House of Commons Hansard #101 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was budget.

Topics

TransportOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Lévis—Bellechasse Québec

Conservative

Steven Blaney ConservativeMinister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

Mr. Speaker, I would like to reassure my colleague. We all know that three criminals are on the loose. We are supporting the Government of Quebec's efforts to catch these dangerous individuals. If the member or anyone else has information, they can contact Canadian or Quebec authorities.

Presence in GalleryOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

That concludes question period for today.

I would like to draw to the attention of hon. members the presence in the gallery of a parliamentary delegation led by the Honourable Chi Wanchun, Chair of the China-Canada Legislative Association of the National People’s Congress of the People's Republic of China.

Presence in GalleryOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Hear, hear!

Presence in GalleryOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Bloc

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

Mr. Speaker, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to move the following motion: Given the National Assembly of Quebec's passage of Bill 52, the end-of-life care act, that this House reaffirm Quebec's exclusive right to legislate on health matters, including end-of-life care.

Presence in GalleryOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?

Presence in GalleryOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

Presence in GalleryOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC

Mr. Speaker, if you seek it, I believe you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move that the House request that (a) unless discussing matters relating to security, employment staff relations, or a tender, or if unanimous consent of all board members present is obtained, all meetings of the Board of Internal Economy be held henceforth in a transparent manner open to the public; (b) all board proceedings be henceforth recorded and verbatim publications of the proceedings be made publicly available; (c) all reports of studies ordered henceforth by the board be made publicly available; and (d) proceedings of the board to be held in camera, as well as reports of studies ordered by the board to be kept confidential, only take place after a publicly held discussion of the board explaining the necessity of the confidentiality.

Presence in GalleryOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?

Presence in GalleryOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

Government Response to PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre Saskatchewan

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 95 petitions.

Interparliamentary DelegationsRoutine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

NDP

Irene Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian Group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union respecting its participation at the 130th Assembly of the Inter-Parliamentary Union and Related Meetings, held in Geneva, Switzerland, from March 16 to 20, 2014.

Interparliamentary DelegationsRoutine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

NDP

Pierre Dionne Labelle NDP Rivière-du-Nord, QC

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I am tabling the report of the Canadian delegation of the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie respecting its participation at the meeting of the APF Cooperation and Development Committee, held in Quebec City from March 18 to 20, 2013.

Procedure and House AffairsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

Conservative

Joe Preston Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 16th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, requesting an extension to a later date to consider Motion No. 431, election of committee chairs. If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in the 16th report later today.

Natural ResourcesCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Conservative

Leon Benoit Conservative Vegreville—Wainwright, AB

Mr. Speaker, I have two reports to table today.

I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, entitled “Cross-Canada Benefits of the Oil and Gas Industry”. Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government make a comprehensive response to this report.

I also have the honour to present, in both official languages, the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources in relation to Bill C-22, an act respecting Canada's offshore oil and gas operations, enacting the Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act, repealing the Nuclear Liability Act and making consequential amendments to other acts. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

Natural ResourcesCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

NDP

Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of presenting the dissenting opinion of the official opposition to the report by the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, cross-Canada benefits of developing the oil and gas industry of the energy sector.

New Democrats recognize the importance and major contribution of the oil and gas sector to Canada's economy. However, as Canada's official opposition, we favour an approach to parliamentary committee studies that offers objective and balanced analyses, contributing to sound resource management.

We are appreciative of all of the witnesses who took the time to share their perspective and expertise. The majority report provides a reasonable summary of the testimony. Regrettably, the testimony was constrained by the limited scope of the study as proposed by the government, which prevented a net benefit assessment of the oil and gas sector. Few witnesses were invited to testify on current or potential risks, or costs associated with the sector. Consequently, the majority report fails to provide meaningful or balanced direction for public policy.

The government has espoused that responsible resource development requires balanced consideration of both economic development and environmental protection, as well as enhanced consultations with aboriginal peoples. Yet, by design, this study was limited to a narrow review of economic benefits of the sector. Inclusion of testimony by a broader range of witnesses on associated risks or challenges faced by communities, aboriginal peoples, and workers, could have offered more credible and constructive advice for sound and balanced federal policy. We were denied the opportunity of even posing questions to witnesses on these broader challenges.

In the 21st century economy, a progressive, realistic, and responsible policy must also factor in the true costs of resource exploitation and apply a policy framework addressing those challenges to ensure sustainability.

Natural ResourcesCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS

Mr. Speaker, on the same report, I wish to present the dissenting report of the Liberal Party in relation to the seventh report of the Committee on Natural Resources.

