House of Commons Hansard #68 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was jobs.

Topics

Canada PostOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

NDP

Isabelle Morin NDP Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the Conservative tax of 58% on stamps, the 37¢ increase is higher than the cost of sending a post card in the United States. Furthermore, it now costs almost $19 to send a parcel from Lachine to Toronto, whereas it costs $2.50 to ship a parcel across the U.S. It has gotten to the point where it would be less expensive for me to get in my car, go to the United States and send my mail from there. Why is the minister insisting on reducing services for Canadians while the 23 senior executives at Canada Post pocket $20 million.

Canada PostOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Halton Ontario

Conservative

Lisa Raitt ConservativeMinister of Transport

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that in 2012 Canada Post delivered one billion fewer pieces of mail than it did in 2006. We know that this trend is going to continue in the future as people use email far more than they use letter mail.

In order to deal with this reality, Canada Post has developed a five-point plan. One part of its plan is to increase the price of stamps. That is what happened on April 1. We support Canada Post in this plan because we want to ensure that it is not the taxpayer at the end of the day who is responsible for a $1 billion-a-year shortfall.

Official LanguagesOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Bloc

Jean-François Fortin Bloc Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC

Mr. Speaker, it is unimaginable that, in 2014, there are still tens of thousands of Quebeckers who cannot assert their right to work in French. In federal institutions, such as banks, airline companies, some trucking companies, and even telecommunications companies, workers still cannot enjoy the protections of Bill 101, which guarantees respect for their national language. Will the Minister for La Francophonie recognize that Bill 101 should apply to federal institutions in Quebec since it is a law of general application in that province?

Official LanguagesOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Mégantic—L'Érable Québec

Conservative

Christian Paradis ConservativeMinister of International Development and Minister for La Francophonie

Mr. Speaker, let me remind my colleague that the report on language of work in federally regulated businesses in Quebec was tabled last year. The report was prepared by senior officials with expertise in the field. The report clearly concludes that francophones can work in the language of their choice in federally regulated businesses in Quebec. We are proud to promote both official languages in Canada. We are proud to promote the French fact. We are proud to play an active role in la Francophonie.

Presence in GalleryOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

I wish to draw the attention of members to the presence in the gallery of a parliamentary delegation from the Republic of Tunisia, led by His Excellency Dr. Mustapha Ben Jaafar, Speaker of the National Constituent Assembly.

Presence in GalleryOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Hear, hear!

Business of the HouseOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC

Mr. Speaker, it is fair to say that it has been a tough week for the government.

Ms. Sheila Fraser, who is a personal hero to many Canadians for standing up and speaking the truth, has condemned the unfair elections act as an attack on democracy. Her voice is joined with those of current and former chief electoral officers, current and former elections commissioners, many witnesses, and Canadians who are speaking internationally as well. These individuals are all speaking out against this attack on democracy, Bill C-23.

The government's reaction is to try to impose the bill on the House. They have done this about 60 times. It is a sad track record, if not the worst track record in the entire history of all the governments in the country.

Unfortunately, as members know, the government's legislative agenda has been unravelling in the last two weeks. Two bills have been rejected by the Supreme Court of Canada because they simply were not drafted correctly.

In light of the government's unravelling legislative agenda, on behalf of the NDP official opposition caucus I would like to ask the government House leader what he will put forward next week to start to restore the confidence that Canadians have lost in the Conservative government.

Business of the HouseOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

York—Simcoe Ontario

Conservative

Peter Van Loan ConservativeLeader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see that the House is currently focusing on jobs, growth and long-term prosperity by debating Bill C-31, the Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1, at second reading.

This debate will continue tomorrow, Monday and Tuesday, with members of Parliament having an opportunity that night to vote on this bill to enact key measures of our low-tax plan for jobs and growth in the Canadian economy.

I am currently setting aside next Wednesday and Friday for debate on Bill C-32, the victims bill of rights. This important and much needed piece of legislation would give victims their rightful place in our justice system: at its heart. The Conservative Party has long stood alone in putting the rights and interests of victims ahead of those of criminals.

Also, I would like to note that Bill C-30, the fair rail for grain farmers act, has been making good progress in committee this week. Should that bill be reported back to the House next week, I will make time for its consideration if we are able to enjoy the same level of co-operation that we saw at second reading last Friday, when it was passed by the House after we heard from a speaker from each party.

