Debates of Dec. 3rd, 2013

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question.

As a politician and a keen economic observer, I believe that we have been making mistakes collectively in the west for the past 35 years. The real problem is that, despite the claims from the right, and especially the far right, there has been no clear evidence of any collective prosperity linked to the withdrawal of the state, tax cuts, downsizing or the slashing of our social programs; on the contrary.

As my hon. colleague explained, it is a fact: the majority of Canadians are paying the price, especially since incomes are no longer keeping up with the cost of living. Only a fraction of the population is enjoying increased wealth, although even that increase is really slowing down. Indeed, I would remind the House that the Bank of Canada reduced its growth projections for Canada to 1.6%, which is very troubling.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague started to talk about what the bill does to workers' rights. We know that some elements of Bill C-4 will violate workers' rights. There have been other bills, such as Bill C-377, which forced unions to disclose their financial information to the general public, even though this information is already provided to their members. Bill C-525 goes even further with respect to the right to organize.

Is my colleague concerned about this trend? The Conservatives are trying to weaken workers' groups and groups that advocate for workers' rights, the rights of average Canadians, of those who work hard every day. At the same time, they are giving rights and powers to the minister. Does the member share my concern?

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her excellent question, because that is a very big concern.

In fact, I will focus on a very specific aspect that Bill C-4 will change. Right from the very first day that we studied this bill, an army of public servants were able to answer our countless questions, actually only a fraction of the countless questions we had.

I would like to cite a very specific example because I want to focus on the measures that will affect the public service. The new arbitration, the new powers assumed by the minister will affect other sectors of activity. With regard to the definition of essential services, the official who answered my questions did confirm that no category of workers, no public servant could be automatically excluded from being providers of an essential service. If the minister ever abused his power, litigation would be the only recourse. Therefore, this is a means of bringing the courts into labour relations. This is a very serious mistake because we should always encourage negotiation. That will absolutely not be the case with this bill, and it is setting the stage for a generalized deterioration of the climate in which working conditions are negotiated for workers in general.

I again thank my colleague for her question.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Hochelaga, Infrastructure; the hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, Science and Technology.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak again to Bill C-4. I had the opportunity to speak to it at second reading before it went to committee.

I am happy to talk to my friend from the Liberal Party and ensure that he understands what is in Bill C-4.

What I found funny this week when I was listening was that I was speaker 69 last time and I think the speaker before me wanted to go to the vote on it, and I know we are relatively close to that again this time.

We have had a large number of speakers to the bill. It was funny that we were hearing from the opposition that we were not given enough time to speak on the bill. Then this week, I hear from a number of opposition members that we keep repeating ourselves. We keep repeating ourselves because there is only so much in this bill and everybody understands what is in it. One either agrees or disagrees with it. It is not that complicated.

The opposition says that it is an omnibus bill. Yes, it is a couple of hundred pages: 100 in French, 100 in English. Can they read that? I am not sure. I know I can and I am pretty sure my opposition members can read that much.

Anyway, I want to talk about the areas in Bill C-4, which is the implementation bill of the budget and other measures. People seem to miss the title of the bill, which does say “other measures”. Therefore, it was not just what was in the budget in the spring, but other measures that this government thought were important to bring forward and to get through the House, and I will talk a little about that.

I want to talk about the things that directly affect my riding.

The first thing I want to speak about is the lifetime capital gains exemption basically for small business. The largest employer in my riding has about 600 employees. The municipality, in fact, has about that many employees, or a bit less. The vast majority of employers in my riding are small and medium-sized businesses.

These businesses are often individually owned businesses or group owned. Very few are traded on the stock market, but there are some there, such as financial offices of different organizations in terms of credit. We have components of different larger organizations, but the vast majority are medium-sized businesses owned by small groups of individuals or individuals themselves.

Through this bill, we would increase the capital gains. Business owners could save based on the amount they could retain after they sell their business or pass it on. Small and medium-sized businesses are often passed on to family members. The sale of a business would allow for money to be left in the pockets of the entrepreneurs. They created the jobs and economic activity in my riding and have earned the right to retain earnings. It is their retirement often.

Not all businesses in my riding own their buildings or real estate, for example. Therefore, the retained earnings they would get and the savings they would make on the change to the capital gains exemption would be significant to them, to their families and to their retirement.

