Debates of Oct. 29th, 2014

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon to speak to the latest Conservative omnibus bill. This bill is a product of a tired, old Conservative government that has lost touch with the challenges and opportunities of Canadians.

Bill C-43 is overflowing with changes that have no place in a budget bill, such as the petty change the Conservatives want to make to deny refugee claimants access to social assistance.

The Conservatives are actually using Bill C-43 in an effort to deny income support to refugee claimants, right after their attempt to limit refugee claimants' access to health care was struck down by the Federal Court. The court called that Conservative policy “cruel and unusual treatment” that “outrages (Canadians') standards of decency.”

A recent editorial in The Globe and Mail called this bill “an abuse of process and shown contempt for Parliament by subverting its role”. The Globe is right. It is anti-democratic for the Conservatives to once again use a massive omnibus budget bill to limit debate and ram through so many unrelated measures in Parliament.

In the last few years, the Conservatives have concocted and implemented a process that prevents MPs from all parties from doing their jobs in properly scrutinizing legislation. This is leading to a lot of sloppy mistakes. The Conservatives' general disdain for Canada's democratic institutions and their outright contempt for Parliament have led to countless errors being cemented into Canadian law.

This bill would try to fix a number of previous Conservative mistakes. I would like to give members a few examples of areas where the Conservatives are trying to use this omnibus bill to fix errors in previous bills.

First, the Conservatives forgot to include a tax credit in the last omnibus budget bill, Bill C-31, for interest paid on Canada apprentice loans. The Conservatives try to fix that in clause 35 of Bill C-43.

The second is that the government forgot to ensure that PRPPs are subject to similar GST treatment as RRSPs. The fix for that is found in part 2 of Bill C-43.

Third, they forgot to include a refund in Bill C-31 for duties paid on destroyed tobacco products. That correction is in Bill C-43, part 3.

Fourth, they forgot to change a legal heading when the Conservatives used Bill C-19 to transfer spending powers from the Minister of Foreign Affairs to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. The Conservatives gave all of the powers in that section of the law to the immigration minister, but still named the section “Minister of Foreign Affairs”.

Fifth, they forgot in Bill C-38 to allow the Minister of Industry to publicly disclose certain information regarding the review process.

Sixth, they forgot in Bill C-31 to include foreign money services businesses as foreign entities under the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act.

Seventh, they ignored expert advice and capped the size of the Social Security Tribunal in Bill C-38, leading to massive backlogs in the system.

Eighth, they failed to realize in Bill C-4 that the amalgamation of the Blue Water Bridge Authority might not go as planned.

Ninth, they created confusion in Bill C-4 with various amendments related to public service labour, including a reference to the wrong clause number.

Tenth, they forgot in Bill C-45 to coordinate between RCMP pension rule changes in Bill C-42 and rule changes that raised the age for public service pensions in Bill C-45.

There are 10 examples of the the mistakes the Conservatives made in the previous bill that they are trying to fix in this omnibus bill.

The fact is that the Conservatives' game plan of limiting debate and ramming these bills through Parliaments is responsible for creating these mistakes. Parliament is denied its legitimate role to identify these flaws in the process of real parliamentary debate at committee and in the House and fixing them.

The reason these mistakes are made in the first place is because of the deeply flawed process surrounding omnibus legislation.

I would like to talk a bit today about tax policy, GST, EI, and the income-splitting proposal that the Conservatives had in their last platform.

Bill C-43 actually adds GST to some goods and services that are used by or provided by non-profit organizations operating health care facilities. When we asked officials for an example of what kinds of service might get caught up in this GST hike, the example they provided was of a health care facility that also runs a residential apartment building, such as an old age home. Adding GST to services purchased by or provided by old age homes means one of two things: either it will cut into the bottom line of the health care facility, or the old age home will have no choice but to pass the tax hike on to the people they serve. In the case of an old age home, it means that the government is getting ready to hike the GST and punish Canadian seniors, who are already struggling to get by on a fixed income.

