Debates of Dec. 5th, 2014

Prostitution

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present.

In the first petition, the petitioners draw attention to the high percentage of prostitutes who are forced into the sex trade and trafficking.

As we have no law on the books right now, there is a gap there. The petitioners are calling on the House of Commons to legislate that it be a criminal offence to purchase sex with a man, woman, or child, and that it be a criminal offence for pimps, madams, and others to profit from the proceeds of the sex trade.

Agriculture

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Mr. Speaker, in the second petition, the petitioners are expressing concern about multinational seed companies gradually replacing the immense diversity of farmers' seeds.

The petitioners are calling on the government to consult with small farm families, and that we preserve the rights to use and freely exchange seeds.

Pensions

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to table petitions from constituents from Elliot Lake and Blind River with respect to CPP and QPP and the government's plan to continue going down the road of increasing the age of eligibility to 67. This would slash $11 billion from seniors, most of whom are living in poverty and would be living two extra years in poverty.

The petitioners recognize that the CPP Investment Board is one of the most successful investment funds. They want the government to take note of what the experts are saying, which is that it should not be doing this. They are asking the government to reverse its ill-thought-out decision.

Questions on the Order Paper

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

Mr. Speaker, Question No. 764 will be answered today.

Question No. 764

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

With respect to a bid submitted to the Canada School of Public Service (Bid – ADRM Technology Consulting Group Corp., reference number CSPS-RFP-1112-JS-014): (a) what is the full name of the director of the branch where the bid has been issued; (b) what communication has been sent from the Canada School of Public Service to ADRM Technology Consulting Group Corp. relating to the bid; (c) on what date was the bid awarded to Hassiba Kherif; (d) what communication method has been used to inform ADRM Technology Consulting Group Corp. of the contract reward; (e) on what date was the bid cancelled; (f) for what reason was the bid cancelled; (g) what communication method was used to inform ADRM Consulting Technology Group Corp. of the contract cancellation; (h) if the cancellation bid was communicated through a phone call, has the telephone conversation been documented; (i) what are the details of other bids that have been cancelled between January 2012 and December 2012 at the Canada School of Public Service; and (j) for each cancelled bid referred in (i), what was the communication method used to inform the supplier of the cancellation?

[Tony Clement, Conservative, President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the Canada School of Public Service does not issue bids. However, the director’s name was Christian Charlebois, Application Development, Support and Database Management.

With regard to (b), an email was sent to ADRM Technology Consulting Group Corp.

With regard to (c), Hassiba Kherif did not submit any bid for the solicitation number CSPS-RFP-1112-JS-014.

With regard to (d), an email was sent to ADRM Technology Consulting Group Corp. informing them that the contract was awarded.

With regard to (e), the school did not cancel the bid.

With regard to (f), the school did not cancel the bid.

With regard to (g), an email was sent to ADRM Technology Consulting Group Corp. informing them that the contract was cancelled.

With regard to (h), the school did not cancel the bid.

With regard to (i), for the period specified, the school did not document cancelled bids. As of January 2013, the Canada School of Public Service has implemented practices to document this type of information.

With regard to (j), for the period specified, the school did not document cancelled bids. As of January 2013, the Canada School of Public Service has implemented practices to document this type of information.

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

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

Mr. Speaker, furthermore, if Questions Nos. 754 and 765 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Question No. 754

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

With regard to Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC): (a) how many applications did CIC receive from Filipinos under the special fast-tracking measures for victims of Typhoon Haiyan, (i) in total, (ii) by month; (b) how many applications were approved, (i) in total, (ii) by month; (c) how many applications were rejected, (i) in total, (ii) by month; (d) how many applications were rejected for failing to meet the “significantly affected” threshold; (e) how many applications are pending; (f) how many Filipinos came to Canada as a result of the special measure, (i) in total, (ii) by month; (g) how many came as (i) permanent residents, (ii) temporary residents; (h) how many remain in Canada today; (i) how many applications were proactively identified by CIC for fast-tracking, (i) in total, (ii) by month; (j) how many rejected applications involved a minor; (k) what was the number of full-time equivalent staff allocated to processing these applications, (i) in total, (ii) by month; (l) what percentage of applications took more than 60 days to process; and (m) what was the budget allocated to processing these applications?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 765

