Debates of May 15th, 2015

Economic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

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

What he said about the Conservatives' record is definitely true. However, the fact remains that the Liberals have nothing to offer to two-thirds of Canadians and they would only help wealthy Canadians who earn up to $200,000 a year. Neither the Conservatives nor the Liberals are concerned about the middle class, which cannot make ends meet.

For our part, we will establish an NDP government that will propose concrete solutions for the middle class and increase prosperity for that segment of the population.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, on the topic of concrete measures, this particular bill proposes lowering the small business tax rate to 9% and extending the accelerated capital cost writeoff for manufacturers out 10 years. I recall only weeks ago that members across the way were suggesting that this was the centrepiece of the NDP's manufacturing and job creation strategy.

Would the member now stand in her place and vote in favour of the bill?

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I loved the question from my colleague opposite because it really speaks to what we want to do.

I am pleased to hear that the government has come to its senses and wants to adopt the NDP position on small and medium-sized businesses. However, according to this budget, the measure will only be implemented in 2019. We have said that if we were elected, we would implement it in our first term in order to lighten the tax burden and stimulate the economy. We know that SMEs are the driver of the Canadian economy and that they create the most jobs.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert for her inspiring speech on the Conservatives' budget implementation bill.

Yesterday evening, I took the time to call some of my constituents. One thing that kept coming up when they talked about their concerns and priorities, particularly with regard to the proposed budget, was health. It is no secret. Health is an issue that comes up a lot. An 80-year-old woman that I spoke to told me that one of her friends was beginning to show symptoms of Alzheimer's. She told me about how health care is becoming less and less accessible.

Since my colleague worked in the health care system for a long time, I would like to hear what she has to say about the impact of the Conservatives' cuts to health transfers. How will that affect our communities?

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

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

It is no secret. Everyone knows that we cannot do anything without our health. This Conservative government, which cut provincial health transfers from 6% to 3%, is going to deprive the provinces of $35 billion in health care funding. As my colleague mentioned, these cuts will have a negative impact on the quality of care, the accessibility of care and every other area affecting health. It is unacceptable for a government to make cuts to health care when we know that the provincial systems are suffering.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to address the House today on Bill C-59, the budget implementation bill.

This bill contains a number of measures that were introduced in our recent economic action plan 2015. That budget contained measures we campaigned on. We all campaigned in 2011 as Conservatives on certain things in that platform. We said we would balance the budget by 2015-16, and we have delivered on that promise with this budget.

We campaigned that once the budget was balanced and we were back into a surplus position, we would bring in a family tax cut that would benefit families by allowing them to reallocate some of their income, from one family member to another, to more fairly tax at a household rate. That would allow families to reduce their tax burden and be taxed like similar income families. That is what we have done in this budget.

We campaigned on expanding the tax-free savings account, which we introduced and the opposition parties opposed. We said we would expand that once we were back into a surplus position, and that is what we have done here in this budget.

We made commitments to Canadians during that campaign, and we are delivering on them with this budget.

This budget has many features in it that will benefit not only all Canadians but specifically the people of Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon. There is support for families, support for seniors, support for our veterans, support for farmers, and support for small businesses.

We propose to reduce the small business tax rate to 9% by 2019, putting an estimated $2.7 billion back into the pockets of job-creating small businesses and their owners between now and 2019-20.

We know that the very first thing the Liberal leader did when he walked outside the room, while the budget was still being read, was say that he would take that away. He said he would take away the tax reduction for small businesses, which are responsible for the vast majority of job creation in Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon and indeed for 50% of jobs right across the country. We believe they deserve to be supported. The Liberal Party would take that benefit away.

We said that we would increase the lifetime capital gains exemption to $1 million for owners of farm and fishing businesses. In my riding, in the Fraser Valley, we have a large number of farms. I believe it is 400 farms. Those people work hard day and night, seven days a week, to not only provide for their families and employees but to provide for all Canadians the food we eat. They help feed the cities, as they like to say. We believe that when the time comes for them to take their well-deserved retirement and sell that business to a family member, they should be able to keep more of the money they have earned so that they can enjoy that retirement.