In terms of employment insurance, Bill C-43 also gets it wrong. Bill C-43 offers a small EI tax cut to employers, but only if they agree to stay small. Instead of creating real jobs and growth, Bill C-43 would actually encourage businesses to stay small and would punish them if they grow and become more successful. Due to a design flaw in Bill C-43, the so-called small business job credit creates an incentive for some businesses to fire workers. That is why economist Jack Mintz has called it “a disincentive to growth” and why economist Mike Moffatt said “...the proposed ‘Small Business Job Credit’ has major structural flaws that, in many cases, give firms an incentive to fire workers and cut salaries.”

Even Finance Canada officials last night acknowledged that this tax credit creates a disincentive for some employers to hire.

Last month the PBO looked at this tax credit and found that it will only create 800 jobs over the next two years, at a cost of $550 million. That means it will cost taxpayers almost $700,000 per job.

In response to the need to encourage businesses to hire and to reduce EI premiums for businesses that do that or reward businesses that hire, the Liberals have proposed an EI holiday for new hires. This plan would only reward businesses that actually create jobs. The Liberal plan has been endorsed by Canadian job creators, including the Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters, which has said that the Liberal plan for an EI exemption for new hires “would create jobs”. The Restaurants Canada organization, representing restaurants across the country, said “This...proposal for an EI exemption for new hires would help restaurants create jobs.” The CFIB said it loves the Liberal plan to exempt small business from EI premiums for new hires, which has lots of job potential.

The same PBO report that looked at the Conservatives' tax credit and identified the flawed program that would cost $700,000 per job also identified that the Conservatives are collecting billions of dollars in excess of taxes in EI over the next two years and that the Conservatives actually have the capacity to cut EI premiums significantly.

The PBO estimates that artificially high EI rates under the Conservatives will cost the Canadian economy 10,000 jobs over the next two years. That is 10,000 more Canadians who will be out of work over the next two years because the Conservatives are using artificially high EI premiums to pad the books to fund pre-election spending. The Conservatives are ignoring the evidence and putting Conservative politics ahead of the Canadian economy and ahead of the interests of Canadian workers and employers.

Speaking of ignoring the evidence, the Conservatives appear ready to go ahead with their flawed income-splitting scheme that was introduced in their last platform. The idea that the Conservatives were putting forth in their last platform has been panned by everyone from the C.D. Howe Institute and the Canadian Taxpayers Federation to the Mowat Centre and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. It was even panned by the late Jim Flaherty himself.

It is being panned because, as articulated in their platform, fewer than 15% of Canadian households would benefit, most of them high-income households, at a cost of $3 billion per year to the federal treasury and another $2 billion per year to provincial governments. Provincial governments, as we know, are facing deficits and huge fiscal challenges.

Under the Conservatives' scheme, the Prime Minister, earning $320,000 a year and with a stay-at-home spouse, would save about $6,500 per year. Meanwhile, a Canadian earning the average industrial wage and with a stay-at-home spouse would save less than $10 per week, and most households would get no benefit whatsoever.

We have a different approach. The Liberal approach is that we need to build a plan for 2015 that would be focused on creating jobs and growth to strengthen the Canadian middle class. The status quo is not working. The current federal government is so preoccupied with day-to-day politics that it has lost track of and is out of touch with the challenges and opportunities facing Canadian families. Those are challenges such as aging demographics and a slow-growth economy, which some refer to as secular stagnation. Baby boomers are rapidly approaching retirement age, and as they exit the workforce, they will leave a shrinking tax base and labour shortages in their wake. They will also place a greater strain on health care systems as they age. We will end up with more Canadians using the social safety net and fewer Canadians paying into it. These demographic pressures are leading economists to predict that slow economic growth could become the new normal.

The Canadian economy, frankly, is already sputtering under the Conservatives. Job growth over the last two years has been extremely weak, consumer debt is high, infrastructure is in disrepair, and housing prices in our cities are inflated. Last year the Canadian economy created a paltry 5,300 net new full-time jobs across the country. The percentage of Canadians working today is still two full points lower than before the downturn. There are 200,000 more jobless Canadians today than before the downturn, and the number of Canadians who are considered long-term unemployed is twice that of 2008. More than 150,000 Canadians are unemployed and have been searching for work for a year or longer. As we all know, the longer they are out of the workforce, the harder it is for them to get back in.

