Phil McColeman

[Business of Supply, September 16th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the Helping Families in Need Act is aimed directly at families who are faced with critical life-changing circumstances in their lives. Our government recognized this. Our government came in with the families in need act and extended the ability for employees in the workforce today to deal with that situation by being able to leave their place of employment and not be fired or laid off as a result of that. That is one key, very important piece of our government's platform for the most vulnerable people in this country.

The second one, the wage earner protection program, protects workers from bankruptcies of companies that go bankrupt and do not have the funds to pay workers their severance, their vacation pay, or any back wages that were not paid. It was our government that brought this bill to the House of Commons, our government that passed it, whilst the opposition voted against it.

[Business of Supply, September 16th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the real pertinent facts and the truth is that provinces and territories currently have standards in place that protect workers who are in the federal jurisdiction where they work.

Frankly, as was stated early in my remarks, these jobs in general are very well-paid jobs. These are government jobs. Most people know, at least in my community, that a government job entails a lot more benefit and wage than the typical private enterprise. In my lifetime, owning my own business, I know I could not afford to match those standards so I had employees leave me for a government job.

My comments in no way contradict the statistics. The statistics are what they are. That is what I presented. The provinces and the territories are the ones to have jurisdiction over this matter.

[Business of Supply, September 16th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, on that note I will ask to split my time with the member for Mississauga—Streetsville and I apologize to the Chair for not indicating that at an earlier point.

The earlier speaker from across the aisle was talking about our government having done nothing for workers. The wage earner protection program protects the wages, vacation pay, severance pay and termination pay owed to workers if their employers go bankrupt or into receivership. This has benefited thousands of Canadians. The statistics are this. Since its inception in 2008 and up to July 31, 2014, more than 74,000 Canadians have received $174.8 million in WEP payments. This is the wage earner protection program that our government brought in as legislation, contradicting what was said earlier by the previous speaker. These are wages that are owed to employees by employers who became bankrupt or went into receivership.

To further support employees in the federal jurisdiction we implemented the Helping Families in Need Act. This gives employees the right to take unpaid leave if they have a child who is critically ill, is missing, or has passed away as a result of a probable criminal offence. It is clear that in recent years we have expanded the labour standard protections for all employees in federally regulated enterprises because we have their best interests at heart.

The question of reinstating a federal minimum wage is a moot point. Establishing the minimum wage lies in the capable hands of our provincial and territorial governments who are better positioned to apply a local lens to such policy decisions. Workers in the federal jurisdiction are getting a fair wage under a system that works. There is simply no reason to change it. Therefore, that is why I propose to defeat the motion and I ask the support of my fellow members.

[Business of Supply, September 16th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the motion put forward by the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie to reinstate the federal minimum wage and increase it to $15 per hour over five years.

Changing the way minimum wages are established for federally regulated employees in Canada is simply unnecessary, which is why I cannot support the motion today. First, allow me to explain how minimum wages are set.

Currently, employees in federally regulated enterprises are entitled to the general minimum wage of the province or territory in which they are employed. This has been the case since 1996 when minimum wages were pegged to match the general minimum wage rate of the province or territory in which the federally regulated worker is usually employed. Although some may have forgotten this, this measure significantly improved protection for federally regulated employees. Prior to 1996, these employees were entitled to the lowest minimum wage rate in Canada, a measly $4 an hour compared to an average of about $6 an hour in provinces and territories at the time.

Workers in federally regulated companies are employed in industries such as banking, transportation, telecommunications, shipping, postal services, and uranium mining. Generally speaking, these are not low-wage workers. Most of the jobs in these industries already pay well above the minimum wage.

In 2008 the federal jurisdiction workplace survey found that only 416 employees, or 0.05% of all employees in the federal jurisdiction, were earning just the legal minimum wage, which was on average less than $8.50 per hour at the time. Only about 1% earned less than $10 an hour.

