Debates of April 15th, 2013

Opposition Motion—Budget 2013

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

moved:

That this House condemn the tax hikes introduced by the government in Budget 2013 on hospital parking, bicycles, baby strollers, coffee makers, iPods and other goods and services, which break the promise the government made to Canadians during the last election.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to speak on a motion that calls on this House to condemn the tax hikes introduced by the Conservative government in budget 2013. It raised taxes on hospital parking, bicycles, baby strollers, coffee makers, iPods and other goods and services, which, in our judgment, breaks the promise the government made to Canadians during the last election.

In that election, Conservatives ran on a pledge that there would be no new taxes. The Prime Minister said, “I give you my word: As long as I will be Prime Minister...there will be no new taxes”.

In the lead-up to the budget, the Minister of Finance reaffirmed that pledge and again promised Canadians that there would be no tax increases in this budget. In his 2013 budget speech, the minister said, “We will not raise taxes...”.

However, as noted, the budget is filled with hundreds of tax hikes on everything from hospital parking, credit unions and workers' funds, to bicycles, baby strollers, safety deposit boxes and the like. Apparently they both forgot this promise. The reality is that there are tax hikes, and they will cost Canadians nearly $8 billion over the next five years.

I should note at the outset that I will be sharing my time with the member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques.

The Conservatives are raising taxes on over 1,200 types of goods, which will hit Canadians in their pocketbooks. These tax hikes will also hurt Canadian businesses, which will now find it harder to compete with their U.S. competitors as the cross-border price differential widens. The government should be supporting Canadian retailers, not forcing cash-strapped shoppers to head south of the border, which is a phenomenon many of us living in southern Canada see growing every year.

Not content to simply raise prices on hundreds of goods, the Conservatives are trying to help their big corporate friends by attacking institutions that support working families, such as credit unions and workers' funds, with hundreds of millions of dollars in new taxes. The Conservatives are unwilling to let anything escape taxation, and even increase taxes on those with safety deposit boxes to the tune of $150 million.

I predict that we will be told by the Conservatives and their apologists that the new tariffs are not really taxes at all, and that therefore their promises have not been broken. However, hard-working taxpayers know the bottom line: they will have less in their pockets next year, if their incomes remain constant, than they will this year. That is the bottom line that Canadians will understand.

In anticipation of this argument, I decided to look at some material that defines taxes. I went to the very reputable Canadian Tax Foundation's book, called Tax Policy in Canada, which was given to us at the finance committee not long ago. It defines tax as follows:

Taxes are compulsory payments made by individuals and businesses to government treasuries to finance public services.

It goes on to say:

Taxes are not the only source of government revenue.

Indeed, in the Canadian Tax Foundation's Tax Policy in Canada, under “Principal Elements of the Canadian Tax System”, the first item is tariffs. It spends a lot of time talking about the historical importance of tariffs as important sources of revenue for the government.

Something I rarely do, and I suspect my colleagues on this side of the House rarely do as well, is quote the Fraser Institute. However, when the Fraser Institute referred to the Canadian Consumer Tax Index last year, it said the following:

The Canadian Consumer Tax Index calculates the total tax bill paid by a Canadian family with average income by adding up the various taxes that the family pays to federal, provincial, and local governments. These include taxes such as income taxes, sales taxes, Employment Insurance and Canada Pension Plan contributions, as well as “hidden” taxes such as import duties, excise taxes on tobacco and alcohol, amusement taxes, and gas taxes.

The most drastic tax hikes in this budget are entitled “Modernizing Canada's General Preferential Tariff (GPT) Regime for Developing Countries”. This measure raises tariffs. We say it is a form of tax, agreeing with the Fraser Institute, on imports of 1,290 types of goods from 72 countries. These tariff hikes will raise the price on goods across the board, hurting consumers and retailers. The government is raising tariffs on over 80% of all imported types of goods from over 70 countries, and it is inevitable that Canadian consumers will feel the effect in their pocketbooks.

Canadian retailers are going to have to raise their prices as well. The tariff hikes are going to widen the Canada-U.S. tax gap.

