Debates of May 27th, 2013

Second Reading

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Pursuant to an order made Wednesday, May 22 the division stands deferred until Tuesday, May 28 at the expiry of time provided for oral questions.

The House resumed from May 21 consideration of the motion.

Bill C-48, Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to stand to talk to this very important piece of legislation. As many members in the House may be aware, I had actually started the speech and was a good 10 minutes into it when I was interrupted. Of course, I had to defer it until this fine hour. In spite of the many jokes I have heard tonight about talking about the technical tax act at 11:20 in the evening, it truly is an important piece of legislation. Even though the insomniacs will enjoy it, it is a very important debate we are having in the House tonight.

At this point, I need to pick up where I left off. I had talked a bit about the process and how we actually prepared this important piece of legislation. I had talked about the significant consultation that happened previously, and I also recognized in the House the work of all the finance committee members from all sides in terms of saying that this was an important piece of legislation and that it was time to move forward.

The other items I talked about in my first number of hours were parts 1 through 4, so I will not actually go back through parts 1 to 4. I will pick up right where we left off with part 5 of the legislation.

Part 5 of the legislation is designed with fairness for the taxpayers in mind. It sets out to close tax loopholes to ensure that all Canadians pay their fair share of taxes. Some of the specific things the act would do is close loopholes related to specified leasing property and ensure that the conversion of specified investment flow-through trusts and partnerships into corporations would be subject to the same rules as transactions between corporations. It would prevent schemes designed to shelter tax by artificially increasing foreign tax credits. Finally, it would implement a regime for information reporting of tax avoidance transactions.

As we can see, when this is viewed as a whole, these measures would play a very important role in the government's fight against tax avoidance and would help improve the integrity of the tax system. This is a really important goal, and we are proud of our record. Not only are we moving forward with this landmark piece of technical tax legislation, but our economic action plan 2013 affirms our commitment to making the tax system more fair and equitable for all Canadians.

Setting aside the legislation before us today for just a moment, I would like to remind members why improving the integrity of our tax system is so important. By neglecting to close loopholes that allow a select few businesses and individuals to avoid paying their fair share of tax, ordinary law-abiding Canadians are punished with higher taxes.

We will not let this happen. We are committed to building on our strong record of closing tax loopholes. It is a record that speaks for itself, because we have acted to close tax loopholes more than 50 times. By ensuring that taxes are applied fairly and are consistent with their intended objective, we have gained over $2 billion in added revenue for the government, which is used to fund important front-line services for all Canadians.

I would hope that all parliamentarians would agree that closing loopholes that permit a few select corporations and individuals to skip out on paying their fair share of tax is important. In support of that goal, today's legislation would combat many complex tax planning schemes, as I identified in my remarks a couple of days ago.

I would like to pause here for a moment to note that many provincial governments are looking at this legislation to help guide their further actions, especially when it comes to closing tax loopholes. As a matter of fact, the Province of Ontario tabled its 2013 budget in May of this year. In that document, there was a section on closing tax loopholes that underlined the common belief among all the governments, federal and provincial, that everyone should pay their fair share of taxes. As part of its campaign to crack down on tax loopholes, the Ontario government looked specifically at the federal government's technical tax amendments act 2012 for inspiration.

Indeed, let me quote verbatim from page 266 of the Ontario budget document, “In addition, the [Ontario] government will be proposing legislation to introduce new disclosure rules for aggressive tax avoidance transactions similar to the rules introduced by the federal government as part of Bill C-48”. We can see they are even directly referring to the important legislation that we put forward. “This new measure would require taxpayers to report aggressive tax avoidance transactions that attempt to avoid Ontario tax.”

Again, this is an important reason to finally move forward with this important legislation.

I want to assure this House and Canada that, as we move forward, our Conservative government will keep taking the necessary steps to protect the integrity of the tax system. By doing that and helping end tax loopholes, we are going to help keep taxes low for Canadians and their families.

Before continuing to part 6, I want to outline that part 5 also includes numerous, more technical changes. These changes would merely be made to ensure the income tax system works in the same way as the underlying policy intent that guides it.

