Bill C-60 (Historical)

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1

An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures

Part 1 implements certain income tax measures proposed in the March 21, 2013 budget. Most notably, it
(a) allows certain adoption-related expenses incurred before a child’s adoption file is opened to be eligible for the Adoption Expense Tax Credit;
(b) introduces an additional credit for first-time claimants of the Charitable Donations Tax Credit;
(c) makes expenses for the use of safety deposit boxes non-deductible;
(d) adjusts the Dividend Tax Credit and gross-up factor applicable in respect of dividends other than eligible dividends;
(e) allows collection action for 50% of taxes, interest and penalties in dispute in respect of a tax shelter that involves a charitable donation;
(f) extends, for one year, the Mineral Exploration Tax Credit for flow-through share investors;
(g) extends, for two years, the temporary accelerated capital cost allowance for eligible manufacturing and processing machinery and equipment;
(h) clarifies that the income tax reserve for future services is not available in respect of reclamation obligations;
(i) phases out the additional deduction available to credit unions over five years;
(j) amends rules regarding the judicial authorization process for imposing a requirement on a third party to provide information or documents related to an unnamed person or persons; and
(k) repeals the rules relating to international banking centres.
Part 1 also implements other income tax measures and tax-related measures. Most notably, it
(a) amends rules relating to caseload management of the Tax Court of Canada;
(b) streamlines the process for approving tax relief for Canadian Forces members and police officers;
(c) addresses a technical issue in relation to the temporary measure that allows certain family members to open a Registered Disability Savings Plan for an adult individual who might not be able to enter into a contract; and
(d) simplifies the determination of the Canadian-source income of non-resident pilots employed by Canadian airlines.
Part 2 implements certain goods and services tax and harmonized sales tax (GST/HST) measures proposed in the March 21, 2013 budget by
(a) reducing the compliance burden for employers under the GST/HST pension plan rules;
(b) providing the Minister of National Revenue the authority to withhold GST/HST refunds claimed by a business where the business has failed to provide certain GST/HST registration information;
(c) expanding the GST/HST exemption for publicly funded homemaker services to include personal care services provided to individuals who require such assistance at home;
(d) clarifying that reports, examinations and other services that are supplied for a non-health-care-related purpose do not qualify for the GST/HST exemption for basic health care services; and
(e) ending the current GST/HST point-of-sale relief for the Governor General.
Part 2 also amends the Excise Tax Act and Excise Act, 2001 to modify the rules regarding the judicial authorization process for imposing a requirement on a third party to provide information or documents related to an unnamed person or persons.
In addition, Part 2 amends the Excise Act, 2001 to ensure that the excise duty rate applicable to manufactured tobacco other than cigarettes and tobacco sticks is consistent with that applicable to other tobacco products.
Part 3 implements various measures, including by enacting and amending several Acts.
Division 1 of Part 3 amends the Customs Tariff to extend for ten years, until December 31, 2024, provisions relating to Canada’s preferential tariff treatments for developing and least-developed countries. Also, Division 1 reduces the rate of duty under tariff treatments in respect of a number of items relating to baby clothing and certain sports and athletic equipment imported into Canada on or after April 1, 2013.
Division 2 of Part 3 amends the Trust and Loan Companies Act, the Bank Act, the Insurance Companies Act and the Cooperative Credit Associations Act to remove some residency requirements to provide flexibility for financial institutions to efficiently structure the committees of their boards of directors.
Division 3 of Part 3 amends the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act to renew the equalization and territorial formula financing programs until March 31, 2019 and to implement total transfer protection for the 2013-2014 fiscal year. That Act is also amended to clarify the time of calculation of the growth rate of the Canada Health Transfer for each fiscal year beginning after March 31, 2017.
Division 4 of Part 3 authorizes payments to be made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund to certain entities or for certain purposes.
Division 5 of Part 3 amends the Canadian Securities Regulation Regime Transition Office Act to remove the statutory dissolution date of the Canadian Securities Regulation Regime Transition Office and to provide authority for the Governor in Council, on the Minister of Finance’s recommendation, to set another date for the dissolution of that Office.
Division 6 of Part 3 amends the Investment Canada Act to clarify how proposed investments in Canada by foreign state-owned enterprises and WTO investors will be assessed and to allow for the extension, when necessary, of timelines associated with national security reviews.
Division 7 of Part 3 amends the Canada Pension Plan to ensure that the Canada Revenue Agency can accurately identify, calculate and refund overpayments made to the Canada Pension Plan and the Quebec Pension Plan in a particular year by contributors who live outside Quebec.