The government is trying to frame the general preferential tariff as a foreign aid program, but Canadians will not be fooled. Changes to the general preferential tariff are simply more tax hikes. According to industry sources, this will raise the price of affected imports by some 3%.

The Conservatives have trumpeted their $76 million in tax relief for sporting goods and baby clothes, but this is vastly outweighed by the tax hikes in the general preferential tariff. In their marketing of the budget, the Conservatives have made a virtue out of lowering tariffs on sporting goods and baby clothes in an effort to deflect attention from the massive increase in tariffs on 1,290 types of goods from 72 countries. That is what is going on. The GPT tax hike is going to generate $330 million a year, and by 2017-18 over $1 billion in total.

What about the famous iPod tax? The Conservatives have told us that there is no such thing. I am indebted to Professor Moffatt of the Richard Ivey School of Business at the University of Western Ontario, whose analysis can be found in The Globe and Mail and elsewhere. In his judgment, after admittedly tortuous analysis of a very complicated system of exemptions and tariffs, he concludes that there is such a thing as an iPod tax. Also buried in the long list of tariff hikes imposed by budget 2013 is a new 5% tax on MP3 players and iPods entering Canada. It is tariff category 85119.81.29.

This is a new Conservative iPod tax. They have claimed that music devices and iPods would not be subject to a tariff increase. Why? It is because it is a special exemption dating from 1987 for devices that are plugged into a computer. However, Professor Moffatt's analysis demonstrates that actually qualifying for that exemption is so onerous that it is unlikely any importer or retailer will be able to use it to avoid the new Conservative iPod tax. The Conservatives are just blowing smoke.

Sony of Canada has warned that consumers should expect an increase of 5% to 6% in the cost of its MP3 players and iPods because attaining the exemption is so complicated.

The new 5% tax on iPods and MP3 players shows Conservative hypocrisy on tax hikes. Despite the photo op with the Minister of Industry and the Minister of Canadian Heritage at the end of 2010, there is a real iPod tax.

The Conservatives have always tried to claim that they are the defenders of Canadian taxpayers. They have repeatedly run on platforms focused on tax cuts and promises not to raise taxes; they have broken their promises.

New Democrats believe in doing politics differently. We believe politicians should be accountable for what they say and do. The Conservatives promised Canadians they would neither raise taxes nor create any new taxes. They have violated this pledge to Canadians. My hope is that all members of the House will consider the motion carefully and vote to condemn these harmful tax increases.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to be back in the House debating an important subject after being with our constituents over the last few weeks.

My colleague spoke about economic management principles. He spoke about how government can finance its programs and what the scope of government should be.

After his party has proposed billions of dollars in increased spending, after it has proposed billions of dollars to widen the scope of government after lobbying against Canadian jobs and spoken against key sectors of the Canadian economy, how can that member criticize any sort of policy that would develop economic growth? His party, time after time, has lobbied against Canadian jobs, and it proposes to increase taxes across the board, including a tax on air.

How would he propose to manage the government, given all of these false promises and flawed economic thinking?

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in our judgment, it is not about the amount of taxes, it is about the amount of hypocrisy. The Conservatives have said repeatedly that they are the ones that taxpayers can trust to cut taxes, balance the books and not raise taxes. Those have been the promises. I am trying to demonstrate in the House the difference between the words of the government and the actions reflected in the budget.

A budget is the best expression of a government's priorities. Also, given the things that politicians say in advance of a budget, it gives us a very good barometer on the integrity of a government that promises not to do something and then turns around and demonstrably does the opposite. That is the focus of this line of questioning.

To suggest that there is, in a sense, a tax on air—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please.

I realize that on opposition days, quite usually, we have lots of interest in questions and comments. Normally there is only a five-minute period for that, so I would encourage members to keep their comments and questions short and succinct so that more members can participate.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my riding of Kingston and the Islands borders New York State. I would like to know how this increase in prices for consumers in Kingston and the Islands will affect their tendency to cross the border to shop in New York.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the requirement for Canadian retailers to address these tariffs and therefore to raise their price of goods to the end consumer will cause consumers in the Kingston, Vancouver, or Niagara area, or wherever we are close to American borders, to say, “It is cheaper to go into the United States. The tariffs are lower there. Let us go there and not shop at home. Let us not create wealth and jobs in Canada; let us do it in the United States”.

