House of Commons Hansard #199 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was families.
Aboriginal Affairs and Northern DevelopmentCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Wild Rose, AB
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, today, in both official languages, the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, in relation to Bill S-6, an act to amend the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act and the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act.
The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House without amendments.
Stéphane Dion Liberal Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-666, An Act to amend the Carriage by Air Act (fundamental rights).
Mr. Speaker, the bill that I have the honour to introduce today is entitled An Act to amend the Carriage by Air Act (fundamental rights). This bill amends the Carriage by Air Act to in order to specify that that Act does not restrict the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Official Languages Act and the Canadian Human Rights Act.
This bill solves a problem that we as legislators need to solve, a problem that undermines the basic rights of Canadians. This bill will correct one of the flaws undermining the rights that protect us all.
The bill would clearly establish that a Canadian citizen, when taking an international flight under Canada's jurisdiction, could be entitled to damages if her or his rights are not respected with regard to the Official Languages Act or the Canadian Human Rights Act.
I encourage all my colleagues in Parliament to support passage of this bill that would protect the rights of Canadians.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-667, an act to amend the Navigation Protection Act (Sooke River).
Mr. Speaker, I am introducing this private member's bill today to restore federal environmental protection for the Sooke River by adding it to part 2 of the schedule of the Navigable Waters Protection Act. This is protection that was removed by the Conservative government, in 2012, in Bill C-45, the first of the omnibus budget bills.
The Sooke River system drains a watershed of some 403 square kilometres near the southern tip of Vancouver Island, in my riding. The rock falls at the Sooke River Potholes divide it into the Upper Sooke River and the Lower Sooke River systems.
Protection of the Sooke River watershed is particularly important for two quite separate reasons. The Upper Sooke watershed is the source of drinking water for the Greater Victoria area. The Lower Sooke River is becoming crucial for the restoration of local salmon runs, including chinook, which are critical to the survival of the southern resident killer whales.
Two volunteer-driven organizations, the Sooke Salmon Enhancement Society with its Jack Brooks hatchery on Rocky Creek and the Juan de Fuca Salmon Restoration Society with its Charters River Salmon Interpretive Centre and demonstration hatchery, are doing key work in salmon habitat restoration and enhancement of wild stocks. Restoring federal environmental protection will play an important role in ensuring the long-term health of the watershed so important to Greater Victoria's drinking water supply and to the continued success of salmon enhancement and habitat restoration work.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-668, an act to amend the Navigation Protection Act (Colquitz River).
Mr. Speaker, I am introducing this private member's bill today to restore federal environmental protection for the Colquitz River system. Again, this is protection that was removed for all rivers, lakes and streams, on Vancouver Island by the Conservative government, in 2012, in Bill C-45.
The Colquitz River system drains a watershed of some 49 square kilometres in Greater Victoria, largely in the new riding of Esquimalt Saanich—Sooke. It begins in Elk and Beaver lakes, but also includes Swan and Blenkinsop lakes on its way to Portage Inlet. As a heavily urbanized watershed, the quality of the watershed is under constant threat. A wide variety of volunteer groups have undertaken efforts to preserve and enhance the Colquitz system and have had success in restoring a run of between 200 and 400 coho salmon and dozens of chum salmon in the river.
Restoring federal environmental protection to the Colquitz would support the important work of the Friends of Cuthbert Holmes Park, the Peninsula Streams Society, Friends of Swan Creek Watershed, the Habitat Acquisition Trust and the Colquitz Watershed stewardship project in restoring the important role of the Colquitz in our local ecosystem.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Matthew Kellway NDP Beaches—East York, ON
Mr. Speaker, tomorrow marks the second anniversary of the collapse of Rana Plaza in Dhaka, Bangladesh, a building that housed 5,000 garment workers. I am pleased today to present a petition that acknowledges the deaths of over 1,100 workers and injury to 2,500 more in that, the world's second-largest industrial accident.
The petitioners are reminding this House that it is the fundamental right of all people, wherever they live in the world, to be able to go to work without fear for their safety, health or indeed lives. They are calling upon the Government of Canada to endorse the Accord on Fire and Building Safety in Bangladesh, and they encourage Canadian companies that manufacture in Bangladesh to become signatories to that accord.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, the Punjab assembly in India unanimously passed a resolution calling on the Canadian Parliament to apologize for the Komagata Maru incident.
The 1914 Komagata Maru incident was a dark moment in Canada's past, when 352 passengers aboard the steamship were denied entry into Canada based on a discriminatory immigration policy. The ship was forced to return to India and, as a result, 19 passengers were killed not to mention the many other hardships that were endured.
