House of Commons Hansard #170 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was ndp.
Lisa Raitt ConservativeMinister of Transport
Mr. Speaker, under the Official Languages Act, Air Canada is required to serve customers in the official language of their choice. We expect Air Canada to comply with the act.
Jay Aspin Conservative Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON
Mr. Speaker, our government's connecting Canadians program will soon connect an additional 280,000 homes in rural and remote communities to broadband Internet services.
Can the Minister of Industry please tell this House what new measures he has taken to expand high-speed Internet services in rural communities?
James Moore ConservativeMinister of Industry
Mr. Speaker, at 94% connectivity to high-speed Internet, Canada is one of the leading countries in the world in connectivity rate, which is impressive when we realize that Canada is the second largest country in the world in size and the 37th largest in terms of population.
Closing the gap from 94% to 100% is incredibly challenging, but we have embarked on it with our connecting Canadians program by having rapid deployment of spectrum and proper investment in rural infrastructure so that we can have broadband connectivity in all of Canada.
Later today I will be making some announcements with regard to spectrum policy and expanding Wi-Fi connectivity. Because of our budget investments, we are going to ensure that all of Canada will be connected with high-speed Internet so that all Canadians can benefit from the economic and educational opportunities the Internet provides.
Claude Patry Bloc Jonquière—Alma, QC
Mr. Speaker, in January, the city of Saguenay's unemployment rate, at 9.6%, was the highest of all large Canadian cities. It is more urgent than ever that the government support resource regions like mine.
Will the government implement measures in its next budget to promote secondary and tertiary resource processing in the regions for industries like Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean's wood and aluminum industries?
Intergovernmental AffairsOral Questions
Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière Québec
Conservative
Jacques Gourde ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister
Mr. Speaker, the Economic Development Agency of Canada helps all regions of Quebec. We are waiting for proposals, and all proposals are assessed on their merits.
Massimo Pacetti Independent Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Mr. Speaker, in 2002, 40% of Canada's tourism revenue came from international tourism. Today that number has dropped by 20%.
The hotel association is asking the government to increase the tourism marketing budget to attract more international tourists. Funding for the Canadian Tourism Commission has been shrinking since 2010.
When will the minister make appropriate investments in marketing tourism internationally to raise Canada's profile as a tourism destination of choice?
Ed Holder ConservativeMinister of State (Science and Technology)
Mr. Speaker, our government is proud of the measures it has taken to support Canada's tourism industry.
We launched the federal tourism strategy to ensure that Canada will continue to create jobs and growth in major sectors.
Canada's tourism industry is flourishing. A record number of tourists chose destinations in Canada last year.
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Mr. Speaker, the member for Malpeque was in fact the solicitor general who named Hezbollah and Hamas as terrorist entities, and why the member for Wetaskiwin—
The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer
Order, please. It sounded more like a question and not a point of order. Unfortunately, question period has just ended. There will be one tomorrow, so perhaps the member for Malpeque can ask that question at that point.
Now I see the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster, who looks like he is very eager to ask the Thursday question, so I do not think we should make him wait too much longer.
The hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster.
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Mr. Speaker, Parliament will have 13 more weeks of sittings and then Canadians will have their say about this government. The election will be held on October 19, eight months from now.
Canadians know very well that this government continues to use processes and to head in a direction that the vast majority of them do not agree with, as we saw for the 86th time this week with the closure and time allocation motion.
It would not be that serious if not for the fact that, at the same time, half a dozen government bills have been struck down by the courts in the past year. We can see that the government wants to pass its bills very quickly without any real parliamentary oversight to ensure that the bills are coherent.
Once again, we must ask the government to work with the official opposition. This will ensure that the courts reject fewer flawed bills and improve the legislative process for everyone.
My question is quite simple: what is on the government's agenda for the next week?
Peter Van Loan ConservativeLeader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I want to start out by thanking the member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup for his intervention yesterday. He rose on a point of order that his privileges were denied by security, by the RCMP, he said, in particular. Today he rose in this House to indicate that a discussion had taken place and that the matter had been settled.
As I said, his original point of privilege suggested that it was the RCMP who had stopped him, and in fact, that was not the case. It was, in fact, Senate security services. The member has spoken with them and met with them and has accepted the explanation. That is in the spirit I was attempting to capture yesterday when I said that as we go through this process of managing the changes that are happening here, as the House and Senate security forces are integrated and as we ask the RCMP to do more on the Hill, and we are, hopefully, in a motion, going to deal with other stuff, we have to work together with our partners. We all have an obligation to work together to help them do their job of protecting us. I am pleased that the matter has been brought to a close.
