Ted Menzies

[Business of Supply, May 8th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I take exception to the suggestion by the hon. member that I do not listen to my constituents. I have the privilege of representing a riding in Alberta. That riding is not filled with rich people, and everyone in the House realizes this. I take exception to the suggestion by the hon. member that I do not represent all members of my constituency, that I do not listen to the poor as well as those who have done well.

I spend much time throughout my riding. I have visited many ridings across the country and I hear the same thing, that there are job losses. However, Canadians are resilient people. They have mostly found new jobs. That is why our net new jobs are over three-quarters of a million in the last two years. I do not know how many times I have to stand in the House and repeat that number. This is net new jobs.

Yes, people have lost jobs. We understand that and we empathize with that, but those resilient Canadians have found other jobs. In 80% of those cases those jobs are higher value jobs than what they had before.

We have faith in Canadians. I wish the hon. member from the opposition, who put forward this negative motion, this motion that reduces Canadians' ability to have faith in themselves, would listen to his constituents who have faith in the government.

[Business of Supply, May 8th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague made such splashy headlines last weekend in one of our national papers, which showed him giving blood. He probably still has the mark on his arm from that. I applaud him for making note of that and showing some leadership on that file as well, as he does on many other files. He has shown a great deal of passion for poorer people, not only in Canada, but in other countries too. We should applaud the member for considering those who are less fortunate than others.

I find it fundamentally appalling that we have this kind of a message going forward to Canadians from the House, the message that all is doom and gloom in our country. The hon. member has seen what the poor people in other countries go through. I am sure, as I have, he has come back to this country and realized how fortunate we are to live here, how fortunate we are that our parents, if not our grandparents, chose to move to Canada, how fortunate that we born here, that we have stable governments, that we can look forward to having a job when we graduate high school, university or college.

We have members of a party who every time they stand in the House they condemn how fortunate we are by scaring people. The government has done a tremendous job in taking many Canadians off the tax roll and reducing their taxes. I get letters every day from my constituents. They tell me how much money they have saved after they have filed their taxes. They tell me how they are able to stimulate the economy and provide more for their families because we have reduced taxes.

I hear optimism. I do not know why the NDP only listens to negativity.

[Business of Supply, May 8th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for the opportunity to speak in opposition to today's motion.

This House is going to hear a lot of rhetoric from the NDP during the course of today, a lot of skewed statistics, in fact we have already heard some, and a lot of misinformation.

Before continuing, I would like to refute something we have heard repeatedly from the NDP. If one were to only listen to that party on the issue of the Canadian economy, one would think we were in the midst of the Great Depression with double digit unemployment. It is disappointing the NDP would paint such a pessimistic picture for Canadians, especially when we consider the actual state of our economy and the job market.

We all acknowledge that certain sectors of the economy, like manufacturing, are having trouble adjusting to Canada's changing economy. We have unfortunately seen some job losses specifically in these sectors. This must be truly difficult for those directly affected. We need perspective here, however. The Canadian job market has remained exceedingly healthy under our Conservative government and let us review some of the facts.

Over the past 12 months, 325,000 net new jobs have been created, 100,000 plus net new jobs in this year alone. What is more, the unemployment rate is near a 33 year low with the share of the adults working at a record high rate. Overall, net employment is up over three-quarters of a million since we took office in 2006 in all regions of this country, with full time jobs accounting for 80% of that increase.

One would hope that even the NDP would recognize that the robust job creation we are seeing in Canada is good and the best way to ensure that our economic prosperity is broadened. If they do not believe me, they should listen to their NDP colleague, the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore, who we need to recognize this morning. I think he may actually be at the hospital getting a cast on his wrist as a result of one of the page's trying very actively to score a goal on him in a soccer game last night. Our thoughts are with that member.

I will quote the hon. member who, during an exchange in this very House in February last year with the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development, stated the following:

He said that the best social program is a job; that the best thing we can give Canadians is a full time job. He was absolutely right. When Canadians have jobs that they like and can depend on to look after their families, they have pride and dignity.

