Evidence of meeting #12 for Finance in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was amendments.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
Clause 100 we're opposed to, as we are opposed to clauses 101 and 102.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
I will call the question on clauses 100, 101 and 102.
(Clauses 100 to 102 inclusive agreed to on division)
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
We are fine with clauses 103 to 105.
(Clauses 103 to 105 inclusive agreed to)
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
4:10 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
(Clauses 107 to 112 inclusive agreed to)
(On clause 113)
Monsieur Caron.
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
I am sorry, I forgot that this clause also deals with labour-sponsored venture capital corporations.
4:10 p.m.
A voice
I thought we had finished.
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
I thought so too, but we haven't.
This is an important decision, and it is worthwhile to look at it again.
How can the government really claim that its venture capital action plan will work when it is opposed even by the principal association representing the entire industry that it wants to affect in this way? Right after the budget, Canada's Venture Capital Association was the first to issue a media release expressing its strong opposition to the elimination of the tax credit.
Is the government listening to business as it claims? Is it listening to Quebec's business community? Ask the President of the Treasury Board about the reception he got the day after the budget when he went to Montreal to meet business people at a meeting of the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Montreal. Five of the seven questions he was asked reflected the doubts and opposition of the Montreal business community to the measure the government was proposing.
Is the government listening to other chambers of commerce, to other organizations and to businesses? Is it aware of the impact this will have? No, because, as i have said many times, the government has conducted no impact studies, just like it conducted no impact studies on employment insurance reform, for example. How can they state that they are demonstrating good governance when they make proposals blindfold?
If I think about the reaction at the last vote on the tax credit, the government even seems very happy. If I were in the government members' place, I would been a little embarrassed. I would not have shown my satisfaction so openly. I get the impression that we may not have heard the last of it. There will be other discussions and there will be more pressure before the gradual decrease starts; the government will be told that it is moving in the wrong direction and that it is affecting the economy of an entire region of the country. I am not just talking about Quebec; I am also talking about the Maritimes and about other provinces in Canada where a number of private risk capital funds—not labour-sponsored funds—recognize the impact of labour-sponsored venture capital corporations and work hand-in-hand with them.
I am putting the government on notice. I am also telling it that, if it is really interested in governing for all Canadians, including Quebec, this is clearly going to be one of the major issues in the 2015 election. I am warning the government that it will have this issue to face in Quebec and, I hope, in the rest of Canada.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Thank you.
(Clause 113 agreed to)
Colleagues, can I group clauses 114 to 120?
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Shall clauses 114 and 115 carry?
(Clauses 114 and 115 agreed to)
Shall clauses 116 to 118 carry on division?
(Clauses 116 to 118 inclusive agreed to on division)
Shall clauses 119 to 123 carry?
(Clauses 119 to 123 inclusive agreed to)
Okay, we've dealt with parts 1 and 2, but we're still on part 2 of the bill.
(On clause 124)
I have Liberal amendment 1.
Mr. Brison.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
Mr. Chair, the government is using this clause to retroactively change the rules and when a tax dispute with a number of the municipalities.... This is a $50 million to $60 million question in terms of revenue from municipal parking meters. Municipalities already face revenue challenges, and the federal government ought not to use a retroactive amendment to deny municipalities these revenues.
My amendment would change the effective date from December 17, 1990 to the budget date in March 2013 when the municipalities first learned of this rule change. The rule would still be changed, but it would not be applied retroactively.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Thank you, Mr. Brison.
I will call the vote on Liberal amendment 1.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Shall clause 124 carry on division?
(Clause 124 agreed to on division)
Shall clause 125 carry?
4:15 p.m.
An hon. member
On division.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
(Clause 125 agreed to on division)
(On clause 126)
I have Liberal amendment 2.
Mr. Brison.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
Mr. Chair, according to the fiscal update, the EI account will now have two accumulative surpluses in 2015. The government had previously committed to setting the EI rate at a break-even rate as soon as the account is in balance. This clause effectively breaks that promise. Instead of allowing the EI rate to fall in 2016, this clause freezes the EI rate at an unnecessarily high level. As a result, Canadian workers and businesses will pay an additional $5.6 billion more in EI premiums than what is required to balance the account.
We had the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association before the committee the other day. That organization is one of the organizations that agree we ought to reduce EI premiums as opposed to maintaining an artificially high surplus. My amendment would allow the EI rate to fall in 2016.
I think it's important to recognize that this is a very tenuous recovery, and it's one that, while there have been some jobs created, with the job situation for young Canadians for instance, there are around 225,000 fewer jobs for young Canadians than before the downturn. Therefore, we don't believe that in the current labour or jobs environment it's a time to maintain unnecessarily high EI premiums right now.
4:15 p.m.
NDP
Peggy Nash NDP Parkdale—High Park, ON
We support this amendment.
As was just said, of course the economy is still fragile. We still have persistently high unemployment, particularly among young people. There is global uncertainty, but let's not forget that the domestic economy is underperforming and we have a long way to go in terms of solid job creation and solid investment to get the economy back to where it should be.
The Conservatives have made a big fanfare about freezing EI premiums, but it should be noted that the cumulative deficit in the EI operating account only exists because successive Liberal and Conservative governments took the $57 billion that had accumulated from EI premiums that were paid by workers and employers, and that money ought to have been there to pay unemployed workers. We wouldn't have faced this deficit at any period if that money hadn't been plundered right before a major recession.
The old EI account had a surplus but that money was basically used to pay for other things like corporate tax cuts. What's happened as a result is workers and employers, yes those small businesses, those restaurant owners and businesses across the country, have had to pay higher premiums because that money was taken when it should have been there as a cushion for an economic downturn.
When the Conservatives started a new account, they started with a balance of zero. That $57 billion was gone and they started with a balance of zero right when we were going into a major recession. Let's be clear how we got to where we are. That money should have been there, but instead was basically used to balance the books and pay for tax cuts. Then we were faced with higher premiums at a time when the economy was in a downturn.
We support this; we generally support the freeze, but we also support a lower premium rate, if it's possible to be lower. Most of all we support having the premiums that workers and employers pay in a fund there for them to use when they need it most, when workers lose their jobs. What we don't support is a situation we have now where the vast majority of workers, when they do lose their jobs can't even get benefits at all. There are significant changes that should take place with EI.
Thank you.