Ted Menzies

[Free Public Transit for Seniors Act, November 17th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak, and I must emphasize strongly, against this fiscally irresponsible Liberal proposal.

If Canadians want to know the difference between our Conservative government and the Liberal opposition when it comes to the economy and respecting taxpayers, this Liberal proposal sums it up. This pie in the sky Liberal proposal is to allegedly provide absolutely free--and free in this context would be taxpayer funded, so I cannot exactly say it is free--public government transportation to every senior throughout Canada. This is fiscally reckless and would cost untold billions of dollars to implement. I say untold billions because the Liberals did not even bother to cost it. In fact, we just heard moments ago when the mover of the bill was asked what the cost would be, he did not have a clue what the cost would be.

In fact, Conservative MPs had to ask the Parliamentary Budget Officer to cost it because the Liberals refused to ask the Parliamentary Budget Officer for a costing.

I am at a loss why a senior member of the Liberal Party, in fact the chief opposition whip, would introduce such a fiscally irresponsible proposal.

In his speech I heard him talk about discrimination. His concern about discrimination would be lost because every constituent in my riding would be discriminated against. They would have to contribute to public transit and would not have access to it. If that is not discrimination, someone please tell me what is.

With regard to costs, earlier this year the leader of the Liberal Party publicly proclaimed:

One of the issues we have to confront is, how do we pay for this? We can't be a credible party until we have an answer for that question.

We did not hear this either.

...We have to be courageous and we have to be clear on this subject. We will not identify any new spending unless we can clearly identify a source of funds....

Likewise, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation has pleaded that politicians “who make announcements of future spending must tell Canadians how much those plans cost and where the money will come from”.

However, the Liberals have no such answers for this proposal. They have identified absolutely no way to pay for it.

Accordingly, following the Liberal leader's own logic, and in his own words, the Liberal Party, with uncosted proposals like today's, has no credibility.

However, on matters of fiscal responsibility, the Liberal leader himself has questionable credibility, as he also earlier this year publicly proclaimed:

I am not going to allow the deficit discussion to shut down discussion in this country about social justice.

I ask, is absolutely free public transportation to every single senior social justice? If so, it is only one item on a laundry list of similar uncosted and unaffordable social justice commitments the Liberals have made over the past few years. The growing Liberal laundry list of unfunded spending commitments has included billions of dollars for everything including: a national government-run daycare scheme; a 45-day work year; a slew of new national strategies supported by permanent large bureaucracies; a supplementary Canada pension plan that in fact provincial governments disagree with, liberal provincial governments; subsidized overseas voyages for young Canadians; something called a secretariat of peace, order and good government; and the list goes on. They are all costly and reckless spending policies that carry hefty price tags that would send Canada into spiralling large and permanent deficits, erasing Canada's economic advantage.

What is more, the Liberals clearly have no way to pay for the vast majority of their growing laundry list of commitments, merely pointing to the same limited funding source repeatedly, that being hiking taxes on job creators. That does not cut it.

Even the Globe and Mail has caught on, remarking that the Liberals “cannot recycle their promise to cancel the tax cuts as a way to pay for other new social programs they may like to promise”.

Eventually someone is going to have to pay for those freewheeling Liberal spending plans. Make no mistake that someone is going to have to and that would be hard-working Canadian taxpayers.

Already the Liberals happily admit that Canadian job creators would have to foot the bill for the first wave of their endless laundry list. What will the Liberal attack on job creators mean for Canada's economy and the everyday Canadian? A weaker economy and hundreds of thousands of lost jobs.

According to the University of Calgary School of Public Policy, the Liberals would endanger $49 billion in capital investment, equivalent to 233,000 Canadian jobs, with their irresponsible tax hike plan.