It is short thinking.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have several questions, but I will keep them short.

First, I would like the hon. member to tell me the difference between a tax and a tariff, and who pays for it.

My second question is about his comment about the Fraser Institute. Is that not an institute that normally rallies around the Conservatives, saying that whatever the Conservatives say is God's truth and that they can do no wrong? Could he clarify that for me, please?

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it grieves me deeply to be quoting the Fraser Institute on anything, but when it gets it right, it is important the truth be told. It has quoted the Canadian Consumer Tax Index. It has frequently done this. It is not novel for the Fraser Institute. It says there is such a thing in Canada as hidden taxes, and it clearly includes import duties and excise taxes on that list.

That is what we are talking about: the hidden taxes facing Canadian consumers. The Conservatives say there is nothing about income tax, but Canadians know better. They know who pays and what the bottom line is.

The difference between a tariff and a tax is that a tax is direct hit on Canadians' pocketbooks; a tariff gets us there one step later.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to speak to this very important issue, especially after the hon. member for Victoria. He is relatively new to the House, but he gives a really good impression when he talks about financial matters, particularly regarding the Conservative government's hypocrisy when it comes to fiscal matters.

That is why we are standing up here today and why we are having this opposition day. We want to talk about the Conservative government's hypocrisy when it comes to fiscal matters, particularly regarding its statements on finances, which do nothing to enhance its credibility—quite the contrary.

I am sure everyone remembers the now-famous phrase spoken by George Bush Sr. in the 1990s, just before he became the President of the United States. He had just won the Republican nomination and said the following simple phrase:

“Read my lips: no new taxes.”

The Conservative government, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of State for Finance had their own George Bush moment here in the House. At least they saved themselves the embarrassment of saying “read my lips”.

However, just this past February, at the Economic Club of Canada, the Minister of Finance said that there would be no new taxes in this budget. The day after the budget was presented, the Minister of State for Finance said that Canadians would not find any new taxes in it. We went over it very carefully, and there they are, clearly set out in annex 2 of budget 2013 tabled by the Conservatives.

We clearly see an $8 billion increase in taxes over the next five years. We can debate the validity of some of these measures, but that is not what the Conservative government wants to do. It wants to deny the fact that it plans to increase taxes for Canadians to the tune of $8 billion over the next five years.

There are so many tax hikes that I cannot address them all. However, I would like to mention four in particular. My colleague clearly described how approximately 72 countries will no longer benefit from the general preferential tariff, which applies to the customs tariffs paid by various countries. This measure applied to 72 countries, most of which are developing countries. Over 1,200 products from these 72 countries will no longer benefit from this tariff, which means that the government will be taking between $1.5 billion and $1.7 billion more from the pockets of Canadian taxpayers over the next five years.

The Conservatives presented two arguments. First, they said that they are removing from the list countries that should no longer be there, such as China, South Korea and Taiwan—countries that have now reached a point where they are more developed. In such cases, the measure might be justified.

However, the government is also removing from the list countries that it now considers to be fully developed, such as Kazakhstan, the Dominican Republic, Cuba and Venezuela. The Conservative government is justifying the removal of these countries from the list by saying that they are now fully developed and that they no longer need the general preferential tariff.

Yet, the general preferential tariff helps these developing countries, which need markets in order to export their products and further promote their economic growth. The only way the government can justify this measure is on the pretext that the GPT was a form of foreign aid for these countries. That is an interesting rationale.

If Canada wants to develop these new markets, it must work with countries that have the means to purchase our goods. In order to do that, we have to help these countries to improve their economy, particularly through these tariffs.

What is more, it is not just these countries that pay the price. Canadian consumers are also victims. I would like to talk about a few of the examples mentioned by the hon. member for Victoria. Take bicycles and tricycles. Right now, 50% of the bicycles sold in Canada come from these 72 countries. The government is proposing a 4.5% increase in taxes or duty on imports. This represents a tax hike of over $6 million, which will come from consumers' pockets.

Take baby strollers for example. Ninety percent of Canada's baby stroller market is supplied by these 72 countries. It will therefore be difficult for us to avoid these taxes on imports.

