Shelly Glover

[Questions on the Order Paper, May 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, relief from the Goods and Services Tax, GST, is provided for certain medical devices that are specially designed to assist an individual. To ensure that the benefits of this relief are targeted to individuals in need of assistance, the approach has been to relieve only those items that are designed to be purchased and used by individuals with a chronic illness or disease or a disability. Parts, accessories or attachments that are specially designed for use with tax-free medical devices are also eligible for GST relief.

As part of this relief, batteries that are specially designed for use with a tax-free medical device are eligible to be acquired GST-free, as has been the case since the GST was established in 1991. General purpose batteries have many potential uses and are not considered to be specially designed parts, accessories or attachments for tax-free medical devices. As a result, general purpose batteries do not qualify for this GST relief.

There is no information of sufficient detail on use of general purpose batteries in medical and assistive devices and their costs. Accordingly, there are no data that would allow for reliably determining the cost to the government of zero-rating these goods.

Specifically, the Department of Finance does not have information on the types and numbers of batteries that would be purchased for use in medical devices. Further, the prices of batteries that can be used in medical devices can range from a few dollars for an AA battery to potentially hundreds of dollars for larger-capacity batteries similar to car batteries. As a result, there is no feasible way to estimate the cost of this proposal and its impact on the government’s fiscal framework.

[Questions on the Order Paper, May 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the question amounts to estimating the cost to the Government of allowing tax-free rollovers of severance pay to a registered retirement savings plan, or RRSP.

Based on available tax data, it is estimated that permitting rollovers of severance pay and lump sum payments received for long service to an RRSP would cost about $285 million annually in forgone federal tax revenue. This estimate takes into account that individuals currently receiving severance pay may contribute all or part of such amounts to an RRSP based on their available unused RRSP room, while others with little or no unused RRSP room would likely take full advantage of a rollover measure.

[Taxation, May 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, once again, that is laughable coming from the party that insisted during its platform that it have a 45-day work year under EI. It insisted on a carbon tax. It insisted on increasing the GST. We will take no lessons from them.

On the general preferential tariff, let us hear what Michael Hart from Carleton University had to say:

Hong Kong, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea, Thailand really aren't developing countries and should have been graduated long ago.

We will continue to defend Canadian companies.

[Taxation, May 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it is shocking language from the Liberals. This is the party that is presently trying to seek special tax breaks for Chinese companies that are competing directly with Canadian companies. In fact, why they do not want to support Canadian manufacturers is beyond me.

Here is what the Canadian manufacturers had to say about the GPTs:

The government's decision to modernize this foreign aid program by removing some countries from the GPT list is a good decision...

They need to defend Canadian companies for a change.

[Taxation, May 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it is this government that has given Canadians many tax breaks, including the GST cut, for instance. Why are the Liberals fighting for special breaks for Chinese companies that compete directly against our Canadian companies?

I would add that it was the Liberals who wanted to increase EI premiums; they are also the ones who want a carbon tax. It is this government that will cut taxes and the Liberals who want to raise them.

[Questions on the Order Paper, May 2nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a) and (b), contributions to employee health and prescription drugs insurance plans are part of the broader category of “employee benefits” and are not required to be reported as separate items on the corporate income tax return. In the absence of reliable tax data representing a broad cross-section of Canadian corporations, the Department of Finance is not able to provide the requested information.

With regard to (c) and (d), the medical expense tax credit, METC, recognizes the effect of above-average medical or disability-related expenses on an individual’s ability to pay tax. It is calculated by reference to the lowest personal income tax rate for the taxation year. For 2011, the METC was available for qualifying medical expenses in excess of the lesser of $2,052--indexed to inflation at $2,109 in 2012 and $2,152 in 2013--or 3% of net income.

The tax expenditure related to the METC for the 2011 calendar year is estimated to be $1.19 billion, as noted in the 2012 tax expenditures and evaluations report.

The Department of Finance is not able to determine the tax expenditure for premiums paid for private health services plans claimed under the METC, as expenditure amounts relating to specific items claimed under the METC are not reported separately on the income tax return.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, May 1st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

One of the reasons for that is that people cannot pay the taxes that have gone up across the country.

For example, in my home province of Manitoba, the New Democratic government recently increased provincial taxes for all Manitoban families. That is why some families cannot make ends meet.

For its part, the federal government is reducing taxes for families by including measures to help them in the budget. I hope that all members of the House will vote in favour of these measures to help our Canadian families.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, May 1st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite obviously does not want to hear the government talk about sound fiscal management. Let us have a look at what other organizations and people have said—in fact, organizations from the member's own region.

This is what the Fédération des chambres de commerce du Québec said:

The Fédération des chambres de commerce du Québec supports the federal government's decision to implement fiscal restraint and spending control in order to balance the budget.

If that is not enough, here is what the Conseil du patronat du Québec said:

The federal government made a prudent and responsible choice to stay on course toward a balanced budget in 2015 by, among other things, reining in the growth of public spending.

I will add that we are not doing anything to shoulder all of this responsibility for fiscal management by cutting from the provinces and people across the country, as the former Liberal government did by cutting $25 billion out of health care, as an example. We will not do that. They should be ashamed of themselves for having done it.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, May 1st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's question is misleading because it is not true at all. In fact, we as a federal government have been providing equal or more funding for youth in first nations communities for some time now.

