House of Commons Hansard #156 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was families.

Topics

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2Government Orders

12:40 p.m.

NDP

Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC

Mr. Speaker, I must say, you look very fine in the chair. You make a very good Speaker. It is very nice to see you there.

I listened very carefully to my colleague from Parkdale—High Park. She describes so similarly what I also face in Vancouver in terms of high housing costs, transit issues, climate change, and a dense urban environment where people are really struggling to make ends meet.

One of the things that is so disappointing is that there has not been a commitment by the federal government to a national housing plan. We have seen sporadic programs that come and go. Really, when we look at the scope of what is needed for affordable housing in this country, it is huge. It is actually a very solid investment in terms of jobs in energy retrofits for homes, for example. I wonder if I could ask the member if the need for affordable housing is a critical need in her city as well.

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2Government Orders

12:40 p.m.

NDP

Peggy Nash NDP Parkdale—High Park, ON

Mr. Speaker, it is a pressing need. If we want to create jobs in this country, why not go to work and do an energy retrofit of all of the high-rises in cities across the country? In Toronto, we have more high-rise apartments than any other city in the country. A lot of them were built in the 1960s and 1970s. They are not very energy efficient. Imagine the jobs that could be created.

Jack Layton had a system whereby we could invest in this energy efficiency and pay for it over time from the money we saved from reduced energy costs.

I just want to say one other thing about the pressing need for housing, because it really does take the federal government's involvement. We had a horrible tragedy in our city in the last week. A young mother and her kids were killed and subsequently her husband died. It seems that she went from a shelter, where she was trying to escape violence, to a private apartment. She could not afford it. There was no transition housing. She had to go back to that dangerous situation. Now she and her kids are dead. If that is not a crying argument for housing, I do not know what is.

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2Government Orders

12:40 p.m.

Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley Nova Scotia

Conservative

Scott Armstrong ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak today to Bill C-43, an act to implement the budget. As we know, the focus of our government is jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity, and there are many measures within this bill that support that focus, that priority, of the Government of Canada.

I would like to start by talking about where we were back in 2008 when the biggest recession since the Great Depression struck our nation and many nations around the world. In fact, 62 million people around the globe lost their jobs during that recession due to global economic instability. However, since then, Canada has fared far better than most countries in the world in terms of job creation and recovery. In fact, since the pit of the economic recession in July 2009, Canada has created 1.2 million net new jobs, with employment all across this country. This has allowed our government to move toward a balanced budget and deliver on many promises made in the 2011 campaign.

The federal tax burden is now at its lowest in 50 years. People are paying less in taxes than they did in part of the Diefenbaker era. Things are going well in Canada. We have more employment, more growth, and larger projected growth than any other country in the G7. The IMF and KPMG both predict that for this year and next year we are going to have very successful job growth, job creation, and overall economic growth in this country. Canada is on the verge of a great economic and prosperous time, and we are going to keep putting measures in place so the people of this country can benefit from it.

What has allowed us to do this? What has allowed Canada to do so much better than many other nations emerging from a global economic recession? I believe it was our commitment as a government to balance the books and then use surplus spending to invest in tax cuts and to support jobs and economic growth. This was a commitment we all made on this side of the House as we went door to door in the 2011 election. We committed to first balance the budget and then to reinvest in Canadians by lowering taxes, supporting young families, and reinvesting in jobs and growth.

There are some members of the House who believe balancing the budget will happen by itself and that we do not need to focus on that, but it is hugely important. The only way to balance a budget, whether it is a household budget, a municipal budget, a provincial budget, or a federal budget, is to make it is a huge priority and put a plan in place to reach that balanced budget in a targeted amount of time. That is what this government did following the 2011 election. We kept our commitment to the people of Canada by putting the economic action plan in place, with the goal of balancing the budget within the mandate of this government, which we have.

It is not easy, and it does not just happen by itself. To do it, there are really three choices a government can make to balance the budget. The first choice, and I would argue the easy way to do it, is simply to raise taxes. We have seen governments and previous administrations, both provincially and federally, try to balance budgets on the backs of Canadians by raising taxes: raising business taxes, raising income taxes, raising fees. That, I would argue, is the easy way.

We saw the NDP government in Nova Scotia try to do this a few years back. It raised taxes to try to balance the budget. This government gave the Canadian people a cut in their GST sales tax, or HST in some provinces, like mine, in Nova Scotia. When we cut the GST federally from 7% to 6% to 5%, almost every Canadian was able to benefit from that tax reduction, except in my province of Nova Scotia, where the provincial government came right in behind and almost immediately raised the sales tax by 2%.

