:
I call this meeting to order. This is the 70th meeting of the Standing Committee on Finance. Our orders today are pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, May 14, 2012. We are studying the bill.
Colleagues, as you know, we dealt with parts 1, 2, and 3 yesterday at clause-by-clause consideration. We have part 4 to do this afternoon and this evening. We are therefore going to start with clause 170, as you see in front of you on your agenda.
I will just remind you that we will finish once we get to clause 753. We will go back to clause 1. At that point, we have, as prescribed by the motion, until 11:59 tonight for discussion on these clauses, at which point I will have to put all the votes on any outstanding clauses.
I thought, colleagues, it would be easiest to proceed in the way we proceeded in terms of our discussion of the bill. That was to do part 4 by division. I will identify the clauses for that division and then have debate over the division as a whole. Obviously, we have officials here if there are any questions by members. I think that's an easier way to proceed. I am strongly suggesting we do so in that measure.
I know we have the five-minute rule with respect to clauses, but I would ask members to allow me to be a little flexible with the timeline. I don't think we'll use five minutes per clause, but I think on one division we should allow a little more flexibility than five minutes if one party wishes to make a number of points. I will just remind you to make your points as best as possible to the clauses and the subject matter therein. I will obviously be as respectful toward colleagues as possible.
Therefore, I will start with division 1. Division 1 deals with measures with respect to the Auditor General of Canada. It includes clauses 170 to 204. I am looking for discussion.
I will go to Mr. Marston, please.
Welcome back, Mr. Boissonneault.
Mr. Chair, when we first got the documentation on this, there had been a lot of discussion about the fact that old age security hadn't been talked about and that those changes weren't even raised in the last election. We looked at changes to employment insurance, and again, they hadn't been talked about, nor were the kinds of changes regarding the environment that are proposed in this bill.
However, the ones that jump out at me are the clauses that will remove the Auditor General's oversight from a number of agencies. The government members on this committee will tell us, and from their perspective it may be true, that the Auditor General offered up these changes. Perhaps he did, but he did so because he was told he had to cut a certain amount of money out of his operating budget. If it were not for the budget cuts by this government, I doubt very much the Auditor General would have offered up these changes unless he was put into that position.
It's clear the government is prioritizing significant budget cuts across the board in the areas I already talked about. They're making that choice in this case over the oversight of government operations and government accountability.
I'm one of the people who came into this House in the 2006 election. During that election we repeatedly heard from the opposition, which is now the government, about accountability and transparency. All of this certainly flies in the face of those proclamations in that election. They pointed their fingers toward the previous government about the things that were hidden, the mismanagement, the sponsorship scandal, and all of the things in that area, and said they were a significant problem. We agreed. Our party said there had to be more accountability.
When the Conservatives formed government, there was supposed to be a breath of fresh air in this place, but with this omnibus bill they are trying to ram legislation through our Parliament in a fashion that we've not seen. Yes, there have been large bills before, but never as comprehensive in the changes they were making.
The really serious part of this, and I've expressed this in my frustration here several times, is that this is happening without allowing Canadians to comment. It's happening without giving MPs the opportunity to undertake the due diligence necessary to thoroughly examine it and the implications, not only for today's citizens but for future generations.
I'm no expert on the environment. I'm not on this committee because I'm an expert on the environment. When those kinds of things are put before us, the EI changes I know something about, and OAS I would know something about, but the comprehensive changes are very challenging for all of us.
However, reducing and in some cases eliminating the oversight of the Auditor General over the operations of government, as I've already said, flies in the face of everything the Conservatives purported to represent when they were running in 2006. People at that time put their faith in them. Who would have thought that this type of thing would happen?
At this point I'm going to reserve to come back into the discussion. I'll allow other people to get in, because I need to sit back for a moment.
:
I was close. It's in the vicinity.
These cuts undermine a very critical role played by these trusted oversight bodies. I'm not suggesting in any way that there are problems with those particular bodies, but the Auditor General, that office, is intended to offer confidence to the Canadian people.
We had the CSIS inspector general and the National Energy Board, among many others.
The government is silencing institutional checks and balances on the government's ideology. From our perspective, we see that the government has an ideology that's contrary to what it said in 2006 about transparency and accountability.
The cuts call into question Canada's food inspection and public health regime by removing critical oversight powers of the Auditor General in relation to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, all while providing an avenue and paving the way for opportunities to privatize a number of essential inspection functions. We heard from witnesses about their concerns about farming out the inspections. They were quite sincere.
The Auditor General does important work on behalf of all Canadians to ensure that taxpayer money is spent wisely. Why are the Conservatives shutting this down?
The Conservatives' cuts to the Auditor General's office will mean one thing, and that's less accountability. Back in 2006, that was one of the primary reasons the Conservatives were successful in defeating the previous government.
I've said that we have faith in those listed agencies, but from time to time faith gets violated, and from time to time people get caught doing things they're not supposed to do. When it comes to financial accountability, the person who catches them is the Auditor General.
You have to ask yourself how this aligns with the purported accountability and transparency the government says they represent.
:
Briefly, I want to also add my concerns to the changes in this bill that would eliminate the Auditor General's oversight to about a dozen agencies.
The Auditor General is, and has been, enormously respected and trusted by the people of Canada. That oversight is an important check and balance for government institutions and agencies that we rely on. The Auditor General is a source not only of fiscal accountability but of good common sense oversight to the way government operates.
I want to contrast the supposedly cost-effectiveness of removing the government's oversight with the Auditor General to the decision last fall by the government to spend $90,000 per day to hire outside private consultants to advise the government on how to make these cuts. They were planning to spend, at that point, almost $20 million to get advice on how to cut programs, services, and operating expenses in the federal government when we already have tools within the government to help the government do that.
I just have to say it's not a bad gig to get $20 million to advise the government to lop off environmental agencies, privatize oversight, and privatize government operations. The question is whether Canadians are better served with this approach. I would argue that they are not.
This is, of course, something one would have to argue should not be in this omnibus budget bill, but in fact I know it's justified because, ultimately, any time you chop government services or programs, it affects the budget. However, this more properly should be discussed in terms of what are the appropriate oversight measures and checks and balances in the government, and have a broader discussion on that measure alone.
To see this solely within the context of balancing the books I think can be short-sighted, because if you remove checks and balances that were put in place to prevent problems, to prevent waste, to determine where there are inefficiencies, to determine where government could spend its money better, you could be penny-wise and pound foolish, as my dear departed granny used to say.
I don't think this is appropriate in this bill. I don't think it is an appropriate measure for proper oversight and accountability for Canadians, and for this reason we're opposing it.
I'm here today to speak to these particular amendments to the three acts. I think the committee should understand the nature of the three acts herein. These acts are actually the closest thing to being the constitutions of the three northern territories. In regard to public government across the Northwest Territories, these three acts outline the political rights of the people I represent, and of course the same applies to the other two jurisdictions.
So these acts are very important to the people of the Northwest Territories. They are actually the only thing that gives us a legislative assembly and anything approximating the political rights of every other Canadian and every other provincial jurisdiction. So when it comes to amending these rights, these acts, I think there's a need for a great deal of sensitivity on the part of the government as to what is being accomplished. These aren't simply the powers of the federal government; they are the expression of the rights of the people of the three territories.
So on what we've seen here, I can go back to the testimony given by the Deputy Minister of Finance of the Government of the Northwest Territories last year, before a similar committee, in speaking to another act, one that talked about borrowing limits. The history of borrowing—and the fact that there is anything within the NWT Act, the Yukon Act, and the Nunavut Act on borrowing—goes back to a time when the Northwest Territories, Yukon, and Nunavut could only borrow from the federal government. The maximum allowed to be borrowed was set by regulation of the Governor in Council.
Today, all borrowing in the Northwest Territories and the other territories is done through private market borrowing, just as every other province takes care of it. Every piece of borrowing that's done in these three territories is under the scrutiny of the same financial services that carry every other province in this country.
Three years ago, the GNWT position going into negotiations about raising the borrowing limit was that their preference—and this was stated by the deputy minister—was for the federal government to remove itself from any responsibilities for a borrowing limit or for any other matter therein. What we've seen here is that a government, such as the Northwest Territories government, for instance, has a Moody's rating that exceeds that of every province except British Columbia and Alberta. That testimony was given as well. So what we have here is a government that has very strong financial management policies and a government that is mature and takes care of its citizens.
But what we see in this act is a bill that is going to amend the NWT Act, the Yukon Act, and the Nunavut Act—and I'll speak to all three of them—and not simply for the aggregate of all borrowing, because the borrowing limit was already in the NWT Act and the Yukon Act and was set by the federal cabinet. So really, the new portions of this bill are on the conditions of borrowing. This is a very important consideration, because “conditions of borrowing” mean what constitutes or deems to constitute borrowing, and one of the largest debates in this category was over whether self-financing loans should be considered “borrowing” under the limit. In other words, if the Government of the Northwest Territories enters into borrowing that is going to return the cost of the borrowing to that government, should that be held as part of the borrowing limit?
This is a very important factor to us, because just as provinces have responsibilities to invest in their territory or their province, so do we. When it comes to the plan the Government of the Northwest Territories has to expand its hydroelectric system, where the estimated borrowing requirements for something that is going to be returned are in excess of the borrowing limit that has already been designated...in other words, it's virtually impossible for those plans to go ahead under these circumstances if the conditions for borrowing include self-financing loans under the limit.
We have a situation where the future fiscal capacity of the Northwest Territories to expand its services to provide opportunities to grow an area of 1.2 million square kilometres—an area that is considered by many people to be one of the new areas of economic strength for Canada—will perhaps be constrained by the conditions, the regulations, that are going to be set by a federal cabinet. It could be this federal cabinet, it could be the next federal cabinet.
Within that, within these amendments, we see no provisions for consultation, no guarantee to these separate governments that their conditions for fiscal capacity will have a considered point of view from the governments they represent.
This is really not appropriate. That's why both ourselves and the Liberals have put forward these amendments. To my mind, this is the very least that should be done to this bill. This is the very least, because it does give voice to responsible governments in the three northern territories in a fashion that should be there. I think most people of equal mind in this country would say that's the case, that this would be the least that should be provided to those governments. It's not there, so we're asking for that to be put in place.
It's simple. It won't upset this budget bill and it won't change the nature of the bill, but it will give some surety to those governments that they will actually be consulted, that they will actually have a chance to put their point of view about their borrowing capacity, about what they need to make their territories whole, in front of the federal cabinet before it makes decisions about that.
I think it's imperative for this committee to look at this not simply in a viewpoint of the political state of Canada, where a budget implementation bill is being fired through without amendments, but to think of it in terms of what this actually means to the people of the north.
It's a very simple thing to do. It sets us on a course that is a correct course. It sets us on a course that may bring us more equality with the rest of Canadians. As a person who's lived his entire life as a second-class political citizen of this country, I appeal to all this committee to respect us in the three territories, to give us our due.
And accepting these amendments would be simply that. It would not upset the financial state of the Government of Canada and it would not tie the Government of Canada to any particular course of action. It would guarantee that we have a voice, albeit a small voice, in a decision that is so important to the future of our three territories.
So I would ask that these amendments be accepted. I would say that the two amendments can be combined. They are for each act, they are similar, and they constitute a good and sensible compromise to what has been proposed here.
Thank you.
I would speak against this. I understand how Mr. Bevington feels about this, but it's frankly unnecessary in order to put it into legislation. First of all, the territories approach the federal government for any change in classification, any change in borrowing limits, any change in relation to their financial position. They approach the Government of Canada and speak to it. Don't take my word for it. On May 24, 2012, the Minister of Finance for the Northwest Territories stated that
We worked collaboratively with Canada to secure an increase to our borrowing limit from $575 million to $800 million.
The Government of the Northwest Territories went on to state in a news release on March 15, 2012, and I quote again:
The increase represents the successful discussions between the federal Minister of Finance, the Honourable James Flaherty, and the three territorial Ministers of Finance about the definition and adequacy of the territorial borrowing limits.
It is very clear from the record and from what has been stated by all governments of the territories that there has to be consultation, and it would only make sense, because they actually approach the government based upon their own need in relation to the financing.
I would say as well to Mr. Bevington that the population base—and I know he's from a very large area, as I am in northern Alberta. Mine is much smaller than his, but we have a population of 43,000 in the Northwest Territories, 36,000 in Yukon, and 33,000 in Nunavut. The number of square kilometres that his constituents cover is huge, as is the case with my constituents in northern Alberta, but this arrangement is much the same as that of the municipal government in Alberta. For instance, in Fort McMurray, with all of our problems with infrastructure, etc., we had to approach the provincial government to ask for a change to our borrowing limit, which is the highest, I understand, of any municipality in Canada as far as percentage goes, because of the growth. But it's very common, and none of these discussions would take place without bilateral discussions between the different levels of government. It wouldn't make sense.
:
Well, just in response to Mr. Jean, I would not characterize the Government of the Northwest Territories as a municipality.
Mr. Brian Jean: I said it was similar.
Mr. Dennis Bevington: You know, when it comes to these regulations, which constitute borrowing....
I must remind you that the borrowing limit was set by the Government of Canada prior to this budget implementation bill. It really has nothing to do with what you talked about there, because it had already been accomplished.
This bill really speaks to the changes in the nature of borrowing, and that's where the concern lies. Right now about 40% of the borrowing limit is taken up by self-financing loans, mostly through the public utility corporation in the Northwest Territories. The public utility corporation, which has a mandate to return a profit on the investments it makes, constitutes almost half of what the borrowing limit is within the Government of the Northwest Territories.
So the issue in terms of conditions of borrowing, whether the federal cabinet chooses to make self-financing loans part of that overall umbrella of $800 million, is a very serious issue to people in my territory. We have enormous infrastructure expenditures for the future.