I should flag that many of these technical changes are relieving, addressing issues identified by individual taxpayers in the course of interacting with their income tax rules and how these rules apply to their own situations.

Finally, we will be looking at implementing an income tax amendment relating to the enactment of the fairness for the self-employed act. Thanks to this new initiative recently enacted by the Conservative government, self-employed Canadians will no longer have to choose between their families and their business responsibilities. I think we can all agree that this initiative was good family policy. It represents one of the most significant positive measures for the self-employed in decades.

The technical tax amendments act, 2012, would make some changes to help fully implement that legislation. Specifically, consequential changes to the Income Tax Act are required in order to provide for a personal income tax credit in respect of premiums paid consistent with the existing credit in respect of employee EI premiums.

Moving on, part 6 of the bill would implement a series of technical improvements to the GST-HST framework, such as relieving the GST-HST on administrative costs of collecting and distributing the levy on blank media imposed under the Copyright Act.

Part 7 of the bill, and I am sure members are waiting for part 7, the last part of the act, simply, would provide for a few minor and administrative changes to the federal-provincial fiscal arrangements act.

Before ending my remarks, let me again thank the members of the finance committee of all parties for their unanimous support of this legislation and their co-operative attitude to ensure a swift implementation; something that we hope continues into this third reading debate. I think all members on the finance committee would agree that, in a nutshell, it is so important to pass this lengthy bill. It would provide certainty for taxpayers, it would make compliance easier and it would improve tax fairness for all Canadians.

Like I did during my remarks at second reading, I would like to finish with a quote from an op ed in the June 2011 edition of The Globe and Mail written by Tim Wach, a respected tax professional with Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP:

When taxpayers are uncertain about their obligations, their trust and faith in the system diminishes....parliamentarians can bring a higher degree of certainty to our tax laws by moving swiftly, in a non-partisan, non-politicized manner, to enact outstanding changes. Let's hope they do just that.

I know I might have a minute left but I think, at this point, I would like to close and, again, just say it is an incredibly important piece of legislation. It is a lengthy piece of legislation. It has been a long time in the making. Certainly, as we have done pre-budget consultations year after year, we have heard from accountants and business people across this country that this is timely and it needs to be done now.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here this evening.

I heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue express dismay at having to speak at this hour of the evening. I remind her that many Canadians are working around the clock. I, myself, have worked shift work for many years. I think it is quite appropriate that we be here, sitting at this hour, debating something so important as the taxes Canadians pay.

Let me ask the hon. parliamentary secretary a question. It has been more than a decade since there was a technical tax bill passed by the current or the previous government. This bill contains more than 1,000 pages, many technical tax amendments.

We support the changes that are contained within this bill, but clearly the process is unsustainable. We have had to wait more than a decade for comfort letters to be put into an actual tax bill.

Can the parliamentary secretary tell this House what changes her government is making to improve the process, so that the changes that are made in tax legislation are actually passed into law? Will she finally tell us how the government is making a change to modernize the tax legislation in this country?

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to respond to the question. I, too, am someone who has worked shift work for many years.

I think we all recognize that there are some pieces of legislation that are very fascinating. This is fascinating, also, in terms of the importance of what we are actually dealing with.

I guess I have to speak to the idea of our moving forward with it. I believe it was at second reading where there was delay after delay. We finally felt it necessary to create some sort of framework around the conversation. Obviously people were asking for this legislation. We wanted to get it to committee.

I do not think our government has any lessons to learn from the NDP members in terms of trying to move legislation forward in a timely way. They seem to obstruct the progress on a fairly regular basis.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would tend to disagree with the member on her last statement.

At the end of the day, this is legislation that has been needed and has had the support of all members of the House of Commons. Any competent government House leader should have been able to negotiate with opposition leaders in good faith to actually have this legislation passed earlier.

It is the attitude of the government, that majority Conservative/Reform party mentality, that it feels it always has to allocate time. It has to bring in time closure.