As I said before, we have increased the tax-free savings account annual contribution limit to $10,000, effective in 2015 and for subsequent years. Again, the opposition has said they would take that away.

I spoke to a constituent who called me right after the budget was tabled. He wondered if that provision, that extended TFSA, was already available. I was pleased to tell him that it was. He is not a wealthy Canadian. I know that the Leader of the Opposition likes to denigrate people who save money for their own retirement. He has said that they are just putting money aside for their second BMW. What an insult to the people of Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon and right across this country.

This constituent I talked to drives a 10-year-old minivan. He lives in a modest home with his wife, and they have one car. They are not wealthy Canadians, but they are setting aside money for their own retirement. They believe, like I do, that the government should not tax them once when they earn and tax them again when they go to take that out of a financial instrument. They are quite happy with the change to the TFSA.

I want to focus, as well, on our family tax cut. I want to give a couple of examples. We heard it again today from the opposition. They talk about how the family tax cut benefits the well-off and the well-connected, just the rich. What an insult, again, to the people of Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon. I will tell the House about the people this is benefiting in my riding.

One of my constituents is a high school teacher. He works hard. His wife is a graphic designer who works from home, part time now because they have just welcomed twin boys to their family. They now have four children under the age of seven. He works outside of the home; his wife stays home, works part time, and works full time as a mother to their four kids. Under the family tax cut, they will receive the maximum $2,000 credit. They will also receive $6,480 per year in the universal child care benefit, something the Liberal Party and the NDP would take away from them.

Again, these are people who live in a modest home in the old part of Chilliwack. These are not people living in a mansion and driving two BMWs, as the NDP likes to say. They drive a 10-year-old minivan and are looking after their family. However, the NDP and the Liberals would take away their benefits because they think they are a wealthy, well-connected rich family.

Another example is a constituent who is an electrician. In order to make things better for his family, he has decided to leave them behind three weeks at a time to go and work in the oil patch up in Fort McMurray. His wife, who used to be a health care technician, was forced to leave the workforce because of a disability. She receives CPP disability and stays home to provide home school to their two children, who are also disabled. Because of their disability and their challenges, they are unable to operate in a traditional school environment. This family too will get the full $2,000 family tax cut.

However, the NDP and Liberals would say that an electrician with a wife on CPP disability are rich, well-connected, and wealthy. They would say they do not deserve it and it is not fair if they get it. What nonsense. They work hard to put food on the table for their families as high school teachers and electricians. Again, these families would receive the $2,000 credit and $1,440 a year to help with their child care costs, which is something the Liberals and NDP would take away.

There is even more.

There are a number of seniors in my riding. People come to Chilliwack and the Fraser Canyon to retire because we have a great community and the warmest overall temperature in Canada. We do not get the cold winters that people suffer through here in Ottawa. We get lovely summers as well. People like to retire in Chilliwack.

In this budget we have introduced a reduction in the minimum withdrawal factors for registered retirement income funds to permit seniors to preserve more of their retirement savings so as to better support their retirement income needs. We have also brought in supports for seniors and people with disabilities to allow them to stay in their own homes. We would give them a tax credit to allow them to renovate and make their homes safer and more accessible as they age or need help to deal with a disability. We want them to be able to live independently and safely in their own homes for as long as possible, and that is what this budget, this BIA, would do.

We are also extending the employment insurance compassionate care benefit from six weeks to six months to better support Canadians caring for gravely ill and dying family members. All of us have experienced that terrible loss of a family member who may have fallen suddenly ill and the devastating impact that has, not only on the individual but on those who provide care and who may have relied on that individual for their well-being and livelihood. It is such a shock. Allowing six months to be with someone who is ill and time for grieving and healing afterwards, because the pain and suffering do not end when a person passes away, is an important new aspect of this act.