Natural ResourcesCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

The Standing Orders indicate that only the official opposition is able to speak to a dissenting report at the table.

Access to Information, Privacy and EthicsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

NDP

Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, in relation to a certificate of nomination of Mary Elizabeth Dawson to the position of Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.

Parliament of Canada ActRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

Justin Trudeau Liberal Papineau, QC

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-613, An Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act and the Access to Information Act (transparency).

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Avalon for seconding my bill.

I am pleased today to introduce the transparency act. I genuinely look forward to working with all members of the House to further open up Parliament and government for the benefit of all Canadians.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Procedure and House AffairsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

Conservative

Joe Preston Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON

Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move that the 16th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs presented to the House earlier today be concurred in.

Procedure and House AffairsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?

Procedure and House AffairsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Procedure and House AffairsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

There is no consent.

FinancesCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

Mr. Speaker, I move that the third report of the Standing Committee on Finance, presented on Tuesday, December 10, 2013, be concurred in.

I would like to share my time with my esteemed colleague, the member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques. Saying this riding's name is probably the most difficult thing about this speech.

The finance committee's study examines income inequality in Canada. This debate is vital, not only for poor Canadians, but for all Canadians because the effects of inequality are clear. The facts in this report show how bad it is for our economy.

I will touch on a number of aspects of income inequality that are raised in this incredibly important report.

As New Democrats, we support many of the general proposals and the breadth of this study that was first raised by my colleagues down the way. There were some other provisions that we would have sought in the study, some harder looks and closer examination of some of the aspects of inequality in Canada. However, all those watching and listening should rest assured that the impacts of inequality in Canada do not just affect those who are immediately targeted by low incomes and the effects of poverty; we know that those effects migrate out across the broader Canadian economy. It makes the country less healthy, less prosperous, less educated when we have serious inequality and when that inequality is growing.

From 1972 until just a couple of years ago, not only has the category of middle income Canadians shrunk in terms of the size of the Canadian population that can be classified as middle income, but that group has also seen its real wages increase by a staggeringly low 0.2% over that whole time, when adjusted for inflation.

What does that mean? That means that people living and working in the early 1970s who were in the middle class have seen their wages grow in real dollar terms by only about 0.2%. It stayed virtually the same, but what has changed is the cost of living, as we all know, whether it is paying for energy to heat our homes and turn on the lights or paying for food whose costs have increased, and we have seen the cost of education increase. We have seen a steady downloading from the federal government to the provincial governments, on down to municipalities, and to the individuals. This has been steady and growing with the neo-Conservative policies that have been promoted by various Conservative and Liberal governments.

Over those 35 years—and this may strike Canadians as passing strange—virtually 93% of all the growth in disparity between the haves and the have-nots, between the wealthier and the less wealthy Canadians, grew while Liberals were in power. It is a confounding thing for many Canadians because most people do not watch the day-to-day machinations of government. That is understood. They do not tune into question period every afternoon or the work of committees. They do not study every single piece of legislation. People are busy trying to get the kids out to school, put food on the table, get a good job, and keep a good job.

Canadians who are not watching what happens when parties get into power will be confused by the fact that most inequality has grown while Liberals were in power, because most Canadians watch the campaigns. Most Canadians in particular watch the last couple of weeks of a campaign when the parties present themselves in their full force to Canadians.

The trend we have seen—and it is a worrisome and disappointing trend for my Liberal friends down the way—is that they campaign to the left and then tack right as soon as they get into government and introduce policies that are well supported by their Conservative allies across the way. Usually the only disagreement Conservatives have with Liberal taxation policies is that they are not draconian enough. They are not giving away enough in terms of tax treats to the wealthiest Canadians. That is the Conservative criticism of Liberal taxation policy.

This is connected to this conversation about inequality and this particular report from the finance committee, because we see the government's last budget. We saw one of the ministers commit to this just yesterday. In the way the Conservatives presented this budget, we wished the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance had taken a Hippocratic oath to do no harm when it comes to income inequality, because of what is in the pages of this budget. Members should get past the title; Conservatives are good at repeating titles ad nauseam. They put this spin on every bit of legislation around the budget: jobs, growth, and long term prosperity. The question we should ask about that little spin job is: for whom and where?

Across the country we are seeing not only growing gaps in income between haves and have-nots but also disparity between the regions and the provinces, making the have and have-not provinces grow in distance from one another.