I could not agree more with the NDP member. I further want to briefly clarify something we will also hear today about new net job growth in Canada. Often, observers on the left, when trying to paint a doom and gloom scenario, will dismiss positive job numbers, claiming new jobs being created are in sectors of the economy that are not as high paying or as high quality. Let us be clear. That is not the case. New jobs being created today are largely equivalent to or are of greater quality than those being lost. Listen to CIBC economist Benjamin Tal, who said:

Not only did the Canadian economy generate close to 400,000 new jobs in 2007, but the vast majority of them were in high-paying sectors...in Canada the loss of manufacturing jobs is being offset by job gains in sectors with equivalent and higher employment quality.

However, as I mentioned previously, we are seeing specific sectors of the economy bearing the brunt of this economic volatility.

As a trading nation fully emerged in the global economy and international financial markets, it is only natural that we would be facing economic challenges from outside our borders. As the United States is our largest trading partner, we are bound to feel the impact of its economic slowdown, especially on our exports. Additionally, the weak U.S. dollar has caused the value of the Canadian dollar to appreciate thus challenging the manufacturing, tourism and forestry sectors.

We are further seeing increasing economic competition from abroad, especially emerging economies like China, Brazil and India. Unfortunately, this is leading to job losses in Canada. We recognize that and we are taking real concrete action to assist those workers in communities that are affected.

That is why we are investing $1 billion in the community development trust. This money will support provincial and territorial initiatives that help communities, as well as help workers transitioning from the economic challenges of today into the opportunities of tomorrow. The fund will provide for job training and community transition plans that foster economic development and create new jobs, and infrastructure development to promote economic diversification.

I would note the reaction to our initiative has been overwhelmingly positive. It was unanimously endorsed in Parliament through Bill C-41. It was also supported by provincial premiers of all political stripes across Canada. New Brunswick Premier Shawn Graham was “pleased that the Prime Minister and his government have made this commitment”. Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty applauded it as well saying that it is “good for the people of Ontario. The Prime Minister has done something which we've been asking of him”. Even Manitoba's NDP Premier Gary Doer has praised our initiative by stating, “I also believe that this is very, very important to the regions and the communities in Canada and the money will be very, very helpful and important”.

This Conservative government's approach has been to encourage economic growth and job creation while simultaneously assisting those facing economic downturns. It has been an approach of balance. I am not merely referring to balanced budgets, although we have of course three of those already completed. I am also referring to a prudent, long term approach addressing the priorities of Canadians. That includes lowering taxes, reducing debt and carefully managing government spending. That approach will allow Canada the ability to face the upcoming economic challenges.

Indeed, our solid economic and fiscal situation has put Canada in a position of strength, well prepared to meet future challenges head on. However, we cannot rise to a strong position like this in a hit and miss fashion. In times of economic uncertainty, Canadians cannot afford leaders who would advocate panicky, band-aid and ultimately short term solutions. These are not solutions but rather, irresponsible attempts at public policy that would lead to deficits and higher taxation that would only drive businesses and jobs away, in effect only exacerbating the economic downturn it has attempted to correct and further disadvantaging those Canadians for whom today's motion purports to speak.

The sponsor of today's motion, the member for Sault Ste. Marie, should know that better than most members in this House. In the early 1990s he served provincially as a member in Ontario's disastrous NDP government under the leadership of the then premier, the current Liberal member for Toronto Centre. That NDP government in Ontario reacted to economic turbulence not through prudence but through panic, and panic at a price. The NDP government's first budget alone tripled Ontario's deficit to $9.7 billion, and increased to $10.1 billion in its final year. The damage was long term, leaving future generations to pay the price.

As Sun Media columnist Lorrie Goldstein reminded us earlier this week, the NDP government, which the member for Sault Ste. Marie belonged to:

--ended up doubling the province's debt in five years.