On the other end of the spectrum, we have young Canadians who simply cannot get their foot in the door of the Canadian labour market. Recent grads are facing huge challenges. There are 200,000 fewer jobs for young Canadians today than before the downturn, before 2008. Persistently high youth unemployment and under-employment is robbing a generation of people of opportunities they need to succeed. TD economist Craig Alexander and CIBC economist Benjamin Tal describe a scenario of a lost generation of Canadian youth and a lost generation of potential for all Canadians.

This is despite the fact that this generation is the most technologically adept, most educated generation in our nation's history, and therein lies the challenge we face. There is a gap between the education they have and the job market. We have people without jobs and jobs without people.

Too many Canadians in their twenties are left saddled with big student loans and are unable to make ends meet. All too often, it is their middle-class parents and grandparents who are footing the bill. Among the hardest hit are Canadians who are actually squeezed between helping their adult children pay the bills and taking care of their aging parents at the same time, the sandwich generation. In many cases these parents in their forties, fifties, and sixties are taking on additional debt or dipping into their retirement savings. In fact, this is one of the things that is driving record levels of personal debt, which is about $1.65 for every dollar of annual income. According to the Canadian Financial Monitor, Canadians who are 55 years of age or older are two and a half times more likely to refinance their mortgage if they have children than if they do not have children. Their average household debt is twice that of their childless peers.

Meanwhile, many younger families do not actually have a mortgage to refinance. Instead, they are being priced out of the housing market altogether.

On this front, the Conservative government must share at least part of the blame for the high housing prices in Canada and commensurate personal debt. It was the Conservative government, in budget 2006, that brought in 40-year mortgages with no down payment. It introduced them for the first time in Canada. It had an effect, because in the first half of 2008, more than half of all new mortgages in Canada were 40-year mortgages, and 10% of those had zero down payment.

The Conservatives shifted Canada's borrowing culture and lending culture, and that shift has helped fuel record levels of housing prices commensurate with that household debt. They have since reversed course and returned to the norm that was the case under Liberal governments in the past, meaning 25-year mortgages with at least 5% down. However, it is important to recognize the Conservatives' culpability in bringing 40-year mortgages with no down payments into Canada and helping fuel record levels of personal debt related to skyrocketing housing prices.

From the OECD and the IMF to the Bank of Canada, one thing on which Canadian and international economists agree is that elevated housing prices and household debt pose a big domestic threat to our economy. These elevated housing prices have helped widen the generational divide between those on the one hand who have watched the value of their house appreciate and in some cases have tapped into that equity to help fund consumption, and those on the other hand who cannot afford to even enter the housing market.

We are seeing greater income inequality in Canada, and fewer Canadians now think of themselves as being middle class. In fact, the number of Canadians who self-identify as middle class has dropped from 64% in 2009 to 47% in 2014. Even more troubling is that for the first time in recent history, more Canadians now believe that the next generation, their children and grandchildren, will be worse off, not better off, than they are today. That is the first time this has happened in Canada.

What we need is a federal government that will rise to meet these big challenges facing our country: aging demographics, slow growth, soft job market, and high levels of youth unemployment and underemployment. These are all challenges, but they also represent opportunities. I will give one specific challenge to our country that is a big social and economic challenge but that also represents an opportunity if we can get it right.

Over the next 10 years, there will be about 400,000 young aboriginal and first nation Canadians who will be of workforce age. If they have the skills they need for the jobs of today, that would be really good for our economy. If they do not, it represents a demographic, economic, and social time bomb for our country.

The reality is that we have failed collectively as governments at all levels to address this challenge. If we take it seriously, young aboriginal workers can be part of a Canadian growth and economic success story. We have to get it right. We have to take these issues seriously.

Liberals believe that sustainable growth and a focus on creating jobs, growth, and opportunities is the best way to benefit Canadian middle-class families and to restore hope to them. We believe we need to invest in infrastructure, training, innovation, and trade, and we believe that we need to keep our competitive tax rates.

Bill C-43 does nothing to grow the Canadian economy, and it ignores the very real challenges of the middle class and of young Canadians.