We often hear concern about turning a business over, whatever that business might be, because of the cost of capital gains and what would be left in one's pocket after the taxes were paid. This measure would allow for a little more to stay in an owner's pocket, which I think is very important.

The next thing I want to talk about is the accelerated capital cost allowance for clean energy generation equipment.

We have the ACCA on a number of items across the country. It is part of the accounting packages that we allow for accelerated capital cost allowance. Basically, it would allow a company to write-off capital expenditures much faster than it would have been able to under normal charts in terms of expected lifespan. It is an accounting piece that would allow companies to invest in equipment and realize profits from that equipment in a much quicker manner. I am very supportive of that.

Part of it is that we have included clean energy generation and clean energy equipment that did not qualify previously for the accelerated capital cost allowance, and this does that. For companies in my riding, if they are not directly involved in the clean energy generation business but are suppliers of those businesses—for example, parts for equipment they may buy—it makes a significant difference to those small and medium-sized businesses being able to take advantage of that ACCA.

I would now like to talk about the hiring credit for small business. In budget 2011, we brought forward the $1,000 per employee small business hiring credit, and we are continuing that process through Bill C-4. This would allow those small and medium-sized businesses in my riding an opportunity to grow, to provide economic growth not just for Burlington but for Ontario and for Canada.

Growth comes in a number of ways, through sales and so on, and if businesses continue to grow, they often need more people. We want to encourage employment through Bill C-4, through our whole budget, our economic action plan, and this mechanism helps encourage employment, particularly for young people in my riding of Burlington. It is a relatively expensive place to live, and we are having an issue with young people who have grown up and gone to high school in Burlington, have gone away for post-secondary education either at McMaster next door in Hamilton, in the area or across the country, and are having a hard time finding positions to come home to in Burlington. The mayor and the city council have looked at this. The small business hiring credit would assist small businesses in my riding to hire young people and help them get started in their careers after their education.

We are doing what we can federally, as is the municipality through a number of programs, to encourage local employment for young people, particularly ones who have a connection with our community and have added to its quality of life.

The other couple of areas I would speak to are on the other categories in the bill. I am fortunate enough to be the chair of the justice committee, which I will talk about last; but first, I have also been fortunate to be assigned to the citizenship and immigration committee, which is a new experience for me. I had not been on that committee before, and this fall I was asked to sit on the committee. I have enjoyed my time there. Part of the discussion we have been having was with Bill C-4. As members know, there were a number of areas under the “other” category, and the finance committee sent those parts of Bill C-4 to those committees for further study.

At the citizenship and immigration committee, we had the opportunity to talk about two things that are in Bill C-4. One is the passport issue. I think we have done the appropriate thing. People who come into my office to talk to me about passports are somewhat surprised, and even I was surprised, that passports were under Foreign Affairs. In actual fact, we are moving it over to Citizenship and Immigration, where it is more appropriate for it to be managed, and that would make for a better system.

My final point is that the Supreme Court Act was also submitted in Bill C-4 and was referred to my committee. We had excellent committee meetings on this issue. We talked about what we are doing, moving forward, in being able to appoint individuals to the Supreme Court. It was an excellent discussion. We had a number of meetings with a variety of different witnesses, suggested mostly by the opposition, so we were able to deal with that issue and send it back to finance. I think it was the appropriate thing to do.

I am happy to answer any questions that may come my way.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when public servants testified before the Standing Committee on Finance, they said that eliminating the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board is what lead to the surplus being taken from the employment insurance fund and put into the consolidated revenue fund. The government does not put a single cent into the employment insurance fund; workers and employers do. Taking that money makes it more difficult for workers to access benefits that they have already paid for.

How can the member justify that government measure?

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's questions, and I will say hello to her sister-in-law from Burlington when I see her.

The fact of the matter is that the government looks at all programs, including EI, and we look to where there are efficiencies and effectiveness. I was not at the finance meetings to hear what the public service witnesses had to say, so I am not sure what their testimony was.

