Garth Turner

[Budget and Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2007, November 29th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, that of course has nothing to do with the subject of what we are debating, but I am happy to answer. I did stand in this House on the day that I joined the federal Liberal caucus and say to the Prime Minister that I would resign my seat and that all he needed to do was give me a date on which we would have a byelection. The Prime Minister would not do that.

I also said I thought that would be incumbent upon, perhaps, the Minister of International Trade from Vancouver who was elected as a Liberal and ended up as a Conservative, and perhaps the member who is now an independent member from Mississauga—Streetsville but who was elected as a Liberal and sat as a Conservative. If we are going to have members who cross the floor resigning their seats, let us have them all resign their seats and have simultaneous byelections. Why not? That makes sense.

If the Prime Minister and the members opposite have the fortitude to call a byelection and determine a date, then absolutely we are all happy to do that.

[Budget and Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2007, November 29th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to be able to get up and remind Canadians of the economic performance of the Conservative government, and I am pleased to have a few minutes this morning to do just that.

I hope that Canadians and our media, and everybody who is watching the proceedings in the House today will not be too amazingly distracted by what happens in the ethics committee and Mr. Schreiber's testimony. There are a lot of things that affect individual Canadians in their everyday lives and we tend to lose sight of them sometimes around this place as we go for the headline grabbing sensational.

I am pleased to talk a bit about the economic reality for a lot of Canadian families. There are some issues that I know are very much on the minds of Canadians.

One of them of course is our high Canadian dollar. The Canadian dollar has gained about 28% in value in the course of a single year. That is very substantial. The shock to a lot of Canadian industries has been breathtaking because the acceleration in the value of the dollar has been far faster than those industries have been able to cope.

Why has the dollar gone up so quickly? There are a number of reasons. Obviously our dollar is considered to be a petro currency and because of the rise in oil prices that is one reason. Also, the American dollar has fallen in value against almost every currency in the world and Canada's is no exception. Our dollar has gone up relative to the American dollar going down.

We cannot do a lot about those things, but there are some factors here that are Canadian. The root and cause is found in the actions of the Conservative government. For example, the government has been spending more money than any previous Canadian government. In fact, the rate of increase in government spending is now about twice the rate of inflation.

Inflationary spending by government tends to have an impact on inflation, the CPI, and that tends to have an impact on the currency. It also affects fiscal monetary policy. We end up with a lot of money coming to Canada from around the world for a number of reasons and that has only accelerated our problem. Canada has a high dollar, a high interest rate, and high inflationary policy, and this is hurting Canadians.

What damage is being done? Retailers, the tourist industry, manufacturers, shippers, the resource sector, and automakers are very much on the front line of what is happening today. Plants are closing . Factories are going idle. Equipment has been unbolted from its cement pads in factories, crated up, and sent to China.

I was in an aerospace manufacturing facility in my riding the other day where hundreds of high qualified, high skilled jobs are in peril right now. People are contemplating selling much of the equipment in that plant and shipping it to China. I found out during my tour that there are more of these high quality, very expensive metallic fabricating machines sitting in crates in China ready to be installed in factories than there are existing now in all of Canada. That is a very disturbing situation.

In the past year, 350,000 Canadian workers in the manufacturing sector have lost their jobs. The finance committee has been spending a bit of time looking into this issue. We found out from experts at committee, a lot of them economists from unions and banks and industry, that this is just as they called it, the tip of the iceberg. They are expecting at least another 300,000 jobs to be lost in the next year.

If the Canadian dollar remains at parity or above the American dollar in value over the next two years, probably an equivalent number of jobs will be lost each year. That means two years from now the accumulated loss of manufacturing jobs could be close to one million. That is breathtaking.

This is an issue that goes to the fundamental economic management of the government because it is not managing this problem. The finance minister runs around the country and talks about the strong Canadian dollar. It is not strong. It is toxic. A lot of Canadians are seeing their jobs go as a result.

One example is in the Minister of Finance's own riding. He represents Whitby—Oshawa. One of the premier yacht building companies in Canada is in Whitby. It is called PDQ Yachts. It went bankrupt last month. The reason it went bankrupt is that it could not cope with a 28% rise in the value of the Canadian currency. Why? Because almost all of its sales are to the United States.