The petitioners ask that the Government of Canada provide a formal apology in Parliament with respect to the Komagata Maru incident of 1914. I thank the petitioners and the individuals who took the time to sign the petition.
Christine Moore NDP Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today.
The first calls for stable long-term funding for CBC/Radio-Canada.
CBC/Radio-Canada is very important to ridings like mine. Without it, regional news would be virtually non-existent. Stable funding to ensure the longevity of CBC/Radio-Canada is essential, especially for rural areas like mine.
Christine Moore NDP Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Mr. Speaker, the second petition calls on the Government of Canada not to take money from retired federal public servants by changing their defined benefit pension plan.
Many retired public servants, not just in my riding but all over Quebec, are very worried. They are asking the Government of Canada not to go back on the commitments it made to its former employees.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today.
I am honoured to present a petition opposing Bill C-51, the Anti-terrorism Act, 2015.
At least that is the name that the law bears.
The petitioners point out that it would create, through weak and strangely over-broad definitions, not just abuses of the rights and liberties of Canadians, but actually would not make Canadians safer against security threats.
The petitioners are from Peterborough, Guelph, Waterloo and other areas of Ontario. They are calling on this House to reject Bill C-51.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, the other petition is from residents of the Vancouver area. They urge this House to take action to fully investigate the occurrences of electoral fraud that occurred in the 2011 election, referred to as “robocalls” but that were also often paid live callers who misdirected voters in an attempt to defraud voters of their right to vote.
Rathika Sitsabaiesan NDP Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
Mr. Speaker, I rise today because communities like mine in Scarborough, especially in north Scarborough, only have access to public transit at a surface level such as buses.
People in my community realize the importance of creating a Canada public transit strategy because Canada is the only OECD country that does not have a national public transit strategy. It is estimated that over the next five years there will be an $18-billion gap in transit infrastructure funding.
The petitioners are calling upon the Government of Canada to enact a Canada public transit strategy that seeks to provide a permanent investment plan to support public transit; to establish federal funding mechanisms for public transit; to work together with all levels of government to provide sustainable, predictable, long-term and adequate funding; and to establish accountability measures to ensure that all governments work together to increase access to public transit.
I know how very important and needed it is in my community in Scarborough—Rouge River and all of the northern and eastern parts of Scarborough, so I am very pleased to present this petition on their behalf.
Malcolm Allen NDP Welland, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today.
The first is on pollinators, specifically bees. There are 200 species of bees in this country. The petitioners are calling on the government to enact studies so the colonies can be saved from the collapse that we are seeing across this country, in numerous regions. We need to save pollinators as they are an intrinsic piece of the agriculture sector, which we need to make sure is successful. The petitioners would like to see that happen.
Malcolm Allen NDP Welland, ON
Mr. Speaker, the second petition is about the Conservative government's changes to EI. The petitioners are asking that those changes be rescinded and that the government make sure that EI actually does what it was intended to do. It is an insurance premium that folks pay and they expect to be covered when they get laid off.
The petitioners are calling on the government to reinstate the benefits that people used to receive not that long ago, before the government took them away.
Laurin Liu NDP Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition today in support of Canada Post.
The people from the Lower Laurentians region and Laval who signed the petition are calling on the federal government to reject Canada Post's plan for reduced service and to explore other options for updating the crown corporation's business plan. They deplore the fact that between 6,000 and 8,000 jobs will be eliminated and that this reduction in services could lead to the privatization of Canada Post, which is an essential public service.
Kennedy Stewart NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
Mr. Speaker, I am standing today to present a petition from residents of my riding of Burnaby—Douglas who are calling on the Government of Canada to immediately act to prevent the new Kinder Morgan pipeline from being built in Burnaby.
The petitioners note that they are against the project, saying it brings massive environmental and economic risk, and the existing pipeline has already spilled 40,000 barrels of oil into the community. They also mention that this project will not create more than 50 permanent full-time jobs and the company has stated it will use temporary foreign workers to build most of this pipeline. They are opposed to the process as well, saying that the Conservative government has undermined the National Energy Board review process, resulting in an unfair review of this project and many local residents being prevented from sharing their concerns.
I urge the government to take this petition seriously.
Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings
Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre Saskatchewan
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, Question No. 1110 will be answered today.
