Kyle Seeback

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, May 2nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege to share time with the member for Edmonton—Leduc. I am sure that he would have used these 10 minutes in a fantastic way, and I am honoured that he chose to share them with me so that I can add my comments to this debate.

Before I get into the substance of what I will speak about today, I will hit some of the important highlights. The budget and the budget implementation are key drivers of the economic success of our country, and we have had great economic success in Canada. One of the things that is often talked about by members of my party is the fantastic job creation we have had since the peak of the recession. We have over 900,000 net new jobs. We know that 90% of those jobs are full-time jobs, and 80% of them come from the private sector, which is important. My friends from the New Democratic Party would like to believe that the way to grow the economy is to hire into the public service, but we believe that private sector jobs are the key drivers of economic growth.

Canada's job creation record since the recession is among the best in the G7. Improvement in employment over the recovery is, in fact, the best in the G7. One key indicator I always look at is our unemployment rate compared to the rate in the United States. Historically, we have had a significantly higher unemployment rate than the United States. Due to the great leadership of our Prime Minister and to our economic action plans, we actually have an unemployment rate that is lower than the rate in the United States, which is significant.

With respect to investment, we have recovered all the business investment lost during the recession, which is also unique among the G7 countries.

Members might feel that this is a bit like Groundhog Day, but great minds think alike. The member for Edmonton—Leduc talked about a couple of key points in this budget implementation act. I would like to highlight, again, some of the points he spoke to.

One issue that is very important is the accelerated capital cost allowance for manufacturers. My colleague spoke about that, and I will as well. My riding, which is in the great city of Brampton, has a proud tradition of manufacturing, and these are welcomed programs.

The accelerated capital cost allowance would be extended for an additional two years. It would allow manufacturers to purchase new machinery and equipment and have the cost of those purchases written off over a much shorter period of time. It would allow business people to buy that equipment and machinery, increase their productivity and therefore be more competitive in the increasingly competitive global environment in manufacturing. This has been very well received. The president and CEO of CME, Jayson Myers,said:

The budget recognizes the importance of manufacturing and exporting for each and every Canadian, as an anchor of high-value, high-paying jobs in all parts of the country and across all sectors of the economy.... The business is rapidly changing with new customers, new competitors, new technologies and new skills requirements. This budget will make a real difference in helping our manufacturers and exporters compete and win in global markets.

That is an exceptional program that would help our manufacturers.

Also, with respect to infrastructure, we often hear New Democrats comment that we are not investing in infrastructure. We are not doing enough. We should help cities. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. We have made significant investments in infrastructure. In fact, they are the largest infrastructure investments in the history of any federal government, with $53 billion in long-term support. It is composed of $32.2 billion in the community improvement fund and is sub-composed of an indexed gas fund.

What the New Democrats seem to forget is that it was this government that made the transfer of the gas tax permanent, which was a key ask of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. Now we would index it, which, again, was something municipalities asked for. These would be funds municipalities could count on, year after year, to make investments in the infrastructure needs in their communities.

We have had significant investments in infrastructure in my city of Brampton. We can look at the investment in the AcceleRide program and the investment in the Züm buses, which Bramptonians are very pleased about.

Our mayor was very happy with those investments. I have a quote from the great mayor of Brampton: “I am encouraged by the 2013 federal budget which will help municipalities...”.

Of course this came from the FCM itself: “Today's budget delivers significant gains for Canada's cities and communities”.

If that is not a ringing endorsement of our budget, I do not know what is.

I also want to talk about one other aspect of the budget, which I consider to be important with respect to the first nations land management. We are going to invest a further $9 million over two years for the expansion of the FNLMA regime. Why is that important? I sit on the aboriginal affairs committee, and I can say that one of the best ways to unlock the economic potential of first nation communities is to allow them to move at the speed of business, to exempt them from the land code provisions of the Indian Act. That is exactly what the FNLMA does. It allows first nations to enact their own land codes and therefore be able to develop their land and, that great phrase, move at the speed of business, so they can continue to economically prosper.

