Debates of May 14th, 2015

Economic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the previous Liberal government actually eliminated a $43-billion deficit, paid down around $60 billion off the national debt. When the Conservatives took power, they inherited the best fiscal situation of any incoming government in the history of Canada: a $13-billion surplus. Within less than two years, by the fall of 2008, they had not only spent through that surplus, Canada was actually at the edge of deficit even before the financial crisis, but since then, they have actually added $120 billion to the national debt.

My leader has committed to a fully costed election platform that will have balanced budgets, and we will honour that as a—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please.

Resuming debate.

The hon. member for Ottawa—Vanier.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I also want to rise today to debate a particular section of Bill C-59, section 20, which deals with the sick leave and disability programs that the government wishes to impose upon the federal public service. This is nothing new.

Here is a passage from the October 2013 throne speech, in which the federal government announced, and I quote:

It will reform disability and sick-day entitlements and work with employees to get them back to work as soon as possible.

That almost implies that employees are absent not because they are sick, but because they can take sick leave. Before talking about Bill C-59, I would like to talk about a bill that was passed not long after the 2013 Speech from the Throne, and that is Bill C-4.

Bill C-4, which I had called at the time a rather explosive bill, indeed, exploded the relationship between our federal public service and the Government of Canada, in a number of ways. It changed legislation that governed the federal public service and, also, the workers who fell under the jurisdiction of the Government of Canada, through the Canada Labour Code, in a number of ways. I will mention three.

The government gave itself the ability to define “essential services” in a way that had not existed before. It was, before the adoption of Bill C-4, a mechanism where both parties, the employer and the employees, could present their arguments and the body that rendered the decision was a rather respected one. However, this law now, essentially, gives the authority entirely to the government.

The other thing is that the unions will no longer have the right to arbitration, which was a very important tool that has been used repeatedly over the past decades. However, now, arbitration would be an option only if 80% of the members do a job that is considered essential. The government has given itself the right to very easily control the union's ability to use arbitration by taking away the essential right to the renegotiation tool that works well when the parties cannot come to an agreement.

If the unions manage to win the right to an arbitration, the government had also changed the conditions that arbitrators can use. They can only refer to the government's financial situation or recruitment and retention issues in the public service, nothing else. That was not the case before.

Finally, the arbitration boards will no longer be independent. Basically, they report to the government.

In addition, there is another matter that I should mention. The definition of “danger” is changing, which would affect not only the 200,000-plus core public servants, but also the 800,000 other employees in Canada who fall under the Canada Labour Code, and the minister, or one of his delegates, is now responsible for defining “danger”. That sets us back at least 50 years. Given the tremendous progress we have made, regarding the rights of unionized workers in our country, I believe, now, that the public service and the workers governed by the Canada Labour Code are less well-served.

Back, now, to Bill C-59.

I wrote a blog on October 15, 2014, and I will quote it now.

[The President of the Treasury Board] has now proposed replacing the current system of banked sick leave with a new short-term disability plan and has warned that annual sick leave may be limited to five days a year [he has now offered six], which is a draconian cut from the 15 days currently allowed through negotiated collective agreements. Paid sick leave is not a perk that can be given or taken away at the discretion of the employer, but a contractual benefit of employment negotiated over time and representing, along with salary and other forms of leave, the mutually agreed worth of the work provided by employees.

A Treasury Board report has warned of a heavy fiscal liability that the government’s obligation to provide sick leave apparently represents, but the report is mistaken or misleading in several respects. To start with, a theoretical liability is meaningless when a great number of public servants do not use all their sick leave entitlements. Furthermore, the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) has noted that the so-called liability includes work-related injuries and unpaid sick leave which are not relevant to the current discussion and negotiation. The PBO has also argued that the incremental costs of paid sick leave are minimal when departments do not backfill sick employees, which is the case with most departments and agencies. Finally, numbers are skewed when individual sick leave days are placed in the same basket as the forced draining of an employee’s banked sick leave immediately prior to long term disability.

The current system serves an important purpose: workers should not be going to work sick as this would impede their own recovery and may put co-workers—or the public—at risk of illness as well. We should be promoting healthy workplaces.