Since then minimum wages have increased in all provinces and territories. Four provinces, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland and Labrador have announced that they will increase their minimum wage on October 1, 2014. Not only that, but Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan and Yukon index their minimum wage annually to adjust for increases to the cost of living. Ontario has also announced that it will establish an indexing mechanism.

Why is the federal minimum wage pegged to the provincial and territorial minimum wages? The provinces and territories are in the best position to assess and respond to the requirements of their local labour markets. As I am sure members of the House are aware, the cost of living varies by province, territory and region. That is a key consideration when establishing minimum wages. We believe that provincial and territorial governments can better assess local needs.

In the last four years all provinces and territories have increased their minimum wage. To give members an idea, currently the lowest general minimum wage rate provided in four jurisdictions is set at $10 an hour. At the high end of the scale are Ontario and Nunavut where most employees must be paid at least $11 an hour. The other jurisdictions fall in between.

Our government wants all Canadians to prosper, not just those in the federal jurisdiction, and the best way to do that is through a strong economy. That is why the Minister of Finance recently announced a reduction in EI premiums that will leave more money in the pockets of small businesses and enable them to strengthen their businesses and the economy. The minister also confirmed that in 2017, EI premiums will go down from the current $1.88 per $100 of earnings to $1.47 per $100 of earnings. This will deduct less money from employees' pay cheques, leaving more money in their pockets.

In the federal jurisdiction we are working to ensure that workplaces are fair, safe and productive. With that goal in mind we have taken steps to improve labour standard protections for employees. There is also the wage earner protection program. This program protects the wages, vacation pay, severance pay and termination pay owed to workers whose employers go bankrupt or into receivership—

[Social Development, June 16th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, our government has done more to support persons with disabilities than any previous government.

I was pleased when the House unanimously supported my motion, Motion No. 430, which called for continued and increased support for employment opportunities for persons with disabilities.

Would the Minister of State for Social Development please update this House on how our government is supporting the lives of persons with disabilities?

[Ethics, June 13th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, as Canadian taxpayers found out this week, 1,800,000 first-class stamps do add up. The NDP found out that it was responsible to repay $1.17 million to Canada Post for abusing and misusing its MP mailing privileges.

Canadians want to know that MPs are respecting taxpayer money. Could the chief government whip tell us what steps are being taken to ensure there is accountability in the House?

[Service Canada Mandate Expansion Act, June 12th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin by acknowledging the member for Guelph for introducing this well-intentioned private member's bill. I think it is a noble pursuit and I am pleased to speak to it today.

When a loved one passes away, it is hardly a pleasant experience, least of all for the family members who must look after all the details, including the funeral arrangements and the paperwork that inevitably follows; so the last thing they need is to have to call myriad government departments to inform them of the death of their relative. That is why there is currently a mechanism in place with nine provinces through which Service Canada is notified electronically of all deaths occurring in Canada.

It is estimated that 96% of deaths occurring in Canada are covered by these agreements. When Service Canada receives this information, it discloses it to government departments or programs that have the authority to use social insurance numbers or SINs, as they are more commonly known. Information can be disclosed to the Canada pension plan, old age security, employment insurance, and Canada student loans. The Canada Revenue Agency and Veterans Affairs are also authorized to access this information.

In these cases, agreements and/or authorities are in place to enable the institutions, such as the Canada Border Services Agency, the Department of Justice, and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, to have access to the social insurance register to validate information on individuals.

Currently, the people responsible for the estate of the deceased person are not required to notify Service Canada. Currently, they do not have to present an original death certificate that Service Canada would have to match against data from the relevant vital statistics agencies, and also currently, the burden is not on family members to present the death certificate in person to one of the Service Canada centres across the country.

Then there is also the question of privacy. Who gets access to this information? Our current approach when it comes to the use of social insurance numbers is to limit the authority to use them to select programs only. Our goal here is to protect the privacy of Canadians.

