House of Commons Hansard #153 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was measures.
The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer
I have the honour, pursuant to section 38 of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, to lay upon the table the case report of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner concerning an investigation into allegations of wrongdoing.
This report is deemed permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.
Government Response to PetitionsRoutine Proceedings
Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre Saskatchewan
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(b) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's responses to 24 petitions.
Daryl Kramp Conservative Prince Edward—Hastings, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to present, in both official languages, the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security in relation to Bill C-44, an act to amend the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and other acts.
The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House without amendment.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present two petitions.
The first petition relates to the horrific human rights conditions experienced by Falun Gong practitioners in the People's Republic of China. The petition is signed by people throughout the metro Toronto area, who are horrified by reports of organ harvesting.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from residents of British Columbia from various places, within Saanich—Gulf Islands as well as metro Vancouver.
The petitioners call upon the government to legislate a permanent ban against supertanker traffic along the British Columbia coastline. The petitioners do not want dilbit in tankers on the B.C. coast.
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions here from my riding.
The petitioners call upon members of Parliament to condemn discrimination against girls occurring through sex-selective pregnancy terminations.
Rosane Doré Lefebvre NDP Alfred-Pellan, QC
Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present to the House today. The first is about suspending the deportation of an individual residing in Laval.
Rosane Doré Lefebvre NDP Alfred-Pellan, QC
Mr. Speaker, the second petition I would like to present is about the Gros-Cacouna oil terminal and was signed by a number of people from the north shore, Laval and Montreal. They are asking the federal government to reverse its decision and reject the Gros-Cacouna oil terminal proposal.
Rosane Doré Lefebvre NDP Alfred-Pellan, QC
Mr. Speaker, the third petition is about my bill, Bill C-608. Many people have signed this petition to make May 5 the national day of the midwife.
Judy Foote Liberal Random—Burin—St. George's, NL
Mr. Speaker, I stand today to present a petition on the cuts to postal services by Canada Post. This is one of several petitions that I have presented on behalf of particularly rural communities throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.
The petitioners are saying that the government should in fact tell Canada Post to maintain full postal service, particularly in rural communities, because of the impact it will have not only on the people who avail themselves of the services but on the economy in the area.
Bruce Hyer Green Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have been working on affordable housing strategies for years, and so it gives me great pleasure to present 200 petitions from across Canada.
The petitioners want to see us work on a national housing strategy where we can end homelessness, increase housing affordability, and provide tax benefits to rental investors for upgrading and creating new housing across Canada.
Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings
Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre Saskatchewan
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-43, A Second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.
The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin
There are 68 motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-43.
Motions Nos. 1 to 68 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.
I will now put Motions Nos. 1 to 68 to the House.
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
moved:
Motion No. 1
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting the long title.
Motion No. 2
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting the short title.
Motion No. 3
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 102.
Motion No. 4
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 103.
Motion No. 5
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 104.
Motion No. 6
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 105.
Motion No. 7
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 106.
Motion No. 8
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 107.
Motion No. 9
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 108.
Motion No. 10
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 109.
Motion No. 11
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 110.
Motion No. 12
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 111.
Motion No. 13
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 112.
Motion No. 14
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 113.
Motion No. 15
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 114.
Motion No. 16
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 115.
Motion No. 17
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 116.
Motion No. 18
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 117.
Motion No. 19
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 118.
Motion No. 20
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 119.
Motion No. 21
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 120.
Motion No. 22
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 121.
Motion No. 23
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 122.
Motion No. 24
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 123.
Motion No. 25
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 124.
Motion No. 26
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 125.
Motion No. 27
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 126.
Motion No. 28
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 127.
Motion No. 29
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 128.
Motion No. 30
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 129.
Motion No. 31
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 130.
Motion No. 32
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 131.
Motion No. 33
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 132.
Motion No. 34
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 133.
Motion No. 35
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 134.
Motion No. 36
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 135.
Motion No. 37
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 136.
Motion No. 38
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 137.
Motion No. 39
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 138.
Motion No. 40
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 139.
Motion No. 41
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 140.
Motion No. 42
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 141.
Motion No. 43
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 142.
Motion No. 44
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 143.
Motion No. 45
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 144.
Motion No. 46
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 145.
Motion No. 47
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 172.
Motion No. 48
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 173.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
moved:
Motion No. 49
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 187.
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
moved:
Motion No. 50
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 225.
Motion No. 51
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 226.
Motion No. 52
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 228.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
moved:
Motion No. 53
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 229.
Motion No. 54
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 230.
Motion No. 55
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 231.
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
moved:
Motion No. 56
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 253.
Motion No. 57
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 254.
Motion No. 58
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 255.
Motion No. 59
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 256.
Motion No. 60
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 257.
Motion No. 61
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 258.
Motion No. 62
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 259.
Motion No. 63
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 260.
Motion No. 64
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 313.
Motion No. 65
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 378.
Motion No. 66
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 379.
Motion No. 67
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 380.
Motion No. 68
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 381.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleagues for their speeches on the amendments. Since this latest omnibus bill is over 460 pages long, we hoped to improve even a small part of this very complex and problematic bill.
