Debates of May 9th, 2016

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise in the House today in support of Bill C-15, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures.

The much-needed budget 2016 is an essential step to growing the middle class and revitalizing the Canadian economy. Budget 2016 has received positive responses from my constituents.

I have received some questions, and I will address these to begin.

The first measure I will be speaking to is the elimination of the children's arts tax credit and child fitness tax credit. These tax credits only benefit families who can afford to enrol their children in arts and fitness programs. It is that simple. This is not the case for many Canadians, including many of those in my constituency. When families do not have money, the tax credit does not matter. We are committed to taking an approach that will help working families. The cost of raising a family was the top issue during the campaign, and it continues to be the top priority in my riding. The bill offers true help to nine out of 10 families.

I will now speak to some of the positive elements of the bill that resonate with my constituents. The Canada child benefit is one of those key positive pieces of the budget. It is a new measure that will begin in July 2016 and will provide simpler, tax-free monthly financial benefits to eligible families. The Canada child benefit will help those who cannot afford to put their children in extracurricular programs. It will give them the option of enrolling the children in programs that would otherwise be financially out of reach. Families who could not enrol their children in arts and fitness programs will now have that chance.

Our government's measures for families with children, combined with the middle-class tax cut, will provide these families with additional net after-tax benefits of approximately $14 billion during the 2015-16 to 2020-21 period. The Canada child benefit will replace existing federal child benefits to provide Canadian families with the additional help that is required with the high cost of raising children. The Canada child benefit will provide a maximum benefit of up to $6,400 per child under the age of six, and up to $5,400 per child aged six through 17, for families who need it the most.

High-income earners will have their assistance reduced, even eliminated. This is good public policy. Approximately nine out of 10 families will receive more under the Canada child benefit than under the current system of child benefits. Ultimately, about 3.5 million families will benefit from this new Canada child benefit, with an average increase of approximately $2,300 annually.

As stated by Rob Carrick of The Globe and Mail, “The new Canada Child Benefit is a solid win over existing programs in both dollar terms and ease of use. The money is tax-free, so it won’t have to be accounted for when completing your income tax return every year.” The is good news.

In addition, the Canada child benefit will help raise nearly 300,000 children out of poverty by 2017. However, it does not end there. Budget 2016 will continue to support poverty reduction in future years. As stated by Anita Khanna, the national coordinator of Campaign 2000, “This is a historic step forward in the battle against child poverty in Canada that is long overdue and long called-for by Campaign 2000 and other groups.”

In line with providing support for the majority of Canadians, budget 2016 proposes to eliminate the income-splitting credit for families. This initiative provides a better solution for helping those who need it the most. We learned during the campaign that many couples did not benefit from this initiative. Our programs are more equitable, and I must note that income splitting for seniors remains.

The second aspect of budget 2016 that I will be speaking to is the introduction of the school supplies tax credit. Educators, often at their own expense, purchase supplies for the benefit of our children, so it is only fair that they are compensated for it. Budget 2016 introduces a 15% refundable income tax credit that will apply on up to $1,000 of eligible supplies. Teachers and early childhood educators will be able to use this credit for the purchase of eligible supplies for use in a school or a regulated child care facility for the purpose of teaching or otherwise enhancing students learning in the classroom or learning environment. This initiative will provide a benefit of about $140 million over a five-year period.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Thank you.

I regret that I have to cut your debate short at this point, but you will have a little over five minutes when the issue is brought back before the House for debate.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Innovation, Science and Economic Development

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, earlier this year in question period, I asked the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development to launch an inquiry into Ontario electricity rates. I asked this question in the context of the acquisition by the recently privatized Ontario Hydro monopoly, now called Hydro One, of a competitor and whether the public interest was being served by having the competition bureau review this purchase behind closed doors.

My supplementary question, which was not acknowledged, is what I am looking for a response to today.

I, along with all Canadians, am quite willing to give the Competition Bureau time to complete its work, if it has not really done so, and report its findings. If that review does not include an analysis of what that purchase would do to the constantly rising cost of electricity in Ontario, Canadians have a right to question the Competition Bureau.

As this purchase will, if it has not already, trigger a hydro rate increase that consumers and industry cannot afford, I requested a federal inquiry into the Ontario hydro crisis, a request the government chose to ignore.

The government promised to be open and transparent, an election promise that was promptly broken with its first budget.

The decision to ignore Ontario residents who are suffering from the highest electricity rates in North America by ignoring this request is another broken promise from a government that took power with less than 40% of Canadians voting for it.

As a minister whose portfolio includes economic development, the minister needs to understand the importance of the price of electricity is a federal issue. The loss of 350,000 good, well-paying middle-class jobs in the manufacturing sector in Ontario because of the high electricity rate policy of the Liberal government of Toronto is a federal issue.