Already the Liberals' demonizing and targeting job creators with tax grabs is starting to harm Canada's fragile recovery. If the Liberals do not believe me, they should listen to the words of Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters:

Canadian business investment needed to sustain an economic recovery is threatened by [the] Liberal Party Leader's pledge to scrap planned corporate tax cuts because companies may find it difficult to plan.... Right now, frankly, I don't think we can afford the...uncertainty if you want companies to make big investments in Canada.

The Canadian Chamber of Commerce represents 192,000 companies that employ millions throughout the country. When speaking of the Liberal tax hike plan, it remarked, “Business is going to hold back making investments” and that it is “very damaging”.

What about the rest of the Liberal laundry list included in this proposal? Who will pay for the big tax-and-spend Liberal government? We all know the answer, and I repeat, hard-working everyday Canadian taxpayers. The Liberal leader would reach deeper and deeper into their pockets and wreck their family budgets to bankroll excessively costly proposals like this one. In the words of the Liberal leader himself, “federal taxes must go up” and “we will have to raise taxes”. What taxes in particular? To again quote the Liberal leader, “I'm not going to take a GST tax hike off the table”.

Earlier this year, an Infometrica study revealed that such a Liberal GST hike would cost Canada another 162,000 jobs.

The growing laundry list of Liberal proposals like the one here today is not grounded in fiscal reality and would saddle Canada with permanent deficit spending.

On the other hand, our Conservative government has taken affordable and sustainable action to actually benefit Canadians, especially our seniors. First and foremost, since 2006, the Conservative government has cut the tax bill for seniors and pensioners by nearly $2 billion annually. For instance, we increased the age credit amount by $2,000, doubled the pension income credit to $2,000 and introduced landmark pension income splitting.

Second, our Conservative government has already made public transit more affordable for seniors, and all Canadians in fact, with the public transit tax credit. This important tax relief allows individuals to claim a non-refundable tax credit for the cost of monthly or ongoing weekly public transit passes. This has proved to be an exceedingly popular measure.

The Canadian Urban Transit Association said:

The government's tax credit for transit pass users is a strong signal that the government is committed to promoting transit use. It rewards transit customers for making smart travel choices.

Shockingly, the Liberal Party voted against the public transit tax credit and against helping seniors and other riders of public transit.

Finally, let me note that public transit is primarily a provincial and municipal jurisdictional responsibility. It is not one where federal spending power should unilaterally dictate their decisions.

Clearly, the Conservative government has brought forward fiscally responsible support for seniors and public transit users alike. Disappointingly, the Liberals want to force Canadian taxpayers and businesses to pick up the bill for their costly laundry list of proposals, like the one we are dealing with here today.

This is not a credible plan. Instead, it would damage family budgets and job creation across Canada. I strongly urge all members to vote against this flawed and costly proposal.

[Harmonized Sales Tax, November 5th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the only people in the House who should be scared of a backlash are the NDP, because every time we try to reduce taxes for Canadians, every time we try to put more money back in their pockets instead of the government's pockets, $3,000 per average family, those members vote against that.

If I were an NDP member, I would be very concerned about going back home this week and trying to explain that to my constituents.

[Harmonized Sales Tax, November 5th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I encourage that hon. member to speak to those who make the decisions on the harmonization of sales tax and that would be her provincial colleagues.

However, I should not need to keep reminding everyone in the House how many times we have legislated tax cuts. Who voted against those cuts? It was the NDP. In fact, many of the coalition partners voted against those cuts.

If we had not cut so many taxes for Canadians, they would not all be going back to work and we would not be seeing the high number of job increases. Canadians are happy that this government is reducing taxes.

[The Economy, November 5th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, once again in October more Canadians went back to work. This shows yet again that Canada's economic action plan is keeping us on the recovery track.

Most encouraging and the most important part of this is that nearly 50,000 net new full-time jobs were created this past month. In fact, since July 2009, that brings us to nearly 430,000 net new jobs in this country. That is good news for Canadians and good news for Canadian families.

[Northwest Territories Act, November 3rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for the opportunity to speak against this disappointing NDP proposal.