In a very short period of time, potentially within days, we will be seeing a fall economic statement. We hope the government chooses to invest in the future by investing in infrastructure, in training, and in young Canadians. We need the government to do so, and if this government does not, a future Liberal government will.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was reminded by a colleague, just recently, it is the 30-year anniversary of the Thrilla in Manila, the fight between Ali and Frazier—

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

The Rumble in the Jungle.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

The Rumble in the Jungle, excuse me.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Foreman.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will get it right. I got my year wrong. Against Foreman, there was a technique used by Ali that was later called rope-a-dope. I do not think he fixed the fight but the rope-a-dope idea is to just sort of lay back and let the opponents swing wildly away, burning themselves out.

While that is an amusing pugilistic tactic, what we are worried about in this particular budget is that if the government continues to swing wildly away with these very expensive schemes, the effect would not only be burning through a great deal of actual capital, and real and perceived political capital, but it would hurt Canadians in the long term.

What we have heard from small businesses and the business community at large is that merchant fees, in particular, are a grave concern, that restaurants and small businesses across the country are getting hit with higher and higher fees when customers use these credit cards, and that there is a voluntary but useless program that has been invoked by the Conservative government.

Would my friend join with me in suggesting that we need to begin to have mandatory rules set out for credit card companies and banks to restrict these abusive practices that hurt small—

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. The hon. member for Kings—Hants.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is right. The voluntary approach has not worked. When we talk to the restaurant association or the retailers or the CFIB, they acknowledge that more needs to be done. Some of them point us toward the Australian model and potentially capping rates.

Just to show how perverse the current system is, if a persons goes into a store in Windsor, Nova Scotia, and buys a pair of shoes with a credit card, the merchant can be dinged with a 3% charge upon the sale of those shoes. The person takes the shoes home, finds out his spouse does not like them, brings them back and exchanges them. There is another 3% charge for the merchant. The merchant has been hit by a 6% charge and has not sold a pair of shoes yet. That is one of the best ways to illustrate how ludicrous the current situation is and how important addressing it is for the engine of Canadian economic growth: small business.

A mandatory approach may be the best way, but ignoring it with a voluntary approach certainly has not worked.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for a good speech. I know he only had a 20-minute opportunity to speak.

He talked about the lack of infrastructure investment the government has made and continues to make. In his conversations during the pre-budget consultations, did he consult his own mayors and the premier in his own province? What is their input? What are the discussions involving infrastructure?

Every time I talk to a local mayor or a local politician or somebody at the provincial level, it is always about lack of infrastructure. Whether it is in my province of Quebec or not, I hear that the Canadian government is not in partnership in any projects and that it is reducing investments in programs.

I wonder what the member thinks about the lack of money in infrastructure.

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

Mr. Speaker, when I spoke recently with Mayor David Corkum, the mayor of Kentville in my riding, he stressed the need for infrastructure investment. He also stressed the need for us to take investing in social infrastructure, such as housing, seriously.

There is a strong role for the federal government. This is certainly not the time for the federal government to cut by 89% planned infrastructure spending for next year. It is doing that, again, to pad the books on the eve of an election. It may be good politics. It is bad economics.

The reality is that, if we listen to David Dodge or the OECD or the IMF, with bond yields at historic lows, with real interest rates actually negative, we have an historic opportunity to invest in Canadian infrastructure, to create jobs today and to improve Canada's competitiveness tomorrow. We heard that from the former deputy minister of finance yesterday, Scott Clark, at committee.

Beyond that, we have the greatest concentration of expertise in the design, construction, and financing of infrastructure in the world resident in Canada in our pension funds. Let us work with them to invest in fixing Canada's infrastructure and create good jobs here in Canada.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there was some debate before my colleague spoke about the changes to the temporary foreign worker program that exist within this omnibus bill. The reason I raise it is that there has been some dispute as to whose fault this all is between my Liberal and Conservative colleagues.

It was a program started by the Liberals some years ago. It was somewhat limited. It started to grow a little. There were some scandals with its use and application for professional dancers, exotic dancers, at one point under the Liberals that got some attention, if I recall correctly. Then the program was expanded massively under the Conservatives.