That is the equivalent of taking an extra $1 million or so out of consumers' pockets. Plastic school equipment fares no better in a market where 61% of it is imported. That tax hike equals $1.3 million.

Ninety per cent of wigs typically used by cancer patients undergoing treatment are imported. The wigs never used to be subject to a tariff, but the proposed increase is equal to about 15.5% of their price. That will rob Canadians of $4.6 million. It does not end there, though. Prices of 1,200 products are going to increase significantly.

Before I move on, I would like to mention, as my colleague did, the dedication of Mike Moffatt, who is an assistant professor and part of the Business, Economics and Public Policy group at the Richard Ivey School of Business at the University of Western Ontario.

This budget contains more than just import taxes, however. It also contains tax hikes because it eliminates tax credits that are crucial to economic development. As I mentioned during debate on the budget, the Conservative government will gradually eliminate the tax credit for labour-sponsored venture capital corporations.

If the Conservative government claims that creating tax credits for sports, the arts and so on is a tax cut, then believe me, eliminating a tax credit is a tax hike for Canadians. This tax hike is worth $355 million over five years, and it will be particularly detrimental to economic development in Quebec, where approximately 90% of these tax credits were claimed. That is an extremely important point, because labour-sponsored funds have been a model in Quebec and an extremely useful tool for economic development. These funds were created in the 1980s, during a time of financial hardship, when venture capital did not really exist in Canada. That is when the Fonds de solidarité FTQ was created. In the past 30 years, the Fonds de solidarité FTQ has invested $10 billion in the Quebec economy. In recent years, the Fonds de solidarité FTQ has created or maintained 500,000 jobs.

This tax credit exists because it fulfills a specific need that other venture capital firms—specifically private-sector ones—do not, and because it makes it possible to invest in companies that are starting up or struggling. This explains why the return is lower with these funds, but that does not prevent small investors from contributing to the funds to save for retirement—since these are a type of RRSP—and also to help develop the local economy.

In my region, the Lower St. Lawrence, the Fonds de solidarité FTQ assists 25 different businesses that have received absolutely nothing from private funds. On the one hand, the Conservatives are getting rid of this $355 million in tax credits, and on the other hand, they want to give another $400 million for private equity funds. This is absolutely ridiculous, and even Canada's Venture Capital and Private Equity Association, which represents private funds, is opposed to the elimination of the tax credit for labour-sponsored funds.

The Conservatives have messed up, since this 15% tax credit is not going to the Fonds de solidarité or the CSN's Fondaction, as some may have believed. Small investors—the people who reinvest and who can benefit from this tax credit—are the ones who are being cheated here.

With this measure, the Conservatives will not only damage a tool that is essential to Quebec's economic development, but they will also discourage people from saving, which is extremely important, especially in Quebec. Of course, the other provinces are being encouraged to step up and create this type of fund. These funds invest in different businesses, and they also invest heavily in private venture capital firms.

I will talk about two other measures quickly, since my time is running out. First I want to talk about the $205 million tax increase over five years, because an additional credit for credit unions is being eliminated.

Once again, the government is going after credit unions with specific mandates to invest in small rural municipalities. It is making it hard for them to compete with the banks. This represents another tax hike for business.

Second, we can debate the elimination of the tax credit for dividends that specifically affects SMEs and owners of SMEs that are not publicly owned or publicly traded. This represents a significant tax hike. We are talking about a tax grab of $2.34 billion over five—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please.

The member's time has expired.

Questions and comments, the honourable Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

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

He mentioned a few of the NDP's mistaken ideas about this budget. That is nothing new. After we lowered the GST by 2%, the NDP attacked everything we did to put more money in the pockets of Canadian families.

I have a fairly simple question for my colleague who sits on the Standing Committee on Finance. Could he explain why the NDP keeps insisting that the GST must go up? If the NDP were in power, it would increase the GST. Publicly, the NDP says that it is not true. And yet a number of NDP members have clearly said that they want to increase the GST. Will they increase it, or not?

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

Mr. Speaker, we want to talk about the 2013 budget, but the Conservatives want to talk about the 2006 budget.