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

With regard to the oil port project in Cacouna and the activities associated with marine traffic for the years 2013 and 2014: what statistical data has been compiled for all port activities and marine traffic, including, but not limited to, (i) the total volume that goes through Cacouna each year, (ii) the number of ships at the Cacouna port each year, (iii) the types of cargo that go through Cacouna, that is, bulk products, finished goods, etc.?

(Return tabled)

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

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

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed 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, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue and for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to stand and express my strong support for Bill C-43, the economic action plan 2014 act, no.2.

The success of Canada's economy is the result of the hard work and innovation of millions of individual Canadians and Canadian businesses. Our government wants to build on this success by creating the conditions that will continue to allow them to prosper.

Canada's economic action plan creates jobs and economic growth. It supports families and communities. It improves the fairness and integrity of the tax system. In short, it keeps Canada strong.

Canadian businesses, especially small and medium-sized businesses, are the engine of economic prosperity. They create jobs and growth in communities across the country.

Our government is committed to supporting Canadian businesses. That is why economic action plan 2014 includes our proposal for a new small business job credit.

The new tax credit would save small businesses more than half a billion dollars in the next two years. The small business job credit would lower the employment insurance premiums that small businesses are required to pay. The current legislated rate is $1.88 per $100 of insurable earnings. In 2015 and 2016, it would go down to $1.60 per $100 of insurable earnings. If a business pays $15,000 or less in employer EI premiums, it would be eligible for the new credit in 2015 and 2016.

These are more than just numbers to the millions of small business owners in this country. The effect of this change would be huge. It would effectively reduce EI payroll taxes by nearly 15% for eligible businesses, and almost 90% of all EI premium-paying businesses in Canada would be eligible.

Mindful of our commitment to red tape reduction, we have ensured that no new paper burden would be imposed on business owners in relation to the new credit. The Canada Revenue Agency would determine eligibility based on information in the business' tax return and automatically calculate the credit amount. There would be no additional application form to fill out to benefit from this new tax relief.

Furthermore, both employers and employees would soon see a substantial reduction in their EI premiums. A new rate-setting mechanism, which would come into effect in 2017, would make sure that EI premiums are high enough to pay for the EI program over time, but no higher than required.

The proposed small business job credit builds on the many other actions our government has taken to foster an environment for small businesses to grow and prosper.

We have delivered tax reductions totalling more than $60 billion to job-creating businesses from 2008-09 through 2013-14.

In 2012, we reduced the federal general corporate income tax rate to 15%, down from 22% in 2007.

We have also worked hard to reduce red tape and make it easier for business owners to meet their tax obligations. For example, we have introduced many enhancements to the Canada Revenue Agency's online services. Businesses can now complete 50 different kinds of transactions online with the CRA, including managing their banking information and signing up for pre-authorized debit services through My Business Account.

To help business owners remember what is due and when, the CRA has recently launched its first-ever mobile app. The Business Tax Reminders app enables users to create custom reminders and alerts for key CRA due dates related to instalment payments, returns, and remittances.

Earlier this year, the CRA launched the liaison officer initiative and consultations for the proposed registration of tax-preparers program. Both are designed to reduce red tape and help small and medium-sized businesses more easily meet their tax obligations.

These are specific examples of the real results we are delivering for small and medium-sized businesses across the country.

We are delivering results for Canadian families, too. In fact, families have been major beneficiaries of the numerous tax relief measures that our government has introduced since 2006.

With balanced budgets just around the corner, our priority is to continue to lower taxes so that Canadians can invest more of their hard-earned money in the economy.