My question is from the briefing we had last night and from the speech earlier that said the new changes will make it so that the temporary foreign worker program is not a first option program for Canadian employers. There were some other revisions as well, a reporting mechanism, an outing and naming of those employers who chose to abuse the program.

It is not as if these concerns are new. We had concerns, particularly across the west but also in other parts of the country, that this had become a program of first resort rather than last resort for many employers. How could we have designed it this way?

I assume that is what the changes are meant to fix. There are design flaws in the DNA of the temporary foreign worker program. Were those flaws inherent in the program that was established by the Liberals? Were they newly incorporated when the Conservatives took over?

I want to understand when it was that the temporary foreign worker program became a first option for too many employers. The minister mentioned that it was 2002, when those changes came in. Perhaps my colleague, the member for Kings—Hants, can allow the minister some time to answer a similar question with some accuracy as to who was the most abusive of the temporary foreign worker program.

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

Mr. Speaker, if the temporary foreign worker program were ever being used to bring in professional dancers, I would certainly express concern, particularly if there was a lack of gender balance.

Beyond that, let us be very clear. The temporary foreign worker program, on a limited basis, worked quite well for a long period of time. It has grown massively under the current government and is being used in areas where it was never intended to be used. Historically, if we look at temporary foreign workers in the horticulture or agriculture side, it is something where everyone acknowledges, and not just in Canada but elsewhere, there is a legitimate role for temporary foreign workers.

What we have been troubled by and what makes no sense is the skyrocketing of the use of temporary foreign workers in areas of high unemployment, for example, in the Windsor, Ontario area, and the threat and the very real risk of it depressing wages in those areas. What we believe ought to happen is that we consider temporary foreign workers policy as part of an overall immigration strategy, and we restore the opportunity and the linkage between people who come here to work as part of our production chain of products, goods and services, with immigration.

If we look at Manitoba, it has done a great job of immigration. There were approximately 16,000 new Canadians who moved to Manitoba last year, compared to the 2,000 in my province of Nova Scotia. Manitoba has a whole-of-government approach. One of the things they do there is streamline the process and make it easier for people who come here to work to move on to permanent residency and then on to immigrate to Canada.

As a country, we ought to look at the Manitoba model. We need more new Canadians. We need to attract them, not just to work on a temporary basis but to become full partners in progress and citizens of this country.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am sharing my time with the member for Vancouver South.

I listened this afternoon to all the speeches. The job of members opposite is to be the opposition. I listened to some of the speeches from the NDP side and I know it has never been in government, so it can pretty well say anything. As far as the Liberal side is concerned, it too is in the same position.

When in government we have to make sure everything is in balance. We expect criticism, which is fine. However, let us look at the global picture. Nearly 1.2 million net new jobs have been created in Canada. That is over 82% full-time jobs and 80% in the private sector since the end of the recession in July 2009.

When we look at our country, Canada is the envy of the world because Canadians as a whole live well, and as a whole we are safe. It is the best country in the world in which to live.

As parliamentarians and members on this side of the House know, as we went into the recession, the most important thing was to ensure that our country's economy was balanced so that there were jobs, so that people could live in their homes and buy their food. In any country, nothing is perfect. There are housing problems and other issues in all countries. However, in Canada, we have a lot to be proud of. Canada has one of the strongest job growth performances in the entire G7. That is quite incredible looking at the global economic problems that the world has faced. Canadians have also enjoyed one of the strongest income growth performances in the G7 and Canada's business investment performance has been the strongest in the G7 over the recovery. This is very important. Why? It is because this gives a sense of security to Canadians.

Since 2004 Canadians have put our government into power because they had the confidence that the economic part of their lives would be secure. That does not mean to say every single Canadian is secure. It means that we are the best country compared to others. Canada has a AAA rating in this economic environment worldwide. We also know that the middle class in Canada lives better than in the U.S. and many other countries. Also, we now have 180,000 children who are now out of poverty.

There is a lot to be proud of. For the sixth straight year the World Economic Forum has ranked Canada's banking system the soundest in the world. This means something. With all due respect, even though there are always things to improve and do better, this is indicative of Canada's standing on the world stage and indicative of its very sound economic planning and practices. Does that mean everyone is going to get everything they want, daily? No, that does not mean that. It means that the economy within the country is sound, jobs are growing, people can go to work, children can go to school, and our country is the best country in the world in which to live.