What company can take a 28% drop in the price of its product being shipped to its clients? Almost no company can do that. PDQ Yachts, in the Minister of Finance's own riding, went bankrupt. On December 13, the equipment in that plant is going to be sold at public auction. It is not good when we see companies deserting. It is a small company. It has only 100 employees. However, when we go a hundred by a hundred by a hundred in riding by riding by riding and in community after community in this country, suddenly we have a jobs crisis.

What are those workers supposed to do? They are highly skilled. How about their families? How about their mortgages? People who live in the Minister of Finance's riding, where houses are not cheap, spend $300,000 to $500,000 buying a home and have to finance it. They have mortgages to pay and their jobs are now gone. This goes to the very heart of the economic mismanagement by the government.

Second, after the high Canadian dollar and the way that has been mismanaged, we have an income tax situation that is very troublesome indeed. The government, in its first budget, raised income taxes. The basic income tax rate was raised in the first budget and then it was raised in the second budget. This is the same government that campaigned on taxes. I admit it, I was a Conservative candidate in the last election, and I did not go from door to door promising people that their income taxes would be increased. I was rather shocked when it happened, but it did nonetheless.

Canadians had two income tax increases. In its last economic statement in October, the government finally relented and brought taxes back down to where they were two years ago, but not only two years ago, $2 billion later, $2 billion from Canadian families in overtaxation, which we finally see ending. Thus, income tax is the second problem.

Third is family financial stress. Our families are under a lot of stress. In this place, we are insulated. We are surrounded by opulence and gold leaf on the ceiling and stained glass windows. We make $150,000 as members of Parliament. Ministers make another $70,000 more. We have lovely offices. We live in a bubble here in Ottawa.

We do not see the financial stress that is going on across our country, but families are under financial stress. They have seen higher income taxes. They have seen higher mortgage rates because the government has inflationary spending that has forced the Bank of Canada to raise interest rates over the past few months. They are seeing higher energy costs. It costs $1.04 for a litre of regular gasoline. Families have a hard time coping with all of that and now there are reduced employment prospects because of the devastation that has been wrought in the manufacturing sector by the Canadian dollar.

We have a high dollar, loss of jobs, higher taxes and family financial stress. That is four strikes against the government, but it does not end there. There is another thing the government has done that two million Canadians will never, ever forget. They are the two million Canadians who were income trust investors.

I would like to read for a moment from testimony given before the House of Commons finance committee this week. It was delivered by Margaret Lefebvre. She is executive director of the Canadian Association of Income Funds.

Here is what Margaret had to say to our committee: “This committee should be aware that the damaging consequences of the government's actions continue. Since October 31, 2006 there have been more than 42 transactions that involve the selling, merging or acquisition of income trusts with an enterprise value in excess of $31 billion. The majority of these transactions by dollar value involve foreign buyers of Canadian assets. Most have gone into the hands of private equity and pension funds and virtually all of these entities pay little or no tax”.

This is probably the greatest failing and I think the greatest symbol of the government's economic mismanagement: campaign on one thing and deliver another. Campaign and tell Canadians that it will never tax income trusts and turn around 10 months later and impose a 31% tax. The consequences of that, although unintended in large part, have been devastating, and two million investors will never forget.

I could go on for some time, but I see that my time is up. I would simply end by saying it is my conviction that our Minister of Finance is out of his depth. He has done many things on his watch that have hurt this economy. They have wounded it. More importantly, they have hurt Canadian families. For that, so many millions of them will not forget, and when they come to cast their ballots, and soon, I would say, the consequences will be obvious and painful for our friends across the way.

[Manufacturing Industry, November 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, many Canadian workers are wondering when the Minister of Finance will clearly understand how it feels when scores of people in a community see their jobs disappear through no fault of their own.

Right now, hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs are gone and scores of them are in the minister's own riding.

What does the minister have to say to those workers and his constituents who are working at PDQ Yachts and have just seen their jobs sink? Will he help them and all the other workers looking for his help?

[Income Trusts, November 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I think the Marshalls will be very unhappy with that response, as all Canadians should.

When the Minister of Finance in his mini budget attacked income trusts, he said that he would lower taxes for pensioners on pension splitting, but 70% of Canadian pensioners do not have a pension to split.

I am going to ask the minister this. How long is it going to take to restore $190,000 in lost income trust savings because the government brought the income tax rate back down half a point to where it was two years ago? Let us have an answer this time.

