Debates of March 27th, 2013

Ethics

[Tony Clement, Conservative, President of the Treasury Board and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario]

Mr. Speaker, in fact, that is exactly what happened. It was this caucus, this party, this government that actually created the Federal Accountability Act back in 2006. We are the ones who created the restrictions on lobbying. We wanted to ensure there was more transparency and accountability. That is exactly what we did.

Members of our caucus reported this matter to the commissioner. We are acting by our own rules. I wish the opposition would do the same thing.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is the problem. The Conservatives are following their own rules. They are not following the rules that belong to all Canadians. Being Conservatives really does mean that they never have to accept accountability.

This is another blow to the credibility of the Minister of Industry, who is already neck deep in ethical scandals. He has two ethics violations and has two other investigations under way.

Why is the Prime Minister not setting an ethical standard for the members of cabinet?

[Tony Clement, Conservative, President of the Treasury Board and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario]

Mr. Speaker, as I already explained, this matter was referred to the ethics commissioner by us. We are following the rules that were duly passed by Parliament.

However, on the other side of the House, that party, the NDP caucus, had a $300,000 payment by the unions, contrary to our laws, contrary to the finances act. That is its record. I will put our record against its record any day of the week.

The Environment

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, they may want to wait for the question before they stand up and applaud.

I would like to ask the Prime Minister a question, and I have a simple proposal to make to him. We have had the leader of the Democrats in the House of Representatives say that her understanding from a recent conversation with the leader of the New Democratic Party was that Canadians were opposed to the pipeline to the United States. I wonder if the Prime Minister would consider this. Instead of simply having hockey coaches talk to the President of the United States about the importance of this issue, would the Prime Minister consider leading a delegation of team Canada, members of this House who agree that this is an important question for Canada and the premiers of Canada? Would the Prime Minister consider leading that delegation?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I can certainly assure the leader of the Liberal Party that our government is making its views known at every level of the American government on an ongoing basis on this matter that is important, in our judgment, to trade, to jobs and to energy security on both sides of the border.

Obviously, I would be delighted to work with all Canadians who favour these good things for our country. If the leader of the Liberal Party could point me to any, I would certainly be willing to take that list.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, sometimes tough economic times create opportunities.

We have premiers going to Washington as private individuals, and others are as well. I think it is important that the United States is fully aware that it is in Canada's national interest to have the opportunity to export what we produce in this country to the United States and elsewhere.

Why not have a real team Canada, one that includes members of the opposition, premiers and other people, under the leadership of the Prime Minister of Canada, of course?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the House that this government is coordinating its activities with the other governments in Canada, the vast majority of which strongly support this project. We will continue to convey that message.

Obviously, if the members of the Liberal Party agree and are willing to join in on this effort, I am always happy to accept such an offer of assistance.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know it is hard for the Prime Minister to believe this, but actually I think this is a good idea. There is no catch to this and no side to this. There is simply a statement that says we have an opportunity to reinforce the importance of the economics of this federation. We have an opportunity to reinforce co-operation between the provinces, between the provinces and the federal government, and dare I say it, even among those in the coalition of the willing in the House who believe that actually getting our products to market is a good idea.

I would like to ask the Prime Minister to lead the way.

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, we are working with every level, with the private sector and with other levels of government, certainly, to communicate this message. I would be delighted, as I said, to work with any members of the Liberal Party who share our objectives.

I think what I am saying to the leader of the Liberal Party is that I think this is a good idea. I wish he had such good ideas a bit earlier.

While I am on my feet, I do want to thank him for his service, for bringing his intellect, his patriotism and his tenacity to the House of Commons.

Taxation

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, back to the budget, the Conservatives' doublespeak has reached new heights. After promising no new taxes, pages 331 and 332 of the budget have in fact a long list of tax increases. There are increases to credit unions, new taxes on safety deposit boxes and a $1.1 billion tax hike on imported consumer goods.

Now that the minister of state has had 24 hours to reflect on yesterday's answers, would he now acknowledge that he was wrong and admit that the budget included new tax hikes?

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Minister of State (Finance)]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for getting up to page 331 of the budget.

What I would like to say are the facts, and let us let the facts answer this question. Since 2006, we have actually eliminated 1,900 different tariffs. What has that accomplished? That has provided $525 million in tax relief every year since then.

That is what we do with taxes. We lower them.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I guess girls can cook but they cannot read budgets.

Canadians can check for themselves on pages 331 and 332 of the budget. All the new Conservative taxes are laid out there.

Yesterday the minister claimed that no one would find tax increases in this; yet we have found plenty of them. Let me try a specific example. Could the Minister of State for Finance acknowledge that the budget raises taxes on life insurance?

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Minister of State (Finance)]

Mr. Speaker, as part of our low tax plan we continue to reduce taxes in every way. In fact, $65 million in tax reductions comes from the six free trade agreements we have signed since forming government. That is over and above the $525 million that I referred to in the previous answer. That is a grand total of $590 million in tax relief every year, and I believe that the NDP voted against most of that.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when we see how the cabinet keeps its members from talking, we can understand why the minister of state is avoiding talking about tax hikes in the budget. However, the Conservatives are using these tax hikes to dip into seniors' wallets.

