Scott Brison

[Business of Supply, April 16th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today to speak to the opposition day motion.

First, the temporary foreign worker program was established by a Liberal government, and that government achieved a careful balance of three equally important objectives: protecting the jobs and wages of Canadian workers and protecting Canadians' access to employment opportunities; assisting small businesses and companies having legitimate difficulties finding workers; and protecting the dignity of temporary foreign workers by ensuring that they are paid a fair wage and are treated as fairly as Canadian workers doing the same jobs.

The Conservatives, we believe, have reduced, or perhaps even destroyed, balance in this program. They have skewed the system in favour of the employer alone, have removed important protections for Canadian workers, and, in some cases, may have exposed foreign workers to unfair practices.

I want to speak to some of the positive aspects of the temporary foreign worker program when it is carried out and executed properly.

John Eisses is the president of the Nova Scotia Fruit Growers Association, a very important organization to horticulture in Nova Scotia. He is very concerned about the potential negative effect the proposed changes to the EI Act and associated regulations could have or will have on the Canadian seasonal agricultural workforce.

For decades, it has been demonstrated that very few EI recipients, or Canadians in general, are...capable of meeting seasonal agricultural workforce requirements.

He goes further. He says:

...the temporary foreign worker program...currently provides the industry with a consistent, reliable and trainable workforce that positively impacts the ongoing economic viability of the sector and its supporting value chain. If foreign workers are displaced...farms will go out of business or become less competitive, putting employed Canadians out of work.

This is a key point. As we study the temporary foreign worker program, it is important to understand that for some industries, in some cases, it is working quite well. We want to have the study to understand where the failings are and address those.

In ridings like mine, where the temporary foreign worker program is actively used by the horticulture industry, as an example, it creates a lot of value-added jobs further up the value chain. For instance, when temporary foreign workers are engaged in picking apples or berries, Canadians are involved in processing those foods, driving the trucks to get the fruits to market, and making pies. There are all kinds of opportunities. In the grape industry, as an example, people pick the grapes, and people make the wine, so there is an opportunity. It is very important to recognize that some of these value-added jobs further up the food chain actually require temporary foreign workers to create that opportunity.

He goes further. He says:

Contrary to public opinion, seasonal agricultural foreign workers support a viable horticultural farm community. Foreign workers are paid minimum wage or more; their employers provide housing that meets code, partial funding for international transportation, local transportation, workers' compensation and additional health care insurance in some cases. Foreign workers pay income tax.

In fact, they also contribute to CPP and EI, but they are ineligible to collect either. They contribute to the local economy as well.

He also tells us that farming:

requires trained managers, use of current technology and equipment, skilled and unskilled workers; this means that a dedicated, reliable and trainable workforce is required which is not available using sporadic EI recipients.

The message is truthful. First, be very careful in the changes being made to EI. It is a warning to the government that some of the changes could be deleterious to the important horticulture industry, but also that when run properly, when there is a balanced temporary foreign worker program, there are industries that depend on it, and it can operate well.

I also have in a recent article in the Chronicle Herald the St. Mary's River Smokehouses saying that if their access to the temporary foreign worker program is reduced, it would be very detrimental to this small business.

We also heard from Lee Cohen, a Halifax immigration lawyer, who said that the temporary foreign worker program is a good idea if it achieves two objectives, as follows:

One is that it helps fill labour shortages...with skilled and sometimes not so skilled workers from abroad. This meets a market need and it helps employers in Canada get production done and get work done that wouldn’t otherwise be done in the absence of having domestic workers.

He also stated:

it gives foreign workers an opportunity to experience Canada and that group of foreign workers could, if they wish, form a body of people that will…eventually become permanent residents and help build the (country) and add to the Canadian economy.

He does say that he wants to see the program rules fixed to ensure that these are the objectives being met. He says that the program has “lots of shortfalls” and that there is a need for clarity on what is allowed. That is what greater study in the House can help facilitate.

