Bill C-13 (Historical)

Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act

An Act to implement certain provisions of the 2011 budget as updated on June 6, 2011 and other measures

Part 1 of this enactment implements income tax measures and related measures proposed in the 2011 budget. Most notably, it
(a) introduces the family caregiver tax credit for caregivers of infirm dependent relatives;
(b) introduces the children’s arts tax credit of up to $500 per child of eligible fees associated with children’s artistic, cultural, recreational and developmental activities;
(c) introduces a volunteer firefighters tax credit to allow eligible volunteer firefighters to claim a 15% non-refundable tax credit based on an amount of $3,000;
(d) eliminates the rule that limits the number of claimants for the child tax credit to one per domestic establishment;
(e) removes the $10,000 limit on eligible expenses that can be claimed under the medical expense tax credit in respect of a dependent relative;
(f) increases the advance payment threshold for the Canada child tax benefit to $20 per month and for the GST/HST credit to $50 per quarter;
(g) aligns the notification requirements related to marital status changes for an individual who receives the Canada child tax benefit with the notification requirements for the GST/HST credit;
(h) reduces the minimum course-duration requirements for the tuition, education and textbook tax credits, and for educational assistance payments from registered education savings plans, that apply to students enrolled at foreign universities;
(i) allows the tuition tax credit to be claimed for eligible occupational, trade and professional examination fees;
(j) allows the reallocation of assets in registered education savings plans for siblings without incurring tax penalties;
(k) extends to the end of 2013 the temporary accelerated capital cost allowance treatment for investment in machinery and equipment in the manufacturing and processing sector;
(l) expands eligibility for the accelerated capital cost allowance for clean energy generation and conservation equipment;
(m) extends eligibility for the mineral exploration tax credit by one year to flow-through share agreements entered into before March 31, 2012;
(n) expands the eligibility rules for qualifying environmental trusts;
(o) amends the deduction rates for intangible capital costs in the oil sands sector;
(p) aligns the tax treatment to investments made under the Agri-Québec program with that of investments under AgriInvest;
(q) introduces rules to strengthen the tax regime for charitable donations;
(r) introduces anti-avoidance rules for registered retirement savings plans and registered retirement income funds;
(s) introduces rules to limit tax deferral opportunities for individual pension plans;
(t) introduces rules to limit tax deferral opportunities for corporations with significant interests in partnerships;
(u) extends the tax on split income to capital gains realized by a minor child; and
(v) extends the dividend stop-loss rules to dividends deemed to be received on the redemption of shares held by certain corporations.
Part 1 also implements other selected income tax measures and related measures. Most of these measures were referred to in the 2011 budget as previously announced measures. Most notably, it
(a) accommodates an increase in the annual contribution limit to the Saskatchewan Pension Plan and aligns its tax treatment with that of other tax-assisted retirement vehicles;
(b) clarifies that the “financially dependent” test applies for the purposes of provisions that permit rollovers of the assets of a deceased taxpayer’s registered retirement savings plan or registered retirement income fund to an infirm child or grandchild’s registered disability savings plan;
(c) ensures that the alternative minimum tax does not apply in respect of securities that are subject to the election under section 180.01 of the Income Tax Act;
(d) clarifies the rules applicable to the scholarship exemption for post-secondary scholarships, fellowships and bursaries; and
(e) amends the pension-to-registered retirement savings plan transfer limits in situations where the accrued pension amount was reduced due to the insolvency of the employer and underfunding of the employer’s registered pension plan.
Part 2 amends the Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006 to implement the softwood lumber ruling rendered by the London Court of International Arbitration on January 21, 2011.
Part 3 amends the Customs Tariff in order to simplify it and reduce the customs processing burden for Canadians by consolidating similar tariff items that have the same tariff rates and removing end-use provisions where appropriate. The amendments also simplify the structure of some provisions and remove obsolete provisions.
Part 4 amends the Customs Tariff to introduce new tariff items to facilitate the processing of low value non-commercial imports arriving by post or by courier.
Part 5 amends the Canada Education Savings Act to make the additional amount of a Canada Education Savings grant that is available under subsection 5(4) of that Act available to more than one of the beneficiary’s parents, if they share custody of the beneficiary, they are eligible individuals as defined in section 122.6 of the Income Tax Act and the beneficiary is a qualified dependant of each of them.
Part 6 amends the Children’s Special Allowances Act and a regulation made under that Act respecting payments relating to children under care.
Part 7 amends the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act to provide that the maximum aggregate amount of outstanding student loans is to be determined by regulation, to remove the power of the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development to deny certificates of eligibility, and to change the limitation period for the Minister to take administrative measures. It also authorizes the Minister to forgive portions of family physicians’, nurses’ and nurse practitioners’ student loans if they begin to work in under-served rural or remote communities.
Part 7 also amends the Canada Student Loans Act to authorize the Minister to forgive portions of family physicians’, nurses’ and nurse practitioners’ guaranteed student loans if they begin to work in under-served rural or remote communities.
Part 8 amends Part IV of the Employment Insurance Act to provide a temporary measure to refund a portion of employer premiums for small business. An employer whose premiums were $10,000 or less in 2010 will be refunded the increase in 2011 premiums over those paid in 2010, to a maximum of $1,000.
Part 9 provides for payments to be made to provinces, territories, municipalities, First Nations and other entities for municipal infrastructure improvements.
Part 10 amends the Canadian Securities Regulation Regime Transition Office Act so that funding for the Canadian Securities Regulation Regime Transition Office may be fixed through an appropriation Act.
Part 11 amends the Wage Earner Protection Program Act to extend in certain circumstances the period during which wages earned by individuals but not paid to them by their employers who are bankrupt or subject to receivership may be the subject of a payment under that Act.
Part 12 amends the Canadian Human Rights Act to repeal certain provisions that provide for mandatory retirement. It also amends the Canada Labour Code to repeal a provision that denies employees the right to severance pay for involuntary termination if they are entitled to a pension. Finally, it amends the Conflict of Interest Act.
Part 13 amends the Judges Act to permit the appointment of two additional judges to the Nunavut Court of Justice.
Part 14 provides for the retroactive coming into force of section 9 of the Nordion and Theratronics Divestiture Authorization Act in order to ensure the validity of pension regulations made under that section.
Part 15 amends the Canada Pension Plan to include amounts received by an employee under an employer-funded disability plan in contributory salary and wages.
Part 16 amends the Jobs and Economic Growth Act to replace the reference to the Treasury Board Secretariat with a reference to the Chief Human Resources Officer in subsections 10(4) and 38.1(1) of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act.
Part 17 amends the Department of Veterans Affairs Act to include a definition of dependant and to provide express regulation-making authority for the provision of certain benefits in non-institutional locations.
Part 18 amends the Canada Elections Act to phase out quarterly allowances to registered parties.
Part 19 amends the Special Retirement Arrangements Act to permit the reservation of pension contributions from any benefit that is or becomes payable to a person. It also deems certain provisions of An Act to amend certain Acts in relation to pensions and to enact the Special Retirement Arrangements Act and the Pension Benefits Division Act to have come into force on December 14 or 15, 1994, as the case may be.
Part 20 amends the Motor Vehicle Safety Act to allow residents of Canada to temporarily import a rental vehicle from the United States for up to 30 days, or for any other prescribed period, for non-commercial use. It also authorizes the Governor in Council to make regulations respecting imported rental vehicles, as well as their importation into and removal from Canada, and makes other changes to the Act.
Part 21 amends the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act to clarify the legislative framework pertaining to payments under tax agreements entered into with provinces under Part III.1 of that Act.
Part 22 amends the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act to change the residency requirements of certain commissioners.

Bill C-214—Ways and Means Motion—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I am ready to rule on a point of order raised on November 3, 2020, by the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader concerning Bill C-214, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (qualifying environmental trust), standing in the name of the hon. member for Calgary Centre.

In his intervention, the parliamentary secretary alleged that the bill should have been preceded by a ways and means motion. He argued that the bill would expand the definition of “qualifying environmental trust” to include a trust maintained for the sole purpose of funding the reclamation of an oil and gas well. As such trusts are taxed, he argued that the bill would extend the tax to a new class of taxpayer and should therefore be ruled out of order.

The hon. member for Calgary Centre argued that his bill would not create a new class of taxpayer, but would merely allow the oil and gas industry to use an existing tax mechanism already in use by the extractive industries. He also argued that an increase in tax revenue would only be incidental and would therefore not normally require a ways and means motion.

Bill C-214 would amend the Income Tax Act to include, in the definition of “qualifying environmental trust”, trusts that are maintained for the sole purpose of funding the reclamation of an oil or gas well operated for the purpose of producing petroleum or natural gas. As the sponsor of the bill noted, such trusts may already be used to fund reclamation activities by other extractive industries, but the act currently prohibits the use in relation to oil and gas wells. The bill's sponsor has argued that such a prohibition is unfair and that his bill seeks to correct the inequity. The Chair's decision, however, must be based not on the worthiness of the bill's policy objective, on which the Chair has no views, but rather on its compliance with our rules.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states at page 906, and I quote:

The House must first adopt a Ways and means motion before a bill which imposes a tax or other charge on the taxpayer can be introduced. Charges on the people, in this context, refer to new taxes, the continuation of an expiring tax, an increase in the rate of an existing tax, or an extension of a tax to a new class of taxpayers.

The question before the Chair is whether Bill C-214 extends a tax to a new class of taxpayers. The tax treatment of qualifying environmental trusts, or QETs, is admittedly quite complex, with a series of offsetting credits and deductions between the trust and the corporation that contributes to it. Generally, such a trust is created by a corporation as it would provide a tax advantage.

However, this is not a circumstance where the bill proposes a tax reduction or a tax credit. The means by which this advantage is gained is through the creation of a separate and distinct taxpayer, the trust. The bill's sponsor argues that QETs already exist as a class of taxpayers. Indeed they do. At present, however, the Income Tax Act specifically excludes a trust relating to the reclamation of a well. This exclusion has been part of the act ever since these sorts of trusts were first introduced in Bill C-59, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act and the Income Tax Application Rules, in 1995, when they were originally known as mining reclamation trusts.

Having been renamed “qualifying environmental trusts” in 1998, the number of eligible industries was expanded to include other extractive industries in 2011 via Bill C-13, An Act to implement certain provisions of the 2011 budget as updated on June 6, 2011 and other measures. Each of these bills was preceded by a ways and means motion. While they clearly contained other measures, the Chair believes that such a motion was necessary to expand the various types of industries able to create a QET.

Accordingly, a ways and means motion is necessary. The bill cannot proceed and should be discharged.

Pursuant to Standing Order 92.1, the hon. member for Calgary Centre may substitute a new item in the order of precedence to replace Bill C-214.

I thank hon. members for their attention.

Bill C-15—Time Allocation Motion

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we take respect for Parliament seriously. The way we start is by putting forth a budget that is really focused on how we can help Canadians. I would like to remind the member opposite of a few numbers that might be helpful for him to put that in context.

In 2010, the previous government put forward Bill C-9, which was a budget bill with 904 pages. I do not know how Parliament can go through 904 pages, but I do know that Canadians expect us to go through what we want to go through, which is the budget that we have put forward and which is a much more reasonable budget for people to understand.

I would remind him of Bill C-13, put forward in 2011 with 658 pages, again vastly more than triple the number of pages in our budget 2016. Maybe I can move to Bill C-43 from 2014, with 478 pages.

We will take no lessons from members on the opposite side about respecting Parliament. We have debated the budget for almost twice as many hours as they put forward in Bill C-43 and Bill C-59. We have had the time we need to reflect on this legislation, and we would like to move forward so we can make a difference for Canadians, which is what they elected us to do.

Opposition Motion—Federal Minimum Wage

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Brandon—Souris.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in the discussion of the motion put forward by the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, proposing that the federal minimum wage be raised. For a number of very good reasons already mentioned, I do not support the motion. Not the least of those reasons is the simple fact that since 1996, the federal minimum wage has been paid to the provincial and territorial minimum wage in which the employee is working, so why should we change it now so that employees in the federal jurisdiction can have a higher minimum rate of pay than those in the provincial areas of jurisdiction?

The opposition's argument is that increasing the rate on the federal side will make the provincial governments fall into line and raise their rates to catch up, but the federal government cannot just tell the provincial governments to raise their minimum rates, nor can we be certain that the provinces would follow suit if the federal rate were raised. That is an area of provincial jurisdiction.

Perhaps more important is the fact that the greater expertise in the area, particularly with respect to knowledge and understanding of local and regional conditions, lies with the provincial governments. In fact, provincial governments, for the most part, closely study and analyze the whole range of local and regional issues, including poverty levels, unemployment rates, job opportunities, average wage levels, and so on, before making changes to the minimum wage level.

Hon. members may know that over the past few years all provinces and territories have increased their minimum wage rates, in many cases after reviews by minimum wage boards or independent experts. In fact, several provinces have legislation stating that minimum wages must be reviewed every one or two years. Even those provinces without legislative requirements tend to adjust their minimum wage rates on a regular basis. In fact, Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan have all announced that they will increase their minimum wage on October 1, 2014. A recent Statistics Canada study has shown that the average growth in the minimum wage across Canada in the past decade has outstripped the rate of inflation.

I also want to point out that increasing minimum wage levels is not the only tool, and not a particularly sharp one, that governments can use to help low-income individuals and families to improve earnings and their standards of living. On the federal government side, these tools include billions of dollars in benefits given to individuals and families every year. I am referring to programs like the Canada child tax benefit; the Canada pension plan; the guaranteed income supplement; the EI program; maternity, parental, sickness and compassionate care benefits; the GST/HST credit for those with low incomes, and many more.

I list these few examples just to make the point that there is a great deal more to how we support and protect Canadian workers and families than just a band-aid short-term stunt adjusting the minimum wage. Economic growth and job creation, the top priorities of this government, are what have helped us build a strong and growing economy. They are what will continue to sustain us in the years ahead. Indeed, we are doing much better in that regard than many of our trading partners.

Since the recession a few years ago, we have had steady job growth, low interest rates, and growth rates that are the envy of many other countries. We believe that getting the economic essentials right will continue to keep us on the right track for even greater levels of prosperity and growth in the years to come.

As we all know, the best way to help improve Canadian workers' income is through the creation of good, well-paying jobs. One good example of how we can make adjustments to improve economic prospects is the recent announcement by the Minister of Finance of the small business job credit. This new credit will effectively lower EI premiums for small businesses by 15% over the next two years. According to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the credit will create 25,000 person-years of employment.

The minister also confirmed that in 2017, EI premiums would go down from the current $1.88 per $100 of earnings to $1.47 per $100 of earnings. This is excellent news for both workers and small business employers.

Our government will also continue to make specific changes and adjustments to a variety of programs to support workers and their families. Chief among them is making sure that all workers who come under federal jurisdiction have a safe and healthy workplace, equal opportunity for hiring and advancement, and the right to engage in a fair and balanced bargaining process.

Since being sworn in, our government has steadily increased occupational health and safety protections and improved working conditions for all employees under federal jurisdiction. This government implemented the wage earners protection program that protects the wages, vacation pay, severance pay and termination pay owing to workers whose employers go bankrupt or into receivership. This government brought in the Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act, which changed the Canada Labour Code to ensure employees who lose their jobs cannot be deprived of severance pay just because they happen to be entitled to a pension. This government brought in the Helping Families in Need Act that allows employees under federal jurisdiction to take unpaid leave in many different circumstances to care for their families. It also provides for flexibility for parents who need to interrupt their maternity and paternity leave for different reasons.

All of this is to say that we have offered assistance to low-income Canadians as a topic that is broader and much larger than just a discussion of minimum wage levels. Therefore, I urge all members to consider this and all of the other issues that I have mentioned and vote against the motion.

Motions in Amendment

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I always take great pleasure in being able to rise and speak in Canada's Parliament, in our House of Commons.

It is an incredible privilege and honour, certainly to do so on behalf of the people of Skeena—Bulkley Valley, in the northwest of British Columbia. This is a region of the country that is incredibly proud, with its diverse and important history. Also, it has struggled, particularly with regard to creating jobs, and it has watched many of the major sectors suffer.

One of the great abuses that has been heaped on that challenge by successive governments is the inattentiveness to what actual Canadians are concerned about, the proper way to create jobs and wealth in this country.

We have struggled, particularly when we watch governments that grow so arrogant over time that they choose a form of governing that is disrespectful and disregarding of some of our most primary and fundamental democratic instincts.

I have some quotations, because it is not just me saying this about the process we are engaged in here today on this particular bill. Let me quote from somebody sitting in cabinet right now.

Mr. Speaker, here we go again. This is a very important public policy question that is very complex and we have the arrogance of the government in invoking closure again. When we look at the Liberal Party on arrogance it is like looking at the Grand Canyon. It is this big fact of nature that we cannot help but stare at.

That is what the Minister of Industry said when the previous Liberal government used an omnibus bill, this technique of ramming all sorts of pieces of legislation into one. That omnibus bill was one-third the size of the one the Conservatives have just introduced. This must be three times the size of the Grand Canyon with respect to arrogance.

This happens to governments, especially ones that age badly over time, as the government has done. We can look at the list of omnibus legislation over the last number of years. Bill C-13 was 644 pages; Bill C-38, which was often called the pipelines enabling act, gutting environmental and safeguards we have within the Fisheries Act, was 425 pages; Bill C-45, further gutting protections for Canadians, was 400 pages. There was Bill C-4, Bill C-60, and now this one, Bill C-31, at almost 300 pages affecting 60 pieces of law.

I have a stack of quotes from Conservatives, from the Prime Minister to many ministers in his cabinet, decrying the abuse of Parliament that had been done under Liberal majority governments. It seems that they paid too close attention, but took all of the wrong lessons from the previous government. In fact, they took that and somehow tried to normalize it.

We do not think it is normal. We do not think it is proper and good for a government to try to ram these pieces of legislation through, invoking what is called time allocation or closure, shutting down the debate at every stage. In this case, the government shut it down after 20 minutes of debate. It brought in time allocation and said, “That is enough of this whole debate thing, this whole democracy thing. Let us allocate the time and shut down opportunities”.

I remember the Prime Minister, when he was in opposition, decrying the fact that he might only get 10 minutes and that many members of Parliament would not get any time at all. That is exactly what the same Prime Minister is now doing.

That is on the process. It is an absolute farce when the government pretends that any sort of proper oversight was given to this bill. I have sat on the committee, and my Conservative colleagues know full well that as the shutting down of witnesses and debate at committee happens, the government starts racing through pages and pages of legislation. In fact, it had to amend its own bill before it even left the committee stage, because it had made so many fundamental errors. It was going to deprive seniors of some of their pensions, inadvertently.

Constitutional experts that the Conservatives say are the best, like Mr. Hogg, who the Conservatives rely on for advice, have come forward and said there are whole sections of this bill that will not only be challenged in our courts for charter infringement, but those challenges will succeed.

The government is going to introduce legislation that it knows full well is likely to fail a charter challenge, which is going to cost Canadians millions through our tax dollars for all the lawyers that it takes to go through all the series of courts up to the Supreme Court, but it will also cause all the pain and aggravation for those who suffer under a law that is not constitutional in the first place.

This is a movie we have seen before from the government. Time and time again, when we get references for bills that are unconstitutional from all the advice we can gather, the government chooses playing politics over good policy and brings them in anyway.

Let us look at aspects of this 360-page monster.

Let me start with something that is not in here, which the small businesses in Canada were calling for. It was a proposal first put forward by New Democrats in the last election: a small-business hiring tax credit.

Here is the fundamental idea in this very good idea. This was a small-business initiative that Jack Layton and the NDP proposed that said, “Let us help out small businesses in hiring those people, but in giving that tax credit we want to connect it to an actual job being created”. I know this is radical economics over here, where we suggest that if we give a tax credit to the private sector from the public, there should be something in return, like a job created.

The tax credits and the tax breaks that the Conservatives prefer and, to be fair, so did the Liberals before them, in the order of tens of billions of dollars, had no strings attached. I remember Mr. Flaherty, our dear friend, criticizing the private sector for sitting on half a trillion dollars of what is called “dead money”. This is money that had been accumulating in the private sector in the private enterprises in Canada that they were not reinvesting. It was just a hope from the Conservatives: here are the tax breaks to the banks and the oil sector; here is a hope that they will actually do something with the money rather than sit on it or just do stock dividends. They hope that they are going to reinvest it back into research and development, reinvest it back into hiring more Canadians and expanding their business, but there are no strings attached to that deal. The Conservatives were very happy to let that go.

Also, many of those tax breaks were done when the government was running a deficit, so it was borrowed money. As all Canadians know, because they have borrowed money at some point, borrowed money always costs more. It was borrowed money that was then sent to the private sector in Canada with no strings attached.

This was one good idea that over half a million Canadian small business owners applied for and used, this small-business hiring tax credit. We would think that, somewhere in the 360 pages, the Conservatives would have found a way to include that one measure in this budget implementation act. It is one measure that worked, that was being applied for, that Canadian business owners enjoyed, and that had helped create more than half a million jobs in small and medium-sized businesses. However, it is not here.

What is in the bill is interesting. There is the Hazardous Products Act. There are all sorts of changes to how we would handle hazardous products. There are changes to the Supreme Court. There are changes to our privacy rights in this bill.

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of Bill C-31, our government's economic action plan for 2014. I understand that the member for Burlington will be speaking after me, which I think is wonderful, because what I lack in eloquence and possibly content I am sure he will more than make up for.

There are a number of measures in Bill C-31 that would be of benefit to my riding of Okanagan—Coquihalla and elsewhere in Canada.

One measure I am particularly proud of is further amendments to the Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act. I know the member for Kootenay—Columbia spoke to this measure earlier. I am glad to have his support, as well as that of many other members of this place, for that amendment through my private member's bill.

This amendment in the budget implementation bill actually builds on the Free My Grapes movement, which was very important not just to my riding but to all Canadian wine-producing regions. It was passed unanimously by all members of the House, opening up new Canadian markets for Canadian craft brewers and artisan distillers. It will help both producers and growers.

We must not overlook that alcohol, in many cases, is a value-added agricultural product. For microbreweries in my riding, of which there are several, this is very exciting news. I am told that Saskatchewan and Ontario are also home to some very well-regarded craft breweries. However, let us not overlook our growing number of artisan distillers. These industries collectively support farms, provide direct and indirect jobs, and in many cases raise significant revenues that support important government services.

Bill C-31 also proposes a tax credit for search and rescue volunteers who perform 200 hours or more of volunteer service. Last fall I joined with a local group of volunteers in a search and rescue effort to try to locate a missing father. Sadly, we were not successful in our efforts. However, it was a heartening experience that so many citizens came together to help a family find closure. I also know from my activities, as do many members who often get an opportunity to speak with our constituents, that the people who participate in these activities often spend incredible amounts of time in training and then retraining, so it is important for the government to support this measure. We know these services are of incredible value to many of our communities across Canada. I am grateful that these individuals are being recognized in the bill.

Another measure in Bill C-31 that is important to my riding is the extension of a 15% mineral exploration tax credit, which was touched upon by the Conservative member who spoke previously.

There are mines in my riding that operate outside of Merritt and in Logan Lake. Mining remains a major employer and provides very well-paying jobs in my riding. In Okanagan Falls and in Penticton, there are employers that manufacture specialty mining equipment. Recognizing the importance of mining and supporting the mineral exploration tax credit is important to my riding of Okanagan—Coquihalla and also to other resource communities across Canada.

There are many other reasons that I support Bill C-31. I would like to join the member for Vancouver Island North, who spoke so eloquently on the funding in budget 2014 that supports Lindsey's law. That is the creation of a national DNA-based missing persons index. I would also like to commend the member for Vancouver Island North for his work illustrating the need for such a DNA-based missing persons index from his work here in Ottawa.

On that same note, I would also like to recognize our Minister of Finance, who listens to the concerns of Canadians as represented by members of Parliament.

Here is another example of how our government listens to the concerns of Canadians in Bill C-31: the changes in how the GST-HST credit would be provided to qualifying Canadians. Those Canadians who qualify for the GST-HST grant but who neglect to apply would no longer be penalized for the oversight. Bill C-31 would ensure that eligible Canadians would automatically receive the GST-HST credit without having to apply.

That is a very good case of where this government recognizes that red tape should not prevent someone who is eligible for benefits to receive them. I think this will be warmly received in my riding of Okanagan—Coquihalla.

I would like to commend the Minister of National Revenue for also supporting these changes that will benefit many lower income Canadians.

Before I close, I would like to give an example of why our economic action plans are important to Canadians. Back in 2011, I spoke in this House in full support of Bill C-13, which was our government's economic action plan for 2011.

One of the reasons I spoke in support of Bill C-13 was the fact that provisions in the bill would help the value-added wood sector. In my riding of Okanagan—Coquihalla, we are very fortunate to have many value-added wood producers. In my 2011 budget speech, I referenced North America's first large-scale, state-of-the-art, cross-laminated timber manufacturing production facility. This new plant created many vitally needed, well-paying jobs in Okanagan Falls, and measures in our economic action plan supported this innovation and investment to make this plant a reality.

As we know, the opposition voted against the government's economic action plan in 2011, just as it voted against all our economic action plans since.

Why do I mention this? Imagine my surprise when the Leader of the Opposition visited my beautiful riding of Okanagan—Coquihalla back in February of this year, and while in my riding, the Leader of the Opposition visited this very same value-added wood producer in Okanagan Falls. What did the he say after touring this facility?

This factory is a great example of something that is succeeding, and that's great to see.

It is rare that I agree with the Leader of the Opposition, but on this point, I certainly do. In fact, the Leader of the Opposition described this innovative, value-added wood producer as a way we could create good jobs here in Canada, and I certainly agree.

However, we also have to recognize that the Leader of the Opposition, like his party, voted against our economic action plan in 2011. Yet when he actually witnessed the result of our economic plan in action, first hand, what did the Leader of the Opposition say? I will repeat, “This factory is a great example of something that is succeeding, and that's great to see”.

Our government's economic action plan, as the Leader of the Opposition himself observed, creates “good...jobs here in Canada”. That is one of the many reasons I will be supporting Bill C-31. I hope the members opposite will join our government in supporting the economic action plan that was presented in budget 2014 and that will be implemented through this act, so we can continue creating more good jobs right here in this great country of Canada, and help support Canadians in the many areas of day-to-day life.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to questions.

Standing Committee on Finance

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to the hon. House Leader of the Official Oppositionfor raising this point of order yesterday, objecting to the unusual procedures that were accepted within the Standing Committee on Finance, in relation to the clause-by-clause treatment of Bill C-60, the 2013 omnibus budget bill.

Prior to his point of order, I was struggling with a dilemma: I was certain there was an effort to undermine my rights as an individual member of Parliament and yet there had been no formal challenge. I was not sure how to approach this, Mr. Speaker, and to put before you the ways in which I found that procedure unacceptable. I really very much appreciate that the official opposition saw fit to raise its concerns that those procedures and the procedures adopted--novel procedures, mind you--before the Standing Committee on Finance did not comport to parliamentary rules and practice and went beyond the mandate of the committee.

I agree with all the points made by the hon. House Leader of the Official Opposition and by the member for Winnipeg North, on behalf of the Liberal Party.

Before getting down to the particulars of the current situation, I wish to review some fundamental principles related to the matter before you, Mr. Speaker.

In essence, what you are asked to adjudicate here is an effort by a powerful government party with the majority of seats in this place to eliminate what few rights exist to influence legislation in the hands of only eight members of Parliament belonging to two recognized national parties, myself, on behalf of the Green Party, and members here for the Bloc Québécois, plus two members currently sitting as independents.

Within this group, the government party's efforts are aimed only at the Green Party and the Bloc Québécois. We are the only members to have submitted amendments at report stage in the 41st Parliament.

The appropriate balance between the majority and the minority in proceedings of the House is, as Speaker Milliken noted, a fundamental issue.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to be providing the written copy of this presentation to you so that I will not have to read out loud all the citations.

The following passage is very apt. Although Speaker Milliken was dealing with a situation with a minority Parliament, the issues before him of balancing the rights of the minority and the majority are the same. I quote from Speaker Milliken's ruling of March 29, 2007:

At the present time, the chair occupants, like our counterparts in House committees, daily face the challenge of dealing with the pressures of a minority government, but neither the political realities of the moment nor the sheer force of numbers should force us to set aside the values inherent in the parliamentary conventions and procedures by which we govern our deliberations.

