplish this? Rather than listening to the NDP who would hike taxes on businesses and entrepreneurs by $10 billion a year and impose a new carbon tax, we did it with real actions.

For example, we fulfilled our commitment to reduce the GST to 5% from 7%, benefiting all Canadians, even those who do not earn enough to pay personal income tax. At the same time we have maintained the GST credit level, translating into more than $1.1 billion in GST credit benefits annually for low- and modest-income Canadians.

We have increased the amount that all Canadians can earn without paying federal income tax. We have reduced the lowest personal income tax rate to 15% from 16% and increased the amount of income that individuals can earn before facing higher tax rates by increasing the upper limit of the two lowest personal income tax brackets.

We have introduced the tax-free savings account, the TFSA, a flexible, registered, general purpose savings vehicle that allows Canadians to earn tax-free investment income to more easily meet their lifetime savings needs.

We have provided further support to students and their families by exempting scholarship income from taxation, introducing the textbook tax credit, and making registered education savings plans more responsive to changing needs.

Our government has introduced the public transit tax credit to encourage public transit use and the volunteer firefighters tax credit to better support communities.

We introduced the universal child care benefit, which provides $100 per month to families for each child under the age of six.

We introduced and enhanced the working income tax benefit, lowering the welfare wall and strengthening work incentives for low-income Canadians already working while encouraging other low-income Canadians to enter the workforce.

Our government has increased the amount of income that families can earn before the national child benefit supplement is fully phased out and before the Canada child tax base benefit begins to be phased out.

We introduced the tradesperson's tools deduction, which allows tradespersons to deduct from their income part of the costs of the tools they must acquire as a condition of employment, benefiting more than 25,000 tradespersons in 2010 alone.

We brought in the apprenticeship job creation tax credit to encourage employers to hire new apprentices in eligible trades by providing a tax credit of 10% of the wages payable to eligible apprentices in the first two years of their apprenticeship program, benefiting more than 10,000 businesses in 2010.

Canadians at all income levels are benefiting from these tax reductions, with low- and middle-income Canadians receiving proportionately greater relief. Overall, personal income taxes are now 11% lower with the tax relief provided by the government, and more than one million low-income Canadians have been removed from the tax rolls.

In total, our government will have provided almost $160 billion in tax relief for Canadian families and individuals in just six short years. Our government has introduced more than 150 tax relief measures since 2006, bringing the overall federal tax burden to its lowest point in 50 years.

What do these 150 measures have in common besides helping to keep more money in the pockets of Canadians? The NDP voted against every single one of them. Each and every time our Conservative government moved to lower taxes, the NDP stood in this Parliament and voted no. This is all on the public record. This is a fact. The NDP is a party of high taxes, taking more and more money from the pockets of Canadians. Our Conservative government is the party of low taxes, keeping money in the pockets of Canadians.

Economic action plan 2013 builds on this unprecedented record of tax savings for Canadians with measures that will provide $76 million in annual tariff relief on baby clothing and sports and athletic equipment to reduce the gap in retail prices Canadian consumers pay compared to those in the U.S.

Economic action plan 2013 also promotes adoption by enhancing the adoption expense tax credit to better recognize the cost of adopting a child. It expands tax relief for home care services to better meet the health care needs of Canadians.

These tax reductions help individuals and families, with greater flexibility to make the choices that are right for them. They help build a solid foundation for future economic growth, more jobs and higher living standards for Canadians. I would encourage the NDP to stop opposing these measures and support economic action plan 2013 so that we can continue putting money back into the pockets of Canadian families.

While the opposition wants to raise taxes and kill jobs, our government is also focused on lowering taxes for Canadian manufacturers and businesses. These lower taxes will help them succeed in the global economy and will provide support to the individuals, families and communities that depend on them. These broad-based tax reductions are supporting investment and growth by delivering more than $60 billion in tax relief to job-creating businesses over a six-year period, ending in 2013-14.

Our government has reduced the business tax rate, eliminated the federal capital tax and provided an incentive for provinces to eliminate their own general capital taxes. The last provincial general capital tax was eliminated in 2012.

We are leaving more money in the hands of entrepreneurs and businesses so that they can grow and hire more Canadians, unlike the NDP, which would simply want to hike taxes by $10 billion a year. Canada now has an overall tax rate on new business investment that is the lowest in the G7 and is below the average of the member countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

We have increased the capital tax allowance rate for manufacturing and processing buildings and have introduced a temporary accelerated capital tax allowance for manufacturing or processing machinery and equipment.

