Debates of Jan. 28th, 2013

Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I very much enjoyed my colleague's speech, especially her conclusion.

I found her comparison of the bill and the situation we are currently facing with our aboriginal communities particularly insightful. I found the connection quite relevant. In both cases, it appears that the government is waiting till the last minute to make any changes, despite how crucial they are. This is the eleventh hour, but we have no choice, since we are up to 950 pages.

It took the government 10 years to legislate technical changes recommended by the Canada Revenue Agency and other organizations and introduce this bill. Yet the situation decried by the Idle No More movement is the same: the government is waiting for a crisis to address a situation that should have been addressed long ago.

I wonder if my colleague could share her thoughts on how this government is governing. It always waits till the last minute and hopes that it can still manage things once they turn into a crisis situation, whether it involves aboriginal issues or fiscal matters. This bill, or at least certain parts of it, could have been implemented a long time ago.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his question.

Obviously, it is the government's responsibility to consult and accommodate first nations. Before a bill is even introduced, the government should determine if the bill will affect first nations and if it has a responsibility to consult them. The government should also undertake other consultations once the bill has been introduced.

We should be getting the green light from first nations before we move forward with bills that have an impact on their reserves and their rights. That is very important to us. As we said, we have been waiting and waiting for this type of bill to put tax issues in order.

It is unfortunate that the Conservatives introduced a 1,000-page bill because with them it is hard to know what they might have added or what we may have been missed, since we do not have a lot of time to study it.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for her speech.

We are talking about a very complex tax system, yet this government has introduced a bill that is more than 900 pages long and in no way simplifies the system.

Does my colleague feel that this bill will ensure the transparency and integrity of our tax system?

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right.

This 1,000-plus-page bill includes approximately 200 changes. The Auditor General said that more than 400 changes needed to be made, but not all of them are here. There is still work to be done. It is unfortunate that it is taking this government so long.

It prefers to change things that adversely affect people instead of doing the work of the House to ensure that the i's are dotted and the t's are crossed.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Employment Insurance

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, allow me first to wish you and all the members in this House a happy new year.

Before the holidays, I rose on a number of occasions, along with a number of my colleagues, to make it clear to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development that her reform package was a slap in the face for workers who had lost their jobs.

This is already becoming clear in the horror stories being told by families who are reduced to living in poverty or who are forced to take any job at a salary that is lower than what they previously earned.

One of the negative aspects of the reform package involves changes in the calculations used in the working while on claim pilot project. Even though it has been proven many times in this House that the new calculation method imposed by the Conservatives is devastating for the majority of low-income claimants, the government implemented a band-aid solution and allowed some claimants to return to the former method of calculation for a very specific period.

The reality is that only certain claimants will be affected by this change, the ones who worked between August 2011 and August 2012. All other claimants feel they are being held hostage by the new program. Both experts and workers are baffled. In addition to having to choose the program that is best for them at the moment, workers also have to choose the one that is best for the next two years.

It was on this specific issue that I asked the minister, last November, why the government had set up a temporary, two-tier system that that was geared solely to one group of claimants.

I would therefore like to take this opportunity in the House to ask the minister to explain her reasons for the flip-flop, even though she knows very well that the new measure penalizes thousands of claimants. If she knows that the new calculation will seriously affect claimants’ quality of life, since she proposed making corrections only for certain claimants, how is it that she is not keeping the former calculation method for everyone?

In making it possible for certain claimants to return to the old method, is the minister admitting that there are flaws in what she is proposing?

Despite this evidence, she prefers to move forward by penalizing the next group of employment insurance claimants, under the pretext that it is a measure to aid with the transition.

Thousands of claimants have been adversely affected by these reforms, especially the bungled working while on claim pilot project, even though the government promised that services and the social safety net supposedly in place to help those in need would not be affected.

We also know that claimants who choose to temporarily use the former system are currently experiencing record delays in receiving their benefits because the change must be made manually instead of electronically, as is the case for the new system.

Finally, the minister did not provide any real options for claimants put at a disadvantage by the new system, except to return to the old system, which cuts off their benefits while the changeover is taking place. Who is capable of living with no income for a month, the time it takes many workers to switch?

Will the minister admit that this new pilot project must be overhauled in order to support families in need and economic sectors that create temporary, part-time, contract and seasonal jobs?

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, it is the beginning of a new year and I am pleased to be here again and to respond to the member's comments on the subject of employment insurance.