For Canadians watching, I would like to know why on earth the New Democrats would ask such a question and then vote against things like the $10 million in the budget for bursaries and scholarships for first nations youth. In fact, Indspire says that the budget 2013 contains great news for indigenous youth across Canada. That is its comment. I have absolutely no clue why they would embarrass themselves and ask a question like that when they have no intention of supporting this funding.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, May 1st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues in the House.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to kick off debate on Bill C-60, the economic action plan 2013 act. As the name suggests, Bill C-60 would implement key measures from the recent federal budget, economic action plan 2013, which is a positive and forward-looking blueprint to help grow the Canadian economy today and into tomorrow. This plan would make our economy stronger by helping our manufacturers buy new equipment with tax relief, help small businesses create more jobs with a hiring credit, help rebuild our roads and bridges with record new support for infrastructure and much more.

Today's legislation, along with the standard second budget implementation bill, which will be introduced in the fall, will help implement that ambitious and positive plan.

Before I get into the substance of the bill, I would like to say that, as a proud member of the Standing Committee on Finance, I look forward to studying the bill in committee.

As the Minister of Finance said earlier this week, the study of the Economic Action Plan 2013 Act will not be exclusive to the Standing Committee on Finance.

In fact, the government members on the Standing Committee on Finance will move a motion that some other committees review specific aspects of the bill. I hope the opposition will give us its support.

In terms of the legislation we are dealing with today, we must not forget that the economic action plan 2013 is part of a comprehensive plan that goes back to 2006 when our Conservative government came to power. The priorities at the heart of the plan were the Canadian economy, job creation and tax cuts to help families keep more money in their pockets.

I am pleased to say that the plan worked even in the worst global recession since the Great Depression. As we conduct our study, the NDP and the Liberals will try to have us swallow bogus figures, if you will, on Canada's labour market. They will distort the facts and play every conceivable shell game to conceal the truth.

However, the facts are in. All of Canada's credible, independent organizations, such as the Bank of Canada and even Statistics Canada, have the figures and can substantiate them. Canada has created slightly more than 900,000 net new jobs since the depths of the recession in July. More than 90% are full-time jobs and nearly 80% are in the private sector.

This outstanding record has made Canada the top G7 country in terms of job creation since the end of the global recession.

Despite what the NDP and the Liberals would have Canadians believe, over 1.4 million net new jobs have been created since January 2006 when the Conservative government took power. We have also seen that as the best job creation in the entire G7 during that entire time period.

It is not only on the job front where Canada is leading the way. I want to share some of that positive news to counter all the talking down of Canada and of our economy that we are hearing from the NDP and the Liberals.

While the opposition will try to bash the Canadian economy with negative messages and their procedural games to scare people watching at home, I am going to try to build it up with positive facts about the relative success story Canada's economy has been.

To start with, both the independent International Monetary Fund and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development are projecting that Canada will have among the strongest growth in the G7 in years ahead. Even better, here is what the IMF had to say about Canada only a few weeks ago, “Canada is in an enviable position”. For the fifth straight year, the World Economic Forum has ranked Canada's banking system the soundest in the world. Canada has the lowest overall tax rate on new business investment in the G7.

All major credit rating agencies, like Moody's, Fitch, and Standard and Poor's, have affirmed Canada's rock-solid AAA credit rating. Our net debt to GDP ratio remains the lowest in the G7 by far.

The list goes on and on. Little wonder, when asked about Canada's economy recently, Don Drummond, a well-known and widely respected Canadian economist, said the following:

We look like the poster child for the fiscal messes around the world. We are in pretty good fiscal shape, certainly relative to everybody else.

I could not agree more with him, but as Don Drummond noted, there are some fiscal and economic messes around the world, as we are reminded on the evening news or in the morning newspapers all too often.

Some big global economic challenges from beyond our borders remain, especially in the United States and Europe. These are among our most important trading partners. Even though these are not made in Canada problems, they will continue to negatively impact Canada. Like any smart person would in any situation like this, if a problem is out there, we protect ourselves against it. That is exactly what we are doing in economic action plan 2013 by staying squarely focused on what matters when facing a challenging global economy: jobs and economic growth, keeping taxes low and balancing the budget by 2015.

What we are not doing is listening to the NDP and Liberal calls for spending, spending and more spending in order to expand government and add to the national debt.

The NDP and Liberal proposals are doomed to failure and will mean ever-increasing taxes.

Canadians know what happened in European countries that chose to expand government and spend endlessly, which is what the NDP and Liberals are suggesting. Those countries ended up with monster deficits, paralyzing government bureaucracy and massive unemployment.

Just this week we learned that unemployment in the eurozone climbed to 12.1% in March, an all-time high according to EU statistics agencies.

The NDP likely does not want to hear that its economic philosophy of unlimited spending and ever-increasing taxes does not work. However, economic ruin in Greece and Spain illustrate the consequences of the very policies the NDP wants to bring to Canada.

Our Conservative government understands what the NDP and Liberals refuse to believe. In an uncertain global economic economy, the best way for government to build confidence is to maintain its own sound fiscal position, not engage in reckless deficit spending. That belief is at the very heart of economic action plan 2013 and that is why the Liberals and the NDP so vigorously oppose it.

I want to read a great quote by one of the most respected newspaper columnists in Canada, Peter Worthington. It is worth reading at length. He said:

The federal budget...is one of those things that should please every thinking Canadian...it's reality....Think for a moment....When you look at Cyprus, Europe, the U.S. and the rest of the world, this should be a huge relief to Canadian taxpayers...jobs are more or less secure as are pensions and health-care costs. Working Canadians will continue to be the blessed of the developed world.

Although I hear the NDP and Liberals making the heckling noises, it is because they do not buy into the fact that we are leaders. We cannot help the fact that we are leaders. The world looks at us with envy because we did not follow its suggestions and we will not follow its suggestions. Canadians can rest assured that this Conservative government will maintain a low-tax plan, we will maintain a plan for job creation and we will look to prosperity for our country for years and years to come.