Garnett Genuis

[Canada Pension Plan, October 24th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on an excellent speech. It is interesting to hear my colleague across the way talk about this apparently being a historical agreement. I do not think it is even a historic agreement.

The government has tried to bring together other levels of government in a government knows best approach. What we are hearing from ordinary Canadians, from business owners, is that they do not want to have to pay more in tax. They want to keep more of their own money. That is the approach that we advocated. Could the member talk about why we are better off by giving people the mechanisms to save for themselves?

[Canada Pension Plan, October 24th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, those are all very good points from my colleague.

This is one of the advantages of the voluntary savings vehicles about which I talked. It remains an individual's money. Individuals have no disincentive to put money aside and save it because they know that money will be theirs for them to use in the future or to pass on to someone else.

That is another very good reason why the voluntary approach is a better approach for society, as opposed to the government knows best, government takes it away and gets to spend it, approach.

[Canada Pension Plan, October 24th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, it is really shameful that when we try to engage in a substantive discussion of issues, the member across the way would so flagrantly misstate what I said in questions. I do not know if I should add anything to that. The record is very clear in what I talked about.

I talked about a choice between giving people the means to voluntarily control their own circumstances and the benefits of that situation and a situation in which the government tried to take away the means for people to control their own circumstances. I advanced the argument that giving people more control over their circumstances was good, not only because they would be able to leverage their greater knowledge of their circumstances for their own good, but also because it would provide them with the opportunity to practise and to deepen virtue.

That is not in any way a function specifically of a person's wealth. It is a question of whether these decisions are made by individuals or by governments. I specifically said that for those who were struggling, the better alternative was for the government to cut taxes to give more resources to those who needed it.

I am sorry to say this, but the member should really be ashamed for asking a question that way, which so deeply misstates the speech. He would be better off to listen and to pose questions that reflect what was actually discussed.

[Canada Pension Plan, October 24th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate my colleague's contributions in this House. With greatest respect, I would ask her to check the record in terms of my speech, because I at no point said that people make a choice to struggle or anything remotely similar to that.

The point that is perplexing to me is that members from the government and the NDP say that people are struggling to save for their retirement, so let us take more of their money away and do it for them. I do not think that respects the autonomy of individuals, whether they are doing well or whether they are not. I do not think it respects their autonomy or their own capacity to plan for their own future.

I think we are better off using tax-free savings accounts, again, a savings vehicle that is more likely to be used by those who are of modest means. We are better off doing what our government did, which was increase the guaranteed income supplement. We made some of these changes to try to address the issue of affordability for seniors, and I listed the many substantial changes the previous government made to make life more affordable for seniors.

What is at issue is the lack of respect for the autonomy of those individuals by individuals in other parties. They think that if individuals are not saving enough, the solution is for the government to take more of their money away. I do not think that is a solution. If individuals are not doing well, we should not be taking more of their money away. In fact, we should be looking for ways to pass resources back to them. That is exactly what we are better off doing. That was the proposal we had. That is what we had in place with the expanded form of the tax-free savings account.

[Canada Pension Plan, October 24th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I was worried for a moment that my friend was channelling his inner Donald Trump, but fortunately, he stopped after the drug test suggestion and did not go any further. It was interesting that he drew from some of my comments about virtue ethics that I have an interest in Ayn Rand. He might want to reflect on the philosophical differences between those two traditions.

More to the point, what I emphasized in my remarks was the choice we have between the mandatory and voluntary routes. We favour the voluntary route. What I said specifically about low-income Canadians is that the cuts the government made to the tax-free savings account have a disproportionate negative impact on low-income Canadians. I shared some of those numbers very clearly. Those who are of modest incomes are more likely to use tax-free savings accounts because of the differential impact of RRSPs, on the one hand, and TFSAs on the other. One of the stats I quoted was that more than half of those who maxed out their tax-free savings accounts are making less than $60,000 a year. I see the member shaking his head. I encourage him to go to fin.gc.ca. The numbers are there.

[Canada Pension Plan, October 24th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to join this debate.