We have expanded the scope of the accelerated capital cost allowance for clean energy generation and conservation equipment so that a broader range of applications and technologies qualify for this measure. We have extended this temporary incentive until 2020.

We have eliminated more than 1,800 tariffs on imported machinery, equipment and manufacturing inputs, thus providing $450 million in annual tariff savings and making Canada the first tariff-free zone for industrial manufacturers in the G20. These steps have established an international tax advantage that has allowed Canadian businesses to create jobs and drive economic growth.

KPMG is one of the largest professional services companies in the world and one of the big four auditors. KPMG recently released a study, “Competitive Alternatives 2012”, which concluded that Canada's total business tax costs—corporate income tax, capital tax, sales tax, property tax and wage-based taxes—are more than 40% lower than those in the United States.

Economic action plan 2013 builds on our internationally recognized tax advantage with a range of tax measures to help manufacturers and businesses succeed in a global economy.

It is a shame that the NDP is voting against measures aimed at helping manufacturers, something that is critical to southern Ontario. These include $1.4 billion in tax relief for Canada's manufacturing and processing sector over the 2014-15 to 2017-18 period through a two-year extension of the temporary accelerated capital cost allowance for new investment in machinery and equipment.

In the words of the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, I quote at length:

[Economic action plan 2013] sends an important signal.... It positions manufacturing and exporting at the heart of Canada's Economic Action Plan by focusing on practical steps that will enhance competitiveness, productivity, innovation, and business growth.

[...] This is very good news for companies creating jobs in Canada.... The budget recognizes the importance of manufacturing and exporting for each and every Canadian, as an anchor of high-value, high-paying jobs in all parts of the country and across all sectors of the economy.

[...] This budget will make a real difference in helping our manufacturers and exporters compete and win in global markets.

Too bad the NDP is voting against our manufacturers. Additionally, our plan also offers $225 million to expand and extend the temporary hiring credit for small businesses for one year in recognition of the important role small businesses play as job creators in the Canadian economy. Again, the NDP is, shockingly, opposed to helping our small businesses.

There is more. We are also increasing support for small business owners, farmers and fishermen by increasing the lifetime capital gains exemption to $800,000 in 2014 and indexing the new limit to inflation, at a cost of $110 million over five years.

While we are lowering taxes, we are also cracking down on tax cheats and those who try to exploit tax loopholes. To help keep taxes low and improve the integrity of the tax system, economic action plan 2013 proposes a number of measures to close tax loopholes, address aggressive tax planning, clarify tax rules, combat international tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance and improve tax fairness.

Since 2006, our government has already moved aggressively to close over 75 tax loopholes. The loopholes we are closing amounts to billions annually. Shamefully, the NDP has voted against every single attempt by our government to close loopholes since 2006.

Canada's resilient economic performance in an uncertain world is the clearest evidence needed to demonstrate the effectiveness of our plan, which is continuing to deliver results for Canadians. Since we introduced the economic action plan to respond to the global recession, Canada has recovered more than all of the output and all of the jobs lost during the recession.

Employment has increased by nearly 900,000 since July 2009 and is now more than 465,000 above its pre-recession peak, the strongest job growth among G7 countries. More than 90% of all jobs created since July 2009 have been full-time positions. Close to 80% are in the private sector, and more than two-thirds are in the high-wage industries.

Real GDP is now significantly above pre-recession levels, the best performance in the G7. Canada has weathered the economic storm well, and the world has noticed.

Both the IMF and the OECD expect Canada to be among the strongest-growing economies in the G7 over this year and next. For the sixth year in a row, the World Economic Forum rated Canada's banking system as the world's soundest. The three credit rating agencies—Moody's, Fitch and Standard & Poor's—have reaffirmed their top ratings for Canada, and it is expected that Canada will maintain its AAA rating in the year ahead.

Our government also understands that Canada cannot rest on this record of success. We cannot afford to become complacent. While the Canadian economy continues to grow and create jobs, the challenges confronting us remain significant. The global economy remains fragile. The United States, our largest trading partner, is struggling with massive debt and modest economic growth. The euro area remains in recession. At the same time, global competition from emerging markets is intensifying.

In an uncertain global economic environment, the most important contribution the government can make to bolster confidence and growth is to maintain a sound fiscal position. Responsible fiscal management assures the sustainability of public services and low tax rates for future generations, while providing room to manoeuvre in the event of an adverse development across our borders.

