Ted Menzies

[Taxation, March 26th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I would welcome the hon. member back to a policy that is exactly the same as when he sat in government.

These are simply technical clarifications in response to a court case that is seeking to address uncertainty in those cases. It merely affirms a long-standing tax policy under this government and former governments.

We announced this nearly four months ago. I am glad the hon. member woke up. We are working with industry to clear up any misunderstandings.

[Pensions, March 26th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, when they are talking about protecting pensions, we on this side of the House would be very interested in their position of pensions to Clifford Olson. They seem very unclear about that. They tend to protect people, to try to keep them out of jail.

Our important issue on this side of the House is protecting seniors. That is why we are actually going out across Canada, the finance minister, myself, and other members of this party, speaking to Canadians about the impact on their lives. That is consulting with Canadians.

[Pensions, March 26th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, that is rather harsh and rude language from a party that thought enough about retirees to hold one half-day session talking about the future of retirement income in this entire country.

I welcome the Liberals to the issue. But they should know that we have consulted already with Canadians on federally-regulated pensions. I know they do not understand the difference between federal and provincial. We are now discussing with our partners in the provinces how we can help maintain retirement income for seniors.

[Income Tax Act, March 25th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, let me start by acknowledging my friend and colleague across the way, the member for Laurentides—Labelle. I have the greatest respect for this individual, and I am sure her original intent was very appropriate. We are all concerned about education and getting our young people to work.

Unfortunately, this bill misses the mark drastically. I stand once again to plead with this House to recognize the many problems and tremendous cost of this proposal and suggest that we must defeat it.

Let us be clear. This proposal is very bad policy. It would grant preferential and unfair tax treatment by way of a special tax credit to a chosen few graduates. These graduates would need to reside in an ill-defined and allegedly economically depressed designated region and take up vague, qualifying employment for a limited period.

Let me put in a very quick example. Just this afternoon we have done a little research on this and we find that within the parameters, even with this vague amendment, Fort McMurray qualifies as an economically depressed region.

I am sure the member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca would stand and vociferously argue that, simply because Fort McMurray's population is 65,000 people. I am sure members know the wage structure in that community. Truck drivers bring home over $100,000 a year. Somehow this is not making sense. That is why we need to defeat this bill at this stage.

For the record, our Conservative members at finance committee fought to have a thorough study of this flawed proposal. We suggested we should wait and hear from the witnesses at committee to help identify the countless deficiencies in this. Unfortunately the opposition did not agree.

As a result, with only two short hearings and some minor tinkering, a Bloc-NDP-Liberal coalition, and where have we heard that before, of committee members adopted this approximately $0.5-billion proposal. However, in that brief hearing we did get the opportunity to have the Parliamentary Budget Officer appear before the committee.

Conservative members of the committee had requested in advance that the Parliamentary Budget Officer cost this proposal. That is one of his mandates. We were happy to see him step forward and do that.

In his report, the Parliamentary Budget Officer confirmed what we as the government have been saying along, that this is a costly proposal. Let me quote directly from the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report:

Overall, assuming no behavioural change on the part of graduates and based on the foregoing assumptions, these ranges suggest that at full phase-in the program could have a cost estimate of between over one hundred million to approximately six hundred million per annum.

Let me repeat, $600 million per year. Over the course of 10 years alone, that would be a cost of about $6 billion. All that and “assuming no behavioural change on the part of graduates”.

That is a $6-billion proposal that could very likely be even more expensive than what we are actually debating here today. The alleged merits of the proposal aside, which are certainly in doubt, I ask through you, Mr. Speaker, how the Bloc member and her party might be thinking that we would pay this $6 billion. What programs would they eliminate? Would they cut transfers to provinces? What taxes would they raise? Or would they pay for it at all?

Unfortunately we have no answers to these questions because we did not have time to pursue it properly at committee.

I will share with my colleagues in the House who had questions as well and who suggested the finance committee ask more questions of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Let us read from the report released this past November:

Given the sensitivity of the tax credit's estimated cost to the size and number of the designated regions, Committee members may wish to further refine this proposal to set policy boundaries around key cost drivers.

Unfortunately, as I indicated earlier, that did not happen. If the Bloc-NDP-Liberal coalition on the finance committee had looked a little more closely at this flawed proposal, it would have understood why it raised so many concerns.

First, this proposal would basically provide preferential and unfair tax treatment to literally any recent post-secondary graduate working in a designated region. This would happen regardless of whether there were a surplus or a shortage of workers with that skill.

The proposal makes weak assurances that a graduate's work should somewhat relate to their training, but does not specify on what basis this would be determined. For example, any graduate could claim that his or her employment made use of the general problem-solving skills acquired at school.

Second, the list of designated regions expressly referenced in this proposal has not been updated or revised in close to three decades. Even with the minor tinkering I had mentioned, that would mean the entire province of Saskatchewan would be one of these designated regions, excluding Regina and Saskatoon of course. It would be classified as an economically depressed and designated region. I know one member of our committee, the member for Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, would be quite offended by that. In fact I believe she was. This would be comical if it were not carrying a $6 billion cost.