One would wonder what the effect is, and we see it in this report from the committee. From the IMF to the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, all the way down from the most Conservative thinkers and think tanks in this country and around the world to the most progressive, there is one thing they agree on, which is that income inequality and regional disparity not only hurt impoverished individuals but also the broader economy. It has a dragging effect on the prosperity of the country as a whole.

One would think that if the economy were the number one issue for the Conservatives, as they claim, then income inequality would be one of the things that they would be focused on. That is why we wish they had taken a Hippocratic oath, because just recently we saw yet another confirmation of the Conservatives making a bad situation worse.

The specific policy that I would point to is the notion of income splitting. It would not help 86% of Canadians. It is the very policy that former finance minister Jim Flaherty, whom we all knew well and who was quite endeared to us, raised significant questions about. He raised questions about this idea because it would cost upward of $5 billion to the federal and provincial coffers. That is not a small program.

What would people do with $5 billion if they were trying to attack income inequality or help families? There is a whole slew of ideas, ideas that again come from the most progressive to the most conservative think tanks in this country.

The one idea that they say would not be great for income inequality and would not be great for helping families is income splitting, because it would help so few people and would disproportionately help those who need help the least, those making north of $150,000 a year. Those families that have great disparity between what the spouses earn need to have a big gap between their earnings in order for them to achieve any benefit from income splitting. Single moms and single dads would receive no benefit from this measure whatsoever. People who have kids aged 18 and over would receive no benefit at all. People who do not have kids would not receive any benefit. It is almost as though the Conservatives are stuck in some sort of 1950s rerun. They can only imagine a family one way, so they designed the policy for that one family. They are confused and confounded when the experts come forward and say it is 2014, not 1950.

Because it is 2014, families in Canada come in every shape and size and in all kinds of forms, and if we want to help families, we need policies that would help them all, as opposed to helping just certain families.

The Broadbent Institute put a wonderful report out yesterday that confirmed the analysis from the C.D. Howe Institute, just in case anybody is worried about whether this message is coming from progressive thinkers or from conservative ones. The report breaks down the unfairness of the income-splitting program. More than half of the people who fit within that two-parent, two-kids scenario would not qualify for any benefit if both parents are in the same income bracket or if the disparity between their wages is not great enough. Who will benefit and receive the lion's share of the benefit from this income-splitting scheme, this $5-billion program, would be those who are the wealthiest. They stand to benefit upward of $5,000 to $6,000 per year with no strings attached.

One might question whether people making north of $150,000, as members of Parliament do, need an extra $5,000 in their pockets, as opposed to single moms struggling to make ends meet paying hydro bills or as opposed to parents in the same income bracket, both making $45,000 an hour—excuse me, $45,000 a year. The people making $45,000 an hour are the folks the Conservatives are trying to help out. Those living in the real economy and trying to make ends meet would not get any help from this program at all. If they do somehow fit into that narrow 14% of middle-income and low-income Canadian families who might qualify, those families would get a couple of hundred dollars a year. The wealthiest families in Canada would get $6,000, compared to a couple of hundred bucks for those with the lowest incomes.

Obviously the Conservatives have no interest in dealing with income inequality. I just wish they would do no harm, but instead, time and time again, we see proposals to shift the tax burden away from corporations. Since the Conservatives took power, taxes for corporations, the wealthiest in this country, have gone down by $4.5 billion, but taxes on personal income have gone up by $15 billion. Individuals are bearing the burden for all those goods and services that we want from government, while corporations are giving less. The rich are paying less while middle-income earners and the poorest Canadians are paying more.

That is the Conservative world view on taxes. That is the Conservative world view on the economy. Progressives, like New Democrats, believe in something different: true fairness for Canadian families and true fairness for Canadians.

FinancesCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

NDP

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, our finance critic, for his very good speech on this report.

I am on the Standing Committee on Finance, which studied the report. I think it is very relevant given that we discussed income splitting yesterday. During his speech, my colleague from Kings—Hants mentioned a number of times that he hoped all members in the House would be able to work together to tackle the problem of income inequality. However, based on what I saw in committee, that was not the case. I think that it may even be very difficult to have the same perception of the problem of income inequality.

I would like my friend to comment on one example. Although there were some recommendations where we could find common ground, we opposed one because it seemed to be irrelevant in a report on income inequality. It proposed that the federal government, within the parameters set by the Supreme Court of Canada, continue to work collaboratively with the provinces and territories in order to create a co-operative capital markets regulatory system to promote economic growth and better protect small investors.

How does such a measure directly address the issue of income inequality?