Continuing:

Unlike the situation faced by committee chairs, a Speaker's decision is not subject to appeal. All the more reason then for the Chair to exercise its awesome responsibility carefully and to ensure that the House does not, in the heat of the moment, veer dangerously off course.

The Speaker must remain ever mindful of the first principles of our great parliamentary tradition, principles best described by John George Bourinot, Clerk of this House from 1890 to 1902, who described these principles thus:

To protect the minority and restrain the improvidence and tyranny of the majority, to secure the transaction of public business in a decent and orderly manner, to enable every member to express his opinions within those limits necessary to preserve decorum and prevent an unnecessary waste of time, to give full opportunity for the consideration of every measure, and to prevent any legislative action being taken heedlessly and upon sudden impulse.

As I noted yesterday, in particular, in your ruling related to the member for Langley's question of privilege, you said:

...[an] unquestionable duty of the Speaker [is] to act as the guardian of the rights and privileges of members and of the House as an institution.

And you cited, with approval, these words from former speaker Fraser:

...we are a parliamentary democracy, not a so-called executive democracy, nor a so-called administrative democracy.

The last quote is from your ruling of December 12, 2012, which bears directly on the matter at hand. In that ruling, Mr. Speaker, you dealt with an objection raised by the hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons to, inter alia, my presentation of amendments at report stage. The hon. government House leader presented a proposal that all my amendments at report stage should be grouped and one motion selected as a “test motion”, and only if the test motion was adopted would any of the other amendments be put to the House.

Your ruling was clear, Mr. Speaker. You cited House of Commons Procedure and Practice at page 250, which states:

[I]t remains true that parliamentary procedure is intended to ensure that there is a balance between the government's need to get its business through the House, and the opposition's responsibility to debate that business without completely immobilizing the proceedings of the House.

And you added:

The underlying principles these citations express are the cornerstones of our parliamentary system. They enshrine the ancient democratic tradition of allowing the minority to voice its views and opinions in the public square and, in counterpoint, of allowing the majority to put its legislative program before Parliament and have it voted upon.

You ruled then, Mr. Speaker, that my amendments at report stage on Bill C-45 could stand and be put to a vote in the House. You also set out some circumstances that would provide a potential procedure to provide me and other members in my position with a fair and satisfactory alternative to amendments at report stage.

In my view, the government House leader is now attempting to do indirectly that which he could not do directly. It puts me in mind of the finding of Mr. Justice Dickson in that landmark Supreme Court case of Amax Potash, in which Mr. Dickson said:

To allow moneys collected under compulsion, pursuant to an ultra vires statute, to be retained would be tantamount to allowing the provincial Legislature to do indirectly what it could not do directly, and by covert means to impose illegal burdens.

I again underline that as the hon. House Leader of the Official Opposition has put before us, the actions of the finance committee were ultra vires, and the whole effort here is to do indirectly what it could not do directly. I am speaking of the Conservative Party's efforts to suppress the rights of minority members.

It offends principles of fairness to use the superior clout and power of a majority government to crush the few procedures found within our rules and traditions to which I, as an individual member, have a right to recourse. It is clear that the effort being made by the finance committee on Bill C-60 is a continuation of the strategy-by-stealth of the government House leader's to foreclose the democratic rights of members, which was attempted in November of last year.

For the remainder of my argument, I would like to canvass two areas of facts that are relevant to the specifics of the question before you, Mr. Speaker. First, was the procedure adopted by the finance committee in conformity with your ruling of December 12, 2012? Second, have the amendments I have put forward in the 41st Parliament offended the rules by failing the tests of “repetition, frivolity, vexatiousness and unnecessary prolongation of report stage”?

Dealing with the second point first, I have moved amendments at report stage on the following bills, and I will state how many amendments per bill: Bill C-10, 36 amendments; Bill C-11, 11 amendments; Bill C-13, one amendment; Bill C-18, three amendments; Bill C-19, three amendments; Bill C-31, 23 amendments; Bill C-316, five amendments; Bill C-38, 320 amendments; Bill C-37, one amendment; Bill C-43, 21 amendments; and Bill C-45, 82 amendments.

What is immediately obvious is that the number of my amendments was directly proportionate to the legislation proposed by the government. Only on the two omnibus budget bills, Bill C-45 and Bill C-38, and the omnibus crime bill, Bill C-10, did I propose a relatively large number of amendments. There were many amendments, because the omnibus bills involved changes to multiple laws in a dramatic and transformative fashion. The amendments I proposed were all serious; none were frivolous. They were not of the kind, for example, put forward by the opposition of the day on the Nisga'a treaty, in which multiple amendments were mere changes of punctuation with the goal being slowing passage of the Nisga'a treaty.

The amendments I have put forward have even gained favourable commentary from some government members. On Bill C-31, the hon. Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism said, “I appreciate the member's evident concern”, speaking of me as the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, “and the fact that she takes the deliberative legislative process very seriously”.

On Bill C-11, the copyright modernization act, the hon. Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages said, “I compliment her for her substantive approach to this legislation”.

On Bill C-43, the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism stated:

I commend the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for her constant due diligence. I know it is a particular challenge to effectively be an independent member and yet participate in an informed way in debates on virtually all bills in the House. We all admire her for that even if I do not agree with the substance of her intervention here.

In summary, the amendments I have put forward in the 41st Parliament have never been frivolous. Were they designed to slow passage? Not at all. Even on the day we began the marathon session of votes on the amendments to Bill C-38, I approached the Prime Minister personally and asked if any compromise were possible. I told him I would be at his disposal, that if one or two amendments might pass, perhaps the rest could be withdrawn, and that I was open to suggestion.

My goal throughout was serious and grounded in principle. My constituents care about these issues and these bills. I am working tirelessly in their interest. I have never engaged in preparing and presenting amendments for the sake of, as the government House leader has suggested, political games or delay for the sake of delay.

Having worked in the Mulroney government and in public policy work in Ottawa dealing with federal governments, federal ministers and federal laws since 1978, I have personal experience with what used to be the normal approach to legislating in the Parliament of Canada. This particular administration is the only one in our history to enforce rigid discipline on its members in legislative committees. It is the first administration in Canadian history to resist any changes in its legislative proposals from first reading to royal assent. Even the errors that are discovered prior to passage are protected from amendment until subsequent bills correct earlier drafting errors.

Worsening this abuse of democratic process, virtually every bill in the 41st Parliament has been subject to time allocation. If time allocation were not applied, in the normal round of debates, eventually members in my situation, who are seen as independent for my rights and privileges, although I sit here as a Green Party member, would be recognized and would participate in the debates. However, due to time allocation, there is never an opportunity to speak at second reading, report stage or third reading. With time allocation, there is never an opportunity for members in my position to make a speech unless another party cedes a speaking slot.

As a matter of practical reality, the only way to have a speaking opportunity in such time-constrained circumstances is to have amendments tabled at report stage. This approach of the current Conservative administration of rejecting any and all amendments, while simultaneously abbreviating debate opportunities, is a perversion of Westminster parliamentary tradition. It is a new and hyper-partisan approach to the legislative process.

As a member of Parliament, I believe it is my duty to work to resist this new, contemptuous approach to legislating. The ability to table amendments at report stage and to offer the entire House an opportunity to improve bills before third reading is even more critical when the legislative committee process has ceased to function as it did in all the time of all the speakers before you.

Now I turn to the question, Mr. Speaker, of how the finance committee applied the suggestions contained in your ruling of December 12, 2012. I note that the chair of the finance committee is never anything but personally fair, and I mean nothing personal against all members of the finance committee. I assume that this entire stratagem emerged elsewhere than from the members of the finance committee themselves.

I note that you suggested, Mr. Speaker, that there are “opportunities and mechanisms that are at the House's disposal to resolve these issues to the satisfaction of all members” in a “manner that would balance the rights of all members” and that “...members need only to remember that there are several precedents where independent members were made members of standing committees”. Those are all quotes from your ruling in December.

Finally, you suggested this:

Were a satisfactory mechanism found that would afford independent members an opportunity to move motions to move bills in committee, the Chair has no doubt that its report stage selection process would adapt to the new reality.

From these comments it is clear that your direction suggests that an effort might be made to engage members with rights of independents to enter into a discussion about how arrangements could be reached that would be, in fact, satisfactory. To be “to the satisfaction of all members”, your ruling implicitly requires that the suggested opportunities and mechanisms be discussed and accepted by all concerned. Further, you suggested that temporary membership was possible and that members should be able to “move motions”.

None of that occurred. I am attaching a written copy of all the correspondence between me and the chair of the Standing Committee on Finance, which I will provide to the table. As you will see, there was no discussion or offer of co-operation. The “invitation” contained in a letter of May 7, 2013 left no room for discussion. The attached motion of the committee was supported only by the Conservative members of the finance committee but not by the official opposition or the Liberal Party members.

The letter, and particularly the motion itself, had the tone of a unilateral ultimatum. My response was to ask for temporary committee membership for the duration of clause-by-clause review. This request was rejected in the letter of May 24, 2013.

As the various sections of Bill C-60 had been distributed among several committees, I attempted to attend all the hearings relative to my amendments. However, committees were meeting at the same time in different locations throughout the parliamentary precinct making it impossible to get to each one of them. I did attend meetings of the industry, finance and the foreign affairs committees prior to clause-by-clause. I asked for permission to ask witnesses questions and was denied in the finance and foreign affairs committees. I was allowed a three-minute opportunity to pose questions in the industry committee. To be blunt, my opportunities were not close to equivalent to the members of those committees.

On Monday, May 27, 2013 as requested by the finance committee, I complied with the committee and attempted to co-operate. I submitted my amendments and attended clause-by-clause throughout the meeting of the committee on Tuesday, May 28. I asked for time to present my amendments. There were 11 in total. I was given half as much time as my colleague from the Bloc Québécois. I was allowed one minute per amendment. He was allowed two minutes per amendment. I have attached copies of the Hansard from all of these discussions to abbreviate the recitation of the facts.

I prefaced my presentation of amendments with a statement that I had not asked for this opportunity nor invitation and that while I was attempting to co-operate, it was without prejudice to my rights to submit amendments at report stage. Each time I was given the floor for 60 seconds, I repeated that my participation was without prejudice to my rights to present amendments at report stage, when I had the right to move my own amendments, speak to my own amendments, and answer questions about my amendments. At report stage, I have the right to vote on my amendments.

I also supported the point made by the hon. member for Parkdale—High Park that inviting independent members to committee, in her words, “does not conform with parliamentary procedure in that only the House of Commons can appoint committee members”.

I noted that I did not have an equal opportunity to present my amendments. This observation was compounded as we went through clause-by-clause.

On two occasions, members of the committee suggested amendments to my amendments. I was not allowed to comment on those suggestions. On one occasion, a member of the government benches disagreed with a point I made, but I was not allowed to reply. On another occasion, the NDP members misunderstood the impact of my amendment, but I was not allowed to explain. I was not allowed to move my amendments. The motions were deemed moved. I was not allowed to vote on my amendments. As noted, I was not allowed even the ability to participate in discussions about my amendments.

There is no way the word “satisfactory” can be so twisted of meaning as to apply to the set of circumstances to which I was required to submit. It is a principle of fairness and natural justice that an opportunity that cannot be used is no opportunity at all.

When one considers the circumstances in which speakers have ruled that members did not have an adequate opportunity to submit their amendments, it is clear that this imposed process before the Standing Committee on Finance falls far short of the mark.

For example, in 2001, Speaker Milliken ruled that where a member was on two committees and had difficulty getting to the meeting, he could move amendments at report stage. Speaker Milliken wrote that:

...because...the member maintains that he sits on two committees, both of which were seized with bills at the same time, and therefore had difficulty in moving his amendments, the Chair will give the benefit of the doubt to the member on this occasion.

In a situation where a member of a recognized parliamentary party attended the clause-by-clause consideration at the committee but was not an official member of the committee, Speaker Milliken allowed that member's amendments to be presented at report stage. He noted:

Of course, the Chair recognizes that our parliamentary system is party driven and the positions of the parties are brought forward to committees through its officially designated members. The Chair also recognizes that some members may want to act on their own.

Underscoring this, what an example: a member of a recognized party with rights to participate in standing committees chose to be in the meetings, in clause-by-clause, and could have handed that member's amendments to another member of his party and ask that they be submitted, but the Speaker of the House supported the right of that member to amendments at report stage because he was not a committee member. I was a long, long way from the rights of that member of a recognized political party sitting in that committee back in 2003 when Speaker Milliken allowed that member's amendments at report stage.

The right of a member to actually move the amendments at committee cannot be perverted through the expedient measure, imposed by a majority party, of demanding all amendments of an independent member be submitted, denying that member the right to move the amendment, speak to the amendment, other than in an inadequate perfunctory fashion, debate or defend the amendment, giving that member no opportunity to speak to other amendments and denying the member any chance to vote on his or her motion.

There may well be some way to accommodate members of Parliament in my position, but clearly, this experiment on Bill C-60 at clause-by-clause consideration in the finance committee was not acceptable. To accept it now, and disallow rights of members of Parliament in the position of independents to submit amendments at report stage, will be to create a precedent that fundamentally abuses our foundational principles of Westminster parliamentary democracy.

Mr. Speaker, I urge you to find in favour of the point of order put forward by the hon. House leader for the official opposition and to set aside the treatment of me and the member from the Bloc Québécois and allow us to submit amendments, move amendments, debate our amendments and vote on them on Bill C-60 at report stage.

Opposition Motion—Federal Infrastructure Plan

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take this opportunity to discuss our government's record investment in infrastructure to benefit our country, literally from sea to sea, from the northern coast all the way down to our southern coast.

Since 2006, our government has made record levels of investments in infrastructure through initiatives such as the $33 billion building Canada plan and infrastructure investments made under Canada's economic action plan.

On the one hand, the seven-year building Canada plan is providing long-term funding for small and large-scale projects across the country. Just this past Friday, I was in Lakeshore making an announcement that the federal government will be committing up to $17.3 million from the building Canada fund, a major infrastructure component, for a new multi-use recreation facility in that community.

On the other hand, Canada's economic action plan was designed to provide targeted, timely, temporary funding during the recession for shovel-ready construction projects in the short term.

In Windsor—Essex, for example, we had the highest per capita infrastructure stimulus in the country to combat the highest unemployment in Canada, leading to projects such as investments in the new Centre for Engineering Innovation at the University of Windsor, the new MediaPlex and a Centre for Applied Health Sciences at St. Clair College, new modernizations and improvements at Your Quick Gateway, YQG, our airport, and a new MURF in Amherstburg. These are projects that were needed in that short-term period that are making a difference in the long term.

More than 50% of the build Canada plan, some $17.6 billion, goes to municipalities to fund their priorities through the gas tax fund and through the 100% GST rebate. Through these two initiatives, every municipality in the country is receiving stable and predictable funding.

I would like to remind my colleagues opposite, though they may want to forget, that the NDP voted against this support for Canadian municipalities. By way of fact, the gas tax fund doubled on April 1, 2009, from $1 billion to $2 billion per year. The NDP was opposed to that.

On December 15, 2011, Bill C-13, which was entitled Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act, received royal assent. This delivered on our government's budget 2011 commitment to legislate the gas tax fund permanently at $2 billion a year. Municipalities can count on this stable funding for their infrastructure needs now and in the future. However, they cannot count on the NDP, which voted against this on every single occasion.

To date, more than 3,600 municipalities across Canada have benefited from the financial support and the flexibility the gas tax fund program offers. Municipalities can choose to pool their funds and bank or borrow against them, meaning that municipalities can spend their funding when they choose to do so. They do not have to spend it as soon as it comes in. They can save their funds for a few select larger projects or can use them for many smaller ones. As a result of this flexibility, in the period from 2005 to 2011 municipalities earned over $88 million in interest, which they could then use for additional local infrastructure renewal.

Municipalities can choose to invest all or part of their funding allocations in program categories such as drinking water and waste water systems, solid waste management, community energy systems, public transit, local roads or even capacity building. Since its inception, municipalities across Canada have reported that the gas tax fund has helped them fund over 13,000 individual projects. There is a great interactive map on the Association of Municipalities of Ontario website that shows where all these projects are across Essex County and Ontario, for example.

With each of these infrastructure projects come important jobs and results that improve quality of life in our communities. I remind members that the NDP voted to turn down support for these 13,000 projects. I think that bears some shame.

If we look at Canada's six largest cities, approximately 80% of the gas tax fund allocation is invested in public transit. Toronto, Ottawa and Edmonton devote 100% of their gas tax fund monies to public transit.

Toronto has used its gas tax funding to purchase 204 new streetcars to replace aging light rail vehicles. The City of Ottawa has used its gas tax funds to renew and modify its transit bus fleets. Other regions are also using their gas tax fund allocations to make their public transit services more accessible for their ridership. Peel region, with its TransHelp accessible transportation service, is an example. Some 2,000 new customers and an 8% to 10% annual increase in trip capacity resulted from that investment, with a record 400,000-plus trips reported in 2010.

Of course, public transit is not the only focus of the gas tax fund for Canadian communities. The next largest investment priority for Canadian municipalities is local roads and bridges, followed by water and then waste water. For example, if we look eastward to New Brunswick, the City of Bathurst upgraded its water and sanitary systems using gas tax funds. As a result of these upgrades, the process at the waste water treatment plant has been improved to meet provincial effluent quality standards, and further efficiencies are expected to improve the quality of drinking water.

If we look north, and having a young Inuit daughter I like to look northward, their communities benefit from the gas tax funds as well. In the north, it is a little different. Northern communities receive a base funding amount instead of an allocation based on population. That just means that less populated jurisdictions receive sufficient funds to build and revitalize their local infrastructure.

The Yukon, Northwest Territories and Nunavut will each have received $97.5 million for community infrastructure from the gas tax fund between 2005 to 2014. The City of Iqaluit was able to use gas tax funds to replace its water pipe system, which has ensured a dependable supply of safe drinking water for residents for years to come.

Gas tax funds are also used to support capacity-building initiatives in northern communities, including long-term community planning. In remote locations, with sparse populations and a difficult northern climate, local infrastructure planning is especially complex and challenging. When combined with limited access to planning resources and expertise, funding for capacity building and planning becomes even more important.

The Little Salmon/Carmacks First Nation community used gas tax funds to establish sustainability goals and to develop a community planning program. Through this exercise, it was able to complete two key community infrastructure planning projects that focused on land development and community housing needs. It was able to keep citizens informed through a newsletter and provided opportunity for input. As a result, its integrated community sustainability plan was able to include new areas of focus, covering everything from public transit and walking trails to drinking water, sewage, green energy projects and other community infrastructure needs.

We have given this flexible funding to municipalities in all corners of the country, despite the NDP's systematic opposition.

I would like to point out that closer to home, in the far south of Canada, the gas tax fund continues to modernize important local infrastructure, whether it is reconstruction of the Canard River overpass, repaving on Gesto Road, road reconstruction in the heart of Kingsville or county roads across Lakeshore.

The gas tax fund will continue to deliver results for local infrastructure priorities for years to come. We look forward to seeing the benefits in our communities. I am pleased to note that a $2 billion per year gas tax fund is one of our government's largest, and now permanent, programs dedicated to infrastructure funding for our country. From British Columbia to Newfoundland and Labrador, from the Yukon and Nunavut to Essex County, Ontario, the gas tax fund plays an important role in supporting infrastructure renewal and in creating jobs. Communities, large and small alike, benefit and can continue to rely on this stable, predictable funding.

Jobs and Growth Act, 2012

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to the Conservatives' latest omnibus budget legislation, Bill C-45, at report stage.

I will focus my remarks today on: one, how the New Democrats worked closely with and supported, helped, aided and abetted the Conservatives in their ramming of this omnibus bill through committee; two, a very dangerous precedent that was set at finance committee during the study of Bill C-45; and, three, some of the flaws in Bill C-45 that were identified by Canadians during the committee's study.

As members know, Bill C-45 is a mammoth bill. It is over 400 pages long and would amend over 60 different laws. It includes a large number of provisions that simply do not belong in a budget bill: rewriting the laws protecting Canada's waterways; redefining aboriginal fisheries, without even consulting first nations peoples; and eliminating the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission. These are just a few examples of what is in Bill C-45 and examples of measures that would really have nothing to do with the fiscal situation of the country.

Canadians overwhelmingly disapprove of the Conservatives' use of omnibus budget bills to ram a large number of unrelated measures through Parliament without sufficient study or debate. A recent poll by Forum Research shows that 64% of Canadians oppose the Conservatives' omnibus legislative approach. Even a majority of Conservative supporters oppose the Conservatives' use, overuse and abuse of omnibus bills.

The Prime Minister once opposed the use of omnibus bills, but under his watch we have seen a clear trend toward the use of omnibus legislation. In fact, Bill C-13 in 2006 was 198 pages; Bill C-28 in 2007 was 378 pages; Bill C-10 in 2009 was 552 pages; Bill C-9 in 2010 was 904 pages; Bill C-13 in 2011 was 658 pages; and Bill C-38 earlier this year was 452 pages.

To put this in context, the largest Liberal budget bill was Bill C-28 in 2003, which was 144 pages in length, and it focused on fiscal measures, not on unrelated measures.

I will also speak about the NDP in this case. The NDP actually helped the Conservatives in passing Bill C-45 as quickly as possible through committee. The New Democrats say that they oppose Bill C-45 and they say that they oppose closure. However, their actions speak louder than their words. While they talk the talk, they do not walk the walk when it comes to actually standing up to the Conservatives and their abuse of Parliament. Instead of standing up to the Conservatives and providing any real opposition to Bill C-45, the New Democrats have actually been helping the Conservatives.

Here are a few examples. The New Democrats voted with the Conservatives to impose time allocation to limit the debate on Bill C-45 at committee. The New Democrats voted with the Conservatives to overrule the finance committee chair, the member for Edmonton—Leduc, a chair who is respected by all members of the House for his judgment. To have him rebuked by his own colleagues was bad and it was terrible to see the New Democrats gang up with the Conservatives against the member for Edmonton—Leduc. The New Democrats voted with the Conservatives to throw out the rules at committee and to shut down opposition to Bill C-45. The New Democrats then gave up one of their votes at finance committee and worked out a schedule with the Conservatives so the finance committee could get through Bill C-45 as quickly as possible. The New Democrats voted with the Conservatives almost 2,000 times at the finance committee to oppose measures that could have delayed certain parts of Bill C-45.

[Réjean Laflamme, Assistant General Manager , President, Federation of Funeral Cooperatives of Québec, Conseil canadien de la coopération et de la mutualité]

Many Canadian laws have an impact on cooperatives. Last April, accounting firm Malette published a study pointing to major disparities in the tax treatment of Quebec cooperatives compared with traditional businesses.

The study showed that owing to a failure of the integration principle, their level of taxation was higher, particularly for investment income, income from subsidiaries and capital gains. This poses an obstacle to the development of Quebec cooperatives.

In its 2011 budget, the federal government proposed extending the notion of “prohibited investment” to include RRSPs. This amendment, set out in Bill C-13, has an impact on the use of RRSPs to invest in cooperatives. A shareholder who, alone or with a related person, holds 10% or more of a given category of shares in a cooperative is considered to hold a “prohibited investment”. That is the case of many small work cooperatives with fewer than 10 workers who are owner-members.

This situation poses a risk for many small cooperatives, especially, as I mentioned, work cooperatives, which are now forced to contend with yet another obstacle to their capitalization.

In our opinion, these two situations demonstrate the importance of maintaining an ongoing dialogue between the cooperative movement and the federal government. We believe that it would be advantageous in such situations for a body representing cooperatives and having adequate resources to be able to have a monitoring role.

Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act

[Bryan Hayes, Conservative, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the budget we are dealing with now is, I believe, 495 pages of which I have read every page. I am a CGA by trade and I kind of like numbers. However, this is small in comparison.

Budget 2011, Bill 1, the royal assent version had 880 pages. Bill C-13 in 2011, Bill 2, the royal assent version had 644 pages. Bill C-10, budget 2009, the royal assent version—

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to give my last Thursday statement of 2011. The fall has been a productive, hard-working and orderly session. It has been capped by results that we have seen in the House during delivering results month since we returned from the Remembrance Day constituency week.

Of particular note, this fall the House passed Bill C-13, the keeping Canada's economy and jobs growing act; Bill C-20, the fair representation act; Bill C-18, the marketing freedom for grain farmers act; and Bill C-10, the safe streets and communities act.

Other things were also accomplished, from the appointment of two officers of Parliament to the passing at second reading of Bill C-26, the Citizen's Arrest and Self-defence Act. I would like to thank the opposition parties who made these accomplishments possible. Nevertheless, the House has a lot of work to do when it returns in 2012.

The things I am looking forward to in 2012 include, after 48 speeches so far, returning to Bill C-19, the ending the long-gun registry act; after 75 speeches so far, continuing debate on second reading of Bill C-11, the copyright modernization act; after 73 speeches so far, continuing debating the opposition motion to block Bill C-4, the preventing human smugglers from abusing Canada's immigration system act from proceeding to committee; and, after 47 speeches so far, continuing debate on second reading of Bill C-7, the Senate reform act.

This winter, the government's priority will continue to be economic growth and job creation. We will thus continue to move forward with our economic agenda by debating legislative measures such as Bill C-23 on the implementation of a Canada-Jordan free trade agreement; Bill C-24 on the implementation of a Canada-Panama free trade agreement; Bill C-25, which is designed to give Canadians another way to plan for retirement through pooled registered pension plans; and Bill C-28 on the appointment of a financial literacy leader.

Needless to say, I am looking forward to the 2012 budget, the next phase of Canada's economic recovery, from the Minister of Finance, and I am looking forward to what I am sure it will deliver for the Canadian economy. This will be the cornerstone of the upcoming session.

With respect to the precise business of the House for the week of January 30, 2012, I will advise my counterparts in the usual fashion in advance of the House returning.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, please let me wish you, my fellow house leaders, all hon. members and our table officers and support staff a very merry Christmas.

In particular, I want to thank the pages, many of whom, as we know, spent their first significant amount of time away from home with us this fall. I wish them a pleasant time back home with family over Christmas. Perhaps we have provided some good stories for them to tell around the dinner table.

Merry Christmas, happy new year and all the best for the break. Here is to a productive, orderly and hard-working 2012.

Merry Christmas and happy new year. May the members of the House rest up in preparation for the hard work to come in a productive and orderly 2012.

Citizen's Arrest and Self-defence Act

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with my colleague on the emphasis to be placed on restorative justice initiatives. In my region of Waterloo, there are many great restorative justice initiatives that are achieving excellent results. I think he and most of my colleagues would agree that particular approach is not always effective. We still need an effective criminal justice system to be in place.

I was somewhat surprised at his innuendo in the first part of his comments. He implied that there are times when the Conservative Party is not open to input. This party is very eager for input, to have discussion, dialogue, collaboration and consultation, but there comes a time when it is necessary to take action. For example, Bill C-13 was before the House recently. We had been having discussions about the budget since last March and it was time to implement the initiatives in it. Canadians expect us to take action.

He also referred to his concerns about ensuring that there be reasonable grounds that the person under suspicion is actually the criminal. I want to be sure he understands that the current bill before the House is not similar to the one that was tabled in the previous session where only reasonable grounds were necessary. This bill actually identifies that it—

Opposition Motion—Closure and Time Allocation

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to the NDP motion. And quite sincerely, I am especially pleased to speak since it directly concerns your role, Mr. Speaker, which you fulfill so well out of respect for your title in the House. I am a new member. I have the advantage of a fresh outlook, and I can say that I truly appreciate the work you do.

I have a quote here from May 2, 2011: “We must be the government of all Canadians, including those who did not vote for us [I would like to repeat that last part: “including those who did not vote for us”], and that includes the great Quebec nation.”

That is an excerpt from the first speech the Right Hon. Prime Minister, our current Prime Minister, made as the leader of a parliamentary majority.

That was how he felt on May 2, after years in opposition and years of leading a minority government. And now here we are, just a few months later, having to defend the idea of the opposition's right to speak in the House.