Scott Andrews Independent Avalon, NL
With regard to the processing of Employment Insurance claims and Service Canada agents: (a) has the department hired an additional 400 new agents; (b) if the answer to (a) is negative, how many new agents have been hired; (c) when were these new agents hired; (d) to which location have the new agents been assigned; (e) to which areas of the Employment Insurance claims processing unit have they been assigned; (f) how long did it take to train the new agents; (g) when will new agents be hired, (i) if no new agents have been hired, (ii) if some new agents have been hired; and (h) is the department committed to hiring a total of 400 new agents?
Question No. 1110Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings
Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley Nova Scotia
Conservative
Scott Armstrong ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the Department has hired more than 400 additional new agents.
With regard to (b), it is not applicable.
With regard to (c), hiring began in October 2014.
With regard to (d), new agents have been assigned to employment insurance processing in: Moncton, St. John’s and Halifax in Atlantic region; Boucherville, Laval, Montreal, Quebec City, Saguenay and Shawinigan in Quebec region; London, Mississauga, Richmond Hill and Sudbury in Ontario region; and Vancouver, Kamloops, Nanaimo, Edmonton and Regina in Western Canada and Territories region.
New agents have been assigned to EI call centres: in Bathurst and St. John’s in Atlantic region; Montreal and Shawinigan in Quebec region; Sudbury and Toronto in Ontario region; and Edmonton in Western Canada and Territories region.
With regard to (e), the resources hired for the inventory reduction strategy are assigned to the various work units within EI processing to help reduce age and volume of the inventory.
With regard to (f), for EI processing, training generally took between 9 and 13 weeks, including the training and monitoring period. For EI call centres, training generally took nine weeks, including the training and monitoring period.
With regard to (g), it is not applicable.
With regard to (h), Service Canada has hired more than 400 new agents since October 2014 for EI processing and EI call centres.
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The House resumed from April 22 consideration of the motion that this House approve in general the budgetary policy of the government, of the amendment and of the amendment to the amendment.
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, when I started my speech, I started by saying that it was actually very telling that the first Conservative speech after the Minister of Finance was by the Minister of State for Agriculture, who is also the minister responsible for small and medium-sized businesses and the member for Beauce, the same one who advocates economic policies that could actually be called crank economic policies, such as zero inflation and a return to the gold standard. Those are obviously policies that make no sense in modern economics and yet that same member, who advocated those policies, gave the first speech, saying that the budget would be good for the economy.
This is not an economic budget; it is a political budget. I started talking about that yesterday, and I want to have a chance to talk about some other aspects in the few minutes that I have left.
Yesterday I talked about the fact that the budget was balanced in an extremely artificial manner, first by dipping into the contingency fund, and then by selling—at a loss—the government's shares in GM as well as dipping into the EI fund surplus, which is projected to be $1.8 billion next year. What a coincidence—the projected budget surplus is $1.4 billion. However, in 2013, then finance minister Jim Flaherty specified that a Conservative government would never use a surplus in the EI fund to create a surplus in the consolidated revenue fund. He pointed out that that is what the Liberals did, and said the Conservatives would never do that. This, then, contradicts the policy of the Conservatives' former finance minister, and yet they clearly do not feel any shame about taking that approach.
What is more, the EI surplus has been moved over to the consolidated revenue fund. This was done at the expense of its accessibility and to the detriment of seasonal workers, even though some regions, like eastern Quebec and the Maritimes, still rely heavily on such workers. We are reducing access to EI and creating a surplus in the EI fund, just so the Conservative government can use it however it wants.
I also talked about income splitting. The Conservatives talk about ending a discriminatory treatment. There is no discriminatory treatment. A couple in which one person earns $100,000 while the other, quite often a woman, stays at home, is not living the same reality as a couple where one person earns $50,0000 or even $30,000 and the other person is forced to go to work so that they can make ends meet. There is no comparison between a couple where one person earns $100,000 and the other person stays home, and a couple with two, three, or four children where one person earns $50,000 and the other is forced to work. That couple also has to pay for child care in order to be able to join the workforce and provide for the family.
Not only do the Conservatives' analogies not hold water, but yesterday in the media we learned that the then clerk of the Privy Council advised the Prime Minister at the time not to announce the measure before it was presented to Parliament. The Prime Minister and his cabinet ignored that advice, completely disregarding parliamentary institutions and members of the House. Those are not my words. A former legislative clerk of the House was quoted as saying that in the media.
