Bev Shipley

[Economic and Fiscal Statement, December 2nd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say to you and the House that it is a privilege and an honour to participate in the debate on the government's fiscal update. However, it comes with a sincere amount of disappointment when we see the events that are starting to unfold and have unfolded over the last few days. We learn now that this coup was likely developing during the election. It is unbelievable what is happening in Canada.

Today is the first time I have stood in the House since I was elected on October 14. I want to thank the constituents of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex in the great province of Ontario for re-electing me to represent them in this wonderful place, this inspiring House.

It is my second term serving in Parliament, which does not just happen by chance. It happens with a lot of support. It certainly comes from the support of all the people who went to the ballot box on October 14. I want to thank them for the incredible support they gave me, with a stronger mandate than the first time. I want to thank the constituents for all the things they did throughout the last three years to guide me in helping me serve them. That is what the people in the House are here to do.

I certainly want to thank my family. We do a lot of things in this place and we sometimes think it is just us but that is never the case. I am thankful for the support of my family, particularly my wife, Barb, for all the love and support she has given me during the last three years.

One thing I am always aware of is that not everybody voted for me. However, I am continually aware, in my journey down the political road, whether it is municipal or otherwise, that I am here to represent all constituents regardless of what party they represent. I believe each of us in the House is responsible to do that and I know most members take that seriously. As a result, I will continue, to the best of my ability, to represent the constituents in my riding who elected me to his honourable position.

My riding of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex is in the southwestern part of Ontario. It is a little bigger than Prince Edward Island. It is an incredibly diverse riding made up of small businesses, corporations, agriculture and family businesses. Many are doing well but some are not. In fact, some are not doing well at all.

We never have the right words, at least I do not, when I come across an individual who has just received a pink slip or lost a job on an assembly line or an administrator who has just been let go from a company after being part of the building of that company for a number of years. Even with my agriculture background, I do not have the right words for farm families who, when they go under, lose everything. They do not just lose their business, their house or their car, they lose their business and their house. I do not have the right words for those who go through that or are forced to shut down.

We are in a global crisis. According to the hundreds and hundreds of emails and phone calls that have come into my office and my constituency, Canadians are glad they are Canadians and that they live in Canada. They are glad they have had a Conservative government that some 16 months ago understood, beginning in 2006, started to recognize we had to take some initiatives to stimulate an economy in Canada. They are so thankful we started that and that we have come into this global crisis much stronger than any other country. They also believe we will come out of it sooner and stronger because of that.

We started a stimulus package with the banks to reinforce the fact that we had the soundest financial system in the world. A few months ago the papers were full of talk about how strong Canada was, that we were the envy of the world because we had taken strong steps to ensure we had a secure banking system that would be there for Canadians and businesses in the present and the future.

We will not underpin or bail out the banks with billions of taxpayer dollars. We do not have to do that. Other countries around the world are putting billions of dollars into their banking systems. Ordinary men and women, who get up every day to go to work, are questioning why they are now paying funds to help people who put themselves in trouble, who helped put their countries in the situation in which they find themselves.

The Conservative Party took that initiative. We cut taxes for all Canadians, for families, for businesses, family businesses and small businesses, corporations and seniors, which is unprecedented. We did that because we wanted Canadians to stimulate the economy.

People stimulate the economy. Governments do not. Our belief is if we put this money back into the hands of Canadians, they will stimulate the economy and they are.

The opposition parties have a view that they will tax Canadians, take the money from them and let the bureaucracy take its percentage out and distribute it. They will make the decision on what is good for Canadians.

We do not believe that. When Canadians get money in their pockets, they will stimulate the economy. Why and how? We paid down the debt by $37 billion in just under three years. Unbelievably, we still have a surplus though it may be small. We have lowered taxes, as I mentioned, for all Canadians. We have balanced our budgets.

When I talked about paying down taxes of $200 billion, no other G7 country can speak of that. In fact, many G20 countries do not have that same circumstance. We have become the envy of the world in a world-wide crisis. Why? Because our Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance had the vision and the foresight beyond what other countries could see. They did that at least 16 months ago when we started this process.

Everyone on that side of the House, if they came to vote, voted against it. We do not believe in taxing companies, which we want to be successful, when they are struggling.

We have given hope to Canadians and businesses in this critical time. Every initiative that we have taken to help Canadians, Canadian families and businesses, the people across the way have voted against.

They signed this great coalition paper yesterday. The coalition will be led by a leader who did not have the respect of his own people, as members of Parliament, to show up to vote in the last Parliament. It is unbelievable.

