11075 OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 170 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Thursday, February 5, 2015 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES February 5, 2015 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 170 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 170 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 170 (Version officielle) 147 170 05 02 2015 2015/02/05 10:05:00 House of Commons Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates 41 2 The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers Routine Proceedings Routine Proceedings (1005) [ English ] Interparliamentary Delegations Ms. Irene Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to present, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), in both official languages, the reports of the Canadian Group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union respecting its participation at the 131st IPU assembly and related meetings in Geneva, Switzerland, from October 12 to 16, 2014, and at the annual parliamentary hearing at the United Nations in New York, New York, November 19 and 20, 2014.

Petitions Public Safety Mr. Brad Butt (Mississauga—Streetsville, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition today on behalf of hundreds of Canadians who are calling on the Government of Canada to list the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization.

[ Translation ] Optimist Movement Ms. Anne Minh-Thu Quach (Beauharnois—Salaberry, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to rise here today because hundreds and hundreds of people across Canada support my bill. The bill calls on the government to create a national optimist movement awareness day to support optimist clubs across Canada. These clubs help develop the potential of young people in just about every region.

[ English ] Dementia Hon. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition signed by Canadians in the Ottawa area who are urging the government and the Minister of Health to support Bill C-356 presented by the member for Nickel Belt , which would call for a national strategy to fight dementia and Alzheimer's disease.

Aboriginal Affairs Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present two petitions. The first is from residents of Saanich—Gulf Islands, as well as areas surrounding Ottawa. They call on the government to call an inquiry into the ongoing scandal of missing and murdered aboriginal women in Canada. There are more than 100 signatures on this petition.

The Environment Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition deals with the issue of Canada's withdrawal from the convention on drought and desertification. The petitioners call on the government to play its role in the world in a responsible fashion by rejoining this convention, which seeks to share science and information as well as assist those countries facing the ongoing extent of drought and desertification, which is an urgent crisis, particularly in Africa, but could also come to Canada.

Questions on the Order Paper Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand. The Speaker : Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

Government Orders Business of Supply [ Translation ] Business of Supply Opposition Motion—Job Creation Ms. Peggy Nash (Parkdale—High Park, NDP) moved: Motion That the House call on the government to take immediate action to build a balanced economy, support the middle class and encourage manufacturing and small business job creation by: (

a) extending the accelerated capital cost allowance by two years; (

b) reducing the small business income tax rate from 11% to 10% immediately, and then to 9% when finances permit; and (

c) introducing an Innovation Tax Credit to support investment in machinery, equipment and property to further innovation and increase productivity. She said: Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques . I am very pleased to begin the debate today on our motion, which calls on the government to take immediate action to build a balanced economy, support the middle class and encourage manufacturing and small business job creation. [ English ] A defining feature of Canada is a strong middle class.

It is something we value, something we want our children to aspire to, and it is the most important economic asset we have in Canada. Sadly, over the years of Conservative government, Canada has lost more than 400,000 good manufacturing jobs. These jobs have often been replaced by jobs in the service and retail industries, many of which have not paid nearly as well, and have been very precarious and insecure. Now many of these jobs are being lost. What I see in my community, in Parkdale—High Park, and all over Toronto is families that are struggling to make everything work.

They may have jobs, but they are spending so much on housing, whether it is rent or a mortgage, and they are spending so much on child care and everything else, that they do not have any savings or, worse, they have more debt than they have income. Some families had good jobs with decent pensions and benefits, many in the manufacturing sector, but now they are working two or three jobs, none with benefits, never mind the pension. More than 200,000 more Canadians are out of work now than before the recession, and job growth is not even keeping up with our population growth.

The Conservatives have doled out big tax cuts to big business, and now they are proposing more tax cuts to the wealthiest 15% of Canadian families. What about the 85% of Canadian families? What about everybody else who is only just barely getting by? That is why Tom Mulcair 's NDP is fighting for the middle class and fighting for the majority of Canadians. That is who we are standing up for.

Today we are calling on the government to support the middle class with concrete actions instead of empty words and tax breaks for wealthy families. (1010) [ Translation ] We need to strengthen the traditional sectors, such as resource extraction and manufacturing, while taking advantage of new opportunities for innovation and growth.

The NDP is calling for immediate action to support Canada's manufacturing base and is sending a message to investors that an NDP government will lead the Canadian manufacturing sector into a new era. [ English ] Today, our motion in Parliament is to take immediate action to build a balanced economy, support the middle class, and encourage manufacturing and small business job creation. Our practical plan would extend the accelerated capital cost allowance by two years and reduce the small business tax rate from 11% to 10% immediately, and down to 9% when finances permit. That is the prudent way.

We are calling for the introduction of an innovation tax credit to support investment in machinery and equipment and to help many to further innovate and increase productivity. All these measures would make a difference now to diversify the economy and encourage investment in the Canadian manufacturing sector. Let us talk about small businesses. I make a point in my community of buying local whenever I can, everything from food to supplies for my house to clothing.

I talk to small business owners who are always trying to find new ways to reach customers, to promote their products, to reach and expand into other neighbours. Giving them a tax break, cutting back on their taxes, would put money into their pockets. It is something my friends across the aisle are always advocating, putting more money back into people's pockets. It would help small businesses expand and help them hire. That is the whole point. They are the job creators. Government should support our motion today to help small businesses, which make up 98% of all the businesses in Canada.

It should help them use their money to grow and expand. Small businesses create jobs and are invested in our communities. They enrich and diversify our communities. Ninety percent of Canadian exporters are small businesses, and they help build our Canadian brand as high quality, highly innovative, and highly technical manufacturers in many cases. Let us talk about manufacturing. Clearly the government has failed the manufacturing sector.

What Canada needs is a government committed to cutting-edge, advanced manufacturing that looks to energy efficiency and sustainability in sectors where Canada is or could be a global leader; but sadly, it has failed. There have been some measures that look good on paper, like the advanced manufacturing fund, until we see that actually it is slow moving and inflexible and has not released one single penny. That is some support for the manufacturing sector.

Meanwhile the Conservative government has cut hundreds of millions of dollars of support for business innovation while putting all its economic eggs in one basket, in the oil and gas sector. However, now oil prices are dropping, and most likely this sector will shed capital spending and cut jobs. Because the government has shown no interest in encouraging a diverse economy, our manufacturing sector cannot just pick up the slack. After years of neglect, this sector has been left without the capacity it needs to increase production and take advantage of the low dollar to boost sales.

We need a government committed to boosting the manufacturing sector, like most advanced countries around the world. Germany, South Korea, Brazil, and most advanced economies are fighting for their manufacturing sectors, standing up for small business. We need the government to finally wake up and start taking action. Today is an important day. It is when members have the opportunity to stand up and be counted. Are members in the House going to stand up for Canada's middle class? Are they going to stand up for the manufacturing sector? Are they going to stand up for innovation and job creation?

Are they going to stand up for small businesses in towns, cities, and communities right across this country? Every member has the chance to stand up and be counted. I urge every one of my colleagues to vote in favour of this important motion today. The Deputy Speaker : On a point of order, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

(1015) Ms. Elizabeth May : Mr. Speaker, I did not want to interrupt my hon. colleague from Parkdale—High Park , but she inadvertently used the proper name of her leader while discussing her party's positions, and I would hate to see it constantly happening in the House that we start referring to party leaders by name. I did not want to interrupt with a point of order; I just wanted to reference it now, and I am sure the Speaker will confirm that is the case. The Deputy Speaker : Certainly it is the case that proper names of members of Parliament are not to be used.

I have to say that I did not hear, but the Table advises me that in fact the member for Parkdale—High Park was guilty of the transgression. I was having a side conversation with the Deputy Clerk. However, properly admonished, hopefully the member will not repeat that error. Questions and comments, the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke. Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, why is it that the socialists across the way are always separating society into class or by class distinction?

Just because individuals start out with a lower income, perhaps, when they graduate from high school, college, or university, it does not mean that they are going to be low class. With a proper economic climate, as provided by our Conservative government, the sky is the limit for anyone. Ms. Peggy Nash : Mr. Speaker, I should first acknowledge that I regret using the proper name of our leader. It is just that he is such a great leader, I guess I got over-enthusiastic and got carried away. I thank my colleague for correcting that. Let me address the question of the member opposite.

Perhaps she misunderstood the point of my speech, which was that Canada has historically been a land of opportunity. People come to Canada, as my grandparents and parents did, from all over the world, because they believe that Canada is a land of opportunity where one can, through hard work, through study, and through effort, move up economically in the world. Sadly, as a result of the actions of her government, people are less and less able to make that move. Let me just give her a couple of facts, because maybe she has been unaware of them. There are nearly 1.3 million Canadians today who are unemployed.

Another 4,300 lost their jobs in December. Employment growth in 2014 was a mere 1%, which is almost nothing. Clearly, our economy is stalling, and employment growth is not even keeping up with our population growth. Clearly, a lot of Canadians are struggling right now. We do not think that should be the case. We believe that Canadians ought to have opportunities and jobs and the ability to move into the middle class. We do not know what she would have against that. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I guess it is a bit of a compliment.

The term “middle class” was not part of the New Democratic vocabulary until the leader of the Liberal Party indicated that it was going to be a major theme going into the 2015 election. Flattery is a compliment. The NDP is most welcome to use the term as much as it likes. We have consistently argued that it is important that we focus our attention on Canada's middle class. In fact, if we go back to 1993, the unemployment rate was 14%. It took Liberal governments to reduce that 14% to 6.5%, in 2006, which is when we left office.

One of the reasons we got that reduction was that we had a very bold initiative, which we have proposed once again, and that is the EI premium reduction, which would generate tens of thousands of jobs in every region of the country. Why does the NDP, which says it supports the middle class, not support an EI premium reduction so that we could employ tens of thousands more Canadians from every region of this country?

(1020) Ms. Peggy Nash : Mr. Speaker, if the member believes that there is a trademark on the term “middle class” and that it somehow belongs to his party, I think the rest of the world is unaware of it. Our leader genuinely comes from the middle class. He is a perfect example of someone who has worked hard all his life and has joined the middle class. That is why he is fighting so hard for the middle class. If the member's comments indicate that he is going to be supporting our motion, I would really welcome that.

It would be a welcome change, because I noted that when his leader was in London, Ontario, he urged that community to transition away from the manufacturing sector. If now he is in favour of the manufacturing sector, we think that is a positive step forward. Perhaps, then, we just need our colleagues across the aisle, in the Conservative Party, to join us, and we can pass the motion, get the Minister of Finance to bring in a budget, and finally get something done for Canadians here. [ Translation ] Mr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to rise in the House to debate our opposition motion. As my colleague from Parkdale—High Park said, this is a real opportunity for members of the House to express support for good economic development for our small and medium-size businesses and the manufacturing sector. Today we are sharing part of the economic policy that we will put forward during the 2015 election. This is not the plan in its entirety; we are just paving the way right now.