We believe these additional funds would allow 33 first nations to move into the regime. There are currently 39 that are fully operational, and 30 are in the process of drafting their land codes. This would greatly add to the improvement of the quality of life on first nations.

Quickly, one of the other things I wanted to talk about is with respect to the donor super credit, which is of course going to encourage Canadians to make charitable donations. We know the great work that gets done all across our communities in this country with our charitable organizations. The first-time donor super credit would provide an additional 25% tax credit for a first-time donor, up to $1,000 in monetary donations. I think this would have an exceptional impact on the giving of Canadians across this country.

It is also important to note the things we would do: the accelerated capital cost allowance; the extension of the mineral exploration tax credits, which my colleague talked about; the investments we are making in infrastructure. All of these things would be done while balancing the budget. We remain on track to balance the budget in 2015-16, and we are going to make sure the budget is balanced, because it is important for Canadians and important for the government, and we would do all the things we are talking about in the budget and still be able to balance it in the coming years.

From my pre-budget consultations, and I also did some post-budget consultations with local businesses in my community, I can say that a number of the things they were looking for are in the budget. I do not have time, but we could talk about the new job training credit, which is being worked on. It is very exciting.

One of the business owners in my riding sent me an email after he had reviewed the budget, and I am going to read what he said because I think it is reflective of the general view of small businesses in my community:

Economic Action Plan 2013 builds on the strong foundation the government laid last year, create jobs and economic growth while keeping taxes low and returning to a balanced Budget in 2015. Economic Action Plan 2013 demonstrates to hardworking Canadian families that our Government is committed to their priorities: jobs, growth and long-term prosperity.

That is from Herman Custodio, from Custodio's Studio Inc., which is in beautiful downtown Brampton. He is a great business owner in my local community.

For these reasons, I fully support our budget and, of course, the budget implementation act.

[Petitions, April 24th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present two petitions on behalf of churches in my riding, the Canadian Reform Church of Brampton and Saint Anne's Church.

Both petitions, and the people who signed them, call upon the House of Commons to condemn discrimination against girls through sex-selective abortion and to do all it can to prevent sex-selective abortions from being carried out in Canada.

[Pope John Paul II Day Act, April 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to be able to speak today about the bill being put forward by my colleague.

It is an important bill, because it celebrates and brings recognition to a man who, in my view, rose above merely being a religious figure. Pope John Paul II was a living symbol of unity. His work was not just to disseminate the word of God but to share in the vital values that we as Canadians share: peace, tolerance and liberty.

Pope John Paul II was, of course, also a man of God. In that role he had many accomplishments. I am not a Catholic, and I was not raised in the Catholic faith. That is why when I rise today to talk about Pope John Paul II, it is because of the things he did as a religious figure, but not through religion.

Pope John Paul II accomplished incredible things in this world. If he had not taken his message, his simple message, his rallying cry, “Be not afraid”, into the heart of communist east Europe, where would the world be today?

It is simple to say that it would have happened anyway. However, I do not believe so. When he went to Poland for his first visit in 1970 for his nine-day pilgrimage, he warned communist authorities that the papacy would be watching them closely. Let us think about this. This is back in the times of the Iron Curtain. These were bold words.

Marxism in eastern Europe was a cult. Communist leaders wanted to eradicate the traditions of history in the name of a new kind of society and to shape a new kind of citizen. When the pope went to Poland, he did not speak only of God. He spoke of history. He spoke of the 600th anniversary of Poland's oldest university. He spoke of the 40th anniversary of the Warsaw uprisings.

This was deliberate. These were powerful words. These were words that inspired people in Poland. It is not a coincidence that a year later, Poles found the courage to stand in solidarity in the first mass anti-communist political movement. They began to organize themselves. Any student of history can look and see what happened next. Freedom came to Poland, and it spread. It spread to Czechoslovakia, Hungary, East Germany, Romania and Bulgaria. The pope gave people confidence, the confidence to stand up.