Immigration strategy can be incredibly important to economic growth and opportunity. I live in and represent a riding in Atlantic Canada. In Atlantic Canada, there is a declining and aging population. The demographic trend is very bad. It is a demographic time bomb. Rural communities in Atlantic Canada face even more challenges in terms of an aging and declining population. I want to propose to the House and to members an example of an idea related to immigration and economic growth and opportunity that combines federal and provincial government leadership. It is actually focused on drawing people to rural Nova Scotia. It is focused on a very specific industry, and that is the grape and wine industry.

In 1997, when I was first elected, there were two wineries in Nova Scotia. Today there are over 15, and more are on the way. To put this in perspective, in 1995 there were 19 wineries in the Niagara region of Ontario, and today there are over 130. The Canadian government could work with the Nova Scotia government to turbocharge the Nova Scotia grape and wine industry and create jobs throughout rural Nova Scotia.

My colleague from Sydney—Victoria is here today. His family came to Nova Scotia as part of the most successful wave of immigration to rural Nova Scotia in our history. That was the wave of immigration from Holland post World War II and in the 1950s. I believe that his family came to Cape Breton in 1952, in fact. At that time, families like the van Oostrums and van Dykes came to Nova Scotia and found opportunity.

There was a deliberate strategy. The provincial department of agriculture in Nova Scotia advertised, along with the federal department of immigration, in Dutch newspapers saying come to Nova Scotia, and we will help identify farmland, help finance your acquisition of that farmland through the farm loans board. We will help bring you to Nova Scotia, where you can find opportunities. They had a very targeted, economically focused immigration strategy.

Fast forward to today. There is tremendous growth in the wine industry and tremendous demand for Nova Scotia wines. In fact, I met with Carl Sparkes and Pete Luckett recently, two of the entrepreneurs involved in our wine industry. They told me that they could sell thousands and thousands of cases of Nova Scotia wine. They sell out every year. There is Chinese demand. The global demand for Nova Scotia wines is growing. The quality has developed very positively. There are gold medal winning wines being produced in Nova Scotia. The biggest challenge is grapes. Nova Scotia does not currently grow enough grapes to meet the demand for Nova Scotia wines. Yet there is farmland across the province that is underutilized, prime farmland, which could be incredible for vineyards.

Fast forward from the Dutch example to today's example. The hardest hit European economies, countries such as Portugal, Italy, Spain and even France, are also countries with a disproportionate amount of expertise in the areas of grape production and wine production.

There are also countries with, in some cases, up to 40% or 50% youth unemployment and a lack of opportunities. There are also countries that, because of their fiscal situations, are increasing taxes significantly and taxing the heck out of people with capital. There are countries where vineyard land is not affordable; it is some of the highest-cost vineyard land. In Nova Scotia we have high-quality land for potential vineyards, but it is also affordable.

Furthermore, there is even a climate change dynamic to this. Some of the traditional wine production regions, including the Champagne region, some experts are saying, will be rendered less ideal for grape and wine production in the future because of climate change, while Nova Scotia will actually become a better place to produce wine.

Therefore, if we consider the success of that Dutch immigration example and then apply a model requiring federal and provincial leadership working together to today's issue and opportunity around the grape and wine industry in Nova Scotia, it would provide us with an example of an idea—and politics ought to be a business of ideas and leadership around ideas and developing ideas and engaging people on them—that could actually work and could transform rural Nova Scotia's economy.

Carl Sparkes recently bought Jost Winery. He placed an ad recently on the Internet for a viticulturist. He had 60 applications. About 50 of them were from Europe. This bears out the point that there is an opportunity to have a very targeted immigration strategy. It would not be just temporary foreign workers, but on a permanent basis, drawing those people to opportunities to invest in, work in and develop businesses in rural Nova Scotia.

We need to map the land resource. We need to identify land that may be available. We need to target those European countries, perhaps even economies like South Africa, where there is a lot of expertise in grapes and wine and where there are some challenges.