Let us hope that this situation will be resolved by good faith negotiation and not by another piece of legislation embedded in yet another omnibus bill.

That is the end of my blog entry from October 2014. Unfortunately, that is exactly where we are now. Bill C-59 basically contains a measure giving the President of the Treasury Board the power to do whatever he wants, regardless of existing laws.

This morning we saw a headline in the Ottawa Citizen that made mention of the fact that the President of the Treasury Board is pressuring unions for a sick leave deal by the fall. In Bill C-4, the government established and tilted in its favour the capacity to negotiate, or dictate really, to the public servants of our country. Now, in Bill C-59, we are seeing a provision that would give the President of the Treasury Board the ability to dictate, when he wants, measures that have not been negotiated and that I do not believe would result in agreement. In the budget that was adopted in this House, the government and one of the ministers said that it is cast in stone, is expecting to recover $900 million worth of benefits this year from the sick leave program that our public servants benefit from. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, we have a situation here that is not appropriate.

We should also note some numbers. Of the core public service staff, 25% have fewer than 10 days of banked sick leave, and 60% do not have enough banked days to bridge the gap to disability. Federal public servants currently have 15 days per year and can carry unused days over, which the government wants to stop, however the banked days are forfeited upon retirement. If there is abuse or if conditions need to be changed, five of the largest unions have been negotiating with Treasury Board since last June, apparently there are now 18, and have indicated a willingness to correct measures that may not be as solid as they should be. However, for the government to dictate that we will go from 15 to 6 days, non-accumulative, is not appropriate. That would create a situation in our public service that would not favour the service to the public.

In the past we have had a very solid relationship with our federal public service. Starting in the 60s when the prime minister at the time, Mr. Pearson, recognized the right to strike, and until 1984, 41% of our employees in Canada were unionized. That has now dropped back. In that period of time we had a great compression of the inequalities among the salaries of people. Since then it has been increasing. That is a serious difficulty that not just I but the World Economic Forum has identified as the world's single largest problem. The way we are dealing with our federal public service will not help solve that at all. It is a sad way for us to go, and I would hope that we would consider going in another direction rather than in this one.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear my colleague speak up for unions. They are important and, as he mentioned, they help us with disparities. Unions allow people to have wages bargained in a way that is representative of their work, and allow employers to also accommodate and put forward their issues. I would hope his party will continue to support unions, and that means e on Parliament Hill when unions are able to have collective bargaining with their employers, say with the NDP caucus in affording its members the spaces they need to do their work, but that is for another day perhaps.

I want to circle one of the issues the member mentioned, which is very important, particularly for those of us who represent public servants.

What is so wrong with this budget is that it builds on the government's track record to torque the power relationship between the employer and the employees, in other words, the government and public servants. That was in Bill C-4, as the member mentioned, which we opposed. However, in this bill, the Conservatives, instead of sitting down and saying that they are going to look at modernizing, in this case, sick leave, that they are going to look at the different changes in the workplace, knowing different things happen in the workplace, they have circled a number and have said that is it, that is all, that now it will sit down and negotiate. This is troublesome. It not only is bad faith bargaining, because the Conservatives have already come to a conclusion before they have sat down at the table, but they are talking about things that have already been agreed to.

Could the member comment on the change in the relationship between the employer and employees and what that does to the workplace, in other words, the place in which people do the work to provide services to Canadians?

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been in the government, in the House and in cabinet, and I have always thought that one of the principle responsibilities of a government as an employer is to deal in good faith and straight up with the unions. I have interfered and intervened a number of times to ensure that our government would indeed behave in that way. I believe that fundamentally. That has provided us with a very strong federal public service, one that has served the Canadian public very well.

However, over the last few years, as my colleague for Ottawa Centre said, the government has tended to torque the relationship in a way that is not fair and is not appropriate as far as I am concerned, and it has to be corrected.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated very much the tone of my colleague's comments, because he very much reached out to the government to indicate that there were some serious concerns with this budget when it came to our public service.