We put into place expenditure management. If one talks to businesses, one knows that is what to do. When times get a little tighter, it is not always about the revenue; it is about the expenditures. This government understands businesses. We understand what families go through with their home budgets when they have to trim. Not only do they look at revenues, they look at what can be cut. We brought in a expenditure management tool. All those spendthrift people on the other side voted against that.

We wanted to help manufacturing and industry. How did we do that? We went to them through committees and as individuals. They told us what they needed to be competitive. They told us, we did not tell them. They told us they needed to be competitive in the tax structure. They told us they needed to be competitive in the writedown of their large equipment. They told us they needed to get rid of the paper burden. They told us we needed to reinvest. They told us we needed to invest more in innovation, research and technology. We did that, at their request.

The people on the other side of the House, after agreeing to it in committee, voted against it. They voted against industry, against manufacturing, against lower taxes and against research and development. It is unbelievable.

We committed to rebuild our military. When we came into government in 2006, our military was in a shambles because the Liberal Party had decimated it. The Liberals made a commitment to send our men and women in harm's way, without investing in proper equipment and training, without giving them the moral support that a government should. We had to reinvest, and we did that. The parties across the way voted against that.

In the last number of years before I came here, I was in municipal politics. I had the great honour of being the mayor of our municipality of Middlesex Centre. At that time, the funding for projects continually evaporated as the federal government downloaded onto the provincial governments, which forced them to download onto their municipal governments. To stimulate our economy, we need to reinvest back into the infrastructure of our country. We need to reinvest in our municipalities and provinces.

We have just put $33 billion into infrastructure. We have done that to help build the strength of the country, to get the construction industry fired up again. In fact, in this coming year, the committed dollars will be doubled. We have given the full rebate of 5¢ a litre of gas, which will come into effect in 2009. We have given back the full GST that municipalities wanted.

I can hear it now. The Liberals will be saying that this is exactly what they were going to do. They are always going to do it and they never get it done.

The Conservative government had to come in and ensure that assets and moneys flowed back to our municipalities, for which they are grateful.

We talk about agriculture. My background is in agriculture. One of the things we are so blessed with is a strong agriculture industry. We are blessed with some of the greatest land. We can feed our nation and other countries. We are blessed with individuals and farm families, all devoting their time and energy without ever looking at a clock to see when the day starts and ends. They run on margins of high investment and low margins. It is not only a way of life, which it used to be, but they have a love for the industry. They are incredibly fine businessmen and women or, in some cases, they would not be successful.

The government doubled the agriculture budget, which had been sliced by the last government. What did the opposition parties do? They voted against agriculture, against farm families and against the sovereignty that is so important to our country. They also voted against giving our agriculture industry the underpinning and the safety net protection it needed.

The government put systems in place for our seniors. We have done an unprecedented amount more for seniors than any other government. We have accelerated the programs under VIP and the bill of rights for veterans. For our seniors who built this country, we have done more to help them live a good successful life.

We talked in our economic update about the RRIFs and pension income splitting for seniors. We dealt with the guaranteed income supplements in our budget. Everyone on that side of the House voted against it. They voted against seniors. They voted against those people who helped build the country so all Canadians could enjoy our freedoms and blessings.

The government introduced an economic stimulus. The opposition unanimously agreed with the throne speech. About two days later, the government presented an economic update, which is not a budget. I do not think the opposition has figured out the difference between an economic update and a budget as of yet.

A couple of days later the opposition said that it would vote down the economic statement, before a budget came into place, and would form a ludicrous undemocratic coalition, a coup for the Canadian people to accept.

The coalition, interestingly, is made up of socialists and separatists, who want to break the country apart. They will have the veto on every vote and all legislation. The coalition will also be run by a leader who has not been accepted by anybody, not the Canadian people or the party he represents. He will be there for a few months. Then he will be kicked him out and somebody new will take over in May. This coalition will represent Canada on the international stage. It is unbelievable.

I will wrap up by saying that I hope Canadians get to see the value of our economic statement, I hope they get to see the value of our economic update, and I hope they get to judge a Conservative budget on January 27. Why? Because that is democracy and that is what Canadians deserve.

[Canada Millennium Scholarships, June 16th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the opportunity to recognize three exceptional students from my riding of Lambton--Kent--Middlesex. Each has won a millennium scholarship through the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation.

They are: Danika Teeple, from Arkona, who attends North Lambton Secondary School; Celina Flannery, from Komoka, who attends Medway High School; and Lucy Hinton, from Strathroy, who attends Strathroy District Collegiate Institute.

