Dean Del Mastro

[Business of Supply, March 31st, 2008]

Indeed, Mr. Speaker, we heard an awful lot of positive remarks about the measures this government has taken and the very important stimulus we brought forward with the fall economic statement. People spoke about the reduction of taxes as an impetus to encourage people to invest. They talked about the after-tax savings account that this government has brought forward and what a benefit that is going to be to Canadians.

That is something I am hearing in my riding, by the way. People are very excited about this new tax-free savings account the federal government has created and about what an impetus that will be for regular people to save in a tax-sheltered manner that is really going to build wealth. They spoke really positively about that.

Again, they talked about what the provinces can do to really enable businesses. At the top of the list was the transition from a retail sales tax to a value added tax. They talked about how that will take away the taxes from investment and put it on the end result, on production and consumption, as opposed to investment. Those are taxes that kill jobs. That is what people talked about. That is what we want the Government of Ontario to hear. That is how we want the Government of Ontario to act.

[Business of Supply, March 31st, 2008]

Of course, Mr. Speaker, that is a quote taken out of context. It is from a much larger statement made by the finance minister. He was referring to the findings of the provincial government's own task force. That is what the provincial government's own task force said. These are not the words of the Minister of Finance. He is quoting from the provincial government's own task force, which said that the marginal effective tax rate in Ontario is the least competitive in the industrialized world, and it is not just how high Ontario's taxes are, it is how it collects them.

We have to change. Ontario has to get away from the retail sales tax, that old PST. We have to get to a value added tax or, even better, a harmonized sales tax in Ontario, so that we do not tax investment in the province of Ontario, so that business people will not have the reins taken away from them. They can compete, create jobs and wealth, and create the Ontario that has long been the shining star of Canada's economy and the economy of the entire G-7.

That is what was inherited. That is what we want back. That is why the Minister of Finance is out there talking about what can be done to recreate that strong, robust Ontario economy. I believe in it. He believes in it. So do the members of the Conservative government.

[Business of Supply, March 31st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I would like to inform the House that I will be splitting my time with the member for Niagara West—Glanbrook.

I am not sure what the purpose of today's motion is other than some belated political theatre from the member for Markham—Unionville, something he is starting to familiarize himself with in his role of opposition finance critic, a job, I might add, that he seems to enjoy and which we on this side of the House hope he has for years to come.

To call into question as this motion does the confidence of the House in the economic vitality of the country's industrial heartland illustrates the extent of the challenges facing not only Ontario but all of Canada during this period of global economic volatility.

These challenges are significant, somewhat unprecedented and due largely to variables outside the control of government: the rapid weakening of the U.S. dollar; the softening in the U.S. economy; high energy prices; and increasing competition from emerging economies such as those of China and India.

Fortunately, Canada has resilient and innovative entrepreneurs along with an industrious workforce that has the capacity to overcome such challenges. Complemented by a Conservative government that is committed to creating a business climate where Canadians can succeed and prosper, we are confident that the challenges of today will prove merely to be the path of the opportunities of tomorrow.

To achieve such, our Conservative government is committed to working cooperatively with all provinces and territories. This is in stark contrast to the federal Liberal opposition, whose time in government was largely marred by unparalleled acrimonious relations with the provinces. From that record of unprecedented cuts to federal transfer payments to the near loss of the 1995 Quebec referendum, to the lowering of Canadian flags and the appalling and repeated denial of a fiscal imbalance, this Conservative government has absolutely nothing to learn from the official opposition when it comes to federal-provincial relations.

Our record of strong support is in deeds, not in words or empty rhetoric. I would like to take a moment to look at these deeds for the benefit of the opposition.

First, this Conservative government has brought total transfers to all provinces and territories to historic highs following the unprecedented transfer reductions introduced by the former Liberal government.

Second, budget 2007 restored fiscal balance and did so in a manner that is fair to all provinces and territories--what the Liberal leader still arrogantly dismisses as a myth. The budget strengthened federal support to the provinces by over $39 billion for shared priorities, including equalization, post-secondary education, social programs, support for children, labour market training, infrastructure, and the environment.

Provinces have also benefited from the 2007 budget's new equalization system, which returns the system to a fair and principled basis and helps ensure that all provinces have the resources to provide reasonably comparable programs and services at reasonably comparable levels of taxation.

Third, to complement these increases to equalization, we also moved to ensure that the Canada social transfer and the Canada health transfer treat all Canadians fairly by moving to equal per capita cash support, eliminating the past situation under the previous government whereby Ontario got a proportionately less than per capita transfer, something known as back door equalization.