We could attract investors from these countries. We could attract workers from these countries. We could matchmake land in Nova Scotia with the investors and the workers to develop that land into what could be a very highly successful value-added industry in rural Nova Scotia: the grapes and wine industry. We could utilize the farm loans board and other vehicles to help finance some of this. We could engage the Nova Scotia Community College and Acadia University and the federal government's research station in Kentville, which is another reason decentralized agricultural research is so essential. We have seen an atrophy of that research in recent years under the current government. We need to actually restore and increase funding for decentralized research. Certainly the research done for wine in the Annapolis Valley might be quite different from that in the Okanagan Valley or the Niagara region, as an example. We should be helping train Nova Scotians increasingly on viticulture and winemaking.

The opportunity here is not only to reverse the demographic decline of our rural communities and attract a new generation of new Canadians who would bring their families to rural Nova Scotia and help build their wineries, their vineyards and their families as citizens and nation builders in our province, but to create jobs and opportunities for other rural Nova Scotians.

In Canada, one of the most innovative immigration programs in the country is in Manitoba, which has been successful for some time. In fact, Manitoba last year attracted 16,000 new Canadians; Nova Scotia attracted around 2,000. Manitoba's focus has been to engage communities, to engage businesses and to target immigration around economic opportunities. This is the kind of approach that I think would commend itself to the pioneers in this policy in Manitoba: a targeted approach.

However, it is very important when we are having debates on this kind of issue that we do not demonize immigration, that we do not demonize people who come to Canada to create opportunities for themselves and that we recognize the importance of a well-run temporary foreign worker program and an innovative economic strategy around a targeted and long-term immigration strategy, and it is twofold.

While we are very concerned about the flaws that exist within the temporary foreign worker program, it is really important in the course of these debates that we do not choose language that puts out some sort of xenophobic tone that stigmatizes people who come to our country to work, either on a temporary basis or on a permanent basis as immigrants.

I was speaking recently to John Bragg, who is one of Nova Scotia's greatest entrepreneurs, about this issue. He expressed the importance of temporary foreign workers in the horticulture industries that he has been a pioneer in, but he also reminded me of the time in the 1950s when the Dutch were coming over to rural Nova Scotia. He said he remembered people in our rural communities, up in places like Collingwood where John lived, saying, “Why do we need those Dutch coming in? They are going to take our jobs.”

That is what people used to say. The reality is those hard-working Dutch immigrants not only built futures for their families but also built jobs for all Nova Scotians who lived in those communities in what was the most successful wave of immigration to rural Nova Scotia.

It is important to realize that the first question we have to ask ourselves is, “Do we want them?” Sometimes there are concerns in the public about this. People feel it is a zero sum thing, that someone coming in is going to take a job from a Canadian worker. In most cases, that is not the case. In fact, these workers create jobs for Canadians higher up the value chain.

About a year ago I read an online survey in The Chronicle Herald in Nova Scotia. It asked online readers the question, “Would you support programs to attract more new Canadians to rural Nova Scotia?” Some 65% said “no”, and the commentary was along that line. Nova Scotians were afraid they would take jobs from us.

The best kind of politics is changing people's minds. One of the things we have a responsibility for at all levels of government is to make sure Canadians understand that immigration does not take Canadian jobs; rather, it creates Canadian jobs and opportunities. Canada has been built by people who chose to come here, and we need more workers choosing to come here. We need leadership from the federal government, working with the provinces, for targeted immigration strategies to attract a new generation of nation builders in this fabulous multicultural masterpiece we call Canada.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, April 15th, 2013]

With regard to suicides in the Canadian Forces: (a) for each of fiscal years 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012, what was the number of suicides of Regular Forces members, and for each instance, what was the rank, age at death, location and was a Board of Inquiry convened; and (b) for each Board of Inquiry convened in the suicide death of a Canadian Forces (Regular) member, what was the date of death and on what date did the Chief of the Defence Staff approve the findings and recommendations of the said Board?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, April 15th, 2013]

With regard to the office of the Judge Advocate General (JAG), what was the number of JAG officers serving at the end of each of fiscal years 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 in each of the following ranks: Major-General, Brigadier-General, Colonel, Lieutenant-Colonel, major and captain, and what were the salary costs for each year?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, April 15th, 2013]