We are doing this because we want to give members of the House an opportunity to express their views on this issue and debate it outside of the usual setting. I would like to talk about the Conservatives' economic record because they sure like to boast about their successes. As it turns out, though, despite all the fancy announcements and media lines, the emperor has no clothes. The emperor has no clothes because the successes that the Conservative government goes on and on about are nothing compared to the disastrous impact its policies are having on the Canadian economy.

Those policies are also causing so much potential to go unrealized. All this government talks about is balancing the budget. Naturally, it does not talk about the sacrifices it has forced people to make so that it can maybe, someday, achieve that balanced budget. When it came to power, the government inherited a budget surplus. It spent that surplus and was in a deficit situation even before the economic crisis hit.

The Conservatives call themselves sound fiscal managers, but the only time a Conservative government ever balanced the budget, other than for the year and a half after they took power in 2006, was in 1912 under Robert Borden. If I had had a chance to speak and ask the member for Parkdale—High Park a question, I would have asked her to talk about the successes of New Democratic governments—provincial ones, to be sure, because we have not had an opportunity to form the federal government. That will come.

Still, the federal finance department recognizes that at the provincial level, the NDP is the party with the best performance in terms of balancing budgets. The emperor across the way has no clothes. Obviously, the Conservatives talk about the number of jobs created in Canada since the height of the recession, and they brag about having created those jobs. I agree that the government can indeed create jobs. It can create jobs in what is known as the public sector. This government, however, has not created jobs in the public sector. It has destroyed them.

It has destroyed more than 30,000 public sector jobs since coming into power in 2011. Canada has rebounded in terms of job creation since the height of the recession not because the government created jobs, but because the private sector created jobs. The private sector rebounded in large part because of the cycle and the favourable circumstances that we had in Canada. What people need to realize is that the vast majority of those jobs created since the height of the recession in July 2009, much more than before the recession, are precarious, part-time jobs.

The best reflection of that is what happened at Tim Hortons. We asked questions in the House, denouncing the fact that 350 administrative jobs would be eliminated by Burger King when it acquired Tim Hortons. The government told us that it was unfortunate for those people, but that things would work out because Tim Hortons promised to open 500 new restaurants. Those restaurants will generate a few precarious, part-time jobs, while the 350 jobs that were lost were well-paid jobs in the community. The government does not have an economic plan. It only talks about tax cuts.

We support having a competitive tax position, whether personal or corporate, relative to that of our partners. However, according to the Conservatives, a 1% increase in any tax rate would be the greatest disaster to befall Canadian society,

whereas a 1% reduction is a miraculous remedy that could even cure the common cold. No credible government spokesperson can tell us exactly how these jobs were created by the economic situation or climate resulting from the government's economic policies.

(1025) In fact, I even doubt that they intend to use the government and its resources for the greater good or to create this favourable business climate. When the government cuts taxes, it creates deficits. That is what happened in 2007-08, even before the economic downturn. The Conservatives made cuts to eventually, or possibly, balance the budget. What will happen afterwards? Will they use the surplus to improve the economic climate? Judging by the comments from the member for Beauce , who is also the Minister of State for Small Business and Tourism, and Agriculture , I do not think that will happen.

In fact, he says that as soon as the budget is balanced, they will continue to cut taxes in order to create new deficits, which will be followed by new cuts to balance the budget, allowing them to further reduce taxes. Where is the Conservative government's vision for our society and the Canadian economy? That is why I am pleased to rise in the House to talk about the NDP's plan. It is a partial plan, since we are laying the groundwork for our economic plan.

For example, there is a promise that dates back to the 2011 election, when we promised to lower the tax rate for small and medium-size businesses from 11% to 9%. Obviously, it will start by going from 11% to 10%, and if finances allow, it will then go from 10% to 9%. That is what we promised when the tax rate was 12%. The Conservatives reduced it by 1%, but we want to get it down to 9%. This is an important measure, especially since the overall corporate tax rate has gone down since 2000. However, the Liberal government at the time misused the employment insurance fund.

It took $57 billion from this fund and passed it along to major corporations in the form of massive tax cuts. From 2000 to 2009, the tax rate dropped from 28% to 19.5%, and under the Conservatives it is now 15%. That is a drop of 13%. The small business tax rate dropped from 12% to 11%. This means that the difference between the tax rates for small business and big business went from 16% to just 4%. We believe that we must widen that gap again.

In a world where small businesses have to compete with big companies that are able to benefit from economies of scale, those small businesses need a more favourable tax environment. That is why former NDP leader Jack Layton proposed reducing the tax rate to 9% in 2011. That is also why we are reintroducing this measure and presenting it in the House today to launch our election platform. Another important measure already exists, and that is the accelerated capital cost allowance for businesses. This measure already exists, but it is renewed from year to year.

At some point, we will have to discuss whether it would be a good idea to extend this measure. Measures that are renewed from year to year serve only to increase uncertainty for our businesses, which need certainty now more than ever. What is more, according to Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters: The two-year write-off generates important cash flow for companies investing in new production technologies—and cash flow is critical for companies that are investing to grow their business as they emerge from recession.

I think that if we were to talk to other organizations, they would say the same thing, namely, that such measures are worth extending in these difficult and uncertain times. I will close by talking about the third measure. It involves a tax credit and the possibility of claiming that tax credit for the capital used for scientific research and experimental development. In their 2013 budget, the Conservatives did away with this measure when they changed the eligibility criteria for research and development tax credits.

Nevertheless, in the manufacturing sector—as well as others, such as the natural resource sector, one of the sectors on which our economy relies—a lot of research and development spending and investments depend on capital investment, which has been withdrawn. Group after group came to see us to tell us that this would have a major impact on research and development, an area in which Canada has been lagging behind for many years now, to the point where our partners have overtaken us.

(1030) Like the member for Parkdale—High Park , I am very pleased to present these proposals in the House for what I hope will be a rich debate that will allow us to get the House's opinion on these important economic measures. [ English ] Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the member made reference to NDP governments balancing budgets and their records in that regard. His own leader gave accolades to Greg Selinger, the Premier of Manitoba. Let me give a specific quote from the Winnipeg Free Press . It is somewhat dated, but it is during NDP administration.

The Manitoba government cited only the $13-million figure in its Sept. 30 news release about the province's public accounts and omitted the actual deficit figure of $604 million, the auditor general said. This could have given Manitobans the false impression there was no deficit, when in fact its size was second only to the $822-million deficit of 1993.... The point is that the NDP likes to talk, but in reality it has been very deceptive.

If we reflect on the endorsement of the provincial NDP given by the federal New Democrats, one of the major economic policy platforms it announced was to increase the provincial sales tax from 7% to 8%. Is it the federal party's intention to increase the national sales tax? [ Translation ] Mr. Guy Caron : Mr. Speaker, it is a little ironic to hear the member talk like that, since the Department of Finance itself has said that the NDP performs well fiscally. Moreover, that is not the case for just one year or in a single province, but rather in all provinces since 1980.

Incidentally, those that have performed the worst in terms of balancing budgets have been the provincial Liberal governments. If he wants to talk about Manitoba, I can talk about other provinces that have performed rather poorly, although their governments are supposedly better money managers than the NDP. I will therefore not take a lesson in managing public finances from the Liberal Party. Fiscal responsibility is part of the NDP philosophy, and has been since the days of Tommy Douglas.

When he was premier of Saskatchewan, he had balanced budgets for 17 consecutive years, out of the 18 years he served as premier, so that is definitely part of the NDP philosophy, regardless of what the other parties say. Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, I want to again thank the official opposition. I fully support today's opposition motion. The tourism industry will also benefit from the lower dollar. The Conservative government has repeatedly made decisions that go against the interests of tourism.

In that area, it is easier to prepare for the next tourist seasons by running ads in the United States, but the Conservative Party made cuts to tourism advertising in the U.S. to promote tourism in Canada. It makes no sense. Would the official opposition agree that we need to adopt policies that help not only the manufacturing sector, but also the tourism industry?

(1035) Mr. Guy Caron : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands for asking such a good question that affects me personally, since the region I represent in the House, the Lower St. Lawrence, relies heavily on the tourism industry. The hon. member is absolutely right.

It is rather ironic that she raises the example of tourism because the hon. member for Beauce and Minister of State for Small Business, Tourism, and Agriculture, whom I cited in my speech, boasts about how much the government has done for tourism, when in fact it has cut not only from advertising, but also from assistance for organizations that promote Canadian tourism. In fact, the Conservative government seems to rely strictly on the provinces for promoting tourism.

In a situation where the circumstances have made the Canadian dollar weak against the U.S. dollar, this would be a prime opportunity to pep up the tourism industry by stepping in and encouraging people outside Canada to come visit us. Unfortunately, the Conservative government is once again sticking to its extreme ideology on this and refusing to invest in tourism. [ English ] Mr. Andrew Saxton (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I remind the House that I will be splitting my time today with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development .

I am here today to oppose the motion proposed by the hon. member for Parkdale—High Park in regard to what the NDP calls a balanced economy. What is most surprising about the motion is not the New Democrats' bald attempt to reinvent themselves as born-again capitalists, but their audacity in trying to take ownership of some policies that we have already introduced and that they voted against. The member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley even had the audacity to say that the so-called new NDP measures were proven to be successful. They were proven because we introduced them.

It is clear that while the NDP is moving toward our policies, our proposals are much better thought out, and our track record proves this. After all, the forgery is seldom as good as the original. Today I will respond with Canada's economic and financial story, our fiscal strengths, and our plan to ensure we remain a world leader in an uncertain global economy. It is a plan that is critical to our nation's future. We need to create an environment that encourages further growth and investment.

We also need to support our communities, our workers, and our workers' families, given a weak and fragile global recovery and strong global competition. Canada's economic fundamentals are strong, yet our manufacturers and processors have been challenged over the last 15 years by rising global competition, and while Canada's exports began to show encouraging signs of strength last year, global activity weakness weighed heavily on our export sector during the three preceding years. Let me start with a basic fact.

Contrary to what the opposition may believe, we cannot have a balanced economy that supports innovation, competitiveness, and manufacturing without strong fundamentals and a sound plan. Even with the uncertain global environment, Canada's fiscal fundamentals are solid and sustainable thanks to the leadership of our Prime Minister . In 2006, when our government assumed office, the world was a different place. Markets were booming and economic growth was strong, but economic storm clouds were gathering.