In regard to tax increases, there have been tax increases by the government, net tax increases, for the last four or five years.

Having said that, my question is related to the process. I think the question that was just posed to the member deserves a better answer in regard to what the minister foresees in terms of ensuring that in fact future changes are done in a more timely fashion.

If we take a look at the book, where she has the asterisk—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order. We have to give the parliamentary secretary some time to answer the question. The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that, while the Conservatives have a strong stable majority government, we will move forward on a regular basis to update this important piece of legislation.

This piece of legislation and the timeliness goes back a number of years to when the member's party did not see fit to bring forward these important measures.

What I really want to focus in on is how our business community and our accountants have said it was so important. During our pre-budget consultations, we heard about how it would give stability to the organizations and the accountants. Again, they all encouraged us.

I do want to say that I am very pleased that all parties actually saw fit to move forward again and support the legislation.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to see the Liberals and the Conservatives pointing fingers back and forth, one saying “It took you five years and you did not do anything” and the other saying “It took you seven years”. The reality is that both parties are at fault for running pretty shoddy administrations.

Now we have this 1,000-page brick, and the Conservatives have invoked closure. We have a history of the government screwing up legislation. It has brought forward legislation and botched it badly. We saw that with refugees. We saw that with veterans. It brings forward these bills, invokes closure, and then screws it up. In fact, all Canadians pay for the cleanup costs and having to revise legislation to which it did not give adequate time in the House in the first place.

My question is very simple. How do we know, since for the 34th time Conservatives have invoked closure, that they got it right this time, when they have screwed it up so many other times?

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the fact that we had debate in the House, that we went to committee and that this legislation was supported by all parties in the clause-by-clause speaks to the fact that members of all parties feel that we have significantly got this right.

This bill has been debated for 200 days already. We are only in the House of Commons stage, so it is time to move it this on. Every witness we had to committee said that it was time, it was right and it had been consulted on so let us move on, let us get this legislation passed.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Minister of State (Science and Technology) (Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario)]

Mr. Speaker, I think suspect why the NDP wants to delay the passing of this bill. Does this bill force the New Democrats to pay their taxes like other Canadians, or is there somewhere in this bill that does not allow that? They are desperate to delay the bill, so I suspect maybe this would force the New Democrats to come clean and finally pay the taxes they owe Canada.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have certainly heard day after day about the issue of the tax gap. We have heard about the issue of how important it is for Canadians to pay their fair share. All of us in the House were quite stunned and very surprised to hear that the New Democrats were so remiss in that area. I appreciate the member's bringing that to my attention.

On this side of the House, we recognize the importance of Canadians paying their fair share of taxes.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member, the parliamentary secretary, speaks broadly of tax policy in addition to the specific measures in this bill. In the most recent budget implementation act, the Conservatives stated that “cutting tariffs helps middle-class families and helps decrease the price gap between Canadian and U.S. products”.

Therefore, would the hon. member agree that the $250-million net increase in tariffs in this budget would, in the words of the Conservatives “hurt middle-class families and increase the price gap between products in Canada and the U.S.”?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Just a reminder to hon. members, I know it is late but they certainly should make the best attempt possible to ensure their questions that are posed under questions and comments are pertinent to the matter at hand. I say this in reference to the last question and the one prior to it.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was going to bring up exactly that same point. I believe the member is talking about Bill C-60. We are going through clause-by-clause tomorrow and we look forward to having that conversation in the House.

However, I want to note the tax loopholes that the government has consistently closed and the integrity of our tax system has improved immensely since 2006 when we took over government.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to speak to Canadians this evening on Bill C-48, which is a technical tax bill. We dealt with this bill at the finance committee. Bill C-48 is a very large piece of legislation that contains more than 1,000 pages and presents numerous technical tax changes to the Income Tax Act, the Excise Tax Act, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, the First Nations Goods and Services Tax Act and other legislation.