[Income Trusts, November 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, luxury car dealers in my area would like to thank the Minister of Finance because each buyer of a new Mercedes will now save about $1,000 in GST. However, Dave Marshall, who is a retired truck driver, and his wife Lorraine will not be buying a Mercedes any time soon. They lost $190,000 when the same Minister of Finance decimated their savings.

Will the minister explain to the Marshalls how long it will take, at $13 a month in GST savings, to get that nest egg back?

[Business of Supply, October 25th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the opportunity to mention my website which is www.garth.ca. There, one will find a very stimulating discussion going on.

In answer to this, I think anybody who knows anything about the economy certainly knew that the income trust sector needed some more regulation surrounding it. I certainly had proposed some ideas in that regard.

I do not think that anyone ever expected that the Minister of Finance would bring in a tax holus-bolus that would destroy the industry and erode so many savings.

I did vote for the motion for pension splitting, absolutely. I thought it was one of the most fraudulent, politically manipulated moves I have ever seen in my entire life, to have that pension splitting provision, which we all would have supported, bundled with an income trust tax which the Prime Minister betrayed us on. To put those two things together was fraudulent and the government ought to be ashamed. Shame.

[Business of Supply, October 25th, 2007]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. They needed that.

My friend across the way is quite right, I did campaign long and hard for income splitting, the first part of it being pension splitting. It is an economic justice and an economic reform that was probably too long coming, but eventually it came.

I do actually thank the member opposite who raised the question because I know he was a proponent when I brought this issue up when I was on that side of the House. He was helpful and supportive on that, as were many of the members sitting over there. I thank them very much for doing that. It was the right thing to do.

I also thank the Minister of Finance. He did the right thing as well by bringing in pension splitting. I will say that quite clearly, this is a reform that we needed and many people on this side of the House, in fact many people on all sides of the House supported this.

What we did not support on this side, what we did not expect, and what shocked us was the betrayal that the Prime Minister showed and the Minister of Finance when they brought in a tax on income trusts. We never thought that would happen because the Prime Minister told us it would not. I mean we foolishly believed him. We believed the man. So we could not understand, nor could we support, any legislation that was bundled with a pension sharing that also robbed seniors of more money than they would ever get in their lifetime--

[Business of Supply, October 25th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, my friend across the way--

[Business of Supply, October 25th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate in this debate today. I would like to mention that I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Churchill.

As many of my friends opposite will know, when the last election campaign took place, I was not a proud member of the federal Liberal Party. I actually campaigned as a member of the Conservative Party and I spent a considerable amount of time knocking on doors. In fact, I actually knocked on around 25,000 doors over the course of eight or nine months during my campaign.

As I was knocking on doors, I had a great opportunity, of course, as other members do, to actually talk to individuals and families in their homes and find out what they cared about. I found that many people in my particular riding had not elected a Conservative since 1993. In fact, I was the last Conservative to represent that riding and there I was in 2005 campaigning again.

I found there was hesitation among people in the riding about the current Prime Minister. They did not mind the Conservative brand from what they knew from the past, but they had a few reservations about how this new Conservative Party would actually pan out. When people raised these questions with me I said, “Don't worry. I can assure you, my friends, that this new Conservative Party will be moderate, mainstream, middle of the road, and at its very core it has concerns about the economy, good economic management”.

I told people, “Don't worry, this party gets it. It understands the pressures that families are under today, it understands the concerns that people have about rising taxes. It is the party of prudent spending and economic management”. I said that and I did not give people any hint whatsoever as to what they could end up expecting.

What did they find? They found higher income taxes. No one told me about that when I was a Conservative candidate. Nobody told me to go to people's doorsteps and say, “If you vote for me, I will raise your income taxes”.

When I knocked on doors I had something called “Stand up for Canada”, which had a section in it called “Security for Seniors”. In that section it said, “We will not make life harder for senior citizens, senior investors”. I knocked on their doors and when they asked me, “Are you guys going to look after our savings”, I said, “Absolutely. The prime minister to be gets it. This new Conservative Party understands”. I did not tell them that we would go back as Conservatives and rob their savings.

When people said to me, “I have all my money in my house. Do you understand that? Do you guys understand that the repository of net family worth in this country is now residential real estate? Do you get it”, I said, “Absolutely. We will pursue prudent economic management policies that will not be inflationary, that will not trigger the Bank of Canada having to raise its key lending rate, which will translate into you having a higher mortgage rate”.