Finally, Thursday, April 10, shall be the second allotted day. I understand that we will debate a Liberal motion on that day. Perhaps the hon. member for Papineau will ask the House to debate his definition of middle class. In fact, it appears he could have a vigorous debate on that issue with himself that would fill the entire day. I eagerly await to see if his newest definition of the middle class will still include the CEOs of the big banks. I am confident that his caucus will stand ready to move an amendment to that motion if, during the course of the day, his definition changes yet again.

I noticed today in question period that we heard yet another definition of middle class. It is that one magical person who happens to make the median income in Canada. At least that way the middle class is easily defined and the number of people who are middle class is unlikely to change. It is one person, and that is a number that I know the member for Papineau will be able to grasp. He will be able to remember the number one. It is easier than remembering the thousands of billions number that he is also fond of.

I am also confident that he will not choose as the subject of debate the matter of eliminating the budget deficit. After all, he says the budget will balance itself.

Business of the HouseOral Questions

3:15 p.m.

NDP

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

Mr. Speaker, the debate on Bill C-31 began this morning. However, because of the scope of the provisions, which cover not only budgetary and fiscal matters, but also justice and immigration, I believe it is clear and appropriate that the bill should be divided at some point, so that it can be carefully studied.

For that reason, I ask for unanimous consent to move the following motion:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, Bill C-31, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures be amended by removing the following clauses: a) clauses 99 to 101 related to the implementation of the Canada-U.S. intergovernmental agreement on the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act; b) clauses 102 to 107 related to compensation for Canadian veterans; c) clauses 110 to 162 related to changes to the Hazardous Products Act;

d) clauses 175 to 192, related to changes to the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency Act and the Enterprise Cape Beton Corporation; e) clauses 206 to 209, related to Nordion and Theratronics, referring to ownership restrictions; f) clauses 212 to 233, related to regulatory changes to motor vehicle safety and rail safety; g) clauses 234 to 237, related to regulatory changes to food safety;

h) clauses 239 to 241 related to the capping of wireless roaming rates; i) clauses 299 to 307 related to changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the temporary foreign workers program; j) clauses 308 to 310 related to the definition of “essential services” under the Public Service Labour Relations Agreement; k) clauses 317 to 370 related to changes to the Trademarks Act and Registrar of Trademarks; l) clauses 371 to 374 related to restrictions of admissibility for immigrants to the guaranteed income supplement; m) clause 375 related to the replacement of the Champlain Bridge; n) clauses 376 to 482 related to the consolidation of staffing for all administrative tribunals in the federal public administration;

that the clauses mentioned in section a) of this motion do compose Bill C-33; that Bill C-33 be deemed read a first time and printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Finance; that the clauses mentioned in section b) of this motion do compose Bill C-34; that Bill C-34 be deemed read a first time and be printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs; that the clauses mentioned in section c) of this motion do compose Bill C-35; that Bill C-35 be deemed read a first time and printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology;

that the clauses mentioned in section d) of this motion do compose Bill C-36; that Bill C-36 be deemed read a first time and be printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology; that the clauses mentioned in section e) of this motion do compose Bill C-37; that Bill C-37 be deemed read a first time and be printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology; that the clauses mentioned in section f) of this motion do compose Bill C-38; that Bill C-38 be deemed read a first time and be printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities;

that the clauses mentioned in section g) of this motion do compose Bill C-39; that Bill C-39 be deemed read a first time and printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Health; that the clauses mentioned in section h) of this motion do compose Bill C-40; that Bill C-40 be deemed read the first time and printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology; that the clauses mentioned in section i) of this motion do compose Bill C-41; that Bill C-41 be deemed read a first time and printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration;

that the clauses mentioned in section j) of this motion do compose Bill C-42; that Bill C-42 be deemed read a first time and be printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates; that the clauses mentioned in section k) of this motion do compose Bill C-43; that Bill C-43 be deemed read a first time and be printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology; that the clauses mentioned in section l) of this motion do compose Bill C-44; that Bill C-44 be deemed read a first time and be printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities;

that the clauses mentioned in section m) of this motion do compose Bill C-45; that Bill C-45 be deemed read a first time and printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Community; that the clauses mentioned in section n) of this motion do compose Bill C-46; that Bill C-46 be deemed read a first time and printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights;

and that Bill C-31 retain the status on the order paper that it had prior to the adoption of this order; that Bill C-31 be reprinted as amended; and that the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel be authorized to make any technical changes or corrections as may be necessary to give effect to this motion.

