Debates of May 26th, 2009

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly not groundhog day. Or at least it will stop being groundhog day when the day comes that we get some answers with justifications, because the reductions that have been made are not justified.

What is more, on that same day, February 12, I had a question for the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages concerning the Canada prizes. We know these were created to please the people in charge of Luminato, and their promotional documents were even cut and pasted into the budget. The purpose is to give hundreds of thousands of dollars in bursaries to young foreign artists, when what we were asking of the government was money for our artists to enable them to go abroad. They absolutely did not get it.

Three months ago, almost to the day, the minister answered me by saying that there was another project besides the Luminato one. He said he would show it to me and it would be made public in the very near future. He also said that he would be able to talk about it and make factual comments. I would love to talk about it but here we are, three months later, still with no public announcement of any kind.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it seems we have changed gears a little bit. The member is accepting the fact that this government is the government that is putting more support behind the arts than any other government in history. It is putting more money behind the arts than any other government in history.

This government is proud to recognize the importance of a strong arts and culture sector for Canada's creativity and innovation in these challenging economic times. We are proud of our unparalleled commitment to the Canadian artists in all regions of the country, as well as celebrating creativity in the arts at the highest international level. That is our record. That is what we are going to continue to do. We stand four-square behind the artists of this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this adjournment debate to speak to a very important matter that I raised with the minister on March 13, the job losses in my province of New Brunswick. The reality is that the Conservative federal government has not done much since coming to power. In addition to squandering the surplus left by the previous government, it has racked up an incredible deficit.

We wonder if we have hit bottom yet. We are no longer talking about a deficit of $1 billion or $34 billion. We are now talking about a deficit over two years of approximately $120 billion. When will this unreal deficit level off? In the meantime, tens of thousands of workers have lost their jobs across the country. When people lose their jobs, their families lose their livelihood.

In his reply, the President of the Treasury Board stated that the members of the Liberal Party had obstructed or attempted to delay the economic action plan. I would like to refresh his memory. In November 2008, the government and the Prime Minister prorogued Parliament in order to shut it down completely. Basically, it was a way of covering their backs and avoiding a vote of confidence that they would have lost. When the time came to do something, it was already too late. The economic action plan was presented well after the crisis had taken hold.

In the meantime, people are continuing to lose their jobs and to apply for employment insurance. They often need another 9, 11, 13 or 15 hours of employment to qualify for employment insurance. One thing we are asking for is a 360-hour threshold for benefit eligibility.

There is one area where the government is really dragging its feet on going ahead with the economic action plan and job creation. In towns in my riding, the Conservative government boasted about making an announcement in March of this year. Two months later, these same municipalities were still waiting for the go-ahead to issue calls for tenders. Today, municipalities where the government made its announcements in March 2009, two months ago, are still waiting for the go-ahead just to issue a call for tenders. To be legal in New Brunswick, a call for tenders has to allow a 21-day bidding period.

When will these infrastructure projects really start? In July, August, September, October or November? Winter will come and nothing will have even started. The government talks about creating jobs. When people lose their jobs and we want to put them to work again, the government should not claim that the Liberals were blocking things. We need to look at what the government has done to date. It is making announcements, but it cannot give the go-ahead at the same time. Meanwhile, people have lost their jobs and are not working, and other people are losing their jobs and not starting to work again.

Where is the Conservative government in all this? People need to start working again. We need to stimulate our economy. Meanwhile, people are sitting at home waiting to find a job or be called to work in construction.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will certainly relay for the member for Madawaska—Restigouche some of the things that we have been doing.

We are concerned about the job losses being experienced by Canadians but let me be clear that our government is absolutely committed to helping Canadians through this time and we will continue to help them through this difficult time.

Our government is making unprecedented investments to help vulnerable and unemployed Canadians. Among other things, we have extended EI benefits by five weeks, which is more than double the two weeks advocated by the opposition. We have extended the work-sharing program. More than 100,000 Canadians are being protected by working with Canadian employers to share costs and avoid layoffs.

We were and are investing $500 million in skills training and upgrading for long-tenured workers, $1 billion in further training through the EI program and $500 million in training for those who do not qualify for EI. We made changes that will process claims faster and cut red tape for employers. To do so, we have invested more than $60 million for processing, including hiring additional staff to manage the workload and to implement the budget measures. We are monitoring the effectiveness of these measures to ensure they are effectively helping Canadians.

