Jim Maloway

[Economic Recovery Act (Stimulus), November 16th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's speech with great interest. I know he is very supportive of the home renovation tax credit. It is certainly not a new idea; it has been tried by many governments in tough times and even in good times in the past. The member is on to something in that the government recognizes that this is a very popular program. In fact, the government is going to announce an extension of the program. I think the Conservatives are planning to play politics with this. I think they are planning to hold off on the announcement until budget time next spring or whenever they feel an election is imminent. I believe the decision has already been made to extend the program. The Conservatives are just looking for a good time to announce the extension.

[Economic Recovery Act (stimulus), November 6th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I would like to suggest to the member that if the program is extended by the government, which I think is probable given the budget and possible election in the spring, on July 1 next year the HST is going to kick in. Is there not a question here about whether or not this will just be a wash? Any benefits that people would get by hiring renovators to renovate their houses will be taken away when the HST is put on all those renovation contracts.

The second point I would like the member to deal with is the whole issue of the program itself. Perhaps if the Conservatives do announce an extension of the program next year, they might look at some sort of tax credit system for people of low income so that the program could be expanded to apply to even more people who could use it.

[Economic Recovery Act (stimulus), November 6th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I want to go back to a statement made earlier by the member for Scarborough—Guildwood in which he indicated that the stimulus package in the United States has a much better system of accounting attached to it, which is why, at the end of the day, it should have less problems with boondoggles than perhaps our government will be directly faced with because it does not have the accounting in place that it should have.

Does the member have any observations or comments about that issue?

[Petitions, November 6th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I present a petition which calls for equal employment insurance benefits for adoptive parents.

Adoption is an important and essential act in a compassionate, caring and just society. Under the current EI program, adoptive parents are given 35 weeks of paid leave followed by a further 15 weeks of unpaid leave. Under the law, a biological mother is given both the first 35 weeks and the latter 15 weeks as paid leave.

Adoptions in Canada are often expensive and lengthy and they are stressful on the adoptive parents. Recent studies have shown that an additional 15 weeks of paid leave would help parents better support their adoptive children and handle many of the specific issues they must face.

The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to support Bill C-413, which would amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code to ensure that an adoptive parent is entitled to the same number of weeks of paid leave as a biological mother of a newborn child.

[Economic Recovery Act (Stimulus), November 6th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, members know there was a worldwide recession last year at this time. In fact, Iceland actually declared bankruptcy.

However, while all this was happening, the Conservative government was totally oblivious to the state of the economy. During the election, the Prime Minister was saying that the land was strong and that the stock market crash was creating buying opportunities.

It was not until January, under the combined pressure of the opposition parties, that the Conservatives in fact introduced a stimulus package.

However, he is right that the Americans have a better reporting system—

[Economic Recovery Act (Stimulus), November 6th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, while the home renovation tax credit is hardly a new idea, certainly we have had critical home repair programs in Manitoba since the seventies, it has proven to be very successful, particularly at times when the economy is in some difficulties.

I would like to ask the member whether at this point he has any idea as to how many people are taking advantage of the program and what the tax losses would be to the government.

I would also ask him if he is prepared today to announce, because I noticed he said it was a temporary program, that he is planning to extend it for another year.

[Fairness for the Self-Employed Act, November 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I want to note that when we discussed Bill C-50, dealing with long-tenured workers, the government had actual statistics or figures that it could give us. It projected that Bill C-50 would affect 190,000 people and that it would cost roughly $1 billion.

I ask the member to provide us similar statistics for this bill. Surely before the government would introduce a bill of this type, it would have some projections as to how many people might be affected by this initiative and how many people are expected to apply in year one, two, three and year five.

I understand it will be a self-financing program, but if it is not, how will the shortfalls be made up?

Could the member tell us why the government has not released details similar to the same type of details it released in Bill C-50 just two weeks ago?

[Fairness for the Self-Employed Act, November 5th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I want to follow-up with a question that has to do more with the previous government speaker. I asked him to provide us with the projections for the uptake on the program. In other words, how many people does the government think will take advantage of the program in the first or second year, and the cost of the program. I also asked what would happen with overruns. His answer was simply that the program would be self-financing, but if it did not self-finance, the premiums might go up 1¢ or 2¢.

The point is with Bill C-50, the bill dealing with long tenured workers, the government projected 190,000 participants would be involved and it projected a cost of $1 billion.

In this bill, the government must have done a similar analysis. I would like to know where the analysis is. How many people does the government project would be helped by this program in the first year, two years and three years?

[Fairness for the Self-Employed Act, November 5th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for his presentation.

Does the government have any projections as to the uptake of this program? How many people will be affected by it? How many people will be applying for it, projected? In terms of its cost, who makes up for it if there are cost overruns in the program and where does the money to make up those costs come from?

[Fairness for the Self-Employed Act, November 5th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, the fact of the matter is that in many cases they do not have the ability to plan their move to self-employment. It is basically thrust on them.

There are people who are able to set up and plan their affairs in such a way as to get into a self-employed situation through working for a company, learning how that company operates, and basically looking ahead six months to a year and then saying that their goal is to become self-employed by that time.

However, many others just simply find that they have no jobs and are forced into self-employment overnight. They are forced with the decision of trying to stay afloat and basically become a business person. We know that statistically businesses just do not last in a major fashion beyond five years.

I do not know what the figure is exactly but a very high number of businesses fail within the first five years and very few businesses survive past the five year mark.

By the way, that is why franchises have become such a popular item and a popular approach for people to take because the franchising concept, while it has a lot of negatives in some ways, has proven to be successful. If one signs in on a franchise, one can probably enhance one's chances by perhaps 100% in being successful for a much longer period.

In terms of the employment insurance route, my colleague talked about having full EI benefits available and that we should look to that in the future. This bill is a very good first step, but perhaps in the future, next year, the government might look at developing the system a little further, perhaps to allow self-employed people access to the full system under certain circumstances.

I think that would be the way to look at it long-term.