Debates of Dec. 2nd, 2014

Motions in amendment

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, respecting the provinces and their jurisdiction is something this government has continually done. I am extremely proud of the fact that we do these types of things and we ensure that it is in consultation with the different stakeholders, which is an important aspect of it.

There are opportunities that we sometimes have with the budget implementation act technical briefings. I want to bring that up from the point of view that it is very seldom opposition members take the information they gain when they attend these technical briefings and present it to the House, because it does not really fit into their rhetoric which they would sooner have in question period or in the media.

It is important we recognize the experts in this regard and consider what they have to say in this area.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member indicated, and I suspect it comes right from the Prime Minister's office, that the Conservatives have got it right in terms of taxation policy.

Then he went on to talk about the income-splitting policy that the government recently announced. This is a policy that would assist less than 15% of the Canadian population, at a substantial cost of $2 billion. It is going to be the middle class of Canada that is going to have to foot the bill for that income-splitting policy, something the former minister of finance in the Conservative Party was very critical of.

Can the member tell the House why the government is penalizing the middle class of Canadian society, forcing them to pay for that $2 billion income-splitting promise by the Prime Minister?

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's points; however, it just shows how the Liberal Party does not understand how good government should work.

The hon. Jim Flaherty challenged his colleagues, and each of us took it upon ourselves to make sure that we had budget consultations and that we actually talked to people. The Liberals had opportunities to be involved in these discussions over the years.

These are the kinds of things we would do. I look at the discussions that happened. The Prime Minister and the former minister of finance wanted our input. Our input has given something that is so strong for middle class Canadians. When they look at that and recognize the situation that exists there, I think they will find that they are extremely proud of the work we have done. Stronger families means stronger communities. With stronger communities, everyone is going to benefit.

The members' comments are similar to the flawed notion that maybe those who do not have kids should not pay education taxes. These are the kinds of strange things that come from the opposition at times.

Let us think about what I am saying. I remember the situation that occurred when the Liberals cut transfer payments, many years ago. I was the chairman of a hospital board. I recognized the damage that had taken place.

The Liberals are trying to make suggestions as we are putting more money into transfers and everything else. They should recognize that their record is not very strong.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was told that technical briefings are something on which we should present information to the House. I am pleased to do that because I was at those briefings, and quite frankly, some things I heard shocked me.

Most important, with respect to the changes in this bill around the ports, not a single port authority across the country was consulted. Not a single municipality across the country was consulted about the changes that are contemplated in this bill. In fact, there was no public consultation. It was simply a change that was foisted upon the House as part of an omnibus bill. It is a practice that has been described as too frequent, too complicated, and unnecessary in the promotion of democracy by Professor Peter Russell of the University of Toronto, who is an expert in parliamentary procedure.

The reality here is quite something. Ports are now being given the power to expand their letters patent arbitrarily and unilaterally by simply acquiring property. When they do that, those lands are then exempt from local zoning conditions. No municipality was consulted and no cost-benefit analysis was done around what this does to local tax bases or the costs of operating the ports.

Further to all of that, we now see in the city of Toronto that the port authority is seeking to regulate zoning permissions right across the city. It can unilaterally down-zone property, acquire it and then rezone it. That is a scam. There was no consultation and not a single conversation.

It does not get much better when one starts to look at changes to aerodromes, which are under division 2 of part 4 of this bill. Instead of having a public process where there are public boards and public conversations about the behaviour of aerodromes and airports in this country, now all the decision making would be concentrated inside the minister's office, not even in the House of Commons.

Again, were municipalities or airport authorities consulted? What we heard in the technical briefings is that they were not. It was simply something dreamed up on the other side of the House. This is the public process that omnibus bills give us: a concentration of power in the hands of a few, often unelected, and a complete departure from debate in the House, let alone public scrutiny and consultations. The government members may talk a good game about public consultation, but the only people they really talk to are each other.

On aerodromes, significant concerns are being raised by pilots right across the country. This is from the Canadian Owners and Pilots Association, who oppose this bill but were never consulted about it, the very people who use the airports:

We are concerned about the manner in which the Act amendment was developed, without consultation, how far the power of the Minister would extend and the one-sided nature of imposing consultation requirements and prohibitions on aerodromes when no such Aeronautics Act consultation requirements or prohibitions exist....

The government is making up legislation, but what is worse is that this bill was introduced as simply housekeeping, a few enabling pieces of legislation to get a budget bill through. This was never in any other legislation. It was never proposed, presented, nor debated in any part of this country. It simply showed up in a committee one afternoon and got into a press release, and then we are supposed to swallow it whole as part of an omnibus bill. That is unacceptable behaviour, and it is wrong.

There is another serious issue that changes to aerodromes deal with, which is the impact on local communities. Many defunct aerodromes are now being used as landfill sites, effectively. When construction happens in one part of the country, the land gets hauled to another part of Canada and dumped, without rules or regulations, because that is allowed. There is no public consultation, rule, or regulation about that.

As a result, the power now resides with the minister, not the House of Commons. Decisions are being made in this House today as we debate this that will have far-reaching impacts in every corner of this country. We cannot and will not support that. Those are the kinds of arbitrary rules that bring all the actions of this House into question.

