Debates of May 14th, 2015

Economic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate those comments. The government unilaterally made that change in the funding formula for health care, which the Parliamentary Budget Officer estimated would cost the health care system $36 billion.

My leader has made it very clear that when we are elected in October 2015, we will return to the formula that was used before. We will ensure that in provinces like mine, where the population is not increasing, but is in fact aging, changes to the formula will be made to ensure that they will not be disadvantaged. We will recognize the need for greater resources because of an aging demographic.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is very concerned about increasing taxes to pay for all the programs that his party would like to implement, but could he at least give me the assurance that, on these two measures, he would support our budget?

First, is the reduction of business taxes down to 9%. This would result in savings of over $36,000 for a company that is earning $500,000. It would be great to be able to plough that back into the company and produce greater productivity. Would he at least support that one?

If I had time, I would ask him another question.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is laughable when members on the government side talk about balanced budgets. They talk about living within one's means when we know they have run up deficits in our country at a level not seen in recent memory, to the point now where we have a debt in the country of over $140 billion.

The Conservatives have done two things: first, they have continued to spend like crazy; and second, they have cut back on our revenue sources. They simply cannot talk about being prudent with taxpayer money.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

): Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank the hon. member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour for generously sharing his precious speaking time with me.

As my Nova Scotian colleague pointed out so well, we are debating a very large omnibus bill, even though it is smaller than its predecessors. This morning, sadly, the Conservative government once again imposed closure through a time allocation motion in order to put a limit on debate. Thus, many of my colleagues who would have liked to speak on this budget implementation bill, which has many complex ramifications, will not be able to do so because they have been refused the right to speak for their constituents.

In my speech on the budget several weeks ago I attacked the finance minister's bill because it was very pretentious to try to impose a balanced budget act. It is pure comedy. I have studied the clauses relating to this balanced budget act; I have them here. I do not understand how a single Conservative member of this House can extol the merits of this part of the omnibus bill.

Had it been in force for the past seven years, the Conservative cabinet would have had to pay huge sums of money as a result of its intentional, unilateral decisions to reduce taxes on the richest and biggest businesses in our country.

The most reliable institutions estimate the shortfall caused by all the Conservative measures at tens of billions of dollars per year. It was no accident that the government found itself with a record-breaking operating deficit in one budget in the past seven years. It was the government's will and its poor decisions that created a whopping deficit a few years ago. We can see the number of years it took to return to what the Conservatives call a balanced budget, but what is really sleight of hand and a shameful diversion of funds.

My colleague from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour did well to point out, among other things, a further misappropriation of money from the employment insurance fund, amounting to about $2 billion.

He could also have talked about the contingency fund, which serves as insurance for the Government of Canada in the event of a catastrophe or some major disaster that affects Canadians directly, so that the government can provide support to the provinces and municipalities affected.

It is not very surprising that so many seats were won by the NDP in Calgary during the provincial election in Alberta, because this city had been flooded so disastrously. If Calgary were to experience a similar disaster this summer, what would the government do? How would the Conservatives manage after taking all the money out of this fund, which is so essential in the event of a catastrophe?

The Conservatives boast repeatedly about being good managers. It is a myth they are trying to spread by spending millions of dollars on extremely partisan advertising paid for out of the public purse. Unfortunately, as the facts show, the emperor is not wearing any clothes. That is the reality.

Over the past nine years, we have no doubt had the government that has been the worst manager. For months it denied the existence of an economic crisis on which everyone agreed, including all the opposition parties. The NDP had a ringside seat to lobby the government and say that we had to take action to deal with the crisis before us, a crisis which came in large part from the United States. Our American friends suffered enormously, but the government turned a deaf ear. Unfortunately, the late minister of finance, Jim Flaherty, refused to see reality, and with the complicity of the Prime Minister, resisted for months before finally taking action, under pressure from experts and the opposition parties.

This worn-out government's record over the past nine years is extraordinarily bad. It inherited a budget surplus. However it must be said—and there is nothing for the Liberals to be proud of in this—that the surplus was built in large part by depriving the provinces of legitimate transfer payments under the federal contract that had been in place for decades and by making deep cuts in transfers to individuals. The recipe that the Conservatives are using by making giving large corporations huge cuts has also been used by the Liberals. It is very interesting to see that after borrowing and stealing ideas from the NDP for years, the Liberals have now changed their target and are stealing many of the Conservatives’ ideas. The latest example is, of course, the lacklustre plan presented by the member for Papineau, who is trying to win the race of who is going to give the most money to the richest families, such as his own family and the Prime Minister’s. I have not been able to figure out who will win this race, the Conservatives or the Liberals. Of course, I will let them run after the richest people in our society to try to grab their votes.

The concrete reality facing the middle class is that it is suffering from stagnating incomes despite the huge increase in the cost of living, which is forcing people to borrow heavily. We have heard many warnings about the huge debt loads that Canadian households are taking on. I have the immense privilege of serving on the Standing Committee on Finance. I did so in 2013 and I have been serving again since January of this year. I remember the concerns that the chief economist for the TD Bank, Mr. Alexander, very clearly expressed during our study of income inequality. He said that the household debt situation was very troubling for the Canadian economy and that it was an immediate concern. If you look at the macroeconomic data, Canada has nothing to brag about. Despite our wealth of natural resources, our extraordinary human capital and our capacity for innovation, Canada's gross domestic product has stagnated and has been very low. My colleague and immediate neighbour is quite right: our trade balance is a disaster and in a substantial deficit. Maybe this is the Conservative government's new strategy to help developing countries around the world, but for the cost, they should be ashamed for wasting billions of Canadian dollars like that.