I can give a number of instances. In the Sahtu region of the Northwest Territories, there's the need for a road from Wrigley to Norman Wells. In the last year we've sold a billion dollars' worth of oil and gas leases in that region. Without the road being built, the cost of drilling a well in that region is extraordinarily high. We need to move ahead with infrastructure and development so that we can make our economy work for us. Without fiscal capacity within the system, that will simply not happen. We can't plan for it. We have to go cap in hand to somebody else for the opportunity to do the things that we see can return investment to us.
Now, very strongly, by not consulting the governments that are engaged in the work of building Canada, with money to do the work, with their own money, to do the work that they need to do for their people, you're simply....
This is missing the boat. And this is not just for this cabinet. When you pass these laws, they're for every other cabinet that follows, unless there's another amendment made.
So I would ask that these laws be made in a careful fashion that respects the ability of our governments in the three northern territories to be assured that they will be consulted before any changes are made to these very important functions of government. Fiscal capacity is the basis of responsible government.
:
We find division 6 of part 4, clauses 223 to 281, problematic for a number of reasons.
There are currently four tribunals or boards of referees that respectively deal with employment insurance, old age security and the Canada pension plan, and the fourth is an appeal tribunal. Those four tribunals will be replaced by one mega-tribunal, the Social Security Tribunal. That is problematic in a number of ways. Let us note that, last year, there were more than 27,000 appeals for employment insurance and some 4,500 appeals for the Canada pension plan and old age security. So that's over 31,000 appeals overall.
Right now, 1,000 part-time members are on these various tribunals, 900 of which deal with employment insurance. In addition, there is already a backlog of 80,000 employment insurance claims in Quebec alone. And it does not seem to be going down, on the contrary. The current administrative challenges suggest that those tribunals will be in demand.
It is important to know that three people are currently on the employment insurance tribunals or boards of referees: one person appointed by management, one by the union and one by the government. Of all the tribunals or boards of referees that are being eliminated, I am most familiar with those dealing with employment insurance. The proximity of these tribunals is very important. For example, there is a tribunal in Rimouski that handles cases from across the Lower St. Lawrence region. People can come from La Mitis, Haute-Gaspésie, western Lower St. Lawrence region, including Témiscouata or Les Basques, and they will find a tribunal that understands their concerns and realities.
There is a lot of discussion about the reform recently introduced by the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, which we also find problematic. This reform will largely affect seasonal workers. The tribunals or boards of referees in areas like the Lower St. Lawrence region fully understand that reality. If we eliminate the structure of boards of referees or that of the tribunals for old age security and the Canada pension plan—which obviously does not affect Quebec as much—we run the risk of undermining the full understanding of regional realities, which these boards of referees could claim to have.
There will be a shift from 1,000 part-time members who sit on tribunals or boards of referees two or three times a week to only 74 full-time members. They will work full time, but their roles will be divided as of now, if we pass this amendment. They will have to decide on files dealing with employment insurance, old age security and the Canada pension plan, all at once. We will have full-time members, but they will not necessarily be able to absorb all the ramifications that are specific to the various issues handled by those tribunals.
I have talked to people, some of whom work in the administration of employment insurance, some on the union side and some on the management side, and they have some major concerns about that. Division 6, which has to do with the Social Security Tribunal, probably demonstrates best why this bill is problematic in its scope. We are talking about a major change, a major reform to a structure that has been around for decades, and we have barely had the time to address it, given that there are 753 clauses to go over. Some people have presented their technical expertise for about 10 to 15 minutes and they answered our questions about the technical aspects. But, since our time for the witnesses was limited, we were not able to get to the bottom of things.
As I said, that is a major reform of something crucial to the way social programs are run in this country. This issue should have been referred for further study to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. We are going to talk about it for a few minutes and that will be it. This will be passed with the entire Bill , based on a single yes or no vote.
We honestly cannot vote in favour of those 58 clauses or so that have been presented to us, simply because we don't have any reliable indication of their potential impact. We have had very little data about how effective a tribunal like that can be, and how it would adequately address issues such as regional diversity, which are key to the success of programs, and of the tribunals and boards of referees that will deal with those issues. As a result, we would not be able to support an amendment like that in any way whatsoever. But we are still going to try to amend it so as to improve this bill, hoping that our friends in the government will give our amendment due consideration.
Unfortunately, I only have the English text.
[English]
I move that Bill , in clause 224, be amended by adding after line 43 on page 201 the following....
I'll wait until after.
I guess I start from the question “if it ain't broke why fix it?”
An hon. member: It's broke.
Ms. Peggy Nash: Well, I would challenge you on that. I think there are major challenges, for example, with the employment insurance system and the fact that only about 40% of Canadians who pay into it get access to benefits when they need them.
Certainly in my area in Toronto, not much more than a quarter of the people who are unemployed get benefits. So it's not that there aren't problems with employment insurance. Certainly we need a good review of employment insurance to take a look at some of the regional challenges, to take a look at the hours system and how that can undermine people's access to EI, and to take a look at how effectively retraining programs are doing. We are in a rapidly changing society with a lot of challenges in our labour market. Employment insurance is an adjustment program to help Canadians adapt to a changing economy. It is an adjustment program, so it's not designed to support people forever and a day, but it's designed to be there when people need it.
We'll have a further discussion about EI when other changes come up. But first I want to get on the record that I don't know why we're making this change to this particular part of EI, which is about the social security tribunal. I haven't heard anyone asking for it. I haven't heard anybody who is involved in EI or OAS appeals ask for it. I don't know where this has come from.
I know there are many changes that should be made to EI, but I just don't see this as being one of them. I also want to echo what my colleague has said, that this should not be before the finance committee; it should properly be before the parliamentarians who sit on the human resources skills development committee for examination.
My colleague mentioned the number of appeals that get referred to the boards. I also want to make the point that almost 54,000 appeals were made in the 2010-11 year, but about half of them were resolved before a hearing because officials recognized there was an error, there was an oversight, or there was incomplete information.
One of the major challenges we're hearing about today from unemployed workers is the great difficulty in getting to speak to a real person. It used to be that you went into an office, you spoke to someone in the UI office, and you made your case. You talked to a person who knew your community and might have known you, and you could explain the situation. Now people are lucky if they can ever get through on a phone line. We've heard awful examples of people waiting for hours to get through on the phone line.
My point in raising this with respect to the social security tribunal is that rather than having these thousand part-time people, who represent labour and management across the country in the regions, who are there in the community, who people can go and speak to face to face—and they are encouraged to go and meet with them face to face—we're going to have these 39 people across the country. I'm very concerned about access and about people's ability to actually get face to face, even if it's only through Skype, with these folks, and about how long the wait time is going to be, because a lot of people who get laid off are living paycheque to paycheque. If that paycheque stops coming in...and we've seen so many workplaces across this country that have closed unexpectedly. People show up for work and the door is closed: no paycheque. Often you're owed back-pay. Often you're owed vacation. You're owed severance.
Then, when you go to apply for EI, if there's a problem, you have to wait. People can't pay their bills. So a speedy resolution...especially when we're finding that so many appeals are resolved quite quickly when people do get access to a real person to speak with who can resolve their complaint.
I want to say that I'm opposed to making this change, which, without adequate study, has the potential to further limit people's access to get their due justice when it comes to making a claim for EI and EI benefits. In a country that's changing as rapidly as Canada is, and with the global economic changes taking place, I think we owe it to Canadians to have a strong and effective labour market adjustment program that can help people when they get into difficulty through no fault of their own when they lose their jobs.
At a time when our economy is still so sluggish, and so many people are still out of work—our unemployment rate is still higher than it was before the start of the last downturn—it's the wrong time to make it potentially more difficult to get EI. If we're doing anything, we should be making strides to see how we can make people's lives easier as we go through this downturn.
I'll conclude my remarks there, Chair.
:
Through the chair, my point is that there is commentary here about the effectiveness and the need for change, and about why we would want it to be in another committee. Well, we can only work from the experiences that we've had as individuals.
In my case, I happen to have been in a position where I helped make the appointments for the labour people who are on tribunals, so I have a sense of it. But if you haven't been there, if you haven't seen that in action and the problems that were there for the individuals....
Now, we're concerned that this change is talking.... It's going to have linguistic problems. It's going to have cultural differences for the people. There are not going to be enough people, as Mr. Caron has said before, and that's a serious concern.
But it's the EI definition of suitability of work that's going to generate appeals. That's going to have people who are going to have their applications set aside.... As for the jurisprudence that carries over from one tribunal to the next, from the CPP, the OAS, and the EI, that jurisprudence is going to take an amount of time for people to learn, because it has been condensed down so.
The loss of institutional memory from those people who were a part of these boards and were out there doing the best they could to sort through the EI appeals.... Not all EI appeals are justifiable. I will agree with that, and there's a case to be made that some of them need to be turned down, but it needs somebody with the competencies, the skills, and the history to be able to do that.
Now, we've had people allude to web-based.... Well, when you're unemployed, probably one of the first things you're going to cut is your access to the Internet. Also, are there going to be travel requirements for people? On video conferencing, if places are set up and individual communities have the capacity to do that, it may be something you can do.
I was part of the pre-budget hearings, and I don't recall anybody in the pre-budget hearings calling for these changes. Have we had testimony at this committee calling for these changes? No—because the system has been working in a reasonable degree. Does it need some fine-tuning? I doubt if there's a department in the government that couldn't stand some fine-tuning. We could probably agree on that.
But it needs to be put before the proper committee of the House where the critic areas are covered. Also, if you believe that the time allotted to this offers us a real opportunity to study the implications of the legislated changes in the various areas of this government's activities, I think you're mistaken.
Thank you.
:
I would quickly like to talk about two items. First, let me reiterate the importance of studying this amendment in greater depth, since it is related to Bill and since there are a great deal of negative effects or aspects that we will not be able to study in depth, including regional realities and local services.
I understand that the intent is to use videoconference and to be able to contact people from afar. There are currently 900 part-time employees who work at the employment insurance boards of referees. There are likely 300 boards of referees, given that there are three employees per board of referees. Let's say that we are now going to have 39 full-time employees. The City of Quebec would offer the service closest to Rimouski, for example, or to the Gaspé, Sept-Îles, or other cities in eastern Quebec. If the services are negotiated or provided out of Quebec City, people won't know if they are dealing with someone who understands the regional realities of a region other than Quebec. Those local services that were provided in all the boards of referees are going to disappear. We think that is a very problematic aspect that should have been looked at in depth.
There is another aspect. We have learned this during our work on the Standing Committee on Finance. This has to do with the difference between meeting with witnesses face to face or through videoconference. I am sorry, but as a member of Parliament, I have seen a big difference between asking questions when the witnesses were in Saskatoon, Toronto, Vancouver or Alaska, and when they were here, on site. The quality of the exchanges we had with people right before us was so much better. Actually, the responses were much more effective, animated and engaging than any of the other responses. And that is not a reflection on their work or their comments, but simply on the medium itself that cannot effectively render the desired message.
Heading in this direction will have an impact on people's lives. A decision like this can potentially alter the quality of their lives significantly. We cannot take this decision lightly. People can appeal a decision before a tribunal or a board of referees.
That is why I deeply regret that this division, not announced and not proposed during the prebudget consultations, as my colleague mentioned, is now included with the 56 divisions in part 4 of this bill. This is very problematic, and let me reiterate my wish to study this division separately, because it deserves to be studied thoroughly and independently, and we will not be able to do so here.
:
You are moving NDP-43. Okay.
The chair has a ruling, as assisted by our wonderful legislative clerks.
Bill C-38 amends the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act by creating a new social security tribunal. The tribunal will hear appeals of decisions made under the Employment Insurance Act, the Canada Pension Plan, and the Old Age Security Act. Tribunal members are selected by means of Governor in Council appointments.
The amendment attempts to specify that where an appeal involves a disability benefit, the member of the tribunal must be a person who is qualified to practise medicine or a prescribed related profession in a province.
House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states, on page 766, and I quote:
An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.
Therefore, in the opinion of the chair, the introduction of the criteria of medical competency with regard to tribunal members is a new concept that is beyond the scope of Bill and is therefore inadmissible.
That deals with NDP-43.
(Clause 224 agreed to on division)
(Clauses 225 to 281 inclusive agreed to on division)
The Chair: I want to thank our officials for being here for that division.
We will then move to division 7, which deals with clauses 282 to 303, consolidation of privacy codes. I have no amendments for this division.
Does anyone wish to speak to this division?
(Clauses 287 to 303 inclusive agreed to)
The Chair: We'll then move to division 8, dealing with social insurance number cards.
These are clauses 304 to 314, and we'll start with Ms. Nash, please.
This is a change that would have an impact on the oversight of CSIS. Back in 2010 Public Safety Minister Vic Toews said that “The inspector general performs an important review function that supports me in my role as minister and ensures that CSIS is operating within the law and complying with current policies.” Our view is that the minister was absolutely right in that statement, and therefore we do not support the removal of the oversight of the inspector general.
We heard testimony from Mr. Paul Kennedy, who came before this committee. Mr. Kennedy told us that he had 20 years of experience in the field of national security. He served as a senior Assistant Deputy Minister of Public Safety. He has been a crown prosecutor, and although his testimony was dismissed as wrong by members opposite, he was in fact very credible. I want to highlight some concerns that he raised.
Mr. Kennedy said that “due to their covert nature, security intelligence activities do not lend themselves to a traditional accountability model”, nor can Canadians access information from CSIS in the same way they can from other government institutions. He also said that inappropriate behaviour by CSIS falls directly at the feet of the Minister of Public Safety.
Mr. Kennedy also said, and I quote:
The Minister of Public Safety presides over a vast portfolio which engages the services of some 40,000 public servants. It's impossible for him to know whether each individual is conducting his or her responsibilities in accordance with the law, operational policies, and ministerial directives and whether powers are being exercised in a reasonable manner.
