Debates of Oct. 30th, 2012

Jobs and Growth, 2012

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not mind responding if it does not take any of my time, because it is a point of order.

I will not lose time. Thank you.

Employment insurance is what I was talking about, if he was listening, on the other side. I said that what was missing in the bill were changes for the workers. That is relevant to the bill, because it is a money bill. Workers will be losing money. To me, it is relevant.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I will take that with agreement. Again, there is only so far one can go with that. I already made that comment once before, a few weeks ago. However, I will allow the member to continue. He has roughly two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think that the questions, comments and what we think about the bill are on the agenda today. We can also talk about what is missing from a bill. We must never limit debate in the House of Commons to the content of a bill ; we must be able to talk about what is missing.

Once again, the government is trying to shut us up so that it does not look bad. What did it do? For example, through its bill it is requiring people to work until the age of 67. This direct attack on workers is unbelievable. The Minister of Finance and the Minister of Labour say that they are doing this to help people. That all this is being done in order to help people.

They want me to talk about Bill C-45. So I will talk about temporary foreign workers. Does it make sense for us to bring in temporary foreign workers who will be paid 15% less than Canadians? What does this mean? It means that employers will be able to keep temporary workers in their businesses. There is a reason why Canadians who go to work in Cap-Pelé are sent home after working 20 hours. Temporary workers can stay for 40 hours.

There is a reason that, in Caraquet, some workers are not called back to work in a fish plant. Temporary foreign workers have taken their place because the employer can pay them 15% less and make them work in a different way given the regulations in effect in New Brunswick. There are laws that are not obeyed in New Brunswick. If the poor foreign worker who wants to earn money disagrees with what his employer says, the employer calls Immigration Canada and says that the worker he got is not working out.

How can employers bring temporary foreign workers to their workplaces when the unemployment rate in Acadie—Bathurst is 20%? That is crazy.

Here is what the Conservatives are doing with this bill: they are opening the door to what I call “foreign worker slavery” and to the loss of jobs for local workers. Then they turn around and tell us that they want our people to work.

Here is what they really want: they want our people to go work out west, and they want foreign workers to do seasonal jobs, pay taxes and pay employment insurance premiums before being sent back to their country without receiving any benefits at all.

The government could do the same thing the Liberals did: take $57 billion contributed by workers and spend it however it wants. That is what the Conservatives are doing, but it is not the right thing to do. People need to wake up and realize that.

I am proud that I went to the demonstration in Campbellton this week. However, I was not proud to see the fear in people's eyes, nor was I proud of the way the government has treated workers.

I meant it when I asked what workers did to the Conservative Prime Minister to make him hate them so much. Because that is the truth: he hates workers. He is constantly making their lives more difficult.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is generally a pretty jovial guy, so it is surprising to see him so grumpy today and so negative about this bill. There are a lot of good measures in Bill C-45. The registered disability savings plans are being improved. The EI credit for small business employers is being continued. It is a credit of up to $1,000 against a small business employer's increase in 2012 premiums. This is available to over 536,000 employees.

Does my colleague agree with these improvements in Bill C-45? Finally, I would like to ask if he could also say how he feels about the comments of his former leader, Mr. Broadbent, when he said:

Taxes are the hinge that links citizens to one another and to the common good...We should also consider...implementing taxes on very large inheritances of wealth which pass morally-unjustifiable class privilege.... Significant revenues could be raised by the introduction of a financial transaction tax... Green taxes—such as a carbon tax and higher taxes on natural resources—need to be considered as a means of financing

I would like my colleague to respond to those three questions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will answer the member's question about taxes my way, with what I think. If people were not paying any taxes we would not have hospitals, schools or highways. We would not have any of that. Instead the government wants us to believe that it will give $100 to parents to take care of their children, but at the same time it will take back half of what it has given them at income tax time. That is the Conservative Party's way. It gives tax breaks at one end and then grabs money back at the other end.