In closing, we have a worn-out, tired government. Canadians are really going to have to ask themselves if they want to replace an old horse that is on its last legs with another old horse that already proved its incompetence for four terms about 10 years ago.

People will have some important decisions to make, and the countdown has begun.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech. I have very high regard for him. We have worked across party lines on different issues, and I certainly respect him highly.

I have a question on the first part of his speech. He was critical of our government for spending into deficit. In 2008 and 2009, I recall very clearly that when we decided to put some stimulus funding in place to stimulate the manufacturing sector and to create better infrastructure in our communities not only the NDP but the Liberals as well encouraged us to spend more. They said that we were not doing enough. How can one continue to spend more and more and not have the problem he is accusing us of now of having spent too much?

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

I am going to point out some good things about the budget implementation bill. We are pleased that the government has borrowed ideas. It did not steal them; there is no copyright on our ideas. I would like to congratulate the Conservative government for borrowing our idea of lowering taxes for small business and also keeping the accelerated capital cost allowance for small business. I would like to thank the government.

Unfortunately, as is usually the case—and the member will acknowledge it—these worthwhile measures that we could have supported on a stand-alone basis are buried in a host of other measures, including the theft of public servants' right to negotiate sick leave. That is shameful. It is clearly a breach of a constitutional right. This government will lose in court once again before losing for the last time this fall on October 19.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member put the challenge out to Canadians that they will be able to to make a decision. I concur. They will be able to make a decision. They will be able to do a comparison. They will be able to compare this government to the Liberal governments of Paul Martin or Jean Chrétien, when we saw consistently balanced budgets, trade surpluses, and economic activity that generated hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of real jobs. There was beneficial economic growth in all 10 provinces and our territories.

When we talk about health care, the record high amounts in health care spending we have today are because of a Liberal government agreement called the health care accord.

Virtually on every front there is a reason for Canadians to look at the Liberal Party and say that it is a viable alternative.

We have our current leader now focusing attention on the middle class. Prior to the current leader of the Liberal Party being elected leader, the words “middle class” were rarely used here. It has only been since he was elected leader that all the other parties are now jumping on board saying that they too want to help out the middle class. However, the leader of the Liberal Party has consistently been advocating for it.

This is something we believe Canadians are going to tune in to come October 19 and they will recognize and reward us.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Winnipeg North for his question, or rather his comment, because in the end he did not really ask a question.

I will let the member—like his leader, the member for Papineau—race with the Conservatives to put as much money as possible in the pockets of the wealthy.

That said, I will help him nonetheless. I have his email address and I will send him a lovely table that shows the impact of the decisions made by the Chrétien and Martin governments on the budgets of all the Canadian provinces. Paul Martin was minister of finance at the time. We clearly see the line drop off sharply and then all the provinces post huge operating deficits. It was really difficult for the provinces to recover.

In those days, the PQ government in Quebec had negotiated terrible sacrifices from Quebeckers. We have not recovered from the shortfall of funds, especially in the Quebec health system.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House today to speak about some of the key provisions of the economic action plan, 2015, and to support its implementation with Bill C-59.

I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Kitchener Centre.

On April 21, our Minister of Finance delivered a balanced budget that shows strong support for seniors and families, encourages growth, supports our business and manufacturing sectors, and focuses on the security and prosperity of our great nation. Today I would like to speak to those elements that stand out for me and especially to the constituents of Kitchener—Conestoga, whom I am so humbled and honoured to represent.

As a long-time supporter of and collaborator with the Mental Health Commission of Canada, I was beyond proud to see economic action plan 2015 announce a renewal of the Mental Health Commission's mandate, starting in 2017-18, so that the commission can continue its important work of promoting mental health in Canada and fostering change in the delivery of mental health services, giving specific attention to suicide prevention.

The Mental Health Commission has achieved a number of important milestones since its creation in 2007, including creating a national mental health strategy, developing a national anti-stigma initiative to help reduce discrimination faced by Canadians living with mental illness, and establishing a knowledge exchange centre as a source of information for governments, stakeholders, and the public.

I am proud to have collaborated with the Mental Health Commission of Canada on numerous occasions, and I am hopeful for what the future holds for mental health initiatives and suicide prevention with this 10-year extension. I know that it is eager to continue its work across the country and to implement new programs to help youth, veterans, and all Canadians.

The Waterloo Region is home to organizations such as the Waterloo Region Suicide Prevention Council, which works tirelessly with partnering organizations, professionals, and the community to help those struggling with mental health issues.

I have said in the past that the conversation about mental health is just as important as the legislation, and I know that local groups in my riding would benefit from the ability to continue their work on mental health issues and suicide prevention efforts.

All of these efforts are very effective in getting important conversations out in the open, thereby reducing stigma and bringing hope. Hope is what this is about. I have said on many occasions that hope is the oxygen of the human spirit. Without it, the spirit dies. While the budget implementation act is about numbers, dollars, and cents, at its core it is a message of hope for Canadians.

As the Mental Health Commission of Canada stated, “This is wonderful news for the mental health community.... Together, we have advocated for change. And together, we are succeeding”.