The rise of energy poverty in the province of Ontario, when seniors, students, and people on fixed incomes must spend a greater and greater percentage of their savings and income on electricity costs, people in Ontario being faced with the decision of heat or eat, is a federal issue.

When a legal NAFTA challenge is issued against the practices of the Ontario regulated electricity monopoly for hundreds of millions of dollars for corruption in wind turbine contracting policy, and it is the federal taxpayer who is expected to pay the penalty, it is a federal issue.

When yet another criminal investigation is launched by the Ontario Provincial Police into the energy policy of the Toronto Liberal Party, it is a federal issue.

When the chief executive officer of Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, one of the largest car and truck manufacturing companies in the world, states that Ontario's hydro costs mean that Canada is losing opportunities for multi-billion-dollar auto investments and the good, well-paying jobs that come with that private sector investment, it is a federal issue.

There is no passing the buck off to the Province of Ontario on this issue. The high cost of doing business in Ontario is a federal issue.

Of the many problems constituents bring to my attention, the one that brings the most complaints is the out-of-control cost of electricity. The definition of “energy poverty” is when a household is spending 10% or more of its disposable income on energy costs. For too many households, this has now become a reality, with the latest increase in hydro rates coming just this past week.

With the increase effective May 1, 2016, and the prior one of November 1, 2015, the added cost is $400 million annually to residential taxpayers' bills for electricity. This represents an increase of 8% in just that short period. The increase in seven years is 108%. That is well above Ontario's inflation rate.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to once again respond to the comments made by the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, who is calling on the government to hold public hearings and open consultations under the Competition Act regarding Hydro One's acquisition of Great Lakes Power.

Under the act, mergers of all sizes and in all sectors of the economy are subject to review by the Competition Bureau to determine whether they will likely result in a substantial lessening or prevention of competition.

As part of the bureau’s normal approach in examining a merger, and in order to ensure that decisions are made while taking into account the opinion of those who might be affected by the transaction, the Bureau consults with a wide range of industry participants, such as suppliers, competitors, industry associations, customers and industry experts.

The bureau considers many different factors, including the definition of the relevant market and the level of competition between the merging parties. The bureau's work is guided by its mandate, which is to ensure that Canadian businesses and consumers prosper in a competitive and innovative marketplace.

As an independent law enforcement agency, the Competition Bureau is required by law to conduct its investigations in private. It is bound by the confidentiality provisions of the Competition Act. Accordingly, it is not possible for the Competition Bureau to hold public hearings.

However, as I said, the Competition Bureau holds broad consultations with the affected stakeholders and Canadian consumers. Anyone who wishes to express their views on matters of competition is invited to do so through the Competition Bureau's website, or by contacting the Competition Bureau directly.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, anything that contributes to another excuse to raise hydro rates in the province of Ontario is a cause for alarm.

Ontario Hydro, now Hydro One, has been changed by the Liberal party in Toronto into an unaccountable monopoly, privatized so it is no longer under the scrutiny of the legislature. Energy policy decisions are the subject of criminal investigations.

We learned this past week that the Ontario Provincial Police has launched another investigation into allegations that provincial government officials illegally destroyed documents concerning an aborted contract to supply electricity to the provincial grid in the Kingston area.

The federal Competition Bureau has a responsibility to protect Canadians, as does the federal government. Only by operating in an open, public, transparent manner will Canadians know that their best interests are being served.

As has been noted in an excellent analysis by the Consumer Policy Institute, it has been a bad nine years for electricity customers in Ontario. Hydro prices for residential customers have increased at a faster rate than anywhere in North America.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague knows that the merger review process under the Competition Act is extremely rigorous, informed by the opinion of affected stakeholders, and conducted independently. As far as Hydro One's acquisition of Great Lakes Power is concerned, the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke can rest assured that this rigorous standard will be upheld.

As we know, the Competition Bureau must conduct its investigations in private, in accordance with the legislation. The Competition Bureau is also bound by the confidentiality provisions of the Competition Act.

Employment Insurance

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Madam Speaker, I rise in the House today to follow up on a question I asked a few months ago, referring to the unacceptable situation unfolding in Norway House, a community in northern Manitoba.

Commercial fishers in Norway House feel that they have been targeted by employment insurance, and the situation is getting worse by the day. There are 50 commercial fishers in Norway House, as well as a number of fishers' helpers, and a majority of fishers and their helpers have been cut off by employment insurance.

While everyone understands the importance of accountability, what has taken place in Norway House is an unnecessarily aggressive approach, leaving first nations fishers feeling intimidated, angered, and deeply disrespected. In fact, worse yet, commercial fishers and their helpers have not been given a chance to make their case, whether at an individual level or at a collective level.