We have a Conservative government that promised not to raise taxes. However, taxes will go up by $8 billion over the next five years. I would have liked my colleague to respond to the arguments already presented here, but she will not. The Conservatives are again harping on about carbon taxes and the GST, which they increased, a measure that has been criticized by most credible economists in Canada.

If the Conservative government wanted to increase and improve economic growth, and make the economy more stable, it could have done so in a number of other ways. At the time, increasing the GST was the least effective means, but that is what the government went with.

For our part, we do not have an official policy on increasing the GST, despite the government's fearmongering. However, we do want the government to discuss these increases.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please.

We have time to discuss many questions.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to broach the issue from the point of view of how the Conservative government has consistently used deception in trying to give Canadians the impression that it is a government that does not believe in taxation. It has consistently attempted to give that message. What is somewhat sad is that the government will spend millions of tax dollars on spin ads, trying to give that impression.

The vast majority of Canadians can see through it. We believe in recognizing that when the government increases tariffs, not only is it increasing taxes indirectly; it is also costing jobs. We will see more Canadians wanting to go and get those bargains south, something which raises a whole new issue.

I wonder if the member might like to provide a comment on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North has perfectly summed up the Conservatives' position on their fiscal policies: smoke and mirrors. They deal in illusions designed to fool people, especially after they table their various budgets or their budget implementation bill.

For instance, in our opinion, there was an orchestrated leak before the budget was tabled, to brag about the elimination of customs tariffs on some products that are popular with Canadians. The sole purpose of the leak was to fool consumers. Tariffs are being reduced by $30 million to $40 million, but more than $300 million a year in import duties are being imposed. Those measures clearly show that the Conservative government is neither serious nor credible when it comes to fiscal matters.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have tried to frame the general preferential tariff as a foreign aid program. My question to my colleague is whether in his opinion, that is an accurate description or explanation of what will happen with this budget.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is open to debate. If we talk about the fact that we need to increase the economic performance of developing countries, not only for humanitarian reasons, but also to improve international trade, the general preferential tariff has its place.

Countries like Kazakhstan, Venezuela and the Dominican Republic are not currently in a position to compete with Canada. They must secure access to our markets to be able to develop. However, the government's reason for placing those countries in the same category as developed countries such as South Korea or China is not valid.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to talk about the government's wonderful plan to make sure that we have tax fairness in this country.

When my colleague across the way from the NDP spoke just before me, he indicated that he did not want to answer the question about raising the GST. Here is why. The NDP has made up all this fearmongering dialogue about tax increases in budget 2013. There are no tax increases in budget 2013.

Let me explain for Canadians exactly what the NDP has done. The general preferential tariff, which is what today is all about, is about tax fairness. This foreign aid program was created in the 1970s to give special treatment to help companies in poor countries. That was the crux of what that general preferential tariff was intended to do. However, this program had not been reviewed or thoroughly looked at since the 1970s. That meant that companies in countries such as China and South Korea, whose economies are booming, were receiving privileged access to our market when competing against our Canadian companies, our Canadian businesses. That clearly needed to change, and that is exactly what we did.

Tax fairness is what this government is about. A high-tax agenda is what the NDP is all about. It wants to increase the GST. It wants a 45-day work year. It wants a $21 billion carbon tax. It wants to increase corporate taxes by about $34 billion.

Today we are going to address some of those very disturbing policies of the NDP. I am proud to stand here today against that high-tax agenda of the socialists, or are they now known as the social democrat members of the NDP? This weekend we saw a shocking display in Montreal at the NDP convention. The NDP, despite the fact that it debated countless far-left policy resolutions that would nationalize nearly every industry in Canada, raise taxes on every Canadian and rip up every trade deal Canada has ever signed, tried to hide the socialist roots it has entrenched in its party.

The NDP can play around with the words all it wants. It can paint its house with a brand new coat of paint, but it cannot hide the fact that it is big government. It believes in big government, and it believes in high-tax socialist policies. We know it. The NDP knows it, and Canadians know it. The NDP does not believe in capitalism. The NDP does not believe in free markets. The NDP does not believe in low taxes.

