House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2021, with 54% of the vote.
Sales Tax Harmonization February 9th, 2011
Mr. Speaker, discussions have been dragging on for months now between this government and the Government of Quebec concerning compensation for the harmonization of Quebec's sales tax. Depending on the day, the minister blows hot or cold, and sometimes both. Everything seems to be in place to sign an agreement, give or take a few commas, but the government continues to put up obstacles, to the detriment of Quebeckers.
What is the government waiting for to settle this matter?
Business of Supply February 8th, 2011
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour for his insightful question. Think of what we could do with the money we are now borrowing to give to corporations. We could be using it in order to increase Canada's productivity and innovation.
Let me quote from Jayson Myers, President of the Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters on corporate tax cuts in the budget in 2008. He said:
This budget worries me because it sends the message that a reduction in corporate tax rates is the silver bullet for the economy. That gets you in the game. But, it doesn't give you many chips to play with as other nations are encouraging investments in technology, innovation, and skills.
Business of Supply February 8th, 2011
Mr. Speaker, I will try to explain. It is not very complicated. The NDP knows but one refrain: raise corporate taxes. The situation is very simple. When there is a surplus, taxes should be reduced. But in a record deficit, we must not lower taxes. It is not that complicated.
Business of Supply February 8th, 2011
Madam Speaker, in 2007, we went along with the decision by the Conservative government because, at the time, we were in a very healthy surplus situation, thanks, of course, to the Liberal government which had put the Conservative government into a surplus situation.
Remember, we started the process back in the early 2000s because we felt that it was good to reduce the tax on corporations when we were in a surplus situation.
Today, we are talking about a question of leadership. We are talking about a decision by the government to adapt, in a Darwinian sense, to the reality of today, which is that families are hurting. I remind the hon. member that between 2007 and now, we have gone through the worst recession in 50 years. An intelligent government would take that into account and actually adapt. Otherwise, as we all know according to Darwin, it runs the very real risk of becoming extinct.
Business of Supply February 8th, 2011
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to the Liberal Party motion on the tax rate for large corporations.
In life, we often have to make difficult decisions. Under the circumstances, we often have choices to make and we all want to make the right choices, which might vary according to the situation. The best choice in some situations is not necessarily the best choice in other situations.
Take the issue of tax rates for large corporations, the subject of today's debate. When the Liberal Party was in power and we were in a fiscally advantageous position—in other words we had a budgetary surplus—the Liberal government decided to lower the corporate tax rate, which was then 29%. We recognized that our tax rates needed to be more competitive. Since we were in a surplus situation because of our sound management of the economy, it was the right time to lower those taxes.
In 2007, when the Conservative government decided to carry on with our initiative and we still had a budgetary surplus because of the healthy economy inherited from the Liberal Party, we, the Liberals, supported that measure.
What has changed in the meantime for the Liberal Party to be opposed today to the Conservatives' decision to continue lowering the tax rate for large corporations?
Of course, the answer is simple: circumstances have changed. The whole world has changed and an intelligent government must reassess how to spend the taxpayers' money intelligently. That is certainly what a Liberal government will do.
What should this government's priorities be when the unemployment rate is 7.8% and the economic recovery is fragile? Many jobs are part time and people are worried about their retirement or concerned about the aging population and the related health costs. Canadians want a caregiver program to get help at home. They want to send their children to university or help them get post-secondary training, but they do not always have the means. The national debt continues to rise and that puts our children's future at risk.
What should a responsible government do when families are calling for help, when last year's deficit was $56 billion and when this year's could potentially surpass $40 billion? It certainly should not be borrowing money to keep cutting corporate taxes.
Let us be clear: tax rates are already extremely competitive and there are other, far more important priorities, especially families.
Let us think about a typical family. Families must live within their means and must often make difficult choices. They cannot have everything they want. They must make intelligent and responsible choices about how to use their resources.
Of course, housing, clothing and putting food on the table come first and then come the other needs, in order of priority. Urgent matters top the list. That is how a responsible family acts. Why is the government not doing the same? Cutting corporate taxes now is irresponsible and unaffordable.
When these taxes were voted on in 2007, things were very different. Canada now has a $56 billion deficit and will accumulate more than $200 billion in new debt under this government. These additional tax cuts for large corporations will have to be paid for with borrowed money. Further corporate tax cuts are unnecessary. Last year the Bank of Canada declared that Canada's income tax rate was the most attractive in the world. In Canada, corporate taxes have been reduced by 35% in recent years, and they are now the lowest of the G7 countries, after the United Kingdom. Our tax rate is 25% lower than that of the United States.