Turning to public health, not only does the government want no consultation with the public on other items, but on public health it is trying to bury scientific evidence, which is a really disturbing pattern of behaviour. A government appointee, who needs to have no scientific or medical expertise but who is simply a political functionary, is being dropped in on a public health department. The medical advice we need to deal with things like SARS—and God help us if ebola ever arrived here—and the power of the chief medical officer of health to act unilaterally within a federal department when an emergency prescribes is being lost to someone without any medical expertise.

If we take a look at the history of what chief medical officers of health have done in this country, we will find that public works departments—not just of cities and provinces, but also of the country—are a direct result of medical advice and scientific evidence being presented to decision makers. From that, public policy flows.

What are we doing? We are burying that expertise in a bill that purports to be a budget bill but is quite clearly another attack on science and evidence by the Conservative government. It is unacceptable.

The other issue we are dealing with is the employment insurance changes that are forecast in this bill. They are changes that have been denounced by virtually every significant economist in the country. When we went to the technical briefing and asked staff from that department where this idea came from, they had no idea. In the evidence that they produced as part of this debate, when they were asked directly what studies they had done to verify the claims being made by the government, they said not a single study was requested or done. In other words, the numbers come from a source outside of the government.

Where did these numbers come from? When we went to committee, what we found out is that the numbers came from the very lobbyists that asked for the cut. They are not verified. There was no due diligence. We are spending $550 million on a whim, on a promise from vested interests, on some conversation that happened in the back rooms of some ministerial office.

When the party across the way asks for us to go to committee and listen, which we do, and asks us to attend technical briefings and focus in on the evidence that is presented, the evidence is that there is no evidence, yet the policy emerges out of the back rooms as if it is somehow well thought through.

When the Parliamentary Budget Office does report on these topics, what do we get? We get a complete contradiction of the numbers that are presented by the ministers. It is not 500 or 1,000 jobs; it is 800 jobs. It is 800 jobs at a cost of $550 million. On the same legislation, which would freeze premiums, the Parliamentary Budget Office's evidence, which was presented in committee, is very clear. This act would cost the economy 10,000 jobs. That means there would be a net loss. We would be cutting taxes, but we would be cutting employment at the same time and leaving Canadians in a very bad spot.

The information that has perhaps not reached the Conservative benches is very simple. When 10,000 people lose jobs, tax cuts do not help. When 10,000 people lose their jobs, families are negatively affected. The Conservatives can hand out all of the tax cuts they want for kids in sports programs, but if parents are not working, kids are not playing. It is that simple.

That is the evidence that is presented as part of this discourse, yet that evidence never seems to reach the backbenches on the other side, and it certainly does not reach the talking points of the ministers involved.

The final and most horrific part of this bill is the private member's bill, which is not a budget bill. It is political discourse. It is rhetoric that has slipped its way into this omnibus bill. The Conservatives were not confident enough to present it as government policy. They put it in place and then they slipped it into an omnibus bill, hoping that no one would notice, but of course, we all noticed. The reason we noticed is that this notion of denying social assistance to refugees is morally bankrupt. It is wrong.

When we went to the technical briefing and asked the staff of the department if they had consulted with anybody, the answer was no. Did anybody comment? It comes back that one province spoke up. That one province, the province I reside in and Parliament resides in, the Government of Ontario, said not to do this. What was the government's response? It did it.

For all of those reasons, this bill cannot be supported. It must not be supported. If the Conservatives were serious about what they heard in committee, they would withdraw it.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by my colleague. I wonder if he might want to provide some additional comment with regard to the manner in which this legislation has taken into account numerous other pieces of legislation.

Instead of introducing stand-alone legislation, which no doubt would have had more debate in the House, the government has used the budget bill to pass an abnormally high number of other things that could have been brought in separately, under separate pieces of legislation.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the examples in recent days have been numerous. However, when the government acts unilaterally on a single piece of legislation, it gets ripped apart. The veterans bill is not even a week old but has already been withdrawn, rewritten, and turned on its head, and the minister is running all over the world trying to avoid any questions about it. Because of the political failings of the government opposite, I can understand why it would want to have an omnibus bill. It is easier to hide bad legislation.

The reality here is that as we start to pick apart even the high water marks of this folly of a piece of legislation we can see that there is no reasoning, no rationale, no factual support, no research, and no documentation supporting any of the claims being made publicly by the ministers or the government backbenchers. What we end up with is opposition member after opposition member standing up and picking apart clause by clause, division by division, explaining why division 14, division 20, and division 19 do not work. Therefore, the Canadian public is left wondering why the government would present such a horrible omnibus bill. The reason is that it is all so bad that people cannot pick out which part is the worst.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to read a quote into the record from Mr. Greg Taylor, the Chief Public Health Officer, when he said this at our finance committee meeting with respect to the changes to public health:

The changes proposed do not diminish the role of the chief public health officer, they enhance it. In essence, they associate internal management and capacity issues with a dedicated agency head and direction on public health issues with the CPHO. It makes good management sense and good public health sense to make these changes.

It's a structure that works well for many provinces and territories, and for countries, including the United Kingdom and Australia. In fact, we've been moving this way as an agency for some time now and have, in fact, adopted this type of management structure since 2012.

The member is saying that the government is not listening. Does he not listen to Mr. Taylor, the Chief Public Health Officer?

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if we look at all of the organizations that have been cited there, in particular Australia, we will see that the person brought in as chief medical officer of health is also a doctor and a scientist and manages multiple departments within that agency. That does not interrupt the ability for scientific and evidence-based decisions to come forward.