All have displayed excellence in the classroom and beyond. These young women have been chosen in a nationwide competition for three of only 1,052 scholarships that have been awarded to students across Canada.

The competition is based on outstanding achievement in four key areas: academic performance, community service, leadership, and innovation.

I wish to express congratulations to each of the winners. I wish them the best for a safe and enjoyable summer and a successful and very bright future.

[Committees of the House, June 10th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, if I were a producer sitting out there I can tell members that I would be pretty confused about the message coming from the other side.

The member just said the whole solution has to be comprehensive with regard to the municipalities, the manufacturers and the tobacco board, yet at committee, the committee members voted against that. That is why the motion is irrelevant. It focuses on only one point.

It does not bring in the part about what we are sitting with right now, with my colleague from Elgin—Middlesex—London, who is setting the task force that will bring in what the board asked for, which was that the municipalities, the communities and the manufacturers deal with contraband and deal with the federal and provincial governments.

I am wondering why the member has changed his tune and has not read what actually has happened through the committee.

[Committees of the House, June 10th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite has a concern for the tobacco farmers, as all of us do. He raised some interesting points. The real issue is that this motion does not cut it. It only deals with one aspect of the situation, and he touched on that.

One thing that is important is that when members of the board talked to us, members from the Conservative Party especially, it was not just about the tobacco producers themselves. They also had concerns about their communities. They also had a huge concern about the contraband. The member for Brant said that problem was fixed in 1994-95, but obviously that did not cut it because now it is the worst it has been in history.

What we wanted was a complete package, as laid out by the board, that looked at contraband, the municipalities and the communities, and obviously, nobody is talking about the manufacturers. They are the big players in this, or should be. Obviously it is still called the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board and there is the province as well.

I wonder if the member would comment on the exit strategy that was brought about by the previous Liberal government, better known as the tobacco adjustment assistance program, TAAP. Also, because it is the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board that regulates and legislates the quota and distribution, does he have any comments of where it should fit into the solution?

[The Environment, June 4th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, right now there are about five million cars and trucks on Canada's roads built before 1995 that do not meet tougher environmental standards. These cars and trucks produce about 19 times the pollution and smog of current vehicles.

As we celebrate Clean Air Day, Canadians want to do their part to help clean the air we breathe and reduce smog.

Can the Minister of the Environment tell the House what plans he has to help Canadians get these old clunkers off the road?

[Old Age Security Act, June 2nd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to add my comments on Bill C-490. I appreciate the opportunity to speak about our government's record on seniors' issues, because we actually have a record worth talking about.

That is why we have taken measures to ensure that OAS and GIS continue to meet the needs of seniors. This government was elected to take responsible, measured actions to support Canadians, and we have to look to the future when considering changes like the ones outlined in the bill.

Our government is very much aware of the significance and the importance of a program such as old age security. The program is an integral part of our social safety net. It is important for all Canadians and must be accessible by all Canadians for years to come.

It is also the responsibility of this government to manage these programs so they will continue to exist in the future. This is a responsibility that I think members of the Bloc in some respects have set aside, although maybe as members of the opposition they do not have the same concerns as Canadian taxpayers.

I would like to touch on three areas around OAS and the GIS. First, there is the increase in the monthly GIS payment. The bill proposes to increase the monthly GIS payment by $110 per month.

I commend the hon. member for Alfred-Pellan for his compassion in wishing to find ways to alleviate poverty among seniors, but the proposals outlined in the bill will not meet those objectives. In fact, quite the opposite may happen. This would bankrupt the program so that it would no longer exist for future generations of Canadian seniors.

Although it has been said in the House on many occasions, it is worth saying again that Canadian seniors have one of the highest standards of living in the world. Their income has more than doubled over the past two decades.

It is also important to remember that Canada now has one of the lowest levels of poverty among seniors of any country in the industrialized world. It has dropped from 21% in 1980 to less than 6% today.

We have lower poverty rates than our G-8 partners. Our social safety net is already the envy of the world. This is something the government will protect for future generations.

Certainly it is not time to stop working to reduce seniors' poverty further, because even one senior living in poverty, as we often say, is one too many. That is why this government acted when we were elected to increase the GIS by 7%. We did this again in January 2007. These measures are providing all single recipients of the GIS with an additional $430 per year and $700 more per couple per year.

These increases will raise the total GIS benefit by more than $2.7 billion over the next five years and benefit more than 1.6 million GIS recipients, including more than 50,000 seniors who were not eligible for the program under the previous Liberal government.

This government heard from thousands of seniors from across the country in the lead-up to budget 2008 and we heard that more and more of them want to remain in the workforce. They want to do it to stay active in their communities, to make a little extra cash to have some fun or to spend it on children, grandchildren or family, or just to do something for themselves.