Once again, this budget implementation act would implement measures from economic action plan 2015. We campaigned on it and we have kept our commitment to Canadians. We are reducing taxes for families, and as I have shown in both of my examples, these are average, everyday Canadians who are working for their own families. These are not people who are living high on the hog. They are people we all see in our communities. Every single family with children under the age of 18 will benefit because of this bill and because of this budget, and that is why I am so proud to support it.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentioned that the government is helping seniors, but as I recall, when it slashed health care funding a couple of years ago, it decided that from now on the CHT, the transfers to the provinces, would all be done on a straightforward, per capita basis. In other words, there would not be an equalization component, as there had been up to that point, which means that provinces that have a disproportionately higher seniors population will not see the transfer they get reflect that fact.

I am just wondering if, as a result of this rather pernicious change, the government is not in some way indirectly, at least, disadvantaging our seniors population in those provinces that have a proportionately high seniors population.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what audacity for a Liberal member of Parliament to stand and talk about health care transfers, when the Liberals balanced their books by slashing $25 billion from the health care transfers to the provinces during their 13 years in power. That was a shameful record. They balanced their budget on the backs of the people who needed health care, on the backs of seniors, on the back of education. They completely gutted those transfers.

We have increased those transfers by 6% per year, and on a go-forward basis 3% a year, or the rate of growth, whichever is higher.

I know the Liberals do not like to hear about their terrible record on health care transfers. By the end of the decade, our transfers will be $40 billion per year, the highest record in Canadian history. We are proud of our record. They should be ashamed of theirs.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to share some of the comments of one of this member's constituents, Phil Harrison, a senior in Chilliwack, from a letter he put in the Chilliwack Progress. He said:

Both the federal Conservatives and B.C. Liberals have reduced my income taxes for me. Why would I disagree with their policies? We are the privileged generation—you may enjoy the same privileges, in retirement, while they last.

Why the concern? Only because we have grandchildren who will be paying for the privileges and lifestyle that the B.C. Liberals and Conservatives think we deserve (for votes), with borrowed government money. It's called debt, and the B.C. Liberals have doubled it in the last decade or so.

We are also at record levels of household debt.

What would this member say to his own constituent, Mr. Phil Harrison, a senior living in Chilliwack?

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that information from the member. I would tell my constituent what I just told everyone here in the House, that we want to provide direct benefits to that member's grandchildren and the family that raises them.

We have said that we want to provide income splitting for the family raising his grandkids. We want to give direct support to the grandkids through the universal child care benefit, unlike the NDP plan, which would not help them, which would not help either of the families I mentioned in my examples, and which would only help if they registered their kids in registered day care. That is the only way they are a real family, according to the NDP.

We believe that every child, every family, and that person's grandchild all deserve to be supported by the government through the universal child care benefit, and that is why we put the money directly in the hands of the families themselves.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his intervention.

Obviously, we know, those of us who come from farming districts, and I come from one of the better known ones in this country, that the average age of farmers is significantly high. Drawing in young farmers, that succession planning from one generation to the next, becomes important.

I wonder if the member would comment on the capital gains exemption we put in place in this bill and why the opposition should support that if it wants to support farmers.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, again, I mentioned that we are increasing the lifetime capital gains exemption to $1 million for farmers.

Often, given the costs of farming and land in the Fraser Valley, it is necessary for the farm to be passed down to the next generation for that next generation to get a start. They are the backbone of our economy. We are pleased to support them, and that is why I am so pleased to support this budget.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to another massive bill. Yet again we are under time allocation, even though there are still so many things to say about this budget.

Today I will focus on one aspect that is important to me, which is that this budget undermines our public finances. I will explain why, but first let me set the stage. The budget announces a surplus of $1.4 billion. This, after seven consecutive years of deficits. Those years were responsible for 25% of the Government of Canada's debt.

