Jonathan Tremblay

[Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012, February 15th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, to show support for my colleague following that last question from the government, I would like to say that we on this side will always oppose omnibus bills that directly attack the economies of our regions or certain segments of the population, even though an omnibus bill may contain some decent measures. There are always negative measures and, unfortunately, they overshadow the rest.

I am pleased to speak to Bill C-48, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Excise Tax Act, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, the First Nations Goods and Services Tax Act and related legislation.

Generally speaking, bills should not be this lengthy. But since it should have been introduced years ago, we can understand why it is so large. It contains amendments that should have been made long ago and that must be made now.

I would like to congratulate the minister on finally introducing this bill, given that the last time Parliament passed a technical tax bill was in 2001. I believe we can say that this is long overdue.

In her 2009 fall report, the Auditor General at the time, Sheila Fraser, said this:

No income tax technical bill has been passed since 2001. Although the government has said that an annual technical bill of routine housekeeping amendments to the Act is desirable, this has not happened. As a result, the Department of Finance Canada has a backlog of at least 400 technical amendments that have not been enacted, including 250 “comfort letters” dating back to 1998, recommending changes that have not been legislated.

How is it that the last technical tax bill was passed in 2001, when the government acknowledged the need to introduce such a bill every year? Perhaps those were simply meaningless words from the minister. It happens all the time with bills. This is not the first time this sort of thing has happened with a bill.

A few months after he came to the position, the Minister of Finance introduced the first version of a bill to make technical reforms to the tax system. I say “introduced” rather than “enacted” for a reason.

It was not possible to enact that bill, and not because it had not gone through all the necessary steps in the House; rather, it was because the government decided to throw everything out and prorogue the first session of the 39th Parliament, in 2007. The bill was reintroduced, but it must be noted that two elections and three prorogations later, no legislation has yet been enacted.

It is all very well to recognize that a bill like Bill C-48 needs to be introduced every year, but let us not forget to pass it. Let us hope that in the case of this bill, the Conservatives are not preparing us for another prorogation.

Bill C-48 implements about 200 technical amendments to the tax system, spread over more than a decade. It is therefore essential that we pass it, because ultimately, these changes to the system will have a positive impact on revenues and will deter tax avoidance.

We in the New Democrats have long spoken out against tax avoidance, unlike former governments. We believe that we must fight tax avoidance and tax evasion, while preserving the integrity of our tax system. For that reason, I will be supporting the changes made by this bill. It does not solve everything and we will have to do more to deal with tax evasion, but this kind of bill needs to be passed.

I would now like to talk about how thick Bill C-48 is. In the last year and a half, we have learned how fond the Conservatives are of giving us a lot to read. But they do not give us figures, testimony, scientific studies or exhaustive data to read—just a lot of different laws in a single omnibus bill.

It is not reasonable for one bill to lead to so many changes to so many laws. For once, at least, the laws are closely connected. I will therefore not accuse the minister of putting everything but the kitchen sink into one bill, this time.

I simply want him to understand that if he had done his job properly and each year we had passed a bill like this one, we would not be having to consider a brick like this. The work of Parliament would then be much more effective, and more importantly, much more transparent, not to mention the fact that we would have a good administrator for a government. This government is unfortunately proving that the opposite is true.

The massive size of the bill proves that there is still much work to be done in order to transpose these kinds of technical changes into legislation. If the job is not done, it will penalize the business community and complicate the process of the evaluation that Parliament must do.

However, I would like to reassure the minister: he is not the only one to blame. He did introduce a similar bill in the past, but we might say that his boss did not think it important enough to be passed. He preferred to keep opening Parliament and shutting it down.

It is difficult for a bill of this magnitude to get through the whole legislative process. We must not forget that the Liberals are also partly responsible. They were in power for the first five years after the last such bill was passed in 2001. What is more, some Department of Finance comfort letters date back to 1998. I am not an accounting expert, but according to my calculations, fifteen years have passed since 1998. The government should have been doing this work regularly every year for a long time now.

