Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to rise in the House to debate our opposition motion. As my colleague from Parkdale—High Park said, this is a real opportunity for members of the House to express support for good economic development for our small and medium-size businesses and the manufacturing sector.
Today we are sharing part of the economic policy that we will put forward during the 2015 election. This is not the plan in its entirety; we are just paving the way right now. We are doing this because we want to give members of the House an opportunity to express their views on this issue and debate it outside of the usual setting.
I would like to talk about the Conservatives' economic record because they sure like to boast about their successes. As it turns out, though, despite all the fancy announcements and media lines, the emperor has no clothes. The emperor has no clothes because the successes that the Conservative government goes on and on about are nothing compared to the disastrous impact its policies are having on the Canadian economy. Those policies are also causing so much potential to go unrealized. All this government talks about is balancing the budget. Naturally, it does not talk about the sacrifices it has forced people to make so that it can maybe, someday, achieve that balanced budget.
When it came to power, the government inherited a budget surplus. It spent that surplus and was in a deficit situation even before the economic crisis hit. The Conservatives call themselves sound fiscal managers, but the only time a Conservative government ever balanced the budget, other than for the year and a half after they took power in 2006, was in 1912 under Robert Borden. If I had had a chance to speak and ask the member for Parkdale—High Park a question, I would have asked her to talk about the successes of New Democratic governments—provincial ones, to be sure, because we have not had an opportunity to form the federal government. That will come. Still, the federal finance department recognizes that at the provincial level, the NDP is the party with the best performance in terms of balancing budgets.
The emperor across the way has no clothes. Obviously, the Conservatives talk about the number of jobs created in Canada since the height of the recession, and they brag about having created those jobs. I agree that the government can indeed create jobs. It can create jobs in what is known as the public sector. This government, however, has not created jobs in the public sector. It has destroyed them. It has destroyed more than 30,000 public sector jobs since coming into power in 2011. Canada has rebounded in terms of job creation since the height of the recession not because the government created jobs, but because the private sector created jobs. The private sector rebounded in large part because of the cycle and the favourable circumstances that we had in Canada.
What people need to realize is that the vast majority of those jobs created since the height of the recession in July 2009, much more than before the recession, are precarious, part-time jobs. The best reflection of that is what happened at Tim Hortons. We asked questions in the House, denouncing the fact that 350 administrative jobs would be eliminated by Burger King when it acquired Tim Hortons. The government told us that it was unfortunate for those people, but that things would work out because Tim Hortons promised to open 500 new restaurants. Those restaurants will generate a few precarious, part-time jobs, while the 350 jobs that were lost were well-paid jobs in the community.
The government does not have an economic plan. It only talks about tax cuts. We support having a competitive tax position, whether personal or corporate, relative to that of our partners. However, according to the Conservatives, a 1% increase in any tax rate would be the greatest disaster to befall Canadian society, whereas a 1% reduction is a miraculous remedy that could even cure the common cold. No credible government spokesperson can tell us exactly how these jobs were created by the economic situation or climate resulting from the government's economic policies.
In fact, I even doubt that they intend to use the government and its resources for the greater good or to create this favourable business climate.
When the government cuts taxes, it creates deficits. That is what happened in 2007-08, even before the economic downturn. The Conservatives made cuts to eventually, or possibly, balance the budget. What will happen afterwards? Will they use the surplus to improve the economic climate?
Judging by the comments from the member for Beauce, who is also the Minister of State for Small Business and Tourism, and Agriculture, I do not think that will happen. In fact, he says that as soon as the budget is balanced, they will continue to cut taxes in order to create new deficits, which will be followed by new cuts to balance the budget, allowing them to further reduce taxes. Where is the Conservative government's vision for our society and the Canadian economy?
That is why I am pleased to rise in the House to talk about the NDP's plan. It is a partial plan, since we are laying the groundwork for our economic plan. For example, there is a promise that dates back to the 2011 election, when we promised to lower the tax rate for small and medium-size businesses from 11% to 9%. Obviously, it will start by going from 11% to 10%, and if finances allow, it will then go from 10% to 9%. That is what we promised when the tax rate was 12%. The Conservatives reduced it by 1%, but we want to get it down to 9%.
This is an important measure, especially since the overall corporate tax rate has gone down since 2000. However, the Liberal government at the time misused the employment insurance fund. It took $57 billion from this fund and passed it along to major corporations in the form of massive tax cuts. From 2000 to 2009, the tax rate dropped from 28% to 19.5%, and under the Conservatives it is now 15%. That is a drop of 13%.
The small business tax rate dropped from 12% to 11%. This means that the difference between the tax rates for small business and big business went from 16% to just 4%.
We believe that we must widen that gap again. In a world where small businesses have to compete with big companies that are able to benefit from economies of scale, those small businesses need a more favourable tax environment. That is why former NDP leader Jack Layton proposed reducing the tax rate to 9% in 2011. That is also why we are reintroducing this measure and presenting it in the House today to launch our election platform.
Another important measure already exists, and that is the accelerated capital cost allowance for businesses. This measure already exists, but it is renewed from year to year. At some point, we will have to discuss whether it would be a good idea to extend this measure. Measures that are renewed from year to year serve only to increase uncertainty for our businesses, which need certainty now more than ever.
What is more, according to Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters:
The two-year write-off generates important cash flow for companies investing in new production technologies—and cash flow is critical for companies that are investing to grow their business as they emerge from recession.
I think that if we were to talk to other organizations, they would say the same thing, namely, that such measures are worth extending in these difficult and uncertain times.
I will close by talking about the third measure. It involves a tax credit and the possibility of claiming that tax credit for the capital used for scientific research and experimental development. In their 2013 budget, the Conservatives did away with this measure when they changed the eligibility criteria for research and development tax credits.
Nevertheless, in the manufacturing sector—as well as others, such as the natural resource sector, one of the sectors on which our economy relies—a lot of research and development spending and investments depend on capital investment, which has been withdrawn. Group after group came to see us to tell us that this would have a major impact on research and development, an area in which Canada has been lagging behind for many years now, to the point where our partners have overtaken us.
Like the member for Parkdale—High Park, I am very pleased to present these proposals in the House for what I hope will be a rich debate that will allow us to get the House's opinion on these important economic measures.