Business of the HouseOral Questions

3:20 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

Business of the HouseOral Questions

3:20 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-31, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1Government Orders

3:20 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin

Questions and comments, the hon. opposition House leader.

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1Government Orders

3:20 p.m.

Burnaby—New Westminster B.C.

NDP

Peter Julian NDPHouse Leader of the Official Opposition

Mr. Speaker, I find it passing strange that the government House leader stood up and gave a speech, one of the few from the government side, and then promptly shut down debate for most of the government and most of the opposition members by putting in place time allocation measures, which means that most Conservatives and most opposition members will not have an opportunity to speak on the bill.

We might ask why, when it is a Conservative budget bill, the Conservatives would want to shut down debate on it. Here is one of the reasons: the foreign account tax compliance act, which is something that has been protested by a million Canadians of American origin in this country, Canadians upon whom penalties are being imposed unilaterally by the IRS.

The Conservatives said that they would stand up against this kind of unilateral action by the American government. In fact, I went to see the American ambassador myself, along with a number of NDP MPs, and we advocated strongly for those one million Canadians.

This Conservative government has sold them out. Basically it is shipping that information to the United States, even though there are constitutional issues and privacy issues.

My question to the hon. government House leader is simply this: is that why the Conservatives want to shut down debate? Is it because they are afraid of those one million Canadians finding out that they were sold out on FATCA?

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1Government Orders

3:25 p.m.

York—Simcoe Ontario

Conservative

Peter Van Loan ConservativeLeader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I keep struggling with this issue, because it seems some folks have still not yet grasped our rules. Of course, time allocation is not used by this government to shut down debate, because here we are debating, which we will be doing tomorrow, Monday, and Tuesday. It is used as a scheduling device so that all members of this House can have certainty and confidence about when the debate will occur, and more importantly, about when the vote will occur and when the decision will ultimately be made. That is very important.

This is reflected in Beauchesne's at page 162. I have referred to this point before, but the opposition House leader seems not to have grasped it yet. It is at paragraph 533:

Time allocation is a device for planning the use of time during the various stages of consideration of a bill rather than bringing the debate to an immediate conclusion.

There we have it in black and white, from one of those important green books that we rely on that tells us what the rules are.

There was an interesting observation today from one of the more knowledgeable observers of parliamentary procedure, who said this:

...the...bill will get a total of five days of second reading debate, which is pretty reasonable.

We have provided for ample debate, more debate than has often happened on many bills of this type historically, and I am very pleased to see that we are doing it in a fashion that allows full debate, but more importantly, lets decisions get made. That is what is important: that we make decisions, get things done, and do the job that people sent us here to do.

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1Government Orders

3:25 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, I take exception to the government House leader's distortion of reality, which is in fact what we just witnessed.

At the end of the day, we need to recognize that the budget bill before us takes into consideration the passing of numerous amendments, numerous clauses, that would affect dozens of laws. These are laws that should have been brought in individually, as stand-alone pieces of legislation. The member is using the back door of a budget debate and then putting on time allocation, which prevents all members of the House from participating and getting engaged in the debate, in order to pass a series of what should have been a number of pieces of legislation.

The Conservative/Reform majority government has a terrible record in terms of respecting due process and democracy in Canada, whether it is the budget bill or the unfair elections act.

My question to the government House leader is, when can we anticipate that there will be more democracy inside this chamber? When is the government going to take that crutch of time allocation away? It clearly denies the ability of members of Parliament to hold government accountable, and the government House leader knows that.

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1Government Orders

3:25 p.m.

Conservative

Peter Van Loan Conservative York—Simcoe, ON

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member may be young, or young enough that he would not have been around in 1861, when in the British Parliament, our mother Parliament, they reverted to what was the earlier practice of taking all major financial measures as one. The chancellor thus got the paper duty provisions through as part of the finance bill.

The business of implementing a budget through one budget implementation bill goes back some 150 years. It is nothing new under this government.

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1Government Orders

3:25 p.m.