While in New Brunswick, right next door to my riding, people were paying 13% sales tax in the combined HST, in Nova Scotia we were paying 15%. A border riding like mine saw jobs flowing across the border. Gas stations were shutting down, because between that and the increased fuel taxes in Nova Scotia, people could pay far less a litre in New Brunswick than they could in Nova Scotia. While everyone else was benefiting from this cut in the sales tax, the people in my province were not, because the provincial government decided to do that in an effort, it argued, to balance the budget, which, in fact, never really happened. That is the easy way to try to balance the budget: by simply raising taxes.

The second way a federal government can try to cut taxes is by eliminating, cutting, or reducing transfers to the provinces. Transfers to the provinces pay for education, put teachers in classrooms, pay for educational assistants for special education students, and provide other support services in every school.

Those transfers pay for our health care system so seniors across this country can enjoy the health care they deserve in an equitable health care system, from one end of the country to the other. That is why we have these transfers. It is so the provinces can deliver their constitutionally designated role of delivering effective, equitable health care from Newfoundland all the way to British Columbia and to the north. That is what Canada is all about. We are all in this together. That is why those transfers are so valuable.

The Liberal government in the nineties chose to balance the budget, coming out of an economic recession, on the backs of the provinces, on the backs of our seniors, and on the backs of our children by reducing those valuable transfers to the provinces. Significantly cutting those transfers, I believe, destabilized both the education system and the health care system in many provinces across this country. It was an effort, arguably, to balance the budget.

The third way a federal government can try to balance a budget is not by raising taxes on the people and cutting the valuable transfers to the provinces that need those dollars so desperately to deliver those effective services I talked about. The third way is to look at how the government spends money. We can look at ourselves, look across federal departments to see what we can do to save money for the Canadian taxpayer so we can get the budget balanced and start making targeted investments for the future of all Canadians.

In 2011, that is what we promised to do, and that is a promise we have kept. We have delivered on that promise, and now we have the budget balanced and are moving forward.

Every department across the board had to look at reductions. With targeted savings, usually in back-office services, making sure that we protected front-line services, particularly in the regions of this country, we were able to slowly move the budget to balance. Now, on schedule, we have a balanced budget in this country due to excellent fiscal management by the Prime Minister, former finance minister Flaherty, and the present Minister of Finance.

This government has moved Canada to a balanced budget, and that gives the government the financial flexibility to deliver the other promises we made when we all went door to door during the 2011 election. I am speaking of things like income splitting for families, the family tax cut, and an increased UCCB. Support for young families across this country is a target of this government to ensure that the future of this country is protected.

By raising the universal child care benefit, we are supporting the next generation of Canadians in getting the child care they need. We are supporting the next generation of Canadians in getting the education they need. We are now focusing on changes to our education system, changes funded by the federal government through our post-secondary support for apprenticeships, a $100-million program for interest-free loans for apprentices across this country.

Budget 2014 supports our young people and our young families and is delivered under a balanced budget format.

Now that the budget is balanced and we are moving forward and are keeping those commitments to Canadian families, what is the next step for Canada? Where can we go? The future of this country is bright. We have worked so hard to come so far from the great recession of 2008. The strong fiscal management of this government and this party, led by our Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, will support the bright and prosperous future of this country.

I hope the opposition will stand in support of this legislation on Monday night, because it is in the best interest of Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2Government Orders

12:50 p.m.

NDP

Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC

Mr. Speaker, I heard my colleague talk about the historic health transfer to the provinces from the federal government. As the health critic for the NDP, I have to say that the only things historic about it are that, one, it was done unilaterally by the federal government; two, in the long run it would shortchange the provinces by about $36 billion, and this has been shown both by the premiers and the parliamentary budget office; and, three, it has signalled a complete disengagement by the federal government on health care.

These transfers were always a matter of negotiation. There were always agreed-to outcomes. We saw the health accord from 2004 expire this year, on March 31, and nothing has replaced it. We have a vacuum in federal leadership.

I am very proud of the work that the NDP has done to put forward a plan for renewing and strengthening our public health care system, but I see nothing from the Conservative government. In fact, I see us going backward.

I wonder if the member could comment about whether he has taken note that the provinces are very unhappy with the status of the federal government when it comes to health care.