There were also warnings when the Liberal government was in power. For example, Marlene Legare, former senior chief of the sales tax division of the Department of Finance, said the following when she appeared before the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce on September 20, 2000:

Until now, the choice has probably been more in favour of combining measures so as to put forward fewer bills. I think the lesson that we learned from this experience is that it may be preferable to change the balance somewhat. That may mean putting forward smaller bills which would contain measures that would be enacted on a more timely basis.

Yet, here we are 12 years after the most recent technical bill. The idea of a greater number of “smaller bills” does not apply here. At this very moment, as we debate this bill, there are still 200 more changes announced in comfort letters, which are agreements approved by Parliament. As everyone knows, in Canada, Parliament passes laws. That is the case even though we sometimes get the impression that some people would prefer that it be done another way.

Bill C-48 contains a number of positive changes. I would like to mention three changes that have not yet been pointed out by the government. First, some income tax restrictions have been removed to help labour-sponsored venture capital corporations address transition issues resulting from the elimination of the support program for such corporations.

Second, the formula for allocating the taxable income of air transportation companies has been changed to ensure that the income generated by taxing these companies is allocated to the provinces and territories where the company is permanently located.

Finally, there is the implementation of a measure concerning the tax treatment of shares held by short-term residents, for the purposes of the air transportation tax, according to the comfort letters dated 2003 and 2007. The bill is not a step in the wrong direction. I simply want the minister to understand that in the future, it should not take so long to get this through.

To conclude my speech, I would like to quote Denis St.-Pierre, chair of the tax and fiscal policy advisory group of the Certified General Accountants Association of Canada:

First, the government must introduce a technical tax amendments bill. The last time a technical tax bill was passed by Parliament was over 11 years ago. Literally hundreds of unlegislated tax amendments to the Income Tax Act—which I showed this committee last year by bringing the Income Tax Act, if you recall—have been proposed, but not yet enacted, which brings uncertainty and unpredictability to the process. Second, we strongly feel that implementing a sunset provision would ensure that tax amendments are legislated...

He went on to say that it was necessary and healthy for our economy to introduce amendments annually or on a regular basis.

[Petitions, February 13th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to present a petition supporting Bill C-400, which would finally give Canadians a national housing strategy.

[Employment Insurance, February 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, if the minister does not want to listen to the NDP or the tens of thousands of people protesting out east, maybe she will listen to her own party.

Michel-Éric Castonguay, a Conservative Party candidate who lost in my riding during the last election, has said that he does not understand why the Conservatives are insisting on pushing this reform. He said that the minister is punishing the unemployed and that the regions will suffer. Better yet, he criticized the minister's sugar coating of the situation. He said, “We have to call a spade a spade. For goodness' sake, quotas are quotas.”

Why are the Conservatives abandoning the regions?

[Business of Supply, February 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is quite right when she says that, unfortunately, certain jobs are not year-round. We cannot build 10 Walmart stores and five McDonald's restaurants in a small town. There can only be so many McJobs. There are limits.

Indeed, some people do not have work year-round. We can bring in an industry in the secondary processing of lumber or minerals, but that will not create 10,000 jobs overnight. It requires a concerted effort and long-term vision. So we need employment insurance until that can be achieved.

[Business of Supply, February 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, there is no need to worry: people in my riding know exactly what recourse they have. And they know it is limited.

The House really does not seem to understand, and I find that frustrating. Fifteen meetings in January? I bet they were pointless.

Those directly involved—people who work for movements such as Action Chômage, for example—wanted to meet with ministers. But the meetings never happened and these people were ignored. It took weeks for them to get a response and, in the end, they were only able to speak with a public servant. Who knows where he was located; he could barely speak French. No, there have not been meaningful consultations.

[Business of Supply, February 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his question.

I find this situation frustrating for two reasons. First of all, they did not mention employment insurance reform at all during the election. Second, they never used Parliament's democratic institutions to bring people here and consult those who are directly affected by these measures, whether they represent the business sector or the community at large.

