Debates of March 1st, 2007

Divorce Act

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to Standing Order 98, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, March 21, 2007 at the beginning of private members' business.

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

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this adjournment debate and to express my concern about the future of the employment insurance program.

Last week, the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development clearly stated that employment insurance was a rich and worthwhile program for workers. However, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development denied that he had made any such comments. Clearly, the minister is not aware of the reality of the unemployed. The minister and the government are insensitive to the plight of Canadians who have to apply for employment insurance to support their families. Perhaps the minister should come to our regions to see for himself what these workers' lives are like.

Contrary to what he thinks, people who receive employment insurance benefits are by no means well-off. In fact, these people have to support their families on next to nothing. We need to remember that family expenses include groceries, rent, mortgage payments, insurance, car payments, hydro, phone service and much more.

The Conservative government's ideology is of no help to seasonal workers and unemployed Canadians faced with this reality. If the minister still insists that employment insurance is a rich program, can he tell us how he would support his family on so little money?

The Conservative government has done absolutely nothing to help the economy of Atlantic Canada. On the contrary, it has imposed major cuts to economic development programs. We have learned just recently that more than $15 million will be slashed from the ACOA budget. The government ought to be investing in the Atlantic provinces instead, in order to ensure that the same employment opportunities are available to all. I cannot say that this has surprised me, on the contrary. After all, the government in power has a regional development strategy that seems to be nothing but a forced relocation strategy, with no addressing of the employment insurance issue.

Last week, the minister described the EI program as rich and generous to workers., and I do not want to go into the comments made by the parliamentary secretary. I would like to know which workers are being enriched by EI. What they should be saying instead is that not one worker is enriched by such a program. Does the minister still believe that employment insurance is enriching for the workers? That is my question.

I certainly hope that the government will be in a position to say instead that it wants to improve the EI situation and the lot of workers, in order to provide help to those who need it the most. Does the minister still maintain that the program is a rich program for workers?

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development]

Mr. Speaker, the time for these debates is usually reserved for members who believe they did not receive an answer to their question or who require further clarification. I believe anyone who were to refer to Hansard for the minister's response during question period would find that he gave a complete response to the member on that occasion.

In any event, I am pleased to say that employment insurance continues to help Canadian workers adjust to labour market changes. It continues to balance work and family responsibilities.

The government has made substantial progress over the last year. We have simplified and streamlined the whole EI processing system. Today, under this minister and this government, EI routinely meets or exceeds its target of paying 80% of all claims within 28 days across the country.

For the month of January in the member's region, for example, HRSDC processed 86% of all claims within 28 days. In fact, 86.5% of all claims for Newfoundland and Labrador were paid in that timeframe. In Prince Edward Island the number was 90.8%, Nova Scotia 82.1% and New Brunswick 87.9%.

Those are phenomenal percentages of claims that were paid in very short times. I must say that these people in his riding have probably been better served under our Conservative government than ever before under the previous Liberal government. These statistics speak for themselves.

Not only are claimants receiving their benefits quickly, access to them is also very high. Nationally more than 83% of those who pay into the program and have a qualified job separation are eligible for benefits. In areas of high unemployment, such as Atlantic Canada, this increases to more than 90%.

Equally important, evidence shows that both the amount and duration of employment insurance benefits are meeting the needs of Canadians. In fact, the program is designed to ensure that the benefit duration increases when the unemployment rate rises. For example, in areas of high unemployment, as much as 37 week of benefits can be available for the equivalent of as few as 12 weeks of work.

For seasonal workers, it was this government that launched a number of new pilot projects. We continued others and are extending EI transitional measures for two regions in New Brunswick and Quebec.

With regard to benefit amounts, the family supplement enables individuals and low income families with children to receive up to 80% of their insurable earnings.

This is good news for Canada and for those seeking a job. Canadians should be given every opportunity to participate and succeed in Canada's growing economy.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, clearly the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development did not answer my question.