The trouble we have here is that the government shows a clear pattern of not appointing someone with expertise or capacity, but simply people with political skills to do the work that scientists and people with evidence should be doing. The problem we have with the way in which the government is processing this is that we know that it does not like science, expert opinion, and evidence. What it wants is simply to bureaucratize the information it is receiving and politicize it so that it does not have to listen to it.

In this case, there may be a way of rationalizing it as a replication of other jurisdictions, but what we have is the deliberate practice of a government that refuses to engage with science, refuses to look at data, and dismisses evidence. It is saying, “Don't give us the facts, give us the anecdotal evidence”. That is how it proceeds case by case. We can see it with the harm reduction strategies around InSite and the common sense firearms licensing act. Every time you run into evidence, you change the bureaucracy and politicize it. That is why the opposition has absolutely no confidence in your ability to restructure this department.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

I am shocked.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

The hon. member for Trinity—Spadina should be directing his comments to the Chair. I assume he was not directing those comments to the Chair. In any event, in the future could he direct his comments to the Chair, please.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the member of Parliament for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, I am pleased to inform Canadians about how our Conservative government is successfully implementing the initiatives in our economic action plan to promote jobs and growth and support families and communities. Our initiatives, which are part of Canada's economic action plan, greatly benefit families in rural regions, such as my riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

One of the important requirements of municipalities that is being met by our federal Conservative government is the provision of long-term predictable funding for infrastructure. I am very proud of our government, as it has delivered a new building Canada plan to help finance the construction, rehabilitation, and enhancement of infrastructure across my riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke. As the people in my riding know, they have been abandoned by the Liberal Party of Ontario. Unlike the Province of Ontario, which discriminates against rural Ontario by withholding provincial gas tax revenues, our federal government returns gas tax revenues to the municipalities to do the needed infrastructure upgrades and take the pressure off the property tax base, which, along with the high electricity energy prices, is forcing people on fixed incomes, like seniors, out of their homes.

Through the now-permanent and indexed federal gas tax fund, last year communities in my riding made needed infrastructure repairs. Communities like the Township of McNab/Braeside received almost $221,000 for road reconstruction. Madawaska Valley received approximately $134,000 to reconstruct Tamarack Road; and the Township of Laurentian Valley received almost $600,000 in federal gas taxes to resurface or reconstruct five roads in 2013: Ema Street, Spruce Street West, Whispering Pines Crescent, Vaudry Drive, and B-Line Road. North Algona Wilberforce received over $98,000 to begin work on Marsh Road, to resurface Snodrifters Road, and to construct a dry storage shed for salt.

The Township of Admaston/Bromley received $83,000 to resurface South McNaughton Road. The City of Pembroke received almost $860,000 to reconstruct the Pembroke Street Bridge, as part of an ongoing federal contribution since 2011 to fix various streets and replace water and sewer lines, amounting to over $1.7 million. The County of Renfrew received $2.5 million for road resurfacing and rehabilitation. The Town of Renfrew received $250,000 in federal gas tax dollars to rehabilitate Queen Street. In 2013, Petawawa received almost $0.5 million for Herman Street, with a cumulative federal gas tax fund total for that project amounting to almost $1 million.

The Township of Whitewater Region received $378,000 to resurface Pleasant Valley Road and Rapid Road and Bromley Line Road to the end. The Town of Arnprior received $360,000 for roadwork; and the Township of Bonnechere Valley received over $93,000 to reconstruct and put a new surface on Crimson Maple Road.

The Town of Deep River received $96,000 for work at the W.B. Lewis Public Library parking lot and sidewalk. The Township of Killaloe-Hagarty-Richards received over $24,000 for sidewalks, and $150,000 for roads and culverts. Horton Township received $40,000 for roads. The United Townships of Head, Clara, and Maria received $23,000 for HVAC improvements.

Greater Madawaska received over $84,000 to pay down debt on a waste management project started in 2005, for a cumulative total of over $400,000, and other federal funding of $225,000 for a total project cost of $1.2 million. The Township of Brudenell, Lyndoch and Raglan received over $180,000 to resurface a 2-kilometre section of the Jewellville Road and a 3.5-kilometre section of the Addington Road. The Township of South Algonquin received $226,000 to do Hay Lake Road repairs, and to repair Maple Drive, Galeairy Lake, and Algonquin Street.

In total, in 2013, $6.9 million flowed to my riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, generating over $20 million in municipal construction activity.

I remind municipalities, particularly municipalities in Ontario, that the backroom advisors in Toronto who devised the policy to discriminate against rural municipalities and only pay out the provincial gas tax revenues to urban communities have surrounded the inexperienced leader of the Liberal Party here in Ottawa. They want federal gas tax dollars to pay for failed social experiments, like the industrial wind turbines that no community wants, and have cancelled the gas plants.

They refer to the industrial wind turbine white elephants as a green initiative to save the environment. In fact, the Liberal Party in Ontario is being sued for $653 million for manipulating the so-called Green Energy Act by using “political favouritism, cronyism and local preference”, according to the court filing. Compare and contrast that with the long-term predictable funding associated with the way our federal Conservative government manages federal gas tax funds to municipalities.

Just ask the president of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, AMO, what he thinks of federal municipal partnerships. He said we are open, honest, and transparent.