I would also like to quote an excerpt from an excellent column that was published in Quebec in La Presse on November 23, 2011. It does a wonderful job of expressing the opinion of a very large majority of Quebeckers and likely Canadians as well:

...sometimes, when a leader reaches his goal [in this case, a majority in Parliament for the current Prime Minister's party], blind partisanship gives way to some magnanimity [lending a compassionate ear, let us say], a word that apparently is not in the vocabulary of...[I will not quote directly, since we cannot use the current Right Hon. Prime Minister's name in the House] and his key ministers.

Do not forget that this government enjoys a majority in the House, but it was elected by only 39.6% of Canadians (16.5% in Quebec, a province particularly badly crushed by the bulldozer).

When, on the night of his victory, [our hon. Prime Minister] declared that his would be a government of all Canadians, it was apparently just empty words devoid of any real intention....

The column used the Prime Minister's last name followed by the words “the bulldozer”.

That is what the columnists who are by far the most popular among Quebeckers are saying in black and white, without mincing words. The same thing is happening in English Canada. We should be worried that things have gotten to this point and that something like this is happening in a democracy as old as ours.

It is all caused by a problem involving overuse of what is called the “gag order”. Before digging more deeply into the problem, I would first like to correct a statement by the government, which is inaccurate to say the least, in response to our motion today. It relates to Bill C-13.

I would simply like to point out that the bill is to implement certain provisions of the budget. We are not postponing passage of a budget, this is about implementing it. Bill C-13 was introduced on October 4, 2011. Contrary to what some of my colleagues opposite have said, we have not been delaying passage of a budget since the throne speech in June. That is simply not the case. We were questioning an extremely important document. One of my colleagues has said it was as thick as a phone book. It was only introduced on October 4. The budget is 644 pages long. There have been only seven days of debate in the House and there was time allocation at each stage. There was time allocation at second reading, at report stage and at third reading.

It is completely incorrect to use this example when we look at what has in fact happened and the very proper behaviour of the opposition, which was simply asking for more time to discuss the 640 or so pages of the budget.

Let us come back to the main problem. The government has the unilateral power to invoke rule 78 concerning time allocation. This is where we have a problem. Canadians already have a democratic deficit.

With our first past the post electoral system, we can end up with a House like this one, where 60 % of Canadians find themselves represented by a minority of members in the House. So we have a serious democratic deficit that has been corrected in a number of modern democracies. I could talk for 25 minutes on this subject alone, so I will not dwell too long on it.

This means we are stuck with this flawed poor first past the post system which distorts the results. What is left for the Canadians who make up that 60 % and more? There is only one thing left for them: the right for their representatives, who have been relegated to a minority, to speak, to introduce numerous suggestions by motion and to be heard. If we take away the very essence of the very little bit of what is left of democratic rights in the present system, we have to wonder what will remain of democracy in Canada. It is as serious as that.

Gagging the opposition seven times in a short time span means gagging six Canadians out of ten, seven times in a few months. If we still think that the government is a responsible government, that the House is a House of representatives, gagging this side of the House seven times means gagging six Canadians out of ten, seven times in a few months. I would like to hear it, if a single one of my colleagues opposite disagrees with this perception or this view of democracy. Can they rise in the House and say that if the opposition is gagged seven times, that is not the equivalent, in the present situation in the House, of gagging six Canadians out of ten, seven times in a few months?

The gag was applied in the case of Bill C-18 on wheat management, a foundation of the economy, a foundation of Canadians’ food supply, which is a somewhat important question. The gag was applied twice. The gag was applied in the case of Bill C-10. It was even done in committee, even in that separate kind of place where we are supposed to be able to hear experts and speak with them. Even there, the gag was applied. And we still have to point out over and over again in the House that Bill C-10 is opposed by the Canadian Bar Association, by the lawyers’ organizations in all provinces and by a majority of the provincial governments. And the gag was applied.

I want to come back to the speech by the Right Hon. Prime Minister about governing for all Canadians. He had a perfect opportunity to prove that between his words and his actions, there might one day be some consistency. We moved a very simple motion more than six times to introduce a Bill C-10A on everything to do with sexual assault against minors. The House would have stood up the next day and adopted the motion. Those six motions were never once considered by the current government, led by a prime minister who began, on the first evening of his first-ever win as a majority government, by saying he would govern for all Canadians.

The first definition that appears after a simple little search on the Speaker's site is as follows:

To ensure the orderly flow of business, the House of Commons observes parliamentary rules and traditions, both written and unwritten. It is the Speaker's duty to interpret these rules impartially, to maintain order, and to defend the rights and privileges of Members, including [the first right mentioned in black and white] the right to freedom of speech.

What the motion is calling for is quite simple, Mr. Speaker. It is to give you this responsibility, which is part of your role, and to give you more powers. We are not playing with something here that does not exist in other countries or inventing a very complex democratic mechanism. We are simply saying that the role of Speaker is indeed to be impartial—a role that the current Speaker is fulfilling very well in the House—and that we are all giving him the role to address this antidemocratic abuse of Standing Order 78 to gag debate to no end, and to ask why there needs to be a gag order.

We have to ask if there are excellent reasons to gag debate and why the government should quickly silence the official opposition, which, in our system, represents the majority of Canadians.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member. If there is time that is needed to be spent on a bill to make it perfect it probably should be spent in committee because that is where we can actually have third party, people who are interested and actually have the minister come forward. I agree with the member that there should be more time.

Bill C-13 was a 600-page bill and there were a lot of technicalities. More time should probably have been given to the witnesses to prepare so that they could come forward at committee.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I serve on the finance committee. When we went through clause by clause of Bill C-13, we did that pretty quickly. I believe it took a couple of hours. The time that took the longest was the section where we would stop taxpayer money from going to the election process.

The argument is that if there is such a concern, why was there not more time taken in committee where we would expect to see that dialogue take place?

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned the budget implementation bill, Bill C-13. Within that bill there are some terribly important measures that we have to get passed, including EI improvements and accelerated capital cost allowance for business, as well as work sharing.

He also implied that bringing this budget bill to a vote to finally get it implemented is somehow something new. Bill C-13 has had more hours of debate at second reading than the average budget bill over the last two decades, and more than any Liberal majority budget bill during that time.

Here we are a few days away from the end of 2011, and we are debating the implementation of budget 2011. Does my colleague not think it reasonable that we should implement budget 2011 in 2011, rather than letting it slide on into 2012?

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform you that I will share my time with the hon. member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor.

I find it a little sad that, with this government, we always start with the end instead of the beginning. Regardless of what we may think, this government does what it wants and cares little about parliamentary procedures and tradition.

Since the last election, we are seeing too much abuse. This government is abusing its majority, thinking that with the support of 39% of Canadians it can do anything. And this is an inflated number because it does not include the 40% of Canadians who did not vote. So, it is not even 30% of Canadians who supported the government. Therefore, it should at least respect the opinion of all Canadians. It is not the first time that we raise this issue.

Today, we are talking about the government cutting debate short after introducing a bill, and not even after several hours of debate. This government has shown repeatedly its contempt for our institutions. In the case of Senate appointments, it has also shown that it does not respect its own promises. Indeed, the government had committed to appointing only elected senators. However, two weeks after the election, the Prime Minister not only appointed to the Senate individuals who had lost their election, but he did so without consulting the provinces, as he had promised to do.

Recently, we saw that this government had even set criteria to appoint an officer of Parliament. I am not going to get into details, but there were two basic and very simple criteria to select the Auditor General. First, the individual had to be an accountant and, second, he or she had to be bilingual. This government ignored the fact that the appointee had to be bilingual and it hired an accountant who had some experience in a small province. We can already see the abuse of power.

As we have seen so far, there is always a double standard with this government. We believe the government is abusing its power by constantly resorting to closure to avoid debate. That is the only motive we can find today. It has already done it close to ten times over a period of a few weeks, when none of the bills involved were urgent.

We have seen time allocation invoked on six out of 10 bills. That does not mean time allocation has been invoked 6 times. It means time allocation has been invoked on 6 bills at different stages. Just so that listeners are aware of how many stages a bill would go through, normally a bill would go through second reading, report stage and third reading. If we multiply six bills times three, that would be 18 times that the government could potentially invoke time allocation. To date, we have a calculation of about 10, so we can look forward to seeing more of these bills undergoing time allocation for the next few steps.

The government House leader has stated that the issues on the government's legislative agenda so far this session have been discussed in detail since the government took office. I do not understand it.

The point is that during the elections the Conservative government made promises. However, if we look at the makeup of the House, at least 40% of the members are new parliamentarians, so this debate never took place. Also, what was said during the election campaign was not necessarily in a legislative format. Our job as parliamentarians is to debate these pieces of legislation.

That brings me to another subject, one that is not necessarily tied into the debate today. I am a member of the scrutiny of regulations committee, and we see that if legislation is not properly worded, then a lot of this legislation and, in turn, a lot of its regulations get bogged down. We then have things that are not necessarily clear, Canadians are not happy with how the legislation is worded, and the courts have to get involved. It is all just a churning of bureaucracy and a waste of money.

The claim that the government has already consulted Canadians is far from what the government has actually done. It has not consulted Canadians.

It is saying that three or four hours of debate it is sufficient for a bill. However, let us look at some of the bills that have been tabled. As an exaple, the budget is made up of 600 pages of legislation. It is a government omnibus bill. As a lawyer, I sat in on some of the committee hearings and I can tell members that it was not the easiest thing to follow. I just cannot imagine how a couple of hours of debate would suffice for a proposed bill that is going to affect all Canadians, not just the criminals. It will affect all Canadians, because one day they will have to deal with these issues, and if they do not have to go before a court of law, they will have to at least pay taxes to pay for all the costs that are going to be incurred in trying to monitor these pieces of legislation and put them into force.

We are trying to avoid just passing these pieces of legislation blindly. We are trying to ensure proper vigilance before these pieces of legislation are passed; however, that does not seem to be a valid argument for the government.

We in the Liberal Party are trying to do our job, but the government is making allegations that we are obstructing and we are using unreasonable amendments. I can understand the government's point of view, because sometimes the NDP acts irrationally and tries to filibuster and makes ridiculous amendments. However, I think the Liberal Party has made pretty reasonable amendments up to now. We have been first up to bat on making amendments on proposed bills. I think that we have done our job, but the government refuses to allow us to continue to do our jobs. We want the public, whether it be experts or third parties who are affected by these bills, to come forward to testify and make suggestions so that we can actually make these bills work properly.

Let us look at some of the bills for which time allocation has been introduced. The budget implementation bill was introduced and read for the first time on June 14; there was time allocation at all stages, and it was voted on June 15.

This is nothing new. Budget implementation bills are introduced twice every year, plus the budget. The budget implementation bill is not a partisan issue. It is normally the bill that introduces the legislation to put the budget into application.

Usually it is technical. It requires people affected by the budget to provide us with their input and tell us what changes they would like to see; if there are no changes, they at least come forward to give us their interpretation of that particular bill.

In the past, whether it was a majority government or a minority government, we have always been able to get consensus on how many hours of debate we needed in the House and in committee. However, the government seems to be using its majority at will and is just punching the legislation through. It has done that for the two budget bills, Bill C-9 and Bill C-13.

On Bill C-10, the omnibus crime bill, the Conservatives invoked time allocation not only in the House but in committee as well. I was there. They suddenly said that they did not want to hear what we had to say. They had made up their minds. It was impossible that they would need opinions from experts. They did not even have to hear from the bar association. They did not even have to hear from the provinces.

Even though members from the province of Quebec had numerous valid amendments to introduce into the bill, the government had already decided it was not going to listen to anyone. I understand that the NDP had numerous amendments that were not relevant to the case and had to be rejected, but my colleague, the member for Mount Royal, introduced some pretty important amendments that were backed up by Minister Fournier from the Quebec government. We are going to have report stage next week, and I am hoping that the government can change its mind and adopt some of the amendments.

With regard to the Canadian Wheat Board, it was not a matter of procedure. Again, that was just rammed through. These farmers are working, and they do not have the time to come here and be notified because everything has to be rammed through.

I see my time is up. I am hoping that I will have some good questions and that I can continue.

Opposition Motion--Closure and Time Allocation

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Minister of State (Finance)]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to make a statement that I am sure has never been heard before in this House. Canadians actually gave our government a strong mandate to fulfill our commitments to Canadians, and that is exactly what we are doing.

Despite what the opposition would have us believe, each of our bills has been extensively debated in the House of Commons and at committee hearings.

Bill C-13, the keeping Canada's economy and jobs growing act is an example that I can speak to personally. As the Minister of State for Finance, I have been deeply involved in that.

We have heard that there have been 12 days of debate on the measures in Bill C-13 in this House. It should also be noted that there have been almost 120 speeches and over 32 hours of debate on Bill C-13 itself in this House.

I would remind hon. members, as was mentioned by my colleague, that the budget was actually tabled on March 22. It was debated extensively throughout the election campaign. I would say it was passed by Canadians, a term that is not often used in connection with elections, but it actually passed because that is what we ran on. The finance committee studied it, including all of its other studies which it had started in 2010 to discuss what was going to be in budget 2011.

We will not allow the opposition to continue playing political games and delaying our important legislative agenda, especially our budget proposals, in today's economic climate.

On Monday, the opposition voted against Bill C-13, despite all the important job-creating measures that are included in this bill and which were extensively debated. I would like to take this opportunity to share some of the proposals in Bill C-13 that illustrate clearly just how the government is keeping our commitment to Canadians and just why we needed to take swift action.

As we all know, Canadians have weathered some very difficult economic times over the last couple of years. Our government has taken unprecedented action to help them through this challenging period, and we are seeing some reassuring signs of economic recovery.

The next phase of Canada's economic action plan builds on the government's record by announcing new measures for families and additional support for communities. This includes encouraging hiring by providing a temporary hiring credit for small business of up to $1,000 against a small firm's increase in its 2011 employment insurance premiums over those it paid in 2010. We are almost in 2012. Clearly the time is here to implement this hiring credit.

The economic action plan also includes an extension of active or recently terminated work-sharing agreements by up to 16 weeks, so that companies can avoid layoffs by offering EI benefits to workers willing to work a reduced work week while their company recovers.

The government is focused on supporting Canadian families with a range of targeted measures that will help Canadians find and hold onto good, high-paying jobs while improving Canadians' quality of life in big and small communities all across this country.

Lower taxes support businesses by providing them with the freedom to grow and invest. Reductions in corporate taxes increase incentives for firms to invest in new equipment, to undertake innovative research, and to continue creating jobs.

Bill C-13 builds on actions taken by our government by continuing to keep taxes low. We cannot afford to further delay this.

For example, to promote the exploration and development of Canada's rich mineral resources, Bill C-13 proposes to extend the temporary 15% mineral exploration tax credit for an additional year into 2012. The credit helps companies raise capital by providing an incentive to individuals who invest in flow-through shares issued to finance mineral exploration.

Similarly, investments in clean energy technology and innovation are essential to realizing economic opportunities, creating employment and enhancing the Canadian advantage. Canada is an energy superpower with one of the world's largest resource endowments of both traditional and emerging sources of energy. Canada is increasingly looked to as a source and dependable supplier of a wide range of energy products.

Bill C-13 proposes to expand eligibility for accelerated capital cost allowance treatments for clean generation equipment to include equipment that generates electricity using waste heat. The government will continue to invest in Canadian capabilities, the drivers of our economic growth.

As a trade-dependent economy, Canada benefits from having an open and efficient trading system. As part of the economic action plan, Canada's trade instruments, notably the customs tariff, will be simplified and streamlined in order to facilitate trade and lower the administrative burden for businesses as well as government.

More specific, Bill C-13 proposes to reduce the customs processing burden for businesses by reducing the number of tariff items contained in the customs tariff to facilitate the classification of imported goods. By ensuring that Canada's trade instruments are modernized and streamlined, these measures will lower customs processing costs for Canadian businesses, making them more competitive at home and abroad and supporting their participation in global supply chains.

We want to get rid of this red tape now, not later. It is important that we move on with many of these initiatives.

There are many more that I would like to have talked about, but I see my time is up. I could go on and on about all the initiatives the NDP are trying to block, initiatives that businesses and Canadians need now.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is easy to manipulate those numbers. Certainly 50% of a small number looks like a huge number. We came back in September to get some things done. Our colleagues know that we have to get Bill C-13 into law. We are so close to the end of 2011, and we have not even passed the 2011 budget yet.

We have had many opportunities. On Bill C-10, the safe streets and communities act, we have had four days of debate in the House, 11 committee hearings, 37 hours, and 53 speeches in the House in over 16 hours. That has been on Bill C-10 alone. On Bill C-13, we had seven total days of debate in the House. There were more days of debate at second reading than the average budget bill over the last two decades and more than any Liberal majority bill during that time. There have been more days of debate on Bill C-13--

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am splitting my time with the hon. member for Macleod.

I am pleased to rise today to speak to today's motion from the member for Windsor—Tecumseh. I also want to acknowledge the two previous speakers for their good work in the House and the privilege of working with them on the procedure and House affairs committee.

On May 2, Canadians gave the Conservatives a strong, stable national majority government. Canadians expect us to fulfill our commitments to them and that is exactly what we are doing. We are moving forward on our election commitments to implement the next phase of Canada's economic action plan.

There are EI measures within this bill that encourage job creation. There is the accelerated capital cost allowance for small businesses to invest in efficient equipment. There are measures to protect law-abiding Canadians. These important measures for the safety of our communities and for the safety of our children and of our grandchildren have been stalled by the opposition. The Conservatives would also provide marketing freedom for western Canadian grain farmers, something Ontario farmers have had for decades but the same privilege has not been granted to our western colleagues. There are measures to eliminate once and for all the wasteful and ineffective long gun registry. There are measures to provide fair representation to all provinces in the House of Commons and move every single province closer to representation by population. As my colleagues across the way will know, we have MPs serving fewer than 40,000 constituents while others are serving four times that many. This imbalance needs to be addressed.

We have introduced legislation in this House on all of these important measures. However, despite the talking points being used across the aisle, not one of these measures is law yet. We have seen delay tactic after delay tactic. Each of these bills has been extensively debated in the House of Commons and at committee hearings.

As an example, let us look at Bill C-13, the keeping Canada's economy and jobs growing act. This bill would implement the 2011 budget. We on this side of the House think that the 2011 budget should be passed into law in 2011. Looking at the calendar, there is not a lot of time left before we get to the new year. The new year, 2012, is only weeks away and we still have not implemented budget 2011 because of opposition delay tactics.

This bill includes important measures from this year's budget, including a job-creation tax for small business. All of us in this House agree that small business is the economic engine of Canada. There is the family caregiver tax credit. My colleague knows first-hand how important it is to make it easier for families to care for gravely ill relatives. There is the children's arts tax credit and the volunteer firefighters tax credit. In rural and remote parts of Canada, it is important that we have recruitment and retention tools for our volunteer firefighters. There is tax relief for the manufacturing sector, as I mentioned, the accelerated capital cost allowance. The bill includes making the gas tax refund permanent. Municipalities are constantly asking for predictable funding for their infrastructure needs.

All of these measures would promote job creation and economic growth. They would help add to the nearly 600,000 jobs already created in Canada since the global economic recession. These measures were supported by Canadians from sea to sea. They were exactly what Canadians voted for when they re-elected the Conservative government on May 2, with a majority mandate. However, we know the opposition has voted against these job-creating measures. For some reason, it opposes these positive and important job-creating initiatives.

I know today's motion is about debate in this place so allow me to outline just how much debate has already been given to the next phase of Canada's economic action plan. The budget was introduced on March 22 by the Minister of Finance. Debate on the budget started before the opposition forced an unnecessary election. Following the 37-day election campaign, which was focused on the Canadian economy, we moved quickly to reintroduce the budget on June 6. That was followed by four days of debate on the budget in June before we rose for the usual summer break in our constituencies.

When we came back in the autumn, we introduced the keeping Canada's economy and jobs growing act to implement the budget. That bill was debated for four days at second reading before being referred to the Standing Committee on Finance. That committee found time amid its 2012 pre-budget consultations to study the bill. After it was reported back to the House, it was debated for three further days at third reading and report stage. All told, the job-creating measures of the next phase of Canada's economic action plan as set out in Bill C-13 have been deliberated in this House for 12 days. That does not include the two afternoons used for the spring's two budget speeches. Just to repeat, we have had 12 days of debate on these important and urgent economic measures in this House. It is time for action.

I want to turn briefly to a second major bill in this fall sitting, Bill C-10, the safe streets and communities act.

During this spring's election, our Conservative government promised Canadians that we would pass comprehensive law and order legislation within the first 100 sitting days after the election. Looking at today's order paper, I see that today is the 54th sitting day. Just yesterday, the bill was reported from the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. The bill includes important measures, including proposals which would crack down on pedophiles who prey on children, and violent gangs that sell drugs to our children. These are all very important items that need to become law.

Despite some 27 hours or so of committee proceedings dedicated to clause-by-clause study and related business, we already have some 34 amendments to the bill tabled for report stage, which we will have to debate and vote on. I have no doubt whatsoever that we will see that number grow before the bill comes forward for debate on Tuesday morning.

After report stage and third reading, the bill will then go to the other place where the entire legislative process will be repeated.

It is fair to say that we are just about one-third of the way through the passing of Bill C-10 into law. One-third might sound like a breeze to some, but passing the nine predecessor bills to Bill C-10 has been anything but a breeze over the last several years and, in some cases, over three Parliaments. There have already been 95 hours of debate in this chamber alone on these proposals. In both houses there have been 261 speeches. That sounds to me to be pretty thorough debate already.

If I had a lot more time, I would go on about some of the other key priority bills of the government, such as Bill C-20, the fair representation act, and Bill C-18, the marketing freedom for grain farmers act, just to name two. Each has its own important and urgent requirements to become law this fall in order to meet timing demands driven by facts of life outside the House of Commons. Farmers need certainty before they plant their spring crops. Boundary commissions need to know what numbers they are working with, and they need to know that by February.

I cannot help but comment on the proposals set out in the motion put forward today by the member for Windsor—Tecumseh. I have to be honest; I am quite confused by the mixed messages it sends.

The NDP House leader has put forward a motion that would give the Speaker only 19 sitting days to study his proposals. The debate he contemplates following the Speaker's report would appear to last but one single solitary day. If we look at the wording of his motion, the member is basically putting closure on his own motion.

On top of that, it is totally and completely ironic that the Speaker is required by the Standing Orders to put the NDP's motion to a vote after only two hours of debate in this House. This has to be the shortest debate on any item in the House since we came back in September.

In closing, Conservative members will be voting against the motion which tries to sidestep the fact that the opposition parties are trying to stop good things for Canadians, things which Canadians voted for just six months ago. The NDP wants to stop that great progress, to stop these things from becoming law, despite thorough and extensive debate and study.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

moved:

That, in the opinion of the House, the thorough examination and debate of proposed legislation on behalf of Canadians is an essential duty of Members of Parliament, and that the curtailment of such debate limits the ability of Members to carry out this duty and constitutes an affront to Canadian democracy; and, therefore,

that the Speaker undertake a study and make recommendations to amend the Standing Orders with respect to closure and time allocation, such that: (i) a Minister would be required to provide justification for the request for such a curtailment of debate; (ii) the Speaker would be required to refuse such a request in the interest of protecting the duty of Members to examine legislation thoroughly, unless the government’s justification sufficiently outweighs the said duty; (iii) criteria would be set out for assessing the government’s justification, which would provide the Speaker with the basis for a decision to allow for the curtailment of debate;

that the Speaker report to the House no later than February 6, 2012;

that a motion to concur in the said report may be moved during Routine Proceedings, and that only when no Member rises to debate the motion, the Speaker shall interrupt any proceedings then before the House and put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment, every question necessary to dispose of the motion; and

if no motion to concur in the report has been previously moved and disposed of on the 20th sitting day following the presentation of the report, Standing Orders 57 and 78 shall be deemed to have been deleted.

Mr. Speaker, this motion has been brought before the House at this time because of the government's gross overuse of shutting down debate in the House, whether it is by a formal closure motion, which shuts down debate immediately, or by time allocation motions, which provide extremely limited time for debate on crucial issues facing both the House and the country more generally.

It is important that we recognize the effect of the motion. It is not that you, Mr. Speaker, need a greater workload, but that is the thrust of the motion. The motion would remove a government's unilateral ability to shut down debate in the House and would allow the Speaker, as an independent officer of Parliament, to make the decision as to when it is appropriate to curtail debate and when it is an abuse of the process. Therefore, a request for curtailment of debate could in fact be rejected by the Speaker of the day.

I have done some analysis of other jurisdictions that have similar parliaments to ours, such as the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Australia. Going back some 20 or 30 years, all of them moved to provide greater authority to the speaker to regulate when debate should be curtailed, limited or ended. In each of those parliaments, it is quite clear that it is the speaker who ultimately makes the decision in that regard.

The authority is different in each of those legislatures but the general wording and conduct of the speaker has always been: Is the request for curtailment or ending debate an abuse? Oftentimes the term “of a minority segment of that parliament” is used. It may be a large official opposition or it may be a small third, fourth or fifth party, but the speaker has the authority in each one of those parliaments to make the determination as to whether the request by the government to end or limit debate is an abuse of the rights of the members of Parliament.

I will move on to the context in which this motion is being put forward.

In less than two months of sitting days, we have had time allocation applied to Bill C-13, the budget bill, which was 640 pages long. We were given extremely limited time to debate it. It is the only time, that we have been able to determine, in the history of this country that such a limited amount of time has been given to a budget bill. I know the government House leader said that we had some debate on this in the previous Parliament. However, we have 100 new members of Parliament who were not here and had no opportunity to debate this in the last Parliament.

It is fundamental to our process that a budget bill be given a full extensive debate. We can go back to any number of the authorities where that is repeated over and over again, and not just in this legislature, but in every legislature that works off the Westminster model.

We then had Bill C-18 dealing with the Canadian Wheat Board. This is an institution that is well over 70 years of age. It is iconic in this country. However, on two occasions, at second reading and report stage, we were again slapped with time allocation.

The Wheat Board and the farmers in western Canada were entitled to that debate. The opposition should have been given time in both the House and in committee to deal with that issue. We were given extremely limited time given the significance of what was going to happen if the bill passed, especially when the majority of farmers in western Canada, who use the Wheat Board to sell their wheat, oppose the bill. However, again we were slapped with time allocation on two occasions.

Bill C-10, the omnibus crime bill, is made up of nine former bills brought together. Again the House leader said that we had time to debate this legislation. More than 100 new members did not have time to debate this extremely complex bill because they were not here in the last Parliament.

The Conservatives have accused the opposition of delaying this legislation. On more than one occasion, the NDP has offered to take the part of the bill that deals with crimes against children, sexual predator type crimes, and run it through at all stages. It already passed through the House once before, so we were quite comfortable in having that done. On the more than one occasion that we offered that to the government, it refused and then slapped time allocation on the balance of the bill.

It was the same thing with Bill C-19, the gun control bill. We were given extremely limited time to debate an issue that is topical and very controversial. As the debate has gone on, more and more evidence has come out around reasons to not do away with the long gun registry. There was no opportunity to debate that legislation in the House to any significant degree.

Finally, Bill C-20, the seats bill. The bill proposes to make significant changes to the composition of this Parliament and again we are being limited to a significant degree in our ability to deal with it. I sit on the committee that is looking at the bill and the same thing is happening there. Extreme limitations are being placed at committee with regard to the number of witnesses we are allowed to call.

It just boggles my mind when I try to understand what is going on, and I think I am reasonably intelligent in terms of understanding it. It is a complex process that is being engendered now and it is new. It is not what was here in the last Parliament at all. The bill is a new incarnation of the process. It would make a very significant change and we are being given nowhere near the amount of time that we will need.

If we continue with the practice as it is right now, Bill C-20 will be out of committee and back before the House either by the end of next week or early the week following, when we have limited time to debate it here in the House and limited time in committee. The same can be said about the other four bills that I just mentioned. They all have had limited time in committee.

That is the context that we have. We have a precedent, if we want to put it that way, in other legislatures.

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent.