This afternoon we will finish debating today's motion from the NDP. Tomorrow, we will debate government Motion No. 14, standing in the name of the chief government whip, respecting an integrated security force for the parliamentary precinct and the grounds of Parliament Hill.
If additional time is needed, we will resume that debate after our constituency week, on the afternoon of Monday, February 16. Earlier in the day—Monday—before question period, we will start the second reading debate on Bill S-7, the Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act.
On Tuesday, February 17, we will start the day with report stage on Bill S-2, the Incorporation by Reference in Regulations Act. After question period, we will switch to Bill C-12, the Drug-Free Prisons Act, at report stage and third reading, now that the Public Safety Committee has wrapped up its study of the proposed legislation.
On Wednesday, February 18, we will start second reading debate on Bill C-51, the anti-terrorism act, 2015. These measures would provide Canadian law enforcement and national security agencies with additional tools and flexibility to keep pace with evolving threats and to better protect Canadians here at home. That debate will continue the following day.
Finally, on Friday, February 20, we will complete third reading of Bill C-32, the victims bill of rights act, our government's proposal to put victims at the heart of our justice system. It will be the 10th day that this bill has been discussed on the floor of the House, not to mention that it was thoroughly studied by the hard-working justice committee throughout this autumn. It is time that law came into place for the benefit of victims.
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer
The hon. member for Québec has five minutes left for her speech.
Annick Papillon NDP Québec, QC
Mr. Speaker, the motion we are debating here today is very important.
The NDP plans to lower the small business tax rate from 11% to 9% in order to better support this sector of our economy, which is responsible for creating nearly half of all new jobs in Canada. We will begin with an immediate decrease from 11% to 10%, which will inject nearly $600 million into Canada's small businesses. We will then further lower the tax rate to 9%, as we indicated during our last campaign, as soon as the financial situation allows. Once that measure is fully implemented, taxes for small businesses will be reduced by nearly 20%. That is significant.
I would like to quote Martine Hébert, senior vice-president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business:
Cutting the small business tax rate by nearly 20% will provide a big boot to business owners across the country and will help them create jobs.
Small businesses account for nearly 40% of Canada’s GDP and employ more than 7.7 million Canadians. They account for 78% of the new private sector jobs created over the last decade. Although small businesses are the engine of job creation in this country, rather than help them, the Conservative government has chosen to offer tens of billions of dollars to the most profitable corporations. Since 2006, the Conservatives have lowered the tax rate on big corporations from 22% to 15%, but they have reduced the tax rate on small businesses by only 1%, when they are the real job creators.
I have met with many business owners in my Quebec City constituency. I am also a member of three chambers of commerce. These business owners are unanimous: reducing taxes on small businesses will give them the leeway they need to hire and expand their business. A survey I did of companies in Quebec City revealed that our plan to reinvest nearly $1.2 billion in small businesses was the right one to help the business owners in my region. That is why we are calling on the House to give our motion firm support and immediately take measures to stimulate job creation and economic growth. The NDP has a plan and New Democrats are moving forward with concrete measures.
We want to reduce the small business tax rate from 11% to 9%, extend the accelerated capital cost allowance and introduce an innovation tax credit to support the manufacturing sector, which is an important sector for Quebec and Ontario. These measures can be introduced immediately. They will support the economic core of my region and show investors that a New Democratic government will usher in a new era of stability for small businesses.
It is important to take the pulse of small businesses right now as an indicator of the country's economic situation. This is from an article I was reading about all of the austerity measures that have been implemented:
Business and consumer confidence is probably the best indicator of how they perceive their economic and political context, and government decisions are part of that context.
Nobody needs a Ph.D. in economics to see that, when families are worried about the future, as they are now, when they buy less, and when companies do not make plans to invest or hire people, the economic outlook for the short and medium terms is anything but encouraging.
When I see this Conservative government investing absolutely everything in oil, it is a problem. We can see that. They are not coming up with a budget. Here we are in February, with March approaching, and they will evidently not have a budget before April. They are incapable of saying whether the deficit will drop to zero and they do not know how they are going to plan things.