What that disastrous experiment showed is what nanny states forget--they can't command the economy to do what they want and when they try, the usually make things worse.

Even the member for Toronto Centre has acknowledged the fiscal havoc wrought by his government noting, “I'll admit I ran a deficit during the worst recession since the 1930s”. Regrettably, it would appear neither the sponsor of today's motion nor the member for Toronto Centre has learned from their experience. They both still advocate panicky, short term, band-aid measures, measures that would max out the national credit card with billions and billions in reckless deficit spending, leading to massive tax hikes and a greater debt burden for future generations.

We must ask ourselves then, if we are talking about ensuring the economic prosperity of typical Canadians, why do the Liberals and the NDP persist on tax and spend ideology along with short term, panicky reactionary measures that would do absolutely nothing but ensure such prosperity is never fully achieved?

Contrast that with our Conservative government's prudent action to ensure Canada has strong economic fundamentals through our long term economic growth plan Advantage Canada. That plan seeks to provide Canada with global advantages through lower taxation, to reduce net debt, and to provide more entrepreneurial freedom, the best educated and most skilled workforce and modern infrastructure.

We are making steady progress toward reaching the objectives of that plan, and we have very solid economic fundamentals to help us do it. Our budget is balanced and it will remain balanced. We have the fastest growth in employment and living standards in the G-7. Interest rates are low and inflation remains low and stable. Canadians have countless reasons to remain confident and optimistic.

The true power of our strong economic and fiscal fundamentals, however, lies in their ability to make constructive choices possible. Thanks to these solid economic fundamentals and long term economic planning, we have made the kinds of choices that put Canada ahead of the curve. While others have only recently begun grappling with the effects of global uncertainty, our Conservative government saw signs of an economic slowdown coming well in advance. We knew we had to act, and under the leadership of the Prime Minister and the finance minister, we did.

Our strong fiscal position provided Canada with an opportunity that few other countries have to make broad based tax reductions that will strengthen our economy, stimulate investment and create more and better jobs. That is why in last October's economic statement we announced bold new steps to build a better Canada by reducing taxes for Canadians, including a reduction in the GST, by establishing a new era of declining business taxation, and by reducing federal debt by $10 billion this year.

In total, actions taken by the government since 2006 are providing $21 billion in tax relief to Canadians this year. This is equivalent to 1.4% of Canada's GDP. As a share of the economy, this is significantly greater than the stimulus package just now reaching U.S. households.

Moreover, our tax relief is sustainable, backed by a track record of balanced budgets, and this tax relief is permanent. This proactive aggressive action to support the Canadian economy has been praised by prestigious non-partisan international and domestic economic organizations for its foresight and effectiveness.

The University of Toronto's Institute for Policy Analysis declared, “helping offset the weakness here will be the 'fortuitous' injection of stimulus from the tax cuts...announced” in the October economic statement. BMO economist Doug Porter congratulated our government for our economic statement that was “brilliantly timed. Just as the economy was running into serious heavy weather”, Canada has some “serious fiscal stimulus”. Most impressively, the distinguished IMF World Economic Outlook released this April praised the measures, “A package of tax cuts has provided a timely fiscal stimulus”. The Canadian government's “structural policy agenda should help increase competitiveness and productivity growth to underpin long term projects”.

Since coming to office, this Conservative government has taken action to reduce the overall tax burden for Canadians and businesses by nearly $200 billion.

Overall, we are bringing taxes to their lowest level as a percentage of the economy in nearly 50 years. Canadians are getting back their own money in increasing amounts, more money in their pockets where it belongs, which means our economy will benefit from consumers with thicker wallets and every reason to be confident about their future.

As for those who suggest that our economic leadership and tax reductions are not benefiting low income Canadians, I ask them to consider the facts.

Statistics Canada reported this week that in 2006, the first year of our Conservative government, the rich did not get richer but lower income Canadians did. Families at the bottom of the income ladder saw strong growth in their earnings in 2006. I will quote from the report:

After-tax income improved for families in all five income groups, except for those at the top, where it remained stable.