With regard to the Canadian Forces and its grievance system: (a) what is the total number of grievances submitted by Regular Force personnel during each of the following years: 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012; (b) what is the total number of grievances referred to the Chief of Defence Staff in his capacity as the Final Authority during each of the following years: 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012; (c) at the end of each of fiscal years 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012, what was the total number of grievances which have yet to be adjudicated by the Chief of Defence Staff in his capacity as the Final Authority; and (d) of all the grievances which were awaiting adjudication from the Chief of the Defence Staff in his capacity as the Final Authority as of February 15, 2013, what was the (i) rank of the grievor, (ii) subject of the grievance, (iii) date of the original grievance, (iv) date of the decisions reached by the Initial Authority, (v) date on which the grievance was elevated to the Final Authority by the Grievor?

[Questions on the Order Paper, April 15th, 2013]

With regard to National Defence, how many Canadian Forces Reserve officers at the General, Colonel or Lieutenant-Colonel ranks would, as of February 13, 2013, qualify for an appointment under section 165.22 of the National Defence Act, as amended by Bill C-15 in the current session of Parliament?

[Taxation, April 15th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, Mike P. Moffatt is a business professor at the University of Western Ontario. He says that the Conservative tax hikes on imports will make it more expensive to raise a child in Canada.

The Conservatives are hiking taxes on everything from kids' bikes and shoes to school supplies, and even home furnishings.

At a time when Canadian middle-class families are already struggling to make ends meet, why are the Conservatives punishing these young families with tax hikes?

[Business of Supply, April 15th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, there is a saying that “If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck”. If it raises the cost for Canadians to make ends meet and makes it more expensive for Canadian middle-class families to buy goods, it is probably a tax.

The reality is that this is a tax hike. The parliamentary secretary cannot deny this is a tax hit that, as Mike Moffatt, business professor at Western and an expert in this area, has said will “make it more expensive to raise a child” in Canada. It is a tax hike on vulnerable, middle-class families with children.

It is a sneaky tax hike because it is hidden, but through the motion today opposition members are uncovering this for Canadians. We are providing a service to Canadians by letting them know the Conservatives are actually sneaking in taxes.

Why would the Conservatives actually boast about the reduction in tariffs on 37 goods and not even mention the effects of the increase in tariffs on 1,300? The reality is that they have raised payroll taxes and taxes on basic goods that Canadian families need. They do not want to talk about this, but we will not let them get away with it because for middle-income families, these taxes will make it tougher to make ends meet.

[Business of Supply, April 15th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from the hon. member because he is absolutely right. It is about choices. In fact, hosting the G8 and the G20 actually cost Canadian taxpayers and Canadian families over $1.2 billion. This is in addition to the fact that the Conservative government has spent, since being elected, over $600 million on government advertising, much of it focused on self-promotional advertising, which ought to be paid for by the Conservative Party.

The hon. member is quite right. This money comes from somewhere. It is effectively tax dollars that hard-working Canadian middle-class families are sending to Ottawa and are expecting us to manage it well. The government has given Canadian record levels of deficit through a combination of high spending and bad fiscal management. That comes at a real cost to Canadian families that are struggling to make ends meet.

[Business of Supply, April 15th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to the opposition motion condemning certain tax increases in budget 2013.

I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Malpeque.

As many Canadians know, the Conservatives promised in the last election that if they were re-elected they would not raise taxes on Canadian consumers and families. They made that promise three times, in fact, in their platform. However, with budget 2013 the Conservatives have clearly broken that promise. They are raising taxes, which are tariffs but are actual taxes, on goods imported from other countries. These tariffs are a hidden tax on just about everything. It is really a hidden tax because Canadians do not see these taxes on receipts. For instance, the HST, GST, provincial sales tax, or consumption taxes are more transparent to Canadians. Instead, these import taxes are included in the sticker price, hidden from Canadians.

Budget 2013 increases some tariffs while decreasing others, but the Conservatives' talking points only deal with the tariffs that are going down. The reality is that the budget reduces tariffs on 37 items while increasing tariffs on almost 1,300 products. Overall, it is clear that Canadian consumers will be worse off. Another thing to consider is that when tariffs go up and retailers increase the sticker prices, Canadians have to pay more. However, when tariffs go down, the full savings are not always passed on to the consumer.