Our government recognized this and was prepared for it long before the storms reached our shores: we reduced the federal debt, we consistently cut taxes for Canadians and job-creating businesses, and we set out an ambitious plan to renew Canada's aging infrastructure. In 2009, when we reached the depths of the great recession, our government acted quickly, decisively, and responsibly; as a result, Canada fared much better than most.

We introduced an economic action plan that funded thousands of critical infrastructure projects, including the construction of roads, bridges, and border crossings, as well as knowledge-based infrastructure like research labs, universities, and colleges and broadband Internet access in rural areas. If we fast-forward to today, we can see that those actions continue to pay off. The Canadian economy has posted one of the strongest job creation records in the G7 over the recovery, with nearly 1.2 million jobs created since 2009.

Let me remind the opposition that over 90% of those jobs created since 2009 are full-time positions, over 80% are in the private sector, and over two-thirds are in high-wage industries. Real GDP is significantly above pre-recession levels, the best performance in the G7. Both the International Monetary Fund and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development expect Canada to be among the strongest-growing economies in the G7 over this year and next. While it is gratifying to highlight Canada's economic strengths, we also know we cannot afford to be complacent.

Today's advantage will not carry into tomorrow simply by sheer luck or even good intentions. In an all too volatile global economy, there is no substitute for decisive action and hard work, and this is never more true than today as we face risks from beyond our borders, risks that could bring with them the potential for severe consequences on the Canadian economy.

(1040) On the other hand, what New Democrats fail to say in their motions are all the things that they are not coming clean to Canadians about: raising taxes on businesses; recklessly increasing CPP, which numerous businesses have said would result in job losses; instituting a $20 billion carbon tax, which will hurt the economy, take more money away from Canadian families, increase Canada's debt, and put us back into deficit. The list goes on. It is shameful that New Democrats are failing to reveal what they actually have in store for Canadians.

On the other hand, the Liberal leader has decided to put no policies forward to help our manufacturing sector, instead saying that we need to transition away from manufacturing. Our government will continue to help our manufacturing sector find ways to thrive in a changing global situation. The Liberals as well have promised large tax hikes, increased debt, and bad policies that would damage the Canadian economy. Of course, these are just the latest challenges facing our country, and we refuse to take

part in the opposition's reckless approach to the economy. Canadians manufacturers faced many challenges over the last years and responded. They have implemented competitiveness-enhancing measures, such as managing their cost growth, importing more intermediate inputs, and reorienting exports toward faster-growing emerging economies. However, they cannot do it alone. Our government has listened to manufacturers and has taken significant action to help boost the competitiveness of Canadian manufacturers and exporters, which makes this motion all the more absurd.

If imitation is the best form of flattery, that is what we have here today. Since 2006, the Government of Canada has lowered taxes, made Canada the first tariff-free zone for manufacturers in the G20, eliminated unnecessary regulatory burdens, and improved conditions for business investment. These investments to strengthen the competitiveness of Canadian businesses build on the government's strong record of support for manufacturers and businesses of all sizes. Let me start with the tax changes we have introduced to help create a highly competitive environment for manufacturing.

Our government firmly believes in reducing taxes. It has been a priority of our economic strategy since the day we took office, and it is a belief we have put into action: we have delivered tax reductions totalling more than $60 billion to job-creating businesses from 2008 through to 2014, and the federal tax burden is at its lowest level in over 50 years.

Among these tax relief measures are the reduction of the federal general corporate income tax rate to 15% in 2012 from over 22% in 2007 and extensions of the temporary accelerated capital cost allowance for new investments in manufacturing and processing machinery and equipment through 2015. The most recent renewal of the temporary accelerated capital cost allowance for manufacturing and processing machinery and equipment announced in budget 2013 will provide over $1.4 billion of support over four years, starting in 2014-15. This is exactly the same measure the NDP is now claiming to now champion.

What has the NDP done every year we have given this to manufacturers? The NDP voted against it each and every time. This measure is helping manufacturing and processors retool to increase productivity and enhance their competitiveness, and the results are clear. More than 25,000 businesses in the manufacturing and processing sector that employ Canadians in all regions of the country have taken advantage of the accelerated capital cost allowance since it was first introduced in 2007. This commitment to tax relief has delivered real benefits to our country.

Canada's tax competitiveness and overall business environment have been significantly improved, with the result that Canada now offers the lowest overall tax rate on new business investment in the G7. The competitiveness of Canada's business tax system is supported by third party analysis. The KPMG publication Competitive Alternatives 2014 concluded that Canada's total business tax costs are the lowest in the G7 and 46% lower than those in the United States. This investment-friendly tax environment is critical to the future of Canada's economy.

It is a broad-based, fiscally durable, structurally sound, and increasing powerful selling feature in attracting the investment that Canadian businesses need to grow and thrive. Today and in the years to come, this low-tax environment will play a crucial role in supporting economic growth and enabling businesses to investment more of their revenues back into their operations.

(1045) I will conclude by contrasting our approach with that of the NDP. New Democrat members have put forward a motion that completely misrepresents their agenda. While they are finally talking about moving toward some smart tax policy solutions to help Canadian industry, they have also opposed all of these measures in the past. I would remind them that their proposed plan is not the present to small business they are making it out to be. As I mentioned, we have already provided the accelerated capital cost allowance to the manufacturing industry, and the NDP voted against it time after time.

We have reduced the small business tax rate, which NDP members were against. We have done a lot more than that, but I see that my time is up. Mr. Fin Donnelly (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, middle-class British Columbians, such as those in my riding of New Westminster—Coquitlam and Port Moody, are worried. They are worried about the soaring cost of living in the Lower Mainland. They are worried about their jobs and retirement security, and about the lack of employment opportunities for their children. The current government's record on job creation and economic investment has been lacklustre.

Rather than focusing on measures to give entrepreneurs and small business owners the boost they require to create the well-paying middle-class jobs our region needs, the Conservatives' rip-and-ship approach to the economy has left people in my province of British Columbia vulnerable. I would like to ask my hon. colleague if his government will finally do the right thing and prioritize innovation and small business job creation, and support the NDP plan to invest in the economy and create well-paying jobs in every community across this country. Mr. Andrew Saxton : Mr.

Speaker, the member started by talking about higher costs facing the middle class. We recognize that raising a family today is expensive, that it is in fact at an all time high. That is why we introduced the family tax cut, which is putting money in the pockets of all Canadian families. Over four million Canadian families will benefit from the family tax cut, with almost $2,000 for every child under the age of six and $720 for those with children under the age of 18 and over the age of seven. Our job-creation record speaks for itself. It is the best job creation record in the G7.

Almost 1.2 million net new jobs have been created. However, we are not resting on our laurels; we are not stopping there. We have introduced a new apprenticeship loan program to help young Canadians get jobs, to get the skills they need and the jobs they want. We have introduced more funding for paid internships to help young Canadians. We have introduced the Canada job grant so that Canadians who want to improve their skills to get a higher-paying job or to get their first job have that opportunity, and so that businesses have input regarding that opportunity as well.

We have also introduced numerous innovation funds, including the automotive innovation fund, which the opposition voted against. These are some of the measures we have introduced to help create jobs in the Canadian economy. (1050) [ Translation ] Mr. Marc-André Morin (Laurentides—Labelle, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, listening to my colleague reading his notes might reassure the Conservative base. However, as we speak, business leaders are getting ready to launch investment programs. They have some very serious concerns and are wondering what will be in the budget. It is the same story every year.

Everyone waits for the budget to be brought down to see exactly what it contains. This year in particular, the drop in the price of oil and the lower dollar has to be taken into account. There has been some incredible upheaval. In the member's opinion, what impact does the unknown have on investors and industry leaders? Why are the Conservatives not tabling their budget? Is it because they have no idea of what they are doing or because they do not get it any more? They seem completely lost. [ English ] Mr. Andrew Saxton : Mr.

Speaker, my hon. colleague talks about small businesses and asks why we are not helping small business, yet we are helping small business. In fact, we introduced the small business job credit, which NDP members voted against. If they want to help small business, why do they keep voting against all the measures we have created to help businesses in this country? I will share with members some of the other things we have done to help businesses We have provided $1.4 billion in tax relief for new manufacturing machinery and equipment through the accelerated capital cost allowance.

We have improved support for Canada's aerospace industry by investing almost $1 billion in the strategic aerospace and defence initiative to ensure that the needs of the industry continue to be met. We have supported Canada's vibrant shipbuilding industry, which is very important in my riding of north Vancouver, with $35 billion in funding. This will create tens of thousands of jobs over the next 30 years and breathe new life into that industry. These are just some of the things we have done to help businesses in Canada. Mr.

Scott Armstrong (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak about the important role that Canada's manufacturers and small businesses play in creating jobs and a strong Canadian economy. Comprising 98% of all employer businesses in Canada, small businesses are a significant driver of economic growth. They are an important pillar supporting workers, families, and communities across the country. Our government appreciates the efforts and contributions that businesses, and small businesses in particular, make in Canada.

As a result, we have implemented a wide range of policies and programs on the understanding that when our small businesses succeed, all Canadians succeed. While the NDP is moving toward our policies, we believe that our proposals are much better thought out. Since taking office, the Conservative government has put in place numerous measures that benefit Canadian small and medium-size companies. For example, the accelerated capital cost allowance for investment in machinery and equipment has been of great benefit to Canada's manufacturers and processors.

This has helped them make investments needed to compete at home and abroad. Here I would point out that NDP voted against an extension of this measure in Budget 2013. On top of that, various incentives in the Canada Revenue Agency have helped improve the provision of information and services to small businesses, while reducing the administrative burden and increasing taxpayer fairness. Another example of our reductions of red tape is the ongoing funding of $3 million a year to make BizPaL a permanent service for businesses through Budget 2011.

BizPaL is an online service that significantly reduces the red tape burden on small business owners by allowing them to quickly and efficiently create a tailored list of permits and licences from all levels of government necessary for them to operate their businesses. It is one-stop shopping for small business. The New Democrats voted against this red-tape reduction measure, then, just as they have today, called for a massive payroll tax hike on all Canadians. This would greatly harm the growth of small business across Canada from coast to coast to coast.

In addition to cutting red tape, our government has helped connect businesses to vital partners to help them innovate in their operations. Our government provided $100 million over five years to help leading business accelerators and incubators across Canada to increase their service offerings for early-stage businesses and entrepreneurs. These investments will help entrepreneurs create new companies and realize the full potential of their innovative ideas through mentorship, specialized training, and business support, and also to support networking with potential customers and investors.

In addition, our government has been increasing the venture capital financing available for innovative companies through the implementation of the venture capital action plan. Since the announcement of this plan in January 2012, the government has invested in four high-performing venture capital funds and established and invested in three large-scale private-sector funds of funds with private sector investors and interested provinces across Canada.