I am very proud of this side of the House, this government. When we came to office we looked at the EI program, and the member is absolutely right that EI is funded by the employer and the employee, and we set up a fund for that money to go into so that governments could not take that money and use it for general expenses, as has been the case in previous years. So we set that up and I am happy with what we are doing. It is only appropriate for EI and all programs that the government of the day look at how to be more efficient and more effective in providing the services that those programs are to provide, and I am supportive of what we are doing in the EI program.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with lots of interest to my colleague go on and on about what he considers successes but what many of us on this side would challenge. We actually led the way when dealing with an almost-bankrupt government back in 1993 as a result of previous Conservative governments, when they had an opportunity to be here.

However, I want to ask the member very specifically about the issue of the refundable tax credit for the disabled, and whether he really understands that non-refundable tax credits are only good for those people who have an income. For the somewhere around four million people who are in need of this tax credit, with all of the wonderful things the member talks about why is it that nobody was paying attention to changing that disability tax credit to apply to the people who do not have enough income and truly are deserving and need that? And why has the government not decided to make that a fully refundable tax credit and really help people who are very much in need?

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I actually really appreciate that question from the member opposite.

First, by definition, a tax credit is to credit people for taxes paid. If they do not pay taxes, they do not get the credit. I am not sure if the member opposite knows, but there are, I believe, three non-refundable tax credits in our system now, only three. I could be corrected on that; it could be five, but there are very few.

I agree that support for those with disabilities is very important. In my home, my wife works for Easter Seals, which provides services and support to families with children with physical disabilities. I completely understand the issue, and I am completely supportive of doing what we can. I am not sure that using the tax system, making tax credits refundable or non-refundable, is the appropriate use of the system in solving the issue that the individual has brought forward.

I am in favour of having non-refundable tax credits because people need to be paying taxes to get their taxes back. There are other methods to attack other issues in all public policy, not just for disabilities.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak on behalf of my constituents from Surrey North. I have patiently been trying to listen to the gibberish that has been coming from the government benches. I think that the members are allergic to facts, so I will try to focus on some of the facts that have been misrepresented on the government's side. I will be speaking to a number of issues during my time.

I, too, had a chance to speak at the second reading of Bill C-4, and I was hoping that some of the discussion that took place in the House and in committee would be taken into account by the Conservatives to perhaps make some amendments to the bill. Unfortunately, as usual, they have failed to do that.

After the summer and the prorogation of Parliament, the Conservatives were going to hit the reset button, restart their engines and work for Canadians. Unfortunately, during the month that was lost in the summer prorogation, I do not think the Conservatives learned anything or listened to Canadians. It is unfortunate.

I think they never actually got outside of the Ottawa bubble to talk to the people in their constituencies or talk to people with real issues and real problems. I think the Conservatives never left Ottawa, because we started from the same place where we left off in June. Basically, the government has lost track of Canadian priorities.

I will tell the House what the Canadian priorities are. Canadian priorities are jobs. They want jobs for our youth, our young people who are unemployed. We have a really high unemployment rate for our young people. They want training for our young people. The Conservatives talk about hiring tax credits of $1,000, and we say let us increase it to $2,000 for small businesses so that we can get young people trained and hired by small businesses.

Conservatives will talk about how small businesses are the economic engine of the economy. I agree with them, but what have they done? They have done nothing at all. They have failed to deliver on what they are saying in the House over and over again. I have seen it over and over again.

Let us talk about other Canadian priorities. They are focused on high debt ratio for our households. That is a huge issue. Last week, I had a chance to talk with the representatives of FCM. I had a number of mayors and councillors from British Columbia come to visit me. Guess what their priorities were? Their number one priority was the housing crunch that is coming in this country. Yet in this bill here, we do not see it. The Conservatives are not addressing it.

Their number two priority was money for the infrastructure that has basically been neglected by the government over the years. Infrastructure money has not been given to municipalities, so that we can have flourishing businesses, transportation to move our goods, and people on these infrastructure projects that are creating well-paying local jobs. That is not in this bill.

The FCM representatives are local people and councillors from my municipality. They are people from Vancouver and throughout British Columbia. Their third priority was rail safety. That is not being addressed by the Conservative government.

Again, I am guessing that the Conservatives never left the bubble. It is time they went back to their constituencies and talked to real people.