I said these are technical tax changes. These are changes to the tax code that, in sum, will be revenue positive for Canadians. They generally move to discourage tax avoidance, which is a positive thing. All Canadians should pay their fair share. The vast majority of the changes contained in Bill C-48 are already adopted in practice. Tax practitioners across the country are respecting these changes, which have already been announced by the government. Many have been in practice for several years, because there has not been a technical tax bill like Bill C-48 since 2001. Clearly, we are long overdue in terms of updating our tax legislation.

These changes have already been in place and taking effect for several years. What has not been in place are elements of the direct reporting that is required under Bill C-48, aspects of the compliance contained in this bill. Clearly, this bill is of massive scale. As I said, it consists of more than 1,000 pages of tax legislation, very technical, detailed tax changes. The scale of this bill clearly indicates that not only the current government but the previous government has been asleep at the wheel in terms of updating these changes on a regular basis.

We have heard from tax practitioners across the country who have said it creates confusion and uncertainty generally for Canadians and it is particularly difficult for businesses that are trying to do tax planning when they do not have the certainty of these tax changes taking place in law. Clearly, the government has been falling down on the job by not updating the tax legislation on a regular basis. We do not want this uncertainty, but it has also created a bill of great scale—as I said, 1,000 pages of technical tax changes. Tax specialists went before the finance committee and said there are some changes that are so detailed and arcane that they had difficulty understanding them. Yet the finance committee had very limited time to study these changes and, once again, the government has put time allocation in the House to limit the amount of time to study and debate something so complex.

We want to emphasize the importance of focusing on compliance in this bill in order to ensure the integrity of our tax system. We would argue that we need to close unexpected tax loopholes in a timely manner. This bill would close unexpected loopholes, but it has taken more than a decade to do so. Clearly, the Conservatives are not doing their job as government in making sure Canadians comply with tax legislation.

We want to point out the ever-growing complexity of the tax code and the need for simplification of the tax code that needs to take place. I want to emphasize that the New Democrats on this side of the House believe in cracking down on tax avoidance and tax evasion. We had to fight hard to get the government to complete a study of tax evasion and tax havens that was begun by the previous government. If members can believe it, prior to the election in 2011, there was a study on tax havens that was almost completed. We have had to fight since the election in 2011 to get the government to complete that study.

Conservatives wanted to have more than 10 meetings to look at increasing charitable tax donations. They put a whole range of bills through the Standing Committee on Finance, but surprisingly, they did not want to study tax havens, tax evasion or tax avoidance. The government seems to at least say that it wants to focus on fixing the deficit the government has created, and that we face still, and that it wants to restore the books to balance. One would think that a government in that situation would be scrambling to close tax loopholes and to ensure that every bit of money salted away in tax havens and some islands where tax laws currently are not capturing that revenue could be tracked down.

However, we had to fight, and it was only this spring that we were able to drag the government, kicking and screaming, to a study of tax havens. We had very few meetings, by the way. We had far fewer sessions to study tax havens than we should have had. It is a disgrace. When we look at what is happening in the United Kingdom, in the U.S., large corporations have not been paying their fair share of taxes. Major companies, such as Starbucks, Amazon and Google, have been found in other countries to not be paying their fair share of taxes.

The government suddenly wants to scuttle away and not study these issues of corporate taxation. I say that the Conservatives are falling down on the job, but no fear, this side of the House will do a much better job after 2015.

The bill we are presented with and that we are debating this evening is more than 1,000 pages. It is definitely an omnibus bill. New Democrats have complained vigorously about the omnibus budget bills the government has put before the House and put before our finance company. They are Trojan Horse budget bills that have contained everything but the kitchen. We have been debating the inspector general of CSIS, the navigable waters act and first nations legislation. We have been debating all manner of legislation. Clearly the government has wanted to gut in every way possible environmental legislation. It has all come before the finance committee, as opposed to the appropriate committees, for study in the House. We have been vociferous in opposing the omnibus budget bills, which clearly are an affront to democracy and which Canadians have joined with us in opposing.