Division 8 of Part 3 amends the Pension Act and the War Veterans Allowance Act to ensure that veterans’ disability benefits are no longer deducted when calculating war veterans allowance.
Division 9 of Part 3 amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to authorize the revocation of temporary foreign worker permits, the revocation and suspension of opinions provided by the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development with respect to an application for a work permit and the refusal to process requests for such opinions. It authorizes fees to be paid for rights and privileges conferred by means of a work permit and exempts, from the application of the User Fees Act, those fees as well as fees for the provision of services in relation to the processing of applications for a temporary resident visa, work permit, study permit or extension of an authorization to remain in Canada as a temporary resident or in relation to requests for an opinion with respect to an application for a work permit.
It also provides that decisions made by the Refugee Protection Division under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act in respect of claims for refugee protection that were referred to that Division during a specified period are not subject to appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division if they take effect after a certain date.
Division 10 of Part 3 amends the Citizenship Act to expand the Governor in Council’s authority to make regulations respecting fees for services provided in the administration of that Act and cases in which those fees may be waived. It also exempts, from the application of the User Fees Act, fees for services provided in the administration of the Citizenship Act.
Division 11 of Part 3 amends the Nuclear Safety and Control Act to authorize the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission to spend for its purposes the revenue it receives from the fees it charges for licences.
Division 12 of Part 3 enacts the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act, sets out the powers, duties and functions of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister for International Trade and the Minister for International Development and provides for the amalgamation of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and the Canadian International Development Agency.
Division 13 of Part 3 authorizes the taking of measures with respect to the reorganization and divestiture of all or any part of Ridley Terminals Inc.
Division 14 of Part 3 amends the National Capital Act and the Department of Canadian Heritage Act to transfer certain powers, duties and functions to the Minister of Canadian Heritage from the National Capital Commission. It also makes consequential amendments to the National Holocaust Monument Act to change the Minister responsible for the construction of the monument to the Minister of Canadian Heritage from the Minister responsible for the National Capital Act.
Division 15 of Part 3 amends the Salaries Act to add ministerial positions for regional development responsibilities for northern Canada, and northern and southern Ontario. It also amends the Salaries Act to replace a reference to the Solicitor General of Canada with a reference to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. It also makes an amendment to the Parliament of Canada Act to provide that the maximum number of Parliamentary Secretaries who may be appointed is equal to the number of ministers for whom salaries are provided in the Salaries Act.
Division 16 of Part 3 amends the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act to remove the requirement for the Minister of Public Works and Government Services to obtain a request from a government, body or person in Canada or elsewhere in order for the Minister to do certain things for or on their behalf. It also amends that Act to specify that the Governor in Council’s approval relating to those things may be given on a general or a specific basis.
Division 17 of Part 3 amends the Financial Administration Act to give the Governor in Council the authority to direct a Crown corporation to have its negotiating mandate approved by the Treasury Board for the purpose of the Crown corporation entering into a collective agreement with a bargaining agent. It also gives the Treasury Board the authority to require that an employee under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Treasury Board observe the collective bargaining between the Crown corporation and the bargaining agent. It requires that a Crown corporation that is directed to have its negotiating mandate approved obtain the Treasury Board’s approval before entering into a collective agreement. It also gives the Governor in Council the authority to direct a Crown corporation to obtain the Treasury Board’s approval before the Crown corporation fixes the terms and conditions of employment of certain of its non-unionized employees. Finally, it makes consequential amendments to other Acts.
Division 18 of Part 3 amends the Keeping Canada’s Economy and Jobs Growing Act to provide for increases to the sums that may be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for municipal, regional and First Nations infrastructure through the Gas Tax Fund. It also provides that the sums may be paid on the requisition of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour to speak to the economic action plan 2013 and what it would do as a continuation of our previous budgets to help stimulate and continue to grow this great Canada in which we live.