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2Government Orders

12:50 p.m.

Conservative

Scott Armstrong Conservative Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS

Mr. Speaker, what the provinces can count on is a continued increase in the amount of money they will receive from the federal government in terms of our health care transfers. In my own province of Nova Scotia, this year, for the first time, transfers from the federal government to the province eclipsed $3 billion.

Let me put that in perspective. The entire revenue of the Government of Nova Scotia is $9 billion. A full third of that comes directly to the provincial government in transfers. We have actually increased the amount of transfers in health again and again. This will continue because we are going to set a floor of an over 3% increase in transfers from the federal government to the provinces each year, and most years it is going to be far more than that. This is more of an increase in the amount of money that the federal government is transferring to the provinces than the provinces are increasing on spending in health care themselves.

If any provinces are complaining about health care transfers, they should take a look at their books. They can count on increases to health care transfers from the federal government from now in perpetuity.

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2Government Orders

12:55 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, there is some truth to what the member has just said. The only thing he is really missing is that he was very critical of the Liberals during the 1990s. We also need to recognize that it was Paul Martin, the former Liberal prime minister, who actually put in the health care accord. That is the reason we are getting record highs in terms of health care transfers. It is not because of the current Conservative government.

When the member talked about the budgets and the balancing and the options, what he did not tell viewers or the House was that when the current government took office, it had a surplus budget into the billions of dollars. The government, even in a time in which there was no recession, converted that surplus into a major deficit of billions of dollars. Since then, the government has not had a balanced budget.

My question for the member is this. Will he confirm that if a balanced budget in 2015 materializes, the current government will be the first Conservative government to do that?

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2Government Orders

12:55 p.m.

Conservative

Scott Armstrong Conservative Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS

Mr. Speaker, what is true is that Canada would be the first country in the G7 to emerge from the recession with a balanced budget since the great recession of 2008. That is what is true.

When the member talks about what the Liberals did under Paul Martin, he should remember that it had to be in response to what the Liberals did in the 1990s, when they decimated the health care system and the education system by slashing billions of dollars of transfers to the provinces. We all remember Rae days. We all remember hospitals being closed. We remember clinics being closed. We remember nurses being laid off and having to go to the United States.

We all remember the damage that did to our health care system, destabilizing the health care for our seniors and our young families. We did not have the infrastructure we needed to enjoy this recovery. It is only now that I believe the health care system is starting to recover, because of the support of this Minister of Finance, and this Prime Minister, and this government.

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2Government Orders

12:55 p.m.

Essex Ontario

Conservative

Jeff Watson ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport

Mr. Speaker, obviously in Ontario, notwithstanding the fact that we have delivered $3,400 for an average family in tax savings, because the Liberal government campaigned hard for it, supported by the federal Liberal leader, the cost of electricity is going up, taxes are going up, and jobs are going down.

I wonder if the member can comment on the family tax cut and what the universal child care benefit would mean, particularly for single-parent families, for consumers, for the economy, and for jobs.

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2Government Orders

12:55 p.m.

Conservative

Scott Armstrong Conservative Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS

Mr. Speaker, this family tax package that we have put together is going to deliver tax relief to every single family in Canada, from coast to coast to coast.

For a single parent with two children making $30,000 a year, this is going to be a significant increase to the revenue of that family. If the children are under six years of age, there will be an increase of $720 for each child, over $1,400 in additional money in their pockets that they did not have before. If the children are older than that, or there are three or four young people in a household all eligible for this increase, we are talking thousands and thousands of dollars in their pockets that they did not have before.

We have also doubled the children's fitness tax credit.

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2Government Orders

12:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

I will have to stop the member there.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2Government Orders

12:55 p.m.

NDP

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

Mr. Speaker, I am in the House today to talk about this weighty legislative measure. I use the word “weighty” in the sense of heavy and massive. This is a kitchen-sink bill. The Conservatives might need a vocabulary lesson or two.

For example, in the Canadian Oxford Dictionary, the word “budget” is defined as:

a periodic (especially annual) estimate of the revenue and expenditure of a country, organization, etc.

Perhaps I should have given them this vocabulary lesson sooner because this is not the first time they have introduced a budget within an omnibus bill. Since winning a majority, they have presented us with 2,190 pages of bills like this one. This time, we are looking at 400 clauses and 460 pages.