Moreover, the Parliamentary Budget Officer has acknowledged that our tax relief has successfully targeted low and middle-income families. He said, “Cumulative tax changes since 2005”, which is when our government took office, “have been progressive overall and most greatly impact low-middle income earners (households earning between $12,200 and $23,300), effectively resulting in a 4.0 per cent increase in after-tax income”.

The federal tax burden is at its lowest rate in 50 years. We have removed more than one million low-income Canadians from the tax rolls entirely. The average family of four will save nearly $3,400 this year, and a small business with revenues of around $0.5 million now saves over $28,000 in taxes, thanks to our low-tax plan.

It is clear that Canada has become an international success story, but Canada is not immune from economic challenges beyond our borders. Those challenges include foreign dirty money funnelled to special interest groups to implement policies that would kill jobs in our forestry and energy sectors. Our government is clear that as long as Canadians are looking for jobs, we will not pursue policies, particularly ones based on junk science, that will put ordinary working Canadians out of their homes and out of work.

With that, I will now turn to the measures in today's legislation that would build on our success and ensure that we would continue to keep Canada on track for job creation and balanced budgets. First, Bill C-43 reaffirms the government's commitment to making our tax system simpler and fairer. It closes tax loopholes and strengthens tax enforcement to ensure that taxes are low for all taxpayers, not only a select few. Allow me to highlight some of the measures we have taken to improve the fairness and integrity of the tax system.

I would like to close my initial comments by saying that for the first time, according to The New York Times, middle-income Canadians are better off than Americans. That is something Canadians can be very proud of. I urge my parliamentary colleagues to support their country by voting in favour of all the good measures contained in Bill C-43.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for her remarks and particularly for the itemization of the subsidies given to municipalities.

I also took particular note of the fact that the Pembroke Street Bridge will be repaired as a result of federal funding. I have a simple question: will there be a toll on that bridge?

The Champlain Bridge in Quebec is obviously crumbling, not because of gravity but because of negligence, and there will be a toll on the new bridge. I hope that the people who use the Pembroke Street Bridge will not have to deal with these same challenges.

The member mentioned that the president of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario thinks that the gasoline subsidies program, the return of the gas tax, is extraordinary. However, the member forgot to mention that the president said that the funding is insufficient. There is not enough money to renew municipal infrastructure. The funding that is being granted is not even enough to cover the cost of repairing existing infrastructure.

Will the member tell us where, in this budget, we can find a solution to the problem of municipal infrastructure? Everyone is saying that the budget does not provide a solution to this problem.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in addition to our gas tax refund, we have the building Canada plan.

Canada's economic action plan is working. It has had one of the strongest job creation records in the G7 since the height of the recession. Nearly 1.2 million net new jobs have been created in our country since July 2009.

Globally recognized authorities from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development to the International Monetary Fund have ranked Canada as one of the best countries in the world in which to do business.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member opposite's long list of accomplishments the gas tax has brought her riding.

I am very proud to be a member of the party that introduced the gas tax. I remember, as a young reporter, covering that announcement by the then finance minister Paul Martin in Hamilton. I remember then following that announcement up to the Hill to cover the passage of the budget.

I recall distinctly that a party voted against it. She was a member of that party. I am curious as to why she voted against the gas tax when it has done so much good for the community she represents, and how she squares that with the comments she just has made.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when the third party was in government and was implementing a gas tax rebate, it made the criteria so difficult and so far fetched in terms of so-called green action plans that smaller communities were unable to benefit from the program.

We have implemented long-term, committed, stable funding and municipalities can actually do the planning to do the necessary work so a crisis does not arise when it comes to infrastructure.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like ask my hon. friend a question.

Let me first put this in context. Let us remember back to when the NDP was in power in Ontario. The only thing that increased back then was the unemployment rate. Ontario entered a dark age in economic performance, from which it is still reeling.

As far as the Liberal Party goes, we saw that the just society was a dismal failure. Now it is trying to enter the Justin society. It is a party that plundered the employment insurance fund of $54 billion, which the Supreme Court ruled was illegal and that this money belonged to the employers and the employees. Now the Liberals are advocating for increased taxes.

I hope my hon. friend can answer these simple questions. How has our government been staying on track? Our government has a plan that is recognized around the world as a plan that gets results in achieving a balanced budget in 2015. Our lower taxes have helped create employment in our country, leading to 1.2 million net new jobs being created since the end of the recession? Could my hon. friend comment on how lower taxes help create jobs in our country?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, by keeping our promise to Canadians to return to a balanced budget, our government is focusing on moving forward with its initiatives so hard-working people can also benefit from our sound fiscal policies. After all, budgets do not just balance themselves.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-43. I have heard some members talking about the content of this bill, unlike the last two Conservative members who rose, namely, the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke and the member for Red Deer. They spoke about everything but Bill C-43 in their remarks.

This bill is 460 pages long and contains 401 clauses. Part 4 alone, which deals with measures other than budgetary measures, has 31 divisions. I therefore cannot believe that these members were unable to choose some part of the bill to debate in the House. I find that unfortunate. In my opinion, it clearly shows that very few Conservative members read the bill and understand its scope, magnitude and impact.