One of the most popular family-related tax credits we have introduced is the children's fitness tax credit, which came into effect in 2007. What parents do not want to start their children on the road to a healthy, active lifestyle early in life?

Every year, millions of Canadian families register their children in supervised programs of physical activity: basketball, baseball, gymnastics, karate, soccer, figure skating, folk dancing, and the like. Activities such as these, which require a significant amount of physical activity, are all eligible for the children's fitness tax credit.

The children's fitness tax credit allows parents to claim a 15% non-refundable tax credit for expenses up to $500 each year. They may claim the credit for registering their children in eligible physical fitness activities, as I have just outlined. Until now, this has meant that they could receive a credit of up to $75.00 per child each year. Our government wants to double the maximum amount that could be claimed under the credit, and we want to make the credit refundable so that more families could benefit from tax savings.

These proposals would fulfill a commitment we made to Canadians in 2011, and they are contained in the legislation we are debating today. The new limit of $1,000 would come into effect for the 2014 tax year, so families could see the savings when they file their tax and benefit returns next spring.

The children's fitness tax credit would then become a refundable tax credit starting with the new 2015 tax year. This would mean that people with no tax owing might be eligible for a refund of 15% of the amount claimed. As a non-refundable credit, the children's fitness amount could only be applied against taxes that they owed.

The children's fitness tax credit provides about $115 million in tax relief to 1.4 million Canadian families each year. With the changes we are proposing, about 850,000 families would benefit from this additional tax relief.

In addition to the two tax credits I have highlighted today, the economic action plan 2014 act, no. 2, contains many other measures that would affirm our government's commitment to economic growth, families, and communities.

The facts speak for themselves. Canada has one of the strongest job creation records in the developed world; our performance, in terms of real gross domestic product, is the best in the G7; our economy is growing; and our economic action plan is working.

I sincerely hope that all members on all sides of this House will join me in giving Bill C-43, the economic action plan act, no. 2, their full support.

This country is moving forward. We are moving forward in a judicious manner. There is tax relief in the bill and economic policies that would benefit all Canadians. I ask for the total support of the members in this House.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to ask my Conservative colleague a question.

The Conservatives have been talking about income splitting for months now. They put the measure in this year's budget, even though the former finance minister said that he did not support such a measure because it did not benefit a majority of the population.

Could my colleague explain why the Conservatives came up with a measure that benefits only about 15% of the population?

What is the point of a tax measure that benefits only a small minority of Canadians?

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the member knows, and we all know, that the former of minister of finance said nothing of the kind. What he actually said is that he wanted income splitting, if we were to bring it in, to benefit more families.

With the changes to the income splitting regime that we will be introducing, there would be more Canadian families who benefit from that, and they would be middle-income and low-income Canadian families, precisely the people we are attempting to target.

I can tell members for a fact that, in my personal belief, our former minister of finance, who was a great minister of finance—arguably one of the best ministers of finance this country ever had—would have supported this legislation.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we know that this is another massive omnibus bill. It is almost 500 pages and 400 clauses and, again, is going in many different directions, so there is much that we could focus on in this bill that is very problematic.

However, one of the things that I want to single out is the clauses that deny access to social assistance for refugee claimants.

It is really perplexing that the Conservatives have, in effect, taken a private member's bill that came under a lot of fire in the media and now put it in this omnibus bill, which would allow the provinces to impose residency requirements for people without permanent status. This is something that would really hurt refugee claimants; certainly, in my community where we do have a lot of refugee claimants who are on very low income.

I want the member to really be transparent and tell us why the government made the decision to take a private member's bill that was getting a lot of criticism and try to hide it in an omnibus bill?

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Mr. Speaker, you would know and the hon. member would know that her question first is wrong, second is disingenuous, and third misrepresents the facts.

Let me explain how this works. According to the requirements that are now in place, the provinces and territories have no choice but to provide social assistance to failed refugee claimants whether they want to or not. If they chose not to supply the social assistance payments, they would have that money clawed back from their social transfers.

