Debates of March 25th, 2013

The Environment

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

Mr. Speaker, the second petition comes from people in Tofino, calling for the Minister of Natural Resources, the Minister of the Environment and the Prime Minister to cease supporting the northern gateway project, to adopt a neutral stance and to weigh it on its merits.

Foreign Investment

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

Mr. Speaker, the third petition comes from two groups, from Ottawa and Montreal, calling for the Prime Minister and the cabinet to refuse to ratify the Canada-China investment treaty as currently drafted.

National Energy Program

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

Mr. Speaker, the last petition comes from residents of Vernon, British Columbia, calling on the government to enter into plans and develop a national energy program that deals with all the various conflicting and very important issues that are before this country, for which we lack a program or a plan.

Railway Noise and Vibration

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by a number of residents of Dartmouth—Cole Harbour. These are people who live on Shore Road and adjacent to Shore Road, which is next to the harbour and next to a CN rail line. They are suffering as a result of the excessive noise and vibrations caused by CN trains switching along the area of the residential street, Shore Road.

These residents are urging members of the House to support Bill C-393, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act (railway noise and vibration control), which they believe properly addresses railway noise and vibration in the ways laid out in the petition.

Consumer Protection

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today I have the honour of tabling a petition signed by dynamic, involved seniors in Dollard-des-Ormeaux and the surrounding area.

More than 150 members of the DDO seniors club are calling upon the government to employ the measures at its disposal to prohibit charging consumers for receiving a monthly bill or statement in the mail.

These seniors are disgusted that they have to pay extra to receive bills by mail. They are asking the government to take action. Perhaps they will be heard.

Questions on the Order Paper

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Private Members' Business

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The Chair would like to take a moment to provide some information to the House regarding the management of private members' business.

As members know, after the order of precedence is replenished, the Chair reviews the new items so as to alert the House to bills which at first glance appear to impinge on the financial prerogative of the Crown. This allows members the opportunity to intervene in a timely fashion to present their views about the need for those bills to be accompanied by a royal recommendation.

Accordingly, following the February 27, 2013, replenishment of the order of precedence with 15 new items, I wish to inform the House that there are two bills that give the Chair some concern as to the spending provisions they contemplate.

These are Bill C-476, An Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (Parliamentary Budget Officer), standing in the name of the member for Outremont, and Bill C-480, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (funeral arrangements), standing in the name of the member for Laval—Les Îles.

I would encourage hon. members who would like to make arguments regarding the need for a royal recommendation to accompany these bills, or any of the other bills now on the order of precedence, to do so at an early opportunity.

I thank hon. members for their attention.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that this House approve in general the budgetary policy of the government, of the amendment and of the amendment to the amendment.

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

There are five minutes left for questions and comments for the hon. member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to pass up an opportunity to highlight what I believe is a lost opportunity for the government to deal with an issue that it really messed up last year, which was the issue of our seniors.

I have had the opportunity to provide to the House numerous petitions dealing with the government's decision last year to increase the age of retirement from 65 to 67, believing that the government's finances do allow for us to continue retirement at age 65. The government has lost the opportunity in this budget to say that it messed up last year, it made a mistake and people who are looking toward retirement at age 65 have nothing to fear. It would have been well received by Canadians as a whole if the government would have fessed up to its mistake. It is the only party that has said that there is a crisis when we know full well that there is no crisis.

Would the member join me and members of the Liberal caucus in acknowledging that we should be allowing people to continue to retire at age 65?

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, in terms of the issues in my riding of St. John's South—Mount Pearl, the number one issue is seniors and how seniors on fixed incomes deal with the rising cost of rent and the rising cost of living.

Seniors and people who are nearing retirement age are worried about raising the age of eligibility for OAS to 67 from 65. They are worried about how they would pay the bills and their rent once they retire. That is a real concern. The New Democrats share the thought that the age of eligibility for OAS should not be raised to 67 from 65. We see that it is included in this budget. It is not something that seniors want to see or that we want to see.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of my colleague from across the way, although I found them to be quite mystifying in a number of respects. It seems as if he is almost in an alternate universe, particularly when he talks about ferry operators suffering under this bill.