I spoke about many of these things yesterday. I want to finish my speech by talking about other aspects of the budget, in particular the increase in the contribution limit for TFSAs from $5,500 to $10,000. Once again, I heard my colleague from Beauce say that there are 10 million people who have TFSAs and that increasing the limit will benefit these 10 million people. That is absurd. Yes, there may be 10 million people who have opened a TFSA. That shows how the TFSA may be a useful tool. However, only 15% of the people who contribute to a TFSA put in the maximum amount of $5,500. Most Canadian families do not have $60,000 at the end of six years to put in a TFSA. However, the $10,000 ceiling will ensure that this tool is no longer used solely as a savings vehicle, but will become a tax shelter for the rich. There are certainly exceptions, like people who save a lot and who may be able to save 15%, 20% or 25% of their income, especially, as my colleague mentioned, after the sale of a house. Those are exceptions. Honestly, the current ceiling of $5,500 is adequate. Once again, increasing it to $10,000 is simply going to benefit those people who are fortunate or wealthy.
These measures will cause a lot of problems for the Canadian treasury, while the measures we want to put in place across the country, such as the $15 child care program, will directly benefit these people, in particular the middle class. For example, two spouses who each earn $30,000 or $40,000 will not be able to take advantage of income splitting.
They will be able to take advantage of the universal child care benefit, and we are obviously not opposed to this improvement. However, we must put things in context. This is not a gift from the Conservative government to families. Improvements to the universal child care benefit were largely funded by the elimination of the child tax credit. Canadians filed their tax returns, and parents of young children were probably surprised to learn that this line no longer existed. Billions of dollars were given back to families through this child tax credit, which the government used to make this improvement. I do not want to hear the Conservatives tell us that this is a gift for families. It came, in large part, from the elimination of another tax credit.
I would like to take the last few minutes of my speech to talk about job creation because the budget does in fact contain measures that promote job creation. However, it is interesting that the measures that the government adopted are NDP measures. I know that the members on the other side of the House will not like hearing what I am about to say.
On February 6, 2015, the NDP moved an opposition motion in the House. I am going to read it again because it is very educational. It says:
That the House call on the government to take immediate action to build a balanced economy, support the middle class and encourage manufacturing and small business job creation by: (a) extending the accelerated capital cost allowance by two years; (b) reducing the small business income tax rate from 11% to 10% immediately, and then to 9% when finances permit; and (c) introducing an Innovation Tax Credit to support investment in machinery, equipment and property to further innovation and increase productivity.
The Conservatives voted against the NDP's motion that opposition day, but now these measures are included in the budget. They told us that we did not understand the economy; yet, now these measures are in the budget.
Once again, this budget is about politics, not economics. It is a pre-election budget that does not in any way take into account the reality of Canadian families, a reality that the NDP recognizes by proposing such measures as raising the minimum wage to $15 for employees of companies under federal jurisdiction and negotiating a pan-Canadian child care program that would cost families a maximum of $15 a day and would give Quebec the right to opt out with compensation, since it already has its own system. The Conservatives changed the retirement age to 67, but we want to reinstate the retirement age of 65.
The Conservatives' policies were harmful to the economy and Canadian families. When the New Democrats take office in 2015, we will change that and really work for Canadian families, the middle class and workers.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the leader of the Liberal Party addressed the House about the budget, and I believe that he captured the major flaw in this budget. The budget delivers the most to those Canadians who need it the least. It is not a fair budget. It is not a budget that is going to generate the economic growth Canadians need at this time. It unfairly benefits the rich instead of helping the middle class or those who aspire to be part of Canada's middle class. It contains no plan at all for substantial job growth. Good examples are income splitting and infrastructure dollars.
At a time when Canadians are looking for strong leadership from the government to deliver on economic growth and fair taxation policies, would the member not agree that the government has been found wanting in terms of delivering what is important to Canadians?
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Mr. Speaker, my colleague is right about much of what he said. That was the gist of my speech to the House.
The Conservative government's measures, not only in this budget but also in previous ones, do the opposite of what the Conservatives say they will. I remember a budget from two or three years ago that made a huge deal out of cutting tariffs on certain products, but when we looked at the specifics in the budget, tariffs went up overall because the preferential tariff was eliminated.
There is a yawning chasm between what the Conservatives say in this budget and what it will really mean for the middle class, workers and families.
I know for a fact that the government should pay attention to what we know about economics and fiscal and economic multipliers. The best investments we can make are in infrastructure, social housing and help for families with low incomes or in difficult situations. Instead, the government is using this budget to give money away, but most of that money will go to the wealthiest families. That is the opposite of what we will do when the leader of the official opposition, the member for Outremont, becomes the Prime Minister of Canada in 2015.