In the words of the well-regarded commentator, Brian Lilley:

[The] NDP leader...doesn't believe lower taxes do much of anything.... Since when did we all have to start asking for permission to keep more of our money? Since when did we need to justify having our money so that we could keep it rather than hand it over to government?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Shelley Glover]

I will continue with the quote while the NDP members are heckling:

[The NDP leader] is showing his socialist thought process here. It is your money when government says it is your money.... He and other progressives see all money as belonging to the collective and governments will tell you what you can keep.

I can see why they are upset about that, because they hate to face the truth, which is why they removed high-priority wording from their constitution at their convention this weekend. Indeed, if anyone wants hard proof of the NDP's high-tax agenda, look at its election platform. What do we find? We find a $21 billion carbon tax that would increase the cost of gas, groceries, electricity and everything else. What else do we find? We find a $34 billion tax hike on Canadian job creators that would kill jobs for Canadians. There is more where that came from.

Like all socialists, it kills the NDP to think that Canadians and Canadian businesses are keeping more of their hard-earned money in their own pockets and are not helping to pad the coffers of a bloated, big government. Indeed, if anyone wants more proof of the NDP high-tax agenda and what it would mean for our pockets, let us just look at the NDP record in Parliament.

Unlike the NDP, our Conservative government believes that leaving more money in the pockets of hard-working Canadians is the right thing to do, and we have the record to prove it.

Despite the NDP member's motion today, it is a fact that all Canadians are benefiting from tax relief introduced by our Conservative government. Unlike the NDP, we understand that higher taxes do not help Canadians. Since coming to office in 2006, we have cut over 150 taxes, reducing taxes in every way the government collects them: personal, consumption, business, excise taxes and more.

All Canadians, including those who do not earn enough to pay personal income tax, are benefiting from the 2% reduction in the GST rate. All taxpayers are benefiting from personal income tax relief, which includes reducing the lowest personal income tax rate to 16% and increasing the basic amount that all Canadians can earn without paying federal income tax. The new tax-free savings account is improving incentives to save through a flexible, registered general-purpose account that allows Canadians to earn tax-free investment income. We have removed over $1 million low-income Canadians completely from the tax rolls, and we have reduced the overall tax burden to its lowest level in nearly 50 years.

I am happy to report that due to our aggressive tax reductions, tax freedom day is over two weeks earlier under our government than it was under the tax-and-spend Liberals. Indeed, Canadians know that when it comes to tax reductions, our Conservative government has a long-standing record of significant achievements.

In addition, our government introduced many other targeted tax cuts, and I would like to point out that the NDP voted against every single one of these measures.

We helped families with children by introducing the child tax credit, the children's fitness tax credit and the children's arts tax credit.

We established the registered disability savings plan to help individuals and families save for the long-term financial security of those with severe disabilities.

We enhanced support to caregivers by creating the family caregiver tax credit. We provided additional annual tax cuts to seniors and pensioners by increasing the age credit and the pension income credit amounts, raising the age limit for maturing savings in registered pension plans and registered retirement savings plans, and introducing pension income splitting.

We 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.

We introduced the public transit tax credit to encourage public transit use. What is more, we have increased and enhanced benefits for Canadian families and individuals by introducing the universal child care benefit, introducing and enhancing the working income tax benefit and increasing the amount of income that families can earn in relation to the national child benefit supplement and the Canada child tax benefit. I could go on.

Seniors and pensioners have benefited considerably from tax cuts. Our government's excellent record when it comes to tax relief means that they pay less tax.

More specifically, since 2006, our Conservative government has increased the age tax credit for seniors by $2,000. We have doubled the maximum amount of eligible pension income that can be claimed under the pension income credit. It is now $2,000. We have introduced pension income splitting and increased the age limit for maturing pensions and registered retirement savings plans to 71 from 69 years of age.

Thanks to those measures, seniors and pensioners benefit from tax cuts worth about $2.7 billion every year. Since 2012, about 380,000 seniors no longer have to pay taxes. Once again, the NDP opposed all of these measures to cut taxes for seniors.

Our government has provided Canadians with nearly $160 billion in tax breaks overall.

That is $160 billion that Canadian families have been able to keep for themselves.

What exactly does that mean for Canadian families? Among other things, it means that they can keep more of their earnings to pay their bills, pay down their mortgage, save for their children's studies and save for their retirement.