The fact that the government has already decided on the amount as far as requirements for the various workers, I would be interested to hear what my colleague has to say about what happens if we do not achieve the goal the government has set aside in the budget for those kinds of negotiations. Does that mean workers will end up on strike, whether they want to or not, and the government will simply say that it does not have anymore money because it budgeted x amount of dollars?

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is not clear what the government intends to do. One may believe that the government is hoping to basically abolish all of the banked days that the public servants have accumulated, and that is where it may recover its $900 million. However, as the Parliamentary Budget Officer stated, those numbers are not accurate and not relevant.

If indeed public servants are sick and they use a sick day, there is no cost to the government if they are not replaced, which is essentially the way most departments and agencies function. We have enough in the federal public service to fill in when someone is sick, which is why the PBO has essentially said that the report that the Treasury Board has based its position on is essentially erroneous, which is a generous way of putting it, and therefore should not be relied upon.

I am not too sure what the Conservatives want to do, but I do know that the way they are approaching negotiations is not in good faith and therefore not appropriate, and that has to change.

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise in the House today to discuss the 2015 economic action plan—a plan that is tailor-made to meet the needs of hard-working families in Orléans and across Canada.

Before I go forward, I would like to advise that I will be sharing my time with the dedicated member for Lethbridge.

This budget is prudent, reasonable, responsible and, most of all, it gives middle-class families some breathing room.

A balanced budget is the best way to protect public service jobs and the programs that are so important to Canadians.

Canada was the last country to fall into the worst recession since the Great Depression and it was the first country to recover from it. We now have our first balanced budget since that financial crisis.

Thanks to the brilliant work of the late Jim Flaherty, the current Minister of Finance and their economic teams, we have gone from a deficit of $55.6 billion at the depth of the great recession, to an estimated surplus for this year of $1.4 billion. Canada no longer has to use its credit card to cover its bills. This new state of affairs will increase investor confidence in Canada's economic potential.

The future is bright for the best country in the world. More than 1.2 million net new jobs have been created in Canada since the lowest point of the recession.

More than 80% of these are full-time, private-sector jobs and more than half are in high-paying sectors of the economy. The budget is also proof that the city of Ottawa can depend on solid federal support.

Since 2006, we have invested more than $1 billion in close to 100 infrastructure projects in the capital. More than $760 million has gone to phase one of the light rail transit project, $600 million of which came from the building Canada plan and more than $170 million from the federal gas tax fund. Close to $100 million have been invested in the three-phase Ottawa River action plan, a moral issue for the region's environment.

A total of $110 million has been earmarked to renovate the National Arts Centre.

More than $80 million has been allocated to the Canada Science and Technology Museum to upgrade the facility and keep it in east end Ottawa.

Fully $50 million has been invested in building the Ottawa Congress Centre.

Furthermore, the government's decision to extend, double, index and permanently establish the federal tax fund means that the city of Ottawa can benefit from more than $50 million per year for its projects.

These are outstanding results, but you can be assured that we do not plan to rest on our laurels. The 2015 economic action plan is proof of that.

The new budget proposes an investment of $10 million over five years, starting this year, to support the Ottawa Police Service.

This initiative reflects the overall nature of the budget: prudent, reasonable and responsible.

Given the federal presence in Ottawa, the municipal police service has responsibilities that other forces do not, for example, helping to provide security around embassies. We agreed in 2008 that the federal government should provide stable funding rather than reimburse expenses on a case-by-case basis. All parties have benefited from the agreement.

We are very pleased to renew this agreement and continue to assist our Ottawa police force.

Everyone in the region and around the world was saddened by the events of October 22 that took the life of the late Corporal Nathan Cirillo. Once again, the government exhibited discretion and some judgment by significantly improving security, while not turning Parliament Hill into an armed fortress. In addition, the government plans to allocate more than $60 million over three years to tighten security on the Hill.

This funding will enhance security not only for parliamentarians but also for the people who work on the Hill and the many visitors and tourists who come here.

Not a week goes by without someone telling me how excited he or she is about the celebrations to mark Canada's sesquicentennial. Whether I am at the Royal Canadian Legion in Orléans, the friendliest legion in the region, or the Carlsbad Springs Community Centre, the wise people of Ottawa—Orléans want to talk about the this upcoming event.