This is an important legacy. It is why it is beyond his being a religious figure that we should recognize his contributions. Those contributions were not just there. We have heard about many of them from my friend who just spoke and from the member for Mississauga East—Cooksville himself.

Of course, he spoke out very strongly against apartheid in South Africa. He criticized the dictatorship of Jean-Claude Duvalier in Haiti, and he visited. His visit led to protests and the end of a dictatorship. We could go on. We could talk about Chile as well. This was a man whose words inspired. They inspired people to stand up for themselves.

We can also talk about World Youth Day. My colleague talked about that as well. It is not just a celebration of the Catholic faith. He delivered important messages to people. In 2002, when he came to Toronto, he said, “The world you are inheriting is a world which desperately needs a new sense of brotherhood and human solidarity”.

That was his message. His message was to build bridges and come together in unity. It is a message that is so important. His hope of uniting those from diverse backgrounds and beliefs continues to be brought to fruition every time we have a World Youth Day.

I want to conclude with a few remarks.

In June 2004, President George Bush awarded the Pope the Medal of Freedom, which is the highest civil honour in America. The citation itself is so important, and it is another reason why I am so proud to stand here today. The citation said “...this son of Poland whose principled stand for peace and freedom has inspired millions and helped to topple communism and tyranny”. I could not have said it better myself.

Pope John Paul II embodied peace, faith, compassion and liberty. That is why I am proud to stand in support of April 2 as Pope John Paul II day here in Canada. I want to thank my colleague from Mississauga East—Cooksville for bringing this forward and for giving Canadians an opportunity on that day to reflect on the incredible legacy and the gift we received all across the world from this fantastic man.

[Business of Supply, April 16th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, he is new, so I understand that he might not know who he is supposed to address.

The unemployment rate might be up from when the Liberals were in office, but we had a gigantic economic downturn. Was the unemployment rate lower in Canada than in the United States when that member's party was the government? The answer is no.

Historically, unemployment has been higher in Canada than in the United States. It is under this government that it is lower. The reason why it is lower is because of the actions this government took during the economic downturn. That is why our economic performance is far better than it was under that government.

[Business of Supply, April 16th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I will reiterate what I said earlier. Of course these jobs should be for Canadians. As I said in my speech, the temporary foreign worker program is for absolute and acute labour shortages. The program is not designed for foreign workers to come in and take the jobs of Canadians.

With respect to allegations of what is going on in the workplace, all businesses in our country are governed by many pieces of legislation that govern what goes on in the workplace.

In Ontario, there is the Workplace Safety Act and there is the Employment Act, which regulates the amount of hours people have to work and the working conditions. All those pieces of legislation are for the benefit of whatever worker is in the country. If those things are going on, there are remedies for those workers, whether they are Canadian workers or temporary foreign workers.

[Business of Supply, April 16th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I will not comment on the specifics of the case, but what I can say is exactly what I have said. The temporary foreign worker program is absolutely not there, not designed, for jobs to be taken away from Canadians. That is not the intent of the program. If that is happening, that is one of the reasons why the department will look into these allegations. We take them very seriously.

The member from the NDP suggests there is something wrong with the program, yet there are eight members from that party who have written to the minister asking for more temporary foreign workers to be allowed in their ridings. If the program is so bad, why are they asking those kinds of things?

[Business of Supply, April 16th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to rise today to respond to the opposition day motion on the temporary foreign worker program. The government takes the recent allegations against the program very seriously. HRSDC officials are looking into the specifics of these situations to complete an investigation.

The original intent of the temporary foreign worker program is to help employers find temporary help in cases where there is an absolute and acute labour shortage. That is an important issue. The program was never meant to allow companies to replace Canadians with foreign workers. The clear focus of our government is on jobs, growth and long-term prosperity. As part of that, of course, Canadians must always have the first crack at any available job. Even now, after several years of the worst of the global recession, our economic recovery to date remains fragile. Yes, we are fortunate that Canada has the best economic performance in the G7, the strongest record of growth and job creation, but of course we cannot be complacent.