However, while this bill is an exceptionally large bill, the fact is that it is all on related subject matter. It is a detailed tax bill, and all of the provisions in it make technical tax changes, which clearly are related and are quite properly housed in one bill. However, again, I want to emphasize that the government has fallen down on the job by being asleep at the switch for over a decade and not presenting these technical tax changes in a more timely fashion.

Clearly, there was still tremendous work to do to create the system whereby these technical tax changes were put in place in a timely manner. I am sure that Canadians, who I am sure are listening, whose attention is gripped before the television, are understandably concerned about tax legislation, because Canadians work hard. We heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board complain about having to be here at this hour of the evening, whereas Canadians are working hard across the country in manufacturing, the service sector, retail and all kinds of sectors across this country. They are hard at work, and they are sending their precious dollars to Ottawa in the form of taxes, and they want to be sure that all Canadians are paying their fair share of taxes.

Let me explain what happens to those Canadians who are watching this evening.

When changes are announced in budgets and other pieces of legislation, the Department of Finance issues what are called “comfort letters”. These letters give comfort to businesses and individuals that these changes are being brought into practice and are to be complied with even though the actual legislation has not yet been changed. The vast majority of these changes subsequently are adopted, and then the technical changes are later made as amendments to tax legislation and adopted as tax law.

As I said, the last technical tax bill was adopted in 2001, so Canadians quite rightly are concerned about the uncertainty that this delay has caused.

When the Conservative government was in power in 2009, the Auditor General raised concerns that there were at least 400 outstanding technical amendments that had not yet been put into legislation. Some 200 or so of these changes are contained in Bill C-48. Bravo; it is maybe a decade late, but bravo. Here they are.

The comfort letter process generally works well, but the Auditor General expressed in 2009, in the report that I previously referred to, that tax practitioners “expressed a need for the legislative changes that the comfort letters identified to be enacted.”

While the vast majority of these changes have already been announced in press releases, Department of Finance comfort letters and budgets over the last 11 years since the last technical bill was passed, the bill also contains a few previously unannounced measures, which we also support. I will not go into them because, as I have said, they are extremely detailed.

We have consulted with tax specialists and lawyers, who have indicated that the measures in Bill C-48 are overwhelmingly positive. They generally support these measures, and New Democrats on this side of the House support these as necessary technical tax changes.

However, I want to emphasize our concerns about the generally slow pace with which the government is legislating the technical changes found in the Department of Finance comfort letters. This is what we emphasized at the finance committee and what we have been emphasizing in the House of Commons, and it is what members opposite do not seem to understand and do not want to hear.

I want to emphasize the size of the bill. The bill contains more than 1,000 pages of very dense technical tax changes. It really indicates the long, slow, lapse of time between Bill C-48 and the last technical tax bill. This process definitely needs improvement, but the government clearly has presented no plan and refuses to answer the question of how it is going to improve this process.

We heard some testimony before the finance committee that Britain, for example, has a law that if technical tax amendments that are announced are not brought into law within one year, those amendments are null and void and have to be reintroduced. We heard others say that there may be a different way to deal with this need for timeliness in introducing technical tax changes.

What we felt was important was perhaps to change the Standing Orders for the House so that the finance committee would be required every year to hear a report from the Department of Finance on how many outstanding technical tax changes there were that had not yet been put into law. That seems like a very common sense proposal that would remind the finance committee, the Department of Finance and the Minister of Finance that they better do some housekeeping and get these technical tax changes into law on an annual basis.

We did have quite a bit of debate about whether we wanted to have a drop dead date whereby these changes had to be made. That is still an open question because we really did not have enough time to debate that measure fully.

I see my time is almost up. I am sorry about that. I appreciate the opportunity to be here this evening and to have the chance to debate this important issue on behalf of all Canadians.

Again, we support the changes that are being made, we disagree with being forced to limit the amount of time on debate of these important measures and we do, again, urge the government to put a measure or procedure in place that requires these changes to be made on a timely basis every year on behalf of all Canadians.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The member for Parkdale—High Park will have four minutes remaining for her remarks when the House next resumes debate on the question.

