Dean Del Mastro

[Income Tax Act, November 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-399.

It is a costly proposal. It would seek to amend the Income Tax Act and create a new non-refundable tax credit for select volunteers and individuals who perform volunteer service, although it is unclear from the bill exactly whom it would benefit.

Let me begin by saying that there is no question that charities and non-profit organizations contribute to all aspects of Canadian life, including education, health, faith, human rights and the environment, as well as arts and culture. Not only that, I think we can all agree that charities and the volunteers who support them face unique challenges during uncertain economic times.

However, not only is there absolutely no evidence that this costly bill will engage more Canadians in helping others, but charities themselves have also gone so far as to suggest that it may harm volunteerism and result in fewer people giving their time to those in need.

Let us first look at the cost. It is important when members of this House are considering legislation for them to consider the cost of legislation. The opposition has simply deferred this, estimating that it would cost roughly $430 million annually. That is a lot of money. For the people of my riding that would represent about $4,000 per constituent or thereabouts. The would come from their pockets. Even worse, Canadian charities are questioning the wisdom of the idea, as costly as it is.

According to Volunteer Alberta, the voice of volunteerism in that province, a province that the Liberal Party may not want to listen to but I think has an important voice here in Parliament, the proposed tax credit could actually reduce volunteer motivation by attaching a tax benefit and an economic value to something that is otherwise altruistic. That really is at the heart of volunteerism. It is something that we all do because we want to give back. There is something innate within Canadians in actually wanting to help each other. We actually want to be there for our neighbours.

Not everyone volunteers. It is concerning in that regard that some service clubs have seen declining memberships. However, I do not think this is a sign of the people involved seeking to be reimbursed or some kind of cost return to their volunteering. It may be a bit of a statement about how our society has become busier and people perhaps living lives that are a little less interpersonal than before. Frankly we all act interact so much digitally now, with text messages seeming to replace phone calls and Facebook replacing a lot of time people might otherwise spend congregating with their neighbours.

Maybe these are things that we should be looking at in considering how we can restart the growth in volunteerism and service clubs. Nonetheless, I do not think I have ever heard anyone who volunteers or anyone from a service club indicating that they would do more or support their community more if someone would just pay them to do it.

Since 2006, we have demonstrated our commitment to strengthening the charitable sector by enhancing the incentives for people to donate to registered charities and making a number of improvements in the way charities are regulated. These measures include the elimination of the capital gains tax on donations of publicly listed securities to charitable organizations, public foundations and private foundations; the elimination of the capital gains tax on donations of ecologically sensitive lands to public conservation charities; and the reform of the disbursement quota to reduce the administrative burden on charities.

This has really worked, whether it was the hospital foundation in Peterborough that has raised a very significant amount of money based on these specific tax changes, or the local university, or local museums that have raised significant funds as well. These have helped charitable organizations.

Then of course there is the donation of ecologically sensitive land. The Otonabee Region Conservation Authority, which oversees very significant wetlands in my part of the province, has in fact received donations of land.

These changes have helped and are bringing about very significant societal benefits.

I am very fortunate and I think a lot of us feel the same way. I have said many times in my own riding that a city and a town are really a collection of buildings, streets, infrastructure and businesses. However, what makes them a community is the people, the people who come together to help each other. I come from such a strong community where volunteerism is something that we do, where donating to charity is something that we do disproportionately, and I am proud of it.

We could all say of our communities that there are people who go above and beyond, because they feel it is their calling. One of the things that I am afraid of, frankly, is that we will start to put some of these folks into a category where they should receive a benefit for what they are doing. The benefit they are getting from what they are doing cannot be measured in dollars and cents or in tax credits. It is a benefit they receive from the hearts of others, a benefit they receive by knowing they have made the community better. Many of them do not want recognition at all. That is one of the remarkable things about so many volunteers. They just want to know in their own hearts that they have made a difference, and believe me, they do.

Not only would the bill place an undue administrative burden on charities, but also, volunteer organizations across the country have spoken out against the idea of a tax credit. For example, Ruth MacKenzie, the president and CEO of Volunteer Canada, the respected national voice of Canadian volunteerism since 1977, has said:

I don’t think tax incentives are necessarily the way to encourage it. More importantly, I don’t think it’s going to increase the quality of the contribution volunteers make or the degree organizations benefit from volunteer engagement.

Not only does Volunteer Canada oppose this costly and ineffective NDP proposal, but it has been quick to point out that the charitable sector does not appear to have been consulted at all by the NDP in its hasty drafting of this legislation, which could actually impede charities' ability to serve vulnerable Canadians.

