Shelly Glover

[Financial Institutions, October 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, once again I will side with the consumers on this issue. I will side with the small businesses on this issue that actually agree with this government's measures to protect their interests. When we talk about things like our government's measure to ban unsolicited credit card checks, they agree with this side. When we talk about banning the negative option billing for financial products, Canadian consumers and small businesses agree with this government. Yet the NDP voted against both of those measures.

Why did NDP members also oppose requiring greater disclosure on mortgage prepayment charges? Why did they oppose improving consumer protection by more than doubling the maximum fine on financial institutions that violate consumer provisions? These are among a number of negative votes by the NDP against some measures to protect consumers.

I would invite my learned friend to join with us the next time we put forward measures to protect consumers and to vote with us so their interests are much better protected on all sides of the House.

[Financial Institutions, October 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I also want to take a moment to thank my colleague across the way, whose kind words about the fire that took place in St. Boniface are touching. I know his concern is genuine.

Back to the matter at hand, I find it somewhat ironic that the New Democrats would talk about the credit card companies as those that would fill their coffers with the money of hard-working Canadians with hidden fees and hidden costs. That is exactly what the NDP is trying to do with its massive carbon tax scheme, which is hidden in plain sight in its 2011 election platform.

This scheme clearly states that the New Democrats would have a $21 billion cost to taxpayers in the form of higher taxes. However, they claim that Canadians would not have to pay this tax. I am quite confused when I try to think about the fact that taxes are paid by Canadians, yet they want to raise revenues of $21 billion with its carbon scheme and they say that Canadians will not pay it. I would like to reassure Canadians about this and give my learned colleague an opportunity to explain that.

Back to other forms of payments that Canadians make, this government has taken their concerns as consumers very seriously. We have done that by ensuring that we have put in place some measures that protect them as consumers.

Let us look at the facts behind some of the things that have been done by this government. Look at the new rules, which we consider to be strong, pro-consumer rules that help protect Canadians. We see things that we have put in place, for example, the summary boxes on contracts and applications to ensure Canadians know exactly what their applications say, and the clearer information on implications of minimum payments. Those are things we were asked for. Also, the timely advance disclosure of interest rate changes is something we were asked for.

Moreover, we believe Canadians should not need to have a magnifying glass or dictionary to read their credit card agreement or application and they should not have to be a lawyer or an economist to understand it. That is why we are forcing greater clarity and more timely disclosure from credit card issuers when dealing with consumers.

In addition, the new rules will limit other business practices that are not beneficial to consumers, including requiring a minimum 21-day grace period on all new purchases, express consent for credit limit increases and limits on debt collection practices.

What is most disconcerting is that a number of these pro-consumer measures were put forward and we sought the collaboration of the New Democrats and their votes to promote and stand behind our Canadian consumers. Unfortunately, the NDP, time and time again, voted against these measures to protect consumers.

The Canadian Consumers' Association agreed with this government's position on these measures when it said, “All of the things that the [finance minister has] done...are actually just what we asked for” and “overall, "I've got to congratulate [him]”. Therefore, why does the NDP vote against Canadian consumers and the Canadian Consumers' Association?

[Speedway International, October 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, last night, a massive blaze broke out at Speedway International in St. Boniface.

The chemical fire spread quickly and led to the evacuation of a number of businesses and nearly 100 residents. Huge fireballs and explosions could be seen and heard across Winnipeg. Reports say that, at one point, the fire was so hot that it needed to be left to burn itself out before firefighters could take any action. Thankfully, there have been no reports of serious injuries.

Our first responders consistently put themselves in harm's way to protect their fellow Canadians.

On behalf of our government, I would like to thank the 55 firefighters and police officers who were on the scene throughout the night.

My thoughts and prayers are also with Speedway International's owners and employees as they cope with this devastating loss and look to the future.

[Police and Peace Officers' National Memorial Day, October 1st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the 35th Canadian Police and Peace Officers' Annual Memorial Service was held yesterday.

I am honoured to pay tribute to the lives, service and sacrifices of these Canadian police officers who have given their lives in the line of duty.

Police and peace officers play an important role in keeping our streets and communities safe.

More than 820 officers have had their names engraved on the honour roll in the Memorial Pavilion just steps away from the House. Every year, all Canadians hope that no more names will be added to this memorial. Unfortunately, this was not that year.