I have been listening with some degree of incredulity to the arguments coming from the government side and have to start with a quote, which I believe is from William Pitt, who said, “The facts of life have turned out to be Tory.”

Hearing my Liberal friends talk, they say that people are not saving enough and that if we only took more money away from them, put it somewhere else, and then gave it back to them later, that would solve the problem. There is clearly a misunderstanding on the government side about the fact that this money has to come from somewhere and that the cost of that is going to unfold.

The government members talk about a phase-in plan. However, without appreciating whether it is phased in over two or seven years, as intended, or longer than that, the cost will still be there for individuals and small businesses. We will still very much see that negative impact.

To start, I will just review where we are in this regard.

The core of the bill would increase the amount that individuals and employers have to pay as part of their CPP deductions. This will eventually, but not for current seniors, lead to higher payouts down the line. Therefore, we are not talking about improving the situation for those currently in retirement; but in the long run, we are talking about a system that would require individuals and businesses to pay in more and pay out more in the future.

In terms of the magnitude of this change, the premiums will increase from 9.9% to 11.9% eventually; the maximum level of pensionable earnings will go up from just under $55,000 to $82,700 by the year 2025; and premiums will rise by up to $2,200 per worker, with the amount collected being split between employers and employees. These are very significant numbers. The costs are significant and will have a significant impact on the economy.

We think on this side of the House that it is a bad idea, and I am going to outline in my speech what I see as five principal reasons why this is not a good idea. The arguments are as follows. First, people can save their own money more effectively. Second, that existing savings vehicles that were cut by the government in fact provide the additional incentives and flexibility to be more useful to people involved. Third, I am going to talk about the economic costs of this plan. Fourth, I will talk about better ways to get help for seniors. Finally, if I have time, I am going to talk about the relationship between liberty and virtue as it relates to this policy.

First is the point that people are able to save more money themselves. I raised this point with one of the government members who had talked about how effective the CPP has been, which I would generally agree with, in generating returns. However, what he neglected to respond to is the fact that there are other ways this could have been done. In fact, the government could have explored a voluntary option in which people could choose to contribute more to the CPP and collect more in the future.

Of course, the Liberals could have stuck with, or chosen to enhance, the existing saving vehicles. I will talk more about that in my next point, but the Liberals have chosen not to do that, and I think they have to defend that policy. It is not enough to say that they would like people to have more for retirement. They have to actually defend the policy in terms of why it should be mandatory and not voluntary for the individuals involved.

On this side of the House, we have a general preference for giving individuals as much freedom, liberty, and ability to manage their own resources as possible, for the simple reason that people are generally in the best position to judge what constitutes their own interest, what they are going to need for retirement, what they are going to need in the present, and what kinds of investments will be best for them in the short and long terms. We prefer to believe that individuals are in the best position to judge what is going to be conducive to their own happiness rather than some external actor, in this case the state. The government is less likely to know what is good for me than I am. I think that makes a lot of sense.

This flows from the principle of subsidiarity, that those who are closest to a situation, who are closest to the practice of something, are in the best position to decide what is in their own interest. This is why we favour choice in this case. We favour giving individuals the ability to control their own retirement.

I would note parenthetically that there is some irony in the government's position, in that it clearly is not capable of showing any kind of temperance in the use of public finances, with its deficit that has ballooned beyond all proportion and beyond what it promised in the election, and yet expresses concern that individuals are not saving enough.

This particularly underlines the point that the government and perhaps governments in general are in a less well-placed position to decide about savings for the future than individuals are, and that we should give the power and the ability to individuals to make decisions about their own future.

Second, I would like to discuss existing savings vehicles, because the government has made a choice to cut back on existing savings vehicles and move in the direction of mandatory contributions rather than emphasizing individual choice.

We have in place right now in Canada two primary savings vehicles for individuals: tax-free savings accounts and RRSPs. TFSAs and RRSPs function somewhat differently, of course. With RRSPs an individual saves the tax up front. They pay the tax after they withdraw money from the RRSP at some point in the future, whereas with TFSAs they pay the tax up front, but then they do not pay tax on the interest and they do not pay tax on the money when they withdraw it. These are two different kinds of savings vehicles that may be advantageous to different people in different situations.