Service Canada is constantly working with the provinces and SIN-enabled programs in the federal government to improve and expedite the disclosure and exchange of personal information.

Since 1998, the Auditor General has been examining the SIN program and the social insurance register. In reports in 2009 and 2011, the Auditor General recognized the outstanding job the government has done in addressing past concerns about the register. Most notably, the Auditor General praised the agreements the government signed with all 10 provinces to develop electronic links between provincial vital statistics agencies and the social insurance register.

Through these agreements, Service Canada currently receives notices from nine provinces for deaths occurring within their jurisdictions, which are then matched against the social insurance register. This allows for the records of the deceased individuals to be properly identified and prevents the issuing of further benefit payments from federal programs.

Again I thank the member for tabling Bill C-247, and we will continue to examine this piece of legislation.

[Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1, June 11th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, what our government has done for persons with disabilities is open opportunities for them to save, and of course, the wider we broaden that over time, the better that will be. I will not disagree with that.

However, one of the big challenges for those who have individuals with disabilities in their families is that a lot of the programs that provide the support are provincially provided. ODSP is the one in Ontario that I am thinking about. The rules and regulations around many of these conflict with the ability to save any money whatsoever. If someone has more than $5,000 in an asset, ODSP in Ontario starts to be clawed back from that person. These have to be harmonized. This is a much more critical issue than opening the savings plan to those who have the ability to save.

Those who do not have the ability to save right now are our biggest concern. We need to provide vehicles so that they can save and are not penalized. Many of these people who also want to work are penalized by going to work because of the other supports they have.

[Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1, June 11th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, let me talk about the Conservative policy that is working, because it is working for people. I mentioned it in my speech. It is the housing first policy to supply people who are truly in need with a level of support that puts them in a house and then creates the supports around them to enable them to rise through the economic chain.

My experience is in Ontario. In the mid-1990s, I headed up the Ontario Home Builders' Association, and I can tell members what drove people out of the rental housing market. It was rent control. Rent control drove them out of developing new rental housing. Any developer in the Toronto area will say that it is because the NDP government of Ontario decided to put rent controls on properties, which took the whole economic foundation out of building rental properties.

Also what is curious is that lately there are developers building rental housing. The reason they are starting to develop rental housing is that it has been a condominium-flooded market, and the developers have seen the opportunity to come back in at competitive rates, because there is the ability, with the lower taxation this government has brought about, to make that economically feasible, so there is hope.

[Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1, June 11th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that I will be splitting my time with the member for Mississauga South.

I would like to focus tonight on three specific issues that I have been involved with in this Parliament and previous ones: number one, housing, in terms of our economic action plan; number two, skills training and, more precisely, skills shortages, the mismatch; and third, if I have time, the budget initiatives for assisting persons with disabilities and helping them find places in the Canadian workforce.

First is housing. The importance of the housing industry in this country cannot be understated. I will provide some of the facts. The first fact is that it is one of the most key economic drivers in the whole nation. It is the single biggest investment that Canadian households will ever make. It is, on average, 40% of a family's total assets or net worth. It accounts for around 20% of Canada's GDP. According to the Canadian Home Builders' Association's estimates, the total spending on residential construction and renovations is over $120 billion annually. It provides more than 900,000 direct jobs for Canadians. Lastly, it is a fact now that Canada's housing industry is the fifth largest in the world.

Why is that significant in relation to Canada's economic action plan? It is significant because it is often said in economic circles that the health of the economy can be measured by the health of housing starts or the housing industry. We have been very fortunate over our term in government to be able to foster the conditions of a healthy platform for private market housing in this country, and we continue to do that with our economic action plan, continuing on with the first-time home buyer's tax credit, so that more Canadians can achieve the dream of home ownership.