There are some measures in the budget that are not bad. In fact, the Conservatives took the NDP's idea to reduce the tax rate for small businesses, and we can only applaud them for borrowing our strategy, since small businesses are job creators.

However, we also have to consider the current financial circumstances. The price of oil has dropped quite a bit. This represents a loss of $5 billion for the federal government. In spite of this, the Conservatives still managed to give gifts to specific groups, for example, by nearly doubling the TFSA limit and bringing in income splitting. The government loves to give us examples of the people who could benefit from these measures, people who are not necessarily well-off. However, we all know that the vast majority of those who will benefit are wealthy.

There are some real consequences associated with TFSAs and income splitting. At a time when public finances are far from healthy, the government is forfeiting billions of dollars in revenue that could have helped it get our fiscal house in order. However, we have to wonder whether this government even wants to get our fiscal house in order. I am not sure.

Let us look at how they managed to achieve a surplus. People need to remember a few things. For instance, 20,000 federal public servants have been laid off in the last few years. Let us not forget that. The result of that, of course, is a reduction in the quality of service. The contingency fund has been slashed from $3 billion to $1 billion. Let us not forget the appropriation of the employment insurance surplus and the sale of the GM shares, on which the government lost $600 million. Obviously, that does not factor into a budget. The Conservatives also want to save $900 million on the sick leave system used by their public servants. I think the current surplus is extremely fragile. It is fragile because, out of everything I just listed, the government used $7 billion in non-recurrent revenues to achieve a surplus of $1.4 billion. This is problematic.

The Conservative government's objective is quite clear. The credit cards are maxed out. It decided to cut its revenues, to offer gifts, not to pay its debts and to leave the problems to the next government or the next generation, depending on how you look at it.

Now I want to talk specifically about one area where the government is counting on saving money. I am talking about the cuts to sick leave. Earning a salary and being compensated is not just about a paycheque. Of course there is the salary, but there is also overtime, group insurance, pension plans and working conditions. However, above all, in addition to vacation time, there is sick leave. When we talk about compensating employees, we are not just talking about salary. It is important to keep that in mind.

I was listening to the parliamentary secretary earlier. His speech was based on an assumption that I do not care for, and that is that unused sick leave will be used for things other than illness. Let us think about that for a moment. I do not wish this on anyone in the House, or on myself, but accidents can happen.

People can be hospitalized. In life, anything can happen to make people temporarily unable to work, and that can last longer than three, four or five days. That is life. Suggesting that people will use banked sick days for purposes other than those for which they were created is an appalling assumption for the government to make. That is a problem.

In most departments, when someone gets sick for a short time with the flu or something else, that position is not backfilled. There are no additional costs to the government in those cases.

There is also something missing from the budget: the cost of the government's proposed new system. That system has not yet been costed, but there will be a cost associated with it. How much will it cost? We do not know. How big a dent will that make in the $900 million? We do not know. I think that when the minister says it will be $900 million, he is getting ahead of himself and making negative assumptions. I would rather see good-faith negotiations between public servants and the government to determine what is fair for both sides.

Once again, this $900 million represents another one-time measure that can be added to the list of other one-time measures. Suppose this happens. I hope it does not because, in my opinion, it constitutes a breach of contract to take back what was already given under a collective agreement. However, if it does, where does that take us?

By the way, public service employees are also taxpayers. Too often people forget that. People believe that public servants are living in a bubble and that they do not pay taxes. Public servants pay taxes like everyone else. They are taxpayers like everyone else and, what is more, they provide services to Canadians. It is because of them that policies become programs, which then become public services. We must not forget that and we need to treat these people with the respect they deserve.

The government is making another cut. This time, it is going after employee compensation directly. Because of the Conservatives, public servants are becoming more discouraged. Do we really need that? Their working conditions are obviously deteriorating, but the members on the other side of the House do not seem to be too bothered by that. They are demoralizing the public service to such an extent that people are going to have to leave, because all of a sudden, their overall working conditions—or what I call their overall compensation—will no longer be competitive compared to other sectors.