Indeed, the average family of four can now save $3,200 in taxes because of the tax relief measures and tax cuts introduced by our Conservative government since 2006. Let us think about that for a moment. Canadian families can keep an extra $3,200 to put towards their personal priorities, but the NDP does not think that Canadians deserve to hold on to their earnings and benefit from these tax cuts.

That is a fact, and public records can prove it.

The NDP and NDP members of Parliament have a proven record of pushing a high-tax agenda by voting no again and again in the House of Commons against our Conservative government's initiatives to lower the tax burden. They protest and mock our efforts to leave more money with everyday families and businesses to help them grow our economy and much more. Public statements by NDP members of Parliament clearly underline their fundamental belief that Canadian families should be forced to send more and more of their hard-earned money to government.

Here are just a few examples of the NDP members bashing tax cuts and demanding tax increases, from many debates here in Parliament. The NDP member for Hamilton Mountain said:

The Prime Minister is picking up the [tax-fighter] mantle.

The 1% cut in the GST...will cost us collectively $5 billion in foregone community investments.

The Conservatives are intent on taking us in the wrong direction....

Listen to the NDP MP for London—Fanshawe. She said:

...I am absolutely astonished. I am breathless. A reduction in the GST...in terms of what the government can collect.... It is absolutely ludicrous.

The NDP MP for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek said:

The government's decision to go beyond the GST cut and to proceed with further personal and corporate tax cuts is troubling. This will cause a significant shrinkage in the government's fiscal capacity to invest in the aspirations of ordinary Canadians. It betrays their hopes in many ways.

The NDP MP for Thunder Bay—Rainy River said, “I believe broad-based tax cuts do not work...”.

The NDP MP for Timmins—James Bay said the Conservative government is “coming with one tax break after another, which were absolutely useless tax breaks in terms of GST”. He said “that speaks very much of the typical attitude of the neo-conservatives...”.

The NDP MP for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing stated:

The cuts are unjustified and a major cause of the current fiscal crisis. Those reckless tax cuts should be rescinded....

New Democrats have been vocal critics of reckless tax cuts....

Finally, the NDP MP for Skeena—Bulkley Valley said, “...tax cutting is seen to be a failed strategy...”.

I could literally go on for hours and hours, quoting NDP MPs who have publicly stated that they and their party are proudly opposed to lower taxes, proudly opposed to allowing Canadians to keep more of their money in their own pockets, proudly fighting for higher and higher taxes.

I want to challenge the New Democrats today to do something that I know they probably will not. As the quotes I just read demonstrate, the NDP members voted against and campaigned against our decision to cut the GST from 7% to 5%, a tax cut that is leaving $1,000 a year in the pockets of a typical Canadian family, and providing more than $12 billion in annual tax relief overall. What Canadians watching at home need to know is that the New Democrats have never admitted that cutting the GST actually left more money in the pockets of Canadians, a move that many economists have heralded for helping Canada's economy.

As Carl Sonnen of Infometrica previously noted, the two-point cut in the GST translated roughly into about 162,000 new jobs. He said, “You can't argue that raising the GST rate won't hurt jobs. It will.” He said the Conservative GST cut likely softened the recession's blow.

In fact, I want to read a couple of key quotes for Canadians who might be worried, with good reason, about the NDP's plan for the GST. These are recent quotes from key NDP MPs publicly attacking our Conservative government's reduction of the GST from 7% to 5%, bemoaning the fact Canadian families were keeping more of their hard-earned money and not the government.

Let us start with the NDP deputy finance critic, the member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques who refused to answer the question, when I put it to him, about their plan to increase the GST, contrary to all the evidence we have heard here today. Here is his quote:

Cutting the GST was probably the worst measure that this government could have adopted.

Now let us listen to the NDP representative on the finance committee, the member for Beauport—Limoilou:

...reducing the GST...was a serious problem.

By reducing taxes, the government lost out on a huge amount of tax income.

Finally, let me quote the NDP finance critic, the NDP's official spokesperson on all issues related to the economy, as appointed by the NDP leader. First, the member for Parkdale—High Park had this to say. “I do not support the GST cut.... The GST cut is not a solution”.