The Conservatives had no intention whatsoever of bringing in representatives from the affected industries in my riding and in our various regions. Some even had the door slammed in their faces.

What is the point of making changes and proclaiming that it is for the people when the people were not even consulted?

Everyone in the House agrees that the regions need more diverse economies. But in the meantime, we need measures such as employment insurance that allow people to stay in their communities, to have financial security, to make plans for the future and to watch industries develop in their communities. Otherwise, they will simply pack up and leave. It is a vicious cycle. The region's economy will be decimated.

[Business of Supply, February 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to thank the hon. member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour for his speech and for the verbal skill with which he fights for his constituents.

As you see, I am wearing a symbolic black hole on my lapel today, to represent the black hole or spring gap in EI and the fight against it by workers opposed to this odious EI reform.

I would like to take this opportunity on an opposition day to express my concerns and those of my constituents regarding the Conservative government's draconian changes to employment insurance.

Need I remind the minister that the Conservatives did not consult the people of Canada and Quebec on this proposal? Nor did they even mention their plan to restrict employment insurance during the last election.

We are all aware that this assault against our regional economies and workers in seasonal industries is causing anger and a profound feeling of injustice among those who contribute to this system, the real owners of the EI fund.

Recently, demonstrations took place at Service Canada offices all across the country. That wave of protest set off by the Conservatives will wash over the eastern part—and all parts—of Canada, because the cause is just and the demands are justified.

This reform affects everyone, not only the employees and employers who contribute, but also the entire middle class, which will be irresistibly drawn toward the big cities.

The Conservative government must reconsider its position with regard to seasonal workers and stop trying to make voters believe that draining resources from rural regions is a solution to the lack of work.

I hope that the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development is listening to us now, because we do not understand the reason behind this fury and obsession against the regions. Why make cuts to a self-financing program and thereby deprive thousands of families of insurance against the loss of employment revenue?

The minister is being very naive or blindly optimistic when she claims that her reform will put people back to work. What we see on the ground is bafflement at the federal government's refusal to acknowledge the negative effects of this reform, such as the exodus of skilled workers from the regions and the breakdown of the social fabric there.

The Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development ought to remember or be more aware of the human aspect right there in her department's name. To me, it seems that “human resources” includes the notion of humanity.

The minister tells us that she really wants to manage the EI fund better. And how? By asking her departmental staff to set off on a witch hunt, by asking them to meet quotas of $40,000 in cuts each month per inspector, at a time when less than 40% of potential claimants qualify for employment insurance benefits.

I think it is conceivable that some people commit fraud. But what is not conceivable is the Conservative government's unhealthy tendency to act as judge and jury in such affairs and make an assumption of guilt regarding those who really need the powerful economic tool that EI can be.

Do these few cases of fraud justify all this upheaval? Is it necessary to mete out so much punishment? Is it necessary to scrape whole regions down their bare bones so that people of good faith and honest workers are caught in a tight net and receive the same prisoner-like treatment as the few who commit fraud? The answer is no.

It is inhumane that the Conservative minister, wearing a mask of justice and sound management, makes the honest citizens, the majority, suffer the consequences of the misdeeds of a minority.

Should the government’s priorities not be quality of life, economic security, pride and the regional economies we heard so much talk about during the last campaign?

With the current reform, a seasonal worker falls into the category of a frequent user and becomes suspect or, in the minister’s words, a bad guy. For example, after two months of benefits—which means in early summer—workers who are skilled operators of the specialized machinery at the Mont-Sainte-Anne ski centre in Beaupré will have to accept any job within 100 km of their home, and at a lower salary.

In such cases, it is not only the workers who are penalized, but also the employer who trained them, who will have to start over every year to train its workforce. Employers will no longer have access to skilled workers. Many sectors of activity in the cities, such as construction, education and community organizations, will be penalized for recruiting and retaining their employees. Has the government considered the additional costs for such employers?