He made a number of comments. I'll just highlight something else:
That office audits the investigative activity of CSIS at the case file level to ensure that it is in fact complying. The inspector general reports directly to the minister and provides assurances that matters are on course or provides a heads-up as to potential problems.
Now, we heard officials say that this was just duplication, that there were other organizations, there was another body that would handle this kind of review. But Mr. Kennedy said that is simply not true, that the other body is qualitatively different and the inspector general is the one who really represents the eyes and the ears of the minister when it comes to CSIS. Mr. Kennedy was very concerned about why this oversight would be removed, given the personal accountability that the minister has to this. He said that “...without such an office the minister would be blind and entirely at the mercy of the intelligence service. This is neither a reasonable nor a desirable outcome.”
Lastly, he said that
...both the RCMP Security Service and CSIS have had more than their fair share of troubles....The financial cost of past missteps in the area of national security...measured simply in terms of commissions of inquiries...runs to the many tens of millions of dollars, and that's not counting the loss of public support.
The point is that if this is part of a cost-cutting measure, it is simply too high a price to pay in terms of loss of public confidence and potential higher costs down the road, given what Mr. Kennedy felt would be the inevitable problems that would arise due to lack of oversight of and accountability by CSIS.
So we're opposed to this change. The inspector general is not a large expense, but it is a valuable source of information for an organization that is by its nature secret but that Canadians still need to know is behaving according to the rules.
Thank you.
:
Yes, I would welcome that opportunity, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much.
I am here sort of like going to the funeral for somebody you don't like just to make sure they're actually dead.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Pat Martin: No, I'm not talking about you, Bev; I'm talking about the lowly penny.
I personally am relieved that the jig is up for the lowly penny. It's been an aspiration of mine for a long time. But I'm not here to praise the government or the minister quite so much; I want to qualify my remarks, if I may.
By way of introduction, I do acknowledge—in the same vein that a broken clock is correct twice a day, I suppose—that the government is doing the right thing in this regard. The penny has no commercial value. It costs more to produce than it's worth, and it doesn't circulate in the way currency is supposed to circulate. We all know it winds up under your bed in a cookie jar or an ice cream pail more often than not.
In fact the penny has been an expensive nuisance for as long as most of us can remember. People don't even pick them up off the street any more. If you give a handful of pennies to a homeless guy, you get the stink eye instead of a thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I was shocked to learn that there are 30 billion pennies in circulation currently; that's billion with a b. Every year, the Royal Canadian Mint has been minting one billion more. It's an absurd situation, given that they cost more to produce than they're actually worth. Last year—I suppose getting into the spirit of restraint—they only produced 500 million new pennies.
To begin with, I want to address people's potential fears about rounding. In other jurisdictions where they have reduced the lowest denomination, be it a penny or a centavo or a peso, they've introduced a rounding formula. The empirical evidence has been that it's revenue neutral. People need not be concerned that merchants will round up all the time, to the disadvantage of the consumer.
People should also realize that the rounding only takes place on the final total purchase. If you're buying 50 items or 20 items in the grocery store, you're not rounding each individual item; you're only rounding the total figure.
I think that's important for committee members to realize as they're recommending yea or nay on this clause. The general public doesn't have to be afraid of rounding. In those jurisdictions, it's determined to be revenue neutral.
What I want to criticize, and I think the committee members should be aware of this as a reservation, is that the minister only went half way. This clause, as I understand it, only causes the Royal Canadian Mint to cease production of pennies; it doesn't take pennies out of the currency of the realm. I guess I would ask for confirmation from the witnesses that this is in fact the case.
In other jurisdictions, when they've eliminated the lowest denomination they would give, say, a two-year grace period, to give people time to gather them up and cash them in. But after a certain period of time that coin is no longer accepted as currency.
Am I correct in that interpretation?
First off, I would like to mention that, during the 2011 election, the Conservative government made only one promise about health care, which was to keep the increase in transfers at 6% per year.
This decision goes back on the election promise that the Conservatives made. We have discussed it and heard from witnesses who talked about the impact that decision would have. The two sides see that impact differently. We think that we need to think about health care. Furthermore, that's what the provinces are currently doing. The federal government could play a leadership role and try to gather together all the ideas in order to control health care costs. However, limiting the increase of the health care transfer to only 3% in the fourth year, in a non-negotiated and non-negotiable federal-provincial agreement, is a problem.
There is no magic formula. We cannot simply establish a 3% ceiling for increases in the funding of expenditures per year. There is no magic way of doing that. It is clear to us that this will mean reductions in services and, possibly, in insurable care in the health care systems of the various provinces, including Quebec.
It's unfortunate in several respects. In fact, year after year, and even today, the public health care system is probably the government system that is the most prized by all Canadians. Chances are that shortly, probably after the next election since this measure won't come into effect until about 2015, we will start to see the repercussions of this decrease in transfers, with respect to the federal government's promise during the election. At that point, we may see a decrease in the quality of health care and, possibly, the amount of insurable health care in the provinces.
During the consultations and testimonies, the government said that the provinces themselves had started decreasing their health care budgets. We are saying that, even if that is indeed the case, we mustn't put the cart before the horse. The provinces made the decision based on the signals the federal government sent them. Also, establishing ceilings without necessarily looking at the systemic nature of the growth in the cost of health care will be a problem for most of the provinces.
There is one other thing we have discussed very little in our discussions with the witnesses and officials from the department, and that is the fact that the non-negotiated and non-negotiable agreement that was announced will have different impacts depending on the province. When it comes to health care, at the end of 10 years, Quebec will have lost $9 billion compared with what would have been provided in the previous agreement. Nova Scotia will lose $157 million; British Columbia will lose about $250 million a year, for a total of $2.5 billion over 10 years; Ontario will lose about $20 billion over 10 years. The impact on the provinces will be major and massive, and those provinces should have been around the table to discuss this matter, just like the government and the provinces should have been around the table to discuss the best ways to control the growth of health care costs. Obviously, I haven't mentioned Alberta. It's the only province that will come out ahead in this, with probably about $11 billion dollars more over 10 years.
That aspect is fundamental to that decision, which was made by the federal government, pure and simple.
We were disappointed with another aspect. With respect to the Canadian Social Transfer, which affects social assistance and post-secondary education, among other things, this government decided to establish a growth ceiling of 3% per year until 2024. This corresponds roughly with the current cost of living. The problem is that, currently, we are supporting the provinces and contributing less to the funding of these programs than we did, in constant dollars, prior to 1995, when there were massive reductions in the Canada Social Transfer.
We are extremely disappointed that the government has gone back on its election promise to maintain an annual 6% rate of increase in transfers to the provinces and that it is showing no leadership in controlling the increase in health care costs. This is a very real problem: the costs are rising more quickly than the cost of living. There is also a desire to maintain the status quo in the Canada Social Transfer. That actually means that the government is providing less assistance to the provinces to fund those programs than it did up to 1995.
For those reasons, we are going to vote against most of the clauses from 390 to 410. My colleague here is going to move an amendment.
I have a ruling on NDP-44.
Bill amends the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act to provide for the Canada health transfer growing at 6% for 2014-15, 2015-16, and 2017 and then growing in line with the equalization-sustainable growth track, which is based on a three-year moving average of nominal gross domestic product growth, starting in 2017-18.
The amendment seeks to amend the bill so that after March 31, 2014, the transfer formula will be “negotiated between the federal government and the government of each province and territory, in meetings that must begin within 90 days after this act receives royal assent”.
House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, states at pages 767-768:
Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the public treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation.
In the opinion of the chair, therefore, the amendment proposes a new scheme that seeks to alter the terms and conditions of the royal recommendation. Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.
(Clause 393 agreed to on division)
(Clauses 394 to 410 inclusive agreed to on division)
The Chair: We have the next amendment, which proposes a new clause. This is amendment Liberal-6, and I ask Mr. Brison to move it.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I suppose I am concerned that this regulatory change wasn't included in part 3 of the bill, where it would have been reviewed by the appropriate subcommittee, which is I presume why it's before this committee now. That subcommittee would have had the expertise and the background and the information on perhaps the other associated changes to the Fisheries Act.
I note that today press conferences were held. It's kind of appropriate we should be debating this now, because in response to the cuts to DFO that affected the Experimental Lakes Area of northwestern Ontario and the Freshwater Institute in my home riding of Winnipeg Centre, in fact press conferences were held in Vancouver, Edmonton, Winnipeg, and Ottawa on this very day to draw the attention of the public to some of these very regulatory changes we find in clause 411.
In the case of the Experimental Lakes Area, there has been a huge international hue and cry and outrage. I understand this has more to do with science and research than it has to do with regulation under the Fisheries Act, but I think the two really are linked in a way they can't be separated.
The question that's being asked and that the government should explain to us is what is the business case for eliminating some of these research facilities when they in fact have paid for themselves time and time again in the 40 or 50 years they've been in place?
This one particular example is $2 million a year. They saved the Province of Manitoba $400 million a year through one piece of research they did. Lake Winnipeg had all these algae blooms. They were worried about the phosphates and the nitrates going into that lake. It was going to cost $400 million to eliminate them both. The research at the Experimental Lakes Area found it's actually counterproductive to eliminate the nitrates simultaneously and may even encourage more algae blooms. So they only went after the phosphates and saved $300 million or $400 million. The Baltic Sea copied them and saved 3 billion euros.
The dedicated work of 17 scientists in the Experimental Lakes Area at $2 million a year has saved the world in terms of the freshwater resource and the costs of ensuring the integrity of our freshwater resources tens and hundreds of millions of dollars.
It's inexplicable. The public are kind of shaking their heads at some of the changes to the Fisheries Act and the elimination of the scientific research that's being done on our freshwater resources.
I can't support a clause that makes regulatory changes to the Fisheries Act, first of all because it has no place in the budget bill, and secondly, I think it's wrong-headed, it's counterproductive, and they can't even point to a business case.
It's more like they're trying to pre-emptively shoot the messenger. If they don't like the information coming out of scientific research, don't even wait until that research is done and then reject it, but do away with the research facility altogether. You know, what you aren't measuring you can't object to.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I actually didn't realize that this was coming up at this point of the evening, but I am glad I'm here, because this is one particular clause I was—I don't think shocked is too strong a word—shocked to stumble across as I was going through the 425 pages of Bill C-38.
Actually, this huge transformational change is encapsulated in ten words in Bill C-38. Exactly ten words of a 425-page document say "The Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act is repealed". That's it. Most of us missed it. I stumbled across it almost by accident, frankly. I'm sure that our researchers saw it, but they may not have realized the significance of this.
For 75 years, the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act has taken wages out of competition on federal contracts so that employers and contractors seeking to work for the federal government would win their contracts based on their skill, their productivity, their competitiveness, and their expertise in that area of work, not on their ability to find cheaper and cheaper labour. That was because somebody, in their wisdom, realized that it is really in no one's best interest to drive down the wages of ordinary Canadian workers. They also realized that especially in times of economic downturn, there is always some worker desperate enough to take a buck an hour less to put food on the table of his or her family.
It was wise. It was great wisdom in the 1930s that put this Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act together, because it created a level playing field for both unionized and non-unionized contractors so that both would have the ability to win government contracts.
The federal government is a large consumer of construction industry services. Many contractors would wish to get into that game and be able to access government contracts.
I just can't understand, frankly, in whose interest it is to drive this down, unless there is a deliberate interest--I don't think it's paranoid to assume--on the part of the government to allow more temporary foreign workers to take more Canadian construction jobs.
Bear with me while I ask our expert witness some questions on this.
As I understand it, the fair wage schedules are set by the Minister of Labour. From time to time they're updated. There's a canvass and a survey of union and non-union sector wages, which are averaged out, sort of, and a prevailing wage in the area is set.
I'm a journeyman carpenter by trade. Let's say that the prevailing rate for carpenters in Winnipeg is $20 an hour. When you're the contractor bidding on a federal government job, you have to put your bid together using that wage schedule, as set by the government. The act also says that you can't work a guy more than 48 hours without paying some overtime. What the act says is 48 hours, not 40.
Without that, you can post a job ad saying “Wanted--Carpenters, $10 per hour”. Nobody will apply. So within ten days you can get temporary foreign workers in, because the rules have just changed on temporary foreign workers.
The Winnipeg International Airport is a classic example. Eighty Lebanese temporary foreign workers came in and built the Winnipeg International Airport. They did the carpentry there, while the Canadian carpenters outside the fence looking in wished that they could get a job.
This will open the floodgates to temporary foreign workers. We should keep in mind that these temporary foreign workers aren't just individual guys sitting in Bangladesh getting foreign newspapers and looking at the want ads. They work for labour brokers. We call them labour pimps, international labour pimps. They have crews of guys they move all over the world.
These Lebanese guys who built the Winnipeg International Airport, their last job was in Latvia. They were in Latvia this week. They're in Winnipeg next week. They'll be in Geneva the week after that. They're moving them around through these labour pimps. It's like trafficking. It's bonded servitude. They owe these labour pimps part of their salary. Now you can pay them 15% less than Canadian wages.
I know my question is a long one, Mr. Chairman, but frankly I'm horrified. This is my industry we're talking about here. It's destabilizing and driving down the wages.
No fair contractor will ever win another job working for the federal government, because the unfair employer is no longer required to pay fair wages. So in the unionized sector, the employer is going to have to go to his guys and say, “You've got to lower your wages, because I can't compete with these guys who are now allowed to pay peanuts or get temporary foreign workers. They're going to eat our lunch.”
Is that completely crazy, or is that pretty much accurate, Mr. Giles?
:
I think the issue of temporary foreign workers is a complex one.
I can say, Mr. Martin, that I have actually spoken with...and Mr. Jean has made the point that in many cases, in fact, the cost of temporary foreign workers is actually higher than the cost of local. I think that in fact is accurate, in a lot of cases; my understanding is that it costs employers more.