Most of the jobs being created in our country right now are part-time jobs. Most young people between the ages of 15 and 24 are working part-time. Those are the kinds of jobs that have been created. Looking at the big number, people are working three jobs. That is what the Conservative government has done. How many of those young people who go to school and work hard and have university degrees are working part-time? That is what the Conservative government has done. Instead of creating steady jobs for those people, they are creating more part-time work. The Conservatives tell us that according to a study that was done they are creating jobs. They are actually the creators of people losing their jobs. Nineteen thousand people in the public service have lost their jobs. They were providing a service to Canadians.

That is not what Canada is all about, my friend.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I would remind all speakers to address their comments to the Chair, not to other members of Parliament.

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Cape Breton--Canso.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have to comment first on the point of order that was brought up by friend from Essex. It is easy to wander off on this legislation when it is as sprawling as it is. It is easy to think that perhaps a member has gone a bit off topic. That is probably why the minister could not answer two-thirds of the questions that were posed at finance committee, because they were under the realm of somebody else's portfolio. On behalf of all opposition members, I will issue an apology through you, Mr. Speaker, to the member for Essex for our tendency to wander.

Fifty-three per cent of the regional GDP in Atlantic Canada is found through seasonal industries such as the fishery, agriculture, forestry and tourism. What kind of impact will these cuts to EI have on these sectors? In my riding they will have a decimating impact on access to skilled labour for those industries. I would like to get my colleague's opinion as to how the cuts will impact his riding?

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst has only 30 seconds to answer the question.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have never in my 15 years as a member of Parliament received so many calls from employers saying this is hurting their industries. Their industries are respectable. Their jobs are seasonal. They are losing their people. I have never received so many calls. As a matter of fact, I never received any before, but I have received many since the spring.

Canadians like our lobster. Canadians like our cod fish. Canadians like all our fish. They love to come to the Atlantic as tourists, and we welcome them. The government is hurting all of those industries.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to participate in the debate on Bill C-45, the jobs and growth act, 2012.

This act would implement key initiatives that would bolster Canada's economy and help improve communities across Canada with measures that create jobs, support families and communities and respect taxpayer dollars.

Many of my colleagues have, over the course of this debate, highlighted the numerous important measures that are proposed in the bill. These include extending the hiring credit for small business, removing red tape, reducing fees for our grain farmers and improving the administration of the Canada pension plan.

However, I would like to use my time today to focus on the aspects of the bill that are key to the continued economic growth of my riding of Prince George—Peace River, namely our government's commitment to the streamlining of the regulatory process in order to promote the responsible development of our natural resource sector.

As we all know, a key part of our nation's future lies within our natural resources. In my riding, these resources play a significant role in the local economy. Few regions are as blessed with natural resources as British Columbia, and this sector has been a key driving force for our local economy for decades.

Few jobs in the region are not directly affected by the development of these resources. Nationally the natural resources sector, directly and indirectly, accounts for nearly 20% of our economy. That is one-fifth of all economic activity in Canada. It is massive.

That generates 800,000 high-quality jobs in Canada. Add to that the additional 800,000 indirect jobs in other sectors, and we have close to 1.6 million jobs that depend on natural resource development, nearly 10% of all jobs in Canada. It is huge indeed.

There are more than 600 major Canadian resource projects planned over the next 10 years or currently under way. These projects represent approximately $650 billion in investments, a significant increase from the $500 billion in investments that had been identified only a year ago.

It is no secret that in today's modern society, all of us use natural resources on a daily basis, and it is clear by these numbers that the global demand for these resources is growing even stronger. However, we will have to compete with those other resource-rich countries for those vital job-creating investment dollars.

Acting on this opportunity means putting in place a world-class regulatory system. We need a system that ensures timely, efficient and effective reviews, a system that promotes business confidence in investment while strengthening our world-class environmental standards.

In economic action plan 2012, we introduced our government's responsible resource development plan, and in Bill C-45 we are continuing in our efforts to streamline the regulatory process while also maintaining rigorous environmental standards.