Our previous Conservative government introduced tax-free savings accounts and then expanded them. We increased the contribution limit to $10,000 a year. The present government cut back the tax-free savings account. It did not replace it with any other kind of savings vehicle. It reduced the capacity of individuals to be involved in private savings and it has moved in the mandatory direction found in the bill.

The Liberals' argument for cutting back on the tax-free savings account was that only rich people have resources to save. Here is the reality: over 65% of tax-free savings account holders make under $60,000 a year. In fact, almost half of TFSA holders make less than $40,000 per year, and over half of those who max out their tax-free savings account make less than $60,000 per year.

Based on the data we have, it seems that TFSAs are in fact a preferred savings vehicle for those with modest incomes. When we recognize the different mechanics of TFSAs and RRSPs, it is pretty clear why that is, because RRSPs allow us to save on taxes in advance but pay them afterwards. Those who have very high incomes but project that will have relatively lower incomes in the future are more likely to use RRSPs, whereas if an individual expects to have a similar income at their point of retirement or at the point at which they are withdrawing from their TFSA, then they are more likely to get the benefit from a TFSA.

If an individual has a very large income up front, because of the income differential between what they are earning in the present and what they believe they will earn in the future, those with higher incomes are more likely to use RRSPs, relatively speaking. Again, what is in an individual's interest will depend very much on personal circumstances and the variety of different factors that inform their tax situation.

Generally the numbers suggest that TFSAs are not a savings vehicle exclusive to the rich. In fact, they are more likely to be used by those with of modest or lower incomes. That is an important point.

There are a variety of ways the government could consider further expanding the use of voluntary savings vehicles. It could go back to the original amount, the $10,000 a year that we had in place at the time of the election.

I recently met with the Canadian Real Estate Association, which I think has a good proposal for expanding the homebuyers' plan. A lot of people could withdraw more money from their RRSPs to make an initial investment in buying a home. These kinds of changes to these voluntary savings plans could encourage and increase their use.

We have these existing savings vehicles that I think work very well and create good economic incentives and opportunities for people to make these sorts of investments, and yet the government has made a particular choice to move away from these vehicles, to cut the ability of individuals to invest in them, and has instead moved in this mandatory direction. We think that does not show a proper appreciation for the value of individual liberty and freedom with respect to people's own funds. It also misses the practical opportunities that come with these existing savings vehicles that are working very well.

We favour the incentives of voluntary opportunities that come with things like TFSAs and RRSPs, and we see the value in continuing their use and expanding their effectiveness.

Third, I would like to discuss the specific economic problems that come with the plan that the government has proposed, in which we levy a higher payroll deduction on individuals. I would call it a payroll tax. Some members say it is not a tax because the person will get some of it back in the future. Hopefully, that is true of all taxes, that we enjoy some benefit from all taxes. However, this is money that the government requires be deducted and whether or not we call it a tax, it certainly behaves like a tax in an economic sense insofar as it introduces a certain disincentive.

If I am an employer, with the introduction of this new tax, it will become more expensive for me to hire someone. That will create a marginally greater disincentive to hire that person. In fact, there was a survey done by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, which has been very vocal on this issue. They represent small business owners. Here is what it found when it did a survey on the ORRP, the precursor within Ontario to the CPP increase. It found that 69% said they would freeze or cut salaries and 53% of businesses indicated they would have to reduce positions to address the increased costs of hiring. That is a really significant impact. More people will likely be unemployed and people will have their wages cut.

I would ask the members of the government, is it worth it? When we have the alternative of voluntary savings, there is no disincentive to employers or individuals working at their voluntary savings, which they control themselves, but that disincentive does exist with the mandatory savings. So, we are getting nothing instead of something.