As an aside, I would like to take a moment to congratulate the recently retired city councillor, Rainer Bloess, for his work as co-chair of Ottawa 2017.

Residents of the National Capital Region and people across the country welcomed our plan to invest $210 million over four years to support Canada's 150th anniversary.

Yes, 150 years is worth celebrating!

When the good people of Orléans first elected me to serve them in this House, and it was 3,399 days ago, I chose to make autism my personal cause.

On my recommendation, the Société franco-ontarienne de l'autisme has received close to $1 million in funding since 2006 through Canada Summer Jobs.

Thanks to this program, the agency will be able to hire 36 students this summer.

Naturally, I hoped that the 2015 economic action plan would give additional support to these vulnerable members of our society.

Through the teamwork of some 50 government MPs, we convinced the Minister of Finance to include $2 million in funding to create a working group in partnership with the Canadian Autism Spectrum Disorder Alliance.

Of this amount, $1.5 million will go to support stakeholder participation in the working group.

The group will develop a plan for a Canadian autism partnership that will address three key areas: sharing information and research; early identification, diagnosis and treatment; and to support families.

This initiative is very promising and it marks the start of what I hope will be a great future.

My time is running out and I would like to conclude by talking about our decision to support families. I have always supported income splitting for families.

In most families, the wage earners pool their incomes. Canada's tax system must reflect this reality.

As a result of actions taken by the government since 2006, a typical four-person family will receive increased benefits of up to $6,600 following the adoption of the 2015 economic action plan.

Once again, the opposition is crying foul and saying that these measures will only help the rich.

However, this initiative will support middle-class and lower-middle-class families.

According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, 68% of the people benefiting from this tax relief have a family income of $120,000 or less. That is more than two-thirds of households!

The Parliamentary Budget Officer also noted that 17% of households would benefit from income splitting having a family income of less than $60,000.

If I had more time, I would talk about our other progressive proposals, such as reducing the amount of mandatory withdrawals from registered retired income funds, tax cuts for small businesses and greater support for caregivers, but I will have to leave that for another time. For today, I am just satisfied to give the facts instead of the ideology.

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

Mr. Speaker I would like to thank the hon. member for Ottawa—Orléans for his desperate attempt to sing the praises of this tired, worn-out government. We are going to talk about real issues instead.

Earlier I asked one of his Conservative colleagues about the opinions of two renowned and credible tax experts who write a column in Les Affaires, a newspaper my colleague certainly knows. Both experts warned people about the Conservative measures, including the universal child care benefit, which they said was just smoke and mirrors in the end.

I am lucky to have my constituency office right next to the office of a tax accountant who has just finished the busy tax return season. He said he was going to recommend that his daughter not spend her lovely July gift cheque, because she will have to write a big cheque to the taxman next spring.

I wonder if the hon. member would be making the same recommendation to his four children.

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think this kind of sociological debate intended to divide Canadians is really regrettable.

The economic plan we presented this year will be good for all families, especially those with a low or average income.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member is aware of the Minister of Finance's significant blunder, as many would call it, immediately following the release of his budget, when talking about the TFSA and realizing that there were going to be future revenue shortfalls for the government. This is where the government wants to give a significant benefit to some of Canada's wealthiest over others. The Minister of Finance responded by saying that this was, in essence, going to be a problem that the Prime Minister's granddaughter is going to have to deal with.

I wonder if the member could provide some comment on whether or not the government should take its responsibility more seriously about future generations, for whom we are supposed to be providing support.

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are taking a very reasonable approach, combined with everything else we have done since 2006. After the approval of this budget, the average four-person family would have a reduction in taxes of $6,600.

We are doing it in a very safe way, not like the party he belongs to, which in 1995 cut as many as 40,000 bureaucrats from the public service and cut federal health care transfers to provinces from 50¢ on the dollar, which had been held for 30 years, from 1965 to 1995, to 14¢ on the dollar, with unbelievable consequences to health care services across the country.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague's excellent speech. It was well balanced and made me think about the very fact that we have balanced the budget. In a day and age when governments seem to get deeper and deeper into the mire of spending and doing the very opposite of balancing budgets, our government has managed to not only do that but to give money back to families so they can balance their budgets.