Our government is committed to returning to balanced budgets by 2015 and will focus on what it can control in order to achieve this result. Such a commitment explains why, alone among the G7 countries, Canada continues to receive the highest possible credit ratings and a stable outlook from all the major credit rating agencies. Among global investors, Canada has a well-earned reputation for building an internationally competitive tax regime and for responsible fiscal, economic and financial sector management.

In conclusion, today's NDP motion, which attacks economic action plan 2013, is shameful when we consider Canada's record of achievement and the actions we have taken to lower taxes for Canadians. I would therefore encourage hon. members to not only reject the NDP's high-tax agenda but to support the timely passage of economic action plan 2013 so that it can continue to deliver tax relief for Canadians.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech.

I would like to reiterate that the motion moved by my colleague from Victoria asks the House to condemn the tax hikes introduced by the government in Budget 2013. In the last election, the Conservatives promised not to raise Canadians' taxes. They are doing quite the opposite. In fact, the tax hike on more than 1,200 types of goods will have a huge impact on consumers' budgets, especially families' budgets. These tax hikes will also hurt Canadian businesses, which will find it even more difficult to compete with their American competitors.

With all this information, how can my colleague claim that his government wants to ensure tax fairness across the country?

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, of course, we are referring to general preferential tariffs. Those tariffs were put in place to assist nations in the world that needed to bolster their economies, nations that did not have the same advantages we did. They were put in place in the 1970s. They have become obsolete, quite frankly. We are talking about countries that no longer have third-world status. We are talking about countries such as China. China is an aggressive trading partner. China has the means and ways to produce and manufacture goods that compete with our manufacturing. India is another example. There is a also Brazil and Korea. Korea has an amazing growth rate.

The end result is that these countries are no longer in the same position, and as such, removing these tariffs was the right thing to do so that we could rectify a situation that has become somewhat obsolete.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin by saying I join with the hon. member for Chatham-Kent—Essex in expressing concern for the victims of the bombing, and I appreciate him bringing that before the House.

The hon. member began his remarks by saying, “Let us look at the facts”, and in the course of his remarks, made reference to the issue of tax credits for children. In that context, I ask him a question about a misstatement of fact made earlier in this debate by the member for York Centre in the matter of tax credits.

The member for York Centre said that the Liberals in 2005, in critiquing the Conservative plan at the time to give families of young children $1,200 a year for child care, had said, “Do not give people $25 a week to blow on beer”.The person who made that statement at the time was an aide to the Prime Minister, who then publicly apologized, and for the record, the Prime Minister at the time, Paul Martin, said, with respect to the Conservative plan, and I think the House needs to have that on the record, “They are going to use that money in a way that I am sure is responsible. Let there be no doubt about that.”

Since the debate that took place at the time was about the issue of tax credits for children, I have put on the record what the response of the Prime Minister and my government was at the time, but the proposal that we put forward at the time was for a comprehensive, early learning and child care agreement, which had secured unanimous agreement among the provinces for that purpose.

Does the hon. member not think that a comprehensive federal-provincial-territorial agreement that would provide for early learning and child care, and which at the time would have provided for 250,000 spaces for child care by 2009, which we never got, would be a better proposal—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. The hon. member for Chatham—Kent Essex.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member across the way for clarifying that. He is correct. The statement was made. We make statements in the heat of passion, especially in elections, and rightfully so. He did say that his leader at that time apologized for those remarks.

As to the plan that the Liberal Party had proposed, we have provided for young families an alternative plan, and that is for parents to be able to stay home or to make their choices in home care. This plan has been enormously successful. Our people and the people of Canada have taken hold of this, and we have found that this is a much better plan.

I would suggest to the member that although we may not always agree on which direction to go, we certainly have acted, much as he has corrected us, we also correct him too, and we have put in place a plan as well. I think our plan is moving along quite well and is doing quite well.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, for weeks now, for anybody listening in on the debate in the House, the NDP members have consistently been whining that the federal government has a revenue problem, which means it does not take in enough taxes.

They have not left the debate there. They have gone further to propose many ways of rectifying that problem, including a $21-billion carbon tax that would raise the price of gasoline nearly 20¢ a litre, an increase of $9 billion to $10 billion in higher taxes on businesses that earned one dollar more than a small business. They have opposed tax relief 150 times, including in the budget in principle, a measure to help Canadian parents adopt Canadian children.

Can the member for Chatham-Kent—Essex, who has been doing a phenomenal job for his constituents, comment on what the corporate income tax cuts of this government, the accelerated capital cost, other measures, tax measures, and lower tax measures are doing for manufacturers, especially the food processing sector in his riding and across southwestern Ontario?