This commitment to streamlining the regulatory process and responsibly developing our natural resources would have a positive impact on all Canadians. In doing so, we would not be only creating and sustaining high value jobs and economic growth, but also generating billions of dollars in tax revenues to help pay for important social services.

Let me be clear. Despite continued fearmongering on the part of the opposition, projects would not proceed unless they could be done safely and responsibly. Eliminating duplication or updating legislation does not mean we are weakening the environmental standards. On the contrary, by streamlining our regulatory process we can focus environmental assessments on major projects.

For example, our proposed changes to the navigation protection act are a continuation of our government's commitment to streamlining the regulatory process. These changes would clearly define the major waterways upon which regulatory approval is required, and rely on the common law to protect navigation in non-listed waterways.

Canada's waters would continue to be protected by Transport Canada's marine safety laws, the Fisheries Act and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012, as well as various provincial statutes.

In fact, Canada has nine acts of Parliament governing marine safety. These strict rules and regulations govern the development and shipment of products like oil and gas to safeguard public health and the environment. For example, Canada requires ships to provide 24 hours' notice before entering its waters.

The federal government also inspects every foreign tanker on its first visit to a Canadian port and, for vessels making multiple visits, at least once a year thereafter.

All large crude oil tankers must now be double-hulled. Smaller vessels must be double-hulled by the end of 2014.

Thanks to tough legislation and technological innovations, there have been no spills from double-hull tankers in Canadian waters, period. Nor have there ever been spills from tankers escorted by tugs with a local pilot aboard.

In addition, oil-handling facilities are required to have oil pollution prevention plans and oil pollution emergency plans in place. The government reviews the plans and equipment and evaluates the oil-handling facility's capabilities through exercises. With regard to pipeline safety, pipelines are currently the safest and most efficient method of transporting large volumes of oil and petroleum products over long distances, and our government has similarly tough legislation and rules in place to prevent spills.

The National Energy Board subjects pipeline development proposals to an extensive review that ensures pipelines are safe and protect the environment and the public. Permits are only granted once environmental issues and first nations concerns have been considered. Pipelines and equipment must also meet Canadian Standards Association specifications, which are considered among the most stringent in the world. Safety, integrity and emergency response programs specific to each company's infrastructure are regularly reviewed and audited by the National Energy Board. The ongoing monitoring of pipelines, inspections and site visits, as well as the ability to issue mandatory compliance orders, are also some of the tools in place to ensure pipeline safety. We are taking every possible measure to reduce the risks associated with resource development and transportation. In fact, we are going further than any government before, under our responsible resource development plan.

Why am I bringing up all these important safety measures? While Bill C-45 would continue our government's commitment to streamline the regulatory process, we would continue to have a rigorous environmental review process that would ensure our resources are developed responsibly.

As I said previously, my riding of Prince George—Peace River is a resource-rich region in Canada, with many of my constituents reliant on the development of our natural resources.

I strongly believe that we must continue to remove duplication from our regulatory system, while also ensuring that our changes would not negatively affect our strict environmental protection standards. I believe that is what we would do with the measures we have introduced in Bill C-45. We can remain good stewards of the environment and our natural resources at the same time. That is why I am proud to support Bill C-45.

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very familiar with the area my hon. colleague represents. I have travelled all over northwest British Columbia. Major pieces of infrastructure could go through rivers like the Dease and the Stikine, as well as lakes where the water is safe to drink. These regions should be protected by UNESCO, because they are very sensitive ecosystems.

Is my colleague worried about the fact that there is almost nothing left to protect these waterways and lakes? What does he think of the fact that there are practically no more environmental hearings? What will protect that area?

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I had the experience of working on pipelines as a young guy, and one of the jobs we worked on was actually a replacement of a pipeline that was 50 years old. We saw that on the side wall there was hardly any erosion with a 50-year-old pipeline. It was basically intact, the way it was put in the ground 50 years before. This was from 50 years ago in terms of the standards and the rest of it. We are proposing even more increased standards than we had then and than are in place today.