These measures build on so many others that have been introduced by government since 2006, many of which the opposition members have voted against, to assist small businesses to make the investments they need to create good jobs and grow our economy. Since 2006, the Conservative government has reduced the small business tax rate to 11%. We have increased the amount of income eligible for the lower small business tax rate from $300,000 to $500,000.

We have also enhanced the availability and accessibility of the financial support for innovative small and medium-size businesses under the scientific research and experimental development tax incentive program. We also established the Red Tape Reduction Commission to review the areas of federal regulation most in need of reform, to reduce the cost of compliance for small businesses. We reduced the paperwork burden on businesses by 20% through the paperwork burden reduction initiative. We increased the lifetime capital gains exemption on qualified small business shares from $500,000 to $800,000.

We also indexed this limit to inflation, so the exemption limit has now increased to $813,600 for 2015 as a result. In addition, we eliminated close to 2,000 tariffs on manufactured inputs, machinery, and equipment. We have provided about $400 million in annual duty savings to businesses across the country. As well, new trade agreements have been established with South Korea and the European Union, which would bring significant benefits and savings to Canadian businesses and open new markets to our exporters.

(1055) Creating savings and opportunities for businesses so they can grow and succeed is a critical role for government. We also know that no business can succeed without high calibre employees. From travelling across the country and speaking with entrepreneurs, businessmen, businesswomen, and others who hire and employ people, we know that one of the biggest challenges these employers face is finding qualified and well-trained employees to fit the job profiles they are advertising.

This is why our government has introduced numerous training and employment insurance measures to help businesses create good jobs for Canadians. For example, the small business job credit will deliver significant EI savings to businesses, helping to defray the costs of hiring new workers. The new Canada job grant will better prepare the next generation of Canadians to meet the demands of the evolving labour market, bringing employers into the game so that they have more say and control over what training opportunities are offered, and also the ability to help pay for that training.

It is well known that in these uncertain economic time, the labour market faces uncertain challenges. This is why our government has taken action to ensure that many Canadians have the opportunity to participate in the workforce, given the emerging skills shortage. It is also why we have focused so intently on and encouraged apprenticeships, particularly in the Red Seal trades, where the need is currently the greatest.

Our government introduced the apprenticeship job creation tax credit, which reduces employers' taxes by an amount equal to 10% of the wages paid to apprentices for their first two years of an apprenticeship in a Red Seal trade up to a maximum of $2,000 per apprentice per year. We have also introduced a $1,000 apprenticeship initiative grant for apprentices in each of their first two years of apprenticeship in a Red Seal trade. The New Democrats voted against both of these job-creating measures, so why would small businesses now believe they are here to support them today?

To build on these measures and further respond to skilled labour shortages, in 2009 we launched the apprenticeship completion grant. Apprentices who complete their certification in any of the Red Seal skilled trades are entitled to receive a taxable grant of $2,000. In addition to supporting the training and hiring of skilled labour, our government has focused considerable investment on innovation and helping businesses get their products from the farm gate to the market. The new international trade agreements will certainly deliver this benefit.

Our Conservative government has also invested directly in initiatives to help advances in commercial technology, including a $1 billion advancement toward additional knowledge translation; helping discoveries move from laboratories into market applications across the economy; and almost $4 billion in additional support for applied research and business innovation, including the automotive, aerospace, forestry, and clean technology sectors. These measures translate into more innovation, success, jobs, and stronger growth for Canadians.

These are the pillars of Canada's economic action plan and they have delivered for all Canadians. We have among the best job-creation records in the world, with nearly 1.2 million net new jobs created since the pit of the economic recession in July 2009. We have the strongest middle class in the world. Canada is now viewed as one of the best places in the world in which to start and grow a business. Our government looks forward to building on our record by supporting the dynamic businesses that we have in Canada so they can move forward in a positive direction.

Small business owners are the entrepreneurs, innovators, risk takers, and the visionaries who will lead Canada for the next generation. Our government values the contribution of small businesses to the success of the Canadian economy and we will always support and grow this important sector, not just when an election is on the horizon.

(1100) Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, a couple of weeks ago the leader of the Liberal Party was in London speaking to a group of workers. He was quoted as telling those workers that manufacturing was a 20th century endeavour in the Canadian economy and urged them to look for different things. I looked up the definition of “manufacturing”, which states that it is “to make, to produce, to build, to construct, to fabricate, to process, engineer and invent”. To me those words sound like the very core of a modern, industrial economy and something that the Canadian economy really needs.

I wonder if my hon. colleague would comment on the Liberal's abdication of the belief that manufacturing is a core part of Canada's economy moving forward. Would he agree with the official opposition New Democrats that manufacturing is indeed a major and important part of the Canadian economy moving forward? Mr. Scott Armstrong : Mr. Speaker, I have to say that this is probably the best question I have had from a colleague from the NDP since I was elected in 2009. Manufacturing is an important economic driver across the country.

The Liberal leader said that manufacturing is a factor from the last century and is a thing of the past. He should tell that to the workers in the aerospace industry in IMP Group in my riding, almost 1,200 workers in Cumberland–Colchester–Musquodoboit Valley. Our largest private sector employer depends on manufacturing. There are literally thousands of jobs in my riding alone in just one business based on manufacturing. They have a robust future. They are signing contracts with companies all over the world to produce aerospace parts for aerospace manufacturing. There are other jobs related to that.

Look at the Irving shipyards in Halifax. There is some $25 billion in shipbuilding. It is going to hire thousands of Nova Scotians. That is manufacturing. Intertape Polymer Group, in Truro, my hometown, exports to several different countries all over North and South America. Manufacturing is the heartbeat of small business and medium-size enterprises across the country. This is where entrepreneurs and innovators live and breathe.

For the Liberal Party to say that this is an industry and sector whose time has passed is so backward looking and backward thinking that I cannot see how any Canadian will stand up and support it in the next election. Mr. Ted Hsu (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about small businesses, and in particular, about creating new small businesses where the jobs involve work that is highly value-added, and as a consequence, highly remunerative, with high wages. These are jobs that make these new small businesses highly competitive. There is a high barrier to entry.

One of the important ways to create these companies is by having early-stage, risky commercialization of game-changing discoveries in Canada. That is the way to create new small businesses where there is a high barrier to entry, thereby making us more competitive vis-à-vis foreign companies. My concern with the NDP motion today is that I do not think a tax credit will do that. I do not think it will take care of very risky, early-stage commercialization where there is not much cash flow for the first few years. In Canada, we still do quite a poor job of nurturing that early-stage, risky commercialization.

Why are we still doing such a poor job?

(1105) Mr. Scott Armstrong : Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the member across the way. I think the government has taken strong steps to support the commercialization of new products. One of the programs we have in place allows businesses with new products to compete for federal government contracts. We all know that any time a new product hits the market, one of the first challenges is finding that first big contract. We know that if we have a new product come to market, finding that first customer to buy it gives it a strong reference on the resumé of that product so that it can be sold to other people.

We have a program in place so that new products in Canada can get that first contract from the federal government. With that, they have a federal government reference to sell that to private sector employers. We have lots of programs and incubators to support other private sector people purchasing these new things and supporting our new entrepreneurs and new products. I would like to go on, but I have run out of time. Hon. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time today with my colleague and friend, the member for Markham—Unionville .

In these difficult and uncertain times, we have to recognize that first of all, even before the plummeting oil prices, growth in Canada had stalled. We had stagnant growth and a soft jobs market prior to plummeting oil prices. In fact, if we look at the numbers even a year ago, well before falling oil prices, we had 200,000 fewer jobs for young Canadians than before the financial crisis in 2008. Long-term unemployment, people unemployed for over a year, had actually doubled in Canada. The Economist magazine did an

article on the Canadian economy called “Canada’s economy: Maple, resting on laurels”, which said: “The post-crisis glow is fading.” That was written last spring. The Economist was comparing Canada's growth numbers with those of the U.K., Australia. and of course, our neighbour to the south, the U.S. The reason I am saying that is that it is important to realize that we needed a real plan for jobs and growth prior to plummeting oil prices, and we need a plan even more so today.

That is why it is important that the government come forward and present a budget that actually contains a plan to create jobs and growth but also to help the struggling middle-class families in Canada who are having trouble making ends meet, who are falling further behind, who are taking on higher levels of personal debt, and who are concerned about the future of their children and grandchildren. This brings me to today's motion and its three components: extending the accelerated capital cost allowance for manufacturing, the innovation tax credit, and cutting the small-business income tax rate.

The accelerated capital cost allowance for manufacturing has existed now for about eight years. During the period of time this measure has existed, we have lost 400,000 manufacturing jobs. The proposal being made by the NDP is to extend it by two years. I would argue that this is a status quo measure and that it will not really move the needle in terms of helping manufacturing. The Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters are calling for five years, which would provide more certainty in terms of manufacturing investment.

A two-year extension is not a bold new policy that is really going to move the needle in terms of manufacturing competitiveness. In terms of the innovation tax credit, the government has diluted and pulled back the SR and ED tax credit. It has made changes that we are told by smaller companies that are involved in research and development and commercialization, and we are told by larger manufacturers as well, that the changes to SR and ED made by the government have been negative for their capacity to research, develop, and commercialize new technologies and to create value.

What the NDP has proposed is a small measure. We would agree that trying to create more incentives to actually encourage and support commercialization is important for creating wealth and prosperity for Canadians and jobs and growth. We are concerned that this is a very small measure. I believe that it is $40 million per year. Again, when I talk to people involved in venture capital, IT, biotech, or cleantech, they do not believe that this is going to make a big difference. This leads me to the third measure, and that is cutting the small-business income tax rate.

The NDP has proposed a two-point cut, which would cost about $1.2 billion per year. Jack Mintz, director of the University of Calgary's School of Public Policy, opines frequently on tax policy in Canada. This is what it says in an

article about the NDP plan. An NDP plan to give tax relief to small businesses will actually end up giving wealthy Canadians a tax cut. “[It’s] something to make the rich richer,” Jack Mintz....

But Mintz and some fellow economists argue that the tax break will go overwhelmingly to Canadians who need it least and may not result in job growth at all. “We find that 60 per cent of the small business deduction goes to households with more than $150,000 in income,” Mintz said.... “The worst part [of the NDP plan],” Mintz added, “is that it doesn’t have good economic impacts because small business deductions contribute to a wall of taxation, so if they grow, they lose some of their benefits and get hit with higher taxes…. It tends to keep small businesses smaller.”

(1110) What he is saying is that it is a disincentive to growth. He also refers to the tax vehicles that exist for a lot of wealthier Canadians. Canadian-controlled private corporations, known as CCPCs, are used by high-income Canadians and high-income households as a form of income splitting, with dividend distribution shared between spouses. If people talk to a tax planner, accountant, or private banker, they will say that these are frequently used by people with a lot of money, families with a lot of private wealth.