Why? It is because they put all their eggs in one basket. That is beyond me, because we all have a mother who told us not to put all our eggs in one basket. However, that is exactly what is happening right now. They forgot to diversify our economy. Now that they are stuck, they can get out by investing in small and medium-sized businesses and in diversity.
In Quebec City, investing in our small businesses and diversifying our economy is precisely what we did when the cold wind hit during the recession of 2008-09. That is how we created a situation where everybody won.
Opposition Motion—Job CreationBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
Okanagan—Coquihalla B.C.
Conservative
Dan Albas ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board
Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the member's speech and the debate today about our economy. It is an important conversation.
First let me give an example.
Let us just assume that magically 9% is the new preferential tax rate for small business. Let us also just assume that we magically go back to 20%—or higher, depending on what the NDP leader has said—for a corporate tax rate. In that case, if the member has a restaurant in her riding with about $500,000 in earnings every year, it would qualify for the preferential small business rate.
Let us just say that the restaurant owner decided to open up a second one. I think we would all support that. We would see more jobs and more choice for consumers as a result of someone trying to invest and grow a business. That is something we would like to see.
However, suddenly the restaurant owner would take a hit, going from a 9% rate to at least a 20% tax rate from there on in, and it could be more, depending on what the NDP leader wants.
Why would someone with a successful business and a low tax rate invest just to see the taxes double? Does the member not see the fallacy in her thinking? She is advocating lowering the tax for small businesses, but she is actually creating a system, with her NDP leader, that incentivizes businesses not to grow.
This is the fallacy of the NDP. It says it wants to help small business, but in fact its policies would actually discourage investment growth.
Annick Papillon NDP Québec, QC
Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to hear a Conservative colleague consult me to find out how a New Democrat government would do things.
This is how: we would have a plan. That in itself is different from this government, which is not capable of producing a budget. We would have a plan in front of us. What is the plan? We would choose to invest in small businesses. We would certainly increase taxes on big businesses, but we would reduce taxes on small businesses, which are the ones that create jobs in this country.
I would prefer to give $100 to a small business, because I have a much better chance of seeing that money in the community and of having that money be reinvested. My father owned a small business. He often reinvested his profits in his business because he knew that would keep jobs in our community. That is the best protection you can have when you are in an economic recession, because you are shielded. That is what we would do.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, what has become clear is that both the leader of the official opposition and the New Democrats have demonstrated that they do not really understand the needs of small business. In fact, what they are suggesting in their proposed tax reduction is somewhat perverse.
Jack Mintz, the director of the University of Calgary School of Public Policy, and other economists and organizations such as the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, have commented on this proposal. I would like to give one specific quote that captures what many of the critics are saying about this particular policy. They argue that the tax break will go overwhelmingly to Canadians who need it least and may not result in job growth at all.
These are outside people reflecting on what is likely going to be a major platform position on an issue the NDP does not seem to really understand.
Would the member not be better advised to recommend to her leader to revisit that particular policy? If they want to be able to generate jobs in Canada, they might want to consider having an EI premium exemption. Outside people say it would be effective and would create thousands of jobs for all regions of Canada.
Annick Papillon NDP Québec, QC
Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to remember that 94% of the inequality in this country was created under a previous Liberal government and it has continued under the Conservatives. That is why they are stuck today. There have been decades of dismantling when it comes to housing, which is a basic need.
They stopped providing funding for housing in 1994. After that, they stopped investing in bricks and mortar. They withdrew from housing completely. Then, they wonder why there is constantly growing inequality in a country that was once the best in the world, but is now—it must be said—taking a beating. That is because they have invested in nothing but oil. I find that vision unfortunate, as is the fact that they are still asking themselves this question.
There is so much wealth in this country. From one ocean to the other, there is so much wealth. That wealth is often found in creative ideas in a particular community. Someone has an idea, they put it to work, and they can conquer the world. That is what small businesses do. That is why we have to support our small businesses, so that then people will be talking about us around the world.
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification).
It gives me great pleasure to rise to speak on behalf of the people of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke. The people in my riding of eastern Ontario, like all Canadians, have benefited from the careful, balanced approach our national Conservative government has taken when it comes to running an economy in a modern first-world nation.
Canada is recognized as a world leader in the way we prudently manage our economy for the benefit of all our citizens. There is no on-the-job training for such an important task as managing a G7 economy. Now is not the time to be experimenting with extremist policies derived from some discredited ideology that has proven to be a failure.