There is a broader issue, and that is the emergence of a trend where we have jobs without people and people without jobs, and the need to close that skills gap within Canada. I think that speaks to, among other things, restoring the honour of trades, the dignity of trades. Part of it is cultural, part of it is public policy, but over a 30-year period we've seen a diminution in the dignity and honour of trades and a herding of everybody to universities as opposed to a recognition of the importance of trades and the need for tradespeople. It's one of the reasons why we need to have a more robust role for the federal government in the area of training and engagement of the provinces in that area.
I do think temporary foreign workers in some sectors actually play a very important role in terms of the production chain and the value chain. Furthermore, I know a number of employers who use them, and I do not see the conditions that.... Perhaps there are cases where the conditions are really bad, but I've seen in fact, to the contrary, some very reasonable conditions, and beyond that, people who on an annual basis will work for Canadian employers and use that money to build homes in their home country and to really bootstrap themselves and help....
I know this is distinct from the cases you're describing, but in some cases they're taking jobs that could not be filled locally, where there were not Canadians who had either the desire or the skills to fill those. But I realize that's distinct from some of the cases.
I would just say that it's a complicated issue and one that requires more time. The training issue is an important one.
Thank you.
Quite regularly, we hear how the NDP votes against things, so I thought I would start off my comments by talking about the things we agree with the government on in this particular one, because we have a lot we don't agree on.
The changes in clauses 449 and 450 would allow the minister to waive requirements for applying for OAS. We think that's good. We also think that voluntary deferral, in clause 451, is good. Waiving requirements for applying for GIS, in clauses 454 and 457 to 459 and 460, again is reasonable.
Now, I'll go down a bit further in my notes here, and I won't go through item by item, because we will vote on those, Mr. Chair, but the clauses that we're against and the aspects that we're against—we have said all along that there's a fundamental disagreement between the opposition and the government parties on the need to change the eligibility for OAS. We don't think it's needed.
The parliamentary budget officer has said—and he's looked at this file—that yes, there's going to be an increase of $39 billion to over $100 billion. But he says in the commentary from the government, it doesn't talk about the growth in GDP. The OECD pension team looked at it as well. They didn't agree.
The first we heard about any of this, of course, was in Davos, with the famous speech—or infamous; it depends on how you look at it, Mr. Chair. It took us ages to find out from our finance minister that this change would be $10 billion for the government. We knew it was going to be something like that because of the savings by holding people on disability for an extra two years, or holding people on welfare for an extra two years. It should be between $6,000 and $7,000, depending on your numbers, per year, per person, that you are going to save by transferring those costs to the provinces. Giving fairness to the finance minister, he said he'd try to cover those costs. We'll see how that goes.
But expert after expert has said OAS is sustainable. Even when they move it out to 2023, as they've done...it's not something that needs to be in this budget. If we're going to look at retirement security for seniors, and pensions, we need to take a holistic approach and look at everything that's out there. You look at OAS, GIS, CPP, and the private options. The PRPP that the government put in is not mandatory, so it's not going to accomplish anything. We're very concerned about that aspect and the fact that it's going to leave seniors and disabled people in poverty two years longer. The change will keep them from going to OAS and GIS, which gives them a modest increase to their monthly income. That's who you're hurting with this. It's not needed. It should be withdrawn.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
:
This is an issue that I identified 15 years ago as being a real live issue in Canada, as it has been in most western democracies. Demographics is the trend...most people are set on making money because of the growing population. Seniors are going from 4.7 million to 9.3 million over the next 20 years. That's almost a doubling of the population.
I can't say enough to Mr. Marston and others, that notwithstanding that the age is being changed, the reality is that Canadians are living longer, healthier lives, which means that 30 to 40 years ago, at 65, very possibly they were in need of social assistance and help from the federal government, but today it's a very different scenario.
My mum is 80 years old and very healthy. She is working full time—a spry young lady, I would call her. She just wrote a book and works at least 50 hours a week. She walked around India with me for two weeks and most of the time she was outrunning me.
This is not what took place 40 to 50 years ago in this country. People are much healthier, because we have such a great, generous health system, because we have a good system of taking care of our society. I think the reality is that the cost of the OAS program will increase dramatically. It will increase to such a point that it will not be sustainable, and we can see that by the numbers we have seen for years, which is that we are going to be in a situation, if we continue, that by 2030 there will be two taxpayers for every senior, down from what they are today, which is four, so a doubling of the burden on the same number of taxpayers, in essence. I think that is substantially more than it was 20 years ago; I think there were 8 or 10.
There's no question something needs to be done. I think most western democracies have done this, and they've done this because it's absolutely necessary. Anybody who doesn't see the writing on the wall is clearly playing politics, in my mind, and not dealing with reality.
On this issue, the reality is that the OECD and the Parliamentary Budget Officer have said the OAS is sustainable in its current form, 65 being the age of eligibility. It's important to realize that while today it is 2.7% of GDP, at its peak in 2030 it will be 3.1%. This is manageable, and it's really important to realize that 40% of the people getting OAS make less than $20,000 a year. These are the most vulnerable.
Mr. Jean's mum is a very active and healthy person. I've met her. She's a tremendous entrepreneur and a pretty remarkable person. My father worked until he was 82, and he was a pretty amazing person in that sense. But there are people who, either due to their health or the nature of their work...if you're in physical work, if you're working in a fish plant in a cold, damp environment in rural Newfoundland, if you are working on your feet all day, if you are a labourer, at 65 your body could be ready for a break, and I think it's important to realize that.
I have a question for Mr. Rodrigue, who appeared before us on a Thursday, quite late at night, a few weeks ago, I believe. I asked you for the information on the impact of this change on the fisc and you responded that you couldn't comment on that, it was a cabinet confidence, and I was able to refer you to section 69 of the Access to Information Act.
The next day, less than 24 hours later, I think it was in the afternoon, this information was provided, not to Parliament, but broadly as part of a press release. What changed in that period of time?
:
I would like to go back to the argument that we absolutely have to act now because it will be impossible for the cost increases to be assumed by the government or by all Canadians.
The information confirmed by the government was that the amount that will be saved by these measures in 2030 will be about $10.8 billion. In 2030. In today's dollars, that means about $6 or $6.5 billion.
The GST reductions that the Conservative government has put in place since it was elected in 2006 amount to two per cent. As the government says, the GST has gone from 7% to 5%. That was a cost to the treasury. Each one per cent is between $4 and $6 billion, to be on the safe side. So the amount that the government is no longer collecting because of the two per cent reduction in the GST is between $8 and $12 billion. The government made the choice to reduce the GST by two per cent, costing the public purse between $8 and $12 billion per year. And yet it comes up with a plan, not announced or debated during the election campaign, that increases the age of eligibility for old age security, which will save $6 billion per year in today's dollars.
Governing means making choices, and the Conservative government has made its choices. With the harmonized sales tax, it chose to give tax reductions for which our retired Canadians are going to have to pay by working two years longer. Someone who is 53 today will receive $12,000 less in old age security than someone who is 54 today, given that the change goes into effect in 2023.
So please do not tell me that the current program cannot be paid for by Canadians as a whole. As has been mentioned, the OECD has shown that it can. The Parliamentary Budget Officer said so too. The chief actuary of the Canada Pension Plan, who also looks after the books of the old age security program, has also shown that things can be adjusted without resorting to such draconian measures.
We completely agree with the need to deal with the question of demographic change. But this measure alone does not address the situation and does not represent an overall assessment of the situation. It is just one action in one of the programs that provides economic security for our retired Canadians. It simply scratches the surface of the larger problem we have to come to grips with.
In those terms, the argument that we cannot afford the program at the moment and that we absolutely have to increase the age of eligibility makes no sense, given the choices the government has made in the past.
According to the Chief Actuary of Canada, the cost increase of the program, as a percentage of the GDP, is about 1%. And that 1% is being used to justify taking away $12,000 in income from people currently under 53, while those 54 or older can keep it.
Nothing has been done to convince the opposition, Canadians and Quebeckers that this scheme is fair and appropriate.
That's it.
:
I just want to get on the record, once again, our concerns around OAS. Comments that we're going to end up like Greece if we don't make that change are absolutely ridiculous.
Quite frankly, the government can't have it both ways. They can't say the government is running the best financial management of any country in the world—which is not accurate—to claim credit for doing things well, and at the same time say that if this change isn't made, we're going to end up where the country is almost bankrupt. It's simply not the case.
I want to get in on the subject of what this is actually doing. At one point, one of the ministers commented that we're doing this because other countries are doing it. Canada's demographics are not the same as Europe's. Our country is aging, but less rapidly than many other European countries, and our finances are in better shape.
The reality is that this kicks in for people who are age 54 and younger. It means no one who is a senior today is affected, but for people who are 54 and younger, they're going to be affected. By the time this takes effect, it's going to be coming up to the peak of the demographics of the baby boom. After that, the cost of OAS as a percentage of GDP will decline. It's scheduled to go from about 2.43% of GDP in 2012, up to its absolute peak of 3.16% in 2030, and then it falls back to 2.35% in 2060. This is a demographic bulge. It's going to go up and it's going to go down again.
To cut the benefits, not for the baby boomers who are creating that bulge, but for the people who come after them, in my view exacerbates intergenerational inequity. Baby boomers had better access to jobs, to education, and they will have better access to OAS and pensions, but the people who come after them are going to have less of everything. I don't think it's right and I don't think it's necessary.
After asking several questions of the minister and the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, and asking officials, we were not told what the impact of this change would be. Everyone refused to give us numbers. Then, the day after we sit as a finance committee, a Friday afternoon before a long weekend, the numbers came out, and it's $10.8 billion by 2030. In 2030, that's what the number will be.
What does that mean for people who are affected? OAS is just over $6,000 a year, so for a couple, for two years, that's about $25,000 out of their pockets. It's very significant for individuals. Yes, it's an issue we have to address, but this is not the right way to go about it.
This is not something the government campaigned on. We had an election a year ago. The government never mentioned it. It gets announced by the Prime Minister when he's with some of the wealthiest people in the world—an elite gathering in Davos. That's how the people who are going to lose $25,000 found out they're going to be impacted by this.
The people who will be impacted most may have 10 years or more to prepare, but the reality for people at the bottom end of the income scale is that they're not going to be able to prepare because they don't have the wherewithal to put that kind of money aside.
For all these reasons, we think this is wrong. It's the wrong move. It's the wrong measure.
If you're looking for $10 billion, you could maybe look at redrafting the military procurement and not pursuing the F-35s, where you were out $10 billion in your costing, and put that money into the pockets of Canadians when they need it most, in their retirement years.
Thank you.
I want to say that I have a high regard and respect for the member for Chatham-Kent—Essex.
I even looked it up, just so I'd be clear. I believe that when you say the things you do, you actually believe that it's the case. But as the previous speakers have pointed out, we're taking $10.8 billion away from seniors. There's a problem. Nobody is arguing that there's not something happening to the generations we're talking about. Agreed, it's $39 billion to $109 billion.
The hole in the government's view of this is very simple: when the numbers are looked at, they're not taking into account the projected growth in GDP between now and 2023. In essence, the government is saying they're not sure their economic policies are going to sustain the growth actually being predicted by the Bank of Canada. If we even got half the GDP growth predicted, this would be less than 1% of GDP. It would take 0.8% of GDP to cover this.
You talked about the need to address a challenge. We're saying to you that we should have looked at things in a more holistic view. There's no rush to be doing this. The reality is that when you take into account GDP growth, this is absolutely sustainable. That's why you have a divergence of opinion between the people who have looked at this—the OECD, the Parliamentary Budget Officer—and the side the government has taken their figures from. That's where your difference lies. The reality is that it's a difference in choice in how that gets addressed.
We're saying, quite simply, that taking two years of income away from seniors is hurting the wrong people. This is the wrong way.
When you look at the amount of taxation capacity that's been removed by this government—the change to the HST is roughly $14 billion a year, the change to corporate taxation is roughly $16 billion a year—that's $30 billion of fiscal capacity to address this situation. When you look at banks and places like that that are giving their executives billions of dollars in bonuses, how do you square that circle? It can't be done. We have to make a better choice than this one.
:
With regard to the Investment Canada Act, in 2010 Parliament voted unanimously to pass an NDP motion identifying serious problems with the Investment Canada Act, committing the government to making specific improvements. But these proposed changes really don't live up to that promise. There has been great concern over the definition of net benefit to Canada. What does that mean when we have seen foreign investments authorized, takeovers carried out, jobs lost, technology moved out of the country, and BHP's high-profile attempt to take over PotashCorp? There was no definition of net benefit to Canada, but the government opposed that takeover.
The only other time the government has stood up to a foreign takeover or foreign investment was in the case of MacDonald Dettwiler. It was the very first time this investment had been blocked. The company had launched very important RADARSAT technology. It was something the government had talked about as being essential to Canada's protection of the north, of the Arctic, and then within weeks there was an announced takeover of this company and sale to the largest American munitions manufacturer. The minister at the time, ultimately, in the face of significant public pressure, decided to block the foreign takeover.
The rules are not clear. They're sporadic, and there are many Canadians who do not feel the rules work in their interest, because affected communities have no say. There is no open, democratic process for people to have input into hearings when there's a proposed takeover. The people who are directly affected, who work for a company, have no opportunity to participate in hearings, and there are, as I said, no clear rules about net benefit to Canada.
The government here is making a very modest change, in the sense that merely having companies pay a fine in the form of security rather than cash really doesn't change the basic rules of the Investment Canada Act. That's just unacceptable for Canadians. We've had so many foreign takeovers and so many cases of people being thrown out of work, companies being closed down, and technology being taken out of the country.