Last month, we had just a few hours to attend a budget information session. Naturally, no ministers were at the meeting to answer our questions. They always do the same thing. They use very competent officials to make decisions and those people have to handle the pressure in their stead.

I have to say that the NDP had a lot of questions, but the answers we got were not always satisfactory. I would be remiss if I did not mention the questions that my colleagues from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques and Skeena—Bulkley Valley asked during that meeting.

One of the most offensive divisions of the bill has to do with refugees. When we asked whom the Conservatives had consulted on that division, we were told that they consulted only one province. That is extremely shocking. This is just one more tactic that proves how out of touch they are in their ivory tower.

The bills they introduce, which are clearly meant only to appease their supporters, reek of electioneering and politicking. It is nothing but a smokescreen. The provinces do not want this measure.

The Canadian Council for Refugees is also worried about this division, which infringes on the rights of refugees and does not meet Canada's legal obligations. It even deprives refugees of the right to appeal a decision before an independent tribunal.

Will the Conservatives again have to go through the Supreme Court test, which costs Canadian taxpayers millions of dollars? The Conservatives have not been very lucky so far when it comes to Supreme Court challenges of their legislative measures.

This bill does have the odd worthwhile proposal. We are pleased that the Conservatives have finally adopted one of the NDP's proposals. Canadians will no longer have to pay to receive a paper copy of their invoices through the mail. We have been asking the Conservatives about these pay-to-pay fees for a while now.

In that regard the question was as follows: What will the Conservatives do to ensure that telecommunications and television broadcasting companies do not hide billing fees by increasing the total amount of the invoice? They were unable to answer because no mechanism has been put in place to prevent that from happening. It is shameful. Furthermore, once again, they only used one half of a good idea. They are not keeping their promise to put an end to exorbitant bank fees.

Let us come back to the definition of the word “budget”. Once again the Conservatives have managed to include a multitude of items that are not related to the budget. They are authorizing the amendment of dozens of laws. Like a magician pulling a rabbit out of a hat, the government is adding various measures that were never mentioned in a budget speech. It is magic.

Instead of talking about a bill to implement hundreds of budget provisions, we should give it a name that is more representative of the reality.

What I am really dying to ask is why they are resorting to an omnibus bill. I have my own thoughts on that. I believe that the Conservatives like to be able to hide provisions that are so controversial that the public would not accept them if they were the subject of a single bill. The Conservatives like to bury these measures amongst all the omnibus provisions. They like to give more discretionary authority to their ministers without making it too obvious. They like to ignore or sidestep studies, oversight mechanisms and public consultations.

However, they can count on the NDP to be there and to stand up to all this nonsense. This bill shows that the Conservatives do not respect the democratic process of the House. Several recent examples attest to that, such as a member reading a newspaper in the House, the refusal of certain members to appear before committees and so forth.

Just yesterday, the hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou asked a very important question about the nutrition north Canada program. The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development called the hon. member a socialist in a suit and tie. It takes some nerve. What lack of respect. I cannot get over it.

I have also seen one of the biggest contradictions in my mandate as the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles. The Minister of Finance is asking the opposition parties for suggestions for budget 2015, while we are here in the process of debating this omnibus bill. Are they really open to our suggestions? Do they really consider our amendments or is this just another facade?

Whatever the case may be, I want to take this opportunity to make some suggestions to the Minister of Finance. First, he has to forget about income splitting because it benefits only the well off. In any case, the former finance minister, God rest his soul, wanted none of it. We know that it benefits the rich more than the poor. An individual can get a $3,000 tax credit if he earns a lot and maybe $200 if he earns less. An individual who is not entitled to the tax credit gets nothing.

The government also has to stop making cuts to employment insurance. The Conservatives are helping themselves to $550 million from the employment insurance fund. The program created through this bill would generate 800 jobs at most; however, according to economists such as Mike Moffatt, it could encourage businesses to fire people rather than hire them. It is important to remember that there is no evidence to show that this will benefit businesses. Businesses could benefit from the existing tax credit, whether they hire new staff or not. We know that businesses will have to give back part of the $550 million in federal taxes. The government needs to stop making cuts, as it is doing with CBC/Radio-Canada and Canada Post. It must stop cutting well-paying jobs. Canada will become the only OECD country that no longer offers home mail delivery. Finally, the government must stop making cuts to funding for women's groups, change the retirement age back to 65 and put forward a real plan to combat tax evasion.

The NDP wants to implement practical measures to make life more affordable for Canadian families.