Ontario's Liberal premier called on the former Liberal government to remedy this situation. It did not. Its solution? Deny it existed and send out the member for Markham—Unionville, the very sponsor of today's motion, to claim its provincial Liberal cousins were aiding and abetting Quebec separatists for even daring to raise the issue in 2005. It was scandalous.

In sharp contrast, this Conservative government acted in the best interests of fairness, and we resolved Ontario's concerns.

Our new equalization system responds to other concerns raised by Ontario by guaranteeing that equalization transfers are capped at the level of the lowest non-receiving province, which is Ontario. This means, in effect, that Ontario taxpayers will not be subsidizing provinces with a higher fiscal capacity than theirs. All provinces and territories are benefiting from this significantly increased, more equitable and more principles-based transfer support.

As a result of restoring fiscal balance in Ontario, Ontario will receive $13.9 billion in 2008-09, an increase of $1.4 billion from just last year, and more than $2.7 billion since 2005-06, the last year of the Liberal administration.

That does not mean our work is done.

We believe that to secure Canada's and Ontario's economic future we must become one of the most competitive business tax regimes in the world. This Conservative government has made enormous strides in this regard.

Anticipating current economic volatility, we took aggressive action in the fall of 2007 to stimulate and bolster the economy with more than $60 billion in tax cuts. We cut corporate income taxes. We cut personal income taxes. And we cut the GST, just as we promised.

Combined with prior measures, the total actions taken by this government to date are approaching $200 billion in tax cuts over this and the next five years. These actions will bring Canada's federal taxes to their lowest level in nearly half a century. In the coming year alone, we will have provided $21 billion in tax relief, roughly 1.4% of Canada's total economy.

Observers have been widespread in their praise for our Conservative government's pre-emptive action, such as BMO economic Doug Porter, who stated of the fall economic statement that:

It was brilliantly timed. Just as the economy was running into serious heavy weather...we had some serious financial stimulus.

The Institute for Policy Analysis said:

Helping offset the weakness [in Canada] will be the “fortuitous” injection of stimulus from the tax cuts and spending increases announced in the [fall economic statement].

The Conference Board of Canada said:

The Canadian economy will weather the storm of uncertainty...recent changes, such as tax reductions announced by the federal government...will maintain the momentum.

TD economist Don Drummond said that “the federal government I think has already done what it can do...it did do an awful lot of financial stimulus in its” fall economic statement, “including the one point off the GST”.

Key to our objectives for a strong business environment is the reduction of federal corporate taxes to 15% by 2012. This will make Canada's corporate income tax rate the lowest among the world's major developed economies and give Canada a substantial tax advantage over the United States.

Along with a reduction in the corporate income tax, we have also eliminated the corporate surtax for all corporations. We have eliminated the federal capital tax two years ahead of schedule. We have provided an incentive to encourage provinces to eliminate their capital taxes, which Ontario did in its most recent budget. We have reduced the small business tax rate to 11% ahead of schedule. We have increased the small business tax limit from $300,000 to $400,000. This is job-creating stuff.

This competitive tax regime will be a powerful brand for Canada globally, but we cannot do it alone. We need the provinces to follow suit, especially Ontario, the province most out of line compared with other provinces in areas that matter most.

For example, in 2012, Ontario's marginal effective tax rate will be 30.7%, one of the highest in the country and well above Quebec's marginal effective tax rate of 18.8% in 2012. That is substantial. The federal tax system accounts for only one-third of Ontario's marginal effective tax rate, with Ontario's taxes responsible for two-thirds.

For those who would question the words of a Conservative politician on this matter, I ask them to consider the words of the Province of Ontario's very own task force on competitiveness, which in 2007 reported the following:

Combining a relatively high provincial corporate income tax, a capital tax, and a sales tax on capital goods, Ontario has the highest tax rate on new business investment among the provinces...Ontario's tax regime is one of the least conducive to business investment in the developed world.

I want to repeat that. These are the words of is the province's own task force: “Ontario's tax regime is one of the least conducive to business investment in the developed world”. That is what the finance minister has been talking about.

While we want to applaud Ontario's plan to take advantage of our incentive to eliminate its capital taxes by 2010, clearly more can be done if we are to secure Ontario's competitive future.

In the spirit of open federalism, this Conservative government will work with Ontario, along with all provinces and territories, to build a more prosperous home for all. We want to build a safer, better, stronger Canada. That includes Ontario.

[Business of Supply, March 31st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would not take economic advice from that member. Nothing of what he says is rooted in anything that any business leaders, any economic experts, anybody who is interested in building a safer, stronger, better Ontario has come forward and made a comment similar to anything the member has just said.