Before addressing the specifics of this proposal, let me reiterate our Conservative government's strong support for the Northwest Territories as well as the other territories.

Federal support for the territories is at an all time high. For the territories, this totals almost $3 billion in 2010-11, an increase of a whopping $766 million from the previous Liberal government. This is helping to ensure the territories can provide essential public services, such as health care and education. In the words of the finance minister of the Northwest Territories, Michael Miltenberger, this commitment of long-term growing support has provided “much needed relief”.

Additionally, as part of our overall northern strategy, we have taken numerous other measures. For instance, to help offset the higher cost of living in the north we have increased the northern residents deduction by 10%, representing nearly $10 million in annual tax relief for northern residents. This was a much welcomed move.

Yellowknife Mayor Gord Van Tighem heralded it as “something we've been asking for for a significant period of time. The move will mean more spending into local economies and further reduce the cost of living”.

Inexplicably, the NDP member for Western Arctic voted against it and deeply disappointed his constituents.

Quoting from an editorial in the Yellowknifer, it states:

—a boost for the Northern Residents Tax Deduction...It is not a whole lot is a whole lot more than previous Liberal governments ever gave. Despite enormous budget surpluses and the voice of a...the Liberals never lifted a finger to increase the tax deduction, even after years of steadily rising costs...it would have been best had [the member for Western Arctic] swallowed the pill and voted with the government.

Unfortunately, that pattern of disappointment among northerners has continued with the NDPs last minute support to keep the long gun registry and, here today, with a poorly thought out NDP proposal.

Let me be clear from the outset. Our Conservative government respects territorial governments, especially on matters that directly impact them, like their borrowing limits. We are already actively working and consulting with all three territories about their borrowing limits.

Earlier this year we initiated a review of the operation of the territorial borrowing limits with all three territorial governments. This review will ensure consistency in the accounting or debt instruments between the borrowing limit and the territorial government's own public accounts, as well as ensure territorial governments are clear about their authority and can make appropriate decisions about their borrowing. Moreover, we are focusing on the borrowing limits of all three territories, not just one. We are actively engaging all three territorial governments.

This NDP proposal would effectively toss aside this consultation process and impose a solution that territorial governments would have no involvement in crafting. As such, we fundamentally believe that such an issue should only come from a consultation process and a careful review and government to government dialogue.

There is a long tradition in Canada of federal-territorial matters like this being discussed directly between governments. It would be grossly inappropriate to push this tradition aside, pushing aside territorial governments on matters that directly affect them and dictate to the territories through a private member's bill considered only in the federal Parliament in far away Ottawa.

While the NDP may disagree, we believe it is important to be sensitive and to be engaged directly with the concerns of all three territories. That is why we are working collaboratively with their governments in the current review, and we will continue to do so in the future.

To that end, our government strongly believes the review currently under way and the spirit of our collaborative work with all three territorial governments should be allowed to continue. This is a sign of respect.

On the other hand, to unilaterally impose a new borrowing limit on a territorial government without even consulting it, as this flawed NDP proposal would do, is not a sign of respect. That has been demonstrated in the extremely muted and skeptical reaction we have seen to this proposal since it was first introduced last June.

For instance, I note that Northwest Territories Finance Minister Miltenberger has not endorsed this proposal publicly. Likewise, other regional politicians, like Deh Cho councillor Tom Wilson, have even publicly voiced caution about it. Let me pause here to provide a bit of background.

First, through the Northwest Territories Act, the NWT government is required to have its borrowing approved by the Governor-in-Council. Similar provisions are included in both the Nunavut Act and the Yukon Act. Each territory is free to borrow up to the total borrowing limit established. I should note the federal government does not review individual territorial borrowing decisions within the limit. Such decisions are the territorial government's alone to make.

This existing framework sets fixed borrowing limits for each territory to operate within, providing them with certainty about their authority to borrow and the development of their fiscal plans. I underline once again that this is a framework that applies to all three territories equally.