What we will not do is implement the Liberals' 360 hour, 45 day work year idea. The opposition members can say what they want about this scheme but that fact is that it is irresponsible at this time. It is a proposal that would result in a massive increase in job-killing payroll taxes that would hurt workers and businesses alike, especially small businesses that already run on tight margins. The Liberals now say that this scheme will not require higher taxes and that it will come from general revenue. However, where does general revenue come from? It comes from taxes and Canadian workers in businesses.

This irresponsible proposal would not help Canadians find new jobs or get new skills. It would simply add billions to the tax burden on Canadians. However, that is not surprising given that the Liberal leader is borrowing an ill-conceived NDP idea. The NDP have never seen a tax they did not like. However, the Liberal leader is also ignoring the Liberal Party's previous position in this regard from the last time they were in government. The former Liberal government said:

--significantly reducing entrance requirements...is not likely to equate to substantially increased EI coverage, particularly for the long-term unemployed.

In fact, on April 1, 2008, at the HUMA committee, the Liberal EI expert and human resources critic, the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, said:

It's my view that if you get rid of the regional rates and there are changes forced on the EI system because of the economic circumstances, those in [high unemployment] regions will be hurt disproportionately.

Those are not my words. Those are the words of the Liberal critic for EI, the man responsible for advising the Liberal leader on EI policy.

The Liberal leader also said very recently what a Liberal government would do. He said, “We will have to raise taxes”. It is that simple. It is wrong-headed and it is simply the wrong thing to do right now.

This government's economic action plan does help Canadians get new skills for new jobs and is helping Canadians through these difficult economic times. Unlike the opposition, on this side of the House we will not force all working Canadians and businesses to pay more tax at this critical time for a wrong-headed proposal.

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

Mr. Speaker, how ironic of the parliamentary secretary to say such a thing when this afternoon, just a few hours ago, the Prime Minister himself said that his next budget would include tax hikes. He has the nerve to try to make someone else the messenger. We are not the ones who said it. The Prime Minister is the one who said it.

The fact is that we are in the middle of an economic crisis. Who should we be helping during this economic crisis? We should be helping our workers, the people who need help supporting their families.

My specific question was based on the President of the Treasury Board's answer about the economic action plan. Why did the Conservatives make those announcements two months ago when they cannot even give municipalities the contracts so that they can create jobs right away? If the government had done its job two months ago, perhaps even two years ago, infrastructure programs would be putting people to work right now on construction sites in cities and towns.

Why are they waiting? What are they waiting for? Are they waiting for more people to be out of work? Are they waiting for more struggling people to kneel before them and beg for help, for work? Why wait so long? Why mislead the people?

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Liberals to get behind the infrastructure program and watch what is going to happen through the construction season this year and next year. It will certainly add a lot to the economy.

We have invested not only in that area but also an unprecedented amount to help vulnerable unemployed Canadians through $8.3 billion in the Canada skills and transition strategy in order to help Canadians recover and prosper from the economic downturn.

The opposition's plan is absolutely clear, notwithstanding the member for Wascana trying to make something out of nothing and taking something out of context. The fact is the opposition's plan is to raise taxes. It has said that it will have to raise taxes or job killing EI premium additions that will hurt both employers and employees. This will do nothing to help those who are unemployed for a long time to get the skills training they need and get jobs.

What the Liberal plan will do is add billions more to the tax burden of Canadians who are trying to do the best they can in this economy. The idea the Liberals should accept is the idea we have, which is to prepare Canadians for the future and provide jobs now, today and into tomorrow.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in March, I asked the Minister of Finance a question. I said at the time that the interest and fees that the major credit companies charged consumers, big businesses and small and medium-sized businesses had a devastating impact on consumers.

I posed a question to the Minister of Finance some time ago with respect to concerns that Canadians were increasingly bringing to bear on Parliament and parliamentarians, and certainly on our party, about rising credit card fees and rates, not just for consumers but also for merchants and for small businesses.

As the hon. minister knew at the time, he had undertaken to suggest that if we passed Bill C-10 there would be action. I took the minister at his word. It was 70 days before we received any type of response from the government. The response that we had was a first step. I am not sure if we could consider it a half-hearted step, but what is extremely important to all of us as members of Parliament is to ensure that we have a timely resolution to what is a growing concern for Canadians.

That growing concern can best be expressed by a simple fact that the interchange fee, that is the fee that is charged to the merchant for receiving a credit transaction, has been increasing sometimes to the tune of more than double.

The House will know that my work with small business, with small enterprise, particularly retail gasoline marketers, was really the beginning of the concern that was raised with me last year.

Both Visa and MasterCard constitute nearly 95% of all the transactions in this country, so the semblance of competition is certainly not there.

