Peter Van Loan

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2, December 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, on the question of economic growth and prosperity, it is interesting that the approach of the NDP and the hon. member is to compare Canada with developing countries where people live on a handful of dollars a day. That is what he wants to compare Canada to, and there is good reason for that. It is because if the NDP were in government, its policies would lead us to them as a peer group.

We believe that economically, our peer group consists of the major developed economies of the world, the OECD countries and the G7, and we lead those countries consistently in economic growth. In fact, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has again indicated that Canada will lead the G7 in economic growth in 2013. Once again, that is where we are headed.

We do not compare ourselves with countries where people live in abject poverty, in many cases because of terrible government policies. I know that is what the NDP uses as a comparison. We compare ourselves with those countries that can deliver the highest standards of living for themselves, and among the countries with high standards of living, we are proud to be leading the world in economic growth and delivering a good standard of living for—

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2, December 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I will remind the hon. member that the House has had before it in the past a free-standing bill on the offshore health and safety measures. That is dealt with separately, so I am quite puzzled as to her concern.

However, I will say it is quite predictable that the NDP will oppose our budgets and budget bills. Yes, we do calculate them that way because we say we do not want to go down the NDP path, we want to keep taxes down, so we will put forward a budget and a budget bill that keeps taxes down. We know the NDP will oppose that.

We will freeze employment insurance rates, for example, and will create incentives for the creation of small businesses by having a tax credit, a further tax reduction. Again the New Democrats always oppose those tax reductions, whether it be the reductions in the GST that we brought in twice or income tax reductions that again they opposed or reductions in taxes for small businesses, such as the small business job creation credit. They always oppose those things.

Yes, to that extent it is calculated that way, but it is calculated that way because that is what is right for Canadians. That is what is right for the economy and that is why the NDP policies are so dangerous for the economy. That is why we do have a genuine contrast in views here between ours, which says Canadians should keep more of their tax dollars and we should keep taxes low to create jobs, and the NDP approach of high taxes, big government, big spending, big deficits. The member is right. It is a very clear difference.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2, December 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, my question is very simple for the hon. member. Why is she defending the arrogance of those special interests that resist this budget in holding hands with them and taking up arms with them against measures that we think are important on behalf of ordinary Canadians?

For example, her party, in resisting this measure to put the budget implementation bill in place this year and voting against it, is resisting what the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants described as a budget that:

...looks to close tax loopholes, address aggressive tax planning, clarify tax rules, reduce international tax avoidance and tax evasion and improve tax fairness. It also provides the Canada Revenue Agency with new tools to enforce the tax rules.

The people who know best understand that this is a bill that is on the side of ordinary taxpayers against those who are engaging in aggressive tax avoidance and tax evasion, making sure that the wealthy and those special interests cannot pay their taxes.

I ask the member why she is standing on the side of those special interests that are trying to avoid their obligations to pay taxes and resisting measures to ensure that they have to pay their obligations so that ordinary hard-working taxpayers do not have to carry more than their fair share of the load. Why is she proposing that?

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2, December 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has made a good point. We already debated the budget at length in the House. There were votes on it and the House decided to go ahead with it. We already had excessive debate on the first budget implementation bill and now on this, the second budget implementation bill. It really is time that we had all these measures in place.

When we look at the overall challenges in the world, we can see the question of investment, for example. Attracting foreign investment is a critical element to creating jobs in our country. Canada is the only one of the major developed economies that has recovered more business investment than we had before the economic downturn. There is no other major developed economy in the world that can make the same claim. The reasons for that are the economic policies we have put in place: a low-tax plan for jobs and growth, the lowest taxes on new job-creating businesses anywhere among those developed economies, the fact that we have the most skilled workforce in the world, and the fact that we have the lowest debt and the lowest deficit of any of those major developed economies.

All of this makes Canada a very attractive destination for foreign investment. However, we have to continue to put in place those policies and ensure that we stay focused and do not go down the path of higher taxes, bigger government, debts and deficits that the opposition would have us go down. The budget implementation bill will be another step in the right direction of that low-tax plan for jobs and growth for Canada.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2, December 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member misunderstands. With time allocation what we are doing is establishing certainty of scheduling and of decisions being made. My question for him would be this. Is there any issue on which he is happy to see votes occur on a regular basis, or is it really his objective to keep decisions from being made? Is it because he simply does not like the agenda of our government, notwithstanding that the agenda of the government has delivered a relatively strong position for Canada on the world stage economically? We have had over a million net new jobs created since the economic downturn. Nearly 90% of those are full-time and 85% of them private sector jobs. This is the track record of our government delivering through our budgets on strong economic policy. It has given us the strongest job creation of any of the major developed economies, the G7 countries.