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

Search and Rescue

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, over the past year, I have stood up more than a dozen times in this place and challenged the government to back down from its reckless plan to shut down the Kitsilano Coast Guard station.

Soon after the government first announced the closure, marine safety experts, former Coast Guard officials, the city of Vancouver and Vancouver's fire and police chiefs warned that this closure was reckless and would put lives at risk. This decision was undertaken with no consultation of its local search and rescue partners, and the government has ignored expert advice that the closure is irresponsible.

Let me remind the House that Vancouver is home to Canada's largest and busiest port. Proposed pipeline expansion projects, like Kinder Morgan, are projected to significantly increase tanker traffic in Vancouver, yet the government's record has been to slash funds for oil spill response services and Coast Guard search and rescue services.

Months after the closure was announced last spring, we found out, from testimony provided at the fisheries and oceans committee, that the Coast Guard expected to save $700,000 a year by moving ahead with this controversial plan.

I am reminded of the story of Mandip Sandhu, whose brother's life was tragically lost in 2001. One night, his car fell into the Fraser River, trapping him and another passenger inside. When Coast Guard responders arrived on scene, they told the fire department that they could no longer carry out underwater dives. In fact, their dive team had been cut just days before as part of a so-called cost saving measure by the federal government.

The Coast Guard is projecting an annual saving of a mere $700,000 by closing the Kitsilano Coast Guard station. As many have asked before, is it worth it? The Conservative government insisted that the decision was made after careful analysis. In fact, Coast Guard officials claimed that there was a completed risk analysis report.

Last summer, I requested a copy of this risk analysis report through an access to information request. I finally received a response last week, which claimed, “The Canadian Coast Guard has advised that there is no stand-alone risk analysis document”.

How can the government expect British Columbians to trust it as a prudent manager of both our country's finances and public safety when its decisions are not based on evidence or fact? How can the government and, in particular, government MPs who claim that they represent British Columbian ridings stand behind this reckless decision to close the Kitsilano Coast Guard station, when they cannot even produce a risk analysis report on this decision?

I find this unacceptable. It was a very controversial decision. There has been ample time for the government to respond to the public outcry, to reverse this reckless decision and do the right thing, yet we find that it is not doing that. It is not listening to experts, public safety experts or the public, in fact. British Columbians have said loud and clear that they want this station open.

I hope the government will actually listen and reverse this closure.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and for the Asia-Pacific Gateway]

Mr. Speaker, as always, I welcome the opportunity to respond to my hon. colleague, the member of Parliament for New Westminster—Coquitlam, on the provision of search and rescue resources in the Vancouver area.

The Canadian Coast Guard is responsible for the effective and efficient use of federally supported maritime search and rescue resources to respond to distress calls. The Coast Guard carefully considers all resources available to respond in any given area, as well as their combined capacity and capability to meet local search and rescue needs when making decisions regarding asset placement. I assure the House that the decision to close Kitsilano was made with careful consideration and planning.

As with any transition, there are upfront costs associated with it. In this case, there were start-up costs for the inshore rescue boat station. However, the ongoing costs of the inshore rescue boat and the increased contribution to the Royal Canadian Marine Search and Rescue is less than a quarter of the full costs of operating Kitsilano station. After accounting for these costs and the anticipated increased operations of Sea Island hovercraft, the Canadian Coast Guard is achieving significant net savings while maintaining a very high level of service.

The Canadian Coast Guard developed the Vancouver search and rescue plan in collaboration with the search and rescue partners in the area. The plan enhances interoperability and improves communication among agencies to ensure that search and rescue responses will continue to be coordinated in an effective manner. The Vancouver search and rescue plan is fully implemented and working well in Vancouver.

Since the closure of the Kitsilano base on February 19, the Canadian Coast Guard Sea Island hovercraft has consistently had a reaction time of less than 10 minutes after receiving a tasking, which is well within the national service standards of 30 minutes.

In addition to the highly professional services of the Sea Island station, we have implemented a number of initiatives to ensure the ongoing integrity of the search and rescue system in Vancouver.