The budget is a commitment we have made to create jobs and balance the budget. We will continue to do that. We have seen previous initiatives of the economic action plan come into play and keep our country expanding as we move forward.

Since 2006, we have created nearly 1.5 million net new jobs. From July 2009 alone, 90% of the jobs created were full time, and 80% were in private industry. That is the objective. That is what we want, full time jobs in private business, because private business hires people and stimulates the economy.

For the first time in more than three decades, Canada's unemployment rate is lower than that of our neighbour, the United States. That does not happen without a considerable amount of thought and strategy, not only by our Prime Minister but by our cabinet and also the Minister of Finance who, by the way, has been nominated as the best finance minister in the world, I believe rightly. We have to recognize that things do not just happen; they come because we plan and put a vision forward.

In the past, we introduced universal child care because we are interested in families. Those families with children under six get $1,200 a year, and they get to make the decisions about how to raise their families.

We have given a family caregiver tax credit and a volunteer firefighter tax credit. I live in a rural municipality. My riding is a large rural one with very many small towns, 50 or 60, and they all have volunteer fire departments. The volunteer firefighter tax credit of $3,000 was a huge issue for them, just to recognize some of the work they do not only in their departments but in their communities for all of us.

We decreased the GST from 7% to 6% to 5%. I remember the debate at that time. Whether an individual buys a chocolate bar or a shirt, it is only a few cents or a dollar. In my riding, for every 1%, it left $18 million in the pockets of my constituents. We dropped that 2%. That was $36 million that was left in the pockets of our families in Lambton—Kent—Middlesex.

That meant people had that money at their disposal and at their discretion, whether it was to buy for the needs of a family, pay down a mortgage or help replace a car. Those are a lot of dollars that came into effect and were of benefit to each and every family in my riding of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex.

In this last budget we introduced the Canada job grant. This is quite a unique and a very forward-thinking proposition, which brings in partnerships. I have always believed that, if we are to succeed, very seldom do we do it on our own. We do it by embracing those around us with like minds on the way we can move forward. The Canada job grant would provide up to $15,000 per person to help Canadians get the skills they need.

When I talk about a partnership, it is up to $5,000 each from the federal government, the provincial government and the employer. This would give ownership of that employer in helping to get students back in the business and come out of a job with some experience. That seems to be one of the biggest issues right now. Everybody wants to have experience, but when students get out of college or university without experience, it becomes difficult to land a job.

In Lambton—Kent—Middlesex we do not have large corporations. Our businesses are small. Two or three are medium sized, but basically, we are a small business riding. We have small businesses and agriculture.

We extended the hiring credit for small businesses with $225,000 invested. It assists small businesses by giving them a hiring credit so that they can hire someone, likely a student. It also gives students an opportunity to gain more experience. They can see if it is actually the job they want to do. That has been important to the businesses in my riding.

We would also further tax relief for manufacturers through the two-year extension of the temporary accelerated capital cost allowance for new machinery and equipment. Technology and innovation are changing so quickly that businesses need some sort of accelerated capital writeoff. My colleague spoke earlier about having antiquated equipment after 20 years. It takes that long to write it off. Equipment does not last that long. We needed to make sure that if we were going to have a healthy industry in manufacturing, and if we wanted to continue to help it grow, we wanted to help that along by providing an accelerated capital cost allowance.

Something that is important in my riding, which has small businesses and agriculture, as I mentioned, is the capital gains exemption. It was established at $750,000 and has been sitting there since we changed it. Do not hold me to the date, but I am going to say that in 2008 we moved it up from $500,000 to $750,000. We saw it as a benefit to those who are generating the economy in our country and in our ridings to increase the capital gains exemption to $800,000. However, we are not locking it in at that. We are actually indexing it over the years so that it will meet the new limits through inflation.