They asked me about inflation and I said, “Don't worry about that. There is no way that I think this government is going to overspend. This is a Conservative government, not like those Liberals over there who know how to mind the dollars. They will not overspend”. At the end of the day, I would have trouble going back to those people if I were a Conservative. I would have had serious trouble going back. I would have to say to those people, “I basically lied to you. I basically told you that the economic situation would be handled when it was not”.

I want to run through a couple of points before I get to some solutions because that is what Liberals are all about. We are about solutions. We are about solving problems. We are about giving people a sound, bright economic future. That is what everybody in the House ought to be concentrating on, not hurling mud.

I have to say a few things about what has happened regarding government spending. To me, there is nothing that represents failure on the part of government more than governments who overspend. It is a crime. I never thought I would see a Conservative government spend the way it is spending.

The government is spending more money in the current budget and projected in next year's budget than any other government in Canadian history, of any flavour, of any stripe.

In fact, government spending right now is increasing by double the inflation rate. That is a pretty serious issue. The consequences of that are extremely clear. When government spending is increasing by double the rate of inflation, it ends up itself being inflationary.

The government accounts for a significant part of GDP. As that happens it triggers an increase in the core inflation rate. As all hon. members know, the Bank of Canada tries to maintain an inflation rate of between 1% and 3% and right now we are at the top of that and bumping over. Economists agree that a very significant part of that is government spending.

As the Bank of Canada increases its inflationary range and exceeds it, then it has to have interest rate increases. Those interest rate increases are now impacting on families because they have also inflated our currency. Our Canadian dollar's rise to parity is certainly influenced by the inflationary tendencies we have seen from government spending and the Bank of Canada.

Now there is more pressure on families because mortgage rates are rising. In fact, key mortgage rates went up by half a point just a few days ago. With the record level of mortgage debt in this country with Canadians never having been as indebted as they are today, a half point increase in mortgage rates actually matters. It matters to people in my riding. In the 905 area, where houses are expensive, a half point is a big deal, and it need not have happened. It was fueled by the Conservative government. That is one pressure on families in my riding.

A secondary pressure on families is taxes. When I was knocking on doors in my constituency, I never told my people that their income taxes were going to rise because I did not believe it. The basic income tax rate in this country dropped to 15% in November 2005 in the last Liberal budget. I never imagined that a Conservative Prime Minister and a Conservative government would actually raise that, but they did.

People ask me why I am upset because it is only half a point. A half point increase in the bottom income tax rate translates into $2.8 billion. That is $2.8 billion that we are taking right out of the hides of Canadian taxpayers and sending to Ottawa. I do not think that is what any of them actually bargained for or voted for.

Then of course there are the 2.2 million seniors who owned income trusts. We know that story so I will not go over it in detail.

I went to a rally in Burlington, Ontario, as a Conservative candidate during the 2005-06 election campaign. I stood right behind the Prime Minister as he stood at the podium. He looked into the teleprompter and promised once again that he would never tax income trusts, and he did. Some $20 billion in the value of retirement savings, the capitalization of income trusts, basically vaporized because the income trust had been decimated by that commitment to tax it. Shame.

Also, and perhaps more significantly, $26 billion worth of Canadian companies have been sold, many of them to foreign interests, because they were worth pennies on the dollar because of the income trust decision.

Worse still, the Government of Canada said it was going to raid seniors' investments and take their income trusts because it was afraid of tax leakage. It did that because we have a robust income trust sector in Canada and the Government of Canada would see fewer dollars in terms of revenue. What has happened a year later? We know the facts. The Government of Canada suffered a $900 million tax loss because of the disappearance of these companies.

This is not all about problems; it is about solutions. We are also about solutions. Obviously, with an electoral campaign being forced upon us by the Conservatives, which will be here shortly, our platform will be revealed.

We do not believe that the GST cut is necessarily the best way to deliver the next tax cut. We think it is best through broad-based income tax cuts, which will put more dollars in the pockets of families.

Second, we want less government spending. With less government spending, we will have a drop in interest rates and that is definitely going to help families.

Third, we want an industrial strategy that addresses seriously foreign takeovers and also helps the automobile sector. Included in that is a corporate tax cut.

Fourth, we want broad based family tax reform and reductions. There is a number of things that we will be proposing there. Also, we have a demographic time bomb in this country with many people who today are truly going to need the kind of help the Liberal Party is offering.

[Old Age Security Act, October 23rd, 2007]

I do not think he was born then.