On April 15, the new inshore rescue boat became operational at HMCS Discovery, located in Coal Harbour. This inshore rescue boat station is strategically located and is providing an enhanced level of service during the busy summer boating season, similar to other locations in Canada.

The inshore rescue boat program has been a successful and integral part of the Canadian search and rescue system since the 1970s.

Furthermore, the increased investment in the Royal Canadian Marine Search and Rescue volunteer organization has enhanced its response capabilities in locations throughout the Vancouver area. In fact, one station was relocated to a more central location several months ago, adjacent to the Ironworkers Memorial Bridge, which will reduce response times within the high traffic areas of the harbour.

It is important for mariners to remember that the Coast Guard is only one element of a network of government organizations, volunteers and private or international entities that make up Canada's search and rescue system. All available resources will be directed and expected to respond to distress incidents.

Let me conclude with the assurance that the resources and plans are in place in Vancouver to ensure a professional and timely response to all maritime search and rescue incidents. The safety of Canadians is always the top priority of the Conservative government and the Canadian Coast Guard.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the response from the parliamentary secretary, but the government's response is not good enough. It is simply not adequate.

One question that has not been answered throughout this entire debate and the closure of this very strategically located facility is who the government consulted.

We understand that it only consulted with the Department of National Defence and no one else—not the city, not the province, not any public marine safety experts, not even those experts within the Coast Guard. It would have heard overwhelmingly that this was a bad decision.

Therefore, I ask the government this question: will the government today commit to proving that it did complete a risk analysis document by tabling it in the House of Commons by the end of this week? If it is the case that there is a report and there was due diligence, let us see the document. I would ask the parliamentary secretary to stand up and say that he will table this report in the House.

Let us hope that this is not a decision that the government will regret with a lost life. Let us hope that is not the case.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by extending birthday greetings to my colleague across the way.

I want to assure him as well that the number one priority of the Coast Guard is the safety of mariners. The Canadian Coast Guard determined that search and rescue services can be delivered more efficiently in the Vancouver area without increased risk to sailors, fishermen and pleasure boaters, while also achieving significant cost savings.

Since the closure of the Kitsilano lifeboat station on February 19, the Canadian Coast Guard Sea Island base, the inshore rescue boat and HMCS Discovery have responded to 107 search and rescue and marine distress incidents involving 165 lives at risk in the greater Vancouver area and have done so with a very good record.

The network of search and rescue responders in the Vancouver area is functioning well. This reflects the careful consideration and planning that led to the decision to consolidate the Kitsilano lifeboat station.

Employment Insurance

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives see crime everywhere, even where there is none. They send inspectors to spy on the unemployed in their homes. They suspect everyone of being a criminal. What are the unemployed guilty of? Are they guilty of losing their jobs or of living in a region where seasonal employment is predominant?

On March 5, during question period, I asked the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development about the home visits and the techniques one might describe as spying on employment insurance claimants by government representatives. In my opinion, the Conservatives are becoming more fierce in their attack on people's rights, and that is unacceptable.

We now know that thousands of randomly selected claimants were visited directly at their homes by Service Canada representatives. Apparently, the purpose of those visits was to ensure that the unemployed workers were seriously looking for employment.

Although the techniques for verifying the integrity of the system were implemented a long time ago and using the necessary means to prevent fraud is entirely justified, one has to wonder about the legitimacy of the current approach. There is a fine line between a legitimate verification and outright bullying.

We have even heard stories of EI claimants who had to explain to Service Canada why they were not home, when they were out looking for work, applying for jobs or doing an interview.

Unfortunately, it seems clear that this system is not designed to verify whether a claimant is eligible. Instead, the Conservatives want to covertly send unemployed workers the message that the government is keeping an eye on them. The vast majority of Canadians would rather see the Conservatives focus their efforts on the many scandals that abound in the Senate and in the Prime Minister's Office.

There is no data to support the claim that home visits are an effective way to uncover fraud, and Canadians have every reason to question what is going on, since all of the Conservatives' arguments are filled with half-truths.