Mike Moffatt is a business professor at Western University and has been doing a tremendous job on educating Canadians on these tax increases in the most recent federal budget. He has done this in spite of contradictory information from the Conservative government. Professor Moffatt has written that “Canadian consumers will be feeling a major hit to their pocketbooks” as a result of these tax increases. He stated that “the tariff changes make it more expensive to raise a child” in Canada. He pointed out that Conservative tax increases will make it more expensive to buy baby carriages, school supplies, children's bicycles, tricycles, and wagons.

He also said that “Canadian consumers will be paying tens of millions more to furnish their homes” because the Conservatives are raising taxes on everything from coffee and tea makers to rugs with synthetic fibres, paint brushes, rollers, plastic tableware, and household goods. He estimates that higher tariffs on imported wigs will cost Canadians an additional $4.6 million per year, which is shameful when we think that a lot of the people requiring wigs are cancer patients. Therefore, the Conservatives are actually taxing people at the most vulnerable times in their lives. Conservatives are increasing taxes on hospital parking, which will, of course, make it more expensive for Canadians to get treatment or to visit sick loved ones.

In terms of Canadian retailers, these higher taxes do not just hurt consumers and Canadian middle-class families. They hurt Canadian retailers. The increase to import taxes in budget 2013 will widen the price gap between Canada and the U.S. For example, certain shoes will go from being duty free to having an extra tax of 18%. When the Canadian price is increased by 18% while the U.S. price stays the same, it is going to encourage more cross-border shopping and will particularly hurt retailers in border communities. This is on top of the Conservative move last year to increase the amount that Canadians can bring back from the U.S. duty free, a move that also encourages more Canadians to do more shopping in the U.S. and, as such, hurts retailers in Canadian border communities in particular. Cross-border shopping hurts Canadian retailers, specifically small businesses that are operating on very small margins. It hurts Canadians who depend on the retail sector for their jobs and it is not clear why the Conservatives would want to put these jobs at risk.

There is another perhaps unintended consequence of these tax increases on imports. Caught in budget 2013 changes are employers and employees in least-developed countries, as well as the Canadian businesses that have been working with them as part of their supply chain. Under the current rules, manufacturers in least-developed countries can use some inputs from GPT countries and still qualify for lower tariffs. For example, shoemakers in Bangladesh or Cambodia could use fabrics from China and still meet the rules of origin for least-developed countries.

However, by removing China from the GPT list without making consequential changes to the rules for the least-developed countries, that shoemaker in Bangladesh or Cambodia will no longer qualify for duty-free treatment. Instead, his shoes will face an import tax of 18%, which will go directly to the Conservative government. It is worse for the Canadian consumer and it is worse for impoverished labourers in the developing world.

It is not just these taxes and these tariffs that the Conservatives are increasing in the budget. Despite their promise not to raise taxes, they have raised EI premiums three times since the last election. EI premiums are a payroll tax that every worker and employer must pay. Conservatives have been known to call it a job-killing payroll tax. The current Minister of Finance said in the past, “For many businesses, an increase in payroll taxes would make it harder to sustain existing jobs.” The Minister of Foreign Affairs went further. He said, “That is what Canadians do not want, a job-killing payroll tax increase…Those of us on this side of the House will not buy into that socialist scheme to raise taxes.”

I am a little surprised that the foreign minister is now, based on his own words, adopting a socialist scheme. In fact, the Conservatives have raised payroll taxes three times. Just when the New Democrats have moved beyond socialism, the Conservatives seem to have embraced it, based on their own words.

Raising EI premiums is another Conservative broken promise. The Conservatives raised the EI tax rate in budget 2011, they did it in budget 2012, and they have done it in budget 2013. In fact, the Conservatives have raised the EI tax rate by 8.7% since the last election. For average workers, that is almost $150 more per year taken off their paycheques. It is $150 less for them to use to pay the bills or to put food on the table.