Real people are talking to me. I have talked to hundreds of people, and they are very concerned. They are concerned about the changes that are in this bill, particularly the safety of workers that is being denigrated in this bill. I have had a number of constituents talk to me personally, and they have emailed me too. I will quote from an email I received from one of my constituents. This is the last lines of the email:

These amendments will turn back the clock on worker health and safety and endanger lives. I strongly urge you, as my MP, to oppose these amendments, and to insist these provisions be removed from Bill C-4. These proposed changes will inevitably lead to a higher number of deaths and injuries of Canadian workers.

Guess who said that. It is a person from my constituency. I have a list of names: Narinder Gill, Paul Belanger, Shelby Carpenter, Emily Stonehouse, Gursharan Shergill, Sharanjit Grewal, Kal Atwal, Lisa Klynstra, Lawrence Cameron, and Kim Buss. There are many more emails and names of real people on the ground who are concerned about the health and safety of Canadian workers, yet the government is not addressing the issues.

I constantly hear the Conservatives talk about how they are good managers of the economy, how well they are doing, and how they are lowering taxes. During the last six or seven years, guess how much debt they have put on Canadians. It is $100 billion. I will use their analogy. That is $12,000 of extra debt for every family of four. That is their record. That is the load they are leaving for our future generation. I have two kids. They are burdening my kids and every Canadian family's kids.

Let us talk about trade. When they became the government, we had a trade surplus of $26 billion. Guess what the trade surplus is now. Actually, it is not a surplus now; it is a deficit of $62 billion. They talk about how they are going to expand trade and reach new markets, yet the record of the current government is that we have gone from a trade surplus of $26 billion to a trade deficit of $62 billion.

There was a trade committee meeting this morning. We had a representative from the Canadian Council of Chief Executives appear. I asked her if tariffs on goods coming into Canada are a tax, and she said absolutely. The tariffs on goods coming into this country are a tax on Canadian families.

The government has taken 70 countries out of a tax bracket for certain goods. That means that goods coming from those countries will now have a tariff, which, in turn, is basically a tax on Canadians. I am talking about everyday goods families use, such as clothing and spices. My family uses lots of spices. Those are consumer goods. The Conservatives talk about their consumer agenda. Their actual agenda is an additional tax, through tariffs, on Canadian families. That is their true record.

There are many other issues they had a chance to address in Bill C-4. They had a chance to create real jobs, help young families, and help working class families, yet they have failed to deliver over and over.

They had a chance to recalibrate over the summer, yet they have not listened to Canadians at all. We thought they would learn from their previous mistakes with regard to omnibus bills, yet when they returned to the House, they brought forward another omnibus bill. This is not a 200-page bill. This is a 300-page bill, and it addresses 70 different pieces of legislation. They need to break the bill up so that we can have a true picture of how it would affect Canadian families and businesses.

The Conservatives say one thing in the House and do exactly the opposite. I think the Conservatives are allergic to facts and research. The fact is that they have a terrible record on economics. They have a terrible record with regard to the deficit; they have had a $100 billion deficit in the time they have been in government. They have a terrible record on trade. They are not listening to Canadian families. They are not working for Canadians. They need to put the interests of Canadian families first and create jobs, which they have failed to do.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his excellent speech. At the end, he said that the Conservatives are allergic to facts. I agree with that.

The Conservatives are touting themselves as the best economic managers. I would like to share some facts about the economy specifically. These facts demonstrate that, in fact, the Conservatives are bad for the economy. There are things that should have been included in the budget bill but were not. They put everything in this bill, including the kitchen sink, but they forgot to include important economic measures.

I would like to talk about one issue in particular. Youth unemployment in Canada sits at 14.1%, or double the national average. There are a quarter of a million fewer youth in the workforce now than there were before the recession. Where is the Conservative strategy to promote jobs for youth? It is not in the bill. That is why we will be proud to vote against this bill.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the Conservatives are concerned about their big friends: big corporations. Basically, the Conservatives have given tax breaks to big oil companies that amount to about $500 billion. That money is sitting with the corporations. I am not saying that; that is what experts out there are saying.

What have the Conservatives done for small businesses? We have called for the small business tax to be lowered. Not only that, we are calling for additional tax credits. They have offered $1,000, and we are saying $2,000. What generates jobs at the local level are small businesses.

That will help our youth. Small businesses will train and help our youth so that we can get the unemployment rate for youth lower. In this bill, the Conservatives have failed our youth.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on the issue of housing.