Many feel they have been treated aggressively and have been disrespected, including the demand to receive records from fishers who have since passed on. Many have been put in situations where they have been interrogated with little supports pertaining to language and others, at a very difficult time for them and their families. They were called on without any sense of personal empathy to present their cases and, in fact, reported very difficult situations a as result.

We have to be clear about what this means. In a community like Norway House, commercial fishing is probably one of the best jobs one can have. Approximately 200 people are employed through the commercial fishery in Norway House, directly and indirectly. Over the years, millions of dollars have been pumped into the local economy. In fact, a labour market study conducted a short while ago indicated that 80% of fishing dollars stayed within Norway House. The Canadian Council of Professional Fish Harvesters conducted that study.

It is also important to note, like many first nations in northern communities, that many people in Norway House struggle with poverty. Therefore, when there are good jobs and job opportunities, it is important that we support them. What fishers, their families and leaders in Norway House are asking for is an ability to come together and find a resolution at this difficult juncture.

My question some months ago for the minister, which I will reiterate, calls on the minister to work with Norway House commercial fishers and the people of Norway House to find a resolution to this unacceptable situation.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment]

Madam Speaker, my friend and colleague, having gone through the last Parliament, knows the last government had a very peculiar approach to dealing with the employment insurance program and the recipients of insurance benefits. It was one that did not cast any fine light on people who worked in seasonal industries, or people who found themselves unemployed through no fault of their own.

We had our own case in Cape Breton, up in Bay St. Lawrence, where there seemed to be a net thrown around an entire community. About 80 individuals had been cut off benefits. The investigation took place. They even held the interviews at the RCMP station, which was a further aspect of the anxiety brought upon those who were being interviewed at the time. Our government does not feel that is the way to go about business.

My colleague is a long-serving member. She knows I cannot speak specifically about the Norway House situation because of issues around confidentiality and privacy.

She will also know that it is imperative for the Government of Canada and those who administer the program do so with an absolute commitment to the integrity of the program. The Employment Insurance Act is being administered by the Government of Canada. It is a duty that the Government of Canada takes very seriously, but it is imperative that the integrity of the program is upheld. When we see any signs of abuse or misuse, then it is imperative that we draw issue with it.

Over the past eight years, Service Canada has identified $1 billion in fraudulent claims for EI benefits and recovered about $600 million, or 60%. However, that is a significant amount of fraudulent claims or abuse of the system.

Employers and employees who pay into that fund want to know it is being administered properly. There could probably be a more respectful approach as far as the investigation goes, but I do not think we can compromise on the integrity of those investigations. It is imperative that as a government we stand and defend the principles of the Employment Insurance Act and ensure the act has the integrity that Canadians expect.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Madam Speaker, I certainly appreciate my colleague's reflections on the need for a more respectful process. What is clear in this case is that people have felt deeply disrespected by the treatment they have received. We are talking about a community where a number of commercial fishers and others for whom English is not their first language. They had no services made available to recognize that.

People in precarious health situations expressed their situation and no consideration was given to that fact. Ultimately, people were hauled into the RCMP offices. The records of people who were dead were requested, which is of course deeply disrespectful to the families and the colleagues of those who are still alive.

Therefore, what is being asked for is a respectful process. There is no question that the Employment Insurance Act needs to be—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Madam Speaker, my colleague and I can agree on pretty much all of what is being said here. It is incumbent on the government to ensure these investigations are thorough and that their integrity is not compromised. However, it has to be done in a timely and respectful manner. I believe the points that the member brought up should be taken under advisement.

Health

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the question that I asked the Minister of Health with respect to Bill C-2, the former Conservative government's so-called respect for communities act.

I want to begin by taking a moment to commend the minister for her decision to visit lnsite, Vancouver's life-saving safe injection site, in January. This visit was an important symbol of the welcome and necessary change in tone from the Liberal government with respect to evidence-based, harm-reduction policy within our health care system.

I myself have visited lnsite and can attest first-hand to the incredible work that it does to reduce overdoses, lower the transmission of infectious diseases, provide essential health services, including addictions treatment, and most importantly, save lives.

However, words are not enough. Communities with individuals suffering from addictions, serious mental illness, and infectious diseases need a better, more responsive and more caring health care system. Therefore, I was shocked by the minister's statement in March that she has decided not to repeal Bill C-2. This harmful legislation runs diametrically against progressive health policy, and erects unnecessary barriers to the opening of new life-saving safe consumption sites in communities that need them across Canada.

Upon the passage of Bill C-2 in June 2015, a coalition of 65 health, patient and harm-reduction advocacy groups from across Canada issued a public declaration condemning this legislation. They broadcast a clear warning to the Canadian public about the serious problems with this legislation. The following are a few quotes that sum up their position:

Bill C-2 will put the lives of...vulnerable Canadians at risk by establishing excessive and unreasonable requirements for health authorities and community agencies looking to open or continue operating supervised consumption [sites]....

