Rob Nicholson

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, June 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, would you be good enough to revisit the question of Motions Nos. 4, 5 and 6. One of them, as you know, is identical to one that was defeated at the committee and the other two are very similar.

I would ask, as a public policy matter, that these issues should be debated by the full House. By necessity and the configuration of a committee, all members do not get the opportunity to comment. As you know, Mr. Speaker, we have independent members, and we seem to be getting more of them all the time. I always think it is fair that they get the opportunity to speak and pass judgment on some of these important issues of public policy.

I have had the appropriate consultations, Mr. Speaker, and I ask if you would perhaps give a ruling and reconsider the advisability of having those debated today.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, June 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, if the member is asking me for the history of these taxes, it has to be Canadian government policy that corporate tax, as well as personal tax, has to be put into a competitive framework.

That competitive framework is determined by a number of things.

It means that a company can do business in Canada, hire people and have a reasonable expectation of keeping some of the money it makes. That is the first part of it.

The other part of it is that we have to see what our major trading partners are doing. Again, I am quite sure that this escapes everyone in the New Democratic Party, but if taxation rates in Canada are considerably higher than they are in the United States or the United Kingdom, Europe, Japan and other countries, that actually hurts us. It hurts us. It means that people will not invest money in Canada and therefore they will not hire individuals.

Over the years that has been one of the cornerstones of Canadian taxation policy, I think, that is, to allow free enterprise to flourish. That is what we want. At the same time we want to make sure that we stay competitive with the people with whom we trade and compete. That has been the policy over the years.

I really think this is an exception and a bad exception as well. I hope I have answered the hon. member's question.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, June 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am fascinated by their description of this tiny little tax cut. If it is so tiny and so minuscule, 0.02% of GDP, I think, why not leave it in? Let us get unanimous consent and leave it in. If it is that small and that insignificant, let us do it. Let us listen to the finance minister.

I want to be fair to the hon. member. She said that I or the members of my party said that this one deal with the New Democratic Party was going to bring the country to its knees. I do not want to leave that impression whatsoever. I think it will take a couple of deals like that with the Liberal Party to bring the country to its knees.

It hurts, yes, this first one hurts, but I am nervous about any more trips to Toronto by the Prime Minister. I am going to check and make sure the NDP leader is not in town on the same day the Prime Minister is there. I want that on the record. It is not one deal that will bring the country to its knees, but over time that is what would happen.

If I left that impression that the one deal would do it, I want to withdraw that. It would take a little bit more than that, but again, let us give the country a break. Let us not have those two individuals get together for quite some time.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, June 10th, 2005]

I am sure generations of future socialists will look back at this moment. The NDP budget will rank right up there with changing the name from CCF to NDP or with the time the NDP had 40 seats in the House of Commons. This will be among the landmarks that socialists of future generations will celebrate: the NDP budget of 2005.

The parliamentary secretary made some interesting comments about a “configuration”. What he did not say, and what I think should be said, is whether these things are good for Canada. This is a perfect example, I believe, of where a mistake has been made.

What is taking place here is that the Liberals are trying to amend their own budget, the one that was just what Canada needed, they said, the blueprint for the last half of this decade. Then they came up with different ideas, much to the chagrin of the finance minister, I am sure. I cannot wait to see his memoirs some day, when he talks about this sorry chapter in financial planning. We look forward to that.

In any case, to accommodate this new configuration, the Liberals have made a deal with the New Democratic Party and this particular motion is one of the manifestations of this particular deal. The problem with it is that it is a bad idea. It hurts large employers in this country.

We can believe it or not, but the Liberals had it right the first time, when they wanted to assist the large employers in this country. That is one of the reasons why the Conservative Party was prepared to have it move on to the committee, because there were elements of the budget that we thought were good ideas, and certainly this was one of them.

Then the Liberals started talking to their friends in the New Democratic Party, who are of course allergic to any company making a profit. Somehow New Democrats think that is not as it should be and they are against it.