Mintz says this about the NDP plan: “...it’s also a good income splitting method that the NDP are recommending”. The coalition that has emerged between the Conservatives and the NDP around income splitting to benefit Canada's wealthiest families is something the Liberals are watching with amazement. I am not going to suggest that discussions about a coalition or anything like that are occurring behind the scenes, and I do not actually think the NDP has intentionally done this. I think this has been poorly researched.

In fact, Armine Yalnizyan, who is with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, a very progressive think tank, had this to say on CBC when she was asked about the NDP's proposal. She was asked a specific question by the CBC journalist, as follows: This criticism [by Jack Mintz] of the NDP's proposal sounds bang on to you or totally wrong? This is what the economist with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives said: Absolutely bang on. We have got new research in the last year or so that Dr. Mintz is talking about. So you'd think that the NDP would have known about this research.

It's a little bit weird to say that we are looking at a way of benefiting small businesses when...[we are benefiting] tax shelters. If you want to do the things that they're saying, [they] could actually target your tax cut to incentivize the growth or only give tax cuts when the behaviour you are looking for takes place.... What she is referring to are direct incentives for businesses that create jobs, that invest to create jobs and hire more people. Again, there is a startling and perhaps troubling trend here of NDP policy looking like Conservative policy.

A few months ago, we were critical, the NDP included, of a Conservative hiring credit that would do nothing to really create jobs. It would be expensive. In fact, we were told by the Parliamentary Budget Officer that it would cost $700,000 for every job created and would not provide an incentive to hire. In fact, it would be a disincentive for hiring and growth. Now the NDP is proposing a policy with a similar disincentive to growth, which would do nothing to actually create jobs, and similar to Conservative income splitting, would disproportionately benefit the wealthy.

If we really want to focus on creating jobs and growth, we should look at the policy proposed by the Liberal Party at that time, which was a hiring credit that would provide a tax benefit to employers who actually hired new workers and expanded their employment. That policy was embraced and supported by the CFIB, the Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters, and Restaurants Canada. More broadly, the Liberal plan we will be presenting to Canadians and engaging Canadians in will be one that helps the middle class and creates jobs and growth by investing in infrastructure, people, and innovation.

In terms of infrastructure, whether it is a small business, a big business, or a family, 100% of Canadian families and businesses benefit from investments in infrastructure. There has not been a better time in our lifetimes to invest and fix Canada's infrastructure. We have historically low bond yields, soft employment numbers, stagnant economic growth, and an historic opportunity to take the advice of David Dodge, the IMF, Mark Carney, and others and invest in infrastructure.

(1115) That is the kind of vision that Canadian small businesses and Canadian middle-class families would benefit from, not a poorly thought out approach from the NDP that would disproportionately benefit the wealthiest Canadians families who need the help the least. Ms. Ève Péclet (La Pointe-de-l'Île, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the member tells a great story, and we can always find quotes going both ways. However, will the Liberals support our motion, yes or no? If not, what are their plans? Going to southern Ontario and telling manufacturers that it is long past due and that they should move on?

What are their plans and will they support our motion? Hon. Scott Brison : Mr. Speaker, I think I was pretty clear, so the answer is, no, we will not support the motion. To support a motion that will take $1.2 billion out of the federal treasury will not really do much for jobs, growth or help the middle class. It does not seem like good public policy. It sounds like something coming from the Conservatives in terms of income-splitting. Beyond that, the member is right that we can get quotes from different sources.

I have never seen the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, which is considered a progressive think tank, agree with Jack Mintz at the University of Calgary on anything before in my life. They both say that this proposal by the NDP will disproportionately benefit the wealthiest Canadian families through tax shelters and private family corporations. The top one percent is doing very well in Canada and the NDP ought to focus on the middle class like the Liberal Party is doing. [ Translation ] Mr. Alain Giguère (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, my problem with the people in the Liberal Party is that every time they talk about the economy, they, like the Conservatives, paint a picture of a wealthy Canada even though more and more Canadians are turning to food banks and more and more young people are unemployed. They keep saying that Canada's economic growth is strong, but the vast majority of Canadians are not benefiting from that economic growth. It would be nice if the Liberal Party MPs told us what they plan to do and how they plan to do it. I am not talking about what they have always done, which is give to the rich.

How will they go about creating wealth for the vast majority of Canadians? Most importantly and to the point, will they do it by increasing the deficit and the middle class tax burden? Who will they tax? Those are the real questions. Will they balance the budget?

(1120) Hon. Scott Brison : Mr. Speaker, to be honest, I do not understand the question because the Liberal Party is not the party that came up with the idea to help the rich that we are talking about today. That came from the New Democrats, not us. I do not understand why the member supports the NDP's current policies when those policies seem to favour the rich and families that do not need help from the Government of Canada. It is up to him, not me, to explain the NDP's backward policies here in the House of Commons. [ English ] Hon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, the misquotes being attributed to the leader of the Liberal Party border on urban legend. I would offer the opportunity for the hon. member to correct the nonsense by the Conservative Party, which is to spend and which, in this new coalition, has been picked up by the NDP as well. Hon. Scott Brison : Mr. Speaker, the one thing that really unites this new coalition between the New Democrats and the Conservatives is their fear of the Liberals and the member for Papineau . Based on what we are seeing across the country, they are being reasonable in assessing the situation and having that fear.

Beyond that, they both misrepresent what the Liberal Party and its leader does and says. In fact, the leader of the Liberal Party has stood up strongly for advanced manufacturing and making the kinds of investments in advanced manufacturing that will not only create the jobs of today, but will prepare the Canadian economy and our manufacturing sector to create the jobs of the future. That is what the Liberal Party stands for. Hon. John McCallum (Markham—Unionville, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased, and even proud, to say that the Liberal Party will vote against this motion.

At its heart, it reflects the core incompetence of the New Democratic Party on anything related to economics. [ Translation ] The motion reveals the New Democratic Party's fundamental incompetence when it comes to economic issues. However, before I say any more about the NDP's economic incompetence, I would like to talk about the government's incompetence. This is important because we are living in uncertain times. In uncertain times, the people want the government to take a clear stance. [ English ] It is clear that oil prices have plummeted and economic uncertainty has increased.

In such an uncertain climate, people want economic leadership from the government. They want an action plan to reassure Canadians that everything will not be for the worse. What is that plan for the government? It is to delay its budget to April or later. That is the opposite of an action plan to reassure Canadians. It is a sign that the government does not seem to know what to do, so it is punting the budget into the future. Why?

On the one hand, the minister seems to be saying that in these uncertain times we have to wait a few more months to see what will happen to oil prices, as if knowing oil prices in two months would help us know them in 12 months. No one in the world predicted oil prices would go from $100 to $50. I do not think a couple of months from now we will know a huge amount more. On the other hand, the minister talks as if he does know everything right now. He says with certainty that the Conservatives will balance the budget. He says with certainty that they will deliver their tax cuts.

If he knows all that, why delay the budget? If everything is so clear in his head, as he pretends it is, why not do the budget tomorrow and relieve the uncertainty of Canadians. The other problem is this. Why does he use the hard-earned money of Canadians at a time of potential deficits to give $12 billion over six years in the form of income splitting that will go to a tiny minority, 15%, of households, which is geared toward higher income Canadians? It does nothing for growth and resembles the policy of the NDP, which we are discussing today. This brings me to my core issue of NDP economic incompetence.

In order to set the stage for this hypothesis, let me take a little historical step backward and look at the NDP through history. The New Democrats like to refer to provincial NDP governments as being competent. To some extent I will grant them that point. If I think of people from the past, like Roy Romanow, Ed Schreyer, Doer, et cetera, they actually ran governments, balanced budgets and showed competent economic leadership in some cases. Some of them were so good they could have been Liberals. One of them became a Liberal.

However, it is a totally different animal when we get to the federal NDP, because it is a party that, thank goodness, has never been the government. The New Democrats are living in a kind of 1950s class warfare mentality where they are debating in Ottawa ideas that were current among the left in the 1950s and 1960s. They have a somewhat other worldly element to them, not only in economics but also wanting to get out of NATO and other silly things.

Now we have a new leader of the NDP who has decided enough of this left wing stuff, that the New Democrats will not do crazy incompetent ancient history lefty stuff, that they will move to the centre and become much more conservative, and do all these nice things for corporations. Therefore, we come to this motion and this plan. As my colleague has pointed out, I do not think even the current leader of the NDP, who wants to be more conservative, wants to be so conservative to present a policy that economists on the left and the right agree would do nothing for growth.

All it would do is give huge benefits to wealthy Canadians. That is what the left wing and right wing economists say. I am an economist. I know economists do not always agree, but when we have a lefty economist and a righty economist saying exactly the same thing, there is probably an element of truth in it.

(1125) This misguided NDP policy with which it is trying to burnish its pro-corporate credentials to Canadians has fallen flat on its face because it would do the opposite. It would do nothing to create jobs in small business and other business. It would do everything to favour high-income Canadians in tax shelters. This speaks to two points about the NDP. The NDP tries to be more mainstream or pro-corporate, but it remains incompetent. It is not proposing anything that would actually help create jobs in the corporate world.

It has been deluded by bad research into thinking that this measure, which it proposes to create jobs in the private sector, in fact would not do so. It would simply raise the incomes of the higher-income, most privileged Canadians. In this respect, as my colleague says, it is as if we are entering into some sort of coalition behaviour between the two other parties that wish to favour the higher-income Canadians. Only the Liberal Party is left as the champion of middle-class Canadians because we will neither do income splitting, which would favour the rich.

Nor will we do this stupid NDP tax cut, which would also favour the rich. There it is on paper. Concrete measures from the Conservatives that favour higher-income Canadians and concrete measures proposed today from the NDP, which really does not understand what it is doing, that favour the rich, unknown to the NDP. In that respect, those two parties are united. The Liberal Party, alone, is fighting for middle-class Canadians. For that reason, we are very happy to oppose this ridiculous NDP motion.

(1130) Hon. Michael Chong (Wellington—Halton Hills, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite should know, as a trained economist, whose Ph.D. thesis became a book, entitled Unequal Beginnings: Agriculture and Economic Development in Quebec and Ontario until 1870 , that this government has had a very good record on job creation and economic growth. If we compare a more important statistic of labour market participation among OECD countries, we will see that Canada's numbers are very strong. The most recent numbers from Statistics Canada show that our labour market participation rate is somewhere around 65%.

The commiserate number for the United States, from December 2014, is 62.7%. If we compare our labour market participation rates to countries like the United Kingdom and many other western European countries, we are quite a bit higher. This government has done an excellent job of managing the economy and the member should give some acknowledgement for that. He should know, as a trained economist, that this is the case. Hon. John McCallum : Mr.