Second, let us listen to this revealing quote:

...cuts to the GST.... ...take us in the wrong direction. I am very proud that our [NDP] caucus stood opposed to that....

Clearly, based on these quotes, Canadians should be worried about the NDP's plan for the GST and its plan to target the pockets of Canadians. As I said before, I want to challenge the NDP today, during this debate, in front of all Canadians watching at home on CPAC—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. parliamentary secretary. I realize there is some exuberance in the House today, this being Monday. I would just say again, though, that when members have the floor, they are accorded respect and members listen. I am sure hon. members would like to hear what the parliamentary secretary is saying.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your intervention. It was getting hard to hear myself over the noise in the Liberal corner over there.

As I was saying, I would like to challenge the NDP members here today, during this debate. I want them to state publicly and on the record the following. I want them to say that cutting the GST from 7% to 5% and leaving $1,000 a year in the pockets of a typical Canadian family was the right thing to do, or at least admit that it actually leaves money in Canadians' pockets, to let them decide how to use it.

Today's debate will run for about four hours and will include literally dozens of NDP speakers, and I only ask that one of the NDP speakers today, in front of all Canadians, make that simple statement. I ask if any NDP member will come clean with Canadians. Along with all Canadians from coast to coast to coast, I will be watching here today to see what the NDP will do.

While I hope at least one NDP member will apologize for their misleading antics, pretending they did not say what they have said, I would bet the NDP members will not once admit that cutting the GST to leave more money in the pockets of Canadians was a positive move.

Again, if the question is put to them, I hope the NDP members will not deflect, as the previous speaker from the NDP did. I hope they will answer the question sincerely and admit that they have stated some misleading things when they try to deny and say they have no intention of raising the GST. I think Canadians have heard their quotes here today. They need to admit to them or correct them or apologize for them.

Making sure that we have a low-tax agenda is something of which we are proud. We believe Canadians pay too much tax, and we continue to put forward budget after budget that does not impose new taxes on Canadians, and that includes budget 2013.

Anything the NDP members are saying about the general preferential tariff today is false. It is created, just like their attempts to say that raising the GST by their party is false. They have admitted it. They need to start telling the honest to God truth about their plans.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Saint Boniface for her speech, but I found parts of it to be somewhat naive, which is too bad. She and her colleagues are rather naive when it comes to the economy. When it comes to the market, the NDP knows the score and we take the time to understand things before we open our mouths. Everyone knows that an unregulated market leads to corporate concentration and even monopolies. Nineteenth-century oil tycoon, John D. Rockefeller, is a prime example of someone who used vertical and horizontal integration to create a monopoly.

Let us move on to something else because the list of products affected by the tax hikes is quite long. I see that the cost of diesel-electric locomotives is affected by increases of 5% to 9.5%. Just over a year ago, the last diesel-electric locomotive manufacturing plant closed in London—Fanshawe. I mean London. My thoughts were with my colleague from London—Fanshawe.

I would like the hon. member opposite to explain the logic in this. I fail to see any logic in this unless the government is trying to encourage Caterpillar to reopen a plant and pay workers minimum wage. I wonder.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his question and welcome him to the House of Commons.

This government has been focusing on small, medium and large businesses, and people in the business community have noticed the improvements that this government has made.

Today we are talking about budget 2013. I hope my colleague will allow me to say a few words about some of the tax relief in the budget such as the tax relief for new manufacturing machinery and equipment by extending the accelerated capital cost allowance for two years. The NDP will vote against this relief even though it will help manufacturers.

Again, if everyone watching us wants to read about this tax relief they can turn to budget 2013. No need to take my colleague's word for it.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the riding of my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, is more than 150 kilometres from the border. My own riding, Kingston and the Islands, is next to New York state.

I would like to ask him whether the government has conducted an economic analysis of how small businesses in the riding of Kingston and the Islands and across the country will be affected by increased tariffs at the border.

What is the effect on retailers from the hike in tariffs? Whether it is right or wrong, has the government analyzed what effect these increases will have on cross-border shopping? What is going to be the economic impact on businesses in my riding of Kingston and the Islands?