I would like to draw attention to something that the member for Red Deer said when members rose on points of order. He said that we should listen to what is happening and attend the technical briefing. I was at the briefing, and I know that the member for Trinity—Spadina and the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley were also in attendance. A number of opposition members were there and yet I saw only one Conservative member.

The questions we ask and the concerns we raise often come directly from things we learned about during the technical briefing, including the issue of allowing the provinces to impose a residency requirement on refugee claimants before they can receive social assistance. We asked the officials questions about this during the technical briefing. We learned that none of the provinces asked for this. In fact, the provinces are perplexed and wonder why the government is going in this direction, especially after being rebuked by the Federal Court on the issue of health care for refugee claimants.

When there is so much stuffed into one budget implementation bill, why are members talking about everything but the budget bill?

As I did at second reading, I get a kick out of asking the different MPs questions about specific aspects of this bill. It is obvious from their answers that they have not read the bill. For example, when I ask them to talk to me about the consequences of changing the electoral process in the Northwest Territories, they have no idea what I am referring to. This is included in the bill, but the members look at me like I am speaking a foreign language.

This bill raises a number of concerns. My colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley raised a very troubling issue having to do with the small business tax credit. In fact, the businesses are being given more of a premium holiday than a tax credit. Businesses that pay less than $15,000 in employment insurance benefits will receive a partial premium holiday with no strings attached. It is clear, as many have mentioned already, that this measure will lead to a tax loss of $550 million for the government. The government is giving up more than half a billion dollars without any guarantee that a significant number of jobs will be created.

This measure will cost more than half a billion dollars and will come directly out of the employment insurance fund. It seems to me that at the very least, the Department of Finance should do an impact assessment of such a measure. However, every official, the minister and everyone who could tell us about this said that no such study was done.

What kind of governance do we get with this government, which implements measures without even doing an impact assessment? That runs counter to common sense and also to the principles of good governance. No private company that does business with a vendor would accept an assessment that considers only what is to the vendor's advantage or what is in the vendor's own interest. However, the government voluntarily had another party do the economic and job creation analysis for a major item in this budget without doing its own analysis. The government relinquished its responsibility for promoting sound fiscal and economic policies.

I am still waiting for a clear and sensible explanation. How will this measure, which will cost $550 million, or about $700,000 per job, really create jobs when the Parliamentary Budget Officer has clearly said that it would create at most only 800 new jobs over a two-year period?

This is not just about giving money back to small businesses. We must not forget that this money comes from the employment insurance fund. If the fund posts a surplus in coming years, it will be because of higher contributions imposed on employers and employees, and also because of the restricted access to employment insurance. Since 2006, under this government, the number of contributors eligible for employment insurance benefits decreased from 43% to less than 37%.

Therefore, this money that we are giving back to small businesses comes from the pockets of employees who paid employment insurance premiums, but cannot themselves obtain benefits because of more restricted access to the employment insurance program. This restriction affects our regions in eastern Quebec and the region of the member for Tobique—Mactaquac, among others. New Brunswick depends to a great extent on seasonal work, as does my region of the Lower St. Lawrence and my riding of Rimouski—Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques.

The range of measures in Bill C-43 make no sense. I have asked a few questions about this. I proposed that we let the provinces impose a residency requirement. This is not a matter of respecting the provinces' rights. The provinces receive a transfer from the federal government specifically to finance social assistance. Basic minimum standards were established; these standards, on which the federal and provincial governments agreed, state that a residency requirement cannot be imposed on someone who is applying for social assistance. The system is universal, which means that if someone paid taxes in Saskatchewan and moves to Ontario, they cannot be denied social assistance because they paid taxes in one province and moved to another.

Refugee claimants are among the most vulnerable of the most vulnerable. While their claim is being processed, they have no other opportunities to earn an income to support themselves and their family. They cannot work. If their social assistance is eliminated, what will they do while they are waiting for their refugee claim to be processed? They will have to go to soup kitchens and sleep in shelters. That is not an ideal situation.

With respect to health care for refugee claimants, for which the government was rather harshly admonished by the court, this is, once again, a measure that is solely designed to discourage refugee claimants who are living in precarious situations and whose lives are often in danger in their home country, and who no longer see Canada as a haven.

I could point to plenty of other measures. I talked about Part 4, which includes 31 extremely complex measures, most having nothing to do with the budget process. It is clear to me that this government is drifting farther and farther from good governance principles. It is forcing opposition members to oppose budgets, which we will do at report stage and at third reading.

This government has no idea how to govern democratically or even how to use the opposition properly to improve its bills. We found at least five or six measures that exist solely to correct errors that we frequently pointed out during studies of previous budget bills. The opposition's role is not just to oppose. It is also supposed to point out shortcomings in the government's bills.

This government, however, has no respect for the process or parliamentary traditions. Bill C-43 makes it clear that the government has no respect for the budget process.

For all of these reasons, we will proudly oppose Bill C-43 at report stage as well as at third reading.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, his comments, which I really appreciate, and his work as a member of the Standing Committee on Finance.

I would like to pick up on one of the comments that he made with respect to the refund and the EI. I mentioned before that 60% of the funds that are paid into the EI fund are paid by employers, and the refund is going directly to them.