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is very good to share boundaries with the member for Essex, and we work together on the very things he is talking about. We both know how important it is for our manufacturers to have an advantage, and the best advantage that we can provide them as a government is to lower those costs that we can do something about. Those costs directly are taxes.

In my riding, as well as in the hon. member's riding, we know the importance of the food processing business. We know how competitive the United States has been and other countries are also competing. If we could continue to lower our corporate taxes, if we could continue to help our corporations with those measures, they would be able to compete. We have seen that. We have witnessed that. That is the direction we have taken as a government. That is the direction we will continue to use.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, like my colleague, I would like to say that our thoughts and prayers are with the victims of the Boston tragedy.

Getting back to the issue at hand, I do not know if the member in question realizes how ironic his comments are. He is boasting about the tax credits in budget 2013 and calling them tax reductions that will benefit certain classes of citizens. However, he makes no mention of the elimination of tax credits which, according to the gospel of the Conservative government, do not represent tax hikes.

The motion before us condemns the tax hikes, estimated at $8 billion over five years, contained in budget 2013.

I would like to ask a question about one particular tax increase that affects labour-sponsored venture capital corporations. Almost $355 million a year will be taken from small investors over the next five years. The elimination of this tax credit has been criticized by Canada's Venture Capital & Private Equity Association and by the Fédération des chambres de commerce du Québec.

Why is the government refusing to call the elimination of this tax credit a tax hike? Why is the government not listening to Quebec's business people in particular and Canada's Venture Capital & Private Equity Association, which have condemned these tax increases?

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to read a couple of quotes.

The first is from the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants:

There are no significant personal or corporate tax increases but the government is taking action to preserve its tax base. The budget looks to close tax loopholes, address aggressive tax planning, clarify tax rules, reduce international tax avoidance and tax evasion and improve tax fairness....We support efforts to maintain the integrity of the tax base.

The hon. member is an economist. The second quote is from Mr. Jack Mintz, who is an economist of great respect. He said that in economic action plan 2013, “The federal government has avoided raising personal and corporate income tax rates, choosing instead to eliminate a number of base-narrowing tax incentives.

That is from the experts, and I think he should read them, as well.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on this opposition day motion which is a very important one.

The core of the matter is what we see in budget 2013 is the Conservatives are raising taxes even though they promised Canadians that they would not.

I have a quote here from the Prime Minister who said, “As long as I will be prime minister...there will be no new taxes.” I assume that leadership conventions are not finished yet, and that there will be one on the other side of the House sometime before 2015, if he is in fact true to his word.

The Conservatives promised that there would not be any new taxes, but of course they are increasing taxes on a whole host of things. I will be mentioning some of them. There is even a new tax, HST on parking at municipal parking lots and at hospitals. People who go to visit a loved one or who go to the hospital for some service will now be paying HST on parking services. The list goes on. There are really two reasons, and I do not know if they have been touched upon during the debate today. The first question is, “Why are the Conservatives raising taxes?”

I will be sharing my time with the member for Newton—North Delta.

Why are the Conservatives raising taxes when they are cutting everywhere else? One would think that the Conservatives would not have to raise taxes because the cuts are so deep. I will use one example here. According to FedNor's website, $23.6 million less.

Last year, the Conservatives announced they were getting rid of some initiatives, including the LIC grant program. That used to provide up to $5,000 for non-profits, including municipalities. I know that one of our communities, Atikokan in my riding, took advantage of that grant to update their website to help promote business and their community.

Those things have all disappeared. The first question is, “Why are the Conservatives raising taxes when they are already making these cuts everywhere else?”

It also says on that site that there is a drop in funding for community economic development programs which are the core funding mechanisms for FedNor initiatives. Also, 20 people are going to lose their jobs. Why are the Conservatives raising taxes when they are cutting? This is just one example of a program that is being cut.

We have heard the Conservatives talking today and saying that they are not raising taxes, they are just making things more expensive for Canadians to buy. We have all heard the rhetoric from the government the last two and a half years, about that sort of thing. They call them taxes, so I do not know why they will not be honest with Canadians and tell them that these are in fact taxes when they raise the prices.