We are therefore asking the Conservative government to re-establish the pilot project providing five additional weeks to avoid the 17-week black hole that seasonal workers are currently facing on the upper north shore and in Charlevoix.

We must quickly terminate this reform, which did enough damage last January 6. The reform is restricting access to benefits, putting downward pressure on wages and driving workers in our area into poverty, not to mention the fact that it is the provinces that will bear the increased costs of social programs.

The Conservatives and their minister have been turning a deaf ear for too long. They accuse seasonal workers of being frauds, and in the same breath, they claim that the program is there for those who really need it. I call upon all these right-minded champions of virtue to come and tell my fellow citizens to their faces that henceforth they will have to drive 200 km, accept a 30% pay cut and get ready to serve as cheap labour.

Let them come and tell people who, because of the nature of the industry that employs them, will not be going back to work until early May that they and their family of three children are not in need, when they have just received their last week of employment insurance benefits. For them, what lies ahead is a black hole. They do not have a penny to pay rent or buy groceries.

Employment insurance is a useful and necessary program in regions where the economy is based on seasonal work. Despite the efforts already made by stakeholders to diversify the economy, the fact remains that tourism, fishing, forestry and agriculture are the main industries in our regions, and it is thanks to the skills of the men and women who work in these industries that they are able to prosper.

Despite the need to maintain the transitional measures and the recommendations to that effect, the Conservative government terminated urgent and essential financial assistance measures in November 2011. It is time for the Conservative government to stop being so stubborn for no reason and assume its responsibilities by stimulating the regional economy rather than letting it go down in flames.

People from eastern Quebec are getting organized, non-partisan round tables have been set up, a coalition has been formed and a meeting with the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development was recently requested. I hope that the minister will take this opportunity to gain a better understanding of the reality of our communities.

I would like to close by reiterating our request to this government:

That the House call on the government to reverse devastating changes it has made to Employment Insurance which restrict access and benefits, depress wages, push vulnerable Canadians into poverty and download costs to the provinces; and reinstate the Extra Five Weeks pilot project to avoid the impending “black hole” of financial insecurity facing workers in seasonal industries and the regional economies they support.

[Employment Insurance, December 11th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the minister's reforms to employment insurance are making no one happy. Even some of her colleagues here in the House, like the hon. member for Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, are not satisfied with this reform.

It was because of her botched reform that the minister had to do an about-face on the working while on claim pilot project. Now the minister is abandoning her war against the people of Cape Breton and reinstating the EI claims of hundreds of people who were victims of a witch hunt by Service Canada.

Instead of admitting her errors and backtracking all the time, will she consult the NDP and workers before making decisions?

[Conservative Government, December 11th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government keeps increasing the provinces' tax burden. In the past year and a half, we have seen the Prime Minister impose a new formula for health transfers, which means a loss of over $36 billion for the provinces.

The Conservatives also decided to once again impose prison sentences for minor offences thereby increasing the number of inmates who will end up in provincial prisons. Yet there is no financial assistance to accompany their new policy. Once again, the provinces are being left to fend for themselves.

But it does not stop there. As a result of the new regulations that restrict access to employment insurance, many claimants are being forced to turn to social assistance, which places yet another burden on the provinces, since they are responsible for managing this program. And that is not to mention the negative impact this is having on the economy of the regions, which have been hard hit.

I could go on, but my time is short. So let us simply hope that this government will listen to reason in 2013.

[Jobs and Growth Act, 2012, December 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, before the bill to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act was introduced, environmental studies were carried out to determine the impact of new construction.

Federal and provincial studies were never carried out at the same time. In fact, when the federal government carried out a study, the provincial government did not, and vice versa.

Now that the federal government will no longer be carrying out studies, the provinces will automatically have to do them, if they have a program that allows them to do so. Therefore, some provinces will not be doing them.

I would like the member to explain why the Conservatives have decided to transfer expenditures to the provinces, or why they have decided to transfer environmental responsibilities to the provinces.