Seniors' groups also told us that their members would love to continue working, but under the previous Liberal regime they could not do it without having their hard-earned benefits clawed back. There was little incentive or initiative to go out to earn a little extra for the things they wanted or, quite honestly, just to keep active and be involved. That is why this government increased the earned income exemption to $3,500 from the previous Liberal system, which allowed only $500 in earnings before benefits were withheld.

This important change will allow GIS recipients to keep more of their hard-earned money without any reduction in their GIS benefits: $3,000 more before benefits are withheld. I note that the Bloc actually opposed this in the last budget.

The second issue I want to talk about is the unlimited retroactivity. My colleague across the aisle also proposes that we bring in unlimited retroactive payments of the OAS-GIS for eligible beneficiaries. I would remind the House that currently these benefits are payable retroactive for up to one year from the month of application.

This period of retroactivity is not unusual. In fact, it is consistent with the retroactivity provisions of most other international jurisdictions. Moreover, it is important to keep in mind that these benefits have been designed to help low income seniors meet their current needs, not to compensate them for past needs.

Yet the government does make exemptions to the basic one year limit to ensure seniors are treated fairly. If the person was incapable of applying, was given bad advice, or if the mistake is an administrative error, the government will ensure that people get the benefits they are entitled to.

I would ask the House to consider the long term ramifications of this bill. In fact, this government and this House need to be very concerned regarding the ramifications of this bill. The costs of the retroactivity provisions alone could be in excess of $6 billion per year. This government cannot and will not take a risk like that with such an important program for seniors.

This government makes significant efforts to ensure that eligible low income seniors receive the benefits to which they are entitled. GIS applications are sent to low income seniors who do not receive OAS and GIS benefits.

Our efforts have resulted in an additional 325,000 low income seniors receiving the benefit who were not getting it before. With the GIS increase, as I mentioned before, for 50,000 new eligible seniors, plus the 325,000 who now get benefits under the Conservative government, that is significant.

Through Bill C-36, we have also enabled seniors to make a one time application for the GIS and receive it whenever they become eligible as long as they file a tax return.

These are reasonable actions which will ensure that OAS and GIS programs exist well into the future.

Last is the issue of the elimination of the requirement to apply for GIS benefits. The proposal to eliminate the requirement to apply for GIS benefits is unfortunately not workable. Formal application is needed since the information available from Canada Revenue is sometimes insufficient to determine eligibility. For example, not available in income tax returns could be information such as updated marital status and also residency in Canada.

The onus remains on the individual to make the initial application, but with the single lifetime application that this government introduced in Bill C-36, the process has become much easier and friendlier for Canadian seniors.

We can all applaud the stated goal of the bill and certainly the member for Alfred-Pellan for his desire around Bill C-490, but unfortunately it will not meet the goal and will put the future of this necessary program on the line.

For that reason, I cannot support it. I can assure this House, however, that we will continue to work hard and provide a bright future for all Canadian seniors.

[The Environment, May 29th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, while the Prime Minister is showcasing Canada's environmental leadership on the world stage this week, the Liberals and the NDP are squabbling among themselves about their so-called plan on the environment, with the Liberal Party's declaration of war on the Canadian taxpayer with a regressive carbon tax.

This week, a certain Liberal from Ontario by the name of Mr. D. McGuinty also said that a carbon tax was not the way to go.

However, from diversity to biofuels, our government is getting it done.

Could the Minister of Natural Resources update this House on some of the accomplishments our government has achieved on the environment?

[Price of Petroleum Products, May 26th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, actually it is interesting. I guess what the member may be suggesting is that we bring in price controls. Back in the 1970s when certain price controls were advocated, it did not work that well.

Also, that is coming from a member who is concerned about the price of fuel and he should be concerned about the price of fuel. However, the leader of the member's party is saying that the Liberals want to increase the taxes. They want to jump up the GST at least to 7% and maybe higher. They want to introduce a carbon tax which is better known as a gas tax.

[Price of Petroleum Products, May 26th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member that there is a concern with high gas prices. We know that. I have never understood, quite honestly, why it is $1.37 in B.C. and maybe the same in Alberta where it is actually produced, and less in other parts of the country. Those are globally driven prices.

The question is what are we doing for Canadians? I guess I will just have to re-emphasize that we have lowered the taxes. The taxes are the lowest they have been in about 40 years.

