Ted Menzies

[Pensions, June 5th, 2013]

Once again, Mr. Speaker, I must remind the hon. member that the Canada pension plan has shared jurisdiction between the provinces. We cannot arbitrarily make any changes to the Canada pension plan without consulting with the provinces.

We continue to do that, but not all the provinces are in support now of expanding the Canada pension plan, but they were all in support of putting in place a framework for the pooled registered pension plan.

We think that is a good idea, but apparently the NDP members do not. They do not think we should help people have another option for savings, because they voted against that in the House.

[Pensions, June 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know, sitting in the House, that jurisdiction is shared with the provinces. The Canada pension plan is a shared jurisdiction with the provinces. We cannot arbitrarily make a decision on that.

We have consulted with the provinces on increases to the Canada pension plan, and there was not consensus among all of the provinces to increase the cost to businesses. However, there was consensus and unanimous support to move forward with the pooled registered pension plan.

It is shocking that despite that, the NDP actually voted against it in the House.

[Pensions, June 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it raises the question of why the NDP will not actually come and show some support for those Canadians who do not have a retirement income available to them. The workplace contains an incredible number of Canadians who actually do not have a workplace pension at this time.

We have come to the opposition and asked for its support. We have the support of many of the provinces. The three western provinces have actually tabled legislation to move forward on the pooled registered pension plan, and all of the provinces have initiated the response that they will tabling legislation in the very near future. Quebec has done that.

We would suggest that the opposition should actually get on board and help Canadians with their retirement.

[Questions on the Order Paper, May 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the Department of Finance has overall responsibility within the government for monitoring and reporting on Canada’s progress against the G20 commitment to rationalize inefficient fossil fuel subsidies.

With regard to (b), first and foremost, not only has the government never introduced any tax incentive favouring the oil and gas sector, but it has also formally committed to rationalize and phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies along with other G20 countries.

In support of that commitment, the government announced in 2007 and 2011 the phase-out of all tax preferences for oil sands producers relative to the conventional oil and gas sector. Indeed, due to the government’s action, the Income Tax Act does not include any tax preference specific to oil sands producers. As part of Economic Action Plan 2012, the government continued Canada’s efforts to meet our G20 commitment by phasing out the Atlantic investment tax credit for the oil and gas and mining sectors.

Moreover, the oil and gas sector faces the exact same general corporate income tax rate as all other sectors of the economy. Each year, the oil and gas sector pays billions of dollars in taxes, tax revenue used by governments to pay for health care and other social programs that Canadian families depend on. Furthermore, the oil and gas sector plays an important role in our economy, providing job opportunities for Canadians in communities across the country. The government will continually look for ways to further support global environmental commitments and eliminate inefficient fossil fuel subsidies.

Beyond the government’s recent steps outlined above to remove fossil fuel subsidies available in the oil and gas industry, it is also taking action through the tax system to encourage clean energy investments. Principally, the government has extended and expanded the scope of the accelerated capital cost allowance for clean energy generation equipment in recent years.

For instance, in 2011 the government expanded the incentive to include equipment that generates clean electricity using waste heat, while in 2012 it expanded the incentive to include a broader range of bioenergy equipment. Building on these measures, Economic Action Plan 2013 further expands eligibility for the incentive by including a broader range of biogas production equipment and equipment used to treat gases from waste.

[Taxation, May 27th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, today the finance minister, along with the member for Kitchener—Waterloo, helped launch the first-time donor super credit. It is designed to encourage more Canadians, especially young Canadians, to give to charity. The super credit will increase the value of the federal charitable donations tax credit by 25% for donors who have not contributed to this since 2007. This new credit will have an immediate positive impact for charities all across this country.

[Government Expenditures, May 24th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for that question. It gives me the opportunity to remind all Canadians that this budget implementation bill has gone to several committees so that it can receive more debate and input from Canadians. As I said before, Canadians want to come and talk about what is in this budget.

What is most important to many Canadians, and my constituents, is the fact that we will be fulfilling our promise to get back to balance by 2015.

[Government Expenditures, May 24th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, this is a great opportunity to remind the hon. members opposite that we are working through the budget process.

The budget implementation bill is at committee, and we would encourage those hon. members to listen to the witnesses who are coming forward to talk about the good things in this budget and the fact that we are going to help young people find jobs and the skills they need to get those jobs. I see no reason on earth why the opposition should not be applauding it instead of fighting against it.

[Securities, May 23rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, we cannot ignore our regulatory responsibilities or the decision of the court, which has said very clearly that there are certain responsibilities for capital markets, and they lie with the federal government.

We firmly believe Canada needs a common securities regulator to better protect investors, improve market oversight and reduce costs for businesses. We are working co-operatively with the provinces, and that process is moving forward.

[Securities, May 23rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest the current system is not working that well when we talk to investors who want to come and invest in Canada. It is a very cumbersome system. They have to go through 13 different processes. We want to provide a welcome environment for investment in our country, and that is why we need to move forward.

We are working co-operatively with the provinces, and it is a very good process so far. The courts have made it very clear to us that we, as a federal government, have the responsibility for capital markets and that we must pursue that.

[Taxation, May 23rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, there is no fact in that question. It is all false.

The only people in the House of Commons who actually want to put a tax on iPods are the New Democrats. They are the only ones who want to increase taxes.

IPods have been coming into this country tax free, and our government will ensure that that continues.