Seniors are more likely to use health services, and they are the ones who will pay for the higher parking taxes when they go to the hospital. Then there is the fact that the Conservatives are raising customs tariffs on everyday products.

Why are the Conservatives raising taxes on products and services that seniors use?

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Minister of State (Finance)]

Mr. Speaker, one thing that has been overlooked by the opposition is the fact that we are supporting palliative care in the budget. We have a very good program that was initiated at the hospital here in Ottawa. That is helping with end-of-life care for seniors. That is pretty important.

To answer specifically the hon. member's question, these are companies that are supplying parking to hospitals and they were getting a special tax reduction. We do not think that is necessary.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, unlike some of his colleagues, the minister of state can still talk about his file. Congratulations. However, could he stop changing the subject?

Raising taxes on credit unions is bad news for seniors because many of them are members. Their dividends will be taxed, as will their life insurance premiums, most likely. If the Conservatives are wondering where I got this information, they can take a look at pages 367 and 368 of their own budget.

Why is the minister of state not aware of the contents of his own budget? Why is he saying that taxes are not being raised?

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Minister of State (Finance)]

Mr. Speaker, speaking of credit unions, I would remind the members of the official opposition that in budget 2010 they actually voted against both of those budget implementation acts. We actually approved what the credit unions had asked us for. As credit unions are growing, and we continue to support credit unions, they actually wanted to be federally regulated. We put that in the budget.

We support credit unions, unlike the opposition.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State is skating around this issue, so it is no surprise that there is a snowstorm of opposition to the Conservatives in Quebec that is snowballing across the country.

The Minister of Finance was clear. He said that he would not increase taxes. The Prime Minister was clear. He said that he would not increase taxes.

Yet, this Conservative budget includes new taxes on hospital parking, labour-sponsored funds, credit unions, bicycles, safety deposit boxes and small businesses. The Conservatives and the Minister of State flat out deny what is on pages 331 and 332 of the budget.

My question is simple. Why are the Conservatives refusing to tell Canadians the truth?

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Minister of State (Finance)]

Mr. Speaker, we are happy to tell Canadians the truth.

The fact is, we have reduced 150 different taxes for Canadians. The average Canadian family of four is paying $3,200 less every year.

I will quote the OECD from today that says:

Canada has, over the last five or six years, already decreased the tax burden on low incomes a lot, especially for families with children.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was wondering how the Minister of State would be able to defend the indefensible. He does so by talking about anything but the 2013 budget.

The Minister of State for Finance is repudiating the work done by the Minister of Finance. He is repudiating the taxes in the 2013 budget. He would rather make up stories about a future NDP government's policies than talk about the tax hikes his government put in this budget.

The Conservatives owe it to Canadians to be honest. Will they have the courage to do so, or will they continue to deny the truth?

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Minister of State (Finance)]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that the opposition actually has the opportunity this evening to support the budget and support the accelerated capital cost allowance for small businesses. Why did we put that in the budget? It is because businesses asked for it. Businesses want to expand and grow their opportunities in this country.

There is a lot in this budget that Canadians asked for. We have never had a budget with so much broad support across the country. The only people who seem to be opposed to this budget are those sitting opposite.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is nonsense.

Let me tell it like it is. The only real reason the Conservatives are abolishing the labour-sponsored funds tax credit is because the funds are a union initiative. They could not care less about how these funds benefit economic development or help people save. A workers' group is dangerous to them.

Even Canada's Venture Capital and Private Equity Association is denouncing the Conservatives' decision. The association does not understand the mixed signals the Conservatives are sending.

Like the association, the NDP wonders why the Conservatives are attacking investments in our own backyard.

[Maxime Bernier, Conservative, Minister of State (Small Business and Tourism)]

Mr. Speaker, I do not understand why my colleague is against this measure, which is good for small investors. Investors in Canada and Quebec will stop subsidizing very well-capitalized labour-sponsored funds to the tune of $140 million a year.

Now, these labour-sponsored funds will have to be competitive and have good returns to attract their investor clients. My colleagues opposite should support this measure, which is good for entrepreneurs and small investors.

Canada Revenue Agency

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister seems a bit angry and frustrated, much like one of his party's backbenchers.

While the government is increasing taxes on hospital parking, safety deposit boxes, small businesses, credit unions and groceries, it is still not imposing sanctions on people who evade taxes. Their figures on tax evasion do not cut it.

How can the Conservatives claim to be combatting tax evasion while they are making cuts to the Canada Revenue Agency's budget?

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Minister of National Revenue and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

Mr. Speaker, we are keeping tax rates low by closing tax loopholes and making the system fairer for Canadians. We will launch the stop international tax evasion program to improve identification of tax evasion to protect honest Canadians. Since 2006, our government has introduced more than 75 measures to improve the integrity of our tax system.

If opposition members are serious about cracking down on tax evasion, then they will support our budget.