There is some question who will end up being the official opposition after the next election, the Socialist International or the socialist light, which sits as the third party in this place. For the benefit of Canadians following this debate, the terms are interchangeable, as are their policies.
Bob Rae was as comfortable piling on the debt in Ontario as NDP premier as he was as the leader of today's third party in this place. Today's supply day motion, as put forth by the opposition, uses a number of terms and phrases that in the mind of a socialist means something very different from what the average middle-income Canadian family understands these terms to mean.
For example, the way this motion uses the term “productivity” ignores the role of human capital and more specifically wages. The fact that the opposition continually calls for an increase in the minimum wage, as if an increase would have no effect on productivity or small business viability, demonstrates the disconnect between the whole approach of our Conservative government, which has taken to managing our economy, as opposed to the ideological left-wing approach we see from the opposition when it had been given the chance to bankrupt an economy the way it has in Ontario.
The same can be said about taxes. Members should make no doubt about it. There is no difference between the opposition in Ottawa and the Ontario Liberal Party in Toronto, which has turned my province of Ontario into a have-not province.
It was a short easy stroll for Glenn Thibeault, the NDP MP for Sudbury, to walk into the embracing arms of the Toronto Liberal Party, the party of the gas plants, eHealth, Ornge and electricity rates, to name a few scandals, the same walk Bob Rae took in reverse. Ottawa has become a refuge for individuals who can copy the same policies that turned Ontario from being the economic engine of Canada into a have-not province. These individuals have attached themselves to the green leader of the third party.
The leader of the third party counts as his principal adviser the unseen author of this spectacular failure average Canadians are stuck with paying, known as the greed energy and greed economy act. This is the showpiece of economic policy of the left in Canada, as it features a carbon tax.
In Ontario, the other name for that carbon tax is the global adjustment and it is on every consumer's electricity bill. Canadians need look no further than the economic mess in Ontario to know where Canada will end up if opposition gets—
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I hesitate to interrupt my friend midway through. I have listened for some time now. She has talked about the Liberal Party in Ontario. She has talked about Ontario policy. She has talked about electricity policies in Ontario.
Just to be clear, I know there is some range with respect to the debate, but the debate is clearly on the NDP's proposal, the motion as put forward. It is about lowering the small business tax rate, about an incentive to the manufacturing sector through accelerated capital cost allowance writedowns, and an incentive through a fund for innovation for the manufacturing sector.
I am grasping to try to find out what the policies from a provincial party of a different orientation and electricity rates have to do with lowering the small business tax rate, accelerated capital cost rate for manufacturers or an innovation fund to allow for innovation in the manufacturing sector.
I know there is breadth here but, through you, Mr. Speaker, I would seek to call the member back to the question in front of us. If she does not like one of those three policies that we put forward, she can tell us why. However, we are not the Ontario legislature. When debating Ontario policies, that is the place for that to happen, not in the nation's capital.
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Centre-North, AB
Mr. Speaker, I believe if you let my colleague continue on this point of thought, she will tie back how an unmodelled price on carbon can affect inputs to manufacturing, such as energy, as we have seen in Ontario, which can have a detrimental effect on small business growth. This is material to the motion because it is a policy the NDP has supported.
The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton
I have heard both submissions. We probably have enough to get going along the same vein.
I thank both hon. members for their interventions. True enough, the issue of relevance is indeed a limit on speech in this place. However, as the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley referenced, there is a great degree of latitude on the part of members.
I am cognizant of the fact that the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke is not quite at the halfway point of her remarks in her 10-minute speech. I am fairly certain she will be incorporating some of these ideas into addressing the question before the House, as she has customarily done in the past.
The hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
Mr. Speaker, the NDP members have said that we should look to their record provincially, which is what I am doing, to see what they would do federally.
The NDP in Ontario are on record as supporting the Green Energy Act. What has to be unusual is that the Leader of the Opposition counts as his special adviser the former leader of the Ontario NDP, Howard Hampton, the guy who had to answer for the mess Bob Rae left behind.
I invite Canadians to read his comments in the provincial Hansard, vilifying the corruption of a few Liberal Party insiders receiving contracts for hundreds of millions of dollars for industrial wind turbines. Those hundreds of millions of dollars now add up to billions.
If Ontarians want to know why their electricity bill is so high, just read Howard's comments. It is too bad his party became forgetful so quickly and supported the Green Energy Act.