Our largest trading partner is struggling with a massive debt and modest economic growth. The euro area remains mired in a recession. At the same time, global competition from emerging markets is continuing to intensify, and these are challenges abroad.

However, there are also challenges right here at home. It is no secret that Canada is experiencing a mismatch between the skills workers have and the skills employers are seeking. The skills shortage is particularly severe in some trades and professional occupations, such as electricians, carpenters and engineers. In fact, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce is one of many business organizations across the country that has identified the Canadian skills shortage as the number-one issue facing its membership. When all professions are considered, it is estimated that by 2015 there will be 1.5 million skilled-job vacancies and that number will rise to 2.6 million by 2021. Our long-term skills shortage is one of the most significant socio-economic challenges we face in Canada today, and addressing our labour shortages and skills mismatches needs to be a priority in this House for all parties.

I know that both the Liberal and NDP MPs recognize this, because they have written to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development on many occasions to intervene on behalf of local businesses. What are they intervening for? They are intervening for more temporary foreign workers. This is even in ridings with higher than average or seasonal unemployment. That is why we need programs that are responsive and flexible to ensure Canada's labour market meets employers' needs and ensures that Canadians look to the Canadian labour market first.

A key part of our plan for jobs, growth and long-term prosperity is that the government is moving forward with a plan to address the skills challenge. We are working to ensure that Canadians have the opportunities to gain the skills employers are looking for, so they do not need to rely on foreign workers.

Budget 2013 just announced the creation of the Canada job grant, which would provide $15,000 or more per person to ensure Canadians are getting the skills that employers are seeking. I know from my pre-budget consultations with small-business people in my riding that this is a huge issue for them. They need funding to develop the skills they need for their local businesses, and of course business people are the best ones to determine what skills they need. When fully implemented, the job grant would benefit an estimated 130,000 Canadians and would shift training from government to job creators and available workers who are better placed to determine what skills are needed; again, exactly what Canadian business people are asking for. The job grant would do a better job of connecting Canadians to the available jobs by attaching training to an available and unfilled job. We would match that up, and it would be a great program.

We would also create opportunities for apprentices by making it easier for them to get the experience they need. This would include the purchasing power of the government when contributing to projects such as the creation of social housing. For far too long, there has been a reluctance of young men and women in this country to become apprentices. This is why our government would provide additional incentives to reduce barriers to entry for those who wish to enter into the specialized trades.

We would also provide support to under-represented groups, including persons with disabilities, youth, aboriginal peoples and newcomers, to help them find good jobs.

There are about 800,000 Canadians with a disability who are not working but whose disability does not prevent them from working. Of those, more than 340,000 have obtained some form of post-secondary education. Our government believes that these individuals are a significantly untapped pool of talent with major contributions to make to Canadian society.

These improvements are part of our long-term plan that is focused on creating jobs, growth and prosperity.

Decisions in the private sector need to be made quickly. If a business opportunity arises in Canada and a Canadian business cannot capitalize on it quickly, then that business does not grow and new jobs and economic opportunities are not created for Canadians.

That is why we have the temporary foreign worker program for those absolute and acute labour shortages. When labour shortages are acute, the temporary foreign worker program is a short-term solution for businesses so they can continue to grow and create more economic opportunities for Canadians. The temporary foreign worker program is intended as a measure of last resort. It was designed to be a short-term solution for employers until a qualified Canadian can be found for that job.

Canadians must always have first priority for job vacancies. If employers cannot demonstrate that they are making genuine efforts to recruit Canadians first, they are not allowed to hire temporary foreign workers. That is clear from the program. The temporary foreign worker program was never intended to bring in foreign workers when able-bodied Canadians are ready, willing and able to take those positions.