We need foreign investment. We want foreign investment, but we need clear rules, clear accountability, a process that allows for democratic input, and a process that ensures that Canadian interests are protected. We don't see those things in the amendments that are proposed. They're very inadequate.
Thank you for letting me take part in this meeting.
The government has been promising for a long time to tighten up the Investment Canada Act. But it refuses to let Parliament do its job, which is to examine the proposed changes in an appropriate forum. The Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology has also asked that the Investment Canada Act be reviewed.
In 2010, the House passed Mr. Layton's motion to reform the Investment Canada Act. It included a commitment that public hearings would henceforth be part of the process of examining foreign takeovers. The process required public disclosure of the conditions attached to any foreign takeover, a transparent process for monitoring the performance of foreign entities and clear penalties in the event of non-compliance.
The motion recognized that the purpose of the act should be clarified in order to encourage new capital and job creation rather than the takeover of strategic resources. Last February, the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology unanimously passed a motion that the committee undertake a review of the Investment Canada Act.
But the government is reneging on its commitment to work with the opposition parties, investors and the communities and workers affected and is making changes to the act by way of regulations.
[English]
The government has long promised to fix the broken Investment Canada Act, but these changes will actually negatively impact communities and workers. The government is refusing to let Parliament consider the legislation and is instead slipping change in through regulation.
[Translation]
Even the current changes to the Investment Canada Act do not go far enough. Canadian companies are disappearing and, as has already been mentioned, the concept of net benefits to Canada has not yet been clearly spelled out. I believe that it would be appropriate to conduct an in-depth review of the Investment Canada Act in a suitable forum. The objective is for industries, workers and communities to benefit from foreign investment. If possible, conditions should be established in a positive way so that the foreign investments provide benefits for employment, for our communities and for Canada.
As you mentioned, Canada invests overseas. So Canada could certainly benefit from investments too. But they must have a positive effect, in the sense that they must establish long-term relationships that benefit communities, business and labour.
This is a subject that greatly interests me. I asked the witnesses who made presentations a number of questions about it. I was also very interested in what was happening at Rights and Democracy and the saga that was going on there for a number of months, if not more than a year. The organization had earned its spurs, had established its credibility on the international scene in the geopolitical reality of 1988. That geopolitical reality has evolved, of course, but the organization has always managed to adapt.
There were a number of people in charge. I know that, in the House today, Ms. Laverdière mentioned Jean-Louis Roy, who was one of the organization's CEOs. I had the opportunity to meet him and have discussions with him. He confirmed that the organization continued to have a very good reputation until the arrival of a new board of directors, made up of people parachuted in by the federal government. That is when the problems started.
One of the witnesses, the chair of the board, said that the organization was badly run. When I asked him about that allegation, I reminded him that board members had asked Deloitte & Touche to do a management audit of the organization from 2005 to 2009. That was the period during which the management provided by Mr. Beauregard and the staff of Rights and Democracy was alleged to have been bad. I told him that the report cost a little under $1 million, as I understand it, an amount that represented the entirety of the consultations that the board of directors undertook.
The board of directors sat on the report for more than five months. The witness tried to convince me, with no success, that the report was devastating for Mr. Beauregard's administration. If you read the report, you see that there was no evidence of poor administration in the organization. Anyone who has read the report, as I have, can see that clearly. Mr. Brown's arguments have done nothing to convince me of the opposite. I also recommend that the people watching us on television and who want to know more about this read the excellent series of articles that Paul Wells wrote for Maclean's magazine at the time. They provide a very good history and chronology of the situation.
It was after 2009, that is, after the appointment of the board members, that the problems really started and that Rights and Democracy began to skid out of control. Some staff members left and Mr. Beauregard worked passionately and energetically to defend the organization for which he worked. But, at the end of the day, Rights and Democracy, a credible, worthy organization that represented Canada well on the international scene, gradually became nothing more than an empty shell.
Division 33 of Bill does away with the organization. I do not have to tell you that I find this to be regrettable in the extreme. We will remember Rights and Democracy as an organization that, for a very long time, had succeeded in projecting a very respectable image of Canada as a country that makes attempts at conciliation on the world stage. That image is gradually fading away. As a consequence, we are going to make a final gesture in this committee by voting against the proposed changes to division 33 that will eliminate Rights and Democracy for ever.
The bill actually eliminates the requirement for the Parole Board of Canada to hold a hearing in cases of suspension, termination or revocation of parole or statutory release.
First, we must ask why this measure was not included in Bill and why it is included in the budget. There are few places that this omnibus bill does not reach. This is clearly a justice matter.
Unfortunately, we did not have the time to hear from many witnesses. We only heard from one. However, he is very qualified. His name was Michael Jackson; he has been in practice for 40 years, including in the area of human rights, which he teaches at the University of British Columbia. He is an expert in the rights of prisoners and of Aboriginals. In his opinion, the clause is unconstitutional. Let me read a part of his testimony in English:
[English]
Section 7 of the charter provides that everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of person, and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the fundamental principles of justice.
He specifies:
What the bill does is abrogate that right. Thereafter, these reviews will be done by a paper review. The board is now also contemplating moving to a single member conducting this review by changing the regulations. You'll have one member of the board reviewing the case without the presence of the offender and making a...decision potentially to revoke parole.
[Translation]
The clause is already clearly unconstitutional, but then, in addition…
[English]
he further says that this will disproportionately impact aboriginal offenders.
[Translation]
I have read his brief. We received it yesterday or today. It goes quite far. He goes right to the point by saying…
[English]
C-38, by abolishing post suspension hearings, would extinguish the possibility of an elder-assisted hearing in the post-suspension context. In doing so, Parliament will be aggravating, not alleviating, the systemic discrimination referred to by the [SCC in Gladue and Ipeelee].
[Translation]
A witness, who specializes in human rights, is saying that not only is this bill anticonstitutional, but it is also an attack on aboriginal people. Once again, we are wondering why this bill is being studied in the Standing Committee on Finance and not in the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Why was this not included in previously introduced Bill ? I don't understand why the government wants to move forward. This further proves that the government prefers to send people to prison with its megaprison policy.
In addition, that approach does not help rehabilitate people. It has been shown that the Quebec system helps people rehabilitate so that they can be part of society. Yet this government is taking away those peoples' rights.
:
Yes. It is bizarre that the Coasting Trade Act is before the finance committee. It makes no sense, and yet here we are debating seismic surveys in coastal waters—which should not be before the finance committee.
We just heard recent testimony on this. This clause would allow foreign or non-duty-paid seismic vessels to perform seismic activities on Canada's continental shelf without obtaining a coastal trade licence. These tests are conducted for oil exploration. We believe that government review and assessment of these activities is important.
We heard from Mr. Len Zedel, a scientist, who said “fish catch rates have been noted to decrease in response to seismic surveys”. He said “The intention of the present legislation”, this bill, “is to provide easier access for oil companies to seismic survey vessels, but if it has the desired effect, the concern is that you'll have more seismic survey operations” and consequently “significantly more environmental impact”. He said it was the “cumulative” effect of these seismic surveys that he's concerned about. He believes there could also be impacts on the fishing industry, for obvious reasons, if fish are affected by the surveys.
So one could argue for greater control over the industry rather than less, to constrain and manage the impact—the industry meaning the seismic survey.
We also heard from Professor Richard Steiner, who said:
We know that impacts can go out to 50 or 60 kilometres on certain species...and the effects can be quite profound, particularly with continuous sound pulses over a long period of time.
Professor Steiner said that Canadian standards for seismic mitigation should be better, and that the Canadian and U.S. governments should “develop a bilateral agreement to make seismic mitigation and monitoring consistent across our borders”.
The reason I'm quoting extensively from these scientists is that this is an issue that should have more study. Again, it's not properly before the finance committee. We believe it should be sent to the appropriate committee and be properly studied.
So we're not going to be supporting it.
Ms. Nash is right. We did have some excellent testimony in this regard on the Coasting Trade Act, and she is right that there was some testimony in regard to the sound and the impact of that. However, this act deals with something quite different, and that is the ability for vessels other than Canadian vessels to conduct tests. The testimony I heard—and I think the government side would agree with this too—is that although there are challenges, those challenges are being met. Those challenges are worldwide. The issue here is whether or not we will allow vessels other than those licensed in Canada only to do seismic testing.
I was looking for my notes, but if my memory serves me correctly, there's a very small number of vessels that currently are able to do this research. This would expand that and give our oil extraction companies a better opportunity to compete. This, of course, we know, is very important to places like Newfoundland and the other Atlantic provinces, for gas and oil exploration, and as such this is very important for the economy.
As I said, the testimony that I heard... Those two individuals who testified on the effects of sonar charging recognized, as do most people in the world, that there are effects, but we are working towards those things. The issue here again is the oil extraction and the need for other vessels to be able to do that.
I would further say, as a last point, that currently there are but two countries that limit seismic surveying to those ships that are licensed by their specific nations, Canada and Nigeria. Every other nation allows for other ships to come in, so we're just following that pattern.
Thank you, Chair.
Division 40 provides for the elimination of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy and the repeal of its founding legislation.
We must not forget that the round table plays the role of catalyst in defining, interpreting and promoting sustainable development principles and practice. One of the round table's roles is to conduct research and gather data from analyses on key issues related to sustainable development. Another one of its roles is to provide governments with advice on how to integrate environmental and economic considerations into their decision-making process.
The objective of the round table is truly to maintain a balance among the economy, development and the environment. In this case, we are all perfectly aware of the government's position. Legislation is being appealed and the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy is being eliminated. This is a direct attack. In practice, they are saying that it is not important to obtain data or advice, or to determine what the environmental impacts are. They are opting for more ideological processes.
That is why the NDP is introducing an opposition motion in the House today. We are doing this specifically to stop the Conservatives from muzzling scientists and researchers. By setting aside all scientific analyses, the government is making more ideological decisions, often directed by lobbies. I think this is really appalling. There is not much more I can say about this, except that the government's decision in this matter is clearly unacceptable.
We have heard officials—even from the other side—say that they would hold discussions with environmental groups and listen to what they had to say about this. In order words, they would look for information elsewhere. However, we can see now that the is accusing environmental groups of money laundering and calling them radicals. Yesterday, a number of environmental groups and human rights organizations, along with thousands of individuals, gathered for a boycott. They wanted to show that, with Bill , the government was going too far and taking away environmental groups' freedom of expression. We see that the same issue comes up in other parts of the budget, including those that concern charity organizations.
So we will vote against that part.
The National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy has been around since 1988. Its goal was to provide an independent body, an independent voice, not just as an advocate around the environment, but as a body that had the explicit goal of bringing together dissenting voices at a round table, a place where environmentalists, business, labour, academics, and all kinds of different parties—sometimes with very opposing views—could debate issues, hopefully work through issues, and thereby develop better policy. It has been an organization that has been a strong voice not just in bringing together research, but in promoting sustainable development solutions.
Mr. Mai has just said that there are these opposing views—pardon me, I think it was Mr. Brison—that you can have jobs or the environment and that somehow they're in opposition, when in fact you see successful economies around the world—like Germany, for example, which has been a leader in green technology—using the transition to a more sustainable economy as an economic development measure. You can see how successful they've been at that and how they've been exporting the products they create and exporting that technology.
The National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy has produced a number of worthy reports. It has been very active on the issue of water. It has recently looked at Canada and U.S. climate change policy, because of course we want to understand how we work together with our largest trading partner. Also, it has helped build solutions and opportunities for business to evolve by using more sustainable solutions.
But as an independent body, it has not always nodded in agreement with the direction of the federal government. In some cases, it has been critical, but it has also raised warning flags where there are problems. Just recently, the national round table had been saying publicly that delays in regulating greenhouse gas emissions mean that we're locking in old infrastructure for decades to come, and saying how we need to be looking at modernizing more energy-efficient infrastructure. By pointing the way to more helpful directions, these points are perhaps critical of the government but useful to the government.
It's a tragedy and I think a travesty to see this organization cut—eliminated. It's not a large budget, but it's a very useful addition to Canada's public debate. This is part of a government approach that tends to want to eliminate and defund voices and organizations that don't agree with it. It gives the appearance of being anti-science and anti-data, because when they disagree with data and when they disagree with science, they want to silence that science.
We've had a debate today with an NDP opposition day motion on the whole issue of scientific expertise and making sure that we preserve and protect the value of scientific and social science expertise. But much of what's happening through this omnibus budget bill and the other changes the government is making, whether it's cuts to Library and Archives Canada or cuts to the National Research Council, Statistics Canada, the National Council of Welfare.... We've seen so many examples of this.
I can only feel that the officials who work for the federal government must dread the data they come out with if it's at odds with the direction this government takes. I think this is just another example of a paranoid approach. The federal government doesn't want to engage in debate and dialogue and therefore come up with better solutions.
We're opposed to this. Again, it's another example of an item that should never have come before the finance committee. It should be before the environment committee, but here we are.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I used a good portion of my floor time at meetings with witnesses to explain as much as possible our reservations towards this provision that opens the door to foreign ownership for telecommunications companies—especially companies specializing cellphones—with less than 10% of the current market. We have raised several issues, to which we have not received responses we deem satisfactory when it comes to some of the potentially significant consequences.
We have often talked about small companies that hold 3% or 4% of the market. It was said that they could eventually be acquired by foreign companies and, 10 or 12 years down the line, reach anywhere from 12% to 15% of the market. If that were the case, if one of the current companies saw its market share go up to 12% to 15%, we would end up with two companies of similar size playing by two different sets of rules: one would have access to foreign capital and the other one would not.