Speaker, I do not give much praise to the government, but I do give a lot of praise to the hon. member opposite, not only because of some of the good work he has done in the House, but also because he is one of the few people I have met in the last decades who has actually read my Ph.D. thesis. I thank him for his good taste in that regard. I would also acknowledge that Canada has done better than Spain and Greece in terms of recovering from the economic crisis. However, my view would be that it is largely not the government's doing.

It is largely because we had oil, when oil prices were higher, that helped and it is largely because our fiscal house was in order, and that is thanks to the actions of the Liberal government. It is also largely because we did not allow our banks to regulate themselves, which is thanks to the decision by the Liberal government not to allow mergers and not to allow banks to deregulate. If we put all those ingredients together, while it is true we have done better than Greece and Spain, much of the credit for that rests with the previous Liberal governments of both Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin. Mr.

Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I can remember a president in the past saying he wanted a “one-armed economist”, because one set of economists would say one thing and another set would give contrary advice. We have, with my friend from the Liberal Party, the great combination in which he offers two perspectives on the same reality in the same speech, many times. Let us break them down a bit. When anything good happened under a Liberal watch, it was because of what the Liberal Party had done to make that happen.

Anything good that happens under anyone else's watch, be it a Conservative or New Democratic government, are other factors. The member also said that if the Liberals offer a business tax cut, then that is a good thing, but if the NDP offers the same tax cut, then that is a loophole for rich people to get off their taxes. The Liberals did more to allow the wealthiest Canadians to offshore their taxes than any party in political history. They handed out tens of billions of dollars in corporate tax giveaways, without the job creation associated with it whatsoever.

Could the member tell me if the problem is the actual ideas we have put forward to help the manufacturing sector, to help small businesses, to help grow the Canadian economy, or is it simply the source? My colleague does not like the orange brand that was on the policy paper, because that would show him to be somewhat more partisan than impartial in trying to help the Canadian economy, which is exactly what the NDP leader was doing last week in front of the Economic Club of Canada.

He was offering up ideas, ideas that the Liberals think, with a flick of the hair and a smile, are going to get them all the way through the next election. Canadians need solutions to the challenges that this economy faces.

(1135) Hon. John McCallum : Mr. Speaker, my colleague referred to two-handed economists, and I referred to two economists, one from the left—one could even say the far left—and one from the pretty far right. Those are two hands of two different economists of opposite persuasions who totally agree that the NDP policy would do nothing but favour the rich and would not create jobs. Members should not listen to me. They should listen to economists on the left and economists on the right who are in total agreement.

As for parties in government, I actually gave some credit to NDP provincial governments, which from time to time have behaved competently. However, thank goodness we have no evidence of an NDP federal government, because such a thing has never existed and, God willing, never will. [ Translation ] Ms. Isabelle Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Windsor West .

I am rising today to speak to the NDP motion, which proposes a series of practical, targeted and carefully thought-out measures that will lay the foundation for a more solid and sustainable economy. These measures will support the middle class, strengthen the manufacturing industry and help small businesses and manufacturers create jobs.

To that end, we are proposing that the accelerated capital cost allowance be extended by two years; that the small business income tax rate be immediately reduced from 11% to 10%, and then to 9% when finances permit; and that an innovation tax credit be introduced to support investment in machinery, in equipment used for research and development and in property to further innovation and increase productivity. This last measure will repair the damage caused when the Conservatives cut the tax credit for scientific research and experimental development and will encourage innovation in Canada.

This is an intelligent, innovative and balanced approach to resource management that will get the country back on track. These measures, which were carefully developed by our team, were well received by broad range of stakeholder groups. I would like to quote a few of them who gave their opinion on this subject. First, 84% of members of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business indicated that a reduction of the small business tax rate would be a very effective measure to maintain or strengthen business performance.

The federation believes that any lost tax revenues for the federal government will be more than made up for in the longer term by the benefits of small businesses' contributions to the economy through job creation and the growth of small businesses at the local level. The tax burden is the most important issue for over 75% of the small businesses that make up the 20,000 members of the CFIB who answered this survey on March 3, 2014. Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters also supports us.

The organization said that the NDP made the manufacturing sector the cornerstone of its economic plan in Ottawa, following the NDP leader's announcement that he wants to reduce taxes for small businesses and support investment in job creation in the manufacturing sector. [ English ] After a decade of the Conservative government mismanagement of the economy, middle-class families are working harder than ever but their situation continues to deteriorate. The Conservatives have not built a sustainable and balanced economy.

Their policies have caused the loss of more than 400,000 jobs in the manufacturing sector alone. The Conservatives have reduced taxes by 25% for rich companies since coming to power, yet they have reduced taxes by only 1% for small businesses. Why do they still prefer to grant generous tax benefits to the wealthy few and leave most Canadians behind? Canadians have had enough.

They want a government that is capable of bringing about real and tangible change, a government that truly understands what needs to be done, not one that favours the interests of the wealthy few. [ Translation ] Against a backdrop of growing economic uncertainty, due in large part to the Conservative government's poor management, many Canadian families are being left behind and have difficulty making ends meet. It is becoming increasingly difficult for Canadian households to meet their economic needs, which puts at risk their long-term economic security.

Businesses are closing and employees are losing their jobs right across Canada. According to recent data released by Statistics Canada, the Canadian job market closed out the previous year with a total loss of 4,300 jobs in the month of December alone. That is a very difficult situation for many families who found themselves unemployed overnight. This is the situation in every region of the country. Southwest Montreal is also in the grips of this new reality.

In my riding, especially Lachine, the Finnish industrial group Metso will shut down its Lachine plant on February 13, resulting in the layoff of 95 employees still working there. At the beginning of 2014, Metso had 191 employees. The company's reason for the decision was the plummeting number of orders because of the decline in the mining sector. This is the fourth plant to close its doors in the Lachine industrial park since I was elected in 2011. This unfortunate case among so many others perfectly illustrates that the Conservatives' economic policy does not work for employment in Lachine.

It does not work for employment in Quebec and it is certainly not working in the rest of Canada. The Conservatives' strategy aims to make foreign multinationals wealthier, but it does not benefit the majority of middle-class Canadians whose jobs are unstable. The Conservative government's policy focused on natural resource development exposes jobs to the fluctuation of the raw materials market. This policy simply does not work, and in Quebec it does not create jobs—it destroys them. We need bold action to address this problem. We will work to develop solid economic measures that make job creation a priority.

The NDP believes that we need to strengthen the traditional sectors, such as resource extraction and manufacturing, while also taking advantage of new opportunities, innovation and growth to diversify Canada's economy. This plan will help create the next generation of jobs for the middle class. We will continue to work tirelessly to help Canadian workers. The NDP continues to support small and medium-sized businesses, the real job creators in Canada. Under our strategy, we will reinvest nearly $1.2 billion to help small businesses. (1140) [ English ] One thing is sure.

New Democrats will continue to fight for the middle class, which is and will continue to be a central priority for the party. We are ready to fix the damage done by the Conservatives, and we will not rest until we reverse the dangerous trends that have pressed middle-class families and made their lives more difficult.

As our NDP leader has said, it is without doubt that one of the most important economic assets that Canada has is the middle class, and I could not agree more. [ Translation ] We urge the government to seriously consider these practical and effective suggestions that will have a positive impact on Canada's industrial sector and will kick-start our economy. These measures were designed to support Canada's manufacturing base and to give a strong signal to investors, telling them that they can count on a New Democrat government to help Canada's manufacturing sector successfully transition to a new era.

I would like to add that I have visited a lot of businesses in my riding since I was elected. Two years ago we launched a big campaign focusing on credit cards. We spoke to small-business owners about a variety of topics. These are concrete actions that will help them. I mentioned the manufacturing sector, which is not doing well in southern Ontario. A number of factories are closing down in Montreal. This is quite alarming, and our government has yet to introduce a budget while telling us everything is fine.

Every time we hear from the government, it is as though the figures are perfect and everyone is doing well. This is not the situation in my riding. In fact, a member of Parliament is primarily a service to the public. Constituents come to meet me to say that they have lost their job and that they are finding it hard to feed their children or to buy them decent clothes. When I go visit the food banks in my riding, I realize that they are being very heavily used.

I go on Wednesdays sometimes to give out food and I see hundreds of people coming in for a loaf of bread because they cannot afford to buy it if there is no food bank to help them. It is high time we diversified our economy. What has been done so far shows it is not working. It is very sad to hear our Liberal and Conservative colleagues say that they will not support this motion, because these are really very concrete measures. They have been examined and they can really make a difference for workers in the manufacturing sector.

We have today to convince our friends in the other parties, for the sake of the vitality of our economy and Canada’s economy. I heard my colleague from Parkdale—High Park earlier today telling us that Canada has always been a prosperous country. People from all over the world used to come to Canada for work because the country was creating good jobs. This is no longer the case. The situation is getting worse and it has been allowed to get worse by the current government, which tells us that everything is fine.

It is often said that if we want to change something, the first thing to do is to admit there is a problem and face the facts. Once we are aware of the situation, we can change it. I hope that this will be the case today, because when I am told all the time that everything is fine, I get the impression that the government really does not know what is going on and what is happening in ridings such as mine, where factories are closing down. I really hope that we can make progress for the benefit of the Canadian community. (1145) [ English ] Mr. LaVar Payne (Medicine Hat, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, I am not sure if our colleague across the way realizes that, since the recession, our government has created more than 1.2 million jobs in this country to help Canadians in difficult times, and we continue to support Canadians in that respect. With respect to the small business tax cut that New Democrats are talking about, some economists have said this will make rich Canadians richer. It is “something to make the rich richer”, according the Jack Mintz, director of the University of Calgary's School of Public Policy, which he told The Huffington Post .

He also said, “We find that 60 per cent of the small business deduction goes to households with more than $150,000...”. This was research previously done on the subject. My question for my hon. colleague across the way is this. Is she ensuring the rich will get richer? [ Translation ] Ms. Isabelle Morin : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. That is what I was talking about in my speech—the fact that the member started his question by saying that his party has created lots of jobs. There are currently 1.3 million unemployed workers in Canada. As I said, we lost 4,300 jobs in December alone.

In 2014, employment grew by barely 1%. That is the problem I have with this because the Conservatives get up and tell us that everything is fine even though I have numbers like these. In answer to his question, we all know that every time a big corporation sets up shop in a particular place, that creates a deficit in terms of jobs for all of the smaller businesses that were already there. I know lots of small business owners, and it is not true that these people are making $150,000, $200,000 or $300,000 per year. Lots of people go through hard times while getting their businesses up and running.