I wonder if he has read that the Canadian Ferry Operators Association has said that it welcomes the 2013 federal budget and that, “This government continues to demonstrate its commitment to transportation infrastructure”.

More than that, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business has stated, “Overall, this is a good budget for small business”. It also stated, “Minister Flaherty has done a solid job by remaining on course to eliminate the deficit while announcing some important measures for Canada's entrepreneurs”.

The member said that no one in his riding would benefit from this budget. Are there no entrepreneurs in his riding?

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the first part of the hon. member's question was whether or not I live in an alternate universe. I have to say that my feet are firmly planted in Newfoundland and Labrador. Even when I am here, I am still there.

He mentioned a couple of groups that support a ferry increase. I have to say to the hon. member, I do not know what universe you are in but you are not in this one. The price of the Marine Atlantic ferry will increase on April 1 by 4%. Therefore, when people or goods and services come across on that ferry service, it will cost more. When you pay more for goods and services for transportation, that cost is eventually passed on to the consumer. Therefore, everyone will pay more. Everyone will have a tax increase.

The fact that the prices will increase was not addressed in the Conservative budget. We live on an island—

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I will take this opportunity to remind both members that over the past few weeks I have heard a lot of use of the second person. Sometimes members try to do it by saying “through you, Mr. Speaker” but then they go back to the second person. That is not in order. We must keep our remarks through the Chair.

Also, the member for Kitchener Centre, while he was quoting, did use the proper name of our Minister of Finance, and even though it is in a quote, we do not do that either. We do not do indirectly what we cannot do directly.

If members could keep that in mind as we go forward, the Chair and other chair occupants would greatly appreciate it.

The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will keep that in mind during my speech. If I have to say that the government is incompetent, I will address the remark through you.

I cannot tell the House what I really think about this budget because someone would raise a point of order. To put it politely, I think that, once again, middle-class Canadians are the ones who will pay the price and whose quality of life will suffer. I will not even talk about what will happen to poor people. They will basically not even have a quality of life now that this budget has been tabled. The problem is that, more and more often, this government is sticking the provinces with the bill and interfering in areas of provincial jurisdiction. That is really problematic for the provinces.

The budget gave the government the opportunity to propose a sensible employment insurance reform. There have been many popular uprisings, a coalition has been created in Quebec, and the maritime provinces are protesting. The government could have added one more thing to the budget, taken something out or announced a new investment. That would have been worthwhile. It would have proved that the government is listening to Canadians; however, I see that that is not the case.

I toured my region to speak with entrepreneurs affected by the EI reform, and they all told me that the reform is extremely problematic for their companies and industries. Seasonal industries, such as the horticulture and fishing industries in the maritime provinces and the agricultural industry in my riding, are struggling.

The government should also have backtracked on pensions and announced new investments in this area. Last year, the government suddenly announced that people who had worked hard all their lives, sometimes in jobs requiring manual labour, would have to wait two more years before they could retire. Once again, there were many popular uprisings, and individuals, workers and even employers spoke out about this situation. Yet the government did nothing. It is obvious that the government does not listen to Canadians.

Earlier, I was talking about how the quality of life of the middle class is deteriorating. Yet, the government plans to eliminate the federal tax credit for the FTQ and CSN funds by 2017. That means that small investors may no longer be able to save. This tax credit really helped them. Now, there will be people who will not have any money for retirement and who are unable to save. All they need is some help from the government, but the government will no longer be there to help them. Simply put, we have reached an impasse.

On the weekend I received dozens of emails from my constituents who were writing to say that they disagree with eliminating this tax credit. Chambers of commerce got in touch with me to say that this was not good. These funds are reinvested in the community. I do not see why the government would not continue to want healthy communities, where businesses are growing. I do not see why the government has a problem with this. This measure serves no purpose. It only hurts small investors, workers, employers, industry, businesses and Quebec.

I do not understand why the government is eliminating credits for caisses populaires. The caisses populaires have quite a history. Many businesses in Quebec got off the ground because a caisse populaire believed in people who could not borrow money from the banks. The Cirque du Soleil is one such example. This global enterprise was created in Quebec. It was able to take flight because of Caisse Desjardins. Today, it is putting Quebec on the map. However, the government has suddenly lost interest in this type of investment.