I wonder if the member, who spoke so eloquently, could possibly tell us what consequences of the reckless behaviour and challenges we would face as a nation, should we begin to reverse that and start to spend money so that our budgets would no longer be balanced. I wonder if he could just tell us what the consequences of those reckless actions would be.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Ottawa—Orléans, a short response, please.

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the shortest response is that Canadian families right across the country know that budgets do not balance themselves. There is one fellow who thinks they do. He sits in the corner over there, and that is probably where he is going to stay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Trinity—Spadina, Infrastructure; the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Superior-North, National Defence; the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, Justice.

[Jim Hillyer, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in April we introduced economic action plan 2015, this year's federal budget. As we promised in the 2011 election, we have balanced the budget. In fact, we have a $1.4 billion surplus. We have also kept our commitment to balance the budget without raising taxes and without cutting transfer payments to our most cherished social programs like health care. Not only have we not raised taxes, but we have cut taxes and provided even more tax incentives for individuals, families, and businesses.

In fact, this budget builds on measures introduced since we first formed government, providing a typical two-income family of four tax relief and increased benefits of up to $6,600 more than in 2006. The 2015 budget has been praised by a broad and diverse group of business experts, economists, entrepreneurs, and most importantly, ordinary Canadians.

This budget is family-friendly and sensitive to seniors' needs. It addresses students' concerns. It is pro-business, the economy's job creators, and supportive of our veterans and Canadian Armed Forces. It supports communities through significant infrastructure investments and it is designed to create jobs, spur economic growth, and ensure long-term prosperity for all Canadians while ensuring future generations.

Our Conservative government remains focused on what matters most to Canadians. Our priorities are and will remain jobs and economic growth. We are keeping taxes low and supporting families. We are investing in infrastructure and helping to create jobs, while keeping to our plan to return to a balanced budget.

This year's budget is a balanced budget. We have taken steps to control expenditures without reducing transfers to individuals or the provinces. We cannot say as much for the opposition parties. The Liberals, for example, are offering nothing of substance in terms of the economy or job creation. Their leader has no plan for balancing the budget.

In fact, what is even more disturbing is that the Liberal leader said that the budget would balance itself. Even with the tax increases he proposes, his plan leaves a $2 billion gap that can only be closed by increasing the debt and creating new taxes.

The NDP does not offer any more hope. It continues to defend risky economic schemes and unwise spending. It is proposing a total of over $56 billion in new, imprudent spending, which would increase the tax burden and plunge Canada into permanent deficit.

Providing real support to Canadian families is an important responsibility for our Conservative government. Our economic prosperity plan is a plan for lower taxes, which puts money back into the pockets of hard-working Canadians.

We are proud of our solid record of tax relief, a record that reduces the federal tax burden to its lowest level in a generation. We have implemented unprecedented tax-saving initiatives, such as cutting the GST to 5% and introducing the tax-free savings account, thereby reducing the tax burden of all Canadians.

Furthermore, the latest tax relief measures for families taken by our government will help make life more affordable for all Canadian families with children. Our Conservative government has improved and expanded the universal child care benefit. This reduces the cost of child care still further, while enabling parents to choose the type of child care that best suits their family.

We have increased the benefits to $1,920 per year for each child under the age of six and we are introducing a new benefit of $720 per year for children between the ages of six and 17. This is in addition to the $1,000 more each year that families can claim under the child care expense deduction.

In addition, we are helping more families enrol their children in sporting activities by doubling the children’s fitness tax credit and making it refundable.

Moreover, the government has established the historic family tax cut, which allows couples to transfer up to $50,000 of taxable income to the spouse who is in a lower income tax bracket.

This reduces the income tax they would have to pay by up to $2,000. The family tax cut helps make our income tax system fairer by ensuring that families with the same earning power do not pay completely different amounts of income tax.

We hear a lot about the injustice of income splitting, that it is only going to help a very small portion of the population, and that it is only going to help the rich. Nothing could be further from the truth. I grew up in a family of 14 kids. My dad was a school teacher, my mom was a stay-at-home mom, and income splitting would have helped my family.