When we put a strong emphasis on mental health as a key priority for our country, we all succeed.

I was honoured to be co-founder of the Parliamentary Committee on Palliative and Compassionate Care and to have served as its co-chair since 2010. We worked across party lines to promote awareness of deficiencies in palliative and compassionate care in Canada. In 2011, we released a landmark report entitled “Not to be Forgotten”, reporting on the state of palliative care and suicide prevention, which was endorsed by key organizations, including the Canadian Medical Association, among many others.

One of the recommendations arising from our report was to expand the provisions of the employment insurance-based compassionate care benefit to 26 weeks and to ensure its flexibility to allow partial weeks to be covered, allowing caregiver leave for episodic care.

Through the employment insurance program, compassionate care benefits provide financial assistance to people who have to be away from work temporarily to care for a family member who is gravely ill. Canadians should not have to choose between keeping their jobs and caring for their families.

I have always advocated for better availability of care for our society's most vulnerable. The new extension of the compassionate care benefit under EI from six weeks to six months, allowing those taking leave to care for their families, will make a significant difference in the lives of many families who want to care for their loved ones in times of severe health challenges.

I was thrilled to see that the parliamentary committee's palliative and compassionate care report was actually quoted in the budget along with this exciting initiative. As the report states:

Family and friends have been described as the invisible backbone of the Canadian healthcare system.

I am proud of our government's achievements in supporting families.

Speaking of families, there has been tremendous support in my own riding and across the country for the new credits and tax cuts for families. Let me list just a few of them: the doubling of the children's fitness tax credit to $1,000; the family tax cut, saving couples with children up to $2,000 through income splitting; an enhanced universal child care benefit, providing up to $1,920 per year for each child under six and up to $720 per year for each child between the ages of six and 17; and, finally, a $1,000 increase in the maximum claim amount for the child care expenses deduction. These measures would support Canadian families and put money back into the pockets of all families with children.

There is even more good news in the budget to help families and communities prosper. I am particularly pleased with the new initiatives to help seniors and persons with disabilities.

As a result of actions taken to date by the government, seniors and pensioners are receiving about $3 billion in additional annual targeted tax relief. We have doubled the $2,000 maximum amount of income eligible for the pension income credit. We have introduced pension income splitting, which the opposition parties say they would take away. Actually, 2.2 million Canadians take advantage of pension income splitting. I have heard from dozens of pensioners, seniors in my riding, who have told me what a big difference this makes for them.

This budget also supports seniors by reducing the minimum withdrawal factors for registered retirement income funds, RRIFs. This measure, in conjunction with the increase in the TFSA limit to $10,000, would support the retirement income needs of seniors by providing them with increased flexibility to manage their own savings in a tax-efficient manner.

I am also proud of the new home accessibility tax credit to help seniors and persons with disabilities who may face special challenges related to gaining access to their own homes or being mobile or functional within their own homes. Making improvements in their homes can be costly, which is why this new permanent tax credit would apply on up to $10,000 of eligible home renovation expenses per year, providing up to $1,500 in tax relief. These improvements would help ensure that seniors and persons with disabilities could live healthy, independent lives in the comfort of their own homes.

Allowing families to make arrangements to care for their family members through EI compassionate care benefits, helping seniors to have more flexibility with their retirement funds, and introducing new tax credits to help with mobility and accessibility are all concrete efforts to help all Canadian seniors.

As Canada's population ages, age-related cognitive impairment and chronic conditions are sadly becoming more prevalent. The burden on families is vast and continues to grow. Research on aging and brain health issues, such as dementia, can lead to better diagnoses and more effective treatments, which will improve Canadians' quality of life. That is why I am hopeful that the establishment of the Canadian centre for aging and brain health innovation will support new research and the development of products and services to support brain health and healthy aging. This investment would build on the government's strong record of investment in research and support for Canadians suffering from dementia and other neurodegenerative diseases.

Since 2006, our government has cut taxes 180 times, reducing the overall tax burden to its lowest level in 50 years. Bill C-59 would continue our record of reducing taxes with measures such as reducing the small business tax rate from 11% to 9% by 2019, saving Canadian small businesses billions of dollars, and increasing the tax-free savings account annual contribution limit to help make it easier for all Canadians to save for their futures.

While the benefits to all Canadians included in this budget are important, it is crucial to remember that as promised, this is a balanced budget. Canadians understand the importance of living within their means, and they expect their governments to do the same. Balanced budgets keep taxes low and also ensure that government services like health care, education, and money for bridges, roads, clean water, and sewage treatments are sustained over the long haul for Canadians.

I am proud of this balanced budget and the benefits it would bring to Canadians, especially families, seniors and, finally, the most vulnerable among us.

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

Mr. Speaker, my Conservative colleague used the word “family” a lot in his speech, and he talked about all the amazing things his party is doing for Canadian families.

I received a document from some very competent people about the universal child care benefit for middle-class households, meaning a household that earns, on average, between $44,000 and $83,000. Once you receive the $720 benefit, if you subtract the provincial or federal tax you will have to pay, since the benefit is taxable, and if you take into account the loss of the over $2,000 child tax credit that was cut in this budget, you will be left with about $150 in your pocket. From $720 you will get just $150. That is so little that accountants are calling their clients to tell them to keep the money in the bank because they will have to pay taxes on it later as a result of the government's decisions.