While there is evidence that parliamentarians are getting this, we have a joint committee of industry and the committee of finance together working on the issue of interchange fees and the complexities that it creates. The fact is that in the other place Liberals have been working very hard. The committee work is almost finished there.

This member of Parliament and my party have been very interested in ensuring that the government acts purposely and deliberately.

I know my good colleague and friend, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, will have obviously some comments in terms of defending, but I think we both have to recognize that more can and should be done.

We hope that it will note take more than nine or ten months to finally get the second tranche of action, particularly as it relates to areas where consumers are most affected, things such as dual cycle billing and opportunities for consumers so they can opt out when they find that their interest rates have been increased often without notice.

While it is important to increase the font size of the regulation that would provide larger and better information to consumers and the idea that, for instance, there is more competition, it is very difficult to compare apples with oranges.

I ask the hon. parliamentary secretary, when can he deliver to the House concrete action? Can we expect the next steps to take place as soon as possible and does the minister and his parliamentary secretary consider the issue of credit cards, its bearing on consumers and on merchants, unfinished business?

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend, the member for Pickering—Scarborough East, for his question, as well as his work on the joint committee to which he referred.

In recent months, concerns surrounding the practices of card issuers have garnered increasing attention in the areas, as the member has said, of interchange fees as well as interest rates, business practices and marketplace structure.

Parliament is formally examining this important issue, as the House of Commons finance and industry committees along with the Senate banking committee are currently undertaking studies. In fact, as a member of the finance committee, when possible I have participated in the joint finance-industry hearings on this very subject. We heard from the processors of debit, credit and the gift card transactions. Additionally, the Competition Bureau has also launched an investigation on the competitive environment in which interchange fees are set.

As part of our economic action plan, our government recently announced strong new consumer protection rules with respect to credit cards. Among the new proposed regulations are summary boxes on contracts and applications, clearer implications of minimum payments, timely advanced disclosures of interest rate changes, a minimum 21-day grace period, express consent for credit card increases and limits on debt collection practices, and more.

We believe that when Canadians make the choice to use a credit card, they are not signing away all their rights. As well, Canadians should not need a magnifying glass and a dictionary to read their credit card agreements or applications, and they should not have to be a lawyer to understand them either.

We are focusing on greater clarity and more timely disclosure from credit card issuers when dealing with consumers. Our new consumer friendly rules will empower Canadians by making it easier for them to shop around for the credit card best suited to their needs without fearing they will be taken advantage of later.

Numerous public interest groups applauded our aggressive consumer friendly measures. For instance, the Consumers Association of Canada remarked that all of the things the finance minister has done are actually just what it asked for and that overall, it has to congratulate him.

The Retail Council of Canada declared that it was “pleased that the finance minister has taken these steps today. It demonstrates that the federal government recognizes just how serious the problem has become”.

The Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association noted:

Restaurant owners across Canada support [the finance minister]'s announcement today as a first step in establishing the rules of play for credit cards in Canada...the Minister recognized concerns about the interchange fees that merchants pay as well. “We are thrilled that the Minister recognizes there are two types of credit card consumers: those who use cards to make payments and those who accept payments by credit card”.

We have moved to protect consumers by introducing tough new regulations.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend and colleague, the member for Macleod.

I just wanted to absolutely ensure that the hon. member--I was going to say minister, but perhaps someday down the road--will make an undertaking to take the time required to make the changes necessary for future regulations to protect consumers to a greater extent than simply providing a greater modicum of communication as it relates to debit cards, the entry by Visa and MasterCard and the concern about interchange fees which are having a devastating impact on retailers as we speak. We hope that these issues in fact will be considered by the member and his party.

I know the great synergies in the House on this issue. I know there can be the opportunity for consensus. I am a consensus builder in terms of my record and my reputation, but I can say that this is one of the most fundamental economic issues that we need to deal with.

I encourage the hon. member to make a commitment here and now as to when we are going to see these regulations further enforced.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I again thank my hon. colleague for his efforts and his encouragement for us to make the right moves.

Part of the right moves that we have made in support of our industries and our small businesses is to reduce the small business tax rate, as well as to increase the small business tax rate threshold and to increase the lifetime capital gains exemption for small business owners.

I also draw the member's attention to the words of his Liberal colleague, the member for Scarborough Southwest, in this weekend's Toronto Sun:

We have the best banking system on the globe. The cynical and critical discourse aimed at our banks is troubling.... Instead of having pride in our banking system, we have a penchant to bank bash.

I encourage all colleagues in this House to work to help protect consumers, and we hope that we can do that.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:59 p.m.)