That may seem like an exaggeration. We are talking about not only WIND Mobile or Public Mobile, but also Videotron, and potentially Shaw Communications, MTS and SAS Telecom. Those companies could eventually increase their market share—especially Videotron. Let's use the example of Videotron and Shaw Communications, should the latter enter the cellphone market because it already has the spectrum to do so. If those two companies, which own two of the four largest private television networks, were eventually acquired by a foreign company, there would be serious issues in terms of broadcasting and telecommunications legislations. I think that's one of the reasons why the government has been hesitating for such a long time. Consultations on that issue have been held for over two years. We cannot necessarily see those potential consequences. The people who have testified have not provided satisfactory responses.
I would like to briefly talk about risks. That was pointed out in a document on public security obtained thanks to the Access to Information Act. That document discusses national security issues—potential risks—stemming from the fact that our crucial telecommunications infrastructure is being opened to foreign ownership. Considering that whole decision—including decisions that will not be in the bill, but affect the next spectrum auction that should be held by the end of next year—we still think that the government should have leaned toward a formula that would have reserved spectrum for new entrants. If the goal is to improve competition, reserving spectrum is probably the best way to do that, instead of setting a cap as the government has done. That is why we cannot vote in favour of section 595.
However, I don't think our side will provide much opposition to sections 596 to 601, which aim to strengthen mechanisms that prevent telemarketing companies from calling people at home. We actually think it is a bit strange this is included in the same provision. We understand that the same legislation is being amended. Nevertheless, it is related to two extremely different issues. We will also vote against section 595.
:
We discussed this when the officials came here earlier.
I just want to make the point that current provision in the law stems from a human rights complaint. The judge's decision on that complaint was that there had been systemic discrimination against women applying for non-traditional work. At the time, I believe it was at CN Rail. That situation was difficult to prove on an individual case, but collectively, in looking at the overall employment data of that company, it was clear that not only had women been underrepresented, but also that there were barriers that had, intentionally or unintentionally, discouraged women from working in those sectors.
I would argue that in many work environments, women have made great progress. There are women who have made breakthroughs in areas that are very non-traditional. Ms. Glover, for example, is an example of someone who has experience in an occupation that was, up until 10 or 15 years ago, very non-traditional—and still, the numbers of women in it are low compared to the overall hiring rate.
The purpose of the employment equity legislation was to oblige employers under federal jurisdiction, or those who take contracts at the federal level, to address systemic barriers to the hiring of women, people of colour, first nations people, and people with disabilities. I understand that this change does not affect employers under federal jurisdiction, but it would affect federal contractors, in that they would no longer be obliged to do the outreach and to report annually on what steps they have taken to comply with federal employment equity legislation as federal contractors.
Let's think about who some of these federal contractors are. They could be major aerospace companies, major auto companies, telecommunications companies, or IT companies—some of which may have an excellent record of hiring people from these four groups. But I would suggest that some still have a ways to go. Although some may have made progress, some, I would argue, would not have made progress if there had not been the requirement to report on an annual basis.
While I would argue some things have improved for some groups in some occupations, there is still a long way to go. I think it is a step back when it comes to the defence of human rights, equity, and fair representation of all people in the workplace to remove the requirement for mandatory compliance and reporting that exists today for federal contractors.
So we are opposed to this change.
Well, clause 603 we're against.
Clause 604 allows for insurable earnings to be calculated in the best weeks, not just total weeks. Some regions will lose when the pilot program ends. Workers in all regions will benefit from the introduction of a best-weeks' calculation. If I understand that correctly, then we would be for that.
Now on clauses 605 to 619, not including the proposed amendment at this point, the government is asking Canadians to just trust the minister. From our side, we don't think the bill gives us enough detail in that particular area. Again, it's like looking at the Canada Pension Plan. The Canada Pension Plan is funded through the premiums that employers pay and the premiums that workers pay. EI is funded through Canadian workers in exactly the same way. It's an insurance program purchased by those two groups of people for when people are in crisis or if there's a layoff.
In some instances, particularly in the east coast provinces, there's a lot of part-time work, seasonal work, and you don't have the alternatives to turn to, so people have come to rely on unemployment insurance, as we used to call it, which is now called employment insurance. Now we're looking at the potential that a person who leaves one job will have to accept a 30% cut to take other employment in work that's outside of their field.
Earlier tonight we had Pat Martin here, who is a carpenter. I recall in the eighties there was a huge downturn in construction in Ontario, and we had something like a 63% unemployment rate in those skilled trades. Now you're saying to people they're going to have to give up the standards they're used to having.
You'll recall one of our witnesses, economist Andrew Jackson, who was here. He said:
In the high unemployment regions in Atlantic Canada and Quebec, there is something in the range of 10 unemployed workers for every job vacancy that's reported by employers.
He continued:
It would seem to us that we're very far from a situation where there are jobs going begging because of unemployed workers turning them down.
And that's what we hear from the government side: the implication that workers don't want to work.
He also noted that particularly
in the higher unemployment regions where wages are relatively low to begin with...obliging some subgroup of the unemployed to take significant wage cuts could further depress wages.
I think we're opening the door here to driving down the wages in those areas that are hard-pressed already
So we have a great number of concerns.
How's my time, Mr. Chair?
I certainly am going to make a general comment, and then I'll speak specifically to why we are not going to be supporting the NDP amendment, which I'm sure they'll be shocked at.
From our perspective, this is just proposing targeted, common sense changes to make EI a more efficient program that supports job creation and removes the disincentives to work. It really is targeted at supporting unemployed Canadians and to quickly connect people to jobs.
I think there's a lot of misinformation out there in terms of what this is going to be and what it isn't going to be.
The Minister of HRSDC announced the proposed definition for suitable employment, which is going to be based on six dimensions: personal circumstances, working conditions, hours worked, commuting time, wages, and type of work. When you take these together, they are going to ensure that Canadians look for and accept jobs that meet their skill levels while ensuring they are better off working than being on EI.
In spite of some of the information out there to the contrary, people aren't going to have to drive across the country to take a job in Fort McMurray, even though my colleague would love them to be doing that. If they're carpenters, they're not going to have to take a job that's significantly reduced. I think those dimensions are really important. These changes are going to apply to all Canadians, regardless of where they work and live. Previous labour market attachment and the use of EI would be taken into account to determine the type of work and wages to be considered when looking for a job.
Again, I have to say that this is a reasonable approach, and it really accounts for the need to adapt expectations in terms of employment.
I think some of the measures that I'm really pleased about, that I think are going to be well received by people, involve having regular information in terms of what's available, instead of what has been spotty information, and having it linked with temporary foreign workers. If there's a job 10 minutes away, do they know about it, and do they have an option to get that job perhaps before the employer has to look elsewhere, in the temporary foreign worker program?
Again, we perceive that these are going to be well-received, sensible, practical, common sense solutions, and certainly we'll be pleased to support this section and this division.
:
One of the things that has surprised me about these changes, and the response to them, is that I'm not hearing simply from the workers who draw on EI seasonally because they're in seasonal industries. The people I'm hearing from are the business owners, who are incredibly concerned about the capacity for their businesses to survive with these changes.
I'm hearing from individuals like David Ganong of Ganong chocolates, as an example, from St. Stephen, New Brunswick. I'm hearing from people in manufacturing, and of course the seasonal industries: forestry, fisheries, and farming. I'm hearing from the tourism industry.
I spoke with Dennis Campbell, at Ambassatours, who told me that in his business the seasonal benefits from EI enable him to have access to people who are trained well, who return on an annual basis, who are part of his company's professional team and enable his business to be competitive. These will have significant impacts.
I'm also hearing from business owners who say they are expressing their concerns to the CFIB. We also heard from the CFIB, at committee, that they are hearing from members of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business who are in disagreement with the position of the CFIB.
Finally, we don't know yet on a granular basis what the impact will be on people and what the criteria of “personal situation” will be. Rural communities and places like the Maritimes or northern Ontario—rural communities across Canada—are struggling to survive.
Mr. Jean is disagreeing with me, but I represent a rural riding—
Mr. Brian Jean: You said “across Canada”.
Hon. Scott Brison: I can tell you that rural communities in many parts of Canada are struggling to survive. These provisions could accelerate the depopulation, and in some cases the elimination, of rural communities in many parts of Canada. I think that is something we all have a responsibility to consider the repercussions of, and I don't think.... Again, we've not been given the specific criteria or what the impacts could be.
I think in the next couple of years, as those impacts are felt, it's going to create a very different landscape politically, potentially as well for Conservative MPs, representing some of those ridings in places like Atlantic Canada. That's what Conservative MPs are saying when you have quiet discussions with them. They're very concerned about these changes, and I suspect they're expressing them in the Conservative caucus, but they're not being heard.
Mr. Chair, there are a few specific elements I want to address, in particular the whole issue of suitable versus unsuitable employment. We are discussing what constitutes unsuitable employment, and the definition that goes with that. I am specifically referring to the announcement that the minister made 10 or so days ago. At that time, she defined what constituted suitable employment. It is entirely relevant for us to discuss those issues specifically and the announcement she made, given what we're talking about here.
I won't go on forever, since I don't want to repeat what Mr. Brison has already pointed out. Like the employers in his riding, those in my riding are the most concerned right now. They are considering paying employees to do nothing for two or three months during the off-season, just to make sure they don't lose their expertise. That is a real problem.
There are two things in particular I want to address.
The first is commuting time, which is one of the criteria the minister will use to determine whether employment is suitable or not. We're talking about an hour of travel time. In a bit city with suburbs, that may not seem all that unreasonable. In my riding, it would mean an unemployed worker living in Rimouski could be forced to accept a job in Rivière-du-Loup or Matane. That would require the person to travel 80, 90 or even 100 kilometres, meaning that, in order to take the job and not lose their benefits, they would have to spend $75 to $80 a week on gas to get to work in a neighbouring city. As I see it, some of the minister's conditions pose a problem.
There is another thing that poses a problem. I believe it was mentioned that the announced changes would result in lower wages or a downward trend in wages. Put yourself in the shoes of someone who loses their job. To keep your benefits, you would be forced to accept a relatively similar position at 70% of what you were making previously. And then, if for some reason, you should lose that job, you would be forced to accept another at 70% of the 70% you were making originally. Impossible? No, in fact, very possible. It could happen to people with all kinds of skills and qualifications, especially seasonal workers.
Is that such an inconceivable scenario? Even the , Bernard Valcourt, said on a Rimouski radio station that, logically, it could happen, in his view. He also said that was the reason we have minimum wage legislation in the first place. When the government claims that this measure is intended to solve the labour shortage problem, I'd say they're taking Quebeckers and Canadians for fools.
Some regions do have a labour shortage. But the government's position on that issue is based on the assumption that those who are unemployed have the skills the available jobs require. I haven't seen any evidence that is the case, not a shred. The government hasn't even tried to prove it is true.
There is one last point I want to raise with respect to the proposed changes. Provisions that protect workers, the unemployed and, in a sense, employers are disappearing altogether. I am referring specifically to the definition of what constitutes unsuitable employment, which is left to the minister's discretion. The minister or the cabinet can single-handedly make all of these employment insurance decisions, without going through Parliament.
The government talks about flexibility, and yet it does not invest one cent in the program. Employers and employees alone contribute to the EI fund, and yet the government has the power to make virtually every possible decision on the EI system, without having to consult the members who represent employers and employees. So we have serious reservations over how this reform was presented. First it comes in the form of amendments, and second it was hastily announced by the minister, to counter the widespread criticism that it drew from the opposition and the public alike, criticism that is entirely legitimate. The government did not address those concerns, the concerns expressed by the people in my riding, be they employers or employees. The reality of rural life seems to have been lost on the government.
I really see these changes in the Employment Insurance Act as part of an overall approach by this government to depress wages in Canada. We heard Mr. Martin talk earlier about the impact of the elimination of the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act, which would undermine wages in the construction sector.
We certainly heard the minister announce in the House the change to the temporary foreign worker program, which would shorten the amount of time employers are required to search for Canadians to fill jobs. Then they can pay temporary foreign workers 15% less. There's no credible economist who believes that this will not depress wages in Canada.
Then we come to the EI provisions. They also will have the impact of depressing wages. The government would like to perpetuate the myth that somehow people aren't looking for work. In my city, in Toronto, fewer than 30% of unemployed workers even qualify for EI. And according to StatsCan, there are six unemployed workers for every job opening in Canada. So it's not as if people are not looking for work.
The reality is that we have a job shortage in this country. And we still have not regained the level of employment, in proportion to the population, that we had prior to the downturn in 2008. We still have elevated unemployment. So at the very time when there is a job shortage and an inability, for the majority of unemployed people, to even access EI, we're seeing a restriction on people's ability to get EI.
There's also the myth perpetuated by the government that somehow people have this EI dependency, as though it's substance abuse. Again, the reality is that most people don't even qualify for EI. Even among those who do, many qualify for just a very limited period of time. Remember that the maximum EI benefit is only 55% of a person's former wages. I don't know a lot of Canadians today who could take a 50% pay cut and think that somehow that's living high on the hog. Most people are living paycheque to paycheque. Personal debt is at an all-time high. While some employers might think that depressing wages has a short-term benefit, longer term it will be a net drag on the economy. It will slow the purchasing power of Canadians, and it will slow our growth if Canadians do not have purchasing power.
People may think that it is just people who lose their jobs who will be affected by the impact of these changes to EI, but the impact of depressing wages will affect all Canadians, or I guess 99% of Canadians. It will affect the ability of people in a variety of industries, not just in terms of making progress in improving their wages but in terms of even maintaining their wages and benefits. They will see that undermined by these changes to EI, because as we've heard from our colleagues here, the changes will force people, much more quickly, to take jobs outside their fields at a much lower rate of pay.
The current provisions describe what a suitable job is and what the job search needs to look like. It gives people time to adapt to unemployment so that they can find other jobs.
What's the point in a welder from New Brunswick taking a temporary job in the service sector when perhaps with a longer job search and a little more support, that person could go to Alberta and get a job in their profession, where there may be a shortage of welders at a given point?