We continue to stand behind farmers, families and communities. We introduced the first-time donor's super credit. Some may be asking what that means. As I mentioned, I come from an area of small towns. They rely so much on volunteers. They rely so much on charitable organizations to carry out the functions within their communities that governments cannot. What I have found in rural areas is that, proportionately, they dig deep into their pockets. They dig deep to help those in need, whether it is for a disease or a health issue or for a financial issue. For those making charitable donations, we have extended that super credit to give them an accelerated writeoff on their first-time donation.

The Federation of Canadian Municipalities said that they needed to make sure that they had sustainable funding for infrastructure. We have been very strong in moving forward on that. We would index the gas tax funds. That amount of money will now continue to grow. It is a significant part of what the municipalities in my riding use for infrastructure funding. It forms part of the $53 billion in long-term support for infrastructure. It is roads and bridges, water and sewers. They are the things homeowners and businesses need. If we are going to produce the products to get to market, we have to make sure that we have the roads, the bridges and the infrastructure to get them to those markets.

Additionally, we have to realize that what is important for the strength of our businesses and our individuals are low taxes. It does not matter where one goes, low taxes make it. We have the lowest tax structure we have had in 50 years.

This is part of the big plan of the economic action plan that has been started. It will continue to take us through as we grow Canada and our economy. It is indeed my pleasure to say that I will be supporting this budget.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is also a budget that would have hundreds of tax hikes on everything from hospital parking to credit unions and safety deposit boxes. These hikes would cost Canadians nearly $8 billion over five years. I want to ask the member about the hospital parking. I am sure he knows that there is a huge constituency out there of people who are hopping mad about how they get caught by hospital parking. It is very high. Now to know that there would be a tax on top of that from the current federal government would really add insult to injury.

How can the member, after giving that speech, defend that kind of proposition where people would get taxed even on hospital parking?

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the HST is actually already there; it is just now it would be collected. The other part of it is that when we reduced the GST from 7% to 6% to 5%, everybody in this House, except for this side, wanted to oppose that. We have reduced the taxes in this country some 1,900 times. An average family of four would pay $3,200 less per year in taxes than it did when we formed government in 2006.

Therefore, it is pretty clear and really quite obvious. One of the things we talk about is jobs and prosperity, about families and leaving more money in their pockets to buy the things they need, and they make those priorities. It is important that we keep those taxes low so that our families and our businesses can sustain themselves and grow.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member, my colleague, spoke about keeping taxes low. Does he realize that in budget 2010 the Conservative government increased taxes by $729 million, in budget 2011 the Conservatives raised taxes by $2.2 billion, in budget 2012 they raised taxes by $3.5 billion, and in budget 2013 they would raise taxes by $3.3 billion? The cumulative tax increase is about $10 billion, and that does not include the $600 million-plus per year with increases in EI premiums.

Does the member realize that his Conservative government colleagues are tax-aholics, and are they willing to admit they have a problem? The first step in a 12-step program is that they have to first admit they have a problem, that they are tax-aholics over there.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wish I had 10 minutes to answer that question, quite honestly. The members have to know where his numbers may or may not come from. We have the lowest taxes in this country in 50 years. As I mentioned earlier, we have a savings of $3,200 for a family of four.

His comment on EI premiums is interesting. When that member and his party formed the government, they had the EI premiums so high that there was a huge surplus of $57 billion in the EI fund, made up of employers' and employees' money. That previous government saw fit to take that out of that fund, and they wonder how it was so easy to balance the budget. They cannot balance a budget by using other people's money that they have put in for a specific purpose. Not only that, but they gutted the Canadian Forces and cut the transfers to the provinces, for example, in Ontario 25% to health care. We continue to increase our premiums to the health care system in Ontario, 6% across the country. We will not cut costs for our Canadian citizens.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be speaking to Bill C-60 today. I listened to my colleagues across the way and was intrigued to hear them say that they lowered taxes, when really the bill will increase taxes and cost Canadians as much as $8 billion.