Why? Consider that approximately 700,000 low income Canadians will be removed from the tax rolls by 2009 because of our actions. Consider that since coming to office, our tax cuts have disproportionately benefited the bottom two income tax brackets. Indeed, over three-quarters of personal income tax relief is being provided for Canadians in the lowest two tax brackets with people in the lowest bracket alone realizing almost 30% of all annual personal income tax relief. Most important, we cut the GST, the only tax cut benefiting the one-third of low income Canadians not paying income tax.

Accordingly, it is somewhat odd that the NDP and their colleagues on the left have been so adamantly opposed to this reduction. Even Toronto Star columnist Thomas Walkom is puzzled. I will quote him at length:

The New Democrats say the [GST] cut favours the rich....

And yet...were equally outraged...by a new study pointing out that the tax system has become less fair since 1990 because (wait for it) governments have been relying too much on regressive sales taxes, like the GST.

He continued:

The reason that sales taxes are unfair is that those toward the bottom tend to spend more of what they earn (and hence pay more in sales tax as a proportion of their income) than those at the top.

He further noted:

Economist Marc Lee, who authored the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives study, calculated that roughly half of the increased tax burden borne by the poor between 1990 and 2005 came from small hikes in regressive levies such as sales taxes....

So in this context, it could be argued that [the Prime Minister] struck a small blow for social justice by reducing Canada's most notorious regressive tax. Indeed, it could be said that he took a small step towards rectifying the tax unfairness created by former prime minister Jean Chrétien's Liberals...

I find the left's attack on the GST cuts both baffling and sadly indicative.

Nevertheless, unlike the Liberals, we are taking concrete action to help low income Canadians through tax measures like the landmark working income tax benefit ensuring people are better off as a result of taking a job. Taxes, reduced income support and loss of benefits often discourage individuals receiving social assistance from working, clawing back nearly 80% of their income. This benefit, a first step we hope to build on, will increase income support while simultaneously strengthening work incentives. This is a move that has also been praised across the political spectrum.

The Caledon Institute of Social Policy acknowledged it was a “welcome addition to Canadian social policy. It fills a long recognized gap in Canada's income security system”. The NDP member for Winnipeg North approved our measure as an “important program that goes in the right direction”. Even Ontario's Liberal finance minister called it a progressive move saying, “I think that will help those at the lower end of the income ladder and I think”--the Conservative government--“has taken a good step.”

Clearly today's motion ignores what this government has accomplished and will be defeated accordingly. For that I applaud the Liberal opposition for once again expressing its unwavering confidence and approval of our Conservative government.

[May 7th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, we understand that certain sectors of the economy have been particularly hard hit by global economic volatility. We have also heard clearly that some communities and workers are facing hardship and are in need of help in a timely manner.

As I mentioned previously, we have taken significant action to bolster our economy in these uncertain times and to further strengthen the foundation for Canada's future prosperity. This includes action to support Canadian businesses, workers, skills development, research and innovation and infrastructure.

While the NDP has called for direct government subsidies to certain businesses and sectors of the economy, I draw the attention of the NDP member opposite to the words today of the NDP leader in Ontario, Howard Hampton, “simply to write a cheque...is really irresponsible”.

[May 7th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, we are all concerned when Canadians lose their jobs. This is never an easy situation for both workers and their families. That is why we are supporting workers and communities through our $1 billion community development trust, helping build a better future through job training to create opportunities for workers, economic development to create new jobs and infrastructure development to stimulate economic diversification.

More than $357 million of this funding will flow directly to Ontario, where the government has outlined how it will use its funding in its provincial budget.

However, we must keep in mind the global economy is slowing, driven in large part by a slowdown in the U.S. The majority of the vehicles produced in Ontario are exported to the U.S., and clearly American consumers are not buying vehicles at the same rate as they once were.