While decrying the bill in a recent interview with CharityVillage, Ms. MacKenzie agreed with the government's position on the bill, noting that “no one...directly consulted with me or Volunteer Canada” about Bill C-399.

I think this is a core function of ours as members of Parliament. I do not doubt that in its conception, the intent of the bill was that it would do something very positive for people who volunteer. I will not impugn the motives of the person who brought forward the bill; I just happen to think it is a bad bill.

It is really essential that when we bring forward legislation that will have a direct impact on a sector, especially a sector as large as the charitable sector in Canada, one that is relied upon by so many as a sign of the strength of our communities, that Parliamentarians consult with them. It is clear that consultations have not taken place.

When I speak to volunteers in my riding, they are not seeking this kind of tax credit. If the government is to make that kind of $430 million investment, they would like it to go to the people they are volunteering for, not themselves. They are not seeking that, which is remarkable.

The other thing that I think is quite profound is that here we are debating an NDP tax credit, a very expensive one, of $430 million, when it is more often the case that the NDP are simply bringing forward tax increases, such as the idea of a $21 billion carbon tax that would take money from every Canadian, including from volunteers and charities. There is also the potential increase in the HST that has been talked about by one of the NDP members from Toronto, the member for Trinity—Spadina. The NDP talks about tax and spending increases constantly. It seems at odds with that for NDP members to be contemplating a tax reduction in this sector. It is absolutely ironic that this is what we are debating.

We believe that taxes should be as low as possible for every single Canadian, and we believe in supporting the charitable sector.

[First Nations Financial Transparency Act, November 20th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it never ceases to amaze me that when we bring a bill forward, such as this one, which seeks to provide transparency and open government for first nations, something that I think all members in the House would consider laudable, the opposition members simply cannot see their way clear to doing what is right. In this case, they say that they support transparency, accountability and first nations members being able to understand the financial dealings of their band council but that they just cannot support it in the bill. That is a cop-out. They simply cannot say that they support transparency and accountability but then vote against them every time they come up in the House.

Why do members of the NDP believe that transparency and accountability are not owed to each and every first nations band member?

[National Railway Day, November 7th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, in Craigellachie, British Columbia, a marker reads:

A nebulous dream was a reality; an iron ribbon crossed Canada from sea to sea. Often following the footsteps of early explorers, nearly 3,000 miles of steel rail pushed across vast prairies, cleft lofty mountain passes, twisted through canyons and bridged a thousand streams. Here on November 7, 1885, a plain iron spike welded East to West.

It is my pleasure to stand before the House and celebrate National Railway Day as a way to honour rail's central role in Canada's history and remember those who persevered through Canada's unforgiving climate to build the Canadian Pacific Railway.

While the first crews to work on the CP line were instrumental in uniting Canadians from Atlantic to Pacific, today's rail sector workers are a vital part of making sure that the third largest rail network in the world maintains our access to national and international markets, enabling economic growth and prosperity for all Canadians.

Today we pay tribute to Canada's historic railways and their workforces, which are as much a part of this nation's story and success as the vast steel networks themselves.

[Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, November 1st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I have been very surprised and somewhat saddened during this debate. It seems that we are having a discussion about or at least the opposition is putting forward that in order to establish equality in Canada for all Canadians, fundamental human rights and gender equality, which are things we all believe strongly in, we should consult first. They say we cannot have equality without consultation.

I think that is profoundly wrong. The fact that an aboriginal woman does not have the same matrimonial real property rights as any other woman in this country is something we should all hang our heads in shame about. It is fundamental equality we are talking about.

We do not need to consult or negotiate or have a summit, or any of the other things that they would propose over there, to simply come to the understanding that equality is the right thing to do and inequality is wrong. That is what they are standing up for. Perhaps the hon. member would like to say why.

[Jobs and Growth Act, 2012, October 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in what the member had to say. She is a very kind and considerate member of Parliament. We do not always agree on issues, but disagreeing on issues of importance is hardly a crime.

One of the things the member brought up a number of times was the gutting of environmental regulations. I represent a large portion of rural Ontario, not an urban Toronto riding. A number of small municipalities, farmers and producers, for example, have to deal with overlapping regulations that cost a lot of money and really hurt rural economies in places like northern Ontario, eastern Ontario and, in fact, throughout the country. One thing the government has sought to do, because we have listened to municipal leaders, farmers and rural leaders, is get to a position of one project-one approval. That is a sensible position. The standards are identical for one project-one approval.

I would like very much for the member to speak to this. Does she believe in private property ownership rights and, if so, does she support the idea of one project-one approval?