I know that we had a comment in our committee when we talked about the CFIB. We seem to always to use the CFIB when it is convenient for us, and the other party uses it when it is convenient for them. The CFIB has clearly stated that it sees this as creating 25,000 person-years of employment. I hope that I did not hear the member say that he is discounting the CFIB's analysis on this refund.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say the same to the member for Tobique—Mactaquac. I really like working with him on the Standing Committee on Finance. I have a lot of respect for the work that he does and the efforts that he makes.

Before the Standing Committee on Finance, I made it clear that I have a lot of respect for the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and the work that it does. However, this federation works on behalf of its own members. Its main role is to lobby various government MPs and departments to obtain benefits and conditions for its members. That is its main role.

The study submitted by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business contradicts the study conducted by the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Given that these two different studies came up with completely opposite findings, the government's role is to ensure that an independent analysis is conducted. The Parliamentary Budget Officer is already an independent body. However, if there are different findings, the government should ensure that a legitimate analysis is carried out and ask Department of Finance officials to conduct an internal analysis to assess the impact of the measure. Ideally, the results of this analysis would be made available to all members and even the general public.

We do not have access to either of these studies, which is extremely unfortunate. This constitutes negligence on the part of the Department of Finance and the government.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is at this point in the legislative process that the House of Commons examines the work of the finance committee. I was at the finance committee when the particular clause involving the tax credit for businesses that pay less than $15,000 in EI premiums was considered and when amendments were rejected by the government.

What I would like to complain about is the work of the committee, in that the point was made that for for small businesses that pay just over $15,000 in EI premiums, there is a very large marginal tax on the business. That is a strong disincentive for a business just below $15,000 to hire more people or to increase wages, both of which are good things. It is also an incentive for a small business that pays slightly more than $15,000 to lower wages or to reduce working hours for some of its employees.

The point is that there was no response from the government side in committee. In my view, because there was no proper debate in committee, the committee was not able to do its work. This point was not given proper consideration, especially by the Conservative members of the committee. I invite my colleague to comment on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is an extremely relevant question that has not received all the attention it deserves.

The $15,000 limit on EI premiums paid by businesses is problematic. Businesses can benefit from the contribution holiday only if they did not reach that limit, which could induce them to limit their activities. If a business expands and has to pay $15,500 or $16,000 per year in premiums, it might be motivated to reduce its employees' hours of work or lay someone off—although I doubt that would happen—in order to be able to benefit from this contribution holiday.

There is therefore a perverse incentive for companies whose premiums are close to the limit set by the government to take advantage of this contribution holiday. The negative impact of this system must be examined more carefully by the committee. However, we had only five meetings, including the meeting with officials, to look at the impact of this bill. The process was bungled and does not at all reflect the complexity of the issues we examined.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am certainly honoured to be here today to speak to a couple of the key features of the 2014 budget and economic action plan.

For Canadian families, this year's budget demonstrates the fulfillment of a promise made by this government to return the Canadian economy back to balanced books and surplus. Currently, this government is right on track to do so. In my limited time here today, I want to give an overview of how this year's budget would meet such a promise through creating jobs, investing in research and development, and supporting Canadian families.

Let us first talk about jobs.

Since taking office in 2006, this government has made it a central priority to address what has been on the minds of Canadians from coast to coast to coast: the creation of jobs. Since the economic recession, Canada has recovered more than all of the output and all of the jobs lost during the global recession. The Canadian economy has posted one of the strongest job creation records in the G7, with nearly 1.2 million jobs created since July 2009. Over 80% of the jobs created since that time are full-time positions, nearly 80% are in the private sector, and over 65% are in high-wage industries.

When I have a chance to travel on parliamentary business, I see that colleagues from all over the world are obviously impressed with the kind of record that we have and that we have created, and they want to know how we do it. If we just look at the numbers we heard last month, we see that in October we had an increase of almost 43,000 jobs, which dropped our unemployment rate to 6.5%, the lowest since 2008.

This government has created an environment in which businesses can flourish, and almost 182,000 jobs have been created in the past years. That is a pretty impressive record by any stretch of the imagination. When it comes to other G7 countries, most countries can only wish to have the kind of record that we have.

One way in which this government has been able to create this substantial accomplishment is through strengthening the investment, training, and employment opportunities available to our young people here in Canada. When it comes to training young people to develop the skills necessary for key growth industries in Canada, this government has taken seriously the demand put forth by employers to gain an increased role in training decisions and to gain the support needed to train new employees with minimal red tape.

Several programs supported within this budget, such as the Canada summer jobs program, the Canada job grant, and the Canada apprenticeship loan, have provided funding to not-for-profits, the public sector, and small-business employers to create a great number of job opportunities for young people.

I had a chance to meet a number of these individuals in my riding. It is always interesting to see them. For example, I think of the Jordan Historical Museum and having the chance to talk to the two young ladies who were there last year who were given an opportunity. The field that they would like to go into in some capacity is museums, whether as curators or being involved in exhibits, et cetera. Because of the money that the Canada summer jobs program provided, these two ladies had a chance to see first-hand what was going on, to experience this work in the field, whereas otherwise they might not have been able to have that opportunity. That is just one small example that I think has very practical applications.

By developing an accessible path for students to transition out of full-time studies into job sectors that they are passionate about—and I can assure members that these two ladies were very passionate about their jobs with the museum—this year's budget looks to continue the strong legacy established by these programs in helping move forward the aspirations of Canadian employers and students alike.