As I said earlier, we have this other precedent. If the bill passes, it will mean more work for the Speaker of this Parliament and subsequent Speakers. However, we need to find a much more proper balance in terms of our ability as opposition members to do our job. Our responsibility here is to determine whether legislation coming from the government is appropriate but we are not able to do that in the amount of time that we are being given at this point. We need to take the government's ability to limit time and place it in the hands of an independent member and, in this case, that would be the Speaker and his successors.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this is delivering results on jobs week.

I will begin by noting that the highlight of the week was the passage of the budget implementation act, Bill C-13, keeping Canada's economy and jobs growing act. That legislation has now moved on to the other place where we look forward to its passage.

We have also advanced Bill C-18, the marketing freedom for grain farmers act, past report stage. This bill would give marketing choice to western grain farmers, so it is a priority for us to have market certainty and have it passed by next year. For that reason, it is our intention to complete third reading of the bill on Monday.

Of course, Tuesday afternoon and again this morning, the House has continued debate on the opposition amendment to decline second reading of Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Copyright Act. We will continue that debate this afternoon. If the opposition finishes their effort to block this bill—after 16 hours of speeches—we will proceed to Bill C-14, Improving Trade Within Canada Act.

Tomorrow will be the sixth allotted day.

On Monday, we will start here for law-abiding Canadians week.

On Tuesday, we will start the post-committee stages of Bill C-10, the safe streets and communities act. This will continue on Wednesday. I note that it was reported back from the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights this morning. I do want to thank the members of the committee on their 27 hours of meetings in just the past couple of weeks. All told, including the nine predecessor bills within this legislation, we have seen 95 hours of House debate, 261 speeches in both chambers of Parliament, not to mention 70 meetings in committee rooms of this place.

On Thursday, we will continue here for law-abiding Canadians week with the start of debate on second reading of Bill C-26, the citizen's arrest and self-defence act, which the Attorney General introduced recently. Should time permit after that debate next week, we will return to debate the opposition's motion to block Bill C-4, the human smuggling bill, from going to committee. We hope we will be able to complete the debate on the opposition's motion to prevent that bill from going to committee soon so that we may actually have it go to committee.

Finally, as part of this week’s delivering results on jobs week, on behalf of my honourable friend, the Minister of Finance, I am pleased to table a ways and means motion in support of the establishment of a financial literacy leader for Canada. As honourable members would know, November is Financial Literacy Month; an issue championed by the hon. member for Edmonton—Leduc, the chair of the finance committee.

Pursuant to Standing Order 83(2), I ask that an order of the day be designated for the consideration of this motion. For the benefit of the House, I plan to call this motion immediately after question period on Tuesday of next week.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have noticed a disturbing trend developing around the Thursday question over the past several weeks. It is a trend that allows the government House leader to take advantage of a certain convention.

The hon. member on the government side is using the Thursday statement to create spin and rhetoric concerning the government's legislative agenda.

Last week, even after my colleague from Laurier—Sainte-Marie reminded the House that there was no place for debate in the Thursday statement, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons made a 600-word speech on the virtues of the schedule, instead of simply reading out the schedule.

That is what he is supposed to be doing. In fact, he argued in favour of a number of bills, including Bills C-18, C-13 and others.

If you review the record, Mr. Speaker, there can be no doubt that it was debate, not simply providing information, as the Thursday question is supposed be for.

Also, Mr. Speaker, you will know as well as anyone else that this past week, the government voted to shut down healthy debate for the 10th time in this Parliament. It continues to undermine Canadian democratic principles by ramming bills through the House without adequate debate. This, too, is a radical and much more serious departure from the traditions of this place which enshrine the duty of MPs to exam and debate legislation comprehensively before passing judgment on it.

I would ask the government House leader what the business of the House will be for the next week. I would also ask, if he is allowed to stray from his talking points, if he perhaps could spare us the spin from the Conservative war room and curtail his own debate rather than that of MPs trying to do their jobs on behalf of all Canadians.

Copyright Modernization Act

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish I knew what the Conservatives have against this country's workers. After the tax cuts to large corporations, the subsidies to oil companies and all the inappropriate expenditures for the G8 and the G20—always with Canadian taxpayers' money—the government now wants to target our artists' income.

Many of the artists we love, admire and appreciate are not rich. The majority of them have a very modest income and, because of the nature of their occupation, it is not a stable income. They must accept contracts and work at many jobs to provide for their needs and those of their family.

In Quebec, the average income of artists is estimated at $24,600 per year, based on the 2006 census data. We are talking about $24,600 to pay for rent, food and transportation, to send one's children to school and look after their needs. That amount must also cover heating costs and the material needed to create. What makes things even worse is that, with an annual income of $24,600, Quebec artists are considered to be the richest in Canada. That same year, the average income for artists in Canada was estimated at $22,700 per year.

These numbers reflect the reality of our actors, painters and singers. Our artists are struggling to make ends meet. While all the evidence should convince the government to provide increased support to our creators, it prefers, as in Bills C-10 and C-19, to ignore the facts and please the cultural industry's big businesses. This bill is going to hurt artists and make them poorer. And they certainly cannot afford that.

The Union des artistes is worried about its members' income and so are we on this side of the House. How can artists continue to create if they do not have the means to do so? Copyright royalties are an important source of income for Canada's creators. This government must ensure creators receive their fair share and are paid for their work.

I wish this government would take out its earplugs and start listening to the Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada, which is asking that the bill be amended so that artists are compensated fairly for the use of their creative work in the new media.

I also wish it would listen to the Society for Reproduction Rights of Authors, Composers and Publishers in Canada, which is telling it that this bill is going to have a significant impact on creators' income and that it needs to be amended in order to strike a balance between the interests of creators and those of consumers. Unfortunately, as with Bills C-10, C-13, C-18 and C-20, this government prefers to turn a deaf ear.

Passing this bill would have a very negative impact on our country's cultural industry, and it would have a direct impact on creators' income. Moreover, many people are worried about producers and publishers, who would not enjoy the same protection as holders of scientific patents.

We are not stupid. Canada's copyright laws need to be reviewed. Former Bill C-32 was reviewed in committee, but the Conservatives chose yet again to ignore the recommendations made by the witnesses who appeared before the committee.

This bill could potentially create more problems than it solves. That is why I cannot support it in its current form. Even the Union des artistes finds that some of the wording is ambiguous and that court challenges are inevitable. For example, they cite the concept of fair dealing for the purpose of education and that of reasonable grounds.

Why is this government still refusing to listen to opinions that differ from its own? Why does this government not want to work with all the players involved in copyright in order to reform it properly and adapt it to the reality of the 21st century? Such stubbornness would not be so bad if Canadians did not have to bear the consequences of the government's bad bill. Copyright in the digital age has to build on two fundamental principles: accessibility for consumers and remuneration for the artists.

Unfortunately, the Conservative government has not respected either principle. It is directly compromising the millions of dollars in royalties artists receive under current copyright legislation, and it is encroaching on consumer rights by adopting provisions on digital locks.

The fact is that this bill gives consumers rights they will not be able to exercise. The general provisions on digital locks will allow the companies to decide which legal rights can be exercised and which cannot. This unbalanced perspective will end up harming artists and educators. That is also quite worrisome.

I urge this government, the Minister of Industry and the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, to review this bill in light of what was said in committee during consideration of the now defunct Bill C-32 and to listen to what the artists have been trying to get across, in order to ensure that this copyright reform is balanced and beneficial to everyone.

[Taki Sarantakis]

I'd like to thank the committee for having me back to speak with you today. As noted, I have with me Michael Rutherford, who's the director of economic and community initiatives, and Stephanie Tanton, who's the principal adviser on transportation projects in that group.

I'll be brief in my opening remarks, as we were here several months ago.

Infrastructure Canada has been monitoring the witnesses who have appeared before you in the last few weeks on the subject of public transit. It has been an excellent opportunity for us to gather an even better understanding of the ideas and priorities of many of Canada's important stakeholders in this area.

The views of these witnesses and the work this committee is undertaking will be very useful in the context of the Government of Canada's commitment in the last budget to develop a long-term plan for public infrastructure that extends beyond the expiry of the current infrastructure plan.

Yesterday, in a speech in Toronto, Minister Lebel announced that this announcement would be forthcoming next week.

As you have heard, both the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and Canadian Urban Transit Association have indicated their support for developing a new infrastructure plan and a willingness to discuss public transit infrastructure in this context as part of this process.

As I mentioned during our last appearance, since 2006 the Government of Canada has made unprecedented commitments toward public transit. Since that time, close to $5 billion has been committed from federal infrastructure programs toward regional and local transit priorities across Canada.

Infrastructure Canada programs have been designed to reflect the fact that communities large and small have unique and specific transit and infrastructure needs. As such, our investments have ranged from rapid transit and subway systems in our largest cities, to bus stop upgrades for increased accessibility and safety, the purchase of low-floor buses, and the construction of bus terminals in our smaller cities and communities.

As I believe you have heard from stakeholders such as Metrolinx, the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities, and the Alberta Association of Municipal Districts and Counties, the unique needs of Canadian communities will be an important consideration as we move forward with the development of the new long-term infrastructure plan.

In addition, since the last time we appeared before this committee, the government has tabled Bill C-13 , which will make the gas tax permanent at $2 billion per year, so municipalities can count on this stable funding for their infrastructure needs now and into the future.

With that, thank you once more and we'll be pleased to take your questions.

Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. friend, the member of Parliament for Prince Albert, to explain something to me. I have asked this question before of government members and I have to admit, with all due respect, that I have not had a satisfactory answer.

The Conservatives have said to us in the opposition benches that somehow we do not go out there and ask our supporters for support and that we do not go out there and put forward what our policies are. Speaking on behalf of the Green Party, we do, and we raise money from our supporters, but that money is easier to raise because there are very generous tax rebates, and they have benefited primarily the Conservative Party. I do not see the Conservative Party showing any interest in removing the very generous tax rebates that come from the people of Canada for the donations they receive.

I would like a response to why Bill C-13 goes after the smallest of the amounts of taxpayer subsidies to political parties and leaves aside the elephants in the room, the rebates on political party spending and donations.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise here today to speak to Bill C-13. I wish to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

The title of the bill is the Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act. So much for growth, since the budget grants tax cuts to large corporations without setting any conditions. What a mistake. Not only are these tax cuts not contingent on the creation of new jobs, but they also do not put Canada on the right track for the future, that is, the green track, the environmental track.

I will explain why this legislation is but a drop in the bucket in terms of the challenges we will face in the coming years. And they will be significant challenges.

First of all, as I mentioned, this bill will not create any new jobs. We must continue to create jobs because there are still too many people left behind in our beautiful society. There are too many in Canada and too many in my riding of Drummond.

The huge gap between the rich and the rest of the population continues to grow. The vast movement of global occupation and protest illustrates the fact that Canadian families, and families in Drummond as well, are feeling a tremendous amount of pressure. Relief agencies and poverty assistance groups in my riding are being used by more people, which worries me a great deal. This is happening all over Canada, but I am most concerned about what is happening in my riding. I have an article here from a local paper, entitled “Homelessness: organizations lament the lack of support from the federal government”. Clearly, these organizations are speaking out because there is not enough funding.

I would like to take a moment to commend the excellent work of some of the organizations in my riding, such as the Carrefour d'entraide, the Comptoir alimentaire Drummond, Ensoleilvent, Refuge la Piaule, the Maison Habit-Action, the Tablée populaire and the Maison de la famille.

The problem is that in order to properly support our population, adequate funding is needed. In that regard, the article is very clear. The problem is very serious. Here is an excerpt from the article:

Assistance provided and requests for assistance at both the Comptoir alimentaire and the Carrefour d’entraide have jumped by more than 20% over the past two years. Although the situation is getting worse, funding from the federal government's homelessness partnering strategy has not changed in 10 years.

They have seen an increase of 20% over the past two years, but funding has not changed. We can see that this is not working and that there is a problem.

However, I can already hear the Conservatives apologizing for abandoning people in need in the riding of Drummond, saying that the best way to fight poverty is through job creation. But the Conservative government is not providing enough support for people living in poverty—seniors, children and families. Every week I get a lot of messages saying that I absolutely must prioritize assistance for seniors because they are having a hard time making ends meet. It is crazy that I am getting these messages. There is a problem. There are problems with funding, but the Conservatives are also not doing anything to really help create jobs in Drummond.

On the contrary, the Conservatives' actions are so detrimental to our economy that I have received around 100 letters, which I have here. All of these letters are from SMEs in my riding. They tell me that there is a problem, that the Conservative government is not doing its job and that they are not able to support their jobs because of increased employment insurance premiums for employers and employees. The SMEs do not support this bill.

Canadians are looking for serious, tangible measures to create jobs. For example, the government could bring in a job creation tax credit of up to $4,500, as the NDP suggested. This initiative would help create 200,000 jobs that would help support families every year.

We proposed extending tax credits for investments that support employment such as the accelerated capital cost allowance for eligible equipment and machinery. The government absolutely has to accept that when it comes to jobs, its plan does not work. The government has to stop thinking that simple gifts to major corporations, the banks and the oil and gas industry are measures that help create jobs. That is not true. That will not create jobs in Drummond. We need real measures to create jobs and to help the environment.

Speaking of oil companies and the gas industry, does the Conservative government really believe they are the industries of the future? Are these really the energies of the future? Does it truly believe that oil from the oil sands is ethical oil? Give me a break.

In my riding, people are increasingly joining forces to defend our environment. Recently, people in my region went to the gas production sites that are using hydraulic fracturing in Pennsylvania. They were completely devastated by what they saw. They came back and said it was worse than they thought. This industry is so harmful to our environment. They fear for our air quality, our drinking water, our farmland and the value of our properties and our land.

Nothing in this legislation will ensure a better environment for our children. The environment is important, as I was saying earlier. It is a priority for every constituent in my riding. But the Conservative government's current provisions risk mortgaging our beautiful planet and the quality of life of our children and our children's children even more.

Instead we could be establishing a serious plan of major investments in research and development for a green economy focused on renewable energies. I want to bring hon. members back to the NDP platform again. It has many good solutions to offer to the Conservatives. We could implement a carbon pricing mechanism using a quota exchange system, which would set ambitious emission limits for major polluters in the country, in order to ensure that companies pay their environmental bills, and provide an incentive to reduce emissions.

The NDP has another interesting proposal—to make Canada a world leader in renewable energy. Earlier, an hon. member spoke about electric cars. Fine, but they are still in the early stages; there is much more to be done. The electric car needs a lot of improvements. The money from selling emissions permits could be equally redistributed. These funds would be invested in sustainable technologies, commercial and residential energy conservation, public transit, renewable energy development and transitioning workers to a sustainable economy.

Last week I was at the Quebec energy forum in Shawinigan. The point was made that improving public transit is one of the most important factors in preventing climate change. Public transit is currently being driven by the plans of businesses and contractors. Urban planning needs to be improved in order to have effective public transit. If urban planning is done with the automobile in mind, everyone will use their cars. But if urban planning were done with public transit in mind, it would make sense and be profitable to use public transit. I could list many measures. I want to repeat that the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy reported that climate change will cost Canada $21 billion by 2050. We need to make the necessary transition, and if the Conservative government does not do it, others will have to.

We are ready to take those steps. The environment and job creation are our priorities. A responsible government must invest to encourage job creation, to fight climate change and to move toward a green economy and green energy instead of giving tax cuts to big business and big oil. We have to change how we do things.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have been in the House to listen to my colleague from Mississauga—Streetsville. If members here listened to him, they would be happy to go to the vote and pass this budget right now. His speech was superb and I congratulate him. That is the bonus of having had that last election. Like he said, he is now here and it is better for all of us.

Our government is focused on what matters to Canadians: creating jobs and promoting economic growth. Canada has the strongest job record in the G7 with nearly 600,000 net new jobs created since July 2009 and the International Monetary Fund projects it will have among the strongest economic growth in the G7 over the next two years. Yet we are not immune from global economic turbulence. That is why we need to stay the course and implement the next phase of Canada's economic action plan.

Municipalities across Canada can rest assured that the next phase of Canada's economic action plan includes legislation to make the gas tax funding for municipalities permanent. Canada's government will be putting into law the permanent annual investment of $2 billion in gas tax funding for cities and towns to support infrastructure projects. My own municipalities in Oxford will receive a staggering sum of $25,216,242 over the next four years. That is a sizable amount of money and is certainly appreciated.

We on this side of the House understand the need for many involved in the agriculture sector to possess legitimate firearms. Bill C-13 would provide funding of $20 million to continue to waive firearms licence renewal fees for all classes of firearms. Upon the passing of the budget, until May 2012 not a single firearms owner will pay a fee of up to $80 to renew a licence. It is with sincere hope that the cost-consuming, ineffective long gun registry will soon be a thing of the past, in turn further reducing the financial burdens of those in the rural agriculture sector.

Over 600,000 new jobs have been created in Canada. We did not want to stop there. We have included a new hiring credit for small business to support local job growth. The new hiring credit would provide a one-time credit of up to $1,000 to encourage additional hiring. The Canadian economy has weathered the storm of the global economic recession, but it is still very fragile. We understand that struggling businesses may need extra assistance.

The wage earner protection program has been allotted $4.5 million annually to expand the program to cover Canadian employees who lose their jobs when their employers' attempts at restructuring take longer than six months, are subsequently unsuccessful and end in bankruptcy or receivership. In light of this, we are renewing programs to help unemployed workers, meaning their best 14 weeks and participation in the EI working while on claim pilot project will be considered.

To further assist Canada's manufacturing sector, which is prevalent in my riding, we are extending the accelerated capital cost allowance to help manufacturers and processors make new investments in manufacturing and processing machinery and equipment. Our government's long-term goal remains to provide the right conditions for a sustainable and viable North American auto sector in which Canada maintains its share of auto production and jobs.

A shining example of this was demonstrated in the recent funding announcement made at the Toyota manufacturing plant in my riding of Oxford to support the manufacturing of the electric Rav 4. The electric Rav 4 will be the first electric vehicle to be assembled in Canada and the first electric vehicle to be assembled by Toyota in North America. Toyota's investment in project green light is $506 million. The federal contribution of 14% of this amount is up to $70.84 million, with an equal contribution from the provincial government.

Numerous constituents have voiced their concerns to me regarding the red tape surrounding access to information and federal government services concerning small businesses. That is why Canada's government is continuing its efforts to reduce the red tape by upgrading the BizPal service and further online consulting is being made available to Canadians to continue to be a part of the process by providing their input.

I would also like to highlight the great success of the Sand Plains community development fund in my riding and across southwestern Ontario. The Sand Plains community development fund was created by Canada's current government in August 2008 with a commitment of $15 million to the region. Since its formation, there have been 202 full-time jobs created, 54 part-time jobs created, 119 seasonal jobs created and 256 jobs sustained in the southwestern Ontario area.

More specific, I would like to talk about the biomass project by Canadian Biofuel in my riding of Oxford that was partially funded through the Sands Plains development fund. The project, formerly a Cargill grain elevator and feed mill facility, will now produce roughly 1,500 tonnes of biomass per month. Low in greenhouse emissions, it can also be used to heat homes and even supplement coal in generating electricity. Initially waste wood was used to make the biomass fuel, however, the company plans to establish a local supply chain of raw materials by encouraging local farmers to grow miscanthus grass and other renewable crops that can be turned into biomass fuel. In addition, this project will create 35 new jobs.

I am very pleased to announce that Canada's government will be phasing out the unnecessary per vote subsidies for political parties. Governments have a sworn duty to use the hard-earned dollars of taxpayers wisely and only in the public interest, especially in a time of required fiscal restraint when families are struggling to make ends meet.

Specifically, Canada's government will introduce legislation to gradually reduce the $2.04 per year per vote subsidy in 51¢ increments, starting April 1, 2012, until it is completely eliminated by 2015-16. This will generate savings ramping up to $30 million by 2015-16. Our government has always opposed direct taxpayer subsidies to political parties and believes that the political parties should rely primarily on their supporters for their financing.

Since 2006, Canada's economic action plan has provided, and will continue to provide, tax relief to hard-working Canadians. Taxpayers in Ontario alone can expect to see approximately $970 million in tax relief in 2011 and the following fiscal years.

I and the residents of Oxford look forward to a speedy passage of Bill C-13. I strongly encourage all parliamentarians to seize this opportunity of unity in Parliament to give Canadians what they deserve, what they have been waiting for and in many cases, what Canadians desperately need.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to speak to Bill C-13, and quickly because I noted it is the 11th month, but it is not the 11th month of this budget year, because we operate the Government of Canada on a fiscal year from March to March.

I note also that the House took quick action in June to make sure the Government of Canada had the money it needed to operate, so we are debating substantive measures in Bill C-13, and many of them. It is a long bill.

Being a long bill, there are things in here with which I would agree. For instance, I agree with part 7 to provide help for students and student loans for people who are going into the medical field, but I am concerned with clause181. I am sad that when we put forward amendments to clause 181 there was a closure on debate, so I was not able to speak to my amendment.

My question for the hon. member for Mississauga—Streetsville is, how will getting rid of the most efficient, fair and democratic part of taxpayer support for political parties create any jobs in our economy?

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today and speak to Bill C-13, the budget implementation bill.

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

I appreciate this opportunity to once again rise in the House and talk about our government's track record on economic issues, on which, despite the worldwide economic recession, we have been leading the world.

I want to remind the House of a few things that we accomplished prior to my being elected here in May. I do believe one of the reasons I was elected to this place in May was because of the strong economic and fiscal leadership that was provided by the previous Conservative government.

The government has cut taxes for Canadians 120 times since getting elected. We cut the personal income tax rate paid by the lowest income people in this country to 15%. We removed one million Canadians from the tax rolls. That is unprecedented. We increased the amount Canadians can earn tax free. The major initiative that we did was to keep our promise to cut the GST from 7% to 6% to 5%. We brought forward the universal child care benefit, which is widely popular in my riding because it gives families a choice as to the type of child care that is most appropriate for their family.

A lot of young families live in the riding of Mississauga--Streetsville. When I went door to door, I listened to their challenges and I listened to the issues that were of concern to them. They told me to keep on with the good work that our government was doing and to keep focusing on the important issues.

This government, through the leadership of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, has done a lot, but we cannot rest on our laurels. We must keep going.

I heard some opposition members refer to the fact that we are still debating a budget bill on November 21. We need to remind Canadians why we are debating a budget bill on November 21.

This budget was first introduced in the House on March 22 but the opposition parties decided it was more important to have a $350 million election campaign than it was to pass a budget bill back in March or April. That was their choice. I benefited because I am here now, so it was an election that I was happy to have happen.

However, here is the fact. Parliament very rarely is still debating a budget bill in the 11th month of the year in which the budget bill is supposed to be implemented. That is unprecedented around here. One of the reasons that we need to get on with the job and one of the reasons that we are at third reading today is because we still need to send the bill to the Senate and it still has to take time to get it done.

It is ridiculous to suggest that this budget bill is getting rammed through the House. There has been a tonne of debate on this legislation. There was a huge debate on May 2. It was called an election campaign. I talked a lot about what was in the March 22 budget in my election material and most, if not all, of those actions are contained in the bill today. I can stand here and very clearly tell the House that I have a mandate from the people of Mississauga--Streetsville to see this budget implemented, and that is why I am speaking to it today.

Let us talk about some of the highlights of this good bill. Our government is bringing forward a hiring credit for small businesses to encourage additional hiring.

During the summer, the Minister of State for Small Business and Tourism toured my riding. The Streetsville Improvement Association, right in the heart of the old village of Streetsville, is a very vibrant business improvement association. There are close to 300 businesses and merchants up and down Queen Street, the main street in Streetsville. I had a chance to visit people in their businesses with the minister. I did not just call a round table and hope for people to show up. I went with the minister and we did some mainstreeting. We went into those businesses and asked them what their priorities were. They asked us to keep on with the job, keep lowering our tax rates and help us out with tax credits that encourage us to hire and invest. That is exactly what this budget would do.

Some of us do go back to our business constituents and residential constituents, and ask them again and again what we could be doing, how we could be making things better, how they could grow their businesses and what the federal government could do.

The other credit that we are enhancing is the accelerated capital cost allowance for investments in manufacturing and processing machinery.

I had the opportunity a couple of weeks ago to visit one or two businesses in the riding. I like to spend an equal amount of time visiting businesses as well as conducting residential town hall meetings and going to community events. I especially like to hear what emerging businesses are saying. What they are saying is that if they could have greater incentives, they would invest in new technology and new machinery.

I am finding that while some of the large-scale manufacturing plants are having challenges, smaller businesses in niche manufacturing are actually doing fairly well. They have innovative products, innovative technology that they can sell, not just domestically but also around the world. However, they need a bit of help. We are there to support those emerging businesses. Measures in this budget help predominantly small- and medium-size businesses do even better.

We are also investing in families and communities. I am delighted that this budget would make the gas tax revenue to the municipalities permanent. The mayor of Mississauga, Mayor McCallion, and I have spoken about this. She was pleased to see this gas tax transferred to municipalities made permanent. Why? Because now the municipalities would not have to wait every budget year to find out whether the money was coming. They could budget for it each and every year, to support transit and transportation infrastructure.

We would give the municipalities some flexibility to use that money. We would not dictate from on high. We would say to municipalities, “Here is our federal contribution from the gas tax to you. You know what is best for your communities. You know what is best for your cities. Here is some money, paid for by people who are pumping gas into their cars in your community. We are giving some of it back to you so that you can have the flexibility to invest in the priorities of your communities.”

That would be a tremendous step forward and a great new relationship, a permanent relationship, between the federal government and our very vital municipalities.

We are enhancing the wage earner protection program, which would cover more workers affected by employer bankruptcy or receivership. We know there are companies out there that have challenges, that are doing their best. Nobody wants to declare bankruptcy. Nobody wants to have difficult times. Everybody is working hard. However, we do know that some businesses fail. We have a responsibility to try to support, and we have been supporting, those workers who have, through no fault of their own, lost a job.

We are investing in families.

I just want to end on these two notes, because they are particularly important in my riding.

I am delighted, as a former board member of the Mississauga Arts Council, to see the children's arts tax credit in this budget. This is a phenomenal initiative. I was at the visual arts centre in Mississauga with the Minister of National Revenue this summer, where we made the announcement of the tax credit. We saw many children participating in wonderful arts programs and the program directors said they have capacity for more children. If this arts tax credit would get more children to experience different arts programs in the city of Mississauga, it would be great news for us. As a father of 12- and 8-year old daughters, I am particularly pleased. This is exactly the kind of thing we need to encourage our children to be more active in the arts.

I am delighted with all the provisions in this budget. I have highlighted just a couple of them for the benefit of the House. This is a budget that would move us forward. It is modest and responsible in difficult times, when we are trying to continue to move the economy forward. These are very important tax credit initiatives. I am pleased to be part of a government that is putting people first.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in an earlier speech, I spoke in detail about everything that does not belong in omnibus Bill C-13, for example, the inappropriate use of non-refundable tax credits. People who do not have to pay taxes will never be able to benefit from these tax credits. This means that people who stop working to take care of a sick child or an aging parent will not have access to the tax credit for family caregivers. This also means that the 85,000 volunteer firefighters in Canada will have to share $15 million, which is a bit of a stretch.

In their bill, the Conservatives have decided to exclude all volunteer firefighters who already work for a municipality, including blue-collar and white-collar workers as well as first responders. They decided to exclude all those who do not work at least 200 hours. This means that 55,000 of the 85,000 will share the $15 million, which comes out to $300 each. They call that a policy to support volunteer firefighters? It does not give them the equipment to fight fires. It does not give them the training they need to stay safe. It certainly does not give them the support of a national civil security policy.

We could also talk about culture. The government is offering a $500 tax credit to give children access to culture. Unfortunately, once again, this is a non-refundable tax credit. Children from poor families who are receiving social assistance or employment insurance benefits and those from families who do not have enough money to pay taxes will not have access to this tax credit and will therefore not have access to culture. This is the Conservative Party's remarkable achievement: it is rewarding the wealthy but failing to support those who need it, those who need this culture so that they can then contribute to Canada.

This omnibus bill also contains elements that should never have been included, such as a reform of the Canada Elections Act related to party financing, and the creation of a securities commission. These two components of Bill C-13 should have been carefully examined not quietly buried in a budget bill that is more partisan than economic in nature.