The Conservatives have a funny way of helping families by giving with one hand and taking almost all of it away with the other hand, all in the same year. It is rather strange.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I did not hear a question, but what this shows is the clear difference between our party and the NDP and the Liberal Party in how we help families.

The NDP and the Liberals would create a big institutional child care system, which would be mandated on all children, including those who do not even use it in rural areas and who would not be able to access a child care system from a 9 to 5 position because they would not be able to get there. They would like to tax every Canadian in Canada to pay for a system and pay for a bureaucracy that would not help every child and every family.

I am proud that the system we have in place with the universal child care benefit will help every family with children between the ages of 0 and 17. That is something of which we can be proud.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I have an observation. I am always amused to hear every Conservative MP talk about how there are tons of people in their riding who are benefiting from income splitting. If we added it all up, we would think that the majority of Canadians would get benefits from income splitting. I have news, and here are the facts. Fewer than 15% of Canadians will benefit from it.

I would like to say that I have great respect for my colleague, particularly for his concern for mental illness, which I share, and he has done great work on that. He brought out the concept of hope, which is very important.

However, having brought it up, what hope is he offering to the 14% of young people who are looking for something to do in their lives but cannot find jobs? What hope is he offering to veterans who have, frankly, given up on the government? What hope is he offering to the homeless, and there are many in my riding, who not only have no home, but are suffering with addictions and have mental health problems?

What hope would this budget offer them?

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleague was listening to my comments, because I clearly outlined many areas of hope within my comments. One area that I was not able to mention, because of time, was the area of job creation, of our economy and of small business.

We know that small business is our economic engine. By reducing taxes on small businesses, we are allowing them to create jobs for those young people who currently are unable to get a job. By reducing the taxes on small business from the current 11% to 9%, for a company that is earning $500,000, this will mean a savings of over $36,000 per year. Businesses can plow that money back into their companies and create more jobs for youth and for all Canadians.

However, we cannot create more jobs with high taxes, high spending and borrowing more money, which the NDP and the Liberals would have us do.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to have the opportunity to comment on another great budget from a strong, stable, majority Conservative government.

The budget has been described in my community as centrist, cautious, keeping old promises as well as making new ones, and at times surprisingly compassionate.

The first budget of Minister of Finance, the first balanced one since the great recession of 2008, provides substantial benefits to many Canadians. The budget helps seniors by giving them more flexibility and withdrawals from retirement income funds, and a new tax credit to make homes more accessible. Seniors will also benefit from the new $10,000 contribution limit for a tax-free savings account, as well as new help for people caring for seriously ill relatives.

Families with children will receive improvements for the universal child care benefit and the child care expense deduction, in addition to the previously announced family tax cut. There is help for post-secondary students seeking loans through the Canada student loans program.

To stimulate the economy, the budget offers tax breaks for small business, investment incentives to manufacturers and new infrastructure spending. There will also be more money spent on security measures, both in Canada and abroad.

Despite losing $6 billion in anticipated revenue due to plunging oil prices, the government squeezed out a small surplus in this budget. Now the question is how can we boost the economy? I can tell the House, further deficits are not the answer. No one knows how long such deficits would have to continue, meanwhile increasing debt charges continue to drain economic resources.

The Conservative government promised to balance the budget, and it did. We promised to save money for taxpayers, and we have. We said that we would improve the quality of the lives of people, and we did. We said that we would protect Canadians from security threats and defend democratic values against totalitarian states and terrorist groups, and that is exactly what we are doing. Promises made; promises kept.

Economic action plan 2015 emphasizes supporting Canada's families through tax relief and benefits. Here are some important measures: increasing the tax-free savings account contribution limit to $10,000; introducing the family tax cut to allow a higher income spouse to transfer taxable income to his spouse in a lower tax bracket; tax relief of up to $2,000 per family for couples with children under the age of 18; increasing and expanding the universal child care benefit to provide every family in Canada with $2,000 per year per child under the age of six, and $720 per year per child between the ages of 6 and 17; increasing the child care expense deduction limit by $1,000; doubling the child fitness tax credit to $1,000 and making it refundable; renewing the mandate of the Canadian Mental Health Commission for another 10 years to help tackle mental health issues that affect some Canadian families; and enhancing support for child advocacy centres across Canada to deliver community based programs helping children and families recover from victimization.

Over 11 million Canadians are currently earning tax-free income in their tax-free savings accounts, saving for a down payment on a home, for their kids education or for their retirement. In 2011, the Prime Minister promised to double the contribution limit of the tax-free savings account once the budget was balanced, another promise kept.

The opposition threatens to reverse this increase, claiming it only benefits the rich. However, the Department of Finance has shown that the vast majority of maximum contributors are low to middle-income earners, and many are seniors. It is little wonder that the Canadian Association of Retired Persons strongly endorses the increases to the TSFA limit.

Here are some interesting statistics that contradict the assertion that such measures only benefit the very wealthy. Almost 60% of TSFA maximisers make less than $60,000 per annum. Just under half of TSFA maximisers, 46% of them are seniors. Overall, 80% of the 11 million Canadians who hold tax-free savings accounts have incomes of less than $80,000, and 50% have incomes less than $42,000. All of them will benefit from an increase in the limit.

These measures do not involve taking money from the government, as some oppositions members claim. These measures simply ensure that hard-working families across the country get to keep more of their own money.