No matter where we go in Canada, from coast to coast to coast, it is an issue. Government can play a much stronger role in providing for and supporting good, solid housing programs, whether it is housing co-ops, infrastructure, building, assistance programs for home renovations, or all sorts of retrofit programs.

What we have found is that over the last number of years, there has been, generally speaking, an unwillingness to aggressively deal with Canada's housing issues, in particular the cost of housing and creative retrofit and environmentally friendly programs that would encourage people to fix up the housing stock.

Would the member comment on that?

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have not been in this House for very long, but I know one thing: the cuts to the housing program started under the Liberal government.

We know what the Liberals do. They will say one thing before the election and then do exactly the same thing as the Conservatives after the election.

I have heard representatives from FCM. They are local people. They are telling parliamentarians that we have a housing crunch. What does the government do? It has been cutting funds to these programs that would help provide affordable housing for Canadians.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I have listened to the debate in recent days, I have heard complaints from the opposition benches about repetition on our side of the House. However, I firmly believe that it cannot be said often enough that our Conservative government remains focused on those issues that matter most to Canadians: creating jobs, stimulating economic growth, and working to ensure Canada's long-term prosperity.

Just to correct my friend from Surrey North with regard to debt and deficit, I remind him that before the recession hit, our government paid down $37 billion in debt, bringing Canada to its lowest debt in a quarter century. Our aggressive dealing with debt reduction placed this country and this government in the best position to deal with the recession when it did hit. When it did hit, we were able to respond quickly and aggressively with the first incarnation of Canada's economic action plan.

Although my colleagues may not realize that my constituency of Thornhill is no longer the thriving agricultural community it once was, we still have working farms in the region, in Stouffville and Markham, and indeed, in the new Rouge national urban park, which is on the edge of York Region.

I thought this debate might be assisted somewhat if we recalled an old agricultural story I heard first as a youth. We might learn a lesson from the art of plowing. It has to do with a story, perhaps apocryphal, but that I think relevant to this debate.

A farmer put his son on a tractor for the first time, turned on the motor, and told him, “If you want to plow a straight furrow, fix your vision on a distant object, keep your vision on that object, drive toward it, and when you get to the other side of the field, look back with pride on the furrow you have plowed”.

The young fellow did that. He said, “I'm going to drive toward that dark rock on the horizon”. He progressed across the field, except when he got to other side, he looked around, and what he saw was a furrow that was anything but straight. It turned out that he had fixed his vision on a grazing cow that had wandered, which led the tractor.

I tell this story to remind colleagues that when the economic crisis first bloomed, and it became very clear that our government had to act and had to act very strongly, our Minister of Finance, our Prime Minister—our government—took great care to focus on where we were and where we had to get to and created the first economic action plan. It is a plan we have built on and continue to build with the legislation before us today.

At the same time, I would suggest, respectfully, that in contrast to the straight furrow we plowed, we heard from the opposition all sorts of criticism and hemming and hawing, representing the equivalent of the grazing cow. Four years later, where are we? Again, as we hear from the other side of the House, there are calls from the opposition for what our government considers to be reckless spending.

We are on track to achieve a balanced budget in 2015. Indeed, our plan to get back to a balanced budget, while at the same time addressing the needs of Canadians and Canadian society, is working. The deficit is being reduced. We are on course to achieve a significant surplus by 2015-16.

However, there is still more to do. That is what economic action plan 2013, part 2, is aimed at doing. What we intend to achieve with economic action plan 2013, part 2, is to address the challenge of job creation. There is much to do in this area. Our government recognizes that. We want to close tax loopholes at the same time. We also want to continue to respect taxpayer dollars.

In the time I have left, I would like to address the matter of closing tax loopholes, combatting tax evasion and tweaking our tax system to make it more equitable and fair.

In the legislation before us, we extend the reassessment period of reportable tax avoidance transactions and tax shelters for information returns that have not been filed properly or on time.

It phases out the inefficient and ineffective federal labour-sponsored venture capital corporations tax credit. I know this is a sensitive area with some of my colleagues in the NDP.

This is another sensitive area. At the same time, it adjusts the five year phase out of additional deductions for credit unions.