I am at a loss as to how anyone would imply that Saskatchewan is currently a depressed region. In February 2010 Saskatchewan had an unemployment rate of 4.3%, nearly half the current national average of 8.2%. What is more, according to CIBC World Markets, Saskatchewan will lead other Canadian provinces in economic growth this year, well ahead of Canada's overall projected growth.

CIBC economist Warren Lovely said:

Oil, potash, agriculture and uranium sectors are again in demand, with ongoing development paving the way for production increases. Expect Saskatchewan to lead all provinces in 2010...

Yet this Bloc proposal would characterize Saskatchewan as largely having limited employment opportunities. It would give those workers in booming Saskatchewan a preferential tax treatment. How is that fair? Why would we provide preferential tax treatment for select new graduates but nothing for others?

For example, a new graduate working in Saskatchewan in a designated region and earning around $33,700 would not pay a penny of federal tax for three years. Alternatively, a new graduate working outside these ill-defined designated regions, everywhere from Winnipeg, Halifax, Windsor, Toronto, Montreal, Calgary and more, would pay nearly $3,000 per year in federal income tax. Again this is a deeply flawed and poorly thought out proposal.

Third, there is no guarantee that new graduates attracted to a designated region would remain there once their eligibility for the credit expired. It would encourage young workers to make employment decisions based on temporary, preferential and unfair tax treatment, rather than seek their best opportunities for employment, in other words, where their skills best meet the demand.

On the other hand, a large number of new graduates who are currently choosing to freely work in designated regions without this special tax credit would be provided preferential tax treatment for little or no compelling reason.

Clearly the problems with this proposal are critical. The cost is astronomical, as high as $6 billion in the first 10 years alone, and as the Parliamentary Budget Officer noted, that is assuming no behavioural change on the part of graduates.

[Maureen Vodrey, March 25th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand in the House today to congratulate senior interpreter, Maureen Vodrey, on her retirement from the House of Commons.

Maureen is the longest serving parliamentary interpreter in Canadian history, beginning her career in 1973 at a time when Pierre Trudeau was our prime minister and John Diefenbaker was still a member of this House. She has interpreted countless events, including royal visits, leadership debates and the 1982 repatriation of Canada's Constitution.

During her career, Maureen interpreted for Ed Broadbent, Jean Chrétien. She even interpreted Joe Clark's High River French, John Diefenbaker, Robert Stanfield and John Turner, just to name a few.

Her loyal service has made her a witness to history, not to mention an expert in parliamentary procedure. She has won numerous awards for her craft and has earned tremendous respect from her colleagues both on and off the Hill.

Please join me, along with her husband Robert and son Simon, in congratulating Maureen Vodrey on 37 years of outstanding service to Canada and this House.

[The Budget, March 19th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Kitchener Centre for highlighting the fact that the opposition continues to talk down the economy when Canadians are actually applauding it. They are applauding year two of Canada's economic action plan.

Let me quote the mayor of Cornerbrook, Newfoundland, who said, “The federal budget is a positive one for municipalities”. Montreal's Board of Trade praised it for improving long-term productivity and competitiveness in Canada. B.C.'s Institute of Technology said that it would be important to enhancing the innovative capacity of the Canadian economy.

If I had more time, I would continue.

[Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, March 17th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure why the member would think that we have let down any part of this country. We do support all regions of this country.

We put in place year two of Canada's economic action plan, which reaches across all parts of this country equally and equitably. We had a little trouble getting it passed through this House but we managed. Now that it has passed, let us support it and make sure that all Canadians benefit from it.

[Tax Harmonization, March 16th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if we could get the volume any higher in this House, and I do not think that is necessary.

The answer to a simple question like that is we have put in place 10 measures to close tax loopholes. The Bloc voted against that, plain and simple.

We are trying to make taxes fair to all Canadians. We continue to reduce taxes for Canadians. The Bloc votes against it.

[Tax Harmonization, March 16th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I think the Prime Minister has just addressed this issue. Negotiations continue with Quebec.

If the Bloc would pay any attention to this, all provinces are invited to negotiate in good faith. That is exactly what we are doing with Quebec.

[Business of Supply, March 16th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I can only sit through so much hypocrisy. It is absolutely shocking when the Liberals stand and condemn a Conservative government that has done more to bring Quebec back in as part of this federal nation. It was that former Liberal government which took us within inches of destroying this country or allowing separatists to take an integral part of this country away. Then the Liberals stand in this House and suggest it should be blamed on the Conservative government.

Members heard my speech that discussed the amount of investment we have put back into the province of Quebec to make sure it is treated fairly, like all provinces. For the Liberals then to stand and say their party is the party which wants to govern this country, that is a frightening thought to me.