Emmanuel Dubourg

[Canada Revenue Agency, September 25th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, we all know that Revenue Canada is losing billions because of widespread international tax evasion, but what are the Conservatives doing? They are dismantling the teams of experts who counter this phenomenon and harassing charitable organizations that disagree with them. If the Conservatives have nothing to hide, then why are they unwilling to give the Parliamentary Budget Officer the information he needs to assess the scale of this problem?

[Creole Month, September 24th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker,

[Member spoke in Creole as follows:]

sak pasé? Jodia mwen salué toute collègue mwen yo nan Parlement canadien, nan langue zancètre mwen, le créole.

I have the great privilege of highlighting the 13th edition of the Mois du créole, which has been organized by KEPKAA, an organization that has been working to promote Creole in Quebec through education, culture, and the arts since 2002.

In Canada, more than 200,000 people, including yours truly, come from countries where Creole is spoken. Those countries include Haiti, Martinique, Guadeloupe, Guyana, the Seychelles, and islands of the Caribbean and the Indian Ocean. We are proud to contribute to Canada's cultural richness.

I would like to congratulate the organizing committee and the president of KEPKAA, Arcelle Appolon, for the work they do to promote Creole.

To conclude, I would like to salute all those who speak Creole, the language taught to me by my parents, that I have taught it to my children, and that I am proud to speak here.

[Member spoke in Creole]

[Business of Supply, September 23rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his excellent comment and his question.

As the member knows, throughout Canada, 53,000 jobs were lost in the private sector alone, as I just said in my speech. With this measure, we are talking about creating between 150,000 and 175,000 new jobs. As we have said, this will happen from coast to coast to coast.

Businesses and economists have agreed that this is what the country and our employers have been asking for. Things will be so much easier for those who come to our offices asking for help to find work. That is why the government should agree to and implement the measure proposed by the member for Papineau, the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada.

[Business of Supply, September 23rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I wish to thank my hon. colleague for that observation. Indeed, CLD stands for “centre local de développement” or local development centre, and CLE stands for “centre local d'emploi” or local employment centre.

Our position is very clear. For every new job created, the company will be entitled to an EI premium exemption. It is simple. We are not favouring small businesses and we are not favouring businesses that have a payroll of $567,000. We are talking about all businesses. It is of course an incentive for all businesses to say yes; if they need staff, they will create jobs so that they can immediately take advantage of this credit.

Businesses located in the riding of Bourassa, which I am so proud to represent, will welcome this kind of measure so they can apply for these credits and create new jobs for the people of Bourassa.

[Business of Supply, September 23rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to say that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Trinity—Spadina.

I am very pleased to take part in this debate on employment insurance. First, if I may, I will read the text of the motion:

That, in the opinion of the House, the Employment Insurance (EI) plan announced by the government on September 11, 2014, and which will begin on January 1, 2015, will not create jobs and growth but will instead provide a financial incentive for employers to lay off workers; and therefore, the House urges the government to re-direct those resources by providing employers an EI premium exemption on newly-created jobs in 2015 and 2016.

I can inform the House that we in the Liberal Party are in favour of this motion. As we know, the government may introduce policy based on facts in the same way it can introduce policy based on populist politics. We might say that the government's response to the situation before us is more a political response.

Let us look at the facts that preceded this announcement from the government. The hiring situation in the country is deplorable. In the last year, Canada's job growth was very weak.

In one year, 81,000 net new jobs were created in the entire country. In the United Kingdom, 775,000 jobs were created while 2.2 million were created in the United States. We can look at this in terms of the growth rate rather than in absolute numbers. These figures represent a growth rate of 2.6% in the United Kingdom,1.5% in the United States and only 0.5% in Canada. During the same year, the private sector in Canada shed 57,000 jobs.

What is the government's response to this disastrous situation? It introduces a measure under which all businesses with a payroll not exceeding $567,000, let us say, will get a maximum $2,200 credit on their premiums, given the maximum exemption is $15,000.

Let me say that again: with a maximum exemption of $15,000, businesses will qualify for a maximum credit of $2,200. This is no job-creation program. A number of economists have said so more than once. I will be quoting them. Specifically, it means that a company paying contributions of around $15,000—$14,700, for example—will qualify for a credit of $2,200. Will that encourage the company to hire people and create jobs? No, because as soon as the company goes over the $15,000 threshold, it no longer qualifies for anything. Absolutely nothing.