What would happen here is that for the first time, the provinces would be responsible for and capable of supplying social assistance if they cared to. If they were to decide that a failed refugee claimant should leave the country, they could actually hold back that social assistance payment.

The point to make here is that no legitimate refugees or claimants would lose their assistance. Only failed refugee claimants who have already gone through the system and have then been denied refugee status would not be provided with social assistance. That would only be the case if the province or territory decided to deny it. Ultimately, the provinces and territories would be responsible for making that decision, and in this case they would not have any of their social transfer clawed back because of it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak once again on this budget implementation bill, Bill C-43, on behalf of my city, Toronto, and on behalf of my community, the riding of Parkdale—High Park.

As we meet here in Ottawa, the city that I come from has been under considerable pressure for some time. It is a wonderful city. It is the biggest city in the country. It is one of the most multicultural cities in the world. It has so many strengths that it is just a wonderful place to live. However, I have to say that there are a great many challenges in our city that require action from the federal government. It is everything from the crushing lack of affordable housing to the gridlock in our city streets because of the lack of federal dollars coming in to boost our transit infrastructure.

I was born and raised in the city of Toronto and I remember it having, at one point, one of the best transportation systems in North America, if not the world. It had a great subway system, as well as streetcars and buses. While the population has grown in leaps and bounds and the city is much more sprawling geographically, the transportation system has not grown equally. As a result, public transit is a huge problem no matter where a person lives. A person living in a suburb of the city cannot get from one northern part of the city to another northern part without hours of waiting and sitting on buses, because the subway system has not kept pace. A person living in the centre of the city, where I live, often sees one subway car or streetcar after another go by because they are jam-packed. That is because the population has grown so much in the city, and the transit system has not kept pace. Transit is a huge issue.

I have to say that housing is a massive issue. I meet with people who live in public housing and Toronto Community Housing. Frankly, it would break members' hearts to see the conditions that some people live in. Seniors who worked all of their lives are living in apartments where the oven does not work, the elevator is often out of service, and there is mould on the walls. We see overcrowded apartments. I have seen families of five and six living in a bachelor apartment. We see people living in rental housing that is overpriced and often not well cared for. We have seen loopholes in the rent control system being exploited so that rents can be jacked up, and people are excluded from affordable accommodation as a result.

We have a crushing need for affordable rental housing, but we also have a great many families in the city of Toronto with mortgages. Toronto is not quite as expensive as Vancouver, but boy, it is expensive. The average three-bedroom home in the city core seems to be going for almost $1 million. We see young families with massive mortgages, and if they have a couple of kids, they are paying tens of thousands of dollars in child care fees at the same time—that is, if they can find quality child care.

We also see young people graduating from university with sometimes tens of thousands of dollars of student debt. Often they face a very bleak job market. I will talk about that more in just a minute.

There are many crushing problems, not to mention what I think is the most serious challenge globally, which is climate change. There is the pressing need for this country, which has once again just been called out by Ban Ki-moon of the UN for shirking its responsibilities, to address the pressing need of climate change. Surely to goodness we are all in this together. It is one earth. From space, it is one blue dot. Surely the countries and the leaders of the world can all agree that this is a pressing need that we need to deal with, yet the Conservative government seems to be on a one-track path, which is oil and gas.

We have these wonderful natural resources, but it is to the detriment of our investment in clean energy, energy efficiency, advanced manufacturing, and advanced innovative economic measures to get our economy moving into the 21st century. I raise these issues, but there are many other challenging issues that we face in our city and our country, and the budget implementation act before us does not address any of these issues. It does not deal with the concerns that I hear every day.