The family tax cut will permit a higher-earning spouse to transfer taxable income to a lower tax bracket spouse. Tax relief is capped at $2,000 for couples with children under 18.

Now the opposition asserts that income splitting only benefits 15% of Canadian families, but two things are misleading about that assertion.

First, 15% of Canadian families represent approximately two million households. Any single tax measure that provides relief to two million households is extremely far-reaching. The NDP's proposed child care measure by contrast would benefit only half of this number of Canadians, and that does not even take into account the grandparents who will see the benefit of this in their children's families.

Beyond even that, the Parliamentary Budget Officer found that middle and middle-high income households would benefit most from income splitting. Most of the tax relief would be provided to middle-income families. More than one million families, representing 83% of those earning between $60,000 and $120,000, would qualify for the family tax cut.

Instead of calculating income on an individual basis, the family tax cut would provide moderate relief based on household income, widely accepted as the fairest measure of any family's resources. This is a question of fairness. Families with the same income should be taxed at the same rate. The current system forces some families, which are exactly equal to others, to pay significantly more in taxes, and that is simply unfair. The family tax cut would solve this problem.

Another important facet of economic action plan 2015 is its emphasis on manufacturing as a key engine for the Canadian economy, and this is good news for my residents of Kitchener Centre and Waterloo region. In this budget, the government has delivered an incentive for manufacturers, which provides them with an accelerated capital cost allowance to spur continued investment in required equipment. This measure alone is expected to reduce federal taxes for manufacturers in Ontario by $473 million over the period of 2016 to 2020.

The government's new economic action plan would create an automotive supplier innovation program to deliver $100 million worth of support over five years for automotive part suppliers. The government will also develop a national aerospace supplier development initiative, a made-in-Canada solution, working with industry and government stakeholders, to aid aerospace firms.

Manufacturing is also be assisted by the most ambitious pro-export plan in our country's history so Canadian businesses can pursue global opportunities. Since 2006, the Conservative government has concluded free trade agreements with 38 countries, compared to just five before taking office. Canadian exporters will soon have preferential access to more than half the global marketplace. Opening up new markets is just one of the many ways this government is fostering growth and job creation for Canadians.

As members can see, economic action plan 2015 builds on Conservative government strategies that have helped the Canadian economy emerge stronger and more quickly than any other G7 nation from the worst global recession in over 80 years. That is why every member of the House should support Bill C-59.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I would like to pick his brain, seeing as he is a lawyer.

I would like to draw his attention to division 20 of the budget implementation bill. It creates completely new rules despite the Public Service Labour Relations Act. Authorized experts have indicated that there may be a risk of violating the Canadian Constitution, not to mention disrupting free and healthy negotiation.

As for division 18, which is about the Ending the Long-gun Registry Act, the Canadian Press reported that experts said this was rewriting history, plain and simple, and that they were very uncomfortable with the precedents this would set, considering that the Ending the Long-gun Registry Act is retroactive to the day it was introduced.

How comfortable is my lawyer colleague with this kind of legal approach?

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his confidence in my legal expertise. I did spend almost 30 years practising law, so I have a good sense of how the law operates. Having been here for seven years now, I also have a sense for how things get spun out of all proper proportion in the political world.

My colleague is placing unfounded fears before the House. With respect to labour negotiations, the budget of course sets the framework. As a lawyer, he will know that the frameworks establishes parameters, negotiations continue, and it is still open to the parties to reach a negotiated solution.

With respect to the long gun registry, my colleague knows full well that the intent of this honourable House was to abolish the long gun registry and to get rid of the data that went with it. This implementation bill would correct any oversight in that regard.

I want to close by reminding my colleague that this budget would reduce the small business tax rate to 9% by 2019. I know that, on his side of the House, he has recently become a convert to low business taxes. Will he support that in this budget?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member really needs to expand his reading to go beyond the Prime Minister's Office. The numbers he throws out are truly amazing. I suspect he might actually believe what he is espousing when he glows about the millions of dollars going from Ottawa to the manufacturing industry. I can tell him that it is not working. Hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs have been lost in Ontario alone. That is a record high. No federal government other than the current one has seen so many jobs disappear.

When the member talks about the income-splitting issue, the bottom line is that less than 15% of people would benefit, the majority of whom are Canada's wealthiest.

When we talk about a deficit, the current government has added $4,400 for every man, woman, and child living in Canada.

My question is this. Does the member exercise any reading outside of the Prime Minister's Office?

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, quite frankly this question demonstrates one of the worst aspects of this particular Parliament, which is when one descends to personal slurs and attacks. It does not bother me, as I am used to hearing it, particularly from the Liberals. I respected and appreciated the comments made by my NDP colleague earlier, because he did not take the same low road that the member who just asked about my reading ability has done.

Just to establish beyond a doubt, let me read some of the things that I have read about this budget to my Liberal colleague, particularly with respect to Canadian manufacturing.

The Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters stated:

...this year’s budget backs up the importance of both manufacturing and exporting with a number of important tax and investment measures that will have a very positive impact for CME members.

Most importantly, the budget provides an Accelerated Capital Cost Allowance over the next ten years for investments in manufacturing and processing technologies.

Aéro Montréal stated it is:

...proud that the Government of Canada recognizes the importance of deploying such a program nationwide. This will...[provide a funding boost to programs] already in place in Québec.