As I just said, if the amount of the premiums exceeds $15,000, for example, and the company's premiums add up to $15,150, the companies will not be entitled to any credit. Not a $2,200 credit; no credit. The company will not be motivated to hire anyone, on the contrary. That is the perverse effect of this measure. In fact, the company will have to dismiss or lay off people to get the $2,200 credit. That is not very encouraging for Canada's employment situation.

We have just resumed the session in the House and, like all our colleagues, we were working in our constituency offices.

In my case, I felt like my constituency office became what we call in Quebec a CLD, or local employment centre. My constituents came to see me almost every day, asking me to help them find a job, because the situation is disastrous.

The measure presented today in no way responds to this situation. Furthermore, economists have criticized it so openly that I hope the Conservatives do not attack them because they decided to speak out.

Mike Moffatt, an economist with the Ivey business school at Western University, owns a business of about the same size as the ones we are talking about. In fact, the measure at issue will only prevent small businesses from growing. As soon as a company's payroll exceeds $567,000, it is no longer entitled to any credits. Mike Moffatt said, and I quote:

It is clear that firms under the $15,000 EI threshold have a big incentive to keep wage increases to a minimum. Conversely, firms that are just over the $15,000 EI threshold have an incentive to cut the pay of their staff in order to gain the tax credit.

It goes on. Stephen Gordon, of Université Laval, said that lowering payroll taxes was generally advantageous to everyone and fostered job creation and higher salaries. The Conservatives failed to seize this opportunity when they created another highly targeted tax credit.

The Liberal Party has done its homework and come up with a very clear proposal: providing employers an EI premium exemption for every new job it creates for the following two years. It is a very simple and clear measure. If a business creates a job, it does not have to pay EI premiums for the next two years.

This simple measure will allow businesses to save up to $1,280 for every job created. This will create an estimated 176,000 new jobs. Economists have been evaluating this proposal ever since our leader, the hon. member for Papineau announced it.

Mr. Moffatt said that he hopes the government will take the hon. member for Papineau's suggestion seriously and correct the flaws in its current proposal. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business says it likes the Liberals' plan because it has greater potential for creating new jobs.

That is the measure economists are recommending, employers are asking for, and all Canadians need, not just those in the riding of Bourassa that I represent. That is what they are asking for to create new jobs here.

[Business of Supply, September 23rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my NDP colleague's speech. He said that he looked up the word “insurance” in the dictionary. However, I do not understand why he said that the Liberal Party's proposal was a new employment tax on workers.

I do not know whether the member has a dictionary there, but I would like him to explain his claim that this is a new employment tax on workers.

[Business of Supply, September 23rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his speech in this debate. The Conservative Minister of Finance proposed something that would allow businesses to apply for a credit worth up to $2,200 if they pay $15,000 in EI premiums. From what I understand, when the minister made the announcement, he said the goal was to support job creation in Canada.

However, if the amount paid in premiums is $15,001, businesses might try to get in under that threshold in order to take advantage of the $2,200 credit. In that case, no jobs will be created. In addition, are businesses that pay around $14,200, for example, likely to hire in order to get that $190 credit? It makes no sense. This measure will not boost job creation.

I would like to ask my colleague if he thinks that the Conservative minister only proposed this because he is panicking, given the many months of job losses in this country.

[Mirabel Terminal, September 19th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, it was announced that the Mirabel terminal would be demolished despite the efforts of the community and local representatives.

The Liberal Party takes issue with the way the decision was made and feels it is premature. Local stakeholders were not adequately consulted. The people of Mirabel deserve to know how the government plans to use the land to create good local jobs, stimulate economic growth and support regional development.

We are asking the Conservative government to be transparent and tell the people of Mirabel what it plans to do with the terminal site.

[Champlain Bridge, September 18th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the CBC revealed the existence of a new study commissioned by Transport Canada on the impact of the Champlain Bridge toll.

This study, kept secret by the Conservative government, shows that traffic volume would increase tremendously on the other south shore bridges.

How long has the government been hiding this study paid for by Canadians? Can the government release all the studies on the replacement of the Champlain Bridge?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, September 15th, 2014]

With regard to bank notes: (a) how many requests to reproduce the image of Canadian bank notes have been received by the Bank of Canada since April 1, 2006; (b) how many such requests have been approved, and how many have been rejected; (c) for each such request, what was (i) the proposed reproduction and its purpose, (ii) the proposed placement or distribution of the material featuring the bank note image, (iii) the date of the approval, (iv) the name of the requester, where requested by a group, business, or organization, (iv) whether the request was approved or rejected?