While the Canadian auto sector remains strong and it continues to attract new investments, North American auto manufacturers are all experiencing market adjustments and continue to face global competitive pressures.

That is why we are ensuring the manufacturing sector, especially the automotive industry, has the tools to become more efficient and more innovative, which is vital for their long term economic success. That is why we have reduced taxes significantly on the sector, providing a major economic stimulus. Indeed, our tax relief will result in over $1 billion in benefits for the automotive sector over this and the next five years.

We have also provided $250 million for the automotive innovation fund to support strategic, large scale research and development projects by automotive and parts manufacturers in developing greener, more fuel efficient vehicles.

Additionally, we have made a $400 million investment for an access road to the new Windsor-Detroit border crossing, an investment that will directly benefit the constituents of the member opposite.

We have also enhanced the export development Canada's export guarantee program to increase the guaranteed coverage from 75% to 90%. This specifically benefits businesses in the automotive sector.

We have allocated $34 million per year for new research through the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, targeted to the needs of key industries such as the auto sector.

In addition, to improve access to E85 fuels, we are giving $3 million to support E85 fuelling infrastructure and promote the commercialization of E85 fuels.

We have also cut the GST from 7% to 5% and this has lowered the costs of all new cars.

Many, including noted auto analyst Dennis DesRosiers, have been highly supportive of our approach, noting recently:

—together with previous budgets reveals the [federal government] is actually dedicating a significant amount of resources and political capital to the automotive sector and that, for the most part, this Government is taking a pro-active and positive approach to helping this industry.

[MS Carnation Campaign, May 7th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud and honoured to rise today in support of the MS Carnation Campaign and to urge all Canadians to show their dedication to finding a cure by purchasing a carnation from May 8 to May 10.

Today, volunteers from the MS Society, MPs representing each political party and I have been pinning carnations on MPs to help raise awareness of MS and the MS Carnation Campaign.

It is well known that women are diagnosed with MS three times as often as men.

Many Canadians living with multiple sclerosis are mothers and many more adults and children are affected by this disease. That is why every year the MS Carnation Campaign takes place over Mother's Day weekend.

For 60 years, the MS Society of Canada has provided hope and help for people with MS across Canada: hope through their extensive national program and help through services that make life better today for people with MS and their families.

I ask everyone to please help consolidate these efforts and target their resources to help make every day better for people living with MS.

[Income tax Act, May 2nd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-445, a proposal for a refundable tax credit for shortfalls in pension income, which has been introduced by my good friend, the member for Richmond—Arthabaska.

The intention of the member's proposal is somewhat laudable. It seeks to assist Canadians who have seen their retirement incomes negatively impacted by a failed business. Unfortunately, it is fundamentally flawed to such a degree that we cannot support it.

The biggest problem with Bill C-445 is its annual cost, as was referred to previously by my colleague in a question, which is estimated to be approximately $10 billion. Clearly, were Bill C-445 to be enacted, it would have a negative impact on Canada's fiscal position.

This proposal also raises serious concerns with respect to pension and tax policy, while also failing to take into account the multitude of prudent ways we are improving Canada's retirement income system. Again, as previously mentioned, Bill C-445 relates to the tax treatment of pensions and savings, an area that this Conservative government has recognized as a key priority, an important element for economic growth as well as an improvement for living standards.

As I am sure the House is well aware, our Conservative government has implemented an ambitious and aggressive agenda to reduce the tax burden on Canadians by cutting corporate taxes and personal income taxes, cutting the GST and many more. Tax cuts have prompted Canada's competitiveness and improved our standard of living, but tax cuts also spur investment while creating jobs, encouraging economic growth and allowing the freedom for Canadians to save.

Personal savings provide Canadians a means to invest in their own future and improve their standard of living. Savings also bring the peace of mind that comes with the knowledge that funds will be available in the event of an emergency or for future endeavours like starting a small business, purchasing a home, or a child's education.