What will happen then? Skilled employees will leave and the government will begin to lose its ability to operate effectively. We cannot allow this loss of competitiveness, effectiveness and professionalism to happen. In fact, what I am trying to say is that this measure might only save money on paper.

This surplus is really fragile. The government used a lot of gimmicks to get there. One of those gimmicks is going to have long-term effects on federal public servants. The government is picking on them to try to win votes, and I find that disgraceful. Based on that assumption, I do not believe that we will have a surplus of $1.4 billion as announced by the Minister of Finance.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly listened with great interest to my colleague's speech. I would like to ask him a question about a subject that he did not cover in his speech, unless I missed it.

I am referring to the measure included in the budget implementation bill that would retroactively absolve the RCMP of breaching the Access to Information Act.

What does my colleague think of this type of retroactive approach intended to absolve those who allegedly broke the law?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his excellent question, which is a fundamental one in a state governed by the rule of law.

We cannot retroactively endorse acts that were previously illegal. That is fundamental. We cannot play with people's lives and what they do.

Who is to say that this will not create a precedent and that a lawful act committed freely and knowingly one day could not be made unlawful the next?

We cannot play with such fundamental aspects of life in society simply because it suits us. These are dangerous precedents and I completely agree with my colleague on that.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. He has a long history of standing up for workers, which is something he has kept up here in Parliament.

I would like to talk about the omnibus nature of the bill, since my colleague touched on some very specific points in this bill, which I give him credit for, because he has developed an expertise in these areas.

However, this bill is incredibly broad and will impose some measures that should not normally be found in a budget. As the citizenship and immigration critic, I can confirm that this bill contains some measures that affect citizenship and immigration and that should be studied much more carefully, outside the context of an omnibus bill. Unfortunately, this context is exactly what will prevent us from studying these measures.

Could my colleague comment on how these measures are being brought before the House?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent question, which comes up every time the government introduces a massive bill.

One of our main duties here in the House is to legislate. This means that we must be capable of thoughtfully evaluating the different aspects of the laws we want to put in place.

Unfortunately, when the government introduces an omnibus bill to fix all of the problems at the same time, it is an attempt to trick us. Sometimes, it is only after one or two years that we realize that one part of the bill should have been studied more carefully.

My colleague is absolutely right when she says that everything that affects society is worthy of careful consideration, especially when the government is not only imposing a massive bill, but also a limit on debate.

This undermines our ability to produce sound legislation.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on Bill C-59, our budget implementation act for economic action plan, 2015.

The good news is that the federal government has balanced its budget and now we are helping families to balance theirs. We are doing so by introducing the family tax cut, the enhanced universal child care benefit enhancements for children under 6, and a new universal child care benefit for those between 6 and 17 years. That would help families balance their budget and get ahead.

There are a number of things I like about the budget implementation bill before us today and in the short amount of time I have, I am going to try to lay them out as quickly as I possibly can and explain why I am supporting this particular measure.

Farm succession is an important issue, drawing in the younger generation of farmers in Essex county. We do about $1 billion-plus in agricultural GDP each and every year. Extending the lifetime capital gains exemption to $1 million for owners of farm businesses, which is contained in this act, would go a long way in succession planning and drawing in our young farmers.

Yesterday, the Prime Minister was in Windsor—Essex, talking about manufacturing. There is a lot to say in Bill C-59. We would be extending the accelerated capital cost allowance out to 10 years. That would give a lot of predictability. I encourage the opposition members, who said they supported that measure, to actually stand in their place to vote for it now.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

It being 1:15 p.m., pursuant to an order made Thursday, May 14, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is as follows. May I dispense?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

[Chair read text of amendment to House]

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

All those opposed will please say nay.