In this speech, I especially want to point out what is not found in this bill. Despite a huge number of calls from every corner of Canada and every element of society, such as BMO, the Certified Management Accountants and the Association of Consulting Engineering Companies-Canada, the government continues to turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to the deterioration of the economy. And these stakeholders cannot be accused of being champions of socialism. No. They are neutral observers who see that the economy is severely deteriorating and that the government is failing to take action. They are asking the government to urgently intervene but the government is not doing so.

First, it is completely outrageous that people who are entitled to receive the guaranteed income supplement are unable to access it unless they submit an application. That does not make any sense at all. This is a measure that the government could easily implement: group people by age, use their income tax returns to identify those who do not have sufficient income and give them this income supplement. But no. They have to apply for the it. Unfortunately, almost 150,000 of the most elderly and isolated Canadians are unable to receive financial support because they did not submit an application.

The government's laziness is responsible for the unnecessary hardships and suffering of what we call the generation of builders, those who made this country prosper.

Second, since the beginning of the recession in 2008, Canada has created only 250,000 jobs in three years. We have learned that, in the month of October alone, we lost 72,000 jobs. That is huge, especially because, since 2008, our country has lost 350,000 jobs in the manufacturing sector, a sector that creates wealth and value added.

These jobs have not been recovered. They have been replaced by jobs in other sectors, by lower paying, precarious and often part-time jobs.

This employment weakness is the reason why more than 1.7 million people in Canada are either unemployed or underemployed. In light of this crisis, there is nothing in Bill C-13 capable of kick-starting the job market in Canada.

In short, we are allowing our manufacturing sector to disappear and the government is doing nothing. Bill C-13 does not have a recovery plan to kickstart job creation. Once again, it contains only smokescreens in the form a series of minor measures that will not have a significant impact on the Canadian economy. The Conservatives are doing nothing. They are only making speeches. The budget has a grand title, but it is nothing more than paper.

I must point out that Statistics Canada data clearly shows that Canadians' debt makes increased spending impossible. There can be no national growth without growth in spending. However, more than $500 billion in capital is being stored up by businesses and they are not investing this money. It is said that Canada is the best place to do business, but obviously it is not the best place to invest, because investments are not being made. The Governor of the Bank of Canada and all stakeholders have confirmed this. With the productivity rate at an all-time low, the balance of payments deficit hitting peak levels and the manufacturing sector disappearing, this money could be of more help to those looking for work if it were invested.

In this situation, what is this government doing? Nothing. There are no incentives in Bill C-13 to make businesses use their $500 billion to create jobs. Absolutely none. The Conservatives still believe in divine intervention. Perhaps it is the theory of seven lean years and seven fat years. Does that amount to structured economic reasoning? At any event, that is our government's economic vision.

Statistics Canada has already indicated that this $500 billion was in the financial sector, and the Bank of Canada continues to indicate—in all its economic reports—that this money is not being invested.

Last night, Peter Mansbridge said on CBC television that currently, with fears of recession all around us, the worry is that the private sector may keep billions sitting on the sidelines, money that could create new jobs. That is what was said on the CBC.

The more uncertainty there is, the less investment there is; and the less investment there is, the more the government needs to encourage businesses to invest that money. The government is still doing nothing. It is waiting.

It is clear that, choosing between the actions of this government and the proposals of the official opposition, the best party for Canadian families who are worried about their jobs and the economy is truly the NDP. The Conservative Party is doing absolutely nothing.

This same government is so obsessed with the zero deficit that it has completely forgotten to consider the infrastructure deficit. We want to invest in infrastructure projects to deal with the deficit there, to make us more economically competitive and improve life for Canadians. What is more, the interest rate is so low that now is the best time for investing.

This government is set on freer trade, but all the new projects in the north and in British Columbia require infrastructure immediately. The government is not investing in it. How can we export coal if there are no ports?

The government seems to want to destroy the public service, but we need public servants to assess projects and monitor and guarantee the quality of the products we consume.

The list of things missing from Bill C-13 could fill a library. Unfortunately, neo-liberalism has become an intolerant religion. Such is the Conservative government.

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been paying attention to the questions by the hon. member this afternoon. It seems that she is not aware that we are discussing Bill C-13. She thinks we are discussing stem cell research. Therefore, her questions, which are coming out of left field, are probably a testimonial to the fact that 82% of Canadians voted against her and her party. That is why she is stuck in the corner there today.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the last speaker referred to a number of elements in Bill C-13. I will mention a few, such as support for volunteer firefighters. Now that is a smokescreen. It is a measure that makes no tangible contribution, except to a Conservative speech about how they are popular, are doing the right things and are helping volunteer firefighters. There are 85,000 volunteer firefighters in Canada. Only 55,000 will have access to this tax credit, which totals $15 million. Divided by 55,000, this amounts to less than $300.

Is that help? Is that support? Will that provide them with trucks, equipment or training? Will they be part of a national public safety plan? No.

This is also the case of family caregivers. They are being thrown crumbs. Will there be a policy for maintaining people in their own homes? No.

How can the member say that this is a good budget when all it provides is smokescreens?

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if it is relevant to talk about time allocation. We are on the debate on Bill C-13, which is the budget act. Therefore, I will focus on the latter two comments that my colleague posed regarding youth issues.

The government has been focused on addressing the challenges that Canada's youth face. In fact, it is the reason why we have invested record amounts of money into Canada's post-secondary education system. As I mentioned earlier, and I know the member is a proud Torontonian, a proud Ontarian, the amount of money that we have invested in community colleges to help those students who want to enter skilled trades and other sectors of the workforce has been an unprecedented investment not seen since the Hon. William G. Davis created the community college system in the 1960s.

As for the deficit, I would clarify a point. It is not a record deficit in terms of the real deficit. If we measure the deficit in terms of a percentage of GDP, the deficits that we have experienced in the last three years are substantially lower than they were in the early 1990s. Measured in simple absolute dollar amounts, yes, they are at the highest number, but that is not a fair measure. On that measure, the average worker today is making about a thousand times more money than the average worker did some decades ago. We need to compare apples to apples. On the real measure of deficit to GDP, this is not a record deficit. In fact, it shows the government's prudence in this regard.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to argue in favour of Bill C-13, which is the government's plan to keep Canada's economy growing and the job creation machine going.

It is very important that we take a step back and look at the government's overall economic action plan. We have been talking about specific elements in this plan, tax credits and other specific measures, but sometimes it is useful to take a step back and look at our overall plan, because every individual initiative in this plan is part of a much bigger plan to steer Canada's economy through what has been an unprecedented economic crisis that the world has been facing over the last 36 months.

Before I go on, I will mention that I am sharing my time with my colleague, who sits with me on the official languages committee, the member for Ottawa—Orléans.

Just over three years ago, which I remember well because we were in the middle of a federal election campaign, we witnessed some pretty unprecedented events that I have never been through in my lifetime, the kind of events that our grandparents talked about when they lived through the depression of the 1930s and the stock market crash that took place in the late 1920s. I felt like I was reliving the experiences of a generation that had gone before us. I do not think we have fully realized the results of this crisis and I think it will continue to unfold, not just in the coming weeks and months but in coming years. By the time this decade is out, I think we will be facing a very different global economic order.

The government has done a fantastic job of steering the Canadian economy through the last three years. When the recession and global financial crisis hit some 38 or 39 months ago, few could foretell the way things would unfold in the following months and years. Yet the government very quickly showed that it could be not only pragmatic but flexible. In the following six months, it worked with the provinces and our other partners in the federation to come forward with what is, arguably, the biggest investment plan since the end of the second world war. That plan, as we all know, was the first phase of Canada's economic action plan.

We delivered in some 24 months an unprecedented $60 billion in stimulus spending across this country, which played a critical role in ensuring that Canada did not slip into the kind of severe recession that we have seen in other countries, like the United States and Europe. Through the stimulus plan, we also delivered long-lasting benefits and record investments in universities and colleges across the country. As an MP from Ontario, I can say that the investments we made in Ontario's community colleges were the biggest made in that system since William G. Davis was minister of education in the 1960s and created the community college system. In the subsequent 50 years, we have never seen such a huge wave of investments into that community college system. That was delivered through the government stimulus plan, specifically through the knowledge infrastructure program.

We also ensured that the banks had credit facilities to swap out their mortgage portfolios with credit that the government would provide to ensure that the banks continued to lend throughout that time. We delivered fiscal stimulus through other measures, like enhancing the employment insurance program and introducing work sharing, which ensured that employers would not have to lay off workers in industries that had experienced severe slowdowns. We also extended a major loan and equity investment in General Motors and Chrysler, which ensured that the manufacturing industry in the heartland of Ontario would still be able to rely on the auto industry as a key component of that sector.

Those are some of the measures we made fiscally. We worked closely with the Governor of the Bank of Canada, Mark Carney. We gave the bank new legislative powers to expand its mandate so that it had all the tools available to respond to any monetary threats the country would face.

Over the last 36 months or so, the results are evident. We have created over 600,000 net new jobs in the country. Our unemployment rate in our country is significantly lower than in many of the other major advanced economies in the world. Our budget deficits are significantly lower than in many of the other major developed economies, both in North America and in Europe. These are some of the successes to which we can point.

Sometimes it is useful to look to outsiders outside of Canada to get a perspective on how well we have done in the last 36 months. Sometimes we can be pretty provincial in our country. We tend to not have the perspective that others who live outside of Canada might have, others who have seen what has gone on not just here but elsewhere.

I will quote what Standard and Poor's said recently when it reaffirmed Canada's triple-A credit rating. It said that our credit rating was due to our, “superior political and economic profile and strong flexibility and performance profile”. Other rating firms, such as Fitch and Moody's, have also reiterated our credit standing in the world.

The World Economic Forum, the very well-respected organization, has ranked Canada's banking system, for four years running, as the soundest in the world. As we all know, the banking system is the foundation for our economy. We just have to look at the banking crises that have taken place south of the border, in the United Kingdom and currently in continental Europe to realize how important it is that we maintain and regulate our banks properly.

However, we are not out of the woods. The fact is the crisis from outside our shores, both in the United States, which is failing to resolve its deficit and debt conundrum, where Congress has recently failed to come to an agreement through its congressional committee, which will trigger a default plan, and the events that are currently taking place in Europe, where the contagion in Greek sovereign debt markets is now starting to spread to Italy and possibly beyond to countries like Spain and France.

All these events show that we are not out of the woods yet and there remains significant risks to the downside. That is why it is incredibly important that we stay the course and that we implement the next phase of Canada's economic action plan. That is precisely what Bill C-13 would do. It would continue with the government's prudent, flexible and pragmatic approach to steering Canada's economy through this global crisis.

We have put specific measures in this budget. For example, we have implemented the hiring credit for small businesses, a commitment we made during the last election. We have put in place in this bill the regime to help simplify the collection of customs tariffs in order to facilitate and enhance cross-border trade. We are extending the accelerated capital cost allowance deductions for the manufacturing sector, which has been especially hit because of the global recession. We have also put in place measures to eliminate the mandatory retirement age for workers who work in federally regulated sectors.

These are some of the things that we have put in the bill that will allow us to build on the successes that Canada's first economic action plan have put in place.

We have also made permanent, in this legislation, the gas tax transfer to Canadian municipalities, some $2 billion a year to help them with their aging infrastructure and to ensure that they can continue to maintain the infrastructure that they have built over the last number of decades. We have enhanced the wage earner protection program to help workers affected by bankruptcies or receiverships.

These are some of the additional measures that we are putting in place because we remain focused on creating jobs and economic growth.

I want to finish by making this point. In the last election, our party, our candidates, our Prime Minister campaigned on one issue and one issue over every other issue. That was that we needed to stay the course economically, that we needed to keep implementing Canada's economic action plan, building on the successes of the first plan by putting in place the second phase of the plan so we could create jobs and economic growth for Canadian families.

This bill does exactly that, and I ask all hon. members of this House to support it.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me the floor. I would like to thank the hon. member for sharing his time with me.

Before I begin to speak about Bill C-13 specifically, I would like to take this opportunity to express my disgust at the current gag orders and reduced debate in the House of Commons. I sometimes get the impression that, for the Conservatives, democracy comes down to 35 days of debate once every four years and that Parliament can be shut down in the interim because there is no real need for it.

In the time I have left, I would like to say that what I find unbelievably disappointing in the Conservative government's policies and decisions is the lack of certain ideas, certain concepts. Earlier an hon. member spoke about science being real. Yet the Conservatives, in their economic decisions, generally ignore other things that are also real, and those things are inequality and poverty. The Minister of Finance accomplished the amazing feat of tabling a budget where the word “poverty”, unfortunately, appears only once. But that does not mean that it is not real.

In 2009, 3.2 million people were living in poverty in Canada. As my colleague and neighbour to my left reminded us, these people are not always unemployed. Sometimes these are people who work. As we know, earning minimum wage amounts to living in poverty. Of the 3.2 million people living in poverty, 634,000 were children.

I find it unacceptable that, in a G8 country, so many people are being abandoned and we cannot take care of one another.

The Conference Board reminded us a few weeks ago that inequality is growing faster in Canada than it is in the United States. Thus, we are moving in the wrong direction. The Americans have a much more unequal society than we do, but at this rate, and with this government's neo-liberal conservative policies, we will catch up with the Americans in no time.

Equity or equality per se is not simply a good and moral objective that we are striving for; it is also more effective.

Last summer, the IMF—which is by no means a socialist organization—released a study on inequality that should be required reading for the Minister of Finance and the entire government. The IMF concluded that more equitable distribution of income translates into longer and more stable economic growth. This is good not only for people trying to get out of poverty, but also for our country as a whole, for the entire country will experience longer periods of growth with fewer upheavals. This is therefore something we should try to achieve.

An inequitable society has more social problems, more crime and more illness. Indeed, poverty has an impact on health, education, productivity, creativity and civic engagement. It is estimated that 20% of health care spending is due to socio-economic factors such as the income gap, for example.

Unfortunately, this government has chosen to give gifts to the banks and the oil companies and cut taxes for the Canadian corporations, which, generally speaking, do not need it. In the first quarters of this year, the six big Canadian banks earned $22 billion in profits. They are not the ones who need help. People who use food banks every month because they are having a hard time paying their bills and making ends meet are the ones who need help. There are solutions and, as New Democrats, we are proposing solutions to truly help workers and their families and truly help people living in poverty.

I want to talk about this government's choices to help those who deserve our respect, those who built the society we live in and to whom we owe everything: seniors.

The previous speaker talked about this. Certain things need to be done with regard to pension plans. I will come back to that. The NDP proposed lifting all seniors in Canada out of poverty by injecting money into the guaranteed income supplement. The answer we got from the Conservative government is woefully inadequate. Its solution was to come up with a parallel system. Indeed, it plans to give an extra $600 a year, or $50 a month to every senior living in poverty, but we must realize that it has created new criteria and new scales: a person is entitled to $50 a month if their income does not exceed $2,000 a year. Once a person has reached that threshold, they do not receive the full $50. They end up with peanuts, maybe an extra $4 or $5. I am not sure who this is going to help. That is not what it means to take concrete measures to help people.

There are so many things to do and so many problems to solve. There are so many people living in difficult situations that have an impact on everything from health to access to post-secondary education.

This government has decided to saw off the very branch on which it is sitting, or to dig the deficit hole. It tells us that it is a real problem that has to be solved. It should stop lowering taxes for banks and oil companies. It has created the problem itself. It is creating a situation where, in Canada, we now have a structural deficit, not a cyclical deficit. Why would they willingly give up revenue? It seems that the Conservatives are governing a state that they basically detest. All their efforts are focused on shrinking government programs, except for those involving the military and corrections, of course.

What could be done with this money that the Conservatives have voluntarily given up, and made us all give up? We could restore investment in social housing. The government's present contribution to affordable social housing is just about nil, and has been for many years. This has created extremely difficult and unacceptable situations for people. In the riding that I have the honour to represent, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, 2,000 people are on a waiting list for social housing and 5,500 households spend more than 50% of their income on shelter.

This is not the way to build a just, strong and equitable society. These people have problems every day. They are unable to pay their bills. This creates a great deal of tension for couples, families and individuals who cannot make ends meet.

What does the Conservative government do? It gives them tax credits that are worthless if they pay no tax. It is just great to say that they provide tax credits for youth, sports associations, access to this and that, but people have to pay tax to be entitled to them. Once again, it will help some people, but not those who need help the most. We must remember this.

Also, why is it that 1.4 million people are officially looking for a job in Canada and do not have one? This number is growing. We saw that another 72,000 jobs were lost last month. Half of the people who pay into the employment insurance fund do not have access to it when they lose their jobs because they did not work a sufficient number of hours. So, they are paying a tax or insurance premium but they are not entitled to receive benefits when they find themselves in a situation when they might claim them. The NDP is arguing in favour of re-establishing greater access to employment insurance benefits. By so doing, the government would truly provide tangible help to Canadians in their everyday lives.

Investment in infrastructure is insufficient. Clearly, the government has not stopped harping about Canada's economic action plan, but it is also important to remember that, without the threat of a coalition government, the government would never have introduced this plan. The ideas came from this side of the House. We then put an end to the plan to form a coalition, but the entire deficit has not been overcome. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities estimates that Canada is currently facing a $123 billion infrastructure deficit. As a result, overpasses are collapsing and there are problems with the Champlain Bridge and others. That means that our critical infrastructure has been left to crumble: our bridges, our highways and our water systems. This creates problems and then the price must be paid. We must reinvest in infrastructure.

We must also reinvest in research and development because it is the future and Canada has a terrible record among the OECD countries in this area. By making this investment, we will be able to stimulate the economy and create good jobs.

I can give another example. What else could we do to help people? What direction could we take? Think about the cost of medications. Last year, it was estimated that three million Canadians did not take the medications they needed because they could not afford them. That is unacceptable. That is why people continue to be sick and get sicker. Then, they become a burden on the health care system because they did not have the means to take care of themselves. In Quebec we have a drug insurance plan. The NDP thinks this is a good example. With asymmetrical federalism, Quebec could maintain its public drug insurance plan, and we could still create a Canada-wide one at the federal level.

There are many other things, such as household debt, for example. The government is not doing anything to lower credit card interest rates or ATM fees. Two-thirds of Canadian workers do not have a retirement pension plan through their employers. We must improve public pension plans. We must double them. We agree with this because it is the most effective way of doing things. That is what will help the most people once they retire, when they stop working and leave the workforce. We could also talk about Internet connections in the regions or renewable energy. There are tons of things that the federal government should invest in, such as green transportation, high-speed trains or electric monorails.

There are so many things to do and, unfortunately, the only thing this government does is lower taxes. That does not work. That is not how we will help each other and create a fair and just society.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will remind you that I am sharing my time with the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

I will continue with what Mr. Hodgson of the Conference Board of Canada said with regard to our situation. He said:

As part of globalization, sadly, inequality is growing in most countries around the world. In Canada the rate of growth of inequality as we measured it was actually greater than in the United States, which is a bit of a surprising result.

He closed his statement before the pre-budget hearings by saying:

We were asking whether we're doing enough as a country to ensure that all Canadians are benefiting from economic growth. Whether we're talking about the lack of job security or about people retiring with insufficient incomes, ongoing poverty is kind of a festering sore within an economy, and I think it does drag down your ongoing growth potential.

I reiterated that part because that is a very significant point. The poverty that has been created in the country over the last five to ten years is a horrendous burden.

I will now return to my theme of Bill C-13 being a missed opportunity. I will speak for a moment about the government's recently announced pooled retirement pension plan, PRPP. This plan shows how the government does not seem to understand, very clearly at least, the real problems facing working Canadians today.

The government in its opening remarks for the PRPP said that 60% of working Canadians have zero savings and no pension. That is one point on which we do agree. The PRPP does not begin to address this problem though. It is simply similar to an RRSP and is open to market fluctuations. In addition, the PRPP potential fee structure favours the institutions and would draw down on workers' savings in what we believe is blatantly an unfair manner.

On behalf of the New Democrats I have put forward a plan for a seven year phase-in of increases to the CPP which would double benefits in about 35 years.

We should keep in mind that the Canada pension plan lost 1% during the market downturn of the last few weeks, while the remainder of the market lost 11% during the same period. That clearly shows that the CPP is the best vehicle to secure seniors' retirement.

I will speak for a moment about the increases that we are proposing to the Canada pension plan. I want to make it very clear that they would be phased in and they would be minimal. We hear all kinds of numbers from the government side. For a worker earning $47,200 or more a year, the initial cost of gradually doubling the CPP works out to 9¢ an hour, or $3.57 a week. Hopefully, the government side is listening. For a worker earning $30,000 per year, the initial cost would be 6¢ an hour, or $2.27 a week.

It would be minimal and would allow Canadians to put money into their retirement. It would not be a huge cost to them. The reality is that otherwise they would have nothing.

I see that I am down to my last minute of debate, so I will condense my comments.

In the administrative fees for the CPP and mutual funds, there is a difference of 0.5% and 2.5% respectively. One is five times more than the other.

We need to consider carefully the need for a Canada pension plan increase to benefit those workers who today have nothing.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-13, An Act to implement certain provisions of the 2011 budget as updated on June 6, 2011 and other measures, be read the third time and passed.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today and speak to the third reading of Bill C-13. This is not the first time I have encountered Bill C-13. In the Standing Committee on Finance we reviewed it reasonably thoroughly and I am critic for finance in the area of pensions, although I will speak in broader terms here today.

On this side of the House, we believe that Bill C-13 is a major missed opportunity. The obvious question that follows is: What would we do in the official opposition if we were making the same decisions that the government is facing at this point?

New Democrats have been proposing job creation types of proposals such as shelving the planned corporate tax cut for January 1, 2012. This would create $3 billion to $4 billion a year that could be used in job creation. We hear from the other side that somehow this would raise taxes. No, it would not. It would be a continuation of the tax that exists at the present time.

Next, we would have offered a new-hire tax credit for every new hire who stays in the job a full year. New Democrats would also help small businesses by providing a 2% tax cut for them, to encourage job creation. The previous speaker just talked about the environment needed for small business. Considering the dire warnings from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities for at least the last five years regarding the huge deficit of infrastructure needs in this country, we would put aside moneys and set forth a plan to address the $130 billion in infrastructure deficit.

It is very important to have long-range planning and that is what seems to be missing here today. New Democrats believe Canada should be in the lead in investing in green infrastructure and renewable energy, but we lag far behind the United States and other countries. The message from this side of the House is that it is time for the government to invest now.

Workers from the boomer generation are retiring. Canada has a zero birthrate. We must invest in skills training for current workers, for those workers who will replace the ones who retire and for the future needs of this country in leading-edge industries of tomorrow.

During our finance committee's recent pre-budget hearings for the 2012 budget, I stressed the following.

Canadians are too indebted to stimulate the economy. Business is holding on to some $500 billion in cash because of the fear of another freezing of bank lending as happened in the last recession. This leaves only the governments to stimulate our economy. The government should seriously consider the options put forward by New Democrats.

At our pre-budget hearings, Glen Hodgson, senior vice-president and chief economist of the Conference Board of Canada, at one of our public meetings, stated the following:

We believe we're severely under-invested as a country in infrastructure. We haven't done the numbers, but others have, including engineers and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, and I think their number going back five years was of a deficit of about $130 billion in terms of infrastructure investment.

He went on to say:

That tells me there is huge scope for realigning government spending priorities and making sure we're making adequate investments in roads, ports, and bridges to ensure that the Montreal economy, for example, works well. Could you imagine if the Champlain Bridge actually broke...? That would be a huge loss to Montreal's GDP and to Canada's GDP.

Sylvain Schetagne, senior economist, social and economic policy department, Canadian Labour Congress, said:

Corporations benefit from the kind of infrastructure they have around them. So a bridge that is falling apart is not good.

That is an understatement. He further said:

Having enough workers who have skills and education needed in order to provide productive work is also needed.

That is in line with the suggestion that came from the New Democrats. He said:

There are other things we can do. For instance, in social infrastructure we are facing an aging workforce, and we would like to see more Canadians working... more women and more aboriginals working. There are programs such as child care that we can put in place to allow more women to go back to work, to improve labour force participation, and to make sure that companies have workers when they need them.

Glen Hodgson said:

As part of our globalization, sadly inequality is growing in most countries around the world and in Canada. The rate of growth of inequality, as we measured it, was actually greater than in the United States, which is a bit of a surprising result.

He closed his statement by saying:

We are asking questions about whether we're doing enough as a country to ensure that all Canadians are benefiting from the economic growth--

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Multiculturalism]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, for sharing her time.

It is an honour to rise in the House today to speak to third reading of Bill C-13, keeping Canada's economy and jobs growing act. I am proud to stand to speak in support of our government's record.

Last May Canadians elected a strong Conservative government, a government that has earned the trust of Canadians. Our government worked hard in two minority governments to achieve this. For too many years before that, Canadians had a government that lacked accountability and transparency, a government that treated taxpayers' dollars recklessly. In May, Canadians spoke loud and clear, and chose a government that has earned their respect and confidence.

Our government has steadfastly provided good economic policies that have allowed this great country to weather the global slowdown better than many other industrial countries. It is our task to continue on and support the policies that have allowed Canada to remain strong.

Our government is focused on what matters to Canadians: creating jobs and promoting economic growth. While Canadians are keenly aware of this, the G7 countries are also aware of our economic position. The International Monetary Fund has projected that Canada will be among the strongest in economic growth of the G7 for the next two years. This is a time to continue with the sound policies of our 2011 budget which does this.

It is our duty as a government to look beyond this moment and work to create positive successful policies that will provide for our future generations. Bill C-13, keeping Canada's economy and jobs growing act, is about precisely that. With the support that is provided to communities by legislating a permanent annual investment of $2 billion in the gas tax fund to provide predictable long-term infrastructure funding for municipalities and enhancing the wage earner protection program, we are looking to the future and working beyond today's economy. Canadians expect that and we are delivering it.

In my riding of Willowdale, a very urban riding, we recently announced a new partnership between Seneca College with small and medium-sized businesses, enterprises that will help conduct research and bring innovative ideas to market, bringing innovative ideas to commercialization.

Commercialization is the engine for job creation and employment for young entrepreneurs and students who are coming into the job market. This is due to investment from the Federal Economic Development Agency. Our government is working to make the most of our opportunities to innovate, adapt and grow, and secure a prosperous future. I was proud to share in this announcement. It is policies like these that have Canada moving in the right direction, a direction that has been envied by many countries in the world.

We are continuing to help families by introducing the new family caregiver tax credit to assist caregivers of all types of infirm dependent relatives. We know that families are the pillars of our communities. We want them to have the resources they require to have the best opportunities and sound futures. By removing the limit on the amount of eligible expenses caregivers can now claim under the medical expense tax credit, we are assisting those who are financially dependent on relatives. We understand the pressures that Canadians face.

Furthermore, the child arts tax credit is one of that many parents in Willowdale will want to utilize. We understand the benefits of these programs to children and families, and we know that supporting these artistic, cultural and recreational activities will benefit our future citizens in many ways.

Our government has shown respect for taxpayers. The keeping Canada's economy and jobs growing act phases out the direct subsidy of political parties. Political parties should not be directly subsidized by Canadian tax dollars.

The Toronto Board of Trade has said that the 2011 federal budget achieves a prudent balance of taxability and deficit reduction measures while pointing to long-term infrastructure investment opportunities. This is a good plan for both Toronto and Canada.

Our government believes in low taxes. We want to leave more hard-earned money in the pockets of Canadians. My colleagues across the floor continue to have a high tax agenda that would increase taxes on job creating businesses to pay for billions and billions of reckless spending and bloated government programs in Ottawa. Canadians spoke against such policies last spring.

We have cut taxes 120 times since 2006, reducing the overall debt burden to the lowest level in nearly 50 years.

I think we are one of the most competitive low tax jurisdictions in the world.

Under our government, Canada has had seven straight quarters of economic growth and created nearly 600,000 net new jobs since July 2009, of which over 80% are full-time positions.

Our government is enhancing our guaranteed income supplement. Eligible low income seniors will now receive an additional benefit of up to $600 for single seniors and $840 for couples, helping more than 680,000 seniors across Canada. We understand the challenges that some seniors are facing in these tough economic times and the GIS will put more dollars in their pockets.