To get a true sense of the economic wasteland that would happen nationally if the opposition had its way, I will quote the volunteer non-profit Canadian organization, Working Canadians, which said, “Socialism in its various guises has never worked to the benefit of average, middle-class people”. Take the Liberal government of Kathleen Wynne as a real-time case in point.
A number of recent developments in the province have focused the mind on how the current Ontario government’s policies are hurting, not helping, average Ontarians. The Wynne government professes to be the saviour, like the NDP here, of the lower and middle-class. All factual evidence suggests otherwise. As last month’s report by Ontario’s auditor general, Bonnie Lysyk, pointed out in stark terms, “all efforts of Ontarians to contain their rapidly increasing hydro bills by doing their laundry in the middle of the night are for naught”. Anyone who was paying attention to their hydro bill would have already known this.
Recent hydro bills that show for the exact same number of kilowatts hour, the rate is 8% higher, 4 times higher than the rate of inflation, and that is because of the carbon tax.
Informed analysts know that the main driver of hydro costs in Ontario is the “Green Energy” policy, an approach that is being abandoned elsewhere around the world as evidence showed it had negligible environmental benefit. The exodus of manufacturers from Ontario is in part driven by uncompetitively high hydro costs.
Yet Ontario has just claimed that it will be there to help those provinces that have been bailing out Ontario’s failed economy for some time by miraculously becoming a hotbed of economic strength. Over the past decade, Ontario government policies have systematically gutted the manufacturing sector, created a business climate discouraging to entrepreneurs, continually bailed out corporate losers at the cost of successful companies and created a fiscal fiasco that will take some time to repair. The notion that falling oil prices will somehow reverse all of these negatives overnight is ludicrous, especially in a province that is well-ensconced in its “have-not” status.
The only feasible way the Ontario government can balance its books is with higher tax revenues derived from a more robust economy.
Quoting from yesterday's Financial Post, according to an analysis by the Consumer Policy Institute and Energy Probe, 90% of the wind subsidies, a carbon tax, went to just 11 companies, 80% of the subsidies went to nine companies with annual revenues over $1 billion, 60% of the subsidies, carbon tax, went to six companies with more than $10 billion in annual revenue. As for the province’s claim that it wants to create an Ontario-based “green economy,” less than 10% of subsidies to wind generators went to small-scale or local owners. Since 2006, when the province first started subsidizing wind turbines, the province has provided more than $1.92 billion in subsidies, carbon taxes collected from Canadians.
Contrary to what the NDP has proposed, our government is still a great place to provide an environment to do business, and our country has a low-tax agenda for jobs and growth, and has been recognized internationally.
Our government scores high marks for our ambitious free trade agenda and low business start-up costs. That is in addition to our country's outstanding business environment and competitive corporate tax rate. We have already made the tax reductions. Moreover, according to The Economist Intelligence Unit, Canada will be the best place to do business in the G7 and G20 over the next five years.
Since coming to office, our government has made job creation and economic growth our top priority, unlike the opposition that wants to take money out of the pockets of hard-working Canadians.
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Mr. Speaker, I will never get back that time. My friend across the way spent the vast majority of her available time talking about politics in Queen's Park. If she is that interested in the policies and politics at the provincial level, I would encourage her to seek office in Ontario.
Here we are at the federal level talking about a proposal to do three things: lower the small business tax rate, help Canadian manufacturers through the accelerated capital cost allowance, and offer up an innovation fund. She says, as the Prime Minister's spokesperson has said, that things are spectacular in the Canadian economy. However, bear in mind that last year we had our lowest job growth rate since 2009, with population growth almost double the rate of job growth in the country. To that reality of flat job growth that the Conservatives are facing, there is also the loss of 400,000 jobs in the manufacturing sector alone.
My question for the member is simple. What in particular does she have against lowering the small business tax rate and what in particular does she have against helping Canadian manufacturers after some 400,000 jobs have been lost in that sector alone?
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite has been totally blindsided to the purpose of my explaining what is going on in the provinces. What has been going on in the province of Ontario, as agreed by the official opposition's provincial counterparts, is one and the same. In the same way that a carbon tax is being imposed in Ontario, as the province agreed to, so would we see at the federal level. If he wants to see what Canada would look like were the opposition ever to form government, all he has to do is look at the economy of Ontario.