We can talk about our budget. We have reduced the subsidies to the oil sands. We have reduced the taxes. The member talked about gouging. I will go back to the minister's speech. When we reduced those two things, the NDP actually opposed them because that party did not support the budget. I guess I would have to say that the NDP members actually think subsidies to the large oil companies are great. They think that raising taxes is the thing to be doing.

The member talked about gouging, but the bureau has found six times that there is not any. Whether we agree with that or not, that is what the bureau said.

[Price of Petroleum Products, May 26th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity tonight to participate in the debate on gas prices. This provides me with an opportunity to point out some of the clear differences in the House between the Conservative government and the parties opposite.

High gas prices are a huge concern to everyone. This is not the time to be making points for partisan gain. This is a time to be concerned about the residents in each of our ridings, whether they are homemakers, business people, or farmers, and I will talk a bit about that also.

The price of gas is on the minds of Canadians across this country. Constituents have phoned me and emailed me about their concerns, and they have asked me what I am going to do and what can happen.

The Liberal leader recently stated that he wants Canadians to use less of what is bad. I guess the gas is bad and we are to use less of it. He announced that his party would impose a massive gas tax on all Canadian families. This gas tax would take billions of dollars out of the pockets of working families, seniors, those who are not working and already struggling to put food on the table.

As my colleague the Minister of Natural Resources said, if the price of fuel is $1.30 a litre and we added on a 60% hike, the price would rise to around $2.25. This is not going to be good for Canadian families.

My daughter works part time and she drives to work. Her husband has a construction business which runs excavators. He has people on the road all the time. To increase the cost of fuel by another 60% in these days would be unconscionable. Not only would it make it hard for families to afford gas but there is not a doubt in my mind that it would also take away jobs. It would take away businesses because of the high energy cost involved. People also have to heat their homes and the like.

This is not just about raising the gas tax, which the opposition wants to do, but more so about what we as a government have done by reducing taxes over the past two years. We were ridiculed by many at the time for reducing the GST. The GST in my riding for every per cent is $18 million. Some $36 million dollars goes back into the economy of my riding, not unlike the ridings of most members sitting here today. If those members ever get back into power, they will raise the GST back up to 7% plus add a gas tax to it. Canadians would not be able to endure that.

Those members continually talk about raising the gas tax, but we cannot control the price of the product. It is a global commodity. It is on the stock market. It is not just us saying that.

We should listen to some of the other ones, other voices of credit. Greenhouse Emissions Management Consortium warned that carbon tax shifts the burden from the richest to the poorest families because most of the energy purchases of low and middle-income families are not discretionary whereas almost half the energy purchased by the wealthy families tends to be discretionary.

Perhaps he should listen to a few of the Liberals who have spoken out against the potential imposition of a new regressive carbon tax on Canadians. Liberal strategist Warren Kinsella recently stated that a carbon tax was unfair to people on fixed incomes such as the elderly, the poor or those who have to heat their homes and buy food too, and it was therefore profoundly not Liberal.

The member for Kings—Hants stated that he was strongly against energy taxes. He said that he would never propose higher taxes in Canada in any area and yet as we talk about how we are going to keep Canadians and our economy strong we have a party that is in the official opposition, the Liberal Party, that continually wants to boost the taxes of the country against the working people.

I was talking to a friend of mine the other day when he was putting his crops in. When he pulled up to the fuel tank to fill up his tractor it cost him $1,200. That runs him a little less than between 10 and 11 hours of work.

If it is this much now to fill it up, and that is when we have dropped the taxes, and we allow a government to come in and raise the taxes back up higher than they are now by another 60%, not only is it going to affect the cost of production but it will put the businesses like farming and construction, which are struggling now to make ends meet, at a greater disadvantage.

We talked earlier today about food and fuel, and whether it is food for fuel or growing crops for food. As we start to talk about this whole issue, as we continue to make food more expensive because we would have to add the tax to the production of the food, then again it becomes counterproductive when we start to think about how we are going to keep a strong economy and how we are going to feed nations with food that is costing more to produce.

I think we always have to be careful about whatever we do. That is why the principle of this government has been to work for working families to lower personal taxes, lower the GST, and raise the personal exemption on tax. Quite honestly, when we talked to seniors this year about income splitting, it was incredible, particularly the uptake that was received and the moneys that have been saved by our seniors, just in those tax savings.

That is the difference when we talk about what our government wants to do for families. We want to lower taxes and make things affordable. We do not want to increase them and make them unaffordable.

As we get into the debate on this and as it goes on for a while, I just want to wrap up by saying that we are concerned about high gas taxes but we should always remember that those are global issues. What we can do is keep taxes low, keep the economy strong, and keep our families and businesses in business.