The Conservatives lowered taxes, but it will cost $8 billion. Not bad. It reminds me of the scandal surrounding the $3.1 billion. The Conservatives do not know where that money is. Here we are talking about $8 billion. They did not increase taxes, but it is costing $8 billion. As my NDP colleague said, the Conservatives are taxing hospital parking, as if people do not feel bad enough to see someone they care about in the hospital. Often, these people are not well-off, but are people in need. Yet, they will still have to pay a tax on parking when they want to go visit their loved ones.

The Conservatives say that they have not raised taxes. However, they have raised taxes on credit unions, safety deposit boxes and the Fonds de solidarité FTQ, one of the best investment funds in Canada. The number of jobs that have been saved because of this labour-sponsored investment fund is simply incredible. The jobs it saved still exist because the employers, the employees and the union all entered into agreements.

Companies that were about to go bankrupt worked together and this program has proven its effectiveness. No other organization has gotten the same kinds of returns. I am boasting about the FTQ fund because the same type of fund was attempted in New Brunswick, but since there are fewer people in that province—just 750,000 versus 7 million in Quebec—the fund was not the same. However, it worked in Quebec. Seeing that the program worked, the government decided to pull out for one simple reason: it is anti-union. The government treats us as though it is our boss.

I find it funny that the same is not said about chambers of commerce. Chambers of commerce are essentially employer unions. I have not heard the Conservatives say anything bad about chambers of commerce or employer unions. The Conservatives have no problem listening to them. When a business association appears in committee, the Conservatives are all ears. However, the government does not hesitate to bash workers.

I will now talk about the Conservatives on the other side of the House. Imagine this. The budget gave them the opportunity to cancel their changes to EI. They said that they lowered EI premiums. Indeed, they cut premiums. However, they then prevented workers from accessing EI. How smart. The Liberals increased it by nearly 3%. They then stole $57 billion from the EI fund. The only difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals is that the Liberals stole $57 billion from the EI fund and the Conservatives legalized that theft. They passed a bill and then it was done. The theft was legalized. That is the only difference between the two.

We live in a country that has provinces and elected premiers. Workers fall under provincial jurisdiction. The provinces are responsible for workers, their training, and so on. The federal Conservative government says that employment insurance falls under its jurisdiction and that it will decide what happens in the provinces. It is going to take that away from the provinces. During the EI reform in 1996, they decided to create part II of the employment insurance legislation. Part II was supposed to establish training and they were supposed to provide funding to the provinces. Earlier I heard my Conservative colleague across the floor say that they changed all that, because the training being given was bad and useless, because it was just sending people to college. This means that they have no respect for the provinces.

The premiers of the Atlantic provinces met last week. They concluded that this makes no sense at all. Accordingly, they are calling on the federal government to declare a moratorium on the EI changes and to do an impact study.

That would be a sign of respect. Four Atlantic provinces are calling for this, and so is Quebec. These are all Atlantic provinces, in a way. Five provinces of Canada are telling their federal Prime Minister that he is making a mistake and that he is destroying their regional economy.

Who is the Prime Minister to say that that is not how it works, because he held consultations? Who did he consult? New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and Labrador and Quebec are all saying that they were not consulted. It appears that Alberta was the only province that was consulted. Did the Conservatives only consult big oil?

Apart from big oil companies, who has $5,000 to set aside for each employee? Certainly not companies in my region. Small businesses do not have this $5,000. A new start-up that wants to hire 20 people does not have it. If the government wanted to do the right thing and connect workers, I have a recommendation, and it would not cost very much.

In Alberta, foreign workers are hired ahead of Canadians. Training could have been offered to our Canadians.

I would like to talk about a job ad that I have here. It was posted by and for the Government of Canada. It is a job for a scaffolder in Alberta. These are the requirements: education, certificates, licences, courses or memberships: not required; five or more years' experience; language of work: English; other languages: Polish, Portuguese, Punjabi and Spanish. French is not spoken. I have the ad in my hands. There is other information. It is not so bad: English is not required because it is not a basic skill needed to work in the isolated camps located two hours north of Fort McMurray.

I have a suggestion for the government if it wants to find workers. Becoming a scaffolder takes 11 weeks of training. People in my riding would like to work there and they are Canadians. Why not allocate the money needed to provide the 11 weeks of training?