It eliminates unintended tax benefits in respect to types of leveraged life insurance arrangements.

What we are trying to achieve with the Canada Revenue Agency is ultimately greater fairness and equitable treatment for individual and corporate taxpayers. Therefore, in certain circumstances this legislation extends the reassessment period for taxpayers who have failed to correctly report income from specified foreign properties on their annual income tax returns.

We heard a few times today references to the introduction of new monetary penalties and criminal offences to deter the use, possession, sale and development of electronic suppression of sales software, known by those who use this illegal process and those who try to catch them as sale software zappers, which are designed to falsify records for the purpose of tax evasion.

There is more. However, I would be glad to take questions from my colleagues on both sides of the House.

In response to requests from the other side this what needs to be said again is what this government considers to be not reasonable spending but somewhat reckless spending. Canada is still not immune to the volatile and precarious economic situation in other parts of the globe that directly affect our economy, trade and Canadian manufacturing. Even as we are being impacted by the turbulence in the American, European and parts of the Asian economies, as well as among our important trading partners, we will continue to be in contact with them. That is why economic action plan 2013, part 2, focuses on positive initiatives to support job creation and economic growth, while at the same time returning to a balanced budget to ensure Canada's economic advantage remains strong for today and well into the future.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the only myth in Canadian politics is that the Conservatives are good money managers. The two largest deficits in Canadian history were under the Conservatives: Michael Wilson in the eighties and now the current finance minister just a few years ago. The debt of our country has gone up 25% to over $600 billion under the government. The real truth is that the misguided policies of the government put the finances of the federal government into a structural deficit even before the recession hit. It routinely inherited a surplus of $10 billion to $12 billion a year and then cut the GST two points, which wiped out that surplus. It then went on a spree of reducing corporate tax cuts down to the current 16% that put us into a structural deficit of between $10 billion and $15 billion every year.

Now Canadians are faced with the only answer with a government that is ideologically opposed to government. It is slashing services from coast to coast, including cutting things like the Kitsilano Coast Guard station in Vancouver and closing down Service Canada outlets so people have to make phone calls to talk to recorded messages to get government services. I just found out today that it cut funding in British Columbia for immigration workers in classrooms.

Canadians are facing Conservative reality. Hard times are Conservative times. I would like the member to explain to Canadians how having a spiralling debt, the biggest deficit in Canadian history, and reduced services is bringing the kind of government that Canadians want.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure my hon. colleague will not be surprised if I disagree with almost all of the points that he has just made. My colleague asks for facts and I will remind him that when our government paid down the debt by $37 billion, we achieved the lowest debt that Canada had in 25 years.

Again, my colleague refuses to recognize the urgency and the crisis that we faced when the international economic monetary crisis loomed and where we did spend. It is quite true that we ran up a deficit to $56 billion at its height, but that was in the interests of stimulating the economy, in creating jobs, in addressing infrastructure needs that the country needed and continues to need. At the same time, having stimulated the economy, having saved the Canadian economy, being admired by countries around the world, the envy of the G7, we have now reduced that deficit and are, as I said in my remarks, on target to return to surplus by 2015-16.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, when the former minister indicated that they would spend money in order to stimulate the economy, I had a flashback to last spring when we were seeing commercials, which were very heavy in costs. The NHL playoff commercials were all promoting and self-congratulating, patting the government on the back for its action plan and so forth. The government has spent record amounts of money on advertising and self-promotion, hundreds of millions of dollars.

One commercial in the NHL hockey playoffs was taking away jobs from 20-plus student. When we look at the underemployment within our student population, how does the member contrast the irresponsible spending of hundreds of millions of tax dollars, while we have so many youths who are unemployed, especially when they are looking for a summer job that is going assist in providing their continuing education?

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

The hon. member for Thornhill has about one minute.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is very little time to respond to some of the dots that my colleague has inaccurately joined.

I would remind the member that the economic action plan in its first and continuing versions did create jobs, did address infrastructure needs, did assist, and we continue, to fund summer student jobs. We have created apprenticeship incentives. We have funded small and medium-size enterprises and assisted them in growing jobs. We have created over one million jobs, 90% of those are full time.