This bill...establish[es] 26 new requirements applicants must meet before the federal Minister of Health will even consider an approval to operate a [supervised consumption site].

The barriers this bill...presents to accessing [supervised consumption sites will] allow a public health emergency to [be treated] under a law-and-order agenda...expos[ing] patients and communities to infection, suffering, and death.

Among the prominent signatories to this declaration are Toronto Public Health, the BC Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, the Association of Ontario Health Centres, the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, and the BC Centre for Disease Control. Calls for more harm-reduction facilities are only growing as overdose deaths continue to rise across Canada.

Just last month, British Columbia provincial health officer Dr. Perry Kendall declared a public health emergency after more than 200 overdose deaths were reported in my province in three months. Nearly 300 Albertans died of overdoses in 2015, more than double the 2014 death toll. Similarly, Ontario has seen a 72% increase over the last decade. Health authorities in Montreal, Toronto, and Victoria are now working to open life-saving harm reduction facilities as they struggle to save lives. Unfortunately, the onerous provisions of Bill C-2 continue to delay the opening of new safe consumption sites.

It is time for the minister to move from symbolism to action in harm reduction and commit to repealing Bill C-2 once and for all. Will she do so?

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to address the concerns raised by my colleague the member for Vancouver Kingsway regarding the federal process to allow for the operation of supervised consumption sites.

I would like to start off by acknowledging the alarming rise in opioid-related overdose deaths occurring across the country.

Drug use is a significant public health and safety issue in Canada that can have wide-ranging impacts on individuals, their families, and communities at large. One of the most devastating impacts is losing a family member or friend to a preventable drug overdose.

That is why our government strongly supports a comprehensive public health approach to addressing problematic drug use, one that is based on compassion and collaboration, and is guided by scientific evidence. In this case, the evidence is absolutely clear: such an approach must include harm reduction.

Our government is working hard to ensure that harm reduction measures are part of our approach to drug policy, to help prevent the transmission of infectious diseases, overdose deaths, and stigma.

We have also shown support for supervised consumption sites, which provide a controlled space whereby people who use drugs can bring their own substances to consume under the safe supervision of health care professionals, and at the same time gain access to other health and social services, including drug treatment.

In January of this year, after a thorough and rigorous review, Health Canada granted an exemption from the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act for the Dr. Peter Centre, a leading HIV/AIDS treatment centre, to provide supervised consumption site services as part of its programs. On March 16, Health Canada granted lnsite an unprecedented four-year exemption.

lnsite is one of the most established and well researched supervised consumption sites in the world. It is an excellent example of what an integrated public health approach to problematic drug use can look like. Earlier this year, the Minister of Health had the privilege of visiting lnsite and speaking to the staff and clients there. There is a reason why people from all over the world look to lnsite for advice on implementing their own sites.

Yes, lnsite provides a clean and supervised space for injection drug use, but it is so much more than that. It offers a holistic program where disease is less likely to spread, overdose deaths are averted, and individuals are more likely to access health and social services including immunizations, counselling, and drug treatment.

Our government anticipates receiving more applications for supervised consumption sites in the future. We will ensure that they are diligently assessed, so that informed and evidence-based decisions can be made.

In closing, it is our government's belief that effectively addressing problematic drug use requires a comprehensive and compassionate public health approach that is inclusive of evidence-based harm reduction measures, including supervised consumption sites.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, as drug overdoses continue to kill more and more Canadians, the minister has failed to act proactively on another serious issue.

In recent weeks, the minister decided to abandon new regulations to require tamper-resistant forms of powerful opioid prescription drugs.

The minister has stated that she believes these regulations will not solve the problem because they are only applied to a single opioid drug, OxyContin. However, the solution to that is obvious: we need to bring in tamper-resistant regulations across the entire class of opioids, as the U.S. FDA has done.

Canada is in the midst of an opioid overdose crisis. Hundreds of people are dying, and British Columbia has declared a public health emergency. More people will die, so why will the minister not introduce tamper-resistant regulations to the entire class of opioid drugs and help save lives?

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Madam Speaker, to operate legally, a supervised consumption site requires an exemption under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, Canada's drug control framework. The purpose of the act is to protect public health and maintain public safety, and it is the federal government's responsibility to ensure that this is upheld in all circumstances where activities with controlled substances are taking place.

Health Canada requires sufficient information upon which to base any decision allowing an exemption. For this reason, requirements to demonstrate that a supervised consumption site will be properly established and managed pre-date the Respect for Communities Act.

I acknowledge the concerns being voiced by the member. However, the recent approval of exemptions for the Dr. Peter Centre and lnsite demonstrate that existing legislation does not preclude sound and evidence-based decisions regarding supervised consumption sites.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:58 p.m.)