That is not just a rare exception to the rule. Every single family on my block would have benefited from this. Almost every single family in my community would have benefited from this. None of us were rich. The only few families who would not have benefited from this were the families who were not paying taxes anyway because they were in a low income tax bracket or a non-existent tax bracket, which is a sad place to be, but their taxes could not be reduced if they were not paying any taxes.

We also do not claim that this one measure would solve all the world's problems. I am going to give a bit of a metaphor as a critique of our measures. Suppose that every day 10 men go out for a root beer and the bill for all 10 comes to $100. If they paid their bill according to the way we pay taxes, it would go something like this: the first four are the poorest and they would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1; the sixth would pay $3; the seventh would pay $7; the eighth would pay $12; the ninth would pay $18; and the tenth man, who is the richest, would pay $59. He has the easiest ability to do so, so that is what they decide to do.

The 10 men drink their root beer every day and seem quite happy with the arrangement, until one day the owner of the bar threw them a curve ball. He said that they were such good customers and that he did not want them to leave, so he was going to reduce the cost of their daily root beer by $20. Drinks for the 10 men would now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes, because that is fair. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink root beer for free. What about the other six men? How could they divide the $20 windfall? If they divide the $20 by six, it is $3.33, but if they subtract $3.33 from everybody's bill, the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his root beer. That did not seem fair either.

So, the bartender suggested reducing each man's bill by a higher percentage the poorer that man was, following the principle of our fair tax system. They worked it out so that the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing; the sixth would now paid $2 instead of $3, a 33% savings; the seventh would pay $5 instead of $7, a 28% savings; the eighth would pay $9 instead of $12, a 25% saving; the ninth would pay $14 instead of $18, which is a 22% saving; and the tenth now paid $49 instead of $59.

Now, each of the six who had been paying was better off than before and the first four continued to drink for free. However, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings. Then along came a guy who had grown up with a silver mug. He pointed out that the sixth man only got a dollar out of the $20 saving; he then pointed to the tenth man and said that he got $10 in savings. The fifth man exclaimed that he only saved a $1 too, and that it was unfair because the tenth man got 10 times more benefit than he did. The seventh man shouted that it was true and asked why the tenth should get $10 back, when he himself had only gotten $2, and that the wealthy get all the breaks.

The man with the silver mug hollered that they should not forget that the first four guys did not get anything at all—and remember, they had been getting free root beer all along—that the new tax system exploits the poor, and that the guys should reject the $20 discount because it was nothing but a giveaway for the richest guys in the group.

They ganged up on the tenth guy and shamed him for being so selfish and for taking their money, so he quit going to the root beer get-together every night. When they went back the next day, there were only nine there. They found out when paying the amount they had to pay that they only had half the amount of money that they owed for the root beer.

The man with the silver mug said that they would have to pay back their discount, and their price would be raised by 7%. They were still $37 short, so he would cut the root beer in half and find another way.

That is the injustice we are talking about. Our budget is good, it is fair, and it helps all Canadian families.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating my colleague for taking such efforts with his French. It is appreciated. Frankly, it might have been better if he had continued in French rather than getting stuck in rambling, open-ended allegory.

In any case, in his speech, I did not hear him explain to Canadian families why his government is establishing a new tax by making the universal child care benefit taxable, that is, considering it taxable income. The Conservatives boast about helping all families and putting more money in their pockets, but at year-end, they will be taking back almost half of it. Financial experts have recommended that Canadians set aside most of the universal child care benefit in order to cover any unpleasant surprises they get when they file their income tax return next year.

I would like to know why the government, in addition to real universal child care benefits, is not trying to create affordable day care spaces in order to give parents a real choice, as the NDP has proposed?

[Jim Hillyer, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is funny to hear the NDP say that our tax deduction is not high enough.

The member from the NDP is saying the tax deduction is not high enough. It is a little bit of a disingenuous criticism to say we should not be giving this benefit at all, but now that we are, we should give it all without it being taxed.