My partner has a small business. Together, we make over $200,000 per year, but he is only making about $20,000 per year even though his business is four years old. He has created jobs, and every year he creates more jobs. It is hard. It would be nice if he could get a little help. Lachine is trying to revitalize Notre-Dame street. All the business owners I talk to tell me that it is hard and that they are struggling, but help from the government would go a long way and would create local jobs for people in these sectors. I heard my colleague's argument, but the gap between rich and poor keeps growing.

It certainly was not the NDP who created that gap. It was the previous Conservative and Liberal governments. The NDP's measures are certainly not going to make the rich richer. [ English ] Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, in 2000, Canada's corporate income tax rate was 30% and the small business income tax rate was 13%. This advantaged small businesses vis-à-vis large corporations and promoted competition in the marketplace. Large corporations have economies of scale. They have vast resources permitting them to deal with regulatory burdens and they can more efficiently manage their affairs.

That 17% income-tax advantage helped the SME industry in our country. Since that time, the government has cut the large-scale corporate tax rate down to 15% and kept the small business tax rate at 11%. That gap of 17% has now been narrowed to 4%, which makes it much more difficult for small businesses to operate in this country and compete against the large-scale companies. Examples are Walmart and Costco competing against a small neighbourhood market, or Starbucks versus JJ Bean, or Chapters or Indigo versus, in my city of Vancouver, Duthie Books or Pulpfiction.

In Vancouver Kingsway, small business is really the engine of our economy. Does my colleague have any comment on the importance of giving small businesses an opportunity to keep their taxes low so they can create jobs and continue to be the engine of the Canadian economy? (1150) [ Translation ] Ms. Isabelle Morin : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. Indeed, that is the dichotomy we always see between corporations and small businesses. Small businesses create jobs. When a corporation sets up shop, small business jobs are often impacted. We need to help small businesses.

My colleague provided the numbers for the gap between the corporate tax rate and the small business tax rate. That gap needs to be widened. We really must help small businesses. When large commercial chains come along, they often offer jobs that are not that great. The work environment is a lot more impersonal. As a consumer, I always try to shop in small, individual stores that are more personal, instead of going to major chains. I really hope that members of the other parties will support this motion because it is important for the Canadian economy.

I believe in it and I think this is a good plan for helping Canadians. [ English ] Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise here today to talk about this motion, which I will read in a moment. It is an important motion because of the economic situation we are facing. In the retail sector we see a current crisis with the closure of Target, the most recent casualty in the Canadian economy, and others are also talking of liquidating themselves. It is important to mention that Target was allowed into the country under the Investment Canada Act and then bought out Zellers.

Not only have we just lost Target, another retail chain, with vacant spaces appearing in shopping centres where they were located, but the reality is that Target supplanted and took over from the last Canadian-owned retail store, Zellers. When Target took over at that time, I remember the distress and concern of the workers at Zellers, because they had to immediately take a pay cut of a couple of dollars or lose their chance to stay on at Target.

I was on the picket line with some of those employees who had been at Zellers, a Canadian employer company, for over 20 years when this American superhero giant came in to compete. We knew the terms and conditions because we were living on the border in Windsor, Ontario. We would often go over to Target or some place like that. We would see the signs for a minimum wage of $3 an hour or something like that. We knew the type of attitude that was going to come into the Canadian market.

We have not only just lost this retail component today; we have also lost a Canadian component that had a livable wage at that time for those workers. The government did nothing for those workers at that time. It could have and it should have, but it did not. It allowed them to be crushed. Today we stand here to talk about a motion made by the member for Parkdale—High Park , which moves: That the House call on the government to take immediate action to build a balanced economy, support the middle class and encourage manufacturing and small business job creation by: (

a) extending the accelerated capital cost allowance by two years; (

b) reducing the small business income tax rate from 11% to 10% immediately, and then to 9% when finances permit; and (

c) introducing an Innovation Tax Credit to support investment in machinery, equipment and property to further innovation and increase productivity. I am going to talk about the initiatives that we have proposed as reasonable ways to move our economy forward and make sure that middle-class Canadians can emerge as a stronger force in this country. We have seen that whittled down over the years through a series of attacks. There has not been proper support for certain industries, especially when other foreign countries have used intervention to steal some of our jobs. We have certainly seen that in the auto sector.

We have also allowed middle-class Canadians to be attacked by gouging, whether it is at the pumps or through fees charged for credit cards, banking, or cellphones. These are a whole series of important things that are necessary to function in a modern society that have been put on the backs of consumers and families alike. What that has done is put a real squeeze on disposable income. Just today we saw more reports about consumer debt. It is a real issue, and the investment that is necessary is available to the government and to those individuals who could help.

The first item in the motion is about extending the accelerated capital cost allowance by two years. I have a little history with this. I was reminded by my friend from Edmonton—Leduc about the work that we did in the industry committee before this place became so hyperpartisan that we could not agree on anything. There was a working relationship in the industry committee at that time.

(1155) Ironically, the work was done by several parties. We came up with a series of recommendations that we could all agree upon for the most part, and we worked on the ones we could not agree on to make sure that they would be at least palatable to all of us. One significant recommendation was the capital cost reduction allowance so that the manufacturing and resource sectors could write off of equipment at a quicker pace to encourage investment. That is important because Canada has become, for the most part, a branch plant economic system. The head offices have often moved outside of this country.

Very few have moved back here and very few have stayed. At the time when we produced that report and made recommendations that were tabled in the House of Commons, there were Canadian giants that were still in the field, such as Nortel. Gone. An hon. member: Burger King. Mr. Brian Masse: Burger King, yes, that is great, Mr. Speaker. They are comparing Nortel and Burger King, high industry versus the service industry. That is what they are proud of. By the way, the only reason Burger King is locating here—and it is a small office—is to evade taxes in the United States.

We have seen President Barack Obama talk about this situation. It is a joke when Conservatives heckle about Burger King being this great landing of a corporate head office when it is just going to be a branch plant corporate office. We have seen the President of the United States pan Burger King, and Congress and the Senate have started to move legislation forward because it is evading tax in the United States. That is what we are attracting. The Conservatives' strategy is to bring the head office of tax evaders to our country. Burger King laid off people. Why? It bought Tim Hortons and now has reduced it.

That is the Burger King success story. It will probably get half a floor in some building on Bay Street where head office employees will be out golfing half the time, and that is going to be the Conservatives' victory flag. Meanwhile, we have lost Nortel and other Canadian institutions that have either moved out or are gone. The capital cost reduction allowance was something that we all supported and tabled in the chamber. It led to good government policy and support. There were all kinds of comments in support of those issues. There is no doubt that extending it for two years would be a benefit.

It is critical right now because we can see what is available in terms of capabilities. With the dollar dropping, we have a chance to win some of our manufacturing jobs back because manufacturing is going to benefit. Coming from a manufacturing city, I have seen thousands upon thousands of jobs disappear to Mexico, the United States, or overseas. Sadly, just last month we lost a chance for Ford to build a new engine in Canada in Windsor and Essex because the plant went to Mexico. Conservatives blew the deal. We lost a chance for a new engine plant, but now we have— An hon. member: We did not blow the deal. Mr.

Brian Masse: You did blow the deal. You started to negotiate in public with some of your members. That is what took place. I will provide a little snapshot of our trade deficit. These statistics on our trade deficit cover several years. Pertaining to manufacturing goods, I will use the year 2010 because it was significant as the year when things flipped over. The deficit was creeping and creeping, but our manufacturing exports versus our imports at that time went to an $80 billion deficit, and that deficit has continued to grow.

However, we have a chance right now, with the dollar being low and by using the capital cost reduction allowance, to attract some of that investment back. That is what makes us much more successful. In conclusion, our skills, our abilities, and our support systems, such as health care, are net advantages to attract employers to locate in this country. Dropping the corporate tax rate has not done it. We have witnessed the bleeding of manufacturing jobs and value-added jobs—dirty words to the government—out of this country. Let us act now and take back some of those jobs.

(1200) Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I agree that we need to pay more attention to the issue of manufacturing jobs, among others. However, the manufacturing industry has taken a significant hit over the last number of years. In my home province of Manitoba, the pork industry has been doing relatively well. It has seen benefits in terms of potential growth and is still growing. One of the things feeding that growth is international trade.

International trade is important to the Canadian economy and a lot of different industries in providing the necessary good quality, middle-class jobs that have real value. I wonder if the member could talk about the importance of us expanding our boundaries by looking at trade agreements, and so forth, as a way to help small businesses. Mr. Brian Masse : Mr. Speaker, I would highlight a couple of things that have taken place over the last number of years. One is the distain or disconnect the government has with respect to trade with the United States. We have seen the repercussions of that.

Whether it has been with regard to coal or cattle, there has been a series of impediments at the border. I agree that we need to reach out internationally and open new markets, but we are watching our number one market close us down. That has been an unfortunate consequence of the government's preoccupation with trying to push pipelines in the face of America and Washington, and not looking after the real projects, such as the new border crossing project in my riding of Windsor West. Of the $3.5 trillion U.S. budget, we could not even get $250 million for the American plaza.

Instead, we are paying for the border crossing and for the plazas on both the Canadian and American sides because of neglect. [ Translation ] Mr. Pierre Nantel (Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to say that the heckling across the way is quite annoying. This member has worked a long time on these issues. He has a lot to teach us and he comes from a region that has been hit hard by the bad choices of his friends on the other side. I have a factual question for him. We have seen a high number of closures.

We know about what happened in London with Kellogg, and we see what is now going on with Wrigley. What does he think explains the closing of these factories that manufacture American products, which we will continue to buy and which will continue to come across our borders? (1205) [ English ] Mr. Brian Masse : Mr. Speaker, a number of significant things took place. We had the peaking of the Canadian dollar based on our raw export resource-based economy, which weakened the manufacturing sector. We had no plan and no auto strategy.

In the area I come from, if there is any potential attempt for auto investment, it becomes a Hail Mary pass, not a plan. We have what is called the Canadian Automotive Partnership Council, where the entire industry came together to create report cards and progress cards on how to move the industry forward. We do not use that. Rather, we just wait for that moment as opposed to pushing for it. That is why I like the idea of the capital cost allowance right now, because with that and an organized plan, we could fight to get some of these jobs back.

The administration in the United States is doing that; it is rebirthing manufacturing. We do not see that here. The Liberal leader came to London, Ontario, and talked about how we basically have to diversify away from auto manufacturing because it is a dead industry. Then he came down to Windsor and had no auto strategy, despite the fact there is money still available for such a strategy. We have put one forth before. Our first was a green auto strategy that involved David Suzuki and the CAW. There are 13 countries in the world that have a specific auto strategy.