I could talk about services to the public. Earlier, I was talking about EI reform and the quality of life for the middle class. It comes back to that again here.

The Canada Revenue Agency will have to review its practices to become more efficient, and the government says that this will have no impact on the public. That is what it said about Service Canada, when cuts were made there. People ended up having to wait. They did not know where to go and there was no one on the other end of the line to help them when they called. Are we going to end up in the same situation with the Canada Revenue Agency? I think so.

The government cannot make cuts and expect that the public is going to receive exactly the same service with less staff. That is wishful thinking. The government is good at wishful thinking.

I cannot speak to the budget without talking about agriculture, since 90% of the land in my riding is farmland. Eastern Montérégie is known as Quebec's pantry, which speaks volumes. In this budget, there is absolutely no mention of agriculture. The word “agriculture” does not appear anywhere. Is this a problem? This is about our food sovereignty.

The government made cuts to agriculture last year that are still being felt this year because the cuts were spread out. There will be about $158 million in cuts this year. That is a huge problem, especially when we consider that agriculture feeds people and that farmers need a helping hand to feed people. Does this government want to jeopardize our food sovereignty by making cuts to agriculture and by not acknowledging that this is a critical issue for a country must maintain food sovereignty, especially a country like Canada, which must feed 34 million people? That was not mentioned once in the budget. I cannot believe it and it makes me so angry.

I could also talk about infrastructure. In its budget, the government says it is investing $70 billion in infrastructure. Congratulations. However, when I crunch the numbers myself, I see that $4.7 billion less will be invested in infrastructure compared to last year, if we take inflation into account. It is all well and good to talk about $70 billion. It sounds like a big number, but that is over 10 years and we must consider that Canada's infrastructure is in bad shape. Just think of the Champlain Bridge in Montreal. I am taking a risk when I cross that bridge every week. One of these days, something is sure to happen to me.

We need federal assistance for infrastructure. The municipalities' hands are full and the provinces also need some help. I do not see how the government can think that investing $70 billion in infrastructure over 10 years makes it a hero.

Earlier, I spoke about the middle class. Now, I would like to talk about people who are struggling even more, people who often have no income: the homeless. The HPS program has been renewed. This is good. However, the funding is much lower than in previous years and, once again, the federal government is really interfering in programs dealing with needs that should be determined by the regions. That is not what I see in the budget.

The government is investing $253 million in housing. That is a drop in the bucket and is not at all what we need. I should also point out that there is still no national housing strategy.

I could go on for another 20 minutes about what this budget is lacking, but my time is running out, so I will stop there. I would be happy to take questions from my colleagues.

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

Mr. Speaker, I know the member spoke a bit disparagingly about the budget, but the agricultural portions are on pages 137-139.

With respect to the questions on the national housing strategy the member has been putting forward, the budget invests over $1.25 billion to support investments in affordable housing and nearly $600 million to support the homelessness partnering strategy.

In addition to that, it deals with items of removing or eliminating tariffs on baby clothing and sports and on other equipment of various kinds to promote physical fitness. Does the member at least support those two or three initiatives? If she supports those initiatives, might she consider supporting the budget, as opposed to opposing the budget for the sake of opposing it? It has a lot of good elements in it that even the NDP should find it can support.

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I find my colleague's accusation particularly amusing. I do not appreciate the member trying to put words in my mouth. I am not opposing the budget for the sake of opposing it.

I work extremely hard in my riding. When a budget like this does not meet the needs of my constituents, I am obviously going to oppose it. And that is that.

My colleague said that the government has invested in housing and the fight against homelessness. That is all well and good, but it is not enough.

They are saying that $253 million will be invested in housing, but it would take $1 billion just to maintain existing social housing in Quebec. We are not talking about the same numbers.

The same applies to homelessness. There are between 150,000 and 300,000 homeless people in Canada. If our society does nothing to help those people, then it has a huge problem.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, within the budget the government is taking action that is going to penalize our credit unions. I want to highlight this because if we look at the riding of Winnipeg North, which I represent, we find that a number of banks have actually closed down. The only real expansion has been the Assiniboine Credit Union.