Let me close with the Greater Kitchener Waterloo Chamber of Commerce, which stated:

From the business perspective, this is a good-news budget. Economic growth in Canada is delivered—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, order.

Resuming debate with the last 10 minutes this evening, the hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the member could not put his speaking notes down. He really, truly believes that his speaking notes are his bible.

It is important to speak to this budget, which does such a bad job of addressing real need in Canada. It is a budget that is primarily focused on one thing, and that is the electoral prospects of the Conservative Party. To do that, Conservatives have questionably balanced the ledger and found new ways to reward Canadians who are doing very well.

In addition to that, they have wrapped these measures up in another omnibus bill that is stuffed full of items that have little or nothing to do with the federal budget. That has become a standard move from the Conservative playbook, and Canadians are getting tired of the budget shell game the government plays, with all sorts of measures that have nothing to do with spending and everything to do with keeping debate at a minimum.

That is among the reasons that New Democrats oppose this budget legislation. We oppose it on its content and on the anti-democratic process the Conservatives are using to force it through Parliament.

In many ways, this bill is like all of the other Conservative budgets we have studied in this Parliament. One thing they all have in common is the speed at which the Conservatives pass them, regardless of what is in them. Every day we see that the Conservatives are prepared to use undemocratic measures to impose their laws at breakneck speed. The more controversial the bills are, the faster the Conservatives push them through the House and through committee without proper study.

The other constant with these budgets is the government's ability to completely ignore the measures it could take to truly address the key issues facing the Canadian public. Too often the Conservatives choose to focus on the people they think will vote for them. This group never seems to include the growing number of families who work hard but cannot manage to make ends meet, no matter what they do.

If we look at how this budget was developed, it is clear that the Conservatives balanced the budget by making devastating cuts to the public service, by raiding the employment insurance fund—something they learned from the Liberals—and by selling Canada's shares in General Motors Canada. All of these measures will have an impact on the quality of the services that Canadian families rely on.

Balancing a budget in that way might get a pass at the cabinet table, but it would not get a pass at most kitchen tables, and it certainly would not in northern Ontario. In northern Ontario, people understand the value of hard work and the notion of a fair deal, and they are not seeing much of either in this budget legislation. They see right through things, like the unfair and top-heavy income-splitting scheme in the budget. Northerners understand it is nothing like the income-splitting plan for seniors.

This new scheme is designed to reward the wealthiest among us at a time when Canada has still not replaced the hundreds of thousands of well-paying jobs that were lost in the economic meltdown of 2008. This is not a measure to address need. It will not do anything to help with the jobs that are still being lost at places like Bombardier. That is what a budget should be addressing, but this one does far too little to address real need.

Another item that will not fly in the north is the notion that the employment insurance fund is a stream of revenue for the Minister of Finance to tap whenever things become a little difficult. Employment insurance is not supposed to provide mad money for the government so that it can dubiously balance the budget, but that is what has happened. This turns employment insurance into another level of taxation in this country. This means there is no truth to the Conservatives' low-tax stories that they like to tell themselves.

The real truth is that the budget is being balanced on additional taxation that is arrived at by turning employment insurance into a program that is less responsive, less well funded, and as we have seen, less available for those who actually pay the freight. I know that the Conservatives learned this from the Liberals. They turned raiding public funds into something of an art form, but it is stealing, nonetheless, and just because one party did it does not mean it is acceptable or wise. What it amounts to is just more tax for the privilege of having a job, and nothing less.

There are elements of the budget that are acceptable and, in a few cases, pretty good ideas, but that is what happens when we turn to New Democrats for ideas. An example of that is the way we have led the fight for tax relief for small businesses for some time. We heard the Conservatives say it was their idea. In actuality, they voted against it when we put it forward. Now they are saying it is their idea, but it is actually the New Democrats' idea. New Democrats understand that these businesses are Canada's real job creators, and we are happy to see that the government is starting to take action by lowering the tax rate for small and medium-sized businesses. Better late than never; that is the way we feel about this move.

The same can be said for measures that would remove some of the red tape these businesses are forced to navigate. Again, the New Democrats have called on the Conservatives to reduce red tape on small businesses for a while now, so the small amount of movement on that front in this budget is welcome too.

We can also point to the way the government is trying to repair its battered relationship with veterans, as a welcome addition to this omnibus bill. At the same time, we understand that this is just a start and the Conservatives should have gone further and committed to finally fixing Veterans Affairs, implementing the veterans charter, and reopening the nine veterans service centres across Canada. The Conservatives supported our motion this week. Let us hope that they will actually respect it and put it into action.

They are doing something and, as I said during debate on our opposition motion earlier this week, the Conservatives could remove the section related to veterans from inside the budget and bring it before the House of Commons immediately to be debated on its own merit. They may be laughing on that side, but when it comes to veterans, we are supporting them and we are the ones who are taking action. That would be a strong move that would remove the matter of veterans from the debate surrounding more contentious aspects of this budget and allow them to see—as they did when the New Democrats' motion was passed this week—how support for our veterans comes from all parts of the political spectrum. Without pursuing that course of action, the sad fact is that the government is planning to use veterans as a wedge in a cynical political move.

However, that is not what Canadians need or want. There are too many significant challenges to get sidetracked by an argument that has been planned for and is brazenly calculated.