Nonetheless, at the same time that the New Democrats say they want to help workers, they cannot make the connection that when we hurt the people who employ workers that is bad for workers in this country. Putting in a competitive tax is something they do not want to see. It is part of what they cannot figure out, although I believe the government probably understands it and I believe the Minister of Finance probably has this figured out. That is why he put it in there to begin with. However, to accommodate the NDP, the Liberals were prepared to do anything. We just heard the parliamentary secretary. He said that we had to have a new configuration.

Again, the interests of Canadians and Canadian workers are then forgotten and that is too bad, because making large employers competitive and making the tax system competitive actually helps us in competition with the United States and European countries with which we go head to head to try to get a competitive advantage.

This puts us at a disadvantage. Let us figure it out. If a company wants to invest money and employ people, it will go where it has a reasonable expectation of making a profit and not having all that money taken away by the government. That is only reasonable. I do not expect anybody in the NDP to figure that out. The New Democrats figure that employers must have motives other than those of hiring people and turning a reasonable profit.

I remember when I was here in the 1980s and 1990s that every time a corporation released its financial statements showing it was making a profit, there were always long faces in the NDP. There were immediate calls to to do something about it because, they said, “Look at the money these people are making”. Basically the only thing that makes those members happy is seeing companies lose money, but they cannot make the connection that this actually hurts the employment picture.

We saw that this week with the announcement by General Motors, which I take a particular interest in because it is a major employer in the Niagara region. When General Motors has made money in the past, I have actually applauded. I think it is a good idea that General Motors or Ford Motor Corporation or Chrysler or other companies are making money. Why? Because they employ people in this country. Any tax regime that makes us more competitive also makes more sense to them for locating and staying in Canada and expanding their operations in Canada, and it is something I support.

It causes me and I am sure others quite a bit of distress when we see an announcement in the paper indicating that the company is having difficulty and has to restructure. I see that in the paper and then I hear in the House of Commons today the Liberals backing away from a fairer tax regime for these larger employers. It is too bad. It really is a shame.

I would ask them to stand on their principles. I would ask them to listen to the Minister of Finance. He had it right. He had it right on budget day. The Minister of Finance knew that tax relief for large employers in Canada was a good idea, but the Liberals have had to come up with another configuration. That is too bad, because in their efforts to stay in office and in cutting a deal with their good friends in the New Democratic Party, they have hurt workers.

That is the irony of it, because all of us in this country know it is important that employers find Canada a great place in which to do business and in which our tax regimes are competitive. If we are not competitive, those jobs will go elsewhere. It only makes sense. That is why I believe the Minister of Finance in the first place wanted to have a tax regime system similar to those of the people with whom we compete.

Again, that is not what was not done here and it is too bad. The government has made it very clear that it will do whatever is necessary to stay in office, but that is not quite the same thing as doing what is right for Canada. That is something different. What is right for Canada is not the same thing as keeping the Liberals in power, but that is the route they have chosen. They have made it very clear. They do not make any bones about it. They say, “We need to have a new configuration”.

One has to wonder where the national interest is. In my opinion, certainly, the national interest is not being served by new configurations or deals with the New Democratic Party. It is an amazing turn of circumstances.

This came about as part of a deal between the Prime Minister and the leader of the New Democratic Party. I guess it was written on a napkin in a hotel room in Toronto. Then we got the room service bill and found out it was $4.6 billion. Jeepers, talk about an expense account. Buzz Hargrove was acting as the maître d' in this, and fair enough, but again, we have to keep in mind that party and the national interests.

