Jim Flaherty

[Budget Implementation Act, 2008, June 2nd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. Bill C-50 is a budget bill. Votes with respect to amending Bill C-50 are matters of confidence. The member for Burlington is right. If the bill does not pass, the loss will be about $1.5 billion in key federal support in a number of areas, including $500 million for public transit, $400 million for new police officers, $250 million for carbon capture in Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia, $160 million to support genomics and biomedical research, and $110 million to help Canadians facing mental health challenges and homelessness.

[The Economy, June 2nd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, it is regrettable to see a new member of Parliament so pessimistic about our country.

We have 120,000 new jobs, more than 19,000 new jobs in the month of April alone. The labour picture in Canada is strong. It is strong all across Canada. When I met with the finance ministers on Thursday and Friday, I heard about labour shortages from coast to coast in Canada.

The economy is strong. It will get stronger as we go forward. The economic fundamentals are strong in Canada.

[The Economy, June 2nd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians know full well they cannot trust the Liberals, who want to impose a carbon tax, who want to increase the price of gasoline, who want to increase the price of home heating fuel and electricity, and particularly put this burden on those Canadians with fixed incomes who can least afford that kind of tax burden.

The Canadian economy is strong. The economic fundamentals in the Canadian economy are strong. The member should stand up and support the economy in this country.

[Business of Supply, May 28th, 2008]

Mr. Chair, in my previous answer, I was referring to the comments of Avrim Lazar, the head of the Forest Products Association of Canada. Here is what he said:

We don't want subsidies; we don't want bailouts...long experience will tell everybody it simply doesn't work that way..... So no bail-outs, no subsidies. But there is stuff you can do that's positive and constructive.... The [Conservative] government has done many, many positive things in the past, and we're looking forward to many, many positive things in the future.

What have we done? We have provided over $1 billion in tax relief to the forestry industry by 2012-13. There is the $1 billion community development trust. As the member knows, that money is for workers and for communities directly affected. There is $160 million for the targeted initiative for older workers. There is $200 million with respect to the mountain pine beetle infestation in B.C. and Alberta, so far. There is $127.5 million for the forest industry long term competitiveness support. There is $25 million for the forest communities program to assist 11 forest based communities make informed decisions on the forest land base. We secured the return of over $5 billion in duty deposits to Canadian producers by implementing the softwood lumber agreement in October 2006. A lot has been done.

If the member is advocating one time band-aid bailouts, that is not the policy of this government; that is not the way to go.

[Business of Supply, May 28th, 2008]

Mr. Chair, I am not sure exactly what the hon. member is advocating. If he is advocating a series of short term band-aid solutions where a government throws money at a problem and it has no long term effect, that is not the policy of this government. When it has been done by other governments it has been a colossal waste of taxpayers' money.

There is change in the economy. This is to be expected. We should not resist change in the economy. We should recognize that change in the economy is normal.

Yes, sometimes people suffer because they lose their jobs when an economy is shifting around. We see this in forestry now. It is not just Quebec. It is Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario and New Brunswick. The forestry sector itself told us in our prebudget consultations, and I am sure they would say the same thing to the hon. member, “We have to retool. We have to become more technologically sophisticated, otherwise we are just not competitive in the world. We need to be competitive to be sustainable. Do not give us band-aid solutions. Give us long term, sustainable tax planning that we can rely on, so that we can become more innovative over time”.

This is the future of that type of industry in this country. At the same time, let us welcome the fact that Bombardier is looking to hire 700 more people and that companies in the financial services sector like Morgan Stanley in Montreal are looking to do the same thing.

[Business of Supply, May 28th, 2008]

Mr. Chair, I certainly understand that the employment rate in Quebec is strong, that the rate of employment is about the best it has been in a generation. I understand also that we have brought in funding to assist one-industry towns facing major economic slowdowns. That is through the $1 billion community development trust.

I understand that we have made historic pre-emptive corporate business tax reductions for industry that run out every year up to 2012. It is less of a burden for them. I understand further we have done the very substantial accelerated capital cost allowance at a cost of billions of dollars, but it is very important to encourage technological innovation in these industries.

I know the member is well intentioned, but if his intention is to have a vibrant industry, a sustainable industry over time, I suggest that he consider what is being done as the way to go. It is the way to go because it makes it possible for these industries to retool and become more innovative. It makes them competitive in a world market. It makes them more productive and at the end of the day that is what makes them sustainable and that is where the sustainable long term jobs will be.

It is important, it seems to me, that we look at the longer term, but in the shorter term of course because some workers are displaced, particularly older workers between the ages of 55 and 62, we have the targeted initiative for those older workers to assist them to adjust at a time in their lives where no doubt it is more difficult to adjust.

For those who can retrain, who can obtain other skills, and there are lots of jobs available which is the good news, we have to ensure they can obtain those skills and that is why we are investing the largest amount ever of any government in skills training in Canada.

[Business of Supply, May 28th, 2008]

Mr. Chair, I was wondering what this has to do with the Department of Finance estimates. I find it rather difficult to follow that through. Opposition members said that they wanted to ask questions about estimates.

[Business of Supply, May 28th, 2008]

Mr. Chair, there is a point the hon. member is trying to make there somewhere. I cannot find it in his haystack over there.

The reality is that the approach of this government is to regulate all industries. The approach of the Liberals is to bring in a massive new tax. We like our approach. We do not like their approach.

[Business of Supply, May 28th, 2008]

Mr. Chair, I have no idea what piece of paper he is waving around.

I can tell the member this: we will not be imposing a massive new carbon tax on Canadians, particularly Canadians with fixed incomes. If he is concerned about the economy, he should think about the manufacturers and think about the costs that this will mean for them. This is a sector that needs help. It does not need more taxation.

[Business of Supply, May 28th, 2008]

Mr. Chair, I do not agree at all with the assumption and the preface to the question.

What we know is that this government has an approach in which we are going to regulate to control greenhouse gas emissions. We have already made that clear. We are going to regulate all the industries in Canada. That is an important approach by our government. The opposition, the Liberal Party, has a different idea: a massive tax grab from Canadians.