What we need to be seized with, and what is missing from this budget, are measures that would deal with some of the bigger problems our country faces, like persistent and structural youth unemployment and under-employment. In fact, there is not much for young people in this budget at all. There are no messages of hope from the government on that front. The Conservatives should try to implement a youth hiring and training credit that would help businesses create jobs for young Canadians, but they did not. That is a New Democrat idea that the Conservatives could have borrowed as well. It would have been smart. Instead, the government is all in on items that would benefit a small and well-off portion of the population, with wasteful and unfair tax schemes like income splitting and increasing the tax-free savings account, which would cost billions. To pay for this, the Conservatives are nickel and diming most everyone else.

I encourage Canadians to understand that we are paying for these measures in some part on the backs of seniors who are being allowed to live under or at the poverty line for another budget cycle. That is because there is nothing in this budget to lift seniors out of poverty. New Democrats would never hand out lavish tax breaks without first addressing the circumstances of vulnerable seniors. We would immediately reverse the federal government's plan to raise the retirement age of old age security and the guaranteed income supplement to 67. New Democrats would also move forward on proposals for provincial and territorial finance ministers to increase basic public pension benefits under the Canada and Quebec pension plans and implement a plan to begin phasing in such an increase without delay, because that is what seniors need and what they deserve.

What Canadians need and deserve is a government that delivers for the whole country and not just for its supporters. Canadians deserve budgets that concern themselves with economic measures and that are not chock-full of the government's dirty work. Canadians deserve a budget that will bring back some of the good jobs we have lost during the Conservatives' reign, and of course, they deserve a budget that works to bring people together and not divide them.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The time for government orders today has expired, but the hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing will get five minutes for questions and comments when this matter next returns before the House.

National Urban Workers Strategy

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

moved that Bill C-542, an act to establish a National Urban Workers Strategy, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in this place on behalf of the good people of Davenport, in the great city of Toronto.

It used to be that we could leave school, university or high school or college, and get a job that paid a decent wage and we could consider raising a family, buying a home. We would also consider staying with that company for our entire working career and, at the end of it, have a pension that we could count on, a pension that would keep us, in our seniors years, living in dignity. In fact, we could have a job that we could build a life on.

All that has changed. Today, more and more people are working freelance, are self-employed, are working multiple part-time jobs, are working on short-term contracts, are working through temp agencies, and some, I think too many, are working for free, as unpaid interns. These are what I refer to as “urban workers”. What do they all have in common? They cannot access a workplace pension; they have no extended health benefits; they have no job security.

Tonight, we begin the important work to fix that with this national urban workers strategy.

Our labour laws, our policies, are predicated upon a post-war work reality that no longer exists, or barely exists. We need to pull our labour policies and our labour laws into the 21st century. We need to reflect the reality of work today. We are doing that, tonight, with this national urban workers strategy. It marks the first time in Parliament that we debate, in a comprehensive way, measures that would help freelancers, the self-employed, people who are working multiple part-time jobs, people who are on contract.

It would be one thing if there were just a few workers like that in our economy, but that is not the case. It used to be the case. In fact, my own father worked as a self-employed person. I remember those days because in grade school, he was the only dad I knew who worked for himself. Everyone else had traditional jobs.

A couple of years ago, the United Way and McMaster University came out with a very important report, that showed that almost 50% of all workers in the greater Toronto and Hamilton area could not access stable, full-time employment. They could not find it. We have a more recent study, in fact, it was just last month, from the CIBC that showed that job quality in Canada was at an all-time low, and this particularly affects young workers.

This is the legacy and the record of the current Conservative government. It was the legacy and the record of the former Liberal government, as well.

Tonight, we enter a new chapter in the proud history of the NDP. The NDP has always stood with and for workers. We are the party that has fought to protect workplace pensions. We have fought to protect extended health benefits for workers in the workplace. We fought for occupational health and safety measures. We fought for the protection of job security.

Tonight, we are fighting for all those workers who cannot access a pension to begin with, all those workers who have no extended health benefits, all those workers in the economy who do not have any job security, who could wake up tomorrow and have no job. This bill marks a new chapter.

I would like to just say a word about why the word “urban” is in the bill. The word “urban” is in the bill because about 80% of Canadians live in urban areas and this issue of precarious work is manifesting itself in significant measures in the economy of our urban centres. That said, this bill would positively affect all precarious workers, whether they live in a big city, a small town or a rural municipality. These issues are universal.

People cannot access job stability. They do not have access to a pension. They do not have access to extended health benefits.

What are some of the measures in the bill? I would like to speak to some of the core measures. I would like to do that by first telling a personal anecdote.

I was working, as I have for about 25 years, as a freelance arts and culture worker in Toronto. Around 2008 we had a significant health crisis in my family, one in which both myself and my partner had to put all hands on deck in order to deal with the crisis. That took a good four or five months to deal with.

For people working freelance what generally happens is while they are working they are also working to find the next job too because they never know when that next job will come. In that space of time when we were dealing with a health crisis at home I was not working. After the crisis subsided and I went back to finding employment, it took some time to ramp up to stable employment again and we incurred significant debt. We were in debt for quite some time. It took several years to get ourselves out of that debt.