In reality, the Conservatives are increasing taxes. At the same time that the government wants to give tax breaks to Canada's large corporations, it is increasing employment insurance premiums, and therefore it is increasing the fiscal burden on small businesses. The Conservatives have got it all wrong. They are increasing payroll costs, which eliminates jobs for all employers and employees, while reducing the rate of taxation for big business. The Conservatives are not providing tax relief for small businesses. In reality, their $6 billion in tax relief will not be available to 95% of the 2.2 million active businesses in Canada.
Cutting taxes is not cost-effective. The Department of Finance has stated that tax cuts are not an efficient way of creating jobs and contributing to the growth of the economy in the short term. Supporting infrastructure, housing and families is a much more effective way of encouraging growth and job creation.
The Liberals know that middle class families are experiencing tough times. They are having difficulty with their debt load, the rising cost of living, family care, retirement savings and saving for post-secondary education. These are the priorities that the Liberals are focusing on. The Prime Minister has ignored these issues, because his priorities are to spend billions of taxpayers' dollars for the untendered procurement of fighter planes, and to provide tax cuts for major corporations.
Families are being crushed by the cost of education. UNICEF has ranked Canada dead last in the quality of and access to child care services. Three-quarters of parents today believe that they will be unable to afford post-secondary education for their children. Federally-funded student loans have reached a record high. Sixteen per cent of low-income students now plan to delay studies because of debt.
Families are being squeezed by family care and health care costs. Canadian families are paying 29% more for an increasingly longer list of out-of-pocket health care expenses, such as prescription drugs and private insurance. In the absence of federal leadership in health, family members are increasingly relying on each other for care. Family caregivers provide 80% of home care services. Over 40% of family caregivers use personal savings to survive.
Families are worried about their retirement. At this time, 25% more seniors are struggling to live on low incomes. Some 75% of Canadians working in the private sector today are without a pension plan.
The Conservatives broke their promise to not raise taxes. Budget 2006 raised the lowest tax rate to 15.5%. We had reduced it to 15%, but the Conservatives have raised it to 15.5%.
Coming back to my original point, the government must govern in an intelligent, responsible manner and cutting corporate tax rates is not the right way to go about it. Taking care of families is the right way.
National Defence February 3rd, 2011
Spoken like a space cadet in training, Mr. Speaker.
We have learned that the fighter jets will be part of the secret agreement signed by the Prime Minister and the American government.
Is it surprising that Robert Gates came here last week to say that we have to purchase the F-35? Can we not choose our own military equipment? Why is the Prime Minister letting Washington make our decisions for us?
National Defence February 3rd, 2011
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence is quick to question my patriotism. I will go up against him any day on patriotism. I do not just dress up like a soldier. I actually serve my country.
The minister also likes his little Star Trek analogies, so I will take him where no Conservative has gone before, to fiscal competence and balanced budgets.
Why will he not hold an open competition, get the best aircraft for our needs, guarantee industrial benefits and save Canadians billions of dollars?
National Defence February 2nd, 2011
Mr. Speaker, Canadians will be glad to know that I am defending taxpayers' money. The Minister of National Defence says the F-35 can be modified to be compatible with Canada's refuelling tankers within the, and I quote, “current budget allotted for the F-35”.
Could the minister please inform Canadian taxpayers how much this additional modification will cost? While we are at it, Canadians would also like to know what is the current budget allotted for the F-35. The minister acts as though he knows. Let us find out.
National Defence February 2nd, 2011
Mr. Speaker, we all know that the government is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to ram the F-35 aircraft down Canadians' throats.
Ministers' tours, generals' tours—we have never seen anything like it. Even worse, they are making the same announcements more than once and claiming that some contracts are in jeopardy. But when we check, we find the contracts have already been completed. It is an outright sham.
Are they worried about Canadians learning the truth: that they are incompetent and are wasting taxpayers' money?
Questions Passed as Orders for Return January 31st, 2011
With regard to the Property Value Protection Program associated with the low-level radioactive waste clean-up in the Port Hope Area: (a) how many claims have been paid out; (b) how much was paid out for each claim; and (c) has any construction started for the Port Hope Area Initiative?