I listen to all these criticisms and all the hyperbole. In Parliament, hyperbole is something that we hear every single day on probably every single topic.

When Canada is leading the global economic recovery, that is something to be proud of. There needs to be a recognition that Canada and this government are doing something right. When we listen to members opposite, we hear all the talk of gloom and doom. They think they can do things better. The fact of the matter is that this is not what the Canadian public thought, because those members are not sitting on this side of the House.

Canada has the lowest overall tax rate in the G7 on new business investment. That is a red flag right there. It shows that this government is creating new business.

Canada is one of only two G7 countries to have a rock solid AAA rating, with a stable outlook, from all the major credit rating agencies, such as Moody's, Fitch, and Standard & Poor's. That is important. A lot of countries cannot claim that, because they have no plan in place. War-torn countries have not had the opportunity to put a plan in place. It is impossible for them to do that. This government has been able to meet that high standard.

There is a reason our government's top priorities are job creation, economic growth, and long-term prosperity. It is so people can have families, work, prosper, and have a future.

Our government has become aware of many issues that have presented themselves through businesses. For instance, small business is the engine of this country. It pushes out so much of the economy. Women are some of the top small-business owners, and that is a real change from 20 years ago.

More small business opportunities have been created through the small business job credit, and that has been a real asset to those women who want to start businesses. That is not often spoken about in the House. Some of these businesses are run out of the home. Some are run out of small offices. These businesses are providing income for families.

The budget implementation bill will make life more affordable for Canadian families. What is important to a family? A lot of children participate in sports. It was presented to our government that a lot of families could not afford to pay the registration fees for sports, such as soccer and other kinds of sports, so in this particular budget, our government has doubled the children's fitness tax credit to $1,000 and has made it refundable.

Paying attention to individual families has made a huge difference in balancing Canada's economy. We have heard today many instances of how families have been impacted. Unfortunately, because I only have 10 minutes to speak, I cannot list them, but they were listed earlier.

We should work collaboratively to give suggestions. When the bill goes to committee, amendments can be made, if need be. We should look at how we can build together and recognize the fact that this government has put in a strong economic plan.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I gather from the member's speech that she wants us to cut through the hyperbole and the usual rhetoric, so I will get right down to it.

One of the things that concerns us on this side of the House is that this is an omnibus bill. When the member sat in opposition, she had the same concerns about omnibus bills.

We are particularly concerned about refugee issues. We have seen cuts to refugee health. There is a notion that this would help out the provinces. I wonder if the member could name the provinces that requested this.

With regard to the bill itself, would she not agree with us that if there is a need for debate, amendments, and careful study, as she has suggested, we should not have an omnibus package in front of us? We should actually have these things separated and actually have a budget bill, not something of this nature.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, this particular bill is not unusual. I keep hearing that it is an omnibus bill, a great big bill with a lot of pages. That said, it is not unusual when we compare it to other budget implementation bills that have come forward over the years.

Also, we have had this bill for over eight months. I think it has been eight months and twelve days, actually, so there has been a lot of time to go through it. It does not take that long.

Provinces all across this country have had challenges in that the temporary foreign worker issue has been abused. Jobs for Canadians come first. Having had that collaboration across the country, we have had to look at putting Canadians first, jobs first for Canadians, and at the checks and balances that are long overdue in the temporary foreign worker program.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I get a little nervous when I notice the government House leader. I am thinking of the potential for time allocation.

That said, my question is for the member for Kildonan—St. Paul.

In terms of co-operation, we made the suggestion that the government consider EI premium breaks for all new hires. We have had many third-party stakeholders who have commented on just how valuable this recommendation is. It is an idea that would create thousands of jobs.

If we want to fight for the middle class when debating the proposed legislation, I think a big part of that would be fighting for jobs. Allowing EI premium breaks for new hires would go a long way.

Would the member not support initiatives that would cause employers to create literally thousands of new jobs at a relatively marginal cost? I would be interested in her thoughts on that.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, the bill does go through committee. It is at committee where those suggestions are made and brought back.