I want to read a quote specifically from the president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business about this plan. He said:

It is tremendously disappointing to see that finance ministers are putting Canadian wages, hours and jobs in jeopardy and willfully moving to make an already shaky economy even worse.

That is what the Canadian Federation of Independent Business is hearing from its members. That is what it is hearing the impact of this change would be.

The members across the way need to think about the fact there are better alternatives in place with voluntary savings, and that the plan they are proposing will have real substantial costs for business.

My fourth point is that there are better ways to help our seniors.

When we were in government, we pursued tax reductions to make life more affordable for seniors. We said, instead of the government taking more of their money and making decisions about their future, we should be giving tax reductions back to seniors.

Here is what we did when we were in government. We increased the age credit amount by $2,000; we doubled the pension income credit; we introduced pension income splitting; we enhanced and increased funding for the new horizons for seniors program; we launched the Canadian employers for caregivers action plan; we expanded the targeted initiative for older workers; and we undertook measures to protect the seniors who were using financial services.

The government talks about the GIS. Importantly, when we were in government, we increased the amount that the GIS recipients can earn through employment without any reduction in their GIS benefits, increasing the amount from $500 to $3,500. We increased the age limit for the RRSP to RRIF conversion to 71 years of age from 69 years age. We also established the tax-free savings accounts; and we introduced the largest GIS increase in over 25 years, which gave eligible low-income seniors additional benefits of up to $600 for single seniors and $840 for couples.

There are things we can do through the tax system, through tax reductions. However, we can see a difference in philosophy here. The government wants to take control away from seniors and manage more of their money for them. We want to give those resources back to seniors.

The final point I want to make is about the relationship between liberty and virtue, and I think it is an important one, perhaps one of the most under-discussed aspects of this issue.

The government wants to increase state involvement and, therefore, reduce individuals' involvement in retirement planning by expanding the mandatory CPP deduction. However, the underlying objective is replacing private savings with state collection and distribution. This has a negative impact on the development and practice of those virtues that make for a strong society.

As I have argued before, we should generally seek to give to individuals the greatest possible amount of liberty, because individuals can best judge their own interests and are best positioned to be the most responsible managers of their own affairs. At a practical level, individuals generally know their own affairs better than anyone else.

I think there is a deeper and perhaps more profound argument for liberty, both in general and in this specific case—a more important argument than practical effectiveness.

Liberty, in general, can play a critical role in the development and practice of the virtues. A virtue is a positive quality of character, perhaps the most famous being the four cardinal virtues highlighted by various ancient thinkers: prudence, courage, justice, and temperance. Though there may be disagreement about the origins of these concepts, and though they are rarely explicitly discussed in this place, I think we would all accept their importance. A society characterized by wisdom, courage, justice, and self-control is naturally a better society. It is one in which people have the means to more effectively pursue their own happiness and the happiness of others and one in which strong and good communities can fulfill functions that the government otherwise would have to.

Virtues are like muscles. A person who has never had to exercise self-control, for example, will be less likely to know how to exercise it when a situation arises when it is necessary. The more a virtue muscle is used, the stronger it gets.

I generally doubt the ability of government to make all wise decisions. Even if I had more faith in the wisdom of the state, I would still wish for a society with as much liberty as possible, because a society in which the state removes all possible temptation, occasions for injustice, need for courage, etc., is certainly a worse society, because it is one devoid of the practice of virtue, practise that will always be necessary in one situation or another, practise that is necessary to make perfect.

It is clear from some of the comments made by advocates of an extended pension plan that many of those motivating this change actually want to create a society in which private savings for retirement are not necessary, one in which the practice of putting money aside for the future is not necessary, or at least is less necessary, because the government is doing it for them. This removes one of the most vital ways in which many people learn and practise the virtues of prudence and temperance. The process of denying ourselves things we want in order to save for the future is certainly challenging, but recognizing the need for saving and learning to do it helps one become a better person: wiser, more temperate, and more self-controlled. The qualities of character or virtue one learns by saving money are important and useful. They help us develop prudence and temperance in other areas of life.