NDP

Robert Chisholm NDP Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS

Mr. Speaker, let me indicate at the beginning that I will be sharing my time. Unfortunately, I do not have much of it, but being a team player, I am sharing my time with the member for Gatineau.

Let me say how disappointed I am that once again debate on this important measure has been limited. We may get 10 hours altogether in debate at second reading on the bill, which means that the vast majority, two-thirds of the members in the House, will not have an opportunity to stand and represent their constituencies. It is shameful.

We are talking about a budget implementation bill of 350 pages, almost 500 clauses, and it amends dozens of bills. The budget for the department that I am the shadow critic for, Fisheries and Oceans, has a budget of $1.6 billion, and I am being given 10 minutes in the House.

The other day we had the opportunity to talk to the minister at committee on the main estimates, and I had 10 minutes that I had to divide among my colleagues in our caucus. The level of accountability by the government is absolutely shocking, frankly. We continue to see it.

One of the things that the Conservatives are changing is something that affects the region I am from, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. Not only are they getting rid of the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation altogether, which is losing that voice, that on the ground voice, but they are getting rid of the board of ACOA. They are taking away the requirement that the CEO of ACOA is to report on the progress of that organization in contributing to economic development in the region every five years.

Talk about removing accountability at every step along the way. It seems interesting that ECBC, for example, is being disbanded, at a time when there is an investigation under way by the Auditor General into wrongdoings in the ECBC's decision to provide $4 million in new funding for a new marina at Ben Eoin. One might say that sounds familiar; it sounds a lot like what is happening under Bill C-23, the unfair elections act. Conservatives are getting rid of the provisions that would allow Elections Canada to press forward with charges against some of the Conservative members who have been under investigation for flouting the rules in the way they have prosecuted their own elections.

Again, it is a pattern by the government. It does not seem to give a hoot about democracy and things like fair elections, or about accountability. As I said, for a $1.6 billion budget at Department of Fisheries and Oceans, we get an hour altogether, and most of that is taken up by government in discussion with the minister. It is not good enough, as far as I am concerned, and as far as the constituents that I represent from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour.

I have very few minutes, but I want to talk about some of the things that the government could have done. There are a lot of things that it did that I do not agree with. Some things I do agree with. However, there is a lot that the government did not take the opportunity to do. These are things like investing in innovation, economic development, and high-quality middle-class jobs. We had hoped that Conservatives would continue to build on an existing job creation tax credit for small and medium-size businesses. They decided not to do that.

We wanted them to develop a comprehensive strategy to deal with persistent structural youth unemployment and under-employment throughout this country, to create and help businesses create jobs for young Canadians, and to crack down on the abuse of unpaid internships to ensure young people are paid for the work that they perform.

There is a serious problem occurring in this country, where young people, whether getting out of high school or out of university, are having a terrible time trying to find jobs to match their skills. They are having a terrible time finding jobs to develop experience and pay their own way forward, whether it be supporting a family or going on to post-secondary education. The jobs are not there, and the Conservatives have not come up with a plan to help deal with that, other than the Canada jobs plan which does not help students. It was announced last year, and it is only now being agreed to by some of the provinces. It attacks labour market agreements that provide funding for the most vulnerable Canadians, literacy training and job-readiness training in my province of Nova Scotia and throughout the country.

Provinces were forced, frankly at gunpoint, to sign this deal, knowing they were going to be losing funding that they had already committed for these labour market agreements, supporting organizations like the Dartmouth Learning Network and others throughout my province, and programs throughout the country. It is extraordinarily short-sighted, and an example of the lack of appreciation that the Conservatives have for the complexities of job training in this country.

We had hoped that the government would provide explicit transparent criteria for the net benefit to Canada test in the Investment Canada Act, with an emphasis on assessing the impact of foreign investment on communities, jobs, pensions, and new capital investments. I have heard a lot of employers in my constituency asking me why the Americans can protect jobs in their country but Canada does not seem to care what happens to jobs in this country. People are extraordinarily frustrated that companies that compete in the United States are prohibited from doing that, while at the same time American companies come up and displace Canadian companies.

Finally, we had hoped there would be a study conducted into the methods to encourage value-added domestic production in the energy sector.