This unsound NDP proposal we are dealing with today, on the other hand, would give one territory preferential treatment, completely ignoring both Yukon and Nunavut. Our Conservative government understands all territories should be considered equally when speaking of borrowing limits, which the NDP proposal clearly does not.

Another problem with this faulty NDP proposal is that it would tie the borrowing limit of the Northwest Territories to total estimated revenues. However, total estimated or projected revenues can and do change significantly, even from year to year. This is especially true for resource-based territorial economies.

While territorial governments are accustomed to this variation, this troubling NDP proposal would unilaterally expand the consequences of this variation for territorial decision makers and their borrowing. This would not be helpful. What is more, it is not even feasible.

For example, how would this estimated revenue number used to calculate territorial borrowing limits be generated? What information would be used? When is the estimate to be done and by whom? Does the federal government have to review this information? Does it have to agree with it? How will the Auditor General review it to ensure that it is transparent? The NDP proposal provides zero answers to any of those key questions.

For the information of parliamentarians, let me remind them how limits are currently set. A territorial government's own economic and fiscal outlook, chiefly the revenues from the economic activity within each of the territory's borders, forms a primary consideration. This is an objective and a prudent way to establish borrowing limits as it reflects the actual economic reality of the territories themselves.

On the contrary, this misjudged NDP proposal would not make revenues from economic activity within a territory the chief consideration. Rather, it would create an artificially elevated combination of territorial tax revenues along with various federal government supports, both temporary and permanent. This would include territorial formula financing, support for health care and even one-time initiatives.

In summary, the NDP proposal would unilaterally impose an unworkable, uncertain and unequal framework on the territorial government's borrowing authority. This is not in the best interest. The territories would and should be opposed.

What is more, our Conservative government has already undertaken a more responsible and respectful course of action by working with all three territorial governments to review the borrowing limits collaboratively.

[The Economy, October 29th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, Canada continues with its economic growth. That shows once again that we are right on track. We have seen over 420,000 net new jobs since July 2009. Both the IMF and the OECD say that we have the strongest economic growth and will have through 2010-11.

Just today it was announced that Canada's GDP had increased again in August, for the 11th month out of the past 12.

[Infrastructure Projects, October 29th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to share information about some of this government's investments in the riding of Macleod.

Through the economic action plan, numerous projects were funded, which benefit communities both now and into the future.

The community of Turner Valley received funding for a much needed inter-municipal library. The town of Okotoks received funding for a very important bridge, which opens up a key transportation and truck route, facilitating economic growth.

Fiscal stimulus was provided to improve access and availability for recreational activities, including 27 kilometeres of multi-use trails in the Crowsnest Pass. Pincher Creek received funding for a multi-purpose solar project, which will reduce the carbon footprint by 78 tonnes.

These projects represent valuable investments made by this government, which will help grow the economy, create jobs and benefit the residents of the Macleod riding.

[The Economy, October 25th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, once again today, we hear the opposition coalition talking down Canada's economy while the finance minister is promoting Canada's strong economy throughout the world. He is working with the G20 finance ministers to help secure the global economic recovery. He is telling the world that Canada is projected to lead the G7 in growth in 2010 and 2011. He is telling the world that we are lowering taxes for Canadians.

While the opposition coalition continues to talk down the economy, our government is standing up for Canada.

[Taxation, October 25th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague across the way for raising, once again, another provincial issue. However, I remind the hon. member that Canadians actually have more opportunity because they have more dollars in their pockets. When this government took office, we decided we were going to cut taxes. We cut over 100 taxes. The GST cut saves every Canadian money and they choose to spend that as they wish.

[Pensions, October 22nd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of joint jurisdiction between the provinces and the federal government, and I am glad that the member recognizes this. Many people do not.

We have had a broad consultation with Canadians on federally regulated pensions. We are in serious discussions with our provincial counterparts. There will be a finance ministers' meeting in December where we will hear back from the officials on their findings. After those findings are in, we will apply them in our efforts to help our seniors.