Since it began in 2007 and through to 2013, the Canada summer jobs program has helped over 260,000 students, while the Canada job grant and the apprentice program have allowed for an investment of over $50 million in up to 4,000 internships in both high-demand and small- and medium-sized business sectors. These initiatives all make Canada's labour force more competitive and shape a path toward enhanced national prosperity and growth.

As a member of the Red Tape Reduction Commission, I am pleased to say this government is now implementing another one of our recommendations. We are cutting the administrative burden on more than 50,000 employers by reducing the maximum number of required payments on account of source deductions.

The 2014 economic action plan proposes to continue supporting the elimination of unnecessary barriers for employers and the creation of important programs like these, which put more money back into the pockets of hard-working Canadians.

Youth employment strategy, or its short form, YES, is another program with strong results supported in this year's budget. YES provides skills development and work experience for youth at risk, summer students, and recent post-secondary graduates.

Economic action plan 2014 announces that our government will improve the youth employment strategy to align it with the evolving realities of the job market. This process would also ensure federal investments in youth employment provide young Canadians with real-life work experience in high-demand fields such as science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and skilled trades. Creating these jobs for students benefits not only youth and employers but local economies as well. That is why our government will continue to support programs in this year's budget that help connect young Canadians with available jobs.

Let me talk a little now about research and development and the Internet. Investing in employment opportunities is only one part of how the budget proposes to continue to move the Canadian economy forward. The other half of its strategy is that it is investing in the promise of new inventions, new ideas, and new minds. It is these important features that currently give Canada an economic edge over its international competitors.

Our government has helped foster these innovations and discoveries by funding research and development projects throughout the country. In 2014, we continue the trend of increasing annual research and development funding, with the total spending now at $1.6 billion over 5 years.

We have long recognized that the development of new ideas and new products is key to Canada's future prosperity. It fuels the growth of small and large businesses and drives productivity improvements that raise the standard of living of Canadians.

Improvements to technology and infrastructure, such as our connecting Canadians program, deliver on the government's commitment in economic action plan 2014 to invest in programs that benefit all Canadians. Bringing high-speed Internet to an additional 280,000 Canadian households in rural and remote regions of the country, this program is ensuring that Canadians are equipped with the skills, tools, and opportunities needed to be competitive and thrive in the 21st century.

It is because of programs like these that Canada remains the G7 leader in research and development expenditures in the higher education sector as a share of the economy. Our universities are recognized internationally for providing a world-class education. We must continue this legacy by investing in the intellectual and social capital that culminates in our places of post-secondary and higher learning.

Through our economic action plan 2014, we will continue this legacy through creating funds to support research, academic excellence, and higher learning. Prime examples of the investments the budget makes in the brightest minds of tomorrow are the Canada first research excellence fund and the venture capital action plan. These initiatives help Canadian post-secondary research institutions leverage their key strengths to the benefit of all Canadians. Within the next decade, the Canada first research excellence fund will provide an additional $1.5 billion to advance the global research leadership of Canadian institutions.

The venture capital action plan aims to make significant resources available to support Canada's booming venture capital industry, including the allocation of $400 million to help increase private sector investments in early stage risk capital.

Complementing the investment in research and innovation, I want to conclude my time today by focusing on what the budget aims to do for Canadian families.

In my riding of Niagara West—Glanbrook, families are very important. There is no higher calling for a government than ensuring that every Canadian family with children will have more money in their pockets to spend on their priorities. The family tax cut, a federal tax credit, will provide tax relief by allowing higher-income spouses to transfer up to $50,000 of taxable income to a spouse in a lower tax bracket.

Increasing the universal child care benefit for children under age six, doubling the children's fitness tax credit, and increasing the child care expense deduction dollar limits all represent measures that make important priorities, like child care and after-school sports, more affordable for parents.

Simply put, these measures put hard-working Canadian families and their children first. Whether it is creating jobs, investing in young people, research and development, or supporting Canadian families, our government is displaying strong leadership and taking important steps in moving this economy and nation forward. The budget benefits Canadians nationwide and puts in place initiatives that cultivate growth and prosperity.

Mr. Speaker, it is for this reason that I am honoured to stand before you today and put forward my support for the implementation of this year's budget.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today and speak on Bill C-43.

The title of the bill is rather misleading as it describes a bill to implement the budget and other measures, which is exactly what I want to start with: the process that got us to this place today. This is yet another omnibus budget bill. It is a bill that would actually do much more than what Canadians might think a budget would do.

A budget would be about economic priorities, fiscal matters, and the like. However, yet again, the bill before us is 460 pages in length with 400 clauses and would do so much more than deal with budget measures. It is misleading, in fact, to call it a budget implementation bill when it deals with matters that have nothing in the world to do with budget. Of course, that is the pattern of the Conservatives. This is number five on a long list of budget bills.

I have the honour of representing Victoria, and I sit on the finance committee where, frequently, we deal with matters that have absolutely nothing to do with finance. I have a little trouble back in the riding explaining what I am doing talking about those measures, but that, I guess, is just the way it is. However, I also have difficulty explaining why amendments are proposed and uniformly voted down by the Conservatives, even when those amendments are self-evident improvements to a bill in specific matters.

Having spoken about the failed process, the anti-democratic process that led us to this place, I would like to talk about the substance. I will speak about the things we would support and oppose in the bill, and the things that are glaringly obvious by omission in the bill.