Recently, the Royal Bank of Canada released its economic survey suggesting that Canada's economy is set to pick up despite volatile global financial markets. The RBC has indicated that it is expected that the Canadian economy will rebound. I am confident that the sound fiscal and sometimes difficult choices of the government have paved the way for this.

On this side of the House we also understand that families want to lower their heating and electricity bills by making their homes more energy efficient. That is why we are extending the eco-energy retrofit homes program. This program has been a success. Until March 31, 2012, homeowners are eligible to receive grants of up to $5,000 to make their homes more energy efficient. I know many of the residents of Willowdale will want to make energy-efficient improvements at home and this program will help them.

Our government understands the importance of this program to Canadians. It has the added benefit of creating a green economy, the precise economy that we are looking for to meet the challenges of the 21st century and to help the new economy on its path to conserve jobs and to build new jobs. There has been much discussion with respect to new technologies and the new green economy.

Our government understands that Canadians are worried about the quality of the air we breathe, along with pollutants and chemicals affecting our environment. Canadian families deserve the best air, water and cleanest environment possible.

The next phase of Canada's economic action plan maintains our Conservative government's strong record of supporting a cleaner and more sustainable environment. I will outline some of the measures that we have put in place to do this.

Indeed, for 2011-12, our Conservative government is investing more to protect the environment than in 2010-11. Investments include: $400 million for the eco-energy retrofit homes program to support Canadians in making their homes more energy efficient, $252 million to support regulatory activities to address climate change and air quality, nearly $200 million to help address the health and environmental risks posed by dangerous chemicals through the chemicals management plan, $97 million to develop and promote clean energy technologies, $86 million to support clean energy regulatory actions, $68 million to clean up federal contaminated sites, $48 million to develop transportation sector regulations and next generation clean transportation initiatives, $40 million to support new climate change and clean air projects under Sustainable Development Technology Canada, $35 million to support climate and atmospheric sciences research, and the list goes on.

Our government is moving in the right direction on the environment. I am confident of the results of these initiatives for today and for future generations.

We are focused on what matters to Canadians, which is to create jobs and promote economic growth. We have taken strategic measures to help weather the global economic slowdown. However, we need to stay the course and implement the next phase of Canada's economic action plan.

I urge my colleagues across the floor to support this legislation, which is a continuation of sound policy that has made Canada the envy of many countries.

We have worked hard as a government to assist our entrepreneurs and we are continuing this in budget 2011. The new hiring credit for small business will provide up $1,000 against small business EI premiums for new hires.

The World Economic Forum has ranked Canada's banking system as the strongest and safest in the world. The policies of our government have not gone unnoticed. The Economist magazine has named Canada the best place to invest and do business in the next five years.

Having indicated all of these policies are in place, I urge my colleagues across the way to support these measures, the continuation of sound economic ideas that have proven to be sound and comprehensive.

Our Prime Minister and finance minister are working hard to keep Canada on track. I am proud to work with them on these vital programs in budget 2011.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Willowdale.

It is my pleasure on behalf of the people of Renfrew--Nipissing--Pembroke to speak in support of the legislation before us, the keeping Canada's economy and jobs growing act.

The decision by the people of Canada to vote in favour of a strong, stable, majority government was our mandate to get on with the job of providing Canadians with good government.

My constituents recognize that providing sound financial leadership means making the right decisions to keep Canada on track as the best place to live in the world. If Canada is to maintain its standard of living in today's world, we need to anticipate tomorrow's economy and the jobs that will be required for that.

Energy to power our needs in the future is recognized by our government as where we need to be proactive. Our budget continues to provide significant financial investment in the Canadian nuclear industry.

Bill C-13 contains elements of restructuring efforts of AECL dating back to 1993. The process is recognized as ongoing, which is where I would like to focus my comments today.

The Chalk River laboratories of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited represent the retained assets of the crown corporation in our restructuring efforts to strengthen, diversify and support the thousands of jobs associated with this industry.

Our government has provided financial support to AECL that was necessary after many years of neglect by the old government.

Just like a car that needs service and proper maintenance to keep it running smoothly and safely, the same is true of Canada's nuclear assets. For example, even though corrosion on the containment vessel in the NRU, Canada's research reactor, had been observed, the former government decided to follow a policy that would have resulted in the loss of thousands of jobs and the hollowing out of an industry in which Canadians are recognized as world leaders. It viewed Chalk River laboratories as nothing more than an isotope factory, when in fact the science of nuclear medicine is but one of the lifesaving discoveries that have been made on site.

On November 16, 2011, Dr. Robert Walker, president and CEO of AECL nuclear laboratories, was pleased to report that we have a new five year licence at the Chalk River site. That is a demonstration of Canadian confidence in the nuclear labs at Chalk River.

The keeping Canada's economy and jobs growing act means supporting science, research and development for the jobs of tomorrow.

The former government did not foresee the increased demand for clean, affordable, sustainable energy.

The possible use of nuclear energy for electric power production was discussed in the early years of the nuclear research program, but the first definitive key decision came early in 1953 when it was stated in this very chamber:

Here in Canada we believe that the time has come to undertake the development of atomic power in this country, and discussions are going on as to ways and means of bringing about that development. We feel that the production of power is the concern of those who distribute power, organizations like the Hydro Electric Power Commission of Ontario, or the major privately-owned power companies.

Half a century after Rutherford demonstrated for the first time the existence of the atomic nucleus, Canada launched into the 20th century of high technology.

The pursuit by W.B. Lewis, an outstanding scientist of world stature, and his colleagues at AECL Chalk River laboratories of the neutron economy resulted in low fuel costs for Candu, which stands for Canada deuterium uranium reactors, and this became a significant factor in their success. In 1987, the centennial of engineering in Canada, the Candu reactor was ranked as one of the country's top ten engineering achievements.

The former government did not recognize the achievements of Chalk River laboratories, such as in its role in radiation therapy.

In 1951, at the Chalk River plant in Ontario, a group of scientists isolated a source of radiation even stronger than X-rays. It was, and still is, widely used to treat cancer patients. The source of this radiation was the radioactive isotope cobalt-60. The production of this radioactive isotope and the required nuclear activity was carried out in Canada four years before it was repeated in any other country.

The Canada Student Loans Act is assisting young scientists who are studying neutron scattering. The former government forgot about the pioneering work conducted by Bertram Brockhouse, which laid the foundation for the field of inelastic neutron scattering, and for which he shared the 1994 Nobel prize in physics.

A beam of neutrons can be directed onto a specimen of material. By measuring how the beam is reflected, scientists can learn a great deal about the structure of a specimen at the atomic level.

Using the technique that Brockhouse pioneered, the NRC Canadian Neutron Beam Centre at NRU today enables scientists from across Canada and around the world to investigate new materials with neutrons. In fact, after the tragedy with the space shuttle Challenger, NASA commissioned the Canadian Neutron Beam Centre to determine whether or not it was a seal that caused the accident.

Dr. Dominic Ryan, president of the Canadian Institute for Neutron Scattering, outlined that the NRC-CNBC in Chalk River is Canada's scientific hub for research using neutron beams as probes of materials. Since everything is made of material, even our own bodies, materials research using neutron beams has a broad range of applications.

With regard to spin-offs from Chalk River, the Chalk River Laboratories act as a science and technology catalyst for innovation contributing to industry success both domestically and internationally. It has mastered the transfer of bench-top science through to practical applications, on to commercialization and manufacturing. That means jobs.

Another aspect of Chalk River is the security. In addition to maintaining and growing Canada's capability in the nuclear energy industry, improving reliability in the supply of medical radioisotopes and improving the understanding of the effect of radiation on human health, Chalk River Laboratories is ensuring the safety and security for Canada.

A key technology developed at AECL is used by United Nations inspectors to verify that countries are complying with the international Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and are not developing nuclear weapons.

Known as the Cerenkov viewing device, it allows the UN International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, safeguard inspectors to examine nuclear fuel to confirm it is not being diverted from civilian to military purposes.

AECL Nuclear Laboratories recently patented the state-of-the-art advancement of this technology which allows for total automation of this vital task for the very first time. With millions of shipping containers around the world and over 45,000 trucks crossing North American borders every day, one of the significant challenges for port and border inspection agencies is the detection of illicit nuclear material in transportation containers.

Accurate and expedient results are not only vital to ensure the security of our borders but also ensure the efficient flow of goods and services between the two trading partner nations.

AECL Nuclear Laboratories, in collaboration with Defence Research and Development Canada, the Canadian Border Security Agency, Health Canada and several Canadian universities have recently patented a detection technology similar to CAT scan machines used in hospitals.

Instead of producing an internal image of a patient, it indicates the presence of nuclear material such as uranium and plutonium that may be hidden in shipping containers.

In parallel, AECL is currently working with a Canadian company developing low powered, inexpensive, pocket-size radiation detectors for infield use for practical radiation detection of nuclear materials. That, in addition to 3,300 AECL jobs, spells more jobs.

Chalk River Laboratories is also improving nuclear and related technology safety. It has developed technology to absorb the excess hydrogen and reduce the risk. It is called the passive autocatalytic recombiner. The technology uses no moving parts and is making our reactors safe here in Canada and around the world.

The domestic Canadian nuclear industry has specifically benefited from this technology and it is addressed as a requirement that the federal nuclear regulator placed on the industry to address the hydrogen hazards. AECL technology is also mitigating nuclear accidents.

I see that I am out of time, so I will answer any questions.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-13, the second implementation bill for budget 2011.

I want to speak to some of the unfair elements of this bill. We think it is wrong that the Conservatives continue to exclude the lowest income Canadians from budget measures that are designed to help Canadians by introducing programs, like the tax credits for family caregivers, volunteer firefighters and children's arts activity, and then only making them available to some Canadians while completely leaving out those who are most in need: low-income Canadians who will not qualify for these measures because these tax credits are non-refundable. We think that is wrong and that it will weaken Canadian society by increasing the already growing gap between the rich and the poor in Canada. It will contribute to a reduction in the equality of opportunity that is so fundamental to Canadians and Canadian values.

I will speak today to some of the economic challenges facing Canadian society and how measures introduced by the Conservatives will actually serve to reduce economic opportunities for some Canadians who are already disadvantaged during these difficult global economic times. I then will provide some examples of how a Liberal government would do things differently.

There is a rising income gap under the Conservative government. The gap between the rich and the poor is growing in Canada. A recent study by the Conference Board of Canada shows that income inequality is rising even faster in Canada than in the U.S. The Conference Board's July 2011 study helps to provide some context by discussing why growing income gaps are a problem. It pointed out the following:

—high inequality can diminish economic growth if it means that the country is not fully using the skills and capabilities of all its citizens or if it undermines social cohesion, leading to increased social tensions. Second, high inequality raises a moral question about fairness and social justice.

Again, that quote was from the Conference Board of Canada's July 2011 study.

Lower incomes can also lead to shorter life expectancies. A 2010 report from McMaster University found that the life expectancy of someone living in the wealthiest neighbourhood in Hamilton, Ontario, is 21 years longer than someone living in the poorest neighbourhoods of Hamilton, as an example. Rising income inequality, in terms of economic output, will increase costs in health care at a time when we already have a demographic bubble, or time bomb as some refer to it, in terms of the aging of our population and the commensurate increases in health care costs that will bring.

In 2008, in terms of economic output, a group of economists, including Don Drummond, estimated that poverty costs Canada between $72 billion and $86 billion per year in higher costs for health care, the criminal justice system and lost economic productivity.

One of the largest contributors to growing income gaps in Canada is the persistently high levels of unemployment and underemployment facing low-income Canadians. The reality is that we have almost 600,000 fewer full-time jobs than three years ago in August 2008. There is a significant gap geographically in Canada in terms of how individual economies are doing. If people happen to live in Saskatchewan or Alberta, resource rich provinces, provinces where people had the vision, foresight and wisdom to put oil and gas under the ground and, in some cases, smart enough to put potash under the ground as well, their economic situation is very different from that of places in Ontario, Quebec and the Maritimes.

We are seeing In this global economic restructuring the type of recovery in Canada that does not benefit all Canadians. In fact, a commodity led recovery, which is driving the Canadian dollar, for all intents and purposes, increasingly an oil and gas or commodity-based dollar, higher and, at the same time, as a result of that higher dollar, crowding out value-added jobs in other regions. While high commodity prices can disproportionately benefit some parts of Canada and some sectors in Canada, it is driving out a lot of manufacturing jobs, value-added jobs.

We just had an announcement of a permanent closure in my riding of the Fundy Gypsum Company. Part of the reason for that was the higher Canadian dollar in recent years that made its exports to the U.S. less competitive.

We have seen a lot of manufacturing jobs lost in my riding, food processing jobs, such as at Canard poultry and Larsen, close to my riding. We have seen a lot of losses in jobs in my riding. I latest information if have if that in Kings county, Hants county and Annapolis county, which is my riding and part of the riding next door, have 6,400 fewer jobs than in August 2008. The unemployment figures for Annapolis, Kings and Hants counties reached 7.8% in October 2011 compared to 5% in September 2008. That is almost a 3% increase in unemployment in my riding and half of the next riding, the riding of West Nova.

We are seeing it in our communities. We are seeing it in the small business community. The owner of a restaurant in Windsor, Nova Scotia told me recently that it had the worst year in 20 years. When people have lost their full-time jobs and have seen them replaced with part-time work, they cannot afford to take their families out for breakfast on a Saturday morning or for supper on a Friday night.

We have a responsibility in the House of Commons to evaluate how the economy and families are doing across Canada, not just look at the macro numbers, but look across the country and consider the plight of families in some of the regions. One of the realities is that during this technical recovery, this statistical recovery, many Canadians are still facing a deep human recession.

The other thing to realize is that before the markets tumbled back in August 2008, 17,366,000 Canadians had jobs. In October 2011, and these are the latest figures available from Stats Canada, that number stood at 17,402,300 jobs. However, that includes almost 600,000 net fewer full-time jobs lost in Canada over the last three years.

This issue has contributed as well to the growth of household debt. We are now at record levels of household debt in Canada, largely because Canadians are trying to replace their lost income from losing their full-time jobs with income from part-time jobs. They are having a lot of challenges making ends meet. They are seeing their costs going up on an ongoing basis and their pay going down as they are replacing full-time work with part-time jobs.

The reality is the household debt levels in Canada is $1.51 for ever $1 of annual income in Canada right now. That is actually higher than the family indebtedness in the U.S, record highs for Canadian households.

Canadians are worried about how they will pay the bills next month and they are petrified about what will happen at some point in the future when interest rates start to rise, which they inevitably will.

Within the context of rising inequality, the Conservatives have gone ahead and introduced a number of tax measures in budget 2011 that will actually worsen the situation by deliberately excluding low-income Canadians. We have repeatedly asked, both at finance committee and in the House of Commons, that the Conservatives make a family caregiver tax credit, the volunteer firefighter tax credit and the children's arts tax credits refundable so all Canadians can qualify, but the Conservatives have steadfastly refused.

I want to be clear. We support a family caregiver tax credit and a volunteer firefighters tax credit. In reality, it was the Liberal Party that proposed both of those before the Conservative Party. We proposed those tax measures because we felt a lot of families were struggling with aging and ailing loved ones, trying to keep them in their homes, and they needed the help.

Many communities, including my own communities in places like Summerville and Brooklyn, Hants county and Wolfville and Kentville, have a lot of volunteer firefighters. It is harder and harder to attract volunteer firefighters. Frankly, they are paying a financial cost. They are risking their lives and struggling to keep the fire departments viable.

We believe very strongly in a family caregiver tax credit and a volunteer firefighters tax credit. In our platform, we had both of those, but we had made them refundable. The reason they need to be, and ought to be, refundable is that by making them non-refundable, as the Conservatives have done, it perversely means that the lowest-income volunteer firefighters and family caregivers will not receive benefit. There is no way we can defend, economically or morally, that the lowest-income volunteer firefighters and family caregivers would not benefit from these measures. It is fundamentally wrong. I see families struggling to take care of loved ones now.

It is one of the issues I hear from constituents on an increasing basis, as we have an aging population, and the rural communities in the Maritimes are aging disproportionately. We have lost a lot of young people who have gone to other parts of the country for work. Therefore, in many cases, we have fewer young people to help out mom or dad, or granddad or grandmom stay in their homes. The burden on the people who are left behind, the family members and the caregivers, is immense. The VON does an extraordinary job helping a lot of people in my riding in Nova Scotia, but it can only do so much.

My mom and dad have a home care person who comes in a couple of times a week. She does remarkable work in helping my parents stay in their own home. My dad is 88 and my mom is 82 and she has Alzheimer's. I see how hard the home care workers are working and the difference they are making.

I see the sacrifice my sister makes. She is, for all intents and purposes, the family caregiver to my parents. There are three sons and then there is my sister. I can tell members that, disproportionately, the burden goes to the daughters in a family when it comes to these situations. That is unfair, but I see it. I know my sister would qualify, based on her income, for the family caregiver tax credit. However, it is not fair that some other person's sister or some other person's daughter, who takes time away from her work to take care of an elderly mother or father, would not benefit. That is fundamentally wrong.

I would like to see other family caregivers benefit from this measure, particularly, low-income caregivers. In my sister's case, she has taken time off work so she can help mom and dad in their home, so she is seeing a decrease in her income. That is happening to a lot of families across Nova Scotia and Canada. It is wrong that the caregivers in those lowest-income families would not benefit from this program designed to help caregivers and to help seniors and people who face long-term illness stay in their own homes longer.

Frankly, it would take a lot of burden off the provincial health care system if we could help people stay in their own homes. In most cases, the cost of putting people in nursing homes or long-term care families is a lot more than keeping them at home. Therefore, from the perspective of long-term fiscal policy, it is important for both federal and provincial governments to do everything they can to help people stay in their own homes.

I focused a lot on the disparity and unfairness of making these tax credits unavailable to low-income caregivers and volunteer firefighters. It is unfair, but it is also nonsensical from an economic perspective. It makes no sense socially, economically or morally.

Susan Eng, vice president of CARP, the Canadian Association of Retired Persons, has said:

We...encourage (the government) to put forward a refundable tax credit, particularly for the more narrow segments of caregivers who perform 24/7 care. Those are the people who have had to quit their jobs...to look after families. They are not going to be in a position to benefit from a non-refundable tax credit.

That is from one of the largest organizations representing senior citizens in Canada.

Nadine Henningsen, president of the Canadian Caregiver Coalition, told the finance committee:

—convert the non-refundable credits to refundable credits, so that all Canadians with caregiver-related costs, regardless of income, will benefit from these tax measures.

Again, there is broad-based support for making these credits refundable from the people who understand caregiving the most, the Canadian Caregiver Coalition, and from the biggest organization representing Canadian seniors, the Canadian Association of Retired Persons.

At some level the Conservatives must recognize that there is a moral imperative to make these tax credits refundable so they are available to all deserving Canadians.

In their last election platform the Conservatives promised to make the Canadian fitness tax credit refundable so that low income Canadians could also qualify. However, they have only promised to include low income Canadians once the budget is balanced.

We know from the minister's latest oops moment, kind of like Governor Perry, with his budget number that it is going to be 2015 or 2016 by the time the budget is balanced. That is based on their latest numbers, but the minister has missed every target he has set. In fact, he inherited a $13 billion surplus and spent Canada into a deficit even before the downturn. He increased spending by 18%, three times the rate of inflation, and put Canada into a deficit even before the 2008 crash. He promised a balanced budget in the fall of 2008 and a few months later delivered a record high $56 billion deficit.

Therefore, it is hard for us to count on the minister's projections, but for low-income Canadians who are being promised some tax relief once the budget has been balanced, it is very hard for them to count on or wait for that inevitable balancing.

I also want to speak on the EI payroll tax increase of January. The minister confirmed that EI premiums would be increased by $600 million in January. With stubbornly high unemployment in many parts of the country, it makes no sense for the government to be increasing payroll taxes at this time. That is why we called for a payroll tax freeze and EI premium freeze at this time. It does not make sense to increase what is effectively a job-killing payroll tax at a time of high unemployment.

We also believe that we have to take a serious look at the Conservatives' plan that they introduced to force the EI system to self-balance over a short period of time. What that means is that it perversely actually increases EI premiums at times of high unemployment. It makes no sense to increase job killing payroll taxes at exactly the time when we need to either freeze them or potentially even decrease them. We need to have a longer horizon for self-balancing.

I also spoke with Jack Mintz, who spoke to a group of us recently. Jack Mintz says that we need a focus on overall tax reform in Canada. We need to simplify and streamline the Canadian tax code. My leader, the hon. member for Toronto Centre, has called for the same. We need to have a long-term focus on building a fairer and more competitive Canadian tax system, streamlining and simplifying the tax system, not making it more complex with boutique tax credits that do not benefit the lowest income Canadians.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, given that 72,000 full-time jobs were lost in the month of October, one can only say, when looking at Bill C-13 and at the Conservatives' strategy, that they are job-killing plans.

I like the hon. member, and know that he is not preparing the notes. It is the Prime Minister's Office that puts out a figure and then pretends that the government has created x number of jobs.

StatsCan states that from May 2008 the Conservative government has created less than 200,000 jobs and that the labour market grew by 450,000 job seekers. That is not a line from the Conservative Party or the NDP but from StatsCan, the judge that is right. Therefore, the number of job seekers, the unemployed, grew. The reality is that the government was a quarter of a million jobs short from just treading water, from just standing still.

Rather than more corporate tax cuts, we need an intelligent approach that does not cut services to the middle-class and poor Canadian families. That is what we stand for on this side of the House.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by referencing the previous member's comments about the economic action plan.

No one on the Conservative side of the House should deny that the job loss figure that we saw in the month of October of 72,000 full-time jobs should not be a source of worry. That eviscerated the Canadian economy, yet Conservative members have been patting themselves on the back.

The reality is that the jobs that have been created over the last three years under the Conservative government's plan actually pay much less than the jobs that the Conservatives lost. Tragically, we are now seeing an acceleration in the number of jobs lost. Some 72,000 jobs were lost in a single month. That is more than 2,000 jobs a day and we are seeing a continuation of that in the month of November.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer talked about 100,000 jobs evaporating out of the Canadian economy in the coming months. The Governor of the Bank of Canada talked about a huge slowdown. The government must be looking through rose coloured glasses and pretending that everything is just fine. That is simply not true. Conservatives who doubt it should talk to small business people and to workers right across this country from coast to coast to coast.

Canadian families are worried. They are dealing with historic debt loads that we have not seen in our country's history. We are talking about the loss of tens of thousands of jobs in the last few weeks. Nearly two million Canadians are looking for work across this country. One million Canadians have to rely on food banks to make ends meet. Maybe everything is fine and rosy in the Conservatives' Ottawa bubble, but the reality is that Canadians need action. Our role in the House is to put forward powerful solutions to deal with the economic malaise that we are experiencing.

I need to comment on the government's actions around Bill C-13. The budget bill is a 650-page document. It is not the same budget bill that was presented last spring, even though the government does have ways and means orientation on it. We are talking about a 650-page bill and the government's refusal to accept any amendments.

Beyond the government's refusal to accept any amendments, last week it invoked closure. The Conservatives will rise and say it was not closure but time allocation. It is the same thing. They should not try to play with Canadians in that respect. They invoked closure before one second of debate could happen in the House on amendments that had been brought forward.

The Conservatives did allow some discussion on one amendment and then they used their sledgehammer and removed any possibility of even one second of debate on other amendments on a 650-page budget bill that most Conservative MPs have not read.

The government has refused to allow the kind of debate that has been a democratic tradition in this country since well before 1867, even prior to Confederation, but certainly in the House of Commons since 1867. We have not seen closure used to this extent. The government has used closure 7 times in 35 sitting days. It is a record that even the Liberals, at the height of their arrogance, were unable to match. It is appalling.

To tell Canadians that they have no right to hear debate on a 650-page budget bill and that they have no right to hear what amendments were brought forward on the budget bill is doing a disservice to Canadians and showing profound disrespect for Canadians from coast to coast to coast. That really is the setting of what the government has done around Bill C-13.

When the Conservatives campaigned last spring, they put on their sweater vests and talked about moderation and about listening to Canadians. They said that they would be a moderate government.

What has happened since May 2 is absolutely the contrary. The Conservatives use closure in a way that we have never seen in the long democratic tradition in this country. They shut down debate not only on a wide variety of bills that could have been better served with more debate and discussion in the House of Commons, but on budget bills as well.

It is a very disturbing development. Last spring the government promised moderation and respect for democratic tradition. However, now that we are getting into the crux of the matter with a vigorous debate on behalf of the 102 members of the NDP official opposition, the government resorts to closure every single time. Why is that?

The government is resorting to closure because it loses the debates. As we bring forward our ideas, we talk about the content of what is being brought forward by the government. The Conservatives realize that their arguments, the talking points from the Prime Minister's Office, simply do not hold weight. The government could extend sitting hours or use a number of alternatives to allow for a democratic debate to take place, but it chooses the sledgehammer of shutting down that debate.

I just came back from British Columbia and I certainly heard great and growing concern on the part of Canadians that our debate and our rights as democratically elected representatives in the House of Commons are systematically being shut down. It is something that is increasingly worrisome to Canadians.

Let us examine the context of the bill that the government refuses to debate and has invoked closure on. As well, any discussion at the amendment stage and debate at third reading will be shut down within a few hours.

Before the government brings the sledgehammer down at the end of this afternoon, the reality is that this is an austerity budget brought forward at a time when we are experiencing economic slowdown. There were 72,000 full-time jobs lost in the month of October alone--this at a time when nearly two million Canadians are looking for work.

Over the last few years, we have seen a steady erosion in the quality of jobs available in the Canadian economy. We reference this point in the House continually. Conservatives can deny it, but Statistics Canada is very clear that the jobs the Conservatives lost paid more than the few jobs they managed to create.

The Conservative government created less than 200,000 jobs over the course of the last three and half years, since May 2008. This was at a time when the labour market grew because our population grew by 450,000. The government created barely 200,000 jobs, but lost 72,000 full-time jobs last month alone. The Conservatives were a quarter of a million jobs short even from just maintaining the level of employment that we had in the labour market back in May 2008. We have seen an erosion both in the quantity of jobs and in the quality of jobs. It is a doubleheader.

Also, the Conservatives like to make stuff up. They will throw out a figure from the back of a napkin and say that they have created hundreds of thousands of jobs. These arguments thrown out by the Prime Minister's Office, as happens so often, do not hold water. When we go to the actual Statistics Canada figures since May 2008, we see quite the contrary. Fewer than 200,000 jobs were created, but the labour market grew by 450,000. The employment percentage has gone down by 2% since May 2008. In terms of quality, the jobs created paid $10,000 less than the jobs the Conservatives have thrown away through what I can only call economic mismanagement.

That is the context of the budget, the 650 pages that the Conservative government does not want Canadians to know about. The context of Bill C-13 is that it is a time of economic slowdown.

The Governor of the Bank of Canada, the Parliamentary Budget Officer and many economists agree that we are in a slowdown. The Conservatives can deny the Statistics Canada figures for the month of October, but they have been disastrous. There is no other way to put it. For Conservatives to rise in this House and say that everything is fine and rosy and not to worry about a thing simply belies the reality that is happening on the ground and across this country.

What did the Conservatives then bring forward? They brought forward an austerity budget that, aside from a few small tax credits, will continue massive, significant and ongoing corporate tax cuts. What it means is that for middle-class and poorer Canadian families from coast to coast to coast is that there would be significant cutbacks in the services that they enjoy.

On the one hand, we are talking about billions of dollars in corporate tax cuts for this year, and then, on January 1, even more corporate tax cuts going forward. The Conservatives' only economic strategy is shovelling money out to what are very profitable industrial sectors, but for middle-class and poorer Canadian families, it is cutbacks in services, getting less and having less support. We can talk about a whole range of things, but the reality is that it is an austerity budget.

Was that appropriate last spring? I do not think so. The government promised that it would be listening to Canadians. It is profoundly inappropriate in the fall, as we go through a profound economic shutdown with the loss of tens of thousands of jobs, for the government to say, “That is quite all right; we're just going to continue and give more corporate tax-cut spending. We're going to spend another $4 billion on January 1, but we're not going to address the fundamentals underlying the Canadian economy”. Nothing in this budget does that.