Our unemployment is at its lowest level in many years. In fact, it remains below that of the United States. For almost my entire lifetime, Canada's unemployment was always higher. However, under our government, for the first time in decades, Canada has consistently had lower unemployment than the United States. Again, this is proof that the economic policies are working.

The reason they are working is that we are running the affairs of the government and the House in a productive, orderly and hard-working fashion that allows decisions to be made. It sets a clear policy course and then implements it. That is what we are doing today and that is why we think it is important that the budget implementation bill be in place before the end of this year.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2, December 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the challenge our government is facing is the fact that the opposition opposes all of our measures that are important to Canada's economy.

This budget implementation bill has a number of very important measures, which our government has advanced. Unfortunately, we find the NDP, once again, opposing the legislation despite the extension and expansion of the hiring credit for small businesses, for example, which will benefit an estimated 560,000 employers and many more employees in terms of job creation over the long term. That is something they are resisting having passed. We think it is important that this is put into place.

There is also the increased indexing of the lifetime capital gains exemption, which would make investing in small businesses more rewarding. Once again, they say they support small business, but they are opposing the legislation and opposing our effort to ensure that it does come to a vote so that it can become law before the end of this year.

We have an expansion of the accelerated capital cost allowance to further encourage investments in clean energy generation. One would think they might be sympathetic to that, but no, once again they oppose the legislation and they oppose having it come into effect before the end of this year. That is what we will see them do later today with their votes on this.

I look at the important economic measures in this, which are important to ensure Canada continues to play a leading role economically and continues to have a relatively strong economic position in a world where economic circumstances are most uncertain. We think it is important that we stay on that course in a very focused fashion.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2, December 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am familiar with the fact that the hon. member for Winnipeg North carries out office hours in McDonald's every Saturday morning. I have read that. Therefore, I am surprised by his use of the Burger King reference in offering me a Whopper, but I would be happy to take up that offer with him some day.

However, I know he is new to the House, relatively speaking, because had he been here when the Liberals were last in government, he would have found that in their last budget implementation bill they were quite content to amend a range of legislation on a broad range of topics.

For example, the last bill from the Liberals on budget implementation amended the Auditor General Act, the Asia-Pacific Foundation of Canada Act, the Broadcasting Act, the Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador Additional Fiscal Equalization Offset Payments Act, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the Canada Post Corporation Act, the Employment Insurance Act, the Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act, the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act, and many more. I could go on.

I say this not to be critical of that practice because it was doing what a budget implementation bill does: implement a budget. My problem is that he is being a typical Liberal in saying, “Do as I say, not as I do”. It is that hypocrisy from Liberals that for generations has disappointed Canadians.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2, December 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the approach of this government to the use of time allocation has been as a scheduling device, not as a device to end debate.

As has been noted, there have been occasions when the opposition has been critical of the use of time allocation, stating that we have allocated more time than is necessary for the debate on a bill. The reason is that the opposition keeps getting confused about its purpose. The opposition thinks it is about limiting debate, but we believe it is about ensuring a proper amount of debate, as well as ensuring certainty about decisions getting made.

When we look around the world today, the problem is gridlock, especially on economic questions, and this is a budget implementation bill. There is uncertainty, whether it be in legislatures across the border to the south or in the legislatures of Europe, where they have had a crisis going on for some years. Where there has been an inability to make decisions, that has undermined the confidence and economies.

We in Canada have the benefit of the strongest economy of the major developed economies. The fact is, and we will hear it again and again from people around the world, that it is because this government shows clear leadership and has the ability to get decisions made by Parliament to give the people in the House the right to actually vote on the economic measures in front of them.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2, December 3rd, 2013]

moved:

That, in relation to Bill C-4, A second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at report stage of the Bill and one sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at third reading stage of the said Bill; and

That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at report stage and on the day allotted to the consideration at third reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the stage of the Bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2, December 2nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I must advise that agreement has not been reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) and 78(2) concerning the proceedings at report stage and third reading of Bill C-4, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at those stages.