Any government policy that purports to remove the need for people to develop certain virtues, I would argue, is deeply injurious to the social good. By robbing people of the means to save through this payroll tax, and by communicating to people that they no longer need to save, the current government would take away tools that I see as vital for the creation of a good society.

I do not want people to have savings decisions made for them. I want people to be able to make decisions to save on their own; yes, to receive some support to do so, to receive the agency, and to receive support if they are not able to or choose not to but also to receive the incentives and the information to make prudent decisions with respect to their own money and to live, by the way, in an economy that allows them the opportunity to live well into retirement if they do so.

I do not think we are yet at a point where everyone has the opportunity or the ability to save as much as he or she needs to pursue a good retirement. That is why we need a stronger economy. That is why we need to continue to create opportunities for small business. That is why the tax-cut changes we made that make life more affordable for seniors are very important. Those things are critical for helping all seniors.

I will say this, as well. An economic system with more liberty more properly reflects the dignity of individuals, because individuals are capable of making prudent decisions about their own financial future and should be given the ability by government to do so. They should not have that pulled away from them.

I will say to the government that perhaps instead of removing space for the individual practise of virtue, the government can apply prudence and temperance in its own financial management. Indeed, the hallmark of a good society is one in which the government is more focused on practising the virtues itself than on micromanaging the lives of others. Again, a good society requires virtue, and liberty provides critical opportunities for the development and practice of virtue.

Just to review, here are the points I have made today.

First, I have made the point that people can save money for themselves. It is perverse to hear the Liberals say, “People are not saving enough for retirement, so we will take more of their money away and then give it back to them later”. What they should be doing instead is looking for ways to give people back more of their own money, and indeed, giving them the incentives and the opportunities to save more of their own resources.

Second, I talked about the existing savings vehicles that are in place and that were cut by the current Liberal government. Those include existing savings vehicles like RRSPs and especially tax-free savings accounts, which we saw cut back on, which are used effectively. The government should be looking for ways of expanding them. Again, I mentioned a proposal for the expansion of the home buyers' plan. We can use those existing savings vehicles to very good effect.

Third, I talked about the economic problems associated with the government's proposal. In fact, what they are talking about is going to cost jobs, hurt wages, and hurt small business. It will have a negative impact on the Canadian economy overall.

I talked about there being better ways to help seniors by cutting taxes.

Finally, I talked about how having a voluntary, as opposed to mandatory, system of savings is positive from the perspective of creating a good and virtuous society.

I look forward to questions.

[Canada Pension Plan, October 24th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my friend's speech with interest.

I have to say this, though: there is an alternative to increasing mandatory premiums. That alternative would be either to give individuals the option of contributing more to their CPP and then receiving more in retirement, or to maintain, and indeed enhance, the existing saving vehicles that give people the incentives and opportunity to save more of their own money and receive a tax benefit for doing so.

The government has chosen the mandatory route, as opposed to offering more choice to individuals. It has chosen increasing mandatory premiums rather than giving individuals flexibility.

We all want to see people have a secure retirement, but can the member help me understand why we should be taking away choice from individuals in that process and not simply empowering them with the means to save for their own retirement and the incentive to do so?

[Abandoned Vessels, October 24th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise to address this issue as a member of Parliament who does not come from a coastal community, but nonetheless sees the importance of this motion and the impact it would have, not just on coastal communities but throughout the country.

We are dealing with a motion that I support because it moves in a positive direction. At the same time, a motion does not have the same authority as legislation. The motion seeks to set us in a direction on this issue. I will mention later a previous actual bill that was proposed by former MP John Weston. We need to see legislation as well as a motion as this will express the will of the House with respect to the direction we want to go. However, it is important that we move forward legislatively to address this important issue for reasons I will go into and for reasons I know many of my colleagues have discussed quite well.

Derelict and abandoned vessels was not an issue I heard about at the doors in Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan. I heard about a lot of different issues. Having listened to the debate, having dug into this topic, it is very clear that this does have an impact on my constituents in a number of different ways. One way is the cost. Members have spoken about the cost implications of the large number of derelict and abandoned vessels, and the cost implications of not currently having an effective framework in place for responding to this problem.