However, one thing is clear. She said that the program meets the needs of workers. As far as meeting the needs of workers, let us be clear. A family must pay rent, grocery bills, electricity, telephone bills and car payments.

Once again, I would like to know if, at the end of the day, the program is valuable. Is it a valuable program for workers or not?

I am wondering if the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development thinks that earning $312 on average per week in New Brunswick on employment insurance makes a person rich. I am wondering if that is enough to pay a family's everyday expenses, when the head of the family is receiving employment insurance.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add that individuals use, on average, less than two-thirds of their employment insurance entitlement before finding employment. The member will be pleased to know that even in areas of high unemployment, claimants rarely use more than 70% of their entitlement. With regard to benefit amounts, the family supplement enables individuals in low income families with children to receive up to 80% of their insured earnings.

Again, for seasonal workers, it was this government that launched a number of new pilot projects, continued others, and is extending employment insurance transitional measures again for two regions in New Brunswick and Quebec.

What is important is what this government is doing on the other side of the employment insurance program. We are creating jobs: 89,000 jobs in the month of January. Our unemployment rate right now is at its lowest level in over 30 years. While some regions are seeing this more than others, all regions are poised to do better than they did under the Liberals and under that member's government.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today to discuss the visitor rebate program, the government's decision to cancel that rebate program, and the implications for Canada's tourism industry, particularly in Atlantic Canada.

The headline in today's Halifax Chronicle-Herald reads “Restore rebates”, in reference to the decision of the government to cancel the visitor rebate program, a decision announced in September along with cuts to women's and literacy programs.

Nova Scotia's premier initially indicated that he did not think the decision would harm the tourism industry. In recent days, however, he has reversed his position. The editorial in today's Chronicle-Herald states:

Former fiddler Rodney MacDonald has changed his tune on dropping Ottawa's tourism tax program. Here's hoping [the] federal Finance Minister...will rewrite his budget score....

It went on to state:

If Mr. MacDonald can see the error of his ways, surely [the finance minister] can summon the courage to admit his rookie government's mistake. Damage has already been inflicted upon the industry by the plans to axe the rebates.

The Canadian tourism industry is worth about $60 billion and is comprised of more than 200,000 mostly small and medium sized enterprises, creating employment for over 1.5 million Canadians.

Tourism is big business in Canada. It generates big tax revenues for governments.

In recent years, the industry has been hit hard by issues, including border requirement issues, the Canadian dollar, 9/11 and SARS.

In 2006, under the current government's watch, Statistics Canada reported that the number of same-day car trips from the U.S. fell 12.5% to 13.7 million, the lowest level since record-keeping began in 1972.

Cancellation of the visitor rebate program will make the industry less competitive in foreign markets and the net result will be lost tax revenue and lost jobs in Canada.

The federal government should not be directly contributing to the challenges facing the industry at this time.

International visitors on prepaid packages, such as cruise ship excursions, bus tours and conventions, get the rebate up front. It is included in the price. That makes Canada more competitively priced at the point of purchase.

Under the government's plan, companies selling packages in foreign markets will be forced to add 6% to their current selling price.

It is worse for provinces with a harmonized sales tax, such as Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Newfoundland and Labrador, where the elimination of the rebate will mean a price increase of 14%.

We already know that in the past the Prime Minister has not demonstrated a lot of compassion for the plight of Atlantic Canadians.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance has in fact accused me in this House of misrepresenting the situation when she said that the visitor rebate program was taken up by only 3% of visitors, that it was not working, and that it was not good value for the money.

In fact, she is misrepresenting the situation.

Tourism operator Dennis Campbell of Ambassatours, one of the largest tour companies in Atlantic Canada, said, “It just doesn't make any sense”. “This is a very real issue,” he said, an important issue, and it “will do significant damage and will result in a significant downturn in our tourism industry and a significant loss of jobs”.