[Telecommunications, October 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, electronic networking and messaging sites are incredibly powerful communication advances that have in so many ways changed how we as Canadians are communicating with each other. Sadly, though, like so many incredible technologies, these very powerful platforms can be abused.

Yesterday, I read the comments of hundreds of anonymous posters online and was frankly shocked and saddened by the level of vitriolic hatred and personal attacks that were freely posted.

While I believe firmly that the right to free speech must be strongly defended and protected, I also believe it should be backed up by the common decency to stand by one's words as opposed to hiding behind online anonymity. Anonymous online attacks are, in my view, cowardly but they are no less hurtful and represent a caustic scourge that is harming too many in our society.

I am deeply concerned by what I have witnessed online and saddened by the impact it is having on the lives of too many Canadians. I believe that this is an issue this place must consider.

[Business of Supply, October 18th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am not that old but I do remember the Liberals' time in government. I remember how badly they messed up the agricultural industry in this country. I remember when they sleepwalked into BSE. Their lack of leadership, investment and a proper understanding of the industry led to the borders being closed for Canadian beef to virtually every destination to which Canadian beef was exported. I remember the harm that was done to Canadian farms. They are still recovering from that.

I grew up on a beef farm. I own farms today. I understand a thing or two about agriculture. I understand that E. coli naturally occurs in meat. To think that we can put in place a perfect system is impossible. We put in place the best system that we can. We hired more meat inspectors. We put $50 million in budget 2012 for more inspectors, $100 million for more inspectors last year and $75 million specifically to implement the measures in the Weatherill report. That member voted against each and every one of them. That is her record. We will take no abuse from the Liberal Party coming at us from the height of hypocrisy.

How many technical briefings has that member attended since she has indicated that she would like to know more about it?

[Business of Supply, October 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that many people on this side of the House are shocked by the intervention they just heard by the hon. member. Apparently, Hugo Chavez has the energy industry and energy exports figured out and, as Canada is not there yet, we should follow Venezuela.

However, I challenge the member and his colleagues to point to another country where its nation's citizens benefit more from its resources than Canada. Billions of dollars are being contributed each and every year to a public health care system and a public education system.

The member mentioned that Canada's energy resources are finite. There is so much oil in Canada's oil sands that if production were doubled today, we would be harvesting oil for 180 years. That is a fact.

One of the most disturbing things, which the NDP has not yet indicated, is whether or not it is in favour of nationalizing Canada's energy program. Is that what I am hearing? Would they like to push out shareholder-owned companies in which the pension funds of that member's constituents, and indeed of the constituents of every member of the NDP, invest? Are they in favour of taking over those and pushing out investors who benefit from Canada's energy resources as well as every single Canadian?

[Business of Supply, October 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of questions for the member on issues that did not come up in his comments. Frankly, I am concerned because I do not think the NDP, in principle, understands who actually owns a company like Nexen. It is actually owned by its shareholders, not millionaires and billionaires but oftentimes regular folks who have their pensions invested in these companies via pension funds, people who invested in a company because they hoped to profit and get a return on that investment. There is nothing wrong with that. However, we do have to consider them. Over 99% of them voted in favour of this deal.

I have heard a number of the concerns here and elsewhere, but what I have not heard is any consideration for the shareholders and the fact these are private companies. Does the member believe that the individuals holding these shares should actually profit from an appreciation in the value of the company?

[Reflecting the Realities of Canadian Artists Act, September 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join this evening's debate on this private member's bill that has been brought forward by the hon. member for Jeanne-Le Ber for consideration in the House this evening.

Prior to my current position as Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, I was very honoured to serve between 2008 and 2011 as the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage. In that capacity I had the opportunity to meet the hon. member prior to his election. We talked about a range of issues that artists encountered. He was a very good and strong spokesperson in his capacity. We did not always agree, as we do not always agree on everything today when it comes to policy. However, I know he is sincere in what he has put forward with respect to arts and culture in Canada, even if we may from time to time differ on exactly what the right course may be.

Admittedly, the member knows more about acting than I do. He has a number of significant credits to his past and perhaps in his future. However, when it comes to taxes, I may trump him a bit on that. My education at university was in that. I came from business before being elected here. I have spent quite a bit of time dealing with the finance side of things in business, at university and in this place, as I served on the Standing Committee on Finance for a number of years.

I note the member for Kings—Hants talked about having a study on taxes. We did have a study on taxes at the finance committee a few years ago and we focused on that as part of our prebudget consultations. We looked at methods of taxation, how to make the tax system more efficient, more effective and fairer because we all wanted to see fairness in the tax system.