Between July 2009 and March 2012 more than 920,000 net new jobs were created in Canada, resulting in the strongest employment growth among G7 countries.

We know that Canadians want to work, but they often face challenges when they are looking for a job.

What are we going to do to help unemployed Canadians find jobs? We are investing significant funds over the next two years to connect unemployed Canadians with available jobs. We are making it easier for Canadians who are out of work to identify new opportunities in their local communities. One way we are doing this is by sending out enhanced job alerts to Canadians receiving employment insurance regular benefits. These alerts are providing information about job opportunities within the claimant's local area that are within the claimant's occupation and related occupations.

The second part of our plan is to link the temporary foreign workers program with the EI program, helping to ensure Canadian workers are always considered before foreign workers.

We have also defined what is meant by suitable employment and what constitutes a reasonable job search.

We believe that the proposed definition is fair because it takes into account an individual's personal circumstances, working conditions, hours of work and travel time, which would apply as long as benefits are being paid.

We have also adjusted the working while on claim pilot to better encourage Canadians to accept all available work. We will do this by cutting the current clawback rate in half and applying it to all earnings made while on claim.

We will invest significant funds over two years to implement a new permanent national approach to better align the calculation of EI benefit amounts with local labour market conditions, making sure the program is fair for everyone.

It is important to remember that despite all of the opposition's claims, EI will continue to be there for those who need it as it always has been. EI is an important program in Canada and will continue to be. These improvements will introduce new needed common sense efforts to help better connect unemployed Canadians with available jobs.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the negative implications that so many organizations, including the NDP, have been condemning since the start are beginning to materialize and can be quantified. The Conservatives' blind ideology is helping no one. The facts are in. The numbers speak for themselves, and yet the government is stubbornly moving in the same wrong-headed direction, despite the palpable discontent of workers all across the country.

Can the minister commit to quickly reviewing the reform measures or can she commit to addressing the reform's shortcomings in the next budget? The minister needs to remember that her team governs on behalf of all Canadians—Canadians in every province, in every community and in all types of economies.

Canadians expect better from their government, and I strongly urge the minister to listen to the people. Criticism of this reform is coming from all sides, and it is high time the government realized that.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the member of Parliament for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles. Job creation, economic growth and long-term prosperity remain the focus of this government.

Our economic prosperity, however, depends on our ability to meet emerging and growing labour market challenges. It depends on our competitiveness and our flexibility.

We need to strengthen work incentives so Canadians are better served by working.

Connecting Canadians to available jobs in their local area is vital to supporting our long-term economic growth and productivity, as well as the quality of life for all Canadians.

These changes are about empowering unemployed workers, helping them get back into the workforce and focusing resources where they are needed most. That is what Canadians elected us to do and what the NDP has voted against time and time again. We are here to support Canadian workers and make sure they are better connected to Canadian jobs.

Food Safety

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the adjournment debate relates to a question that I raised last October 2.

I want to put the question into context and hope for a detailed answer from the parliamentary secretary. Beyond that, I want to raise some concerns going forward with respect to the same agency, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and proposed regulatory changes.

My question of October 2 was about the most recent crisis in the food sector, which concerned XL Foods in Alberta. The government and the minister deliberately misled Canadians on the crisis by constantly attempting to minimize the crisis, when in reality more than 1,500 meat products were recalled in all Canadian provinces and territories and in 41 U.S. states.

The record of the minister is he has presided over the largest meat recall in Canadian history after previously being in trouble over a food safety issue which caused the death of quite a number of Canadians.

What have Canadians heard from the government on the issue of food safety? Basically what they have heard is meaningless talking points about how much the government claims to care about the safety of Canadians. The fact is the government failed Canadians four years ago when it failed to implement the recommendations of the Weatherill report, and the government has continued this legacy of failure.

Why has the government not taken the action promised? If it did, why the failure?

I would say for the parliamentary secretary that it is not enough to say that we have more inspectors. We need to know what they do. Do they inspect actual products, not just paper?

As I said a moment ago, in an approach of being proactive going forward I would just note for the government a couple of serious concerns related to the CFIA proposed changes in the regulatory framework that governs potato movement.

First, is the proposed elimination of standard containers and ministerial exemptions. This is a serious matter. Imports and interprovincial trade already regularly occur, without damaging the stability of supply and price in the marketplace that could be in jeopardy with the deregulation of container sizes. Standard containers allow for predictable, standard inventory of packaging material with minimal waste and allow retailers to efficiently utilize shelf space by stocking a limited number of standard sizes. Standard containers allow consumers to more easily make price comparisons between equally sized products.