What I mean by an auto strategy is the assigning of targets and measure and referring back to those targets, whether with respect to the environment, production, diversification, or parts supply improvements. Mrs. Stella Ambler (Mississauga South, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it is an absolute pleasure for me today to speak to this motion, because it gives me an opportunity to talk about the many measures that our government has taken to improve Canada's economy. First, let me say that I will be splitting my time with the member for Brant .

As I said, it gives me an opportunity to speak about our low-tax plan for Canadians, which began back in 2006 when our government was first elected. As my hon. colleagues will know, the world was a different place at that time. Markets were booming and economic growth was strong. We took advantage of these good conditions to cut taxes for hard-working families and job-creating businesses, and we paid down the federal debt. Then in 2009, during the depths of the world's largest global economic recession in a generation, we acted quickly to protect our Canadian economy with targeted and temporary stimulus.

We introduced the economic action plan and funded thousands of infrastructure projects across the country, many in my own riding of Mississauga South. These included the construction of roads, bridges and border crossings, as well as innovative knowledge-based infrastructure, like research labs in universities and colleges, and the expansion of broadband Internet in rural areas. That access of course was helpful to businesses of all sizes.

Since that time, we have also been working hard to position Canada as an attractive place to invest and to grow business by systematically putting in place the right conditions for success. I mentioned some of our early tax reductions. These have been a priority of the government since day one. We know that low-tax environments attract business, as well as boost domestic and foreign direct investment. These factors are of course crucial to job creation, innovation, skills development, productivity and growth. Today Canada is in constant competition for domestic and foreign investment dollars.

Our government knows that a low-tax regime helps Canada attract new investment. We are committed to ensuring Canada has the most competitive tax regime possible. In fact, in the past five years alone, we have delivered tax reductions totalling more than $60 billion to job-creating businesses. For example, we reduced the federal general corporate tax rate from 22% to 15%. We extended the accelerated capital cost allowance for manufacturing and processing machinery and equipment.

We implemented a three-year freeze on the EI rate at its 2013 level, saving employers and employees an estimated $660 million last year alone. In particular, for our small and medium-size businesses, we reduced the small business tax rate from 15% to 11%, and increased the amount of income eligible for this lower rate from $300,000 to $500,000. We also raised the lifetime capital gains exemption for small business owners from $500,000 to $800,000. This new limit is now indexed to inflation, so it will continue to rise.

We expanded and extended temporary hiring credits for small businesses, and have introduced the new small business job credit that will save small businesses more than half a billion dollars over two years. Today, I am proud to say that all of these actions are paying off. Even in today's still uncertain global economic climate, Canada's economy is widely recognized as one of the world's strongest. Over the past 10 years, we have led the G7 countries in economic growth. We are second only to the U.S. in growth among G7 countries during the recession and recovery. We have a strong record of job creation.

In fact, our economy has created almost 1.2 million new jobs since the height of the recession, one of the strongest job creation records in the G7. Moreover, all major rating agencies have affirmed Canada's AAA credit rating. Clearly, this is a great place to do business. Do not just take my word for it, because the world is taking notice. KPMG reports that total business tax costs in Canada are the lowest in the G7 and over 40% lower than those in the United States. In 2013, Canada leapt from sixth to second place in Bloomberg's ranking of the most attractive destinations for business.

Once more, for the seventh consecutive year, the World Economic Forum has declared Canada's banking system to be the soundest in the world.

(1210) I think we can all give our former finance minister many of the kudos for that and the policies put in place under this government over the past nine years. Simply put, Canada has a record that investors and business people are confident in. In addition to mentioning some of the measures we are taking to support our small and medium-size businesses, I want to point out to the House that these businesses represent over 99% of all Canadian businesses and account for nearly nine in ten jobs in the private sector, contributing about 40% to our GDP. They are clearly the lifeblood of the Canadian economy.

I have a great respect for small business owners. My father ran a small business for 40 years, and I started working for him when I was quite young. I saw day to day the struggles that the average small business owner has to deal with in meeting a payroll, paying suppliers, and generally doing business. Of course, when a person runs a business for 40 years, there are going to ups and downs, peaks and valleys.

However, our small business owners in Canada not only understand and know how to deal with those, but they also appreciate it when they have a government that understands those struggles and challenges and is there to support them, as this government is. This is why we have taken action and implemented all kinds of measures. For example, we have improved access to financing for small business, which of course is critical at all stages of growth for businesses. Most recently, we announced changes to the Canada small business financing program to allow more small businesses to apply for and receive larger loans.

We have also brought in the venture capital action plan to improve access to SME financing so that companies have the capital they need to create jobs and growth in the area of venture capital. We have also introduced the business innovation access program, which speaks in part to the NDP motion today. This is a pilot program that provides $20 million in funding to SMEs to help them access business services or technical assistance to bring bigger and better innovations to market faster.

We established the immigrant investor venture capital pilot program to support innovative Canadian start-ups with high-growth potential. We have made investments in Futurpreneur Canada, formerly known as the Canada Youth Business Foundation, to help Canada's next generation of entrepreneurs. We have invested $100 million in the Canada accelerator and incubator program to help entrepreneurs create new companies and receive intensive mentoring and other resources to develop their business.

We have also instructed the Business Development Bank of Canada, BDC, to be more responsive to the unique needs of small business. Our government is also committed to reducing red tape in order to support a flourishing and healthy business environment, which is the foundation for creating jobs and long-term prosperity. Accordingly, our government introduced the red tape reduction action plan, which we have heard quite a bit about in the House. It addresses specific irritants to small business, reduces their paperwork, and makes the system more transparent and accountable.

Contrast this with the actions of opposition members who voted against lowering the federal corporate income tax rate to 15%. They voted against extending the accelerated capital cost allowance for new investment in manufacturing. They voted against the automotive innovation fund. They voted against the establishment of the national shipbuilding procurement strategy, and they voted against the advanced manufacturing fund.

There is such a long list of our initiatives that opposition members have voted against, it is quite disappointing, whether it is the Federal Economic Development Agency, FedDev; the job grant; apprentice loans and grants; the extension of the lifetime capital gains tax that I mentioned or the SR and ED credits.

(1215) Our government has been deliberately enacting a whole series of policies and programs to further fuel Canada's economic growth. Unlike the opposition, our government has a sustained approach to responsible fiscal management, which responds directly to the priorities of Canadian business owners. Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I think all Canadians realized over the last 10 years that the manufacturing sector in Canada has had a difficult time.

We have seen a number of Canadian champions, longstanding Canadian companies, close and shed the jobs that come with them, often family-sustaining jobs.

What the New Democrats are calling for today is for the Canadian government to take immediate action to build a balanced economy, support the middle class, and encourage manufacturing and small business creation, specifically by extending the accelerated capital cost allowance by two years; reducing the small business income tax rate from 11% to 10% immediately and then to 9% when finances permit; and finally, by introducing an innovation tax credit to support investment in machinery, equipment, and property for further innovation and to increase productivity.

I wonder if my hon. colleague across the way could tell us which of those three proposals her government has a problem with. Is it reducing the tax rate for small business, extending the accelerated capital cost allowance, or introducing an innovation tax credit? Mrs. Stella Ambler : Mr. Speaker, that is an interesting question, because I do not understand why the NDP has voted consistently against the measures we put in place that, to me, sound exactly like the motion being put forward.

We have provided $1.4 billion in tax relief to the manufacturing sector, and total business tax costs in Canada are the lowest in the G7. I am not sure if the member is aware of an industry committee study done here in Parliament, which was released in 2007. It recommended that the accelerated capital cost allowance be extended for five years. Later that year, in the budget, the then finance minister did in fact extend the accelerated capital cost exemption for machinery and equipment for two years; and every two years since then, it has been renewed. I did speak a bit about innovation.

Perhaps I will get a chance later. Absolutely, our government is doing all of those things. I am just left wondering why the opposition did not vote for them if it supports them.

(1220) Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, it is about priorities, and the government determined its priority in the fall was to give literally hundreds of millions of dollars, totalling $2 billion plus annually, to an income split. This is something we in the Liberal Party have adamantly opposed. When we look at the priorities, imagine if the government actually invested today in our infrastructure.

It would not only directly help small businesses in Canada with the potential for contracts, but indirectly through the improvement of infrastructure we would be better able to export and transport our products. Why does the member believe that the Prime Minister got the issue of priorities for Canadians wrong? Mrs. Stella Ambler : Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that it is indeed about priorities, and our government has its priorities straight. Absolutely, we believe in tax cuts for families across Canada.

In fact, the transfer of income, also known as income splitting, has worked so well for seniors that we have made it a priority to provide that same kind of tax relief to families as well. I certainly make no apologies for that. Also on the subject of priorities, I would like the member opposite to know that small and medium-sized businesses are indeed a priority. That is why we have lowered taxes for SMEs from 15% to 11%, to make it easier for them.

We have also put in place the three-year freeze on the EI rate, which I mentioned, again making it easier for businesses in Canada to do business, to make money, and then create those jobs, those almost 1.2 million jobs that our economy has created since the depths of the recession in 2009. These are the kinds of initiatives and programs, measures that our government has taken, that have consistently put us at the head of the G7 in terms of economic growth and job creation. I am very proud of that. Mr. Phil McColeman (Brant, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, it is a great pleasure to rise today to talk about manufacturing across this great country of ours and how our government has set the proper balance. It puzzled me when I read this motion today that says New Democrats, through this motion, want to move toward somewhat of a balanced economy. I am not certain that I understand that term in NDP terms. Perhaps it is best explained by the New Democrats, who have said it publicly, and will campaign on raising the taxes of the largest corporations in Canada.

Many of them would be directly involved in manufacturing and creating the thousands of jobs that manufacturing supports in communities like mine: the city of Brantford, the County of Brant, the Six Nations of the Grand River, and Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation. My community has a distinct story to tell about manufacturing. At the turn of the century, manufacturing in Brantford was the third largest in all of Canada, producing all the farm implements that went around the world, all of the heavy manufacturing that went along with the industrial revolution.

It was only behind Montreal and Toronto in those years. Much of the transport of those goods went down the Grand River, into Lake Erie, into the Great Lakes, and then to Europe and other parts of the world where the farms were revolutionized. I set this context for a reason. When that industry was in its worst condition, suffering because of poor public policy and other economic factors, and had its demise, my community had 30% unemployment, in the late 1970s, early 1980s, and beyond. The good news is that today my community has one of the lowest rates it has ever had, at 6.7% unemployment. Why is that?

It is because we have set the platform in this country for manufacturers to succeed. Let me talk about some of the things our government has done in my community, specifically through economic development initiatives through FedDev Ontario, which is the economic development arm of southwestern Ontario. I am going to talk about two specific heavy manufacturing c