I would also like to point out that the Conservative government should phase out subsidies for the oil and gas sectors. The money from those subsidies, which amounts to over $1 billion, could be invested in affordable child care programs, which will have more long-term economic benefits.

As usual, the Conservatives continue to ignore what the provinces, the municipalities, the Parliamentary Budget Officer and the opposition have to say about creating fair, sustainable prosperity in this country.

The New Democrats have consistently opposed the Conservatives' omnibus bills, just as we opposed Paul Martin's omnibus bills in the 1990s.

With this sixth consecutive omnibus budget bill, the Conservatives continue to use bad processes. Canadians deserve better.

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2Government Orders

1:05 p.m.

Scarborough Centre Ontario

Conservative

Roxanne James ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to that speech, and I just wanted to clarify something with regard to refugee health care. I want to clarify for the record that this Conservative government has always supported health care for bona fide refugees and will continue to do so in the future.

However, I think the opposition party has a bit of trouble with terminology. I wonder if the member from the NDP could explain the difference between a refugee—one who has been deemed by the independent Immigration and Refugee Board or by the UNHCR to be a bona fide refugee and resettled here in Canada—and a failed asylum claimant who has been asked to leave this country.

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2Government Orders

1:05 p.m.

NDP

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

Mr. Speaker, I do know the difference between the two.

I might ask the member if she knows the difference between an omnibus bill and a budget bill.

The budget should never be an omnibus bill. It is important to make that distinction and do things properly, which means introducing a budget bill, not an omnibus bill.

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2Government Orders

1:10 p.m.

NDP

Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles for her speech.

I would like her to comment further on the tax credit for employers, which will be paid for out of the employment insurance fund. She alluded to it in her speech but did not go into any detail about it.

What does she think of the fact that the Conservatives are planning to use the fund to pay for the creation of about 800 jobs at a cost of around $550,000 each? That measure will cost half a billion dollars. Do the math and that comes out to $550,000 per job created.

What does she think of the fact that the Conservatives are going to take money out of the employment insurance fund even though that money belongs to workers and employers?

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2Government Orders

1:10 p.m.

NDP

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member.

His question is extremely relevant, especially since I was responsible for the employment insurance file last year. To answer my colleague's question, I would first like to quote a witness, David Macdonald, a senior economist with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives:

The credit is received by all small businesses, irrespective of action. Whether they hire employees, fire employees, or remain at the same employment levels, they still get the credit.

It is particularly shameful that the Conservatives are taking money away from businesses and workers who pay into EI. It is becoming increasingly difficult for workers to access the program, especially when they do seasonal work and they have to apply for EI over and over again.

Furthermore, the Conservatives claim they are going to create jobs with that money, but that is also false. They use rhetoric that appears positive to Canadians, but this measure will not create jobs. It will create about 800 jobs, but for businesses that owe taxes to the government, the taxes will come first. This means taking money out of taxpayers' pockets to pay the taxes of the offending companies.

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2Government Orders

1:10 p.m.

Scarborough Centre Ontario

Conservative

Roxanne James ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

Mr. Speaker, I am going back to my first question with respect to the NDP being able to explain the difference between a bonafide refugee and a failed asylum claimant. I know that the NDP likes to say that people whose claims have been rejected are actually still refugees. These are people who had either fraudulently represented themselves or had not been able to prove that they are refugees in need of Canada's care and have been asked to leave this country. That is incorrect both legally and morally.

Therefore, I ask the member from the NDP this. Can she explain the difference between a bonafide refugee, someone who is in need of Canada's help and will continue to get it and always has, and that of a failed asylum claimant who has been asked to leave this country?

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2Government Orders

1:10 p.m.

NDP

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

Mr. Speaker, regarding the changes to the eligibility of refugee protection claimants, Ms. Jimenez, who came to Canada as a refugee, said that she did not know where she would be now if she had not had access to that money. She probably would have had to resort to food banks and begging on the street.

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2Government Orders

1:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

Order, please. It being 1:15 p.m., pursuant to an order made on Thursday, December 4, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2Government Orders

1:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2Government Orders

1:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

All those in favour will please say yea.

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2Government Orders

1:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2Government Orders

1:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

All those in favour will please say nay.

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2Government Orders

1:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2Government Orders

1:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

In my opinion the nays have it.

I declare Motion No. 1 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 2 to 43 defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 44. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2Government Orders

1:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.