Negotiations on standard containers and ministerial exemptions with the United States took three years to achieve. An elimination of this policy without a reciprocal elimination or a change in marketing orders in the United States puts Canada at a severe trade disadvantage.

Second, changes to the seed potato quality management program are a huge concern to the P.E.I. seed potato industry. The primary concern relates to amending these regulations without acceptance or harmonization with the 17 seed certification agendas in the United States which will put at risk our ability to export seed to the United States for re-certification. There is also the issue of cost.

There is the issue of past practice, but in fairness to the government I lay out those concerns going forward in a proactive way to give it a heads up that we are concerned and to allow the consultations and discussions to meet the needs of Canadian farmers rather than just the desires of deregulating on the part of CFIA.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to food safety, our government's top priority is the health and safety of Canadians. That is why the Food Inspection Agency directs its available resources to specific priority areas such as food safety and front-line inspection.

Since March 2006, the agency's field inspection staff has increased by more than 700, an increase of approximately 25%. The opposition members conveniently and repeatedly ignore this stat.

I stress that how inspection is done is just as important as how many inspectors are doing the work. That is why in budget 2011, the budget that the Liberal Party voted against, our government provided the CFIA with over $100 million over five years to modernize food safety inspection in Canada. The agency is using the investment to do a number of things: update its inspection approach based on common inspection activities and standard procedures; deliver better training to inspectors; expand the use of science to help refocus resources on high-risk areas; implement Health Canada's revised listeria policy; build a secure electronic interface so CFIA can share information more effectively with stakeholders; and provide better, more modern tools for front-line inspectors.

As the CFIA continues to modernize its inspection approaches, it will ensure there continues to be enough inspection staff to protect the health and safety of Canadians.

In the last four federal budgets, our Conservative government has invested significantly in our food safety system. The opposition always votes against these investments. In addition to budget 2011, in budget 2012 we provided $51 million over two years to CFIA, the Public Health Agency of Canada and Health Canada to continue key food safety activities. The recent budget is strengthening, not weakening, our government's commitment to the health and safety of Canadians.

The CFIA has not and will not reduce staff or cut programs that would put the health and safety of Canadians at risk. Indeed, our government is supporting the CFIA's drive toward modernization and will allow the agency to focus its resources where they are needed the most.

If the Liberals really cared about food safety for Canadians, they would have supported the millions of dollars this government invested in budget after budget to ensure that Canadians would have safe food on their tables. The Liberals continue to vote against these initiatives to ensure CFIA has the strength and the focus to ensure we have the health and safety of Canadians put first.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I get such a kick out of the parliamentary secretary and government ministers talking about how we may or may not have voted against something.

The fact is it was an omnibus budget bill. There are many things that we now know are hurting Canadians, like the EI program we just talked about. The words that the parliamentary secretary brought forward in answer to that adjournment debate certainly did not bring any comfort to those who worked in the seasonal industries.

Yes, we have voted against the budgets, not against the investments. The problem with the Conservatives is that when they talk about investing more money, it is mostly all smoke and mirrors.

On the CFIA issue, the fact is the Conservatives cut CFIA in a number of areas and then added a little more money back in. The problem is the 700 inspectors, and the parliamentary secretary has not stood today and told us what they do. What we want is inspectors on the line inspecting products, not just shuffling paper around. We want to see inspectors who are actually dealing with the food products and we are not getting any answers to that from the Conservatives.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear. The facts speak for themselves. The Liberals voted against these initiatives. I encourage the member to review my last response that answers his questions with respect to what inspectors do and what we are doing to support them in their jobs.

Our Conservative government has made a number of important investments in the past few years to ensure the CFIA has the resources it needs to keep Canada's food supply safe. In addition to increasing funding, our government has fulfilled all of the Weatherill recommendations to enhance Canada's food safety system, including the Safe Food for Canadians Act just before Christmas.

Today, organizations responsible for food safety and public health are better equipped to work together to prevent, detect and respond to food safety risks and Canadians are better informed about the steps they can take to protect themselves.

Canada's food safety system is one of the best in the world. Our government is committed to ensuring that Canada's food safety system continues to provide consumers the protection they expect and deserve, unlike the Liberals, who like to vote against every initiative we take to support CFIA.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:48 p.m.)