There is a long list of things, but one of the things I am particularly concerned about is the fact that the Conservatives failed to restore the ecoENERGY home retrofit program. It was an initiative that worked well and was an investment into the renewable energy sector. It was an investment in Canadians actually taking control of the amount of energy they use and it was a good way forward. In their lack of judgment, the Conservatives have decided not to move in that direction again.

Let me finish by saying how disappointed I am as a member of this House of Commons, the representative from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, that I participate in debate after debate where the current government is shutting down our democracy. It is taking away my rights as a member of Parliament to examine legislation, to examine budgets, to give voice to the concerns of my constituents on these issues every single day. The Conservatives have been doing it repeatedly.

I am hearing from the people in Dartmouth—Cole Harbour that it is not good enough. They want to ensure that every time I have the opportunity I send that message because they are going to be sending their own message in 2015.

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1Government Orders

3:40 p.m.

Calgary Southeast Alberta

Conservative

Jason Kenney ConservativeMinister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Multiculturalism

Mr. Speaker, I would grant that the member is misinformed about the Canada job grant and its impact on the labour market agreement, which is $500 million in annual federal transfers to provinces and territories for skills development and job training for individuals who have been unemployed long term or who have never been employed.

In fact, the Canada job grant agreements that we have signed in principle with all 13 provinces and territories permit the provinces and territories to fund their portion, the public portion of the job grant, from any source of funds. The source of funding is not restricted to the labour market agreement, which the Conservative government introduced in 2007, I remind the member. There was zero LMA funding and zero programming of that nature prior to the government's creation of that program.

It would be nice to hear a little thanks from the member if he thinks those are good programs, and also recognition that they are completely unaffected by the Canada job grant agreement, which seeks to increase the private sector investment in skills training.

I am with the unions on this. I am where the NDP should be, which is thinking we have to find ways to get employers to put more skin in the game in training. That is what the job grant does, by leveraging more investment from private sector employers.

Does the member not agree that it is a good objective? Does he not also agree that it is a good idea to try to get employers to nominate people for training where they are offering them a guaranteed job at the end of it? Surely he is willing to admit that there has been too much training for jobs that do not exist and training for the sake of training, and that we need some reforms in this area.

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1Government Orders

3:40 p.m.

NDP

Robert Chisholm NDP Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that employers in Canada have not put enough skin in the game, as the member says.

I was around in 2007 in Nova Scotia and involved in the training field. We were devastated when the federal government pulled out of the national program that existed and dumped all of the responsibility on the backs of the provinces. It was complete chaos and it took a couple of years for the Province of Nova Scotia and other provinces to develop their own programs, infrastructure, and skills.

Now that they have done that and they are producing good skills and providing training for all levels, including the most vulnerable, the government comes along and says it thinks it will take it back because it has seen a political use for those dollars. What the government has done, despite what the minister claims, is put the funding in serous jeopardy that went to these labour market agreements and supported training for the most vulnerable.

That is the shame about the direction in which the government has gone. It has forced provinces to agree to take the money that was already on the table or lose it all.

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1Government Orders

3:40 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that one of the largest, most significant shortcomings of the Conservative budget is the fact that there is absolutely nothing in terms of recognition of what Canadians hold very dear to their hearts, which is the health care accord.

The health care accord is something that just expired at midnight on March 31. If we ask Canadians from coast to coast to coast, we will find that health care is a very important issue to them; yet the government has failed in developing a replacement accord that would provide the types of assurances that Canadians want to see going into the future.

I wonder if the member might want to provide comment about how important it was for the Government of Canada to have renegotiated a new accord for the next decade?

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1Government Orders

3:40 p.m.

NDP

Robert Chisholm NDP Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS

Mr. Speaker, the member brings up a great point. The government says it is increasing health transfers by 6%, but that is in the total pot and it is being distributed on the basis of per capita. As a result, Nova Scotia is not going to get a 6% increase; it is going to get a 2% increase at a time when health costs are increasing by 5%.

Alberta is going to get an increase of $1 billion. Nova Scotia, where there is a high percentage of the aging population, which requires more health care dollars, is going to get less money from the government.

That is simply wrong.

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1Government Orders

3:45 p.m.

NDP

Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC

Mr. Speaker, once again—

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1Government Orders

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Jason Kenney Conservative Calgary Southeast, AB

Albertans are worth less?

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1Government Orders

3:45 p.m.

NDP

Robert Chisholm NDP Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS

No, Nova Scotians are not worth less.