Financial services are something all Canadians need. Could the member provide her perspective on the government now penalizing credit unions in terms of the tax break over the next number of years, which could have a fairly significant impact on the number of credit unions potentially opening in the future?

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I provided the answer to my colleague's question in my speech, but I would be happy to repeat it.

Members have said that the government's budget is an attack on credit unions. I feel that is extremely problematic. There will certainly be an impact in the short, medium and long term. The short-term effects will be felt immediately.

When credit unions were created, they gave loans to companies that could not get them through a bank. Credit unions have come a long way, and they put Quebec in the spotlight.

In the beginning, credit unions were established only in Quebec, but now they can be found almost anywhere. That proves that the model is working. Why attack that?

[Jonathan Tremblay, NDP, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a comment on what a Conservative member just said.

The few positive aspects of this budget are not worth much, given all that is being done and, especially, all that is not being done. There should be no expectation that we will strongly support this budget.

Since 2008, the government, which is supposed to be a very good administrator, has run a deficit. When we look at each budget, we can see that the Conservatives could very well have come up with a balanced budget, but that has not been the case.

Is this the government's strategy, so that it can say, in the next election, that it balanced the budget and that it is the best? However, if its predictions prove correct, there will be more than $175 billion in additional deficit over the accumulated debt.

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the current government is, in fact, responsible for a record deficit. If I am not mistaken, this is the largest deficit in Canada's history.

The Minister of Finance told us that he expects to balance the budget in 2015, without increasing taxes. I am a little skeptical. In fact, I am more than skeptical, because I have the impression that the government takes us for fools. Perhaps the government should go back to the drawing board to draft a decent budget. Perhaps then we will be able to discuss, negotiate and see if we support certain measures in the budget.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Peterborough.

Budget 2013 is all about jobs, growth and long-term prosperity. In order for there to be long-term prosperity, we must balance our budget, as we said we would, by 2015, we must keep our taxes low and we must control spending. These are conditions for success.

I know the hon. member has talked about being skeptical about whether taxes would be raised. Since we have taken office, we have reduced taxes 150 times, and today an average family of four is able to keep over $3,200 that would otherwise go to taxes of one kind or another, so there will be no increase in taxes.

It is important to control spending. Continued cuts in departmental spending, reducing travel costs, closing tax loopholes, improving CRA compliance programs and providing for a better and more efficient administration are positive steps to ensure our budget is balanced by 2015, and it will be balanced.

In addition to getting this right, we need to make sure that businesses continue to grow by providing the human resources they need and the infrastructure they rely on. Those are two fundamentals required for growth.

With respect to the budget, Alexandre Laurin, associate director of research at the C.D. Howe Institute, stated in The Globe and Mail on March 21, 2013:

Overall, the 2013 budget should be well received by markets. Budgetary balance is projected based on reasonable assumptions and within the previously announced time frame.

These are well-founded assumptions.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business, in its new release, stated:

Overall, this is a good budget for small business. [The minister] has done a solid job by remaining on course to eliminate the deficit while announcing some important measures for Canada’s entrepreneurs.

No matter where members of the human resource committee travel in Canada, whether it is Vancouver, Whitehorse, Fort McMurray, St. John's, my home province of Saskatchewan or Montreal, we heard of skilled worker shortages in specific segments of the economy, with warnings that the situation would be getting worse, especially in the mining, construction and oil and gas extraction industries.

To be fair, we have made significant improvements in many areas, such as the temporary foreign worker program. I know many people in the fast food and hospitality industries have mentioned time and time again that they rely quite heavily on foreign workers, especially when Canadian workers are drawn to high-demand or high-paying jobs. In fact, one owner indicated that he would stay at work well into the night looking after his business and many times would fall asleep while there. He said this was important for him to grow his business and meet the demands out there.

That is one way to do it.

Another way is through immigration, by ensuring that the movement of our workers between provinces can take place. I know many have touted the Red Seal program and the fact that we should make it as easy as possible for people to go from province to province where the work is. The budget addresses the apprenticeship program and interprovincial mobility. As well, our first nations youth and under-represented groups in our high schools and community colleges have all been looked at in the budget.