I remind Canadians that, although the government claims it could recover millions of dollars from fraud, errors with EI benefits payments come from three sources: from the claimants themselves, from employers and from the administrative system. The government claims there is $330 million in potential fraud, and that includes errors, improper payments and future corrections or claims processed incorrectly.

Service Canada employees say that there is no indication that the number of cases of fraud in the system has increased. The most recent data analyzed by the Auditor General, along with the numbers that have appeared in the newspapers, show that less than 1%, approximately 0.6%, of the budget allocated to the employment insurance system is attributable to fraud. That money is nearly fully recovered, except for about $21,000. Those figures come from the 2012 Public Accounts.

There are relentless attacks on honest workers, the vast majority of whom pay their taxes and ask for nothing more than to work and live with dignity in the regions of this country. The thousands of workers who are proud to participate in a diverse economy are victims of stereotypes perpetuated by the Conservative Party. Yet a senator had to give $90,000 back to taxpayers.

Fraud is never acceptable.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak in the House tonight on a topic about which I would love to speak more. That is ensuring Canadians have long-term prosperity, they have jobs into the future and, when they may fall down on their luck, they have a stable and well-functioning employment insurance system upon which they know they can rely.

If we divide this argument into two parts, I would like to start with the job creation component. I certainly sit here and answer questions on the environment quite often, but when my colleagues opposite speak about this particular portfolio, I very rarely hear them advocate for job creation. It is actually a rare thing.

I sit here and look at the various sectors of our economy across the country, be they manufacturing or high tech industries. Very rarely do I ever hear a question from the NDP to our Minister of Industry on ways to promote and enhance economic growth.

My colleagues spoke about economic diversification. More often than not, on this particular point I hear one of two things: first, that we should increase the tax burden on job-creating companies, and I am from a school of economic thought that questions the validity of that particular process; or second, that they simply denigrate a sector of the economy, saying it is unimportant to Canadians or it is something of which we should be ashamed. Of course, I am speaking specifically of the energy sector.

I wish my colleagues, when they put these questions forward, would for once talk about the first part of that argument, the job creation argument. I find it a disservice to anyone seeking jobs in this country to not talk about that, and I very rarely hear that.

One the second part of the argument, talking about the functionality and effective stewardship of the EI program, I think it is worth pointing out that through Service Canada we became aware of nearly half a billion dollars in ineligible EI payments that were detected and stopped by Service Canada.

As legislators, we are tasked with looking at the functionality of a program and making sure those who play by the rules are afforded good service and are afforded the benefits for which they are eligible under the program. However it is also fair to look at ways in which we can ensure fraud does not occur. The activities Service Canada undertakes are designed to do just that. They are designed to ensure that those who play by the rules are eligible for the program and receive payments and that those who do not play by the rules do not receive these benefits. It is as simple as that.

I ask my colleague opposite to step beyond her talking points, because I have heard this argument over and over again with my colleague the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour as I sit here in adjournment proceedings. How does she feel about her party's lack of argument for job-creating growth, or putting forward a budget that has no costing in it, or denigrating whole sectors of our Canadian economy?

Perhaps for once she could speak to job creation instead of just perpetuating myths about certain programs in our country.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what the member just said is so interesting, it is incredible.

First of all, it is all false, because we do talk about job creation on this side of the House. The member really stepped in it. Just think of Canada's manufacturing sector, which is steadily declining. That is what we referred to as Dutch disease, and our leader talked about it. Canada has suffered as a result. The NDP does talk about the economy.

The solution is the job creation program, not cuts that hurt unemployed workers. Half of the Canadian provinces oppose the program because it is bad for economic recovery in provinces with a lot of seasonal employment.

These provinces are not lucky enough to have oil wells or a knowledge economy based on something like pharmacology.

Currently, 50% of the population is experiencing a recession and job loss. We fully support the idea of finding work for employment insurance claimants, but the government has to stop scaring them, showing up on their doorsteps and accusing them of fraud, because most of them are not fraudsters.