It must be said that there are things that are supportable in the bill. One that comes to mind initially is the NDP's longstanding proposal to deal with the pay-to-pay problem. Seniors in my riding of Victoria constantly complain about paying more for a telecommunications bill if they get it on paper rather than online. They do not have a computer and they do not want to do that. Well, the government, in its typical way, went halfway. The Conservatives went along with the pay-to-pay provisions vis-à-vis broadcasting enterprises and telcos, but I guess the banks had a better lobby, because glaringly obvious in omission is anything to do with bank fees. I guess that is because the banks had a better lobby than telcos, or perhaps there were disputes elsewhere with that sector of the economy. However, at least the Conservatives went halfway, and we give them credit for that half measure.

Second, there were measures to improve the clarity and integrity of the tax code, which is something New Democrats had been proposing for a long time. However, so much more needs to be done about tax evasion, and I will talk about that in just a moment.

There are other issues, such as the implementation of a DNA data code to help solve the crisis in missing aboriginal women and girls. This is a longstanding proposal that the government has now recognized, and we accept that.

Last, there is the backlog on appeals to the Social Security Tribunal. This will be addressed by allowing more members to be appointed, which, again, is something that has been sought by the NDP for many years.

I said that I would talk about what was missing from the bill. There is $7.8 billion a year that is missing, and that could be available to Canadians if the government were serious about the issue of tax havens. It has been a passion of mine to try to get the government to take this seriously.

However, $7.8 billion is an estimate, and it can only be an estimate. Contrary to the Parliamentary Budget Officer's attempts, our attempts, and the Senate's attempts to get the government to actually measure the tax gap, as our friends in the U.K., France, and the United States have been doing for years, the current Conservative government somehow thinks it is a waste of time and cannot be bothered.

If we do not measure something, how can we manage it? Is that not public administration 101? However, the government refuses, and so I can only give an estimate, which can be accused of being high or low, but it is a big number.

Corporate tax avoidance, in particular, is a global epidemic. Even though Canada is proud, and the Conservatives are, of having the lowest corporate tax rate in the G7, we still have corporations that send their money abroad.

An example is tax shifting or transfer pricing. In order to pay even less tax, those companies that have the lowest corporate tax rates in the G7 still have their favourite trick. What is that? They sell a patent to an offshore subsidiary. Then they charge themselves licensing fees for the use of the same patent. That is a good trick.

Other countries have closed that loophole. We do not seem to care.

I have introduced Bill C-621, which would address the economic substance and require that there actually be economic substance before those paper transactions are allowed, costing the Canadian treasury billions of dollars because the government simply does not want to take the time to go after corporate friends on Bay Street.

Bill C-621 would do what Dr. Robert McMechan wrote about in his book Economic Substance and Tax Avoidance: An International Perspective. Dr. McMechan, who really helped in drafting Bill C-621, pointed out in his doctoral thesis at Osgoode Law School, having been a practitioner with the Department of Justice and doing tax litigation for many years, that the government could close this loophole if the courts could get back on track with looking at the economic substance of transactions rather than whether or not they appear to be okay on paper. That is something like going after the general anti-avoidance rules vis-à-vis corporate tax avoidance.

That is what my very short bill, Bill C-621, would do. It would basically put Canada on track, as Dr. McMechan points out, as regards our other allies whose courts seem to have stuck to economic substance. Ours, I am afraid, have gone off the rails.

There is a lot of money we are not going after. Yet a few years ago the Conservatives, faced with 106 Canadians with secret bank accounts totalling over $100 million in Liechtenstein, did nothing. How many have been charged? How many have they gone after? Apparently they have gone after none.

Compare our woeful record of doing little to go after tax evaders with Australia's Project Wickenby or the action going on in the United States, France, and the United Kingdom to go after tax avoiders. Canadians should be ashamed of their government's performance.

Back in September, somebody from inside the department wrote us and said the minister announced that the elimination of a host of senior tax office positions at the local level, including in the international and aggressive tax planning programs. Seventy individuals, with over 1,000 years of cumulative specialized expertise in going after these intricate, complicated corporate transactions, were gone. Fifty people in CRA alone lost their jobs. That is the priority of the Conservatives in going after what could have been an enormous source of revenue. That is missing in this budget.

I have talked about what we like in this budget and what is absolutely missing. In terms of things that ought not to be in a budget but that need to be done is more action on youth unemployment and on homelessness. Homelessness is a crisis in my community of Victoria. I attended a lecture by Dr. Gaetz of York University, who pointed out that homelessness costs the Canadian economy $7 billion per year if we take into account social services, health care, corrections, and interaction with law enforcement. That is an enormous number. If investments were made to deal with that, the return on the investment—language the Conservatives would apparently like—would be enormous. For example, for the hardest to house, for every $10 we invest in housing first initiatives to address homelessness, $22 would be achieved through offset costs.

There is a crisis in affordable housing. We are not using the income tax system to incent the creation of affordable, low-cost rental housing in communities. We have lots of condos, but we do not have housing for those people who are living hand to mouth in our communities and who are themselves just a few steps away from being homeless.

In conclusion, it is politics 011 that a budget reflects the priorities of a government. The government's priorities do not deal with the crises of unemployment and homelessness, nor fairness and equity, nor does it provide income for Canadians by actually going after money in tax havens in a more aggressive way, as so many of our allies have done.