The provinces have been able to rely on the provincial nominee program. I know Saskatchewan has embraced that program. In fact, the premier has asked for the numbers to be increased. In fairness, Saskatchewan has increased those numbers by thousands. The immigration minister has been transforming the immigration system on a federal level to attract talented newcomers with the skills and experience that our economy requires.

In the coming year, the federal skilled worker program will have an updated points system to take into account language proficiency and youth. Going forward, a new and innovative expression of interest immigration management system will allow for Canadian employers, provinces and territories to select immigrants from a pool of applicants that best meet Canada's economic needs.

Significant steps have been taken to ensure that foreign credentials are recognized. We have a select group of occupations that will have that assessment done within a year.

I had the pleasure of announcing in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, that bridge financing would be provided to those who wished to use the financing to upgrade themselves in any area where there was a shortfall. In fact, many foreign credentials are recognized before people come into the country. Agreements have been signed with countries to recognize credentials that are accepted in a particular country.

All of these steps are like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle that, when put in place, help employers to grow our economy. It really is about jobs, growth in the economy and long-term prosperity.

That said, there is still a great desire for skilled workers in the trades and occupations who come from within Canada and from under-represented groups. The budget itself directly addresses this by creating the Canadian job grant. It provides $15,000 or more per person, including a maximum federal contribution of $5,000 that is matched by provincial, territorial and employer funding to help Canadians get the skills they need for in-demand jobs.

This budget sets the groundwork for continued prosperity and economic activity. The Certified General Accountants Association of Canada said:

The government delivered a responsible budget for uncertain times. ... We welcome the skills training initiative. In creating the Job Grant fund, the federal government has shown leadership in addressing the growing skills gap. We encourage provinces to support it. All should benefit—employers, workers and governments.

Just recently, on March 23, Licia Corbella of the Calgary Herald quoted Christopher Smillie, senior advisor, government relations and public affairs, building and construction trades department, AFL-CIO, as stating:

It means that the people will be trained for specific jobs which is a good thing. By attaching the money to an employer it means the worker will be training for a job that actually exists. It's about time this kind of common-sense approach was implemented.

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation had this to say in its March 21 news release:

[The CTF applauds] the government's plans to overhaul job training and keep a lid on spending.... It's good to see Ottawa getting training money directly in the hands of young workers so they can land a good-paying job.

These are all important aspects of providing the human resources that businesses need.

In addition to providing the human resources, we need to provide the infrastructure they need and rely on in order to carry on their businesses. Again, as a committee, whether we heard from northern or remote areas or from cities or municipalities, the one common theme was that we need to have the infrastructure if we want to expand the economy. We need roads, bridges, provision of electrical services and facilities to transport and ship products to market. We need to alleviate traffic in the downtown communities and improve municipal infrastructure to provide the foundation and fundamentals that will ensure the continued expansion and growth of our economy. That is why the budget provides for long-term infrastructure programs with provinces and municipalities worth over $53 billion over 10 years.

Municipalities were looking for long-term, sustainable and predictable funding, and the budget goes a long way toward that goal. It includes $32.2 billion over 10 years for the community improvement fund through an indexed gas tax fund, which they have been asking for. It also includes $14 billion for a new building Canada fund to support major economic projects of national, regional and local significance, and $6 billion under current infrastructure programs. All of these are long-term, predictable funding.

All in all, it is a good budget that will ensure continued economic prosperity not only in the short term but for future generations as well. As the Minister of Finance said, “We remain focused on what matters to Canadians—jobs and economic growth, and ensuring Canada's economic advantage today will translate into the long-term prosperity of tomorrow.”

The budget has a number of very specific items to help small business and farmers and ensures that we set the foundation and framework for the successful operation of the economy and to increase and expand it.

[Jonathan Tremblay, NDP, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I know the Conservative government does not really like to say it too loudly, but it is following the example of the Liberals and learning a lot from them. It is cutting transfers in health, old age security, employment insurance, public safety and infrastructure. All that means that the provinces ultimately end up footing the bill. In addition to fobbing the bill off on the provinces, the government is unable to create a balanced budget.

Is this government capable of running a country?