I do not see any concern in terms of navigable waters or of the waters of concern that the member mentioned. I do not see it. Frankly, we live around pipelines all the time in northeastern B.C. and see very few incidents.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Speaker, we previously heard from some of my colleagues from Atlantic Canada that the previous Conservative budgets are killing their area. In Cape Breton, we see what they have done, with more than 300 jobs being cut, and now we will see it with the seasonal help.

In this budget, in the previous budget and in budgets to come, do the Conservatives have a bit of a plan of privatizing rural Canada, of taking services out of rural Canada, whether it is Parks Canada, the EI changes, what they are doing to fisheries and what they did with the Wheat Board? Is there some sort of agenda here to privatize rural Canada? Can my colleague answer that question?

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I said before in my speech, responsible resource development is about jobs, especially in my riding.

The member asked the question about jobs and I would say 100% of our jobs are either directly or indirectly related to natural resource development in Prince George—Peace River. The jobs question is an obvious one. It produces jobs and will produce jobs for well into the next century. Natural resource jobs will be part of our story and a good positive economic story for Canada.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me congratulate the member. The member who represented that riding before was an esteemed member of the House and I think the current member is doing a fine job. His constituents should be proud of him.

He talked about the importance of streamlining regulations. The Navigable Waters Protection Act has been causing tremendous problems and cost delays, especially for the forestry industry. I point the member to some testimony at the Standing Committee on Transport in 2008, where one official testified that the forestry industry would go into an area, say every spring, that they would typically cut and they would have to, at times, seek individual approvals for up to 3,000 temporary bridges over creeks that no one could even get to with a canoe or a kayak.

That will now not be the case. What does the member think about that, particularly for the forestry industry in his riding?

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, just to confirm what the member said, in the reviews prior to this, the environmental assessments have been done on even the most minor projects. We have seen the replacement of a culvert have an EA or the construction of a boat launch have an EA, or a similar project as the member referred to. These simply are not going to be required under the legislation. It is appropriate. EAs are meant for higher impact projects and the fact that we are moving in a way that streamlines the process is a good thing.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to join this debate. Certainly, there have been some valid arguments brought up, especially with respect to the size of the bill. I want to speak particularly about one aspect of the bill and that is the changes to EI. However, certainly the size of the bill is worth noting off the top of my comments.

We look at the vast impact it has on so many different government departments and pieces of legislation. To lump them all into one omnibus bill was a practice that was very much frowned upon when our current Prime Minister was a member of Parliament back through the mid-nineties and was the leader of the opposition. He spoke passionately in the chamber about his opposition to omnibus legislation. Probably one of the most interesting debates we could have would be between the current Prime Minister and himself circa 1993, because I think we are looking at two different people with respect to what he said then and how he practises the administration of his duties currently as Prime Minister.

Between the years of 1993 and 2001, the total number of pages in the budgets presented by the then Liberal governments still would not add up to the number of pages in this particular budget and the impact that it has on the various departments.

As I indicated earlier, the Minister of Finance appeared before the finance committee and could not answer two-thirds of the questions because they fell under the responsibility of the Minister of the Environment or the Minister of Fisheries or the Minister of Transport. To lump all of these into one bill, I think it is a huge injustice. We have heard that from group after group. Certainly, we in the Liberal Party do not support a budget of this size and the approach that the government has taken.

I want to speak specifically about the changes to EI but, even more importantly, about the widening of the gap between the rich and the poor that has gone on since the government has taken power. Today there was a study released citing an increase of 31% in the use of food banks since 2006. In a perfect world we would not have food banks. Unfortunately, there are some people who slip through the cracks for one reason or another. However, to see that the usage has increased by 31% since 2006 is substantive.

What worries me is that we know who would be impacted by certain measures in the bill, such as increasing the age of OAS from 65 to 67. It would not impact corporate lawyers.