As the minister has publicly stated, there have been some issues raised that she is very concerned with, and the government is currently investigating those concerns.

Further to the review of the temporary foreign worker program announced last year, economic action plan 2013 committed to specific reforms to ensure that Canadians get the first chance at available jobs. These changes would include measures to increase the length and reach of advertising for open positions before authorizing foreign workers.

We are also proposing to introduce user fees so Canadian taxpayers do not always have to bear the costs. We would amend the immigration and refugee protection regulations to restrict the use of non-official languages, as a job requirement.

As I previously stated, Canadians should always have the first crack at an available job in Canada.

Let me briefly sum up.

Foreign workers have the same rights as Canadian workers, including the assurance of at least the same pay for the same work at the same location. Let me repeat that. All employers are required to pay temporary foreign workers the same wage they are paying Canadian workers doing the same job at the same location.

Today Canada is recognized throughout the developed world for the resilience of our economy, and I mentioned that earlier. Canada has the best economic performance in the G7. Our low-tax environment, our highly educated and skilled labour force and our natural resource potential combined with a strong financial sector make us the economic envy of the world. However we cannot lose focus. In a fast-changing, competitive global economy, Canadians must continually aim higher to avoid falling behind. The Government of Canada will continue to promote economic growth, job creation and long-term prosperity for all Canadians.

Instead of spending more time studying this issue, I invite members of the opposition to support the actions that the government is proposing to fix this program. Instead of voting against new funding to help provide the skills Canadians need to find better paying employment, the opposition should support our economic plan. This is a plan that has created more than 900,000 net new jobs since the peak of the recession.

This is why the government will not be supporting the opposition's motion. We call on the opposition to support our efforts to reform the program in the interest of all Canadians.

[Privilege, March 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to provide some context I was able to discover with respect to the evolution of members' statements. I think it is important that we look to the history of members' statement, as you decide and make a ruling on this important matter.

If we want to look at the history, we would start with the “Third Report of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure”, November 4, 1982, found in issue no. 7, page 19. The committee says:

Your Committee is of the opinion that Standing Order 43 is being misused, and that a substitute mechanism is required which would enable Members to [rise on] matters of concern on a daily basis.

It goes on to say:

Your Committee believes that a new Standing Order is required which would enable Members to make statements on current issues on a daily basis for the first 15 minutes of the sitting in a manner which would remove the objections arising from the present practice....

Under the new recommended procedure the 15 minutes preceding the question period would be reserved for Members other than Ministers to raise matters of concern for the purpose of placing them on the record. The Speaker would call [them] “Members' Statements” as a routine proceeding preceding the question period.

As well, this is an important section. It says:

Every Member recognized by the Chair would be given a maximum of one minute and a half to state the matter he or she wishes to place on the record and, if appropriate, appeal for a remedy.

That was the report from the committee. When this matter came before the House, the Hon. Yvon Pinard, president of the Privy Council, gave a long speech. I am going to deliver excerpts from that. He started off by saying:

Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure and even greater satisfaction that I may present a motion in the House today which paves the way for parliamentary reform, a concept I have always cherished and a goal I have...wanted to achieve.

Speaking of the reforms, which include a number of reforms in addition to removing Standing Order 43, he went on to say:

The proposed experiment, Mr. Speaker, is interesting and relevant for three reasons. First, it will help to upgrade the role played by Members of Parliament.

I think that is important. He also says:

It will make Parliament more alive and more effective, without eroding the right of the opposition to a full debate. Finally, the third reason why this experiment will be interesting is that it will update Parliament and give it more respectability in the eyes of the Canadian people. To summarize, the role of Members of Parliament will be upgraded, Parliament will become more alive and more effective without infringing upon the rights of the opposition to a full debate.

When he specifically talks about section 43, he says:

We are doing away with that parliamentary oddity, Standing Order 43, a move which practically all Hon. Members fully endorse. It is a proceeding which no longer serves any useful purpose....