That said, the whole bill is about creating jobs. The whole bill is about building business. The whole bill is about making the lives of families and business people better in this country.

I have to say that I look forward to the member for Winnipeg North sitting on committee and bringing those suggestions forward for an extensive conversation.

Bill C-43—Notice of time allocation motion

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise that an agreement has not been reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-43, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures. Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for consideration and disposal of proceedings at that stage.

I might add that it is my intention to propose an additional three days to the second reading debate for a total of four days for that debate.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-43, A Second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Second Reading

[Wai Young, Conservative, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to this budget implementation bill. This bill would put some of the measures contained within the 2014 federal budget into practice in Canada.

Before I address some of the specific measures in this bill, I would like to give an overview of what the international community is saying about Canada's economy and the success we have seen since the global recession in 2008.

Both the IMF and the OECD have stated that they expect Canada to be among the strongest-growing economies in the G7 over this year and the next. The New York Times conducted an analysis and concluded that after-tax middle-class incomes in Canada, which were substantially behind in the year 2000, now appear to be higher than in the United States.

Finally, with nearly 1.2 million jobs created since July 2009, the Canadian economy has had one of the strongest job-creation records in the G7 since the recession. As we move forward with this legislation, the international community can look forward to Canada continuing its role as a global leader with a successful economic record.

One of the reasons Canada has had such great economic success is that we recognize that the challenges we face in the global economy are not simple or straightforward. They are complex challenges that affect every sector in the Canadian economy. This is why I am pleased to see that this bill encompasses a broad approach to addressing the many problems we still face in the fragile global economy.

I know that the term “omnibus” does not sit well with some. However, we have to be realistic. Canada exists within a global economy, and because it is comprehensive, this bill would ensure that we address as many issues as possible to maintain our outstanding economic recovery and growth. Since Canada has had to move quickly to meet the challenges of the economic recession, Canadians have experienced that these bills have in fact been working very well for our economy. Furthermore, historically, it has been common practice to include various measures across many sectors in a budget and then in the budget implementation bills to follow. Ultimately, it reflects the central role a budget plays in addressing the wide range of issues Canadians need addressed.

Now I would like to highlight some of the measures contained within this bill that will be important to the residents in my riding of Vancouver South, and indeed to all Canadians.

The first measure I feel would greatly benefit the people of my riding, and particularly small-business owners in my riding, is the small-business job credit. Over the next two years, this credit would lower the payroll taxes of small businesses by 15%. It is estimated that this would result in savings of approximately $550 million for small businesses over these two years. As a previous small-business owner myself, I fully understand the importance small businesses play in driving the local economy. I know that this credit would go a long way in supporting the many small businesses in my riding and would promote job creation throughout Vancouver and Canada.

Another measure I was pleased to see in this implementation bill was the extension of the tax credit that currently exists for interest paid on government-sponsored student loans to include interest paid on Canada apprenticeship loans. As we know, apprenticeships are a vital link between high school and the workplace. Many students in my riding and across Canada take part in apprenticeship programs to gain the skills they need to be successful in the workforce. Furthermore, these apprenticeships can usually lead directly to full-time employment. I have met many constituents enrolled in apprenticeship programs who share how they thoroughly enjoyed learning their trades through hands-on experience and direct training from an employer. I am therefore very pleased to see that the government would extend the existing credit to loans students can take out to participate in apprenticeship programs. This would certainly encourage students to take part in these programs, which will contribute to a strong and skilled workforce.

Another tax credit I am pleased would be implemented as part of this bill is the doubling of the children's fitness tax credit. In 2006, the government introduced a non-refundable tax credit of up to $500 annually for fees related to the registration of a child under the age of 16 in an eligible program of physical activity.

This bill would act on an announcement that the Prime Minister made this month that would double this tax credit as well as make it refundable.

I know that many people in my riding and across Canada widely support this credit as it would enable children to enrol in sports like hockey, baseball and soccer, when they otherwise might not be able to afford it. As a previous soccer mom of twins, and recognizing that many families, like mine, have more than one child, I know how quickly fees can add up.