The tax increases in budget 2013 will make life tougher for middle-class Canadian families at a very tough time. Canadian households have watched their incomes flatline over the last several years, while the cost of living is going up. At the same time, household debt has skyrocketed, as families take out second mortgages or turn to credit cards to try to make ends meet.

Canadian families now owe a record $1.67 for every dollar of annual income. They are barely making ends meet today, with record low interest rates, and they are petrified as to what will happen in the future as rates will inevitably rise. They are worried about the Minister of Finance's recent demand that banks increase their mortgage prices, as though the last few years have not been hard enough for middle-class families. The minister asked Manulife to increase its mortgage rate from 2.89% to 3.09% and asked for other banks to follow suit.

What does that mean for a Canadian family with a $400,000 mortgage? It means an additional $12,000 out of their pockets over the next five years. That is an extra $12,000 that a Canadian family will not have to put toward their children's education or for their retirement. They will not have that money to help pay basic expenses or to make ends meet. It is also an extra $12,000 in bank profits, simply because the finance minister decided to meddle in mortgage prices.

In terms of other broken promises, the Prime Minister said he would “preserve the old age security, the guaranteed income supplement, and the Canada pension plan, and all projected future increases to these programs”. We all know that in budget 2012, the Conservatives broke that promise. Instead of preserving old age security and the guaranteed income supplement, they cut it by raising the age of eligibility from 65 to 67, hurting the most vulnerable seniors. We know that 40% of seniors receiving OAS make less than $20,000 per year and that 53% make less than $25,000 per year.

It is clear that Conservative broken promises will make it harder for Canadian middle-class families to make ends meet. We know that these latest tax hikes in budget 2013 on imported goods are going to disproportionately affect young families by making it more expensive for them to buy shoes and bicycles for their children. The hikes will also make it more expensive to buy basic furnishings for their homes.

This comes at a time when middle-class Canadian families are struggling. It is a time when young Canadians are struggling to find work. Education costs, student debt, and the lack of opportunities are creating a situation where almost 30% of young Canadians between the ages of 25 and 29 are living back at home. There is a lot of hardship out there and this is no time for the Conservatives to be raising taxes on middle-class families, on young families that are struggling today.

[Discover Your Canada Act, March 27th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today to speak to Bill C-463, the discover your Canada act. I want to thank my colleague from Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel for introducing this legislation and for giving the House an opportunity to discuss the importance of our tourism sector and to address Canada's travel deficit.

The goal of the bill is to make it easier for Canadians to travel within their own country. It would amend the Income Tax Act and create a tax credit of up to $2,000 for Canadian taxpayers who cross at least three provincial or territorial borders on personal travel. This credit would help reduce the cost of holiday transportation by covering eligible travel expenses. Taxpayers would be able to claim the amount not only for their own expenses but also for their children. This would provide much needed support for Canada's tourism sector.

According to the Tourism Industry Association of Canada, this sector represents more of Canada's GDP than the agriculture, forestry and fisheries combined. It generates $78.8 billion of economic activity annually. It is responsible for more than $15.9 billion of export revenue despite this growing travel deficit. It generates $10 billion in federal government revenue and fosters over 600,000 jobs across the country.

Tourism plays an important role in the economy in my riding in Nova Scotia. People come to Kings—Hants from all over the country and all over the world to marvel at the world's highest tides, to come to the beautiful Annapolis Valley, to come to Windsor, the birthplace of hockey, and also to enjoy our growing food and wine industries.

Many of us in the House represent Canadians who make a living in the tourism sector. We know how vital this sector is to the Canadian economy. We also know how worried participants in this sector are about the future of this industry and the growing travel deficit.

There is a gap between how much money Canadian tourists are spending abroad and how much money international tourists are spending here in Canada. This gap is growing, and the government used budget 2012 not to address it but to slash support for tourism in Canada. By cutting the Canadian Tourism Commission's budget by $14.2 million each and every year, the government is cutting the commission's ability to promote Canada abroad and to attract international tourists to Canada.

David Goldstein, president of the Tourism Industry Association of Canada said:

The travel deficit has widened dramatically since 2002.... We used to be the seventh in the world in 2007 when it came to international arrivals. We are now the 18th. We used to have 20 million international visitors in 2002 and now have 16 million....