There is the cost implication, which affects all taxpayers in all parts of the country. Even if the cost falls on provincial governments, on municipalities, there is obviously an interconnectedness in the transfer of resources between different levels of government. There is only one taxpayer at the end of the day. This is important for the impact it would have on my constituents as well as people in other parts of the country.

There is the environmental impact. All of us are invested in having and maintaining the vibrancy of our coastlines from an environmental perspective. These are places that my constituents visit on a regular basis and appreciate the opportunity to do so. They appreciate the benefits that come with tourism and environmental beauty in those places.

There is also the impact on commerce for my constituency, the importance of our coastlines, of our ports for imports and exports. This has a consequential impact for them as well, even for people who do not live in coastal communities.

That is why I am pleased to see this and to speak in favour of this and to encourage members of the House as well to consider the next steps that come out of the motion. Hopefully we will be able to move forward, even in this Parliament, with some kind of legislative response in the future.

Just by way of context, we have a situation right now where it is estimated that there are close to 400 abandoned vessels. Again, as somebody who does not come from a coastal community, this would seem surprising that people simply would abandon their property in the middle of nature. Certainly that would not happen with a truck or RV. Nobody would think that was a normal or acceptable thing to do, yet we have the issue of abandoned vessels that are causing problems along our coastline.

Right now, municipalities in many cases lack the means to do it, financial or otherwise, and the Coast Guard will only remove vessels if there is an assessment that there is some kind of imminent environmental risk in place.

This leaves us where we are, which is with this very large number of abandoned vessels. In cases where removal is required, there is a significant cost associated with it. My colleague from South Shore—St. Margarets, in her initial speech on this, referred to a vessel that cost $12 million to remove. The vessel's name was the MV Miner. That is an enormous sum of money. If we can have a framework in place that deals with this proactively, it actually prevents the problem from existing and prevents the need to respond to it later. That is a lot of money saved. The costs for dealing with vessels will vary widely, depending on the size, the kind of vessel and these sorts of things, but costs can be up into the millions of dollars, as we have heard.

Clearly we have a reason as a House to try to address proactively to confront the problem of existing abandoned vessels, but also to try to put in place an effective framework that will prevent us from having to expend these kinds of dollars in the future. That is the context and that is what we are trying to confront today.

The motion has a number of different aspects to it.

It calls on the government to address the issue of existing abandoned vessels and it puts in place a timeline to do so, and that is important. It is valuable when we have motions in place to say by when and to define the process so it is not just a purely an aspirational statement.

It then calls for prohibition of abandonment and realistic penalties to put in place mechanisms to ensure people do not abandon vessels in the future.

Associated with that, we have the educational component. It is important, if we are to put in new place new rules, for those who own vessels and may be affected by this new framework to be aware of the framework and to be prepared to respond to it. The educational component goes with those new prohibitions and penalties.

The fourth important issue, which ties into this issue of effective enforcement, is improved vessel owner identification. Therefore, if there is an abandoned vessel, there is a good mechanism for ensuring that the person who is responsible for that abandonment can be identified, or at least the owner of the vessel can be, to start the process to ensure there is some real accountability in place.

Finally, there is a mechanism in place for government assistance to address this issue over the long term.

There are a number of different components to the motion, all of which have an important place as part of the discussion to say we have to address the issue of existing abandoned vessels, but also proactively. That proactive part not only is important for the environment. Dealing with the existing vessels addresses the current environmental challenges, but proactively in the future hopefully we can not only prevent the potential environmental problems, but also deal with the cost factor, preventing the taxpayer from being on the hook for some of these costs, whether it be municipal, provincial, or federal taxpayers.

Having spoken in favour of the motion, as much as possible, it is important for us to move forward with legislation, not just with motions. Motions express the will of the House, the aspirations, the opinions of the House, but they are not binding on the government. The government is not required to respond or to implement. Although the motion imagines a legislative framework and lays it out, legislation is needed to bind the actions of government and certainly of people outside of the government.