I acknowledge there is much more to do. That is where the continuity of this version of economic action plan 2013, part two, is addressing those very problems.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, over eight months ago, I rose in the House to talk about the Conservatives' 2013-14 budget. I shared my concerns about the issues close to my heart, such as housing and homelessness, not only in my capacity as official opposition housing critic, but also as a champion of social justice.

Today I want to talk about those who have been forgotten by this government and I also want to point out some of the injustices created by Bill C-4, the budget implementation bill.

It is no secret that housing and homelessness in Canada are not—and unfortunately probably never will be—priorities for this government. However, at some point the Conservatives will have to open their eyes.

The $1.7-billion budget for social housing administered by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation is dwindling every year, as long-term operating agreements with social housing providers come to an end. Unfortunately, the government is presenting this as savings, but at the expense of whom?

I have criticized this situation many times in this House. After the throne speech, I rose three times to ask a question of a member opposite who had just read out the government's talking points. You could have heard a pin drop in the House. He had no idea how to answer.

I understand that he cannot know every single detail about everything the government does. However, we are talking about $1.7 billion and thousands of people who could end up on the street once these agreements expire. I think that is enough to sound the alarm on the other side and for them to care a little about what is going on.

If we listened to the ministers and backbenchers—and even the ministers opposite sometimes—without really thinking about it we could perhaps believe that this “government has invested more than any government in Canadian history” in any area. I will repeat this, because it needs to sink in on other side of the House: the last time a government invested new money in social housing, it was Jack Layton who worked hard to get it out of Paul Martin's Liberals, and the Conservatives voted against that money.

Members of the House will have an opportunity to ponder the housing situation in Canada when they debate my motion M-450, which I tabled in the House last June. It asks the government, in accordance with Canada’s obligations under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to work with the provinces, territories, municipalities and community partners to maintain and expand the federal investment in social housing, which would include renewal of the federal long-term social housing operating agreements in order to continue rent subsidies and provide the necessary funding for residential building renovation.

I would like to reassure my colleagues opposite. They will certainly have all the information needed to understand how important this matter is. In the meantime, they can always go to my website, where they will find all the information they need in order finally to grasp the subject, and where they can also sign my petition. There is social housing across the country, from coast to coast, including their own constituencies.

Whatever form the renewal of these agreements takes, whether by maintaining at least the status quo or by negotiating a transfer to the provinces and territories, what is certain is that this amount of $1.7 billion must be preserved for social housing, period, paragraph.

What is most distressing in the current situation, however, are those cases in which people living in social housing where the agreement has run out or is about to expire are no longer able to pay their rent, because under the agreement, their social housing provider was able to pay them a rent subsidy. They will have difficulty in finding such a subsidy elsewhere, because the total envelope administered by CMHC for social housing is constantly shrinking. To put it plainly, people and families are literally being put out on the street.

How does this government respond? It cuts $15.8 million from the annual budget to deal with homelessness. They put people on the street, and they reduce the funding to deal with homelessness.

In the same breath, they are changing the structure of the Homelessness Partnering Strategy in such a way that a large portion of the budget will be allocated to projects that take a Housing First approach. I suppose everyone understands that I am not against housing.

The Housing First approach does have some advantages. One of the problems, however, is that since the last budget, practitioners involved in dealing with homelessness, those who work on a day-to-day basis with the people affected, are no longer allowed to decide what the priorities are in this area. Homelessness is not just a housing problem.

Another problem is that the reduction in the total budget, combined with the new Housing First approach, will have the effect of reducing considerably the services currently available to the homeless.

Only today, on Parliament Hill, the largest gathering of Quebec groups working to combat homelessness, the Réseau SOLIDARITÉ itinérance du Québec (RSIQ), appeared before Parliament. It came to denounce the government’s new approach to the homeless, particularly with respect to the services currently available to them, which could soon disappear, if the government does not allow those best placed—those working in the field—to decide their own priorities in dealing with homelessness.

That is how things have been done for years. Yet someone, somewhere in Employment and Social Development Canada had a brainwave when they read the report on the At Home/Chez soi project, which incidentally produced good results. This person said that they were now going to change everything.

Money was already tight in the budget to deal with homelessness. If they wanted to do some good, they should have preserved at least the current HPS budget by indexing it, of course, as well as approving permanent funding for the Housing First approach.