The fact that we are now contributing almost a third to Canada’s trade deficit is somewhat shocking....

Last December Mr. Goldstein told The Globe and Mail the Conservative cuts are hurting the sector.

While other countries are making tourism a priority and investing in marketing to attract international visitors, Canada lags behind. Australia, for instance, outspends Canada by three to one in terms of tourism marketing dollars, yet according to the Canadian Tourism Commission every dollar invested in direct advertising is actually earned back 37 times over.

The Canadian Chamber of Commerce has also asked the government to make tourism a priority. In a recent report on tackling the top 10 barriers to competitiveness, the chamber identified uncompetitive travel and tourism strategies as one of the most serious barriers to success in the Canadian economy. That report cited that tourism is a major industry in every reach of the country, but it is struggling.

Instead of damaging the sector's ability to market itself abroad, the government should recognize the risks associated with Canada's travel deficit and reverse these cuts to our tourism sector. We need a real tourism strategy and this legislation could be part of that. Bill C-463 gives the House the opportunity to help reduce our travel deficit by encouraging more Canadians to discover their country and spend their tourism dollars here at home. Canadians are onside. According to Harris/Decima, a public survey conducted last fall showed 70% of Canadians support the idea of a tax credit for travel within Canada.

It is not just about dollars and cents and business. It is about national unity and the reality that encouraging more Canadians to travel within our country and to understand regions within our country is important.

I have heard some of my colleagues from both the Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party speak to the bill. I can accept that perhaps they can identify a design flaw or a problem that could be addressed at committee. However, the reality is that the intention of the bill is sound. The direction of the bill makes sense. Canadians want to find more ways to support their ability to travel within Canada.

I would urge members from all parties to support the legislation and to send it to committee. If there are technical design flaws that could be addressed at committee, that is fine. We are open to that. My colleague is open to that. However, we need to send it to committee in order to have a broader discussion on how we can strengthen tourism in Canada and, more fundamentally, how we can unite the country by giving more Canadian families the opportunity and the incentive to travel within Canada.

I heard my Conservative colleagues say earlier tonight that it would complicate the tax system by providing an incentive for somebody to do something. My goodness gracious, the Conservatives have grown the tax code by one-sixth since coming to power, with tax incentives for almost everything. The reality is that they have done that because people like a tax incentive to pursue one behaviour or another. The reality is that travel within our own country is a meritorious and positive economic activity, but it is also good for national unity.

Why would we not support any initiative that would enable Canadian families to spend more time within their country and spend more of their money in other regions of the country? What a boon to national unity.

I was born in 1967. A few months before I was born, my parents were at Expo 67. Now I cannot say that their trip to Montreal that summer was totally responsible for what happened, but how many Canadians, in 1967, went to Montreal as part of Expo 67? At what point in our nation's history were we as united as a country as we were when families from across the country went to Montreal in 1967?

I am not saying that this private member's bill would achieve the same level of national unity that Expo 67 did, but it is a start. It is a beginning. It is a recommencement of that spirit of voyageur that unites Canadians so that we will travel to other parts of our country and we will experience other cultures. God knows how many more parliamentarians would be born as a result of that.

I want to tell members that I am proud to be voting for and supporting Bill C-463 because I want it to be sent to committee. I want it to be studied. I want all parties to be able to contribute to shaping a national tourism strategy, the genesis of which might just be part of this legislation.

I think if there is a concern about eligibility, if there is a concern about progressivity and about how we could ensure that low-income people would benefit from this, let us address it. Perhaps if we would ensure it is fully refundable, that would address the concerns, for instance, for low-income Canadians. Certainly the tax credits offered by the government for disability tax credits, caregiver tax credits, firefighter tax credits, all these different tax credits, have been non-refundable. I do not support that. I believe full refundability makes sense in order for this to be progressive.

Whatever the issues that exist, they could be addressed at committee. However, it is important that we support this piece of legislation, that we send it to committee so we can have a fulsome debate on how to move Canada's tourism industry forward and also how we could unite this country around the majesty and the beauty of her geography.