It is unfortunate but we do have cases where the House passes motions, but the government then chooses not to act on them, or the government in some way reinterprets them to say that the motion did not really mean this, that it meant something else. This is always the challenge when we have discussions of motions in the House.

As I mentioned, a former member of Parliament, John Weston from B.C., had Bill C-695, which did not contain all the different components in this motion. Perhaps one advantage of a motion is that we can, no pun intended, cast the net wider, but legislation has that added force.

Bill C-695 prohibited vessel abandonment and it introduced penalties to do so. It dealt with that proactive potential future abandonment of vessels issue, and that was good legislation. I would certainly support that legislation if it were brought back before the House. Maybe another member, or maybe even the government, will see fit to bring forward Bill C-695 from the previous Parliament and the great work done on that by Conservative member John Weston.

Overall, this is a positive motion. We like the direction in which it goes. It is a step in the right direction. It does not get us all the way to the finish line, but it is an important step. I congratulate the member for bringing it forward and I look forward to supporting it at second reading.

[Income Tax Act, October 20th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I want to briefly put on the record my strong support for the bill. I think it is an excellent bill and I appreciate the work of the member for Cambridge in bringing it forward.

At the same time, I understand that some members of the government oppose it, so I expect we will have an interesting vote next week. I would encourage all members to take the time to read the details of the bill and appreciate its importance.

Briefly in my comments I want to say that there are some who question and dispute the value of what they call “boutique” tax credits, or specific tax credits aimed at specific things. I think that is really the heart of the debate. I do not think any member here is opposed to first aid or opposed to encouraging more first aid, but it is this question of whether we should have specific tax credits to help encourage people in a positive direction.

I would defend the value of certain specific tax credits that provide an effective incentive to encourage people to take advantage of opportunities that they might not otherwise and to make it easier for people to afford things that we regard as socially positive. I think there is good economic as well as social logic to these kinds of things.

From an economic perspective, economists identify something called “positive externalities”. In other words, if in an economic interaction there is a positive social effect, then it is in society's interest to create additional incentives to encourage people to make those kinds of interactions. Then there is a corresponding analysis for negative externalities, where if there is an economic interaction between two parties that has a negative effect on a third party, it is in society's interest to try to discourage it.

Therefore, when we have something like people taking first aid training, which generates positive external social benefits beyond the individual receiving the training and the individual providing the training, then there is a social interest in providing that additional incentive, and that is what the bill would do. It would provide that extra economic incentive in that direction in terms of a positive externality.

This tax credit would also make the thing for which the tax credit exists, in this case first aid, more accessible to individuals who might not be able to access it. Therefore, that is obviously a positive.

I want to say as well that when it comes to the question of tax cuts and how we cut taxes, we should not just be looking for a smaller government but we should be looking for a stronger society as well. The bill would achieve both of those objectives. It would provide a tax reduction and would give money back to ordinary Canadians, but in the process, it would create a stronger society, a society with people with the capacity to help each other within their own communities.

This is what we should be looking for. It is not more government, not simply less government for its own sake, but a reduced role for government and a corresponding strengthening of society. That is why I like these kinds of tax credits, because they provide that additional incentive for people to build up and be active within their communities at the same time as they provide a tax reduction.

[Business of Supply, October 20th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. I appreciate her commitment to international human rights issues in general. Certainly we have found a number of cases in this House when Conservatives and New Democrats have been able to find common ground on those kinds of issues.

I want to ask the member a question on the approach to the debate we have had today. We have really tried to move this in a nonpartisan direction. We accepted an amendment that removed some of the language that the government saw as more critical. Now we have a motion that should be supportable by all parties. It talks about the fundamental issue of protecting Yazidis. It gives the government a relatively extended timeline, and it gives a reasonable approach that is not from one party or another but really represents what the House should do together.

I really hope, and I would like to hear the member's thoughts, that we will see members of the government stand up and support this motion that gives them every reason to support it: reasonable targets, reasonable timelines.