The member does not understand that the greatest social program that could be created is a good paying job. What will not do that? High taxes, taxes that absolutely strangle and stifle investment in the province of Ontario. The member stands for that. If the people in his riding want more unemployment, more poverty, more hardship, vote for what he stands for in the House because this will lead to that.

This party stands for more investment and better earnings for Canadians. He should stand and support us.

[Business of Supply, March 31st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in the comments by the previous Liberal member, who called $2 billion a rounding error. I thought that was really remarkable. I will be sure to use that in the next election campaign.

I do want to question the member. I am astounded by comments he made about how we have whittled down the surplus so that it is razor thin now. Why in the world is the Liberal Party against giving Canadians back their hard-earned tax dollars?

We have increased investment in health care. The Liberals have adequately pointed that out. We have increased investment in education. We have increased transfers to every single province. We have provided more support for families.

We have been there, but we have also reduced taxes, and we brought that surplus down. We have paid down record amounts of debt. There should not be a massive surplus in Canada because it is Canadians' money. It is not Liberal money. It is not Conservative money. It is not government money. It is the money of Canadians. A multi-billion dollar surplus is not needed. It is not good for families. It is not good for business. I do not know why the member does not understand that. Perhaps he could enlighten us.

[Business of Supply, March 31st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member pointed out the fact that our finance minister discussed what he would like to see in the Ontario budget. That is true. We did have a wish list for the Ontario budget.

However, what the hon. member did not talk about are some things that people did not see, things that the Liberal government never allowed them to see in an Ontario provincial budget when the Liberals were the federal government. The Liberals presided over a time when the fiscal imbalance grew to some $22 billion and they never provided things like per capita transfers to the province of Ontario. Despite Ontario being 38% of the population and 41% of the GDP, it received only about 22% of the infrastructure dollars under the previous Liberal government.

However, the hon. member is different and I know he is different. He has gone on the record on many occasions with past comments which indicate that he firmly supports the Ontario Liberal government receiving equal per capita transfers, transfers that are fair from coast to coast.

I would like to ask the member if he does support equal per capita transfers for the province of Ontario and, for that matter, for all provinces.

[The Environment, March 11th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, unlike the federal Liberal Party whose failures on the environmental file are well documented, yesterday our government followed-through on our tough environmental agenda by requiring oil sands plants to use carbon capture and storage, and essentially banning the construction of new dirty coal power.

Last night this government's environmental agenda and policies were put to a confidence vote in the House of Commons. Can our outstanding Minister of the Environment tell the House about the outcome of that vote?

[Afghanistan, March 10th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, we kind of got somewhere along the way of what I was hoping to establish with the member. I appreciate the fact that my colleague asked him whether he understood there was a difference between a UN sanctioned mission, a mission where a democratically elected government asked us to stay and defend it.

The member kept on saying that we had a chance. We have a chance to defend people like the six female members of parliament, who were here last week. They asked us not to abandon them. They asked us not to give up the gains that they had made. They asked us to defend them, to stand with them. They are building a democratic republic in Afghanistan where women are respected, where children have an opportunity to succeed, where business can succeed. They told us they were building a real nation.

Why does the member not see that? Why does he not support it?

[Afghanistan, March 10th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentioned the word “rotation” quite frequently when he speaks. Other speakers in the House have talked about the importance of standing behind the people to whom we have made a commitment, the families, the women, the children and the people of the Kandahar region.

When talking about rotation, one is implicitly saying that at some point there was an agreement that we would leave and somebody else would come in so they would not be abandoned. Because the member has not spoken about it, perhaps he could provide some details as to what the agreement was on rotation when the former government committed us to Kandahar in the first place. I have never seen any document and I doubt the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence has ever seen one.

He talked about the undue burden that we have carried. If the former government were going to commit them to this burden, where is the document that talks about rotation?

[Afghanistan, March 10th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by saying how much it meant to me to listen to the member's personal point of view. I know he brings a lot of heart and feeling to this because he has experienced it and he knows people who have experienced this very situation. He was one of a number of MPs, like myself, who met the female MPs from Afghanistan last week. That was a truly moving experience.

He also talked about how Rome was not built in a day. I have been to Rome a number of times and I have seen buildings that took 400 years to be built. What we have accomplished in Afghanistan is we have built thousands of kilometres of roads. We have built schools where millions of kids are going to school. That is all at risk of being lost.

My understanding is that two of the parties in this House are going to vote against this mission. Does the member think that is consistent with Canada's identity in the world?