People are used to paying taxes at the end of the year. I would prefer nothing to be taxed, but it cannot be that way. The fact that it is taxed at the end of the year would also make it fairer, since the people with higher incomes end up getting slightly less benefit than those with the lower income because their tax brackets are higher. I am not quite sure what they are complaining about.

I know what the people who are Conservatives are complaining about: they would rather not be taxed at all. However, we cannot get everything we want just yet.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thought it was an interesting example. It would be interesting to see the member explain that example as he goes door-knocking, that is for sure.

To get right down to the basics, the government's income-splitting proposal would apply to less than 15% of the population. Even the government members, the Minister of Finance, and representatives of the government have acknowledged that less than 15% of Canadians would benefit from it. That 15% is predominantly some of Canada's wealthiest, and no matter what sort of example we come up with, that is the reality of it.

That commitment alone amounts to a loss of $2 billion in taxes in a year. It seems to me there is a much better way. Would the member not agree that a 7% tax relief for Canada's middle class would be a fairer way of administering a tax break here in Canada?

[Jim Hillyer, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, income splitting is long overdue. It addresses an injustice that has been around for a long time. Undoing an injustice does not solve every injustice in the world, but that does not mean we should not address that injustice.

Income splitting acknowledges the real benefit and value that stay-at-home parents provide to their families and to society as a whole. It acknowledges the real value of spouses who do not make as much as the person to whom they are married. It acknowledges what they contribute to their family and to society in a non-financial way.

I would not have trouble explaining this measure door to door because people already understand that it is a just offer and a just principle. They are confused about the notion that it really does not help. They know it helps. They are the ones who would benefit from it. I would not have to explain that for very long.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise and speak for a few moments on Bill C-59. Let me indicate that I will be sharing my time with the wonderful, hard-working member of Parliament for Beauport—Limoilou. I am pleased to have that opportunity.

Bill C-59 is a bill that I cannot accept. I will be opposing Bill C-59 for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that it will implement the unfair tax scheme that the government introduced in its budget to transfer money to the wealthiest 15% of Canadians in the country. I refer, of course, to income splitting and increasing the TFSA.

A number of my colleagues have been talking about these issues in some detail. Since we only have ten minutes, I want to talk a little bit today about a couple of issues that I found particularly noteworthy and that would have an impact on people in my constituency. I will set it up as the good, the bad, and the missing. I will proceed to explain why.

Let me first of all say that the practice of omnibus bills that was introduced by the Liberals has really been put on steroids by the Conservatives. This bill is over 150 pages long. It deals with more than 270 clauses. It would amend dozens of acts, many of which are not within 100 miles of the budget. This kind of bill undermines the ability of MPs to do what it is that we were sent here to do, which is to scrutinize legislation.

Let me talk for a moment about something that I think is good in this bill. A couple of days ago it was called Bill C-58.

The government put Bill C-58, dealing with veterans, directly into this bill, and I will speak to that in a second. I supported Bill C-58, as it was known, because it would have improved the transition process for Canadian Forces members and veterans moving into civilian life. It would have established the retirement income security benefit to provide eligible veterans and survivors with a continued financial benefit after the age of 65 years. It would have established the critical injury benefit to provide eligible Canadian Forces members and veterans with lump sum compensation for severe, sudden, and traumatic injuries or acute diseases that were service-related, regardless of whether they result in permanent disability. It would have established the family caregiver relief benefit to provide eligible veterans who require a high level of ongoing care from an informal caregiver with an annual grant to recognize that caregiver's support.

I mention this in particular because my colleague and neighbouring MP, the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore, has been fighting tirelessly on behalf of veterans and spoke the other day in support of these changes for veterans. The Minister of Veterans Affairs actually accused that member of trying to hold up these changes and delay the implementation of Bill C-58. That is why he stuck it into the middle of this omnibus bill.

What is interesting, though, as has been explained by the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore, is that if the Conservatives had left Bill C-58 as a stand-alone piece of legislation, it would have been in committee today. It would have been dealt with, it would have been reported back by the end of this month, and it would have been ready to be put into law by the end of May or the early part of June.