Our Conservative government has taken major steps to improve incentives for Canadians to save. Most significantly I would point to the introduction in budget 2008 of the tax-free savings account, commonly known in the House as TFSA, whose introduction has been heralded in nearly all corners as an exceedingly positive initiative, perhaps the single most important personal savings vehicle since the introduction of RRSPs in 1957.

Indeed McGill University Professor William Watson praised it as a “great step forward for the country...almost all Canadians will now be able to shelter all their savings from tax”.

TFSA will be a flexible, registered, general purpose account that will allow Canadians to earn tax-free investment income. As the TFSA matures over the next 20 years it will permit over 90% of Canadians to hold all of their financial assets in tax efficient savings vehicles in combination with existing registered plans. In 20 years, relative to the size of today's economy, the tax relief provided by the TFSA will grow to over $3 billion annually.

In addition to the landmark TFSA, our Conservative government has introduced a number of tax measures to improve the pension and RRSP system, such as: doubling the amount of eligible income that can be claimed under the pension income tax credit to $2,000, the first increase since 1975; increasing the maximum age to 71 by which Canadians must convert their RRSPs to registered retirement income funds and begin receiving pension payments; permitting employers to offer more flexible phased retirement programs in order to retain older, experienced workers and ease succession planning pressures; increasing the age credit amount; and permitting pension income splitting. The cumulative effect of these important measures represents nearly $1.6 billion in tax relief every year for pensioners and seniors.

Clearly, this Conservative government has worked to improve the tax treatment of pensions and RRSPs and to make our retirement income system even more effective in meeting the needs of Canadians, and we will do more. However, we must make certain that policies are prudent and consistent with sound pension and tax policy principles.

Regrettably, Bill C-445's proposal to introduce a refundable tax credit for pension shortfalls is neither the most prudent nor the best way to promote the security of pension benefits. It would create undesirable economic incentives for pension plan sponsors and would be an improper use of the tax system. As well, it would be exceedingly costly and unfair in its application.

I will now expand on the points to which I have just alluded.

Bill C-445 would go far beyond its proposed intent. It would not provide a refundable tax credit in respect of shortfalls in pension income but would instead effectively provide a refundable credit on the full amount of pension benefits received by most retirees.

This is because, as drafted, the proposed credit would be based on the difference between the pension benefits payable to an individual from a registered pension plan and the amount of benefits received by the individual from a retirement compensation arrangement. As a result, the proposed credit would be extremely costly. In fact, it would cost about $10 billion annually. I am assuming that this is why the Speaker ruled earlier today that this private member's bill does require a royal recommendation. I would concur with his decision.

Such a costly measure clearly would not be supportable. Let us make no mistake: it would put Canada into deficit and would put at risk the fiscal health of future generations of Canadians. Regardless of whether Bill C-445 has been drafted properly, its underlying objective is to provide a government-backed guarantee for pension benefits. This would not be good tax or economic policy and would not be fair to the taxpayers of the country.

The tax system is not intended to ensure or compensate individuals for the loss of pension benefits due to the underfunding of pension plans. Indeed, the proposed refundable credit would set a significant precedent for government compensation of shortfalls in expected retirement income in other situations.

Let us consider the example of an RRSP saver or an individual in a defined contribution pension plan who does not achieve the pension income he or she expects because of poor investment performance. Bill C-445 would mean he or she could request that a similar credit or other compensation be provided to help offset such shortfalls.

There are a number of other significant concerns with the proposal. For example, it would effectively mean that the federal government would provide compensation for shortfalls in pension income for provincially regulated plans. Moreover, providing a government-backed guarantee is not the best way to protect pension benefits.

The best way of ensuring that promised pension benefits are secure is to have healthy plans with good supervision. Providing any kind of guarantee or compensation for pension benefits, whether through the tax system or otherwise, is potentially costly for taxpayers. In addition, it raises issues of fairness, given that the costs would be borne by all taxpayers while the benefits would accrue only to a minority of those participating in pension plans.