Also, in consecutive budgets, due largely to the good work of our finance minister, we have moved to ensure accessibility and sustainability of the social housing stock in this country, providing housing for those who are most in need. In fact, we have committed $1.25 billion in funding beginning this year to renew the investment in affordable housing for five years. We are also renewing the homelessness partnering strategy and implementing our housing first approach to homelessness. In 2013, our government announced nearly $600 million over five years to renew and refocus the homelessness partnering strategy using a housing first approach, which involves giving people who are homeless a place to live and then providing them the necessary supports to sustain them in that housing.

Why is that important? It is important for us to take action for those who are truly in need in this category. What is also important is to give them a hand up to enable them to take advantage of the supports to move themselves up economically so that one day they can buy new homes.

Affordability is one of the largest issues in the country today. Interestingly enough, in our discussions through the Conservative housing caucus with all the sectors involved in housing across this country over the last two years, we have done a bit of analysis on how much taxation plays in the role of single family housing, multi-family housing, or any type of housing. It is quite shocking to see the graph. It is similar to what we see on the gas pumps when we put gas in our vehicles, we see the breakdown of how much the government takes through taxation for a litre of gas. In a similar nature, the housing industry, particularly the Canadian Home Builders' Association, is working on quantifying that.

It varies across the country from community to community, but what is shocking is the first drafts and first average estimates of what the taxation load is for a new homebuyer: fully 25% of the cost of that home. I believe the average cost of a home in the country now exceeds $400,000. I think the average home price in Canada is in the $460,000 range, and now one-quarter of that price is in direct taxation.

Tonight I also heard a speech by the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley. He said that our government has somehow reduced environmental regulations and protocols. I can speak to that in the housing industry. When I was in the industry for 25 years and had my own company, when we went to develop a properly zoned piece of land in our community, we would be required by the province, in my case Ontario, to do all the environmental assessment reports, send them to that ministry for evaluation, and seek approvals. The average time to get a result was three to five years. There were carrying costs of the land, let alone the taxation costs, and the development charges that went with that land.

What we have done at the federal level is this. We have reduced the duplication of those studies, because not only did we have to do it for the Province of Ontario, we had to do it for the federal ministry of natural resources as well. It did not accept the report we did for the Province of Ontario, and paid for. It demanded a different report that said the exact same things. What we have done as a government is remove the duplication. We have also put reasonable time limits on how long it should take the bureaucracy to process those applications.

Is that a bad thing for a small business like mine, which had 20 employees? No, it is a good thing, because what it does is keep people working, especially in down times. That is important to our country. There are 900,000 jobs in the construction industry on average over the years.

The opposition talks about understanding small businesses and their needs and supporting them. It should be stated that the housing industry is made up primarily of small builders across the country who build fewer than 20 houses a year. Yes, there are the big developers in the major centres and the big home building companies. We hear about them. However, more than 90% of homes in our country are built by small builders. Should our government be supporting them by reducing taxation on these small companies so that they can employ carpenters and workers, the type of people who are producing this product for Canadians, the product that counts the most? That is what our government is doing.

Let me move on to skills shortages. Where we have moved on skills shortages primarily is by providing assistance that immediately ties back to that important housing industry. It is with the apprenticeship incentive grant, the apprenticeship completion grant, the new Canada apprenticeship loan, and a host of tax credits students can take advantage of through the apprenticeship job creation tax credit. This helps to move young people into the trades and through the trades, where there are many jobs. In fact, we need to de-stigmatize the trades in our country instead of saying that every young person needs to go to university and get a university degree. That is not the case. We need to build a culture in our country that equalizes the cultural status of being a tradesperson in this country.

I am not going to get to my third point on persons with disabilities, unfortunately. However, on skills shortages, our government is working toward matching talent with task. Who better to set the task than the employer? With the Canada jobs grant, the employer and our governments, three parties, have skin in the game to bring this about.

I am pleased that I could rise tonight to talk about just a couple of the areas I am personally involved in. Our budget is delivering real, tangible results for Canadians.