I would like to pay tribute to Constable Vincent Roy of the Bromont Quebec Police Service who gave his life last December. Our thoughts are with the Roy family and the families of all those who have given their lives in the line of duty. On behalf of our government, we would like them to know that we are forever grateful for the lives, the service and sacrifice of their loved ones.

For our currently serving police and peace officers across the country and serving abroad, I express my deep gratitude for their dedication to keeping our families safe and making our communities better places to live.

Stay safe.

[Financial Institutions, September 28th, 2012]

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

The NDP does not want to support our measures such as those to create jobs, but it might listen to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, which had this to say: “Merchants have been well served by the code. It has established fair ground rules and protected the low-cost debit system in Canada.”

In other words, we are protecting Canadian consumers. It is unfortunate that the NDP always votes against our measures.

[Financial Institutions, September 28th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question because it gives me the opportunity to say that the banks pay taxes that support our social programs and health care systems. Furthermore, the NDP's carbon tax would increase not just the cost of groceries and electricity, but the cost of everything Canadian families buy. Canadians cannot afford that.

[The Economy, September 28th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, our government is focused on what matters to Canadians: creating jobs and promoting economic growth. We are working to keep Canada's economy growing with measures like the job-creating hiring credit for small business. As reported, July's economic growth shows that we are right on track.

However, the NDP is pushing radical economic schemes, like a massive carbon tax, that would kill Canadian jobs and economic growth. Even worse, its carbon tax would increase the price of everything that Canadian families buy, like gas and groceries and electricity. Canadians and our economy cannot afford the NDP's radical economic schemes.

[Winnipeg Blue Girls' Soccer Team, September 28th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge some exceptional female athletes from Winnipeg who recently joined together to support a very special cause. The Winnipeg Blue girls' soccer team made up of elite athletes from different Winnipeg soccer clubs won silver at the Manitoba Summer Games.

What is most exceptional about these girls is that while competing together, they learned that one of the moms, Monique Ditter, had just been diagnosed with breast cancer. Monique is their teammate Jazi's mom and their coach Jaret's wife. She is also my good friend. Even though the players originally came from rival clubs, they banded together to show their support for Monique by playing their soccer games sporting pink hair, pink shoelaces, and pink arm bands.

The girls, aged 10 to 12, also signed up for this Sunday's CIBC Run for the Cure, and have raised more than $4,000.

I ask the House to join me in applauding the care and compassion shown by these young girls, as well as their sportsmanship and camaraderie. Let them be our inspiration to go out and join the CIBC Run for the Cure this Sunday across the country.

[Income Tax Act, September 25th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I have tremendous respect for some of the things the member said about volunteers, because as we all know, they are some of the greatest Canadians in doing some tremendously important work in our country. However, I do have some concerns about the bill.

The NDP has been known to repeatedly promise Canadians some extravagant things. It insists on saying it is going to build this, start that program, focus on giving this group a tax credit and so on. However, to be very frank and honest, this would grow government. It would cost Canadians more money. Taxpayers pay for these things.

Therefore, when I asked the member where he got the $800 million cost figure he provided, I was quite surprised at his response, because I did not expect him to be defensive. I inquired because Canadians want to know how we are going to pay for this. I am going to continue to ask the member to consider putting forward exactly where those numbers came from.

As my NDP colleague said, this would cost $800 million. However, he did not want to say where he got that number or who reviewed and confirmed the cost estimate. Since this would involve considerable new spending, did the NDP determine where the money would come from? What tax do they plan to increase? What program do they plan to make cuts to?

Again, I am saying this with tremendous respect because I too feel that volunteers have done a number of things to ensure that the country goes forward and succeeds.

I would like to applaud and thank all volunteers for the hard work they do right across Canada. We all know someone in our community who has done some remarkable things. They have given time selflessly to improve the quality of life for those in need and they do it without expectation of reward or any kind of recognition but because they care and want to make a difference in their communities. This is what drives them. I thank them, on behalf of the government, for all that they do.

As writer Erma Bombeck once remarked “Volunteers are...[those] who reflect...compassion, unselfish caring, patience and just plain love for one another”.