Therefore, I urge members not to support this fundamentally flawed proposal.

[Clean Energy Initiatives, April 29th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I inform members about the clean energy initiatives in my riding of Macleod.

Macleod is among the most forward-thinking ridings in the country when it comes to using renewable energy. Hundreds of wind turbines produce almost 2 million megawatt hours of electricity, enough to power than 100,000 homes each year.

The Waterton hydroelectric plant produces a further 14,000 megawatt hours of electricity every year.

In addition, Okotoks boasts North America's first solar powered community.

By using renewable energies, such as hydroelectricity, wind energy and solar power, my riding is lowering its energy costs and is helping to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Alberta and across the country.

I would like to congratulate my constituents for embracing these environmental initiatives and I applaud the Conservative government for encouraging the use of clean energy.

[April 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I might suggest that it does take a certain kind of politician to view giving back to Canadians their hard-earned money as anything but positive. We are proud to be ending the former Liberal government's practice of significant overtaxation, which resulted in huge surpluses.

Instead, while maintaining a sensible fiscal cushion, we are delivering historic tax relief that will leave more money in the pockets of Canadians. We are reducing the overall tax burden to its lowest level in nearly 50 years, lowering the overall tax burden by nearly $200 billion and, unlike the Liberal opposition, we will not engage in billions and billions of dollars in reckless spending that would throw Canada back into deficit.

The Liberals' financial commitments made since the 2006 federal election alone would immediately push Canada back into deficit, racking up over $60 billion in new debt. Obviously, the Liberal Party has embraced deficit spending and a tax and spend approach, one very similar to that of the member for--

[April 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, in the face of global economic uncertainty, Canadians can be confident that their federal government is engaged in prudent fiscal management, and taking aggressive and pre-emptive measures to help Canada succeed.

For instance, we have provided nearly $200 billion in long term, permanent tax relief to stimulate and bolster the economy, including lowering business tax rates to the lowest among major industrialized economies, cutting personal income taxes, and reducing the GST by two per cent.

This year alone, there has been $21 billion in tax relief. That is roughly 1.4% of Canada's economy. It has entered and is entering our economy this year in a timely and permanent economic jolt.

We are making the largest federal public infrastructure investment since World War II through our $33 billion building Canada fund.

We have also introduced a $1 billion community development trust to assist communities and workers affected by economic instability, build a better future through job training, create opportunities for workers, economic development to create new jobs, and infrastructure development to stimulate economic diversification.

Indeed, the member's home province of Ontario has been very appreciative of our trust. Ontario's Liberal premier has called it “good for the people of Ontario” and said that the Prime Minister has “done something which we've been asking of him”.

In its recent budget, the provincial government in Ontario outlined how it will utilize its portion of the $1 billion trust, including initiatives to help unemployed workers transition to new careers and well-paid jobs in the growing areas of the economy.

Collectively, these measures have been praised by a wide range of organizations, including the IMF, whose recent “World Economic Outlook” singled out Canada's action to date, remarking:

A package of tax cuts has provided a timely fiscal stimulus...the government's structural policy agenda should help increase competitiveness and productivity growth to underpin longer-term prospects.

Similarly, the University of Toronto's Institute for Policy Analysis heralded our Conservative government's measures to strengthen Canada's economy, stating:

Helping offset the [global economic] weakness...will be the “fortuitous” injection of stimulus from the tax cuts....

A Calgary Herald editorial praised the government's efforts to support the Canadian economy, pointing out that:

--the fall economic update [will] strengthen consumer demand, notably the 1% GST reduction, and...announced a billion-dollar fund to assist one-industry communities...for once a government seems to have been ahead of the curve.

We remain confident in our fiscal outlook.

We will continue our record of running balanced budgets.

Even the Liberal finance critic, the member for Markham—Unionville, has acknowledged that Canada will continue to remain in a surplus position, remarking that “if history is any guide...over time, surpluses will turn out to be larger than they currently are”.