What has taken place here is too bad. Members of the Conservative Party, because we have to keep the national interests foremost, of course will not be supporting this.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, June 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say a few words at the report stage of Bill C-43, the original Liberal budget. At some point soon we will be debating the NDP budget, the companion budget. I am not quite sure how often in Canadian history we have had two budgets, but it is even rarer to have an NDP budget. That has to be a first. I am sure it will be talked about for generations to come.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, June 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I actually would make that point. You indicated that the other ones were in basically the same position as the motions in my name. You said there were exceptional circumstances. I guess that is always a judgment call on your part. I am not quite sure what the exceptional circumstances were. My understanding was that they were defeated and maybe that was the exceptional circumstance or there may be other parts to this, but I would ask for the same consideration. I would ask that you use your discretion and allow those three motions in my name to stand.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, June 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order and apologize for interrupting the parliamentary secretary. Before we go any further, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you could perhaps make a ruling. Would Motions Nos. 1, 2 and 3 not be ruled out of order for the same reasons you used in ruling out the motions that were made in my name, Motions Nos. 4, 5 and 6? I wonder if the Chair could address that.

[Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act, June 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the members of the Conservative Party will be voting yes on this motion.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, May 30th, 2005]

The hon. member says those 19 members are responsible for the budgetary process. I agree. He is right. It is the NDP. The leader of the NDP says it is a NDP budget. Of course it is: it is one that is short on specifics and long on spending commitments, lots of them. That is an NDP budget right there.

When I saw the deal the Liberals and the NDP cut, a two page budget of $4.6 billion, it reminded me of the one comment the Prime Minister made in the last election that I agreed with. He said that whenever the NDP looks at a problem, the solution to every problem starts with a dollar sign and ends with a whole lot of zeros. There is no doubt about that.

I say to the Liberal members that the Prime Minister was right. That one time, he was right about the NDP members. Why are those Liberal members worried about the budgetary process? I say to them, do the right thing with the Atlantic accord and split it off. How much do they owe to the NDP? In my opinion, those members owe more to Atlantic Canadians, the people from Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. The Liberals owe more to them than they owe to the people in the NDP.

I say to them that they should support this. If the Liberals do not want to do this, I think there is something that is important before they cave in on this. They have a terrific record about which I would love to go on at length on all the things they have caved in on, but before they cave in on this one and split it off from the budgetary process I think every single Liberal should have the opportunity to make a speech and get on the record why they oppose this so they will have something to talk about to explain why they will change their minds a little later.

At this point I want to give them that opportunity, so I am prepared to move the following motion. I move:

That pursuant to Standing Order 26(1), the House continue to sit beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment for the purpose of considering Motion No. 51 in the name of the member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl.

Let us go all night long on this.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, May 30th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in this debate. Some interesting and different aspects of the budgetary process have been brought out. There are a couple of things which for sure will encompass some of the comments that we have made. One of them is on this infrastructure program.

I was talking to the chairman of the Regional Municipality of Niagara. I offered him a dollar because, I said to him, it was one more dollar than he has seen from any Liberal infrastructure program. That would come from a Conservative and that would be one dollar more than he or any of those municipalities have seen.

It is a little like the child care commitment. All the members are preparing for an election. The Liberals want one in the wintertime. We thought it more reasonable for it to come at this time of year or perhaps in the fall, but they are already gearing up their child care or day care package. It is a beautiful sight to behold except for the fact that we now have seen it about five times in a row. This would be, by my calculation, the fifth election in a row in which the Liberals have proposed a day care program, and when we add it all up, five bucks has not come. Five elections and we have not seen $5 of this, but the Liberals are prepared to trot it out one more time.

I say to those members that they will eventually support the motion by the member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl. My two colleagues from Newfoundland have been pushing, along with our Nova Scotia members, to have the Atlantic accord split out so that they do not get bogged down with Liberal budgetary promises that no one will ever see. They want this now because they know it is good for Atlantic Canada, it is good for Newfoundland and Labrador and it is good for Nova Scotia.

I am going to make a prediction. Those members over there will eventually come to that conclusion. They will back these two members and split this off from the budgetary process. I ask those members of the Liberal Party why they are still worried about the budgetary process. It is not their budget anymore. They turned over the budgetary process to the NDP--