Since getting their majority in the House, the Conservatives have introduced close to 2,200 pages of omnibus budgets, but they have agreed to just one single amendment proposed by the opposition. That is incredible.
This omnibus bill alone will amend a huge number of Canadian laws. The incredible thing is that this omnibus bill will fix a problem created by the last omnibus bill, which fixed a problem created by the omnibus bill before that. That is the kind of government the Conservatives are now running. It is bad for our economy and our country.
In this 460-page omnibus bill, there are many corrections to the previous massive omnibus bill, which fixed previous omnibus bills, because the Conservatives got it wrong and accepted no amendments. The Conservatives think this is a good way to manage the Canadian economy and to govern Canada.
This is a process that has failed Canadians. We see it creating conflict and uncertainty. We see it creating bad economic conditions that I will go into in a minute. It is a problem because it is using the power that a majority government has completely irresponsibly. There are a myriad of quotes from Conservatives who are now in cabinet who used to decry the Liberals when they used this exact same technique, ramming together all sorts of different laws that had nothing whatsoever to do with the budget into one package, one Trojan Horse bill. That is also true in this case.
The Conservatives called it anti-democratic and unfair. For once, they were right. However, if it was right in opposition, then it must be even more right when forming government, because the power that a majority government has to affect our country and our laws is a power that must be used responsibly, as opposed to the abuse of power that we see again with this bill, Bill C-43.
To put this into context, which is important with any budget implementation act, under the Conservatives' watch more than 400,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost in this country. Consumer debt is at an historic high for Canadians. Canadians owe more money now than they ever have in our history. We have seen a persistently high youth unemployment rate in this country, usually double that of the unemployment rate broadly.
We have also seen consistency of long-term unemployment, which refers to Canadians who have been out of work for 27 weeks or more. It is at the same level as its worst level during the recession. There were Canadians who were finding it harder and harder to get back to work during the worst times of the last global recession, and the same is true now. Twenty per cent of the jobless in Canada are made up of the long-term unemployed. I will leave talking about the unemployed until later. It is something that Conservatives are often chagrined to hear.
In this bill, their feature item is oil. In the midst of global uncertainty and with oil prices falling below $70 a barrel, dropping almost 40% this year alone, we see no plan B from the government. Plan A is oil, plan B is oil, and plan C is oil. When oil drops below $70, federal and provincial government revenues go off, but any hope for job creation also goes off because that is the only plan the Conservatives seem to know and have.
It was in previous omnibus bills that the Conservatives tried to put truth to the idea of what the Prime Minister said back in 2006, which was that Canada would become an energy superpower. They would bulldoze their way through the countryside, laying pipeline down everywhere and exporting all that oil to market. They made changes in Canadian law through these omnibus bills to attempt to achieve that goal.
What have we seen but uncertainty and conflict? When pushed against the wall and forced to accept something without debate or input or any decent consultation, Canadians resist. They say they want fairness. They want their government to play an equal role in the economy and not favour one side over another.
Canadians want to see the $1.3 billion subsidy to the oil sands, a direct subsidy to some of the richest companies on the planet, come to an end. They want to see an alternative. They want to see some options. They want to see plan B. They want to know we can have a green economy. Despite a complete lack of effort from the federal government and another failed opportunity in this budget implementation act, we see the clean tech sector growing by leaps and bounds. It is up 37% in just a few years, and $25 billion has gone into the green energy sector in the last five years. That is greater than what has gone into the oil sands in northern Alberta.
Do members ever hear the Conservatives talk about that? Do members ever hear them talk about the great success of the green energy movement in Canada, the clean technology industry's high-paying and high-quality jobs? No. They blow all their capital on one industry alone. It is always wise to have a little diversity in an ecosystem and also in an economy. With Conservatives, we have seen all the eggs put into one basket, with no plan B.
As China's economy weakens, as Europe remains fragile and some European countries enter a recession, as some American indicators are showing weakness even as America rebounds, the Governor of the Bank of Canada said we may have a 0% or near flat recovery in the jobs sector, and in the midst of all that uncertainty and in the face of all that difficulty, the Conservatives bring forward an omnibus bill. In 460 pages, their one economic initiative to help Canadians get back to work is an EI jobs scheme that does not work. It is a $550 million raid on the employment insurance fund, which even Conservatives admit does not belong to the government. More than half a billion dollars is ripped out of the EI fund in this omnibus bill.
The Parliamentary Budget Officer, who has done the only credible analysis of this scheme, says it will create an astounding 800 jobs. He said each job created by this EI raid will cost upwards of $550,000.
I have had a number of constituents write me. They want to know where they can apply for these $500-million-per-year jobs. They wonder why the government is promoting such a program.
We know that far too high a number of Canadians who fall out of work cannot even access employment insurance. That is the worst kind of insurance there is. It is something one pays into but can never draw from. The reason they cannot access it is that the Conservatives, and the Liberals before them, kept rigging and changing the rules so that fewer people, particularly women and low-income Canadians, could actually access employment insurance. It is a scam, a scheme, and that is why it is put forward in this bill rather than as a stand-alone piece of legislation that members could actually debate here in this House.