However, as a result of sticking it into this omnibus bill, it is going to be at least the end of June before this legislation will be completed. In other words, belying his words, the minister is himself intentionally delaying these provisions, and that is something I am completely opposed to. I must say I expected better from the minister than misrepresenting the position of my colleague, an articulate and hard-working advocate on behalf of veterans.

I also want to commend the government for agreeing with a position that the New Democratic Party has taken for many years, something proposed in its platform of 2011, which was to extend the compassionate care benefits for Canadians caring for loved ones. In our 2011 budget proposal, New Democrats talked about moving that out to six months. It is extremely important.

That was in the NDP platform in 2011, before the government introduced changes that denied eligibility to Canadians and placed constraints on which Canadians would be eligible for this benefit. While New Democrats agree with extending it, we face the same problem that exists with the EI benefit program in its entirety, and that is access.

Let me refer to a couple of points that were made by a representative from the Canadian Alliance of United Seniors on this particular issue. He stated:

Extending this program is a good idea, but there still are some major problems with this initiative. The first problem is the fact that the measure can be used only for caring for a terminally ill person dying within six months. This is not good enough as many persons, who are very ill, are not diagnosed as terminally ill in this short time frame, but could still use important care. As well, many persons who are the potential caregivers are not working or are self-employed, and thus will not have access to any funds through this program. So while a good improvement, this program needs more work, because as the population ages....

While there may be a slight increase in costs if we were to deal with the access issues, it is certainly a much more effective way of providing care than the options.

I also want to say that I have talked to constituents who have made representations to me on behalf of ALS Canada and would like to be included in this benefit through a change in the wording to include those who are in “significant need of caregiving because of terminal illness”. It is too bad that was not part of this change.

Among the things that were particularly noteworthy on the negative side is what the government has done with respect to public sector sick leave. The government is overriding its own recently redrafted Public Service Labour Relations Act and allowing Treasury Board to arbitrarily set sick leave and disability plans for employees in the federal public service. This is an affront to the ongoing collective bargaining process. It is completely wrong and it is utterly disrespectful to the whole process of collective bargaining.

I have already spoken about my concern with the government raiding the EI fund once again, just as the Liberals did, to the benefit of the wealthy few. I am also disappointed that the government did not come up with a plan for providing affordable daycare spaces, as New Democrats proposed, at $15 a day. The bill would implement the enhanced universal child care benefit. We have committed to keeping it, but we also think that affordable quality daycare spaces are necessary.

Some of the things my constituents would like to see include: develop a comprehensive strategy to deal with persistent structural youth and underemployment; immediately reverse the federal government plan to raise the retirement age for old age security and guaranteed income supplement to 67; fix the Veterans Affairs by reopening those closed offices; and start to listen to Canadians and show them some respect.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

The hon. member clearly did not have enough time to say all he wanted to about this budget. There is one important point for me, and it is the whole issue of how federal employees are treated. It bothers me that the government has decided to claw back money without any negotiation. Salary, pension and sick leave are all part of the concept of a total compensation package, wherein union members accept lower salaries in exchange for valuable benefits.

I would like my colleague to say more about the unilateral cuts in total compensation for federal public service employees.

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

Mr. Speaker, I find it not only disrespectful but counterproductive. Employees who work for the federal government work hard. They are dedicated to their jobs. They provide important services to Canadians. They are also represented by a collective agreement. In collective bargaining, the right to be represented by a union is a constitutionally-recognized right in our country. The government seems to be ignoring that. In the past, the government unilaterally increased the cost of the health benefit plan for federal public servants without any question of negotiation, without any issue of negotiations.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the member. There is one aspect of the budget I would like to point out because I do not think we get to talk enough about it. I know Canadians are very much concerned about Canada's health care system. A 10-year accord was achieved with provinces and that led to record high amounts of investments in health care in all regions of our country. The government has failed to recognize the importance of having a new agreement with the provinces, which no doubt raises a great deal of concern. I share those concerns.

I know members of the Liberal caucus, and I think even members of the New Democratic caucus, would be concerned about the future of health care, given that the government has not been able to meet with the provinces, whether it be the Prime Minister or the Minister of Health, with the premiers, in a very genuine way, to try to strike a new accord which would ensure we would have ongoing health care throughout the country.