Doing away with motions under Standing Order 43 is in itself a very positive step. Instead, Hon. Members will each have 90 seconds to make a point rather than raise objections.

I think we should try it on an experimental basis...I am convinced that those who want that experiment to succeed will draw maximum benefits from those 15-odd minutes before the Question Period.

Here is another important section. He says:

I hope that the Chair, mindful of the intent of the committee report, will recognize Hon. Members without any regard for party affiliation and that the time available will be equally distributed between both sides....

I believe that it is clear what the intent of this was.

Certainly a convention has developed here in the House of lists being submitted to the Speaker. My understanding, however, is that this convention developed for the Speaker's ease of reference. It was so that the Speaker could easily recognize who was supposed to rise in their place and speak. I do not believe that a convention that was arrived at to enable the Speaker to easily identify who should be speaking should trump a member's right to speak in the House.

I want to also quote page 593 of O'Brien and Bosc, where it says:

Freedom of speech is one of the most important privileges enjoyed by Members of Parliament.

This is important. In the notes it goes on to say:

Freedom of speech enables Members to speak in the House (and in its committees), to refer to any matter, to express any opinion and to say what they feel needs to be said in the furtherance of the national interest and of the aspirations of their constituents, without inhibition or fear of legal prosecution.

Mr. Speaker, if you cannot rise at all to speak, you certainly cannot enjoy freedom of speech, which is one of the things that we consider to be sacrosanct in this place.

I want to finish by talking about the reference to playing on a team. We are a team and I am a proud member of my team. I say that without inhibition. I can also say that I have never had my right to speak interfered with. However, if we want to talk about a team, my view would be that this is, certainly for backbench MPs, a house league team. We all get equal time in the House. We all get equal time to play.

I coach a house league hockey team. Every player gets the same chance to get on the ice and the same amount of time. Of course there are rep teams. There is a AA team and a AAA team, perhaps the parliamentary secretaries and the ministers. They are a special team and of course those coaches get to choose which of those players get to play and when. Then they could have no complaints because they are on those teams.

However, if members are on the house league team and the coach decides they do not get the opportunity to play, what do they do? I would suggest, as the member for Langley did, they may have to make an appeal to the league convenor and suggest, “I did not get my time to play on the ice, convenor. I would like you to perhaps intervene”.

Mr. Speaker, this is a serious question. It is a question of importance to Parliament. Those are my submissions and I look forward to your ruling.

[Public Safety, March 25th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, in the final debate before Liberal members, supporters and Facebook friends decide who will lead the third party, there was a new focus on keeping Canadians safe and standing up for victims.

On this side of the House we welcome any reversal of the Liberal soft-on-crime position, which goes back to Pierre Trudeau-era solicitor general Jean-Pierre Goyer, who said it was time to take the focus off public safety and put it on the rights of convicted criminals.

It is important to remind Canadians that it was the Liberal Party that opposed enshrining in law the rights of victims to receive information on their attacker. The Liberals opposed giving victims the right to participate fully in parole hearings, and they opposed funding for the National Crime Prevention Centre, including the youth gang prevention fund. That is on top of their continued opposition to tougher sentences for serious and violent criminals.

Canadians know they can always count on the Liberal Party to put the rights of convicted criminals before the rights of victims.

[Northern Development, March 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, our government is taking action to create jobs and strengthen northern communities. We have introduced Bill C-47, the northern jobs and growth act. This act would fulfill legislative obligations flowing from land claims agreements and would contribute to improving the conditions for investment, while ensuring the north's resources are developed in a sustainable manner.

According to the president of the Mining Association of Canada,

The legislation comes at a critical time for Nunavut, with its promising mineral potential and opportunities for economic development never before seen in the territory's history.

Indeed, under the unprecedented leadership of the Prime Minister, our commitment to creating jobs for northerners and all Canadians has never before been seen in our country's history. We continue to take action to ensure that Canada's north is a prosperous region within a strong and sovereign Canada.