When we asked the government for its analysis of its scheme, its $550 million EI raid, we heard that the government had done no analysis at all. We asked the finance officials and the minister himself, who came before the committee. We said he was about to rip off the EI fund for $550 million to create these jobs, but had he done an analysis? He said they had not. They had outsourced it to a lobby group, the CFIB.
However, even the CFIB has said time and again that this employment scheme will not necessarily create the jobs the government hopes for. We see this as a failure of process and a failure of integrity.
Just today in the stock market, the TSX is quoted as saying:
The Toronto stock market deepened its decline on Monday as concerns about the Chinese economy, and discouraging signs from early U.S. holiday sales.... ...the mining and metals sector fell, while energy stocks tumbled.
In the face of all this, we would expect the government, with the powers of a majority government, to take the opportunity here in the House of Commons to do something about our weakened economy, to do something to help the green energy sector, to do something to help Canadians get back to work. We wonder when Conservatives are actually going to do something, drop the ideology, pay attention, and face reality in our economy.
We need to help Canadians get back to work. We need to restore those well-paying manufacturing jobs. We need to do more than what is in this bill.
We have attempted, through our amendments, to make something good out of something bad. My concern, my suspicion, my reality is that Conservatives will do what they have always done, which is ignore the evidence in front of them. They will take an ideological stance and say that they know best. However, the numbers tell the truth. They do not.
Conservatives are failing Canadians and they are failing the Canadian economy.
Mike Allen Conservative Tobique—Mactaquac, NB
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague across the way for his comments. I want to thank him for leaving in a number of things in part four.
First I will note the extractive sector, which is an important initiative of the government with respect to the reporting of mining companies abroad.
The member also forgot the latest reports on the growth of the economy by 2.8% last month. He forgot about that. I wish he would have put that in, and also the employment growth.
The member made a comment with respect to the refund of the EI premium. I think he used the words “ripping off the EI fund”. If he recalls our comments from the committee, there are two major contributors to the EI fund. One is the employee and the other is the employer, who contributes about 60%. This is $550 million that is going back, especially to small businesses.
In New Brunswick, many of our small businesses have fewer than 10 employees. We are putting $550 million back in the hands of small business, which in my view would not only help them but would help them maintain some of the employment they have today.
The member cannot say that it is a rip-off. In fact, it is a refund of premiums back to a major contributor called the employer.
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I heard a question in the member's comments.
There is actually a significant change in the argument we have heard from the Conservatives. If members remember, initially the finance minister said that this was going to create 25,000 jobs, or person years. They changed the metrics a little bit.
The initiative to take $550 million out of the employment insurance fund, money that does not belong to the government, was to create jobs. That was the headline. That was the news. That is what the minister was saying. However, when we asked for any analysis, when we asked them to defend this argument, they had nothing. What they had were a couple of quotes from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. Dan Kelly, who is the head of that organization, said:
On a firm-by-firm basis, I think that's quite right. You are not going to pay for a full job through an EI hiring credit.
It is not a huge amount of money. This is not a scheme that will create the jobs the government claims. In a time of economic weakness, in a time of global uncertainty, to take $550 million out of the EI fund and not create any jobs out of it seems like a failed opportunity. To not allow people who paid into the fund, because it is not just the employers, it is the employees, to actually access employment insurance, especially if they have lost their jobs, as 400,000 of them just in the manufacturing sector have, seems cruel. It seems bad for the economy.
If the Conservatives are now saying that maybe it will maintain a few jobs, that is a completely different argument than the one the finance minister used. They will have to get their arguments straight. The Conservatives certainly do not have any evidence to back up that this is what they claimed initially.
This will not do what it says, and that is a failure of any intelligence from the government.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, where I agree with the NDP finance critic is in regard to the Conservatives' employment insurance plan.
What we have put forward is a plan that would see EI premium exemptions for every worker hired to fill a new job in 2015-16. This is a program that would ultimately see tens of thousands of Canadians in all regions of the country gain employment.
My understanding is that during the last federal election, Jack Layton was actually supportive of this type of plan. Does the NDP no longer support what Jack Layton talked about in the last federal election, or would the member join us in supporting this proposal the Liberals have put forward?
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Mr. Speaker, the challenge for the Liberals is that first, they have actually changed that particular proposal three times in the two weeks since they first introduced it.
Second, the Liberals have it completely wrong. We had a small-business hiring tax credit that came out of general revenues that worked. It did not raid the EI fund. It worked so well that the government picked it up, and small businesses loved it, including the CFIB, because it was a tax credit linked to the creation of a job, not the hope and promise of a job.
We have seen massive amounts of tax cuts going to the largest and most profitable corporate sectors, which have not gone back into the economy. We have one of the lowest research and development reinvestment rates in the world. We have seen upwards of $600 billion that the Conservatives call “dead money”, money that was given back to them in tax cuts that they did not reinvest back into the economy.
If they are going to give businesses a break to create jobs, then why not tie the string and say that when the businesses create the jobs, that is when they will get the tax credit? That is what Jack Layton promoted and what we continue to promote, not these schemes that would only fail workers and hurt those who pay into the EI fund.