What are the fundamentals? We have talked about the job loss. We have talked about the poor-quality jobs that the Conservative government has shepherded in to replace the better-quality jobs it lost. The government has lost family-sustaining jobs and replaced those with low-wage jobs, often part-time, often temporary, though we will never hear Conservatives rising and actually talking about the fact that most of the jobs they are creating are part-time or temporary. They try to put the temporary jobs in with permanent full-time jobs, and that way, on the back of a napkin, they try to mislead Canadians about what is actually happening. However, Canadians are aware of what is happening, because they see the economic slowdown occurring right across the country. They see the layoffs and they see the small businesses having to struggle now.

In British Columbia, one of the biggest problems that our small-business sector has had to contend with over the last few months was the HST imposed by the Conservative government on British Columbians. Thankfully, British Columbians rejected handily the HST in the summer referendum that we forced. We can be thankful for that, because the HST imposed by the Conservatives was just another nail in the coffin for the B.C. economy. As a long-time member of the New Westminster Chamber of Commerce and as a proud member of the Burnaby Board of Trade, I can tell members that this single action led to significant job loss in British Columbia.

The Conservatives' imposition of the HST should never be repeated; however, it is in the same context. They refused to consult with British Columbians in the same way that, on this budget bill, the Conservatives are refusing either to consult the opposition or even to consult Canadians on an austerity budget that is profoundly inappropriate.

What is the other context of what we are going through as a Canadian economy? Far from the pretensions we have heard in the few minutes of debate we have had thus far today on finance and budgetary matters, the IMF has actually said that Canada is among the worst among all industrialized economies--doing worse than Spain and Italy, the economies that are in trouble--for the current account deficit on balance of payments. As members well know, that deficit means that we are importing finished goods, job-creating goods, and exporting raw materials. In their so-called economic management, Conservatives have made a hallmark of shipping raw resources out of this country like there is no tomorrow. They would just ship them out and import finished goods.

Now our current account deficit on balance of payments, which is a key indicator of the health of the Canadian economy, is going to be among the worst in the industrialized world. It is because the government does not understand that shipping raw resources out and importing finished products, value-added products, means over time an erosion in the strength of the Canadian economy. It is worse than Spain and worse than Italy.

Not a single Conservative will address the issue, because they are scared about Canadians finding out the truth about their shipping out raw materials and what that has meant to the overall health of the Canadian economy. In this bill, nothing addresses that fundamental weakness. There is nothing that addresses the fundamental weakness of industrial sector after industrial sector.

I come from British Columbia, where the softwood lumber industry hemorrhaged tens of thousands of jobs after the government signed the softwood lumber agreement, which we have called the softwood lumber sellout. What that did was, again, give priority to the shipment of raw logs out of British Columbia and other regions right across the country. When we look at the forest industry generally, we see that raw log exports have increased substantially. That has happened because the government signed, yet again, an agreement that would facilitate the shipping out of our raw materials. What that means, again, is that our ongoing current account deficit is getting worse and worse.

When we look at the overall economic health of the Canadian economy on the eve of the government's invoking closure in just a few hours on Bill C-13, we see that we have hemorrhaged tens of thousands of jobs in the last few weeks, we have millions of Canadians looking for work and we have poorer quality of jobs. Every job the Conservatives lose, if they replace it, is replaced by one paying much less: almost $1,000 less a month, almost $10,000 less a year.

We have a crisis in exports. The Conservatives love to stand in this House and say that they signed a bunch of agreements and did some ribbon-cutting. That is not an export strategy. They have clearly failed. When we look at the current account deficit on balance of payments, we see that they have clearly failed, and failed worse than any other industrialized country.

Those are figures that tell the truth about what the government has done and what it has not done in dealing with the financial and economic challenges that the country faces.

What is in the bill, what we have, are austerity measures that are not in keeping with our current economic situation at all and that will hurt middle-class and poor Canadian families.

What we have includes the one big initiative that the government has not chosen to reference so far: the elimination of the democratic voting subsidy. As we all know, this per-vote subsidy was a tool in the hands of every single Canadian. They could choose the party that they voted for, and one dollar per vote would basically go to the party of their choice between elections. It is a very democratic, very pragmatic approach to democratizing our political system.

There are also a huge range of tax credits and supports that exist, and the Senate is used as a home of patronage. The Conservatives are not cutting any of those elements. What they are doing in this bill is bringing an end to the one element of political subsidies that actually is democratically distributed. The cost is $30 million, but the government is continuing with nearly $400 million in subsidies that mainly go to the Conservative Party. For shame.

I imagine that is why the government is invoking closure. It is because the only significant budgetary measure that it has is the elimination of the per-vote subsidy. There are a few measures that we support, but the significant one, the elimination of the per-vote subsidy, is another nail in the coffin of democracy under the Conservative government. That is why we are speaking against and voting against Bill C-13.

[Jay Aspin, Conservative, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-13 and sharing my time with the parliamentary secretary this morning.

It is a privilege to contribute to this debate and speak in support of Bill C-13, keeping Canada's economy and jobs growing act, which is the next phase of Canada's economic action plan. This bill will support Canada's economic recovery and promote job creation. It will support communities and invest in education and training. It will help Canadian families and respect their hard-earned tax dollars.

The bill is a low tax plan for jobs and economic growth. It is a continuation of the sensible fiscal policy that remains at the heart of our Conservative government's economic agenda. Our government is focused on what matters to Canadians, creating jobs and promoting economic growth.

While we see so much financial instability in governments around the world, Canada has become a leader on the international economic stage. We have the strongest job creation record in the G8. Close to 600,000 net new jobs have been created since July 2009. We have renewed our triple A credit rating, and according to the International Monetary Fund, the IMF, we will have the strongest economic growth in the G8 and G7 over the next two years. Forbes magazine has ranked Canada as the best country in the world to do business. I can assure the House, one of the most important things to the people of my riding is to be gainfully employed.

The Canadian economy is intimately connected with the economies of the world and we must remain aware of the fragile economic situation in Europe and the United States. We are not isolated from potential economic problems that remain outside our borders. That is why we must stay the course and implement the next phase of Canada's economic action plan.

Bill C-13 will promote Canadian job creation and economic growth. The hiring credit is precisely what small businesses have been calling for. The one time credit of up to $1,000 will be the catalyst for additional hiring, not only in my riding of Nipissing--Timiskaming but for small businesses throughout Canada.

Not only are we creating new jobs, we are enhancing programs to help businesses keep the workers currently employed through initiatives such as the work sharing program, the wage earner protection program, and the targeted initiative for older workers.

Small businesses are the engine of job creation in this country and our Conservative government is delivering results to them. Our Conservative government is also supporting the Canadian manufacturing sector. We are extending the accelerated capital cost allowance for two years, so that companies can write off investment in manufacturing and processing machinery and equipment. This will allow them to grow their businesses and to procure top of the line equipment that will bring them to the forefront of international technological innovation. In an era of economic uncertainty, this tax measure gives manufacturers the confidence to invest in their future.

Bill C-13 is also doing more to support local communities. We are putting into law a permanent annual investment of $2 billion in the gas tax fund in order to provide predictable long-term infrastructure funding for municipalities. This is something municipalities have been asking for year after year. They want to know they have the source of funding to do the many projects that are necessary to provide the infrastructure for continued economic growth. Making this investment permanent and annual will benefit the many towns and communities in my riding of Nipissing--Timiskaming and in the ridings from coast to coast to coast.

Our Conservative government is also enhancing the wage earner protection program, so that workers are covered and protected from employer bankruptcy and receivership. This is a program that has been very well received and utilized.

Our Conservative government also recognizes the economic benefits that come with investing in education and training. We are supporting universities, colleges, skilled trades and apprenticeship programs.

This legislation forgives student loans for new doctors and nurses in underserved rural and remote areas. A portion of the federal component of their Canada student loans, $40,000 for doctors and $20,000 for nurses, will be forgiven so that these doctors and nurses can practice and support the rural communities of our country that need them the most.

This will ensure that rural and remote communities, such as those in my riding of Nipissing—Timiskaming get the adequate medical services they deserve and require.

This is a plan that will support Canada's economic recovery and promote job creation. It is a plan that will support communities and invest in education and training. It is a plan that will help Canadian families and respect their hard-earned tax dollars.

This is a low tax plan for jobs and economic growth, and I support it.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

moved that Bill C-13, An Act to implement certain provisions of the 2011 budget as updated on June 6, 2011 and other measures, be read the third time and passed.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, as we have said before, our government's top priority is the economy. Despite global economic challenges, nearly 600,000 new jobs have been created in Canada, 90% of them full-time. Through Canada's economic action plan our government has put forward focused and effective policies that have promoted job creation and economic growth in all sectors of the economy. That has been reflected in this week's successful jobs and economic growth week.

Our government will continue to focus on delivering important measures for Canada's economy. Thus, next week we will be delivering results on jobs week, and anticipate passing the next phase of our low tax plan for jobs and growth next week.

Beginning tomorrow, we will move forward on report stage for Bill C-18, Marketing Freedom for Grain Farmers Act. This important bill provides economic choice to western Canadian farmers. I understand that the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre has a number of amendments on the notice paper, but keep in mind that getting this bill passed would give farmers predictability for next year's growing season, which is an objective. I am looking forward to a productive, efficient and civil debate on the legislation, which will finally deliver freedom to western Canadian grain farmers after seven decades.

We will continue debate on Bill C-18 next Wednesday. I am hoping that we will be debating the bill's third reading on Wednesday, if the debate tomorrow turns out to be productive and efficient. In the last election, we committed to moving forward with Canada's economic action plan, a low tax plan for jobs and growth. Canadians gave our Conservative government a majority mandate to implement our plan.

On Monday, we will have the final day of debate on Bill C-13, the Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act, our primary bill in job creation and economic prosperity week. Bill C-13 implements important measures from our budget such as the small business tax credit and the extension of the accelerated capital cost allowance to make our manufacturers more competitive.

On Tuesday morning, we will continue debate on Bill C-7, the Senate Reform Act. The bill has already been debated on three days, so I hope that following Tuesday's debate the opposition will allow members to vote on this bill that will allow the Senate to reach its full potential as an accountable and democratic institution.

On Tuesday afternoon, we will continue debate on the opposition's motion to block Bill C-11, the copyright modernization act. The bill is another of our priority economic bills that the opposition is trying to prevent coming to a vote through what it calls a reasoned amendment.

Bill C-11 would create modern copyright laws to protect and create jobs, promote innovation, and attract new investment to Canada. This will be the fourth day that the bill has been debated. The time has come for members to have the chance to vote on this important economic bill. However, if the opposition continues in its efforts to delay and block the bill, we will again debate it on Thursday.

As is always the case, we will give priority to other important bills that may be reported back by committees. I refer especially to Bill C-10, as I understand that the justice and human rights committee is working hard, even as we speak, to complete its clause-by-clause consideration of the bill later today, I hope.

Finally, the next allotted day will be on Friday, November 25.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to ask, for the first time as deputy House leader of the official opposition, the usual Thursday question.

To start, I would like to point out that, according to the second edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, the weekly statement is not supposed to serve as an opportunity to engage in negotiations or debate.

That is unfortunate, because just yesterday, the government saw fit to shut down debate on another bill, Bill C-13. I would very much have liked to remedy that situation by having a debate here in this House on the government's repeated undemocratic actions. However, I hesitate to do so because I do not want to be reprimanded by the Chair. So I will limit myself to saying that I believe that Canadians expect elected officials to debate the legislation before them and not to engage in procedural games.

Could the government House leader tell us and all Canadians what bills he is planning to subject to time allocation next week, other than the 644 pages of Bill C-13, and when the House will have its next supply day? Given the pattern of opposition days up to now, I think we can expect the next supply day on Thursday of next week, but please correct me if the government is changing its pattern for any reason.

Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour to rise in the House in support of Bill C-13, the keeping Canada's economy and jobs growing act.

It is also an honour to follow my friend from Richmond Hill, who so eloquently stated the reasons why the bill is so important for our country.

As the finance minister said early on in the introduction of the bill, our government is focused on what matters to Canadians: creating jobs and providing economic growth.

Canada has the strongest job growth in the G7, with nearly 600,000 net new jobs created since July 2009, and the IMF projects that we will have among the strongest economic growth in the G7 over the next two years.

As has been pointed out over and over again, we are not immune to global economic turbulence. That is why we need to stay the course and implement the next phase of Canada's economic action plan. Our government is focused on creating jobs and generating economic growth. Based on our economic performance compared with the rest of the world, it is truly working.

Our measures have been applauded by many in the private sector. For example, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business applauded the government's provision of a temporary hiring tax credit. Dan Kelly, the senior vice-president for the CFIB, said:

Since the 2011 budget announcement, many members have called about the credit and reported it will make it easier for them to hire, enhance wages or adjust to rising Employment Insurance premiums. ... This is a particularly important initiative as the government has declared 2011 as the Year of the Entrepreneur.

It is the entrepreneurs and the small business owners in this country who create the jobs this country needs.

The keeping Canada's economy and jobs growing act would help support Canada's economic recovery and would be promoting job creation and economic growth by implementing a whole host of measures like, as I pointed out a minute ago, providing a temporary hiring credit for small business and expanding tax support for clean energy generation to encourage green investments.

Coming from Manitoba as I do, I know that clean, green energy from Manitoba Hydro is very important to our economy, and this is what our government is supporting.

I was especially pleased to see the extension by one year of the mineral exploration tax credit for flow-through share investors to support Canada's mining sector. It is truly remarkable how the mining sector has come alive in Canada over the last decade and has become such an important contributor to our gross national product.

Indeed, that is why it is so shameful to see the NDP denigrating our country, denigrating the oil sands, when the oil sands are so important for our country and our economic growth. It is truly a shame that it is out to kill this most important enterprise. Having worked in the oil sands myself and lived in an oil sands camp, I have experienced first-hand the men and women of Canada who are working in the oil sands, providing for their families, saving for their children's education, and on and on. It is truly a remarkable Canadian achievement, and it is truly disgraceful to see the NDP doing whatever it can to kill this engine of economic growth.

We are also simplifying customs tariffs in order to facilitate trade. Canada is a trading nation. Trade is what supports our economy and, in turn, what supports the social programs that all Canadians need.

We are accelerating the capital cost allowance.

This is something I am kind of interested in. We are eliminating the mandatory retirement age for federally regulated employees in order to give older workers wishing to work the option of remaining in the workforce. That is something that many of us are clearly looking forward to.

In terms of supporting communities, our bill would legislate a permanent annual investment of $2 billion in the gas tax fund to provide predictable, long-term infrastructure funding for municipalities. I represent a remote rural constituency with many municipalities, and this fund that our government has doubled in the last few years is vital to the maintenance of important infrastructure for my communities.

We are enhancing the wage earner protection program.

Here is one that was especially well received in my constituency and indeed across the country. We are introducing a volunteer firefighters tax credit for volunteer firefighters. This is an example of how the government supports communities. Our volunteer firefighters give of their time. For many years they were the unsung heroes of many of our communities. We are so proud to have provided the volunteer firefighters tax credit, something they have requested for many years, which in a sure but small way recognizes the contributions they are making to our communities. That is what community is all about and what the government supports.

We will be increasing the ability of Canadians to give more confidently to legitimate charities.

With regard to the family caregiver tax credit, we are removing the limit on the amount of eligible expenses caregivers can claim under the medical expense tax credit.

We are introducing a new children's arts tax credit for programs associated with children's artistic, cultural, recreational and developmental activities.

This is truly an incredible list of what the government is doing. It includes forgiving loans for new doctors and nurses in underserved rural and remote areas. As a member of Parliament, like many of my colleagues I represent a remote rural constituency. Health care is very important. Providing incentives to new doctors and nurses to live and work in our beautiful rural communities will only help to strengthen them.

We will be helping apprentices and skilled trades and workers in regulated professions by making occupational trade and professional examination fees eligible for the tuition tax credit.

We will be improving federal financial assistance for students.

We are making it easier to allocate registered education savings plan assets among siblings without incurring tax penalties or forfeiting Canada education savings grants.

The phasing out of the direct subsidy of political parties is something I am pleased to see. As we listened to the members of the NDP early in the debate on this particular bill, I was astonished that all they focused on was this tax giveaway to political parties, which to their minds is a big deal. I guess free money is what they are all about, whereas the members of our party have worked hard. We have attracted donations from thousands of small donors and have built up a strong base of funding. We earned it. They want it for nothing. That is the difference between us and them. I am pleased to support the phasing out of the direct subsidy of political parties.

We will be closing numerous tax loopholes that allow a few businesses and individuals to avoid paying their fair share of tax.

In terms of Manitoba in particular, as all members in the House know, all politics is local. I am especially pleased with what Manitoba will see come out of the bill. There will be $5,000 in grants from the energy program for Manitoba families to make their homes more energy efficient; $840 in new annual financial support for needy Manitoba seniors; the new family caregivers tax credit; and, this is one that is especially important in my constituency although the point is somewhat moot now, the waiving of licence renewal fees for hunters and firearms owners. Thank goodness this will be a thing of the past once the bill is passed.

I thank the hardworking Minister of Public Safety, another Manitoba MP I might add, who is spearheading this particular initiative, along with the member for Portage—Lisgar.

In terms of agriculture, and I represent a very strong agricultural community, help for Manitoba farmers will be provided by the new $50 million agricultural innovation initiative. Our agriculture is only strengthened by research and innovation. That is why Canadian producers are among the most efficient in the world.

I could go on with the number of initiatives that are in our budget. I will say that this is a good budget for Canada and all of our citizens. It is our low tax plan for jobs and economic growth.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-13, the keeping Canada's economy and jobs growing act, a very important bill to residents in my riding of Richmond Hill and to all Canadians.

This bill builds on our government's commitment to continue the work over the last five years focusing on what matters most to Canadian families. It continues our long-term plan launched in 2006 to heighten Canada's advantages through a national economic road map that would truly make Canada a world economic leader and improve the quality of life for students, seniors, families and workers.

It is because of this government's prudent and visionary decisions since then that Canada has weathered the global economic turmoil of the last three years better than most other advanced countries. As we see the difficulties endured by so many other countries around the globe, we recognize that this strong, stable national majority Conservative government is acting swiftly to ensure that Canada's economy continues to grow and remain strong.

I would like to remind all hon. members in the House that before the global recession hit, our government paid down nearly $40 billion of the debt to bring Canada's debt level to its lowest level in 25 years. We were well on our way to more competitive taxation levels. This is why we were able to act promptly to stimulate our economy as the downturn in the global economy necessitated appropriate action.

I am proud that under the leadership of our Prime Minister Canada currently has the strongest job growth record and the lowest net debt to GDP ratio in the entire G7. Both the International Monetary Fund and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development anticipate Canada to lead the way in economic growth over the next few years. The reason for this enviable record is that this government's top priority has always been the economy with a focus on a long-term low tax plan to create jobs and growth.

Despite our strong domestic economy, we remain in a period of heightened global uncertainty. As has been mentioned many times in the House, Canada is not immune from global economic turbulence. This is precisely why Bill C-13, the next phase of Canada's economic action plan, is so essential for Canada's continued economic stability. Bill C-13 invests in key areas that support job creation. Our government's priority has always been Canadian families, emphasizing help for students, seniors, families and communities, while maintaining our fiscal advantage.

Bill C-13 contains strategic investments that will contribute to the long-term economic growth and prosperity for Canadians.

One might ask how Bill C-13 will create jobs and economic growth. For one, it recognizes that it is the private sector that drives growth and wealth creation. We know that small- and medium-size businesses have been leading the way in job creation over the last two years. This is very important in Richmond Hill where 98% of all businesses are small or medium size, with the vast majority of those having less than 20 employees. This is why we will continue to support entrepreneurs and job creators in Richmond Hill and right across the country with key initiatives in the next phase of Canada's economic action plan, Bill C-13. Let me highlight a few.

A temporary $1,000 hiring credit for small businesses will help up to 525,000 employers defray the costs of additional hiring. A two year extension of the accelerated capital cost allowance treatment for investments in manufacturing and processing machinery and equipment will support our manufacturers. The extension by 16 weeks of the work-sharing program will help employers going through a rough patch retain their employees and the skills they contribute to their businesses. A reduction in the increase of employment insurance premium rates in 2012 from 10¢ to 5¢ will stimulate job creation. Reducing unnecessary red tape through the continued work of the Red Tape Reduction Commission will allow entrepreneurs to focus on what they do best: growing their business and creating jobs.

Increased funding for the National Research Council's industrial research assistance program will support collaborative projects between colleges and businesses and will help strengthen our manufacturing sector by accelerating the adoption of information and communications technologies. Further reducing the corporate tax rate will make Canada very attractive as a place in which to invest and do business. In fact, Canada will have the lowest overall tax rates on new business investment in the G7, a fact of which I am very proud. Keeping taxes low allows our businesses to invest in their operations, creating much needed jobs for Canadians.

These are the very kinds of measures that will help small businesses like those in my riding of Richmond Hill. Nestled in the heart of the GTA, Richmond Hill is one of Canada's fastest growing and most diverse communities. It is a shining example of Canada's dynamic communities. Families, seniors, small- and medium-size businesses, organizations and the municipality find that the stability our government has infused into our economy is the key factor that has positioned us as world leaders throughout the global economic crisis.

This next phase of Canada's economic action plan, Bill C-13, continues to build on our strong economic policy with help for all Canadians and particularly for those who most need it, our seniors, our families and our communities.

For example, 680,000 low income seniors are benefiting from the enhancement to the guaranteed income supplement. Those who need it most are receiving an additional $600 per year if single, and $840 per year if a couple.

A new caregiver tax credit on up to $2,000 will financially help those looking after loved ones with infirmities including for the first time, spouses, common-law partners and children.

Homeowners are being helped with the extension until March 31, 2012 of the eco-energy home retrofit program. Some $400 million has been allocated across the country to help homeowners defray the costs of making their homes more energy efficient, an investment that at the same time is creating jobs and stimulating local economies.

A new children's arts tax credit on up to $500 in eligible fees assists families with the costs associated with arts, cultural and developmental activities for their children. Arts, cultural and educational activities are very important in Canada, especially in my riding of Richmond Hill. Last week I was at Cosmo Music highlighting this very measure which is in effect for the 2011 taxation year. Parents in Richmond Hill are very pleased to know this kind of assistance is available to them. They appreciate knowing the value and recognition our government places on these types of activities.

I am also very pleased that Bill C-13 makes permanent the annual gas tax funding for municipalities each and every year. People will remember that it was this government that doubled this investment from $1 billion to $2 billion. Permanent gas tax funds give our municipal partners stable, predictable funding that they can count on to assist with their infrastructure needs. This is very significant particularly in Richmond Hill. As an example, the town can now expect over $5 million each and every year and can incorporate this revenue into its budgetary process.

These and other measures in Bill C-13 continue to focus on what matters most in my riding and to all Canadians: creating jobs and promoting economic growth. We are maintaining our focus on the priorities set out in the next phase of Canada's economic action plan by supporting job creation and providing support for families, seniors and communities.

In closing, I call on all members in the House to support the important initiatives in this next phase of Canada's economic action plan that will continue on our nation's proven path of economic stability. I look forward to the passage of Bill C-13, the keeping Canada's economy and jobs growing act, and the benefits it will bring to all Canadians.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-13, An Act to implement certain provisions of the 2011 budget as updated on June 6, 2011 and other measures, as reported (without amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Bill C-13--Time Allocation Motion

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is surprising to listen to the government. We know that it goes to the trouble of sending our troops overseas to fight for democracy. Yet here in Canada, it sounds as though the Conservative government, which was elected on May 2, believes that Parliament should be shut down for the next four years.

There is no need for debate because Canadians told the Conservatives what they need and that they agree with the government. That is completely undemocratic. And this is not just about Bill C-13 and the budget; this is about all of the bills. The government does not want to listen to the opposition or to Canadians. What this government is doing is undemocratic. It had better think twice; otherwise, it does not believe in democracy or in the institution of Parliament.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in the statement made about the tax measures in Bill C-13, the Conservatives clearly seem to forget that their behaviour was underhanded. They deliberately transformed a budget bill into an omnibus bill containing items that must be discussed in a democracy.

They decided to make constitutional amendments by creating a Canadian securities commission when they do not have the right to do so under the Constitution. They also decided to include a major amendment to the legislation on political party financing in this bill. These are things that could have been the subject of much debate, but the government knowingly and deliberately made the decision to include these non-budget, non-monetary items in this bill. These two items do not pertain to any financial legislation and do not create any jobs. However, the Conservatives decided to disrupt everything, to include everything and to shut us up as quickly as possible. That is what they did. That is why there should be significant and structured discussion on these items.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That in relation to Bill C-13, An Act to implement certain provisions of the 2011 budget as updated on June 6, 2011 and other measures, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the report stage and one sitting day shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the said bill and, fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business on the day allotted to the consideration of the report stage and on the day allotted to the third reading stage of the bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of the order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the stage of the bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.

Bill C-13—Notice of time allocation motion

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, our government has remained steadfastly focused on improving Canada's economy, including our focus in the House this week during jobs and economic growth week. Today we are debating the keeping Canada's economy and jobs growing act. It would implement important measures of our government's low tax plan for jobs and growth, including the job creation tax incentive for small businesses and a tax credit for children's arts and dance lessons.

I must advise that an agreement has not been reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) concerning the proceedings at report stage and third reading of Bill C-13, An Act to implement certain provisions of the 2011 budget as updated on June 6, 2011 and other measures.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at those stages.

Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to speak to Bill C-13, which is part of phase two of our economic action plan that has many important elements in terms of moving our country forward.

It is really important that I first start with a brief history of our low tax plan for jobs and growth.

We presented a budget in March 2011 in the House. At that time, the opposition did not see fit to support that budget and triggered an unnecessary election. During our election campaign, we spoke to Canadians throughout the country and told them that we would reintroduce the same budget. It was part of our election platform.

It is important to recognize that this is a budget that had the support of Canadians across the country. We are following through on our commitment to Canadians, who returned us to the House with a strong, stable majority government.

In June of this year, we reintroduced our bill, Bill C-3, and before the House rose for the summer, we were able to implement very important measures, such as increasing the guaranteed income supplement for seniors. Now it is fall, there are many elements left and this is our opportunity to continue that very important work.

Members of the finance committee had the opportunity to look at the bill in great detail. As we all know, it is a very big bill and we went through it paragraph by paragraph, looking at all the different measures. Unfortunately, I do not have time to talk about all the great measures, but I would like to focus on and highlight some of the things that are incredibly important for Canadians.

The first thing I would like to highlight is the rural and remote riding forgiveness for student loans in terms of health care services. It is important to look at a statistic. According to the Society of Rural Physicians of Canada, 31.4% of Canada's population, or roughly nine million people, live in predominantly rural regions. Towns under 10,000 account for 22.2% of the population, but they only have 10% of the physicians. Right there we see a big problem. MPs and people who live in Toronto, Ottawa and larger settings recognize and often speak about the challenges in getting a family doctor and access to care. If we look at what is happening in rural communities, it is absolutely compounded many times over.

There have been historical challenges in terms of recruiting doctors and nurses to small areas. One situation we need to look at is if someone were in an accident in Ottawa, an ambulance would quickly come to take the person to a hospital, where there would be a team of doctors and an operating room waiting. Residents in Princeton, British Columbia, as one example, may receive a notice on Friday saying that there are no doctors available to be on call for emergencies on the weekend and if they have emergencies, they should drive three hours to the nearest hospital because the hospital cannot staff the emergency room. This is happening many times throughout our country and our government recognizes that things need to be done.

The other thing that was happening was the lack of physicians was pitting community against community, with each one sort of upping the ante in terms of enticing physicians to go there. This is an important measure that will level the playing field so a physician or nurse who chooses to go to Pemberton, Lillooet or any small community will have the same advantages. It is prevents communities from pitting one against the other.

The Canadian Medical Association indicated that roughly 900 doctors and 1,600 nurses who graduate annually are in debt to the Canada student loans program. It is estimated that the average medical student graduate with a debt load in the order of $100,000 will be eligible to have $8,000 per year written off their loans to a maximum of $40,000, while nurses and nurse practitioners will be eligible for a $4,000 per year writeoff to a maximum of $20,000 if they undertake a stint in a remote community.