It made me realize just how precarious my work life was, that there was this razor thin line between stability and economic calamity. I started to look around and realized that it is not just people in the arts and culture sector, although most of those folks are working in precarious situations, but it is many people. It is taxi drivers, graphic designers, office cleaners, clerks, cashiers, personal support workers and micro entrepreneurs, people who are cobbling together a living doing a variety of things in our economy. None of them are able to access the kinds of income security measures and supports that buffer workers from the calamities of life, whether those are job loss due to a changing economy or family crises or health crises. These workers cannot take time off to tend to sick loved ones. They cannot access paternity and maternity leave. They cannot access compassionate leave.

At the end of one job and the beginning of another, there is often a gap and there is no way to bridge that gap. We have no policies in place to bridge that gap. Tonight, we begin to build those bridges with a national urban worker strategy.

The bill compels the federal government to do something that this government seems almost frightened to do, which is to sit down with other levels of government, like the provinces, municipalities, labour groups, employers and other relevant stakeholders and start to really get into the meat of this issue of how we support these workers. These workers pay taxes, raise families and contribute in significant ways to the cohesive social fabric of our cities and our communities right across the country and yet we have not addressed their concerns, until tonight.

Some of the measures in the bill that we are suggesting the federal government look at are issues around, for example, employment insurance. We need to fix our employment insurance system so it is there when workers need it and we need to find ways to expand that so it is available for all workers. It currently is not. In fact, in the city of Toronto, even if they pay into it, oftentimes there are only about 30% of workers who can actually access it.

We know that this federal government has raided the EI fund. The last Liberal government did the same thing. Neither government had its eyes set on the issues of precarious work and how we build a system that takes care of all workers and gives them those supports.

We need look at the tax system. It is incredibly complex for those who are self-employed, those who are freelance and on contract. It deals with significant issues which we can look at. As an example, when the GST was first implemented, people with incomes at $30,000 had to start collecting GST for the federal government. We need to look at measures that will make it easier for urban workers to build a business, to build their careers and not just foist people who try to cobble a living together into a situation where they act as free tax collectors, essentially, for the federal government.

We need to take a look at a living pension for Canadians. We need to do this and we can do this. The NDP has fought for this for years. We need to expand the breadth and scope of the Canada pension plan.

We need to address the issues of the exploitation of workers and unpaid interns. We need to tighten our labour laws. We need to sit down with the provinces to talk about some of these issues. We have heard the debate around the issue of unpaid interns, young people working in situations where they have no rights or protection. This is outrageous. We should all think this is outrageous, that we are putting our young people into positions where they do not get paid for the work they do and they do not get the same workplace protection regimes that other workers have.

On top of that, we also need to acknowledge some of the very large issues that will significantly help urban workers, such as affordable child care. This is a major offer by the NDP to finally put in place affordable child care right across the country. We will not just promise it and then pretend we never said anything about it. We will promise it and we will deliver it.

Trying to find measures that are going to support urban workers is also another reason why a $15 an hour minimum wage is important because that provides an upward pressure on wages and it will help all precarious workers negotiate better wages for themselves. We have to look at any measure that will help both large and small urban workers.

I want to acknowledge the many people who have helped get this bill from the streets of Toronto to the floor of the House of Commons, people who prior to this felt that nobody was really taking on their issues and concerns. I am extremely proud to be part of a caucus that understands we have to move the marker for all workers in the country. The current government has left too many people at the side of the road in its rampant march for tax cuts for its wealthy friends at the expense of hard-working people and hard-working families across the country.

More and more people are working this way and this debate is an incredibly important one for Canadians who deal with this issue. Whether people watching this are precarious workers or not, everybody knows someone who is. Everyone has relatives or know teachers who cannot get a full-time, teaching gig. The bill is for them. The bill will help move Canada forward in a more equitable and fair way for all workers. I am very proud to stand here on behalf of all of those workers to present the bill. I look forward to the debate to come.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague, a member from a neighbouring riding. This is a critically important conversation, and he deserves a lot of credit for sparking it and for framing it in a way that makes sense for Torontonians and for people living not just in urban areas but anywhere in this precarious form of employment that is particularly tied to the cultural sector and to the social sector.

We know there are organizations that exist from grant to grant, from cycle to cycle, and we know that often they find themselves almost taking themselves apart before they can put themselves back together. The individuals working in those areas have a very difficult time stringing together the salaries and the contracts and the stability that are required to be able to produce and contribute to a better community.

One of the challenges that they also have is that they are effectively a group of employees, and they get contracted out to employers. What is the relationship between organized labour and this informal pool of labour? How do we bring those two groups into harmony, when quite often one prevents the other from proceeding in clear solidarity?

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I do not think there is some kind of mutual exclusivity between the issues that affect precarious workers and organized labour.

In fact, many unions are very focused on this issue and are trying to find ways to organize and to help or support workers in precarious fields. I have had many conversations with trade unionists from both private sector unions and the public sector. I think they understand that these issues are crucial and that we need to find a solution together.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to support the bill introduced by my colleague, because it is a very important bill.

My grandfather worked at the Singer factory in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu for 44 years. My father was a French teacher at a CEGEP for 30 years. However, those labour market realities are becoming less and less common.

I have hosted many meetings in Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie with my colleagues from Montreal to try to deal with this new labour market reality. Many people are self-employed, have precarious jobs or work on contract. We need to change our legislation to address this reality, support them, help them and make sure that they too have some security and a social safety net.

Would my colleague like to elaborate on where we should be going in order to be able to help young workers, who need more modern legislation?