It also seems very convenient, at a time when the government is pushing hard for a rapid expansion of pipeline building, an expansion in the energy sector, that hiring in this sector could be at a lower rate of pay. We've heard several members on the opposite side complain not only about a shortage but the cost of wages in that sector. This could have the impact, especially with the cancellation of the fair wage act, of reducing the standard of living and the wages of people in that sector.
It's only a few clauses in the budget implementation act. The minister did not provide a lot of details. We had ministers providing conflicting details. It was only after a lot of pressure in the House and in the media that during a break week, when Parliament wasn't sitting, the minister felt compelled to release more details about these changes. The key point is that it does concentrate more power in the hands of the minister who can make subsequent changes without having to bring them to Parliament. That could mean the downward pressure on wages and on unemployed workers could grow even stronger in the months and years to come.
We're going to be voting against most of these clauses for the reasons I and my colleagues have outlined. It's something that not just unemployed workers but all Canadians should be concerned about.
Thank you.
We've been through this how many times? I know that Ms. McLeod really explained the government position fairly well.
I come from Saskatchewan, and Mr. Jean comes from Fort McMurray in Alberta. If you look at what's going on out there, you will see the opportunity that we're missing because we don't have enough people. We see this over and over again.
Here's a real-life story from a couple of years ago of an employer who went out of Saskatchewan to find employees. That employer went into parts of Ontario looking for mechanics, but the potential employees would wait until their employment insurance ran out before talking to the employer.
It comes back to trying to find a balance in the proper programs, encouraging people to go back to work when there are jobs but still supporting them when there are no jobs. That's really what this legislation is doing. To distort this or to put fear into people's eyes or ears, that all of a sudden if they apply for employment insurance it won't be there for them, or they're going to have to take a job that doesn't meet their needs or requirements.... It's been blown out of proportion by the opposition so badly.
The reality is that this is just a rebalancing of employment insurance to make it what it is: unemployment insurance. It's to make sure that when there is a job, people actually take that job, instead of sitting there for 52 weeks or 42 weeks or 36 weeks—whatever the appropriate number of weeks is, depending on where they live. It's actually there to encourage people to get back to work, because when they go back to work, they create other jobs, and that spinoff effect results in more people being hired.
As I said, we need employees in Saskatchewan. We're sitting on an unemployment rate of 4%, which basically means that everybody's employed. I know that for Mr. Jean it's much the same in Alberta. We need people; there's no question about it.
So when there's talk about a work shortage, tell me where it is, because I don't see it in Saskatchewan. In fact, it's the opposite; it's a worker shortage. We've been working with the immigration minister. We've been looking at all sorts of ideas to help solve this. The reality is that changing employment insurance is one way to help solve this. The premier of Saskatchewan has stated that himself.
This is a positive change for the country as a whole. It needs to happen, and we need to get on with it. So I suggest we move to the vote now, sir.
I want to begin by saying we're against this. We're surprised. The clause would eliminate the National Council of Welfare. We're deeply concerned about the government's dismissal of organizations that seem to provide the evidence base, in this case, for social policy.
We've looked with concern at environmental areas, where the government seems to struggle with evidence-based offerings from various scientists. They seem to struggle in other areas where evidence-based groups have supplied verifiable studies and verifiable information.
Ms. Glover will recognize this, that the modus operandi of the government, or at least what's suggested, is that they struggle—there's the long form census—with evidence that's provided by various levels of the scientific community.
We have a situation, and I think it's acknowledged around the world but it is in fact in Canada too, that income inequity is on the rise. I think the phenomena we've seen in the last 10 months to a year, the occupation groups in the U.S. and in Canada, represent the communities' sense of it. Whether they're right or wrong, we can argue and we can debate that, but there's a very real situation happening, and we need to understand for better or for worse why it's happening.
In Hamilton there's an organization called the Social Planning & Research Council of Hamilton. Locally, for years, we've depended on reports from that particular group. For example, in my community of 500,000 people, there are over 120,000 who live in poverty. The reason I talk about that relative to this is because that's the evidence-based material that we rely on in our community as we plan going forward.
So to see the elimination of the National Council of Welfare taking place is quite disturbing.
I'll cut it short there.
There are a disturbing number of cuts that this government is making to scientific and research organizations. The National Council of Welfare is of course just one. In this budget there are cuts to Library and Archives Canada funding, which is very, very significant: about 20% of the workforce will be eliminated, very seriously damaging our ability to keep libraries and archival material. We talk about the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. We see big cuts to Statistics Canada. We talked about EI a few minutes ago. In fact we're not even going to be able to get access to some of the data from EI. We're seeing the elimination of the Experimental Lakes Area in Ontario.
It's part of a disturbing trend. In some cases, I think maybe it is that bodies are producing information and reports that the government doesn't want to hear. In other cases, I'm wondering if they just don't appreciate the value of some of these institutions.
The National Council of Welfare was created in 1962 to provide research and information on poverty in Canada. It is the only source of pan-Canadian information on welfare incomes, providing a valuable tool to understanding and comparing welfare across provinces and jurisdictions. It also provides unique research into aspects of poverty, including first nations, Inuit, and Métis poverty, the cornerstones of successful anti-poverty strategies, and most recently the cost of solving poverty compared to the cost of failing to take action. We hear a lot nowadays about the social determinants of health and the impact that inequality has on health outcomes, not just for those at the bottom of the income scale but for all, and the reduced social outcomes that inequality creates. The National Council of Welfare was the only body in Canada that had the mandate to advise the on poverty.
One of the major concerns Canadians have nowadays is the growing inequality in Canada, or the growing rates of poverty. We have seen with the Occupy movement young people concerned about growing inequality but also concerned about their diminished possibilities, with the difficulty getting a toehold in the workforce, with double the rate of unemployment for youth, and with the skyrocketing cost of post-secondary education. We spoke earlier about the erosion of OAS and the intergenerational divide that exacerbates.
The National Council of Welfare is more necessary now than ever. It is an important body—the only body that advises the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development on poverty. Something Canada doesn't have that some provinces have and some countries have is a poverty reduction or poverty elimination strategy. For people who grew up in Canada, they are seeing the cohesiveness of a society that is more or less equal—
I would like to say that it's a pleasure to be here, but really, when I look at the time, 10:25 of an evening, I'm sure we can all think of a million things we would rather be doing.
It's causing me a great deal of concern that here we are at this very late hour discussing something very fundamental and critical, and that is an immigration issue that, for some weird reason, is buried in a budget, a budget that is so large that it's hard to fathom everything in it.
What's of greater concern is that this issue has never been discussed by the immigration committee. It has not been before us. We did everything we could to sever it out of this report so that we could take it to that committee and have an informed discussion.
What we're talking about here, Mr. Chair, is not just numbers. We're not talking about the deletion of 300 people, not only them, but their families who waited very patiently in a lineup. We're actually talking about 300 families. I want you to imagine how many people this is impacting, and here we are at 10:25 at the end of a very long process, and I'm not sure how much justice we can give this.
These are the people who played by the rules we made. They didn't make the rules; we made the rules. I've often heard the minister saying—Jason Kenney, that is—there are so-called queue jumpers in our immigration system, but here we are punishing people who have been waiting in line and playing by the rules. That is just so un-Canadian.
This morning I had an e-mail from one of these applicants from Hong Kong, and he actually asked me what was happening to the compassionate Canada he had heard so much about. He actually applied to come to Canada rather than the United States, and now, after five years, he's being told, delete button, you're gone. He's thinking he could have applied five years earlier and been settled in the States and not been through the kind of pain he has been through.
It was brought home to me that here we have a black eye for Canada across the world, whether it's in Manilla, where there were demonstrations, whether it's in Hong Kong, whether it's in India, or whether it's in China. What these people are saying and what people in my riding and across Canada are saying is this is not the right way to go. This is just not fair.
By the way, Mr. Chair, there was a study done on the backlog point by the committee a few years ago, but let me assure you that not one person or one recommendation included hitting the delete button. As a matter of fact, the report is very, very clear. They put forward an array of ideas for eliminating the backlog, and there are three main options they did put forward, but not one of them was hitting the delete button. As a matter of fact, the report states that most witnesses recognized the government's legal obligation to process all applications.
Here we are in a budget discussion that is going to impact the lives of 300 families who waited patiently in a queue we put them in, and they were just waiting their turn to come to Canada. We're changing the rules on them.
I have to tell you that I've heard stories of families who make plans once they get in the queue, and they know they're going to come to Canada. I heard of a family who sold some of their assets in order to take English classes and put their son through a school in China because they felt he would be able to come here and assimilate a lot easier. There is a family in the Punjab who sold their land, and because of the cost of living they can't possibly buy back that land because it is now out of their reach.
I look at all of this, and I'm wondering what has happened to our sense of fairness. Even the committee that studied this issue earlier said that even when it came to ministerial instructions that are intended to alleviate the backlog, the perception of fairness prevails. The study actually goes on to say that terminating the applications of people who have been patiently waiting in the queue is a decision that cannot be made. That previous study accepted that this was not the way they could go, and here we are.
As a matter of fact, in that report the committee lauded the work done by the department to reduce the backlog to date, saying that the pre-February 2008 backlog for federal skilled worker applications had been reduced by half, two years ahead of schedule. That's on page 13, in case any of you are desperate for midnight reading tonight. It went on to say that the action plan for faster immigration marked a turning point in immigration application backlogs and progress toward backlog reduction. That's on page 23. Then why would the minister make such an unfair cut under these circumstances?
You look at what was in that report and the kinds of accolades that were given for the reduction, and then here we have a cleaver being taken and a very arbitrary date, 2008. Some of the other professionals and skilled workers who are waiting to come to Canada are saying things like “This year, it's 2008. We applied in 2010. Who's to say that a year down the road it won't be that anybody who applied before 2011 is gone?”
What are we doing to the pool of people we hope to attract to Canada in the future? What kind of an image of Canada are we projecting out there, that we would treat people in such a poor way?
We're a nation that is built by immigration. I'm a first-generation immigrant myself. I chose Canada to be my home. I applied for a teaching job. I came here. I thought it was going to be for a year or two, and I'm still here.
I love this country, but with the kinds of changes I'm seeing happening and the way we're starting to treat newcomers or potential newcomers with so little regard and so much disrespect, really, I would say we'll have many skilled workers out there wondering if Canada is really a place of fairness, of compassion, a place that is inclusive, where they want to come to raise their children, where they want to be part of nation-building.
I know it's very easy for those of us who live in Canada now. We think, “Well, they're not here yet. They're not Canadians. They have no rights.” Canada has never had that kind of an approach towards our international relationships or the way we treat people in other countries. Recently, with Bill , and now with this buried in a budget and left to debate at the very last minute so we can spend very little time on it and really not do a proper analysis of impact, here we are at this late hour, thinking—or not thinking—about the impact we are going to have on families.
There's another case I want to share with you here. There's a family in China, where they have, as we all know, a one-child policy. Upon hearing that they were on the wait list and that they were going to get to come to Canada soon, this family actually sold their apartment. It wasn't a house, but it was their home. They sent their child over here to study because they thought that would really help in the assimilation and would help in the transition. Both the parents, professionals, have been taking English classes and learning as much about Canada as they can. I'm sure they know far more about Canada right now, from what they write, than I did the day I arrived.
For these people, it's not just that we're deleting their application. We're actually deleting their dreams and hopes and aspirations of a home in Canada. I want all of us to imagine what it would feel like if you were in those shoes, if that happened to you. How would you feel? What sense of betrayal would you feel?
As I look at this, I keep hearing about bogus this, bogus that, queue jumpers. In the last week or two the House and my committee have been filled with rhetoric about queue jumpers.
I keep thinking that here are people—normal folk—in other countries who wanted to come to Canada, as I did. They wanted to come here to make this their home. We looked at their applications and said, “Great. Well done. We're going to put you in the queue. We're only letting in so many a year.”
First of all, we didn't have to have that backlog; there was a way we could have been addressing it in a more aggressive manner. But then, out of the blue, we say to them, “You know what? We've changed our mind. If you applied before 2008, you're gone. We'll give you your money back.”
We can send them back a cheque for the processing fees, but how do we give them a cheque for their hopes and dreams? How do we do that? How do we address the absolute feeling of betrayal they're feeling right now from Canadians—all Canadians?
I know the opposition has been very vehemently opposed to these steps, and we will continue to oppose them. At the same time, as I sit here, I'm thinking of the conversation those families must be having and the kind of burden we have placed on their shoulders.
I sometimes wonder how some people—not on this side of the House, but definitely across the way—will be able to sleep at night, knowing they are absolutely impacting the hopes and aspirations of people to whom we gave hope. We gave them those aspirations. We took in their applications, and we had them wait.
It should also be noted that the backlog has actually grown, and I would say deliberately grown, since the Conservatives came to office in 2006. If there were a real intention to address that backlog, those ways would have been found. They were suggested by the committee. Instead, that backlog was allowed to grow, so now, in a piece of legislation that is buried in a 400-plus-page budget.... I don't see what the budget has to do with immigration in this case.
Anyway, here we are. It's buried in the budget, and we're going to hit the delete button. That is going to impact over 300,000 families, not individuals. I just want you to think about the impact that is going to have, not only on that immediate family, but on all the extended families. Many of those people have relatives over here, and they don't like the way Canada is going.
Thank you.
I think I need to address one of the comments my colleague across the way made, and then I'll get into some specifics.
The question keeps coming up why we needed to hive this piece--this should have been hived, that should have been hived, this should have been hived.
We have been in government for a year, and we've had to make sure that debate was given reasonable timeframes. There are approximately 17 pieces of legislation that have been passed. We are looking at a critical situation in Canada, with the global crisis in Europe. We look at what's happening in the United States. What we've done is to take the whole-of-government approach, and the whole-of-government approach is the plan for jobs, long-term growth, and prosperity.