The omnibus bill is not merely silent on housing and homelessness. As has now become customary, the Conservatives will also be using this legislative tool to amend or repeal more than 70 laws that are not necessarily budget-related.

Among other things, if this bill is passed, it will also withdraw powers from occupational health and safety officers and place them almost exclusively in the hands of the Minister, and directly challenge the rights of workers to refuse to work in unsafe conditions.

In both situations, I believe we have a major problem. The only question that comes to my mind is the following: why do we really want to compel people to work in unsafe conditions?

By adding the adjective “imminent” to the word “danger”, that is exactly what we are doing. It will henceforth be more difficult for a worker under federal jurisdiction to refuse to work in dangerous conditions. The danger will now have to be imminent. It will no longer be sufficient, therefore, to work in an environment where a large rock is suspended overhead; it will really have to be on the point of falling on you before you can claim dangerous working conditions and refuse to work.

They are playing with people’s lives. The current provisions are already sufficiently restrictive to prevent abuse. On top of all that, all the powers of occupational health and safety officers are to be concentrated in the hands of the minister, and the process is going to be politicized.

What message is being sent to employers? That occupational health and safety are no longer important? Will the minister herself be asked to inspect workplaces to ensure that conditions are not likely to impair workers’ health or safety?

What they are trying to do by means of this bill is a serious backward step with respect to the protections that have been put in place to safeguard the lives and health of people who spend a large part of their time in the workplace.

People go to work to make a life for themselves, not to lose it.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to sincerely thank my colleague from Hochelaga for her speech. I particularly admire her work because she speaks about real issues, which is very important. I will address the housing issue with her.

I had the honour of attending a conference of the Société d'habitation du Québec. In a workshop, I learned something about the unsanitary conditions in rental housing. This focused only on the Island of Montreal, but it was still possible to extrapolate our findings to the rest of the province, if not the rest of the country.

In some particularly poor areas, it was shocking to find unsanitary condition rates easily above 10%. This was virtually uninhabitable housing.

As part of the Standing Committee on Finance's study on inequalities, the Canadian Medical Association discussed the determinants of health inequalities. The association indicated that the conditions in which children grow up have a huge impact on their future.

Would my colleague talk about this shortcoming in social housing and in the construction of new housing that affects our future as a society?

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for giving me the opportunity to speak to such an important subject.

What was not mentioned in the budget was the end of long-term contracts and agreements. This will result in the gradual loss of social housing. People using these units do not necessarily have the means to afford housing at market prices.

They are therefore forced to live in mouldy homes with holes in the walls. In this environment, children have difficulty concentrating, especially when there is mould in schools as well.

We should therefore avoid phasing out the rent subsidies that currently exist, but there is absolutely nothing in the budget about this.

Also, rather than vote against the national housing strategy, they should have adopted it to make sure that we have enough rental units. Right now, there are not enough. That is one of the reasons why people are forced to find housing that is not healthy for their families. They do not have a choice because there are not enough units on the market that match their needs and their budget.

There are so many things the government could have done about housing in the budget, but unfortunately, it did nothing.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my friend on her excellent speech and her excellent references to the fact that the budget would do absolutely nothing to protect social housing and to enhance social housing, because we clearly do not have enough in this country.

Last night, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development confirmed that this $1.7 billion would end and disappear over the coming years and that many individuals would lose those subsidies and find themselves in untenable positions they would not be able to afford. The government claims it is not a cut, and yet it is. The government is spending $1.7 billion. It is going to spend zero. We know what a cut is. That is a cut, and housing groups will lose the subsidy they have been receiving for so many years.

Therefore, the current government has shown, again, its lack of understanding of the housing issue in this country.

Would she like to comment?

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague. I know that he works very hard on the housing issue too.

The Conservative government does not understand that if it fails to renew the agreements, the money is no longer there. Is that what they call a budget cut? I think so, and my colleague seems to think so too. They are cutting social housing.

In Pierrefonds, there is a housing co-op that is home to 700 people, and 40% of the units are subsidized. When their agreement expires next year or the year after, those people will have to pay about $200 more for rent, which they will not be able to do. Many of them could end up on the street.

The government is also reducing funding allocated to the HPS, which helps prevent homelessness, and the organization's mandate will no longer include homelessness prevention. That makes no sense.