Currently, Canada has one of the largest charitable and non-profit sectors in the world, with more than 160,000 charities and non-profit organizations helping those in need from coast to coast to coast. Our Conservative government stands right behind those charities with special tax support, considered to be among the most generous in the world. This includes the charitable donations tax credit, which encourages Canadians to support those great organizations. In fact, federal tax support for Canada's charities is nearly $3 billion each and every year.

However, we all recognize that it is always possible to do more to help our charities accomplish their work. That is why, since 2006, the Conservative government has been providing increased support to charities through special tax assistance measures and tax incentives.

I am referring specifically to the elimination of the capital gains tax on donations of publicly listed securities to charities and private foundations; the elimination of the capital gains tax on donations of ecologically sensitive lands to public conservation charities; the reform of the disbursement quota to reduce the administrative burden on charities and allow them to devote their time and energy to helping people in need; and the crackdown on certain unscrupulous people who take advantage of the charitable sector.

I am pleased to say that all these measures have helped charities across Canada and the volunteers that support them by increasing the donations made to their noble causes.

In fact, the elimination of the capital gains tax on donations of securities has been tremendously successful. For example, the United Way of Toronto alone estimates it receives tens of millions of dollars a year because of this change. It has declared that “The tax benefits are certainly having a very big benefit on local charitable organizations”.

Owen Charters of CanadaHelps, an online fundraising portal for charities, has also noted, “We've been quite surprised by the popularity. It was small steps at the beginning, but it has really grown”.

Nevertheless, even with all of these positive steps to help charities, we know that more could still be done.

That is why shortly after the 2011 election our Conservative government asked the House of Commons finance committee to undertake an open public study to find out from Canadians directly the best way we could further increase charitable donations.

I should note that the inspiration for that study and the government's request was Motion No. 559 by the member for Kitchener—Waterloo, a motion that was adopted by Parliament in March 2011. I thank my colleague from Kitchener—Waterloo for all he has done and continues to do in support of the charitable sector here in Canada. Rest assured that charities and volunteers could have no better or stronger advocate in their corner than Parliament and our member himself.

The finance committee, which I am a member of, has been vigorously undertaking that task since January of this year. We have already had dozens of meetings and received submissions from over 50 charitable groups as well as Canadian volunteers from all across the country.

Throughout the hearings and in reviewing the submissions, we have heard a range of proposals from charities and volunteers about what we can do to further support Canada's charitable sector. I must note they have all been very appreciative of the measures this Conservative government has put forward since 2006. They were disappointed that the NDP did not support many of them.

None of these charities or volunteers have let it be known that the proposal presented today by the NDP would constitute an effective way for them to help people in need. In fact, this came up only once during the review by the Standing Committee on Finance. The reason for this is obvious if we examine the NDP's proposal a little more closely. This proposal raises serious issues and concerns. It would be very costly, extremely difficult to control and it is not clear if it would be worth it. It would also impose a large administrative burden on charities and volunteers.

Before I talk more about these concerns, I would like to clearly inform Canadians that volunteers are already receiving special tax treatment to support their efforts. More specifically, volunteers receive a tax exemption on the reimbursement of their expenses, which means that any costs incurred by volunteers, including travel costs, can be completely reimbursed on a tax-free basis. Thus, if people have to travel on behalf of a charity, they can be reimbursed for their expenses—mileage, gas, meals and other costs—and that reimbursement will not be taxed.

The NDP's proposal raises many concerns.

First, it would increase the administrative burden on charities by requiring each charity and non-profit that believes it deals primarily with vulnerable populations to precisely track the number of hours and to keep records of such travel.

Second, it would require government officials to subjectively determine what constitutes a vulnerable population and determine on a case-by-case basis if each of Canada's 85,000 registered charities serves that subjectively determined group, and then determine whether or not each qualifies for the special tax break. That would be a radical departure from the existing practice of treating all registered charities objectively.

Third, the cost would be significant.

These are just a few of the preoccupations the bill raises. I would encourage the member across the way to think about those preoccupations of Canadians as he moves forward, and to perhaps address some of the concerns so that we might better understand how his party intends to pay for this without raising taxes and without further damaging the process.

[Income Tax Act, September 25th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague. He said a number of things that I found quite touching. I believe that he cares deeply about his bill.

I would like to know one thing: where did he get that $800 million figure? Can he tell me who confirmed that and what it is based on?