If we moved on 70 separate pieces of legislation, we would be here ten years from now. That is even with our government making sure there was absolutely reasonable time for debate, but perhaps making sure that what was said was relevant and didn't keep getting repeated.
I also have to make a quick note. I'm getting a little bit confused about the NDP policy. Right now we're talking compassion. I absolutely agree. This was a very difficult decision. The minister said that quite frequently. But a little earlier your colleague was expressing concern about roving gangs of Lebanese temporary foreign workers stealing jobs from Canadians. We're getting mixed messages from the NDP, and to be quite frank, it's not coherent.
I do have to correct something. I believe, and perhaps the officials can say, that the backlog has gone down in recent years. Could we briefly address that?
Here tonight at the finance committee, after debating fish allocations, CSIS, and all kinds of other things, now we're debating the federal skilled workers program. I was very interested to hear my colleague say a few minutes ago that these specific changes have not been debated or brought to the immigration committee, yet here they are before the finance committee. I find that really quite strange for something that I would have thought for adequate debate would require the immigration critics from the various parties to have the opportunity to examine and debate this legislation, to make sure they hear the appropriate witnesses, and that there would be a thorough examination of this change.
She did say there had been some previous study about how to deal with the backlog, but absolutely no recommendation about simply hitting the delete button and eliminating close to 300,000 people by eliminating the backlog. What these changes propose is to delete all applications to the federal skilled worker program prior to February 27, 2008.
I have to say that if I'm in a lineup waiting for my turn, whether it's at the supermarket or getting on an airplane or a subway, to suddenly be told, after waiting as these people have, for four years, to forget it, you can't be considered, but someone who has come after you is going to be considered, is going to be accepted, I would find that unacceptable.
We do hear the minister talk about queue jumpers. Well, this seems to me to be queue jumping, because people who are applying later are going to be accepted earlier. It doesn't make sense. It seems to me like a real broken promise to the people who in good faith paid their money, invested time, energy, made plans, devoted their attention to trying to come to Canada because we were trying to recruit them.
Under the federal skilled workers program, we're trying to bring into Canada people who have the skills that we need in the Canadian economy. To keep these people waiting all this time and then to say retroactively that all of their applications are deleted seems like an incredible betrayal of them.
I've heard my colleagues say this is creating difficulties for us internationally, that our reputation is being affected because people feel that perhaps this is not a desirable country to come to if they cannot count on the process and clear rules being applied, that they can make an application and have a reasonable expectation—if they're in a queue—that ultimately they'll get to the front of that queue. It also seems like a dramatic shift in our policy, and it's difficult for people when the rules change in the middle of the game.
We talked earlier about the demographics in Canada showing that we have an aging population, not aging as rapidly as some countries, but we do have an aging population. Having an effective immigration program under which young skilled immigrants can come to Canada as part of our economic and social development is a positive for Canada. In fact, we're competing with countries around the world for skilled immigrants. Now, I know we have a big list of immigrants, but to change the rules in midstream and say that people who have been waiting all this time can never get here—there's no faint hope that they're going to get here—seems like a real betrayal and a confused policy.
In closing, I want to address my colleague's concern. She said there didn't seem to be coherence in the NDP approach to immigration policy.
Our immigration critic has joined our committee briefly, for these very few minutes we are discussing such an important change, and she has been very consistent on deleting the applications of 300,000 applicants to Canada under the federal skilled workers program. But I believe my colleague might have been referring to previous concerns expressed by a colleague about the elimination of the fair wage program and how that could combine with the temporary foreign worker program to create competitive issues because of the downward pressure on wages in Canada, if people brought in through the temporary foreign worker program undermine wages in the construction sector in Canada. I think that is where she has become confused. So I did want to just clarify that, because our immigration critic and our party have been very consistent and very clear on our position on the federal skilled workers program.
I just want to say that while the temporary foreign worker program has served a need, we think about people coming in under the temporary foreign worker program as working in the agricultural sector. Increasingly now, temporary foreign workers are in retail, in service, in manufacturing, and in all aspects of society, and there are people who have concerns that temporary foreign workers in Europe certainly have created balkanized communities and are not allowed to become integrated into broader society. There are people who feel that if people are good enough to come here to work in factories, on pipelines, in health care, and in the service sector, who come here without skills like my grandparents did, they should be able to find a way to become landed and bring their families and have more of a normal life.
The temporary foreign worker program is a whole other discussion. We've had some of that discussion here in the finance committee, but right now in the finance committee we're discussing the federal skilled workers program, and we have been consistent on both those elements of immigration policy.
Thank you.
:
When we initially started talking about it, we didn't know what the implications were overseas, and now I'm reading in that in Hong Kong there are protests, in China, and you mentioned India. So there are....
Obviously Canada's a great country. I was lucky to be born here. My parents are immigrants. But the implications that we have overseas are huge. I worked in Hong Kong in my previous life as a corporate lawyer over there, and a lot of people from Hong Kong came to Canada and are actually in my riding.
They knew about Canada. There was this hope, and I've been reading some stories. I won't go too much into details, because Jinny has mentioned some of the devastating stories, but we were seen as a country where law matters, and where you believe in the whole process, so people applied.
We mentioned the backlog. Some of the applications date back to 2003, so those people have put their lives on hold thinking that they would come here. And for some reason we decided that Canada does not need you. The government has mentioned needs: we don't need you; we need other types of immigrants, so your application no longer matters.
We mentioned fairness. I don't think this is fair. Seriously, I think if someone has applied.... We have to find solutions, but putting a delete button on this for me does not make sense. I think the officials mentioned $130 million in terms of application fees, but when we ask the question about what would happen to people in terms of interest.... For people who live in China, the application fee is a fairly big amount, so there are a lot of things they could have done with that amount. They could use it. We're not paying back interest, we're not paying back lost opportunities, we're not paying back....
My question is to the officials, since you're here and you were patient enough to wait for us. I know you considered litigation issues. Was there any evaluation in terms of how much litigation would cost us in terms of having to pay back indemnities or how much it would cost?
As the chair, I want to address a couple of points. Some valid questions are being raised. In part, people are asking why this would be in a budget implementation act.
I would just refer members, for their own information, to the budget itself, pages 151 to 155, wherein these specific sections are dealt with. Particularly they may want to read pages 154 to 155, the “Federal Skilled Worker Fee Refund”. I'll read a little bit from there for colleagues' edification.
The Government recognized the backlog for the [federal skilled workers program] ...several years ago and has taken actions to eliminate it through our 2008 Action Plan for Faster Immigration. Before the Action Plan was introduced, the backlog had swelled to over 640,000 applicants, many of whom faced wait times of up to seven years. Through the judicious use of measures introduced by the Action Plan, the backlog has been cut to less than 300,000 applicants since 2008—a reduction of more than 50 per cent. Wait times for new applicants are now closer to 18 months on average, with some applicants waiting as little as 6 to 12 months.
I'd like to compliment our officials for their work in doing this.
An hon. member: Hear, hear!
The Chair: I've hesitated in making a lot of statements on policy, but I for one, who am a member of Parliament now in my twelfth year, have seen thousands of immigration cases, and I applaud the department and the minister for taking this action, which is needed to move towards a faster and more responsive immigration system. I just want to very quickly put my own view on the record.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
The Chair: I think those points were relevant, but I appreciated the debate. It was a very lively one.
Before I go to the NDP amendments, which deal with clause 707, I will deal with clauses 700 to 706.
Ms. Peggy Nash: Can we split them?
The Chair: Yes, we can split them up.
(Clause 700 agreed to)
(Clause 701 agreed to on division)
(Clause 702 agreed to on division)
(Clause 703 agreed to)
(Clause 704 agreed to)
(Clause 705 agreed to on division)
(Clause 706 agreed to on division)
The Chair: So we've come to clause 707.
We have four NDP amendments. They are admissible. The issue is that they seem to be similar types of amendments. I'm not sure whether the NDP wants to introduce one of these, or two of these....
I don't know whether members have them in front of them. They are amendments NDP-48, NDP-49, NDP-50, and NDP-51.
Alternatively, we could move them all.
Against the better judgment of the legislative clerk, I will allow votes on all the amendments together. I'll let it be known that he advised me on it, but I will do this just in the interest of time.
So we will ask someone to move amendments NDP-48, NDP-49, NDP-50, and NDP-51.
Ms. Sims, do you move all of them?
:
When we listen to this short title, when you hear “jobs, growth, long-term prosperity”, on the face of that we would all just sit here and say if this were real, if this delivered, it would be good. But there are huge, huge questions about this. You've heard them from this side repeatedly, on how Bill goes well beyond tax and monetary measures. It makes major changes in dozens of policy areas, including the environment, natural resources, human resources. These shouldn't have been resident in a finance committee.
We've been clear. We should not have been asked to vote on legislation that grants cabinet the power to make far-reaching regulatory changes like the ones we've seen included in this bill. It is 400 pages. We've had the discussion back and forth that yes, there have been larger bills, but not as comprehensive as this one.
I want everybody who happens to be watching—and at this time I'm sure we have thousands of people watching—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
A voice: Insomniacs.
Mr. Wayne Marston: Well, this is scintillating, but I just want to remind people there's another bill to come in the fall. So if you take those bills together in the context of what they're trying to do....
So what is it about the bill that causes us to question the short title? First, the environmental overhaul doesn't belong in a budget bill. Government wants a one-project, one-review environmental assessment system. So it's repealing the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and replacing it with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act 2012. That type of decision doesn't belong with this committee.
Yes, the chair and others granted us a subcommittee to look at it, but it didn't belong here. It sets out time limits for the completion of reviews, and the minister will have the power to shut down a review panel if he thinks it won't finish on time. How can you say that belongs in a budget bill? The types of decisions—this type of decision in particular—the due diligence that is supplied by comprehensive experts who are from the environment field.... It's not in jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity. That's not a part of it. That has to do with our environment.
As for due diligence, again, when it comes to employment insurance reform, you have a definition of suitable work that has been controversial. It doesn't belong with the finance committee. It clearly belongs with the human resources committee, because they are going to have to wrestle with this. So again, that's one of the reasons we're not satisfied with this short title. And the budget doesn't give any details on the criteria that will be used in that particular term.
And how does a decision on removing oversight for the Auditor General belong here? The Auditor General will no longer be required to do annual audits, as we've seen listed here, in 12 agencies, including the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, the Northern Pipeline Agency. How does that belong here? How does that fit into the definition of the title that has been proposed by this government? It doesn't.
Where I come from, this is called putting the fox in charge of the henhouse. You have people making decisions without having the proper review. What does that have to do with jobs, growth, and prosperity? It has to do with the fact that you have power being consolidated with ministers at a level that has never been seen before, when these agencies have been removed. We can debate whether the Auditor General made this decision and moved it forward or whether the ministers did.
We've heard about the backlog in immigration and we've heard the stories that were told by the member for as she joined us here. That person, in her committee, would have been able to make compelling arguments against this legislation.
I will abide by the motion and the five minutes. I thank you for that.
I want to start by saying that the short title is reflective of what's in the bill. Jobs, growth, long-term prosperity—all of those things cover what is in the bill, things that are necessary for Canadians to actually succeed, necessary for Canadians to continue to live in the best country in the world. We are not ashamed of that. We celebrate that, and we'll continue to do so.
When we look at how much time we've spent studying this bill in committee—aside from the private reflection, the phone calls, the private deliberations we've had in talking to stakeholders, etc.—we're talking about a study that went on for some 60-plus hours. This was the longest amount of time dedicated to a budget bill in over 20 years.
I believe we've done well in putting this forward.
I want to thank my colleagues across the way for coming and deliberating on it, and for sticking to the time limit that was set out in the motion agreed upon by the committee. I do acknowledge that, and I want to thank them for that.
I also want to thank the chair for his patience, his incredible patience.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
Mrs. Shelly Glover: Of course we wouldn't be here without our analysts, our clerks, and all of the fine folks who are sitting behind the chair.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
Mrs. Shelly Glover: Last but not least, the interpreters—God bless you. I don't know how you do this job. I can barely get through English at this time of night, let alone try to sort out two languages at the pace that we speak and argue and so on and so forth. So a standing ovation to our interpreters, who deserve our respect and our utmost gratitude. Thank you very much on behalf of at least this side, and I'm sure my colleagues agree.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
Mrs. Shelly Glover: In any event, my five minutes is probably almost done, but I do want to say that the government would like to see the short title stay, because it is reflective of what's in the bill.
Thank you again, Chair.
Thanks to everyone who stayed and took part.
:
I want to make the point—and I know we've all been at this for a long time—that the short title of the bill, about jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity.... My colleague mentioned that so many other things are rolled up in this bill that don't pertain to finance or economic issues.
I also want to make the point that through this budget and the budget implementation act we've heard about $5.2 billion in cuts that the $20 million private agency has recommended, 19,200 public sector jobs. The Parliamentary Budget Officer says that when you add up previously announced cuts, we're looking at cuts of $10.8 billion and 26,800 jobs lost. That's 26,800 public sector jobs lost. These are services. These are programs Canadians need.
We've also heard the PBO and other witnesses talk about a drag on the economy. The point I'm making is that while the short title talks about jobs, growth, and prosperity, in fact the net impact of this budget implementation act will be the opposite: it will be a drag on our economy and it will slow our recovery. We have heard more witnesses talk about that.
I could go on about unemployment and about how between one in four and one in three of the net new jobs are going to temporary foreign workers, but I won't. I will save that for a speech in the House of Commons.
I think the short title of this bill has less to do with the reality and the impact of the bill and more to do with Conservative talking points. The two just don't add up. I really wanted to get that on the record.
Having said that, I want to thank the staff, the interpreters, the chair, and my colleagues for this time. It is unfortunate that we had to debate such weighty and substantive issues in such a rushed fashion.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, for allowing me that time.