It is funny that today the Minister of Human Resources talked about what the government is doing with respect to income splitting for the poor people in this country. I am sure the guys down at the Salvation Army hostel were high-fiving each other when they heard that the government is coming forward with income splitting.

First of all, one has to have an income before it can be split. The government has turned its back on the most vulnerable in our society time after time, and certainly in this instance.

When we look at the increase in the OAS from 65 to 67, that would hurt the poor, the low-income earners in our community, the people who are not in a position to save going forward. They are just able to pay their bills from week to week, let alone save going forward.

This would also hurt those people who try to get by living with disabilities. I have had an opportunity to speak with several groups that represent people with disabilities. They say when some of these people hit 65 and get OAS and the guaranteed income supplement, that is the most wealth they have ever had in their entire lives. They hit easy street when they finally reach 65 and are able to receive OAS and GIS. We are widening the gap.

I want to speak specifically about the changes to EI and one of the programs in particular, working while on claim. This was a fairly good pilot project, one that was started in 2005 under a Liberal government and renewed by the Conservative government in 2007 and renewed once again.

It was a program for people receiving EI benefits who wanted to earn some additional money and had an employer who had a job for them to fill. It would allow them to earn 40% of their EI premium. If they were making $200 a week on EI, they could make $80 and keep that $80. It was a program that worked fairly well. For someone making full benefits on EI, they could make $195 without losing a dollar.

The government said it was going to increase the program to 50%, but it did not say the 50% was on total earnings. There was no mention of that being on total earnings. Now what happens is that people lose the 50¢ right from dollar one. Now that person who was making $200 a week and made $80 in a part-time job would lose $40 of that.

What is that doing to our economy, especially in communities that are driven by seasonal industries? I got a call from a farmer from Prince Edward Island. He tried to get someone to come and grade potatoes for an afternoon—

[The Deputy Speaker]

On a point of order, the hon. member for Essex.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, again, the member said he was going to get up and speak about EI and the budget implementation bill.

The only two measures contained in here are the extension for one year of the EI hiring credit and the rate setting for the EI finance board, the continued mechanism for setting the rates for employment insurance. Working while on claim was in a different bill.

I would ask that some modicum of relevance be enforced in that regard.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am not totally disagreeing with the objection. If the member can stay within the parameters of the bill, it is preferable. Since there is only about two and a half minutes left, perhaps the member could address comments to that part of the bill.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, if I could, on the same point of order, I would say it is the budget implementation bill and the budget included changes to the working while on claim program that will devastate local economies. It did away with the five-week extension that is going to hurt areas of high unemployment in this country. I think those points are relevant.

The Conservatives are talking about jobs, and there are some people who want jobs but are not able to access those jobs. The relevance is obvious.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am not finding that it is irrelevant. I think I was clear on that. On the other hand, if the speaker also wants to address these other two points, I would invite him to do so.

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

Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order. I would just ask for clarification.

If there is a bill in the House, I cannot see why we cannot talk about what is not in the bill to correct certain measures. It is a bill on—

[The Deputy Speaker]

I think we have made it clear. The Speaker has made it clear in other rulings that relevancy allows for that type of an approach. I think it is also clear that one cannot apply one's entire time in the course of a speech, whether it be a 10-minute speech or a 20-minute speech, on what is not in the bill.

Perhaps the member can stay within those parameters, which have been a long-standing practice in the House. It is correct to say, “This is something that should be in the bill”. That is quite acceptable, but the member cannot spend his entire time on that.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Once again, Mr. Speaker, that is a very fair and just ruling, which I appreciate.

I will be quizzed by the other side on why I do not support this budget implementation bill because of the EI credit for new hires. Every bundle of thorns may have a couple of roses in it. Actually, that is not a bad measure. That is a good measure and I support it, but it is the other measures around that.

The other problem around this are the employers in rural communities that operate seasonal industries. They will not have employees to hire if families are unable to sustain themselves in rural communities. That is the essence of how I would tie this together. The credit will be no good to them if there are no skilled workers in those communities left to support those industries.