If the government is asking for five years' experience in this job ad, and no education or certification, it is because foreign workers have this experience but not the education or certification. Requiring five years' experience excludes Canadians. We no longer have scaffolders with five years' experience. They all have jobs. The government has excluded workers who could have been trained and put to work.

The Conservatives could have done much better with this budget. This government boasts about being the workers' friend. So what has it done for them? In the Atlantic provinces and Quebec, it is ruining seasonal employment. There are no more seasonal jobs.

The government is jeopardizing seasonal jobs in our regions, whether they are in the tourism or fishing industry. That is what the government is doing and it is unfortunate. The budget before us certainly is not intended for Canadians.

The government is increasing taxes. What is more, this is an omnibus bill. The government has put everything in it. We will debate it for five days, and that is it.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture]

Mr. Speaker, following up on my colleague's last comment about seasonal workers, I would like to know why it is that the member would be opposed to a seasonal worker taking an alternate job within the local region that is a good match for his or her skill set.

These are the parameters of the EI changes. The EI changes are not sweeping changes with no restrictions. The seasonal worker has to have a good skill set match with a job that is available or is being offered, and it has to be within a reasonable distance of where the person lives.

If there is a job offering in the local community, for example, why would the member be opposed to that seasonal worker taking that job when unemployed or at those times when the person is not employed during seasonal work?

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

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

Do the Conservatives know anything about business? Go talk to a company that has trained an employee and paid for that training. If that worker goes elsewhere, the company will lose him. That is what you do not understand about seasonal work.

We see nothing wrong with people working. Do you think we live on another planet? We want people to work. Create jobs instead of having them not work. Have employees work in secondary and tertiary processing plants. Invest in the regions so that people can work in secondary and tertiary processing plants. Create real jobs instead of forcing people to go look for work when there is still work to be done in the plants. That is what is happening.

You are scaring 60-year-old women by saying that they will lose their employment insurance if they do not apply for three jobs that do not exist. That is the problem. You do not want to understand. Even New Brunswick's premier told the government. It is not working. Your—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order please.

I would remind the member to direct his comments through the Chair.

The hon. member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is very passionate. I have been here quite some time watching him be passionate about it.

This is more of a comment than a question. It is about the narrative being spun here, which we have witnessed time and again. On one hand, the Conservatives say that they will help the unemployed worker. On the other hand, literally a few sentences later, the Conservatives will say how dare someone work 45 days a year, despite the circumstances, despite the fact that EI was set up in seasonal areas to help maintain these seasonal industries and to help maintain these communities. They ask: “How dare you work 45 days? However, we will help you”.

This is not about help to them. It is about punishment. It is about being repeat offenders. That is the premise—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

I will keep talking until I get to the point, to the truth. That is exactly how they are framing it. You cannot—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order. We only have five minutes for questions and comments. I would appreciate it if members could keep their interventions brief.

The hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, all I will say to the member is that I have been asking the government the same thing.

Four premiers from four provinces in an area of the country with a lot of seasonal jobs are joining forces. They asked the government to come look at their region. The government flat out refused.

Instead, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development turned around and said that claimants should have a high school diploma to collect EI, that people back home have not changed and would rather receive EI so they can go hunting or fishing. That is an insult to workers. It is one insult after the next. People are tired of that.

We need to respect workers. People in the east are just as respectable as people from western, central Canada or Quebec. Are we all not Canadians? All we want is respect, once and for all, and not to be insulted anymore. That is what we want. Every day the government insults Canadians. It is disgusting.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the cuts and the changes to employment insurance would actually hurt jobs in the tourism sector for sure, as well as probably the fisheries, and since our hon. colleagues on the other side of the House do not understand the life in seasonal communities such as those in Atlantic Canada or in British Columbia in the tourism sector, let me ask all of us here to consider the House of Commons operations.

Do my hon. colleagues here know that the restaurant staff get laid off when we go back to our ridings for Christmas, and are later hired back? They will not be able to find a job. What employer wants to hire someone for two weeks or three weeks, knowing that staff who have been working in the parliamentary dining room for multiple years are expected back to work as soon as we come back?

The system was designed around—