The member mentioned a couple of things of which I have to take note. Specifically, he and his party have talked a number of times about refundable tax credits and transforming a whole range of current programs from their current system to refundable tax credits. There are numerous reasons why that is a bad idea, not the least of which is the enormous cost, of which the members have not proposed any means of paying for, which would ultimately lead to higher taxes for all Canadians if we were to do that. It would also threaten a number of the programs that people who do not qualify for non-refundable tax credits rely on, programs like the working income tax benefit program, child tax credits, GST and HST rebate cheques, housing support and OAS. So many programs that are funded out of general revenues by the government would be impacted by changing how these tax credits work, and the Liberal Party members have proposed no means of paying for these things.

While the members put it out as kind of a fuzzy, feel-good thing that they would like to give more free money to everybody, I think a lot of Canadians know there is no such thing as free money from government. It does not exist. In many cases it comes from one pocket and goes in the other, with the cost of government subtracted from it before it arrives in that pocket. Or it comes from a neighbour, parents or other family members or from businesses. Overall, it just becomes a weight on the national economy.

To speak to this bill directly, there are principles in the tax system that are very important. One of them is generally accepted accounting principles, or GAP, which I had an opportunity to speak to the member about a couple of days ago. One of the principles that the tax system is founded on is the matching principle, which basically states that income or expenses that are incurred in any given period are recognized in the period for which they are incurred. In other words, we do not take an expense from 2006 and put it against our income for 2012 and we do not take income from 2008 and put it into 2012. We match our income and our expenses to the period for which they apply and it is on that basis that our tax system is built. If we do not base it on generally accepted accounting principles and just cast them away, then our whole system of marginal tax rates, the progressive nature of our tax system and the very treasury itself and how much revenue it collects in any given year would be significantly impacted.

This is a costly bill. As I said when I spoke to the member, if we were to looking at doing this for artists, we would have to look at doing it for a number of professions, because I think an awful lot of folks in various occupations do have cyclical incomes.

My colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, named a few industries. Certainly the one that came to mind immediately for me is realtors. I have talked to realtors about this. They would love to have the ability to move their income from good years to bad years and pay less tax. The problem with doing that is we would then have to put more weight on other Canadians whose income is not cyclical. We would have to charge them more taxes to supplement people whose incomes go up and down. That is not fair.

The government has done a number of things for lower income Canadians, including low income artists. We have removed almost a million low-income Canadians completely from the tax rolls. They pay no federal income taxes at all. That is a significant accomplishment.

We also reduced the GST from 7% to 6% to 5%, which is a tax that absolutely every Canadian pays, regardless of what income they do or do not have. That was one of the most advantageous taxes to reduce to help people who were on the lower end of the income scale. It was important. I believe even the NDP at one time supported reducing the GST and then voted against it when it came to the House of Commons, but I digress.

It is very important also to recognize that regardless of whether an individual is an artist, a realtor, an insurance broker or whatever in the Canadian economy, all Canadians contribute to our society. They contribute to our tax system. They contribute to making our country stronger. They all deserve a fair tax system based on a clear set of guiding principle. That is what has guided the tax system.

That is why essentially I would oppose the bill. I do not think the Minister of Canadian Heritage has taken a definitive position, but I would personally oppose it because I think it runs contrary to clear guiding principles on which our tax system is founded.

If want to take a broader look at this, if we want to start looking at income averaging and so forth, as the member for Kings—Hants said, it would be a very significant restructuring of the Canadian tax system because it is not based on that foundation. Indeed, marginal income tax rates, for example the non-refundable deduction, the top line deduction that every Canadian claims on their tax return, all of these things would have to be adjusted in order to allow for a new system in which Canadians, not just artists, could income average.

I mentioned that I served as the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage. One of the things we did during that period of time, and I am very proud of both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Canadian Heritage for their very clear direction, was to invest significantly in the arts.

We have a number of programs and range of means in which we do that. It has resulted in a much stronger Canadian arts industry. For example, Canada Cultural Spaces, the Canada Council for the Arts, there were significant increases to both of those funds. We have the Canada music fund, the Canadian film and video production tax credit, the Canada arts presentation fund and the Canada arts training fund. We introduced a new tax credit for kids in the arts to help their parents support them. All of these programs have come together and have built a very strong cultural sector. I can speak for my own community. The arts sector is so important in Peterborough. It contributes so much, and I think it will continue to do that.

I am proud this government has sought to support the arts in Canada and I congratulate the member for his contributions to the Canadian arts system.