That is why I am very pleased to see the doubling of this tax credit in this implementation bill as it would help Canadian families support sport and activity for their children. This measure would ensure that parents can take advantage of this credit when they file their taxes for the 2014 tax year.

Finally, I was pleased to see that this implementation bill would end pay-to-pay billing practices in the telecommunications sector. This would ensure that those who prefer to or must receive their bills in the mail are not forced to pay additional fees just because they receive their bills in the mail.

This commitment was made as part of the government's 2013 Speech from the Throne. I am very pleased to see that it would now be implemented. Many seniors in my riding, as well as those who do not have access to high speed or any type of Internet, have been frustrated with these unnecessary fees. I know that they will certainly be pleased to see this practice end.

In closing, I would like to share that when I am in my constituency in Vancouver, I consistently hear from my constituents about how happy they are with the work of the Minister of Finance and what he has been doing to ensure that we will return to a balanced budget by 2015. Hearing from my constituents about how pleased they are has certainly made this a priority for the government and a priority for all Canadians.

I therefore urge the opposition to support economic growth, lower taxes and the many positive measures in Bill C-43.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech.

She does not seem to realize that columnists, editorial writers and even journalists—whether they lean to the left, right or centre—all seem to agree. They are opposed to omnibus bills that distort the parliamentary process when they include measures that have nothing to do with the budget. I have a simple and clear question for the member, in the hopes of getting a clear answer.

The member is bragging about a measure to eliminate pay-to-pay billing practices in the telecommunications sector that require consumers to pay to get their bills. However, consumers will still have to pay to get a bank statement.

If she is so proud of this bill, why did she not insist that her government include this measure to fully protect consumers against this practice?

[Wai Young, Conservative, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as we noted earlier, this bill was tabled in February, so members have had more than eight months to review it and talk about it. It has been debated in the House for a long time, so I do not think that omnibus is the word for it. Comprehensive, broad and meeting the needs of diverse Canadians are other great words for it.

As I said earlier in my speech, and to reference my constituents, whenever I see them in my riding of Vancouver South they are really happy with the Conservative government, with its strong economic performance and with the fact that it is balancing the budget by 2015.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to rise today to speak to this omnibus budget bill and I thank the member for Vancouver South.

However, I do need to correct the record. Omnibus budget bills are not something of long-standing or habitual use in this place. Up until 2005, the longest omnibus budget bill was a little over 100 pages. I think that it was in 2009 that the current administration put forward an omnibus budget bill of 900 pages.

My first question in this place, when I was elected, was asking the Minister of Finance if an omnibus budget bill was planned for 2011 because I had become so alarmed by them. There was not one in 2011, but we have seen, ever since 2012 and 2013, a spring omnibus budget bill and a fall omnibus budget bill.

My hon. colleague from Kildonan—St. Paul, who preceded my friend from Vancouver South, told us that we had months to study this but, in fact, we had days and it is over 400 pages.

Omnibus budget bills are an affront to democracy in this place and should not be allowed unless they pertain to the same purpose and the same effort. These are all over the map. They do not aid our economy or our democracy.

[Wai Young, Conservative, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the hon. member across the way is using the word omnibus because that is her word. It is certainly not my word.

Bill C-43 supports our low-tax plan for jobs and growth. I would like to note, if she is so inclined, that parts 1 to 3 are all tax-related, 281 pages are all tax-related. Part 4 contains the rest of the measures, 31 tax measures that we are giving to Canadian families, so that they will have this money in their pockets.

Some of the measures in part 4 are lengthy, such as the intellectual property changes that needed to be ratified, encompassing international treaties and such, so 35 pages.

Basically, the bill is related directly to a budget implementation bill, which is what is up for discussion here, and it is completely related to the budget.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on that point, this budget bill is 400 and some-odd pages, half in French, half in English.

The previous questioner has written a few books. They are likely over 200 pages. That member likely expects people to read her books, so I am expecting members of Parliament to read 200 pages.

The change to the child tax credit for physical fitness is becoming refundable. Since November is financial literacy month, there are only three other refundable tax credits. Refundable means that if individuals are not paying taxes, they still get their money back for that.

Why is that important to poor families who have kids in physical fitness programs in this country?