There is one thing that has not been talked about today, and I have been listening intently. For those of us who have a number of border communities, I have three border crossings in my riding, out-shopping is a big problem, particularly for small and medium-sized businesses in the riding. If these things become more expensive, and I am going to talk about “these things” in a minute, that will simply promote crossing the border to shop. It is counterintuitive to raise these taxes, particularly on the things that I am going to talk about. I will use one example, bicycles. We import about $125 million in bicycles every year from 72 different countries. Now the tariff will increase from 7.5% to 13%. It will cost Canadian cyclists between $5 million and $6 million a year. That is what the tariff or tax on bicycles is going to cost Canadian consumers.

For the second reason, I am going to counterpoint what I have just said. As I talk about the examples in this budget, I am going to counterpoint with actual examples of really inappropriate spending by the government.

I just need to take one area, and I am going to talk about the G8 legacy fund. The G8 legacy fund was $1.2 billion all together, and a significant portion of that was used by the President of the Treasury Board, the minister for the Treasury Board, to spend some money in his riding. I will talk about some of that spending right now, and then you, Mr. Speaker, can tell me whether this was really appropriate.

Let us begin with the famous gazebo. With some sidewalk upgrades, some landscaping and the gazebo, that came in at $745,000. By the way, if people watching or MPs would like to go and see this, it is at 15 Humphrey Drive in the township of Seguin. It is there, and people can see what $745,000 bought them. The point I am making is that if one does not cut and one spends money appropriately, one does not need to raise taxes.

Let us take another one, baby carriages. Nearly 90% of all baby carriages come from these countries with tariffs, so there would be a 3% tariff hike. That is a tax, and that 3% hike would cost Canadian consumers about $1 million annually. However, the President of the Treasury Board of course thought it was okay to pay for some signage in Muskoka Lakes and some sidewalks, decorative street lights, benches, waste receptacles and flower pots to a tune of $1,060,000. I am not sure that was really G8 legacy fund money. That money could have certainly counterbalanced the money the Conservatives need to bring in now by raising taxes.

Turning to school supplies, 61% of imported plastic school supplies are from these nations that now have new tariffs on them. There was a tariff before of 3% and now it is 6.5%. So these school supplies are now going to cost Canadian consumers $1.3 million a year. That is counterbalanced of course with some street lighting upgrades and new outdoor furniture for the town of Gravenhurst during the G8 legacy fund spending. That was $1,200,000. Is that appropriate spending?

Some other costs to consumers include wigs. Let us say that for perhaps medical reasons, people may need to buy wigs. Those wigs would now cost Canadian consumers $4.6 million more.

Plastic tableware and houseware—I guess plastic spoons and forks—would have a tariff or tax on them that would cost $11 million. However, the taxes would be raised because in the township of Burk's Falls there were some sidewalks and one electronic sign and public washrooms that cost $150,000. The town of Parry Sound got new sidewalks and trees, a welcome sign and some landscaping and a fountain too, at a cost of $1,321,750.

These figures I am giving members were not easy to find. It took us a long time to find these figures, and I am passing them on to everyone in this House and everybody who is watching on television because if we spend taxpayers' money appropriately we do not need to raise taxes, as the Conservatives would in this budget.

Let me talk about the iPod tax and that on MP3 players. The Canada Border Services Agency has written to at least one importer to indicate that the iPod touch 8GB would be subject to end-user verification in order to get a tariff exemption. Sony has said it is way more trouble than it is worth. So we would see those things increase.

I will give the grand total of the spending on the G8 legacy fund. I itemized a couple of things, but the grand total is $45,758,945, money spent inappropriately. This is one of the reasons that the government has to raise taxes, to make up for the shortfall.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Minister of State (Transport)]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's comments, and he seems to be missing the big picture. The big picture is that trade creates wealth and jobs. Why is his party against all the free trade agreements? Why is his party against building a bridge between Detroit and Windsor that would help increase the flow of traffic, increase trade and create tens of thousands of jobs? Why is his party against the science of the Keystone XL project?

When it comes to anything economic, the NDP has no credibility. I would like to ask the member why not just give up?

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, he was speaking about credibility. I will not make any comment about it.

However let me just ask the member and the members of his government why they are against music and musicians. Why is there a new tax on pianos? We do not make pianos in our country anymore. Why would the Conservatives raise taxes on pianos? We are not protecting any Canadian industry, but they raised taxes on pianos to make it harder for families to have their kids take piano lessons. It just does not make any sense.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River for enlightening us on a lot of misspending from that side of the House.

As far as I am concerned, a tax is a tax. Obviously, the Conservatives do not believe that. I would like the hon. member to tell me his impression of why the Conservatives do not believe that a tax and a tariff are the same thing.