During the election I had an opportunity to talk to nursing students in our local university and rural physicians. I asked them if this was an important measure. Without hesitation, every one of them said that doctors were enticed to come to their communities. They would love the community, the career, the opportunities and the beauty and believed that they would stay. They were thankful for this important measure.

It is important to note that this is only one of many measures. It really builds on the $39.5 million in funding to increase the number of residency physicians that we announced in February 2011. Again, I am not saying that one strategy is going to solve the problem, but there are many pieces that we are working on in partnership with the provinces and territories that ultimately have the responsibility.

Another important measure I would like to highlight is the mineral exploration tax credit. Exploration and development of Canada's rich mineral resources offers important investments and employment benefits in many parts of the country, especially in rural or remote regions. The temporary 15% mineral exploration tax credit is a measure designed to assist junior mining companies in raising new equity through the issuance of flow-through shares. This additional financing helps exploration companies to maintain or increase their level of exploration activities.

We invested in the METC through the global economic downturn as a way of supporting innovation and job creation in the mining sector. Following the extensions in Canada's economic action plan in budget 2010, the credit was scheduled to expire on March 31, 2011. In support of the economic recovery, budget 2011 extended the credit for an additional year.

It is important to note that in an average year METC investors collectively provide companies with $400 million in new financing to spend on grassroots exploration in Canada. This money has to be spent in Canada thereby ensuring that if a mine is discovered, the benefits and jobs associated will come to Canadians directly. Therefore, if even a single mine is discovered, the taxes are paid to all levels of government, and they are significant.

It is also important to note that the Mining Association of Canada reports that $8.4 billion was paid to the government by mining industries in 2011. Again, this is another important measure in terms of jobs and economic growth.

One thing I have certainly heard very clearly is the importance of the gas tax funding for our municipalities. Infrastructure has been an ongoing challenge for them. They often will have acute care needs in terms of water, sewer and roads, but they have to wait for a program to come available. Now they can count on the permanent $2 billion gas tax funding. Not only that, instead of just using it as a grant program, they can now leverage the funds. They know it is legislated and so they can count on it and leverage it. This is very important for our municipalities.

In quick summary, there are many measures in this budget. At the end of the day, we have been given a mandate by Canadians to move forward with the budget. It is important to support jobs and economic growth. I encourage the opposition to support the bill. Their constituents want them to support it.

[Wladyslaw Lizon, Conservative, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today to speak to Bill C-13, keeping Canada's economy and jobs growing act. Canadians gave our government a strong mandate to implement our low tax plan to help support job creation and economic growth, and we are doing exactly that.

Forbes ranked Canada number one in the world in its 2011 annual survey of the best countries for business, for our economic and personal freedoms, innovation and relatively low red tape. Canada has the strongest job growth in the G7 and the IMF expects Canada to continue to have the strongest growth in the G7 through the years 2011-12. We have the lowest government net debt to GDP ratio in the G7 by far.

The World Economic Forum rated our financial system as the soundest in the world. For the fourth consecutive year, our triple A credit rating has been renewed because of our economic resiliency, very high government financial strength, and low susceptibility to event risk.

Canada's economic record is admirable; however, we do recognize there is much work to be done to protect the fragile recovery and to help more Canadians return to work. That is why the next phase of Canada's economic action plan is so important. We must stay the course to protect Canadians from the turbulent economic uncertainties facing our friends and neighbours around the world.

Before the global recession hit, our Conservative government paid down nearly $40 billion of the debt, bringing Canada's debt to its lowest level in 25 years. Our fiscal responsible and aggressive debt reduction placed Canada in the best possible position to weather the global recession. When the global recession hit, we made a deliberate decision to run a temporary deficit to protect our economy and jobs, and all parties in Parliament agreed.

We will continue to be aggressive in our support of job creation. We will enhance or extend programs to help businesses keep workers, renew programs to help unemployed workers, introduce hiring credits for small businesses, support youth entrepreneurs, reduce red tape, and legislate permanent gas tax funding for municipalities.

Families will benefit from a new family caregiver tax credit, a new children's arts tax credit, and an enhanced medical expense tax credit. This builds on top of the action our government has taken to support families since 2006. Due to our strong record of tax relief, total savings for a typical family are over $3,000.

Our Conservative government values the contributions made by seniors who have made our country as great as it is. That is why the next phase of Canada's economic action plan introduces new measures to improve the quality of life and expand opportunities for Canadian seniors including extending the eco-energy home retrofit program, eliminating the mandatory retirement age for federally regulated employees, extending the targeted initiative for older workers, enhancing the new horizons for seniors program, and enhancing the GIS for eligible low income seniors who will receive additional annual benefits of up to $600 for single seniors and $840 for couples, helping more than 680,000 seniors across Canada.

We will keep taxes low for Canadian families. Our Conservative government believes in low taxes and leaving more money where it belongs, in the pockets of hard-working Canadian families and job creating businesses.

We have cut taxes over 120 times since 2006, reducing the overall tax burden to its lowest level in nearly 50 years.

We removed over one million low income families, individuals and seniors from the tax rolls.

The next phase of Canada's economic action plan continues with the government's commitment to support Canadian students. We all want students to succeed in the global economy with the help of the best education possible.

We are investing in education in the north, including $9 million to expand territorial colleges' literacy and numeracy programs, particularly in remote communities.

We are extending tax relief for skills certification exams and doubling the in-study income exemption.

To further support families and students, we are increasing the family income threshold for part-time Canada student loans and Canada student grant recipients, bringing the eligibility threshold in line with the threshold for full-time students.

The government will respect taxpayers and phase out the direct subsidy of political parties. We are closing numerous tax loopholes that allow a few businesses and individuals to avoid paying their fair share of tax.

There is considerable uncertainty surrounding the economic outlook. The key near-term risk is the sovereign debt and banking crisis in Europe. This government will continue to implement the next phase of Canada's economic action plan to support jobs and growth. We will continue to closely monitor the global and Canadian economic situation. If the economy weakens significantly, we are prepared to respond as necessary in a flexible and measured manner to support Canadian jobs and growth.

In meeting its commitment to return to budgetary balance, the government will not raise taxes or cut transfers to persons, including those for seniors, children and the unemployed, or transfers to other levels of government in support of health care and social services, equalization and gas tax transfers to municipalities.

Going forward, the government will maintain its focus on the priorities set out in the next phase of Canada's economic action plan by supporting job creation; supporting families and communities; investing in innovation, education and training; and preserving Canada's fiscal advantage.

Productive and sustainable investments in these key areas will continue to help lay the foundation for long-term economic growth and prosperity for all Canadians.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-13, Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act, because this may be the last opportunity I have to talk about the 2011 budget. I would like to take this opportunity to speak more broadly about the differences between the Conservative government’s approach and the New Democrats’ approach to the economy, which is partially addressed by this bill and has also been addressed in other budget implementation bills.

The difference in approach involves macroeconomics. On the Conservative side, in general, they applaud tax cuts, particularly the ones that benefit corporations. We think this approach is ineffective from the standpoint of investment. The reason given by the Conservatives when they promise these tax cuts may be reflected in the mantra they constantly repeat: that the NDP wants to raise taxes by $10 billion. I think the people at home should know that this simply means going back to the 2009 corporate tax rate. It does amount to nearly $10 billion. But that money is not being stolen from anyone’s pocket and is not just going to sit there and do nothing. It is for investing in infrastructure. That is the big difference between our approach and the Conservatives’.

There is at least one situation where corporate tax cuts are legitimate, and that is when a private enterprise needs cash in order to invest. In that case, a tax cut will, in fact, enable the corporation to free up the cash that is needed so it can invest and thus create jobs. However, we have to be very aware of what the present situation is. In 2001, Canadian corporations were sitting on $157 billion in cash. That $157 billion was lying dormant in the banks, in bank accounts, and not being invested.

That $157 billion, already a sizeable amount in 2001, grew to $477 billion in 2011. Nearly $500 billion is currently unused, sitting in accounts, and not being invested. Corporations may have various reasons for not investing. They are understandable. However, a tax cut like the one the Conservative government wants to push ahead with—a tax cut that would lower the tax rate to 15%—hands cash to companies that very often do not need it, because the cash they already have is not even being invested.

So when they say cutting taxes on corporations is going to create the jobs we need today and it is part of a grand economic action plan, that is entirely incorrect.

In the present situation, where the country has a major infrastructure deficit, it is crucial, in a real economic action plan—and I am not claiming that what the government is currently doing is a real economic action plan—that we look at what the needs are. In this case, we have an infrastructure deficit that is often estimated at over $500 billion. This is a problem we have to start solving before we move on to completely general measures that often miss their mark, precisely because they are general. These measures have to be targeted.

In 2001, the federal corporate tax rate was 28%. That is going to be reduced to 15%. When we went from 28% to 15%, we should note, that cut did not generate any improvement or increase in real investment. That is additional evidence that tax cuts do not necessarily produce an increase in investment or in the number of jobs.

It is worrisome to see the direction the government is choosing to take with its big economic action measure, which is in fact an ideological measure to cut taxes at all costs, because it believes that this is going to magically create jobs, even if it is not invested. It is funny how the government often laughs at the observations and suggestions made by the official opposition, which places more emphasis on infrastructure investments.

I would also like to point out, and this is a crucial point in the debate we are having, that even the Department of Finance, in the 2009-2010 budget, acknowledged the repercussions of various measures and acknowledged that the corporate tax cut was the least effective measure for creating jobs and economic growth.

For every $1 in corporate tax cuts, about 30¢ in economic growth is generated. However, if we take that same dollar and, instead of giving corporations a tax cut, we decide to invest it directly in infrastructure, we create $1.50 in economic growth for each dollar invested. If we take that dollar and we decide to help low-income families or the unemployed directly—and again this is the Department of Finance saying this, we get $1.60 in economic growth for each dollar invested.

We are talking about measures that are five times more effective than corporate taxes. Nonetheless, the Conservative government is running off in a direction that has us simply giving away $2 billion or $3 billion or $4 billion in tax room to companies that very often do not need that money because they have no opportunities to invest it.

I always find it odd when the government blames the opposition, any opposition party, because it does not vote for some micro-measure, even though it may often be very good for certain people or groups in our society. For example, we often talk about volunteer firefighters. These are interesting initiatives that we could conceivably support. However, we do not vote on a budget on a piecemeal basis, but on the document as a whole. And if we look at the whole budget, at the measures and the direction being taken by the government, we find that we cannot support that direction. This is why we oppose the budget. We do not oppose it because we are against volunteer firefighters—quite the contrary—or caregivers, or research and development initiatives. One must realize that, in the Conservative budget, these measures only account for a very small portion of the money invested and that portion is much less than the tax room given to large corporations which, again, will often not invest that money because they have not found any investment opportunities.

I remind hon. members—and we are not the only ones to think so—that there is a corollary to this. I am referring to the other direction that the government is taking, namely, massive spending cuts at a time of economic uncertainty. The last thing we need right now are measures that will reduce demand. Yet, these spending cuts—which are not necessarily included to improve efficiency but to take aim at what are often artificial targets—will result in lower demand, to the point where stimulus measures will be even less effective, assuming that some were. Currently, BMO Nesbitt Burns, the Conference Board of Canada and even the Bank of Canada are opposed to government spending cuts because of the decrease in demand that will follow. We must support demand in difficult times and we are going through difficult times. Generally speaking, Canada is doing well compared to other G7 members, but it should also behave appropriately when faced with risky situations. We should really look at how we can maximize economic performance in our country.

We are talking about infrastructure and I have one or two local examples. I have talked to voters, to organizations and to the 39 municipalities in my riding. There are glaring infrastructure needs. We have to move in that direction. For example, in Rimouski—Neigette, there are needs in terms of recreation centres and municipal complexes, including the Saint-Narcisse recreation centre. And yet there will be no infrastructure money for them. I am trying to find some right now. I am trying to persuade the government to move in that direction, but that is not the direction it wants to move in. There are roads that need rebuilding, for example in Témiscouata and Pohénégamook, in particular, not to mention upgrading water systems. For the tourism projects that are of crucial importance, upgrading is needed. In particular, the Trois-Pistoles—Les Escoumins ferry is at risk of ending up in permanent dry dock as we speak because there is no infrastructure investment for a major tourism project in one of the poorest RCMs in Quebec.

There are infrastructure projects. It is generally agreed that we have a major infrastructure deficit in Canada and we need to invest in that area. While the government is boasting about investing so much in infrastructure over the last two or three or four years, what must be recognized is that there would not have been so much investment if there had been no crisis. If we will recall, the government thought it was losing its grip on Parliament in 2009 and unilaterally prorogued it. Ultimately, it followed the opposition parties’ direction. That is really the direction we have to move in.

We have to stop adopting ineffective measures like overall corporate tax cuts. We have to look at what the economic and industrial needs are and think about fixing the infrastructure deficit. The federal government is in a position to work with the provinces and municipalities to do this.

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, because of my background, I am very interested in Bill C-13 regarding the partial forgiveness of student loans for doctors and nurses.

I would like to make a comment to the hon. member opposite. I listened closely to his speech. This measure is not sufficient to help doctors and nurses in rural areas. The criteria—including those that may prevent specialists from practising in rural areas—exclude a large number of people who are filling the positions we greatly need filled across the country. This measure does not really solve the problem of the shortage of doctors and nurses. It does not include any initiatives to increase registration in medical schools and nursing programs. It does not solve the current shortage of front-line medical professionals. It simply serves to move health care professionals from urban to rural areas.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the House today and speak to Bill C-13, the keeping Canada's economy and jobs growing act.

Thanks to the policies of our government, Canada continues to be an economic leader during a period of global economic uncertainty. We know that Canada is not immune to the economic storm that continues to rage across the globe. That is why our government is launching the next phase of Canada's economic action plan. We are taking action that will help Canadians through this period of economic uncertainty.

In the bill we are debating today, I will outline how our government is taking measures that will support families and communities, promote job creation and economic growth.

Our Conservative government believes in keeping families strong. We believe hard-working Canadians deserve to keep more of the money they earn. That is why, since 2006, the government has cut taxes over 120 times. As a result, the overall tax burden facing families is at its lowest level in nearly 50 years.

We have removed over one million Canadians from the tax rolls. We have increased the amount Canadians can earn tax free. We have reduced the GST from 7% to 6% to 5%, putting nearly $1,000 back in the pocket of an average family.

We introduced the universal child care benefit offering families more choice in child care by providing $1,200 per year for a child under the age of six. We introduced the child tax credit providing personal income tax relief of up to $320 in 2011 for each child under the age of 18. We introduced the children's fitness tax credit promoting physical fitness among children through a credit of up to $500 in eligible fees for programs associated with physical activity.

We brought in the landmark tax-free savings account, the most important personal savings vehicle since the RRSP. We eliminated the marriage penalty for one-earner families by increasing the spousal amount to the same level as the basic personal amount. We introduced a registered disability savings plan to help families of children with disabilities save for their child's future care.

For our seniors, we provided more than $2 billion in annual targeted tax relief through such measures as pension income splitting, increases in the age credit amount and a doubling of the pension credit amount.

In addition, families are benefiting from other new targeted measures like the first-time home buyers tax credit, the expanded home buyers plan and the public transit tax credit. Due to our strong record of tax relief, total savings for a typical Canadian family is over $3,000 since this government took office.

Bill C-13 includes several new measures that are designed to support families by leaving more money in their pockets. One of those measures is the family caregiver tax credit.

The family caregiver tax credit is a 15% non-refundable tax credit on an amount of $2,000 for caregivers of loved ones with infirmities, including for the first time spouses, common law partners and minor children. This proposal has received wide support from those who know the challenges faced by families that care for a loved one with a serious illness.

The Canadian Caregiver Coalition said:

—(CCC) applauds the Federal Budget....The announcement of a Family Caregiver Tax Credit demonstrates the federal government's commitment to families and the caregiving responsibilities that they assume....We are pleased to see the federal government recognizing and furthering the support for family caregivers by mitigating their financial burden through this program.

The Canadian Cancer Society said:

A new family caregiver tax credit announced in [Budget 2011]...is a good start in providing more support for all family caregivers.

We welcome the tax credit and other measures in the budget as a step in the right direction.

To further assist caregivers, the bill would remove the $10,000 limit on the amount of eligible expenses caregivers could claim on behalf of a financially dependent relative. Surely we can all agree in the House that families that care for a loved one are deserving of this tax relief.

In addition to supporting caregivers, we are supporting communities. As part of our economic action plan we partnered with communities and provinces to build the infrastructure needed to ensure long-term economic growth and prosperity.

In Bill C-13 we are legislating a permanent annual investment of $2 billion in the gas tax fund to provide predictable, long-term infrastructure funding for our municipalities. On this matter, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities said that budget 2011 “delivered a vital commitment to cities and communities to develop a new, long-term federal infrastructure plan”.

In the next phase of our economic action plan, we will continue our efforts to support our local communities, not just through infrastructure investments but through a number of other initiatives as well.

To help address the issue of a shortage of doctors and nurses working in rural and remote areas, Bill C-13 proposes that practising family physicians will be eligible for federal Canada student loan forgiveness of up to $8,000 per year to a maximum of $40,000. Nurse practitioners and nurses would be eligible for federal Canada student loan forgiveness of up to $4,000 per year to a maximum of $20,000.

I am pleased to report that these proposals have also received broad support. The Canadian Medical Association said:

The initiative to address the shortage of primary care physicians recognizes the particular challenges of providing health care in rural and remote areas of the country.

The Canadian Nurses Association added:

...Canada’s nurses are pleased to see nursing and medical student debt relief as well as tax relief for Canadians providing care for family members.

While Bill C-13 addresses the health of rural communities, it also contains important measures to keep our communities safe by recognizing the vital role volunteer firefighters play in serving our communities, often putting themselves at great risk for the safety of their neighbours. In fact, nearly 85,000 volunteer firefighters provide their services to protect the lives and property of Canadians living in urban and rural communities across Canada. In recognition of their brave service, Bill C-13 proposes a new 15% non-refundable volunteer firefighter tax credit on an amount of $3,000 for volunteer firefighters who perform at least 200 hours of service to their communities during a year. This builds on our government's action to ensure first responders receive the proper training to respond to emergencies involving hazardous materials. Unfortunately, both the Liberals and the NDP voted against this $1 million initiative that was contained in budget 2007.

I hope that this time opposition members will join with our government to provide the critical support for our volunteer firefighters provided in this bill. The Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs said:

The Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs (CAFC) strongly applauds the Conservative government's introduction of a $3,000 tax credit for volunteer firefighters in Budget 2011. This is a crucial measure to ensure the retention and recruitment of volunteer firefighters which will help keep Canadian communities safe.

Thanks to the policies of this government, Canada has avoided the worst of the global economic downturn. Although there remains a great deal of uncertainty in the global economy, the IMF is maintaining its positive outlook for Canada, thanks to our sound and stable economy along with the positive measures taken in the next phase of Canada's economic action plan. This is yet another example of Canada's global economic leadership, which includes nearly 600,000 net new jobs created since July 2009, the strongest job growth record in the G7; the World Economic Forum, for the fourth consecutive year, ranking Canada's banks as the soundest in the world; Forbes magazine ranking Canada as the best place in the world for businesses to grow and create jobs; the IMF and the OECD forecasting Canada's economy will be among the strongest in the G7 this year and next; and Fitch Ratings, Moody's and Standard & Poor's all giving Canada a triple-A credit rating.

Bill C-13 would provide support to Canadians who care for infirm family members. It would support our local communities by providing measures to bring doctors and nurses to rural communities. It would acknowledge the vital role volunteer firefighters play in keeping us safe. It also would support local infrastructure. These measures combined would build on Canada's economic leadership by ensuring more money stays in the pockets of hard-working Canadians and is spent on services that matter most to them.

We campaigned on the issues contained in Bill C-13 and we are keeping our campaign commitments. I am pleased to stand in this House and support this bill and I would encourage all hon. members to do the same.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague across the way for her speech. However, I would like her comments on a very serious situation that occurred in Quebec. In fact, many of the people who probably elected her are familiar with the Earl Jones case.

As Bill C-13 discusses a securities regulator and there are provinces that are on board to try to address this problem, I would like to hear what the member says to the victims of the Earl Jones case when Joey Davis of the Earl Jones victims committee said very clearly, “We support the idea of a single national regulatory body overseeing financial organizations”.

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to stand up for New Democrats’ ideals when it comes to the economy. With Bill C-13, the Conservatives have supported the NDP motion calling for immediate economic action. Unfortunately, however, this bill is very simply not enough.

A lot more has to be done to respond to the legitimate concerns that Canadian families have about the economy. The Canadian public wants to see real action taken to stimulate the economy, create jobs and combat the social inequalities we are facing. And today I would like to stress that last point, because, in my opinion, it is crucial to understand the economic benefits that are produced by a more equal society.

Income inequality is an important indicator of fairness in an economy and has repercussions on other areas, such as crime and social exclusion. A study done by the Conference Board of Canada shows that Canada ranks 12th out of 17 comparable countries when it comes to inequality. In other words, the income gap is wider in Canada than in 11 comparable countries. Although Canada’s wealth is distributed more equitably than in the United States, Canada’s 12th place ranking suggests that it is doing a mediocre job of guaranteeing income equality, according to the Conference Board.

A significant widening of the income gap occurred in Canada between 2000 and 2006. Canada is the only country in the Conference Board study whose relative score fell between the mid-1990s and the middle of the next decade because of its significant increase in income inequality. Statistics Canada recently released some income figures. Incomes from the 2006 census show an increase in inequality. That study was based on full-time workers’ median earnings between 1980 and 2005. The figures show that earnings grew by 16.4% for people with the top incomes, while they stagnated for people in the middle income group and fell by 20.6% for people in the bottom income group.

To summarize, from 1980 to 2005, earnings for the top group rose by 16.4%, while middle-income Canadians saw their incomes stagnate and earnings for the bottom group declined sharply. In the richest group of Canadians, the big winners were the super-rich, the top 1%. That increase is not attributable solely to wise investments; it also stems from the base salaries paid to bank presidents and corporate CEOs, which have exploded in recent years. So we should not be surprised to see that in recent weeks, income inequality has been in the media spotlight.

The Occupy Wall Street movement, for example, and the movements that followed it are a signal that the public is rejecting the income gap between the richest 1% and the other 99%. There is a widespread fear now being felt around the world that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. And that fear certainly does not seem to be unfounded. For example, a recent study by a professor at Berkeley found that income inequality in the United States is at an all-time high, even exceeding the levels observed during the Great Depression. The example he gives is that the top 10% of earners in 2007 accounted for nearly 50% of total income in the United States.

In contrast, Denmark and Sweden, which have the lowest levels of poverty among children and the working age population, are also undisputed leaders in terms of income equality. The relationship between social spending and poverty rates has become clearer over time. Thus, it is not surprising that these countries have strong traditions of redistributing wealth. They have been able to keep poverty rates down thanks to a universal welfare policy that has been effectively combined with job creation strategies that support gender equality and accessibility. That is the example the NDP would like to follow, because it appears that the model that this government insists on copying is producing extremely disappointing results.

According to the Conference Board, one reason for the growing inequality in Canada is globalization, which rewards highly qualified workers while leaving everyone else behind. This situation is also largely the result of the interaction between family factors and economic factors. The gap is widening considerably between families with two highly educated spouses and those that have only one breadwinner or those with no one who can work.

In addition, government transfer programs meant to address some of these inequalities are not as effective as they were 20 years ago. For instance, fewer workers are receiving employment insurance benefits, and social assistance rates do not always mimic the cost of living. To date, many of the tax breaks granted by this government have disproportionately benefited the wealthy, because they have not been applied based on income. They have instead centred mainly around lowering the GST and around tax credit programs.

Speaking of inequality, we must also address the issue of poverty in Canada. Once again according to the Conference Board of Canada, more than 12% of adult Canadians live in relative poverty. That is twice as high as the rates found in Denmark and Sweden. Canada ranks 15th out of 17 peer countries in terms of the working age poverty rate. Canada's working-age poverty rate increased from 9.4% in the mid-1990s to 12.2% in the mid-2000s.

While the NDP has been asking this government to rethink its plan to promote employment, a recent OECD report states that poverty rates are directly dependent on the ability of household members to be gainfully employed. The OECD concludes that the failure to tackle the poverty and exclusion facing millions of families and their children is not only socially reprehensible, but it will also weigh heavily on countries’ capacity to sustain economic growth in years to come.

The relationship between social spending and poverty rates is striking. Among working-age adults, the relative poverty rate is lower in countries with higher social spending.

Why so much talk about income inequality and poverty? Because there are direct links between inequality and a country's economic growth. It is reasonable for there to be a compromise between equality and effectiveness so that wealth redistribution does not impede productivity. A recent OECD study on income inequality notes:

A society in which income was distributed perfectly equally would not be a desirable place either. People who work harder, or are more talented than others, should have more income. What matters, in fact, is equality of opportunity, not equality of outcomes.

However, the idea that income inequality reduces the potential for growth is real. Income inequality undermines social cohesion, leading to social conflicts. A study done by Michael Forster highlights new research showing that a society should be concerned about income inequality. He says that a number of authors have produced evidence that poor income distribution could ultimately have a negative effect on economic growth through education, health and access to the labour market.

In a letter published in Le Devoir, Paul Bernard, a professor at the Université de Montréal, showed that social investment is a key to economic development. To support his position, he cited numerous studies that show that social spending does not operate to slow growth. In fact, it actually operates to provide everyone with the prerequisites that enable them to participate in the labour market in large numbers and on the best terms. This strong participation helps to increase the productivity of the economy and means that the taxes needed for maintaining those services can be raised intelligently.

In other words, economic development can be achieved through social investment, with the bonus of a healthy additional dose of social justice. So we have to look at combating income inequality not just as a matter of principle, but also as a practical contribution, what social development can and must do for economic development. Providing all Canadians with access to adequate health care services, a quality education and social and family services appropriate to their situation is what will ensure the long-term development of our economy. In other words, we have to redistribute wealth in order to create wealth.

So it seems there is an alternative to this government’s economic plan, which is an attempt to stimulate the economy by cutting social programs and the services provided to the public under the false pretext of contributing to economic growth and helping Canadians find jobs.

This plan does not do enough for the Canadian economy. We need a government that demonstrates leadership, today even more than in previous years. Canada is not immune to a new recession. That is why we cannot stop there. We have to be proactive and redistribute wealth in order to create wealth.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-13, An Act to implement certain provisions of the 2011 budget as updated on June 6, 2011 and other measures, as reported (without amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-13, particularly because it affects low income Canadians and fails to address health problems, including chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency and rare disorders.

Specifically, Bill C-13 deliberately excludes low income Canadians from programs such as the family caregiver tax credit. If people quit their job to take care of a sick loved one at home, they likely would not qualify for any benefits as the Conservatives have put in place a minimum threshold to qualify. I think it is unconscionable to deliberately exclude the very people who are most in need of help. It important to remember that one of Canadians' most deeply held values is fairness.

How then can Canada be one of the few developed countries without a national student nutrition program? Sadly, one in five Canadian children lives below the poverty line which may lead to poor nutritional status and poor child health outcomes. Canadian children from all income brackets are vulnerable to inadequate nutrition. Many children go to class hungry as 40% of elementary students and 62% of secondary school students do not eat a nutritious breakfast.

Hungry children cannot learn. Their learning capabilities are affected by how recently they have eaten. Malnutrition in early life can limit long-term intellectual development. Moreover, Canadian children and youth experience unprecedented rates of type 2 diabetes and obesity because they do not have the knowledge to make healthy food choices and do not have access to the healthy food they need for health and learning.

The Toronto Foundation for Student Success has more than 600 schools in Toronto, 142,000 children and youth, and 3,000 community volunteers with a total of 20,350,000 meals served annually. Toronto research has found that student nutrition programs reduce absenteeism, suspensions and expulsions by 50%; improve performance on standardized literacy and numeracy tests; dramatically impact credit accumulation in secondary school, which is a key indicator of graduation; create a sense of belonging and improve the morale of schools. Toronto