The Tourism Industry Association of Canada stated:

If the measure goes through, it will be a major blow to Canada's competitiveness as a destination and hit the tourism industry hard. It's a revenue grab that will inflate the pricing of Canadian tour packages in foreign markets by an average of 6% while also making visiting Canada more expensive for independent leisure and business travellers.

The parliamentary secretary has not spoken to people in the industry, such as those in the Hotel Association of Canada, in provincial governments, and in tourism industry associations across Canada, all of whom believe that the government is going in the wrong direction on this and that it is a regressive step.

Virtually all the OECD countries with a national consumption tax, including Australia, France, the U.K., Mexico--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance.

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Kings—Hants has once again raised in the House the issue with respect to the tourism industry. My colleague in the Liberal Party would like to know whether the government will keep the visitor rebate program, which is scheduled to be eliminated on April 1.

In budget 2006 Canada's new government committed to identify $1 billion in savings from programs and activities that were no longer effective and did not provide value for money. In fulfillment of this commitment, on September 25, 2006, we introduced a $1 billion expenditure restraint initiative. The purpose of this initiative was to ensure that Canadians hard-earned tax dollars were invested responsibly in effective programs that would meet the priorities of Canadians. Responsible spending is a cornerstone of accountable government.

As part of this $1 billion expenditure restraint initiative, the government announced the elimination of the visitor rebate program effective April 1.

The visitor rebate program provides relief from goods and services and harmonized sales taxes to non-residents who visit Canada. The relief is for tax paid in respect of goods exported from Canada, short term accommodation in Canada, the accommodation portion of tour packages and foreign conventions held in Canada.

Tourists visit our country every year because of its natural beauty, the diversity of our people, the diversity of our regions and climate and the comfort of knowing they can move around freely and securely, and not because of the rebate.

Canada's new government is committed to ensuring that programs focus on results for money, and the current visitor rebate program does not make the grade. If the hon. member does not like the expertise that I provide to the House, I will quote Don Drummond, the TD Bank chief economist. He said:

—certain programs aren't very effective...A good example is the rebate program for tourists who pay the GST. Despite considerable expenditures to make tourists aware they can claim the rebate, fewer than 3 per cent do so.

The BDO Dunwoody CEO/Business Leader survey came back with this finding. It said that leaders of small, medium and large Canadian businesses have “volunteered enthusiasm for ending the GST rebate for visitors”.

That said, the government has heard representations from members of the tourism industry concerning this measure. In fact, the finance committee, of which I am a member, has heard representations from this industry. These representations are being taken into account as the government considers how best to promote tourism in Canada.

I am quite sure the member opposite knows that these representations are being taken into account and would like to take credit for the responsiveness of the government. Of course he cannot do that because he is not a member of the government. The government will respond to these concerns.

We recognize the contribution that tourist dollars make to the Canadian economy. This is why we will continue to support Canada's tourism industry and ensure that it remains internationally competitive.

Currently, Canadians should know that the government invests about $350 million a year directly into the tourism industry through a variety of means.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has mentioned something we have in common. Neither of us are a member of the government. Technically a member has to be in cabinet to be a member of the government.

She quoted a bank economist to describe the impact of this measure on the tourism industry. She did not quote the hundreds of operators across Canada, the organizations representing them. She did not quote the provincial ministers of tourism, who in a letter signed by the minister of tourism for Nova Scotia all came out against the government's decision to cancel the visitor rebate program.

The fact is, on December 4, ministers of tourism from across Canada met with the Minister of Industry. According to the letter sent to the hon. member's minister on December 26, from the provincial minister of Nova Scotia, every minister of tourism from across Canada is opposed to—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance.

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as I have mentioned, the government is listening to these representations. In addition to the $350 million that we are investing directly into the tourism industry each year, which is more than one-third of a $1 billion a year in support that the government provides to tourism, the issues being raised are being taken into consideration as we work toward even further encouraging tourism in Canada.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

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 6:05 p.m.)