Rail safety is an example. During question period, we were debating the pressing need for better rail safety. We have hundreds and hundreds of tank cars carrying hazardous goods and who knows what is rolling through our neighbourhood. The citizens in my community not only do not have the right to know what is in those tank cars, but they also have no right to know if they are protected or if there are effective emergency measures in place. They have no right to know if their safety is being adequately protected by the experts and regulators in the government who are supposed to be doing that job. We saw at Lac-Mégantic they were not doing that job, and many people died.

The bill is yet another of these omnibus budget bills into which Conservatives love to cram all sorts of measures in a very undemocratic, unaccountable process that lacks transparency. There are many measures in the bill that were not introduced in the budget and that they do not want Canadians to even know about. They are counting on people not paying attention to them in a bill with 460 pages and 400 clauses.

However, there are a couple of things I want to highlight.

First, it is an outright attack on some of the vulnerable people in our society, refugee claimants.

There is also the implementation of a job credit that has been panned by experts. It would dip into the EI fund when, in fact, EI should be used to give unemployed workers adequate benefits so that they can keep their heads above water when they are faced with the catastrophe of losing a job. There is nothing in the bill to help the more than 300,000 unemployed Canadians or to help to replace the more than 400,000 good manufacturing jobs that have been lost.

Just today, new job numbers have come out, and in November Canada lost another 10,700 jobs. Most shockingly, 46,000 jobs were lost in the private sector. So much for being good economic managers.

Our economy is not recovering, and youth unemployment is now back up to 13%. We have over 1.2 million unemployed Canadians. What does that mean? It means that poverty is increasing.

Twenty-five years ago, we voted to eliminate child poverty. Well, guess what? One out of every five children is living in poverty in Canada today. The numbers are up from 25 years ago. Four out of ten indigenous kids are living in poverty. This is not only a tragedy for them, but a scar on Canadian society and the Canadian economy that we will have to deal with in the future.

Inequality is rising. The top 10% of Canadians have seen their net worth grow since 2005 by 42%, while those in the bottom 10% saw their net worth shrink by 150%. That is growing inequality. We are talking about joblessness and poverty, and the Conservatives are turning their backs, rewarding their friends, focusing only on the oil and gas sector, and to heck with the rest of the economy.

We are committed to a national child care program. We want to make sure that parents have a real choice in having quality, affordable, accessible child care. We want to make sure that we are defending our health care system and that we are investing in medicare, which is a program that was created and defended by the NDP. We are going to continue to defend health care. We also want to invest in transit. We want to get the job done, both on the economy and on the environment. That is what New Democrats will do in 2015.

We wish we could work with the government to get the job done now. We invite the government to join with us. We can make a difference for Canada now. We do not have to wait.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on the member's comments about the thousands of jobs that have been lost. This month, we had a net loss in excess of 10,000 jobs. We should be concerned about that.

She made reference to the government's business tax break on EI. The Liberal Party has put forward a proposal that would see employers being given a break through EI reductions for two years as an encouragement to hire. Outside stakeholders have applauded the Liberal proposal.

I know that the 2011 NDP platform stated that employers would receive a one-year rebate on employer contributions for the Canada pension plan and employment insurance premiums for each new employee hired. That is very close to exactly what the Liberal Party has put forward.

Does the member believe and support Jack Layton's plan from 2011, which has been taken in good part and expanded upon in the Liberal Party's proposal?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is flattering that the Liberal Party has been attracted to the measures the NDP is proposing. We did put forward a proposal to give a tax credit to small businesses to hire new people, especially youth. We think that is a positive measure. We would encourage the government to pick up on that.

Where we disagree with our Liberal colleagues is that we do not want to tap into the EI fund to pay employers to hire people. That is the difference. They may be trying to get to the same place, but we do not agree with how they are doing it.

The EI fund is paid for by employers and workers. Frankly, in the city of Toronto right now, only about 20% of unemployed workers are actually getting EI benefits. We want the money in the EI fund used to give unemployed workers the benefits they have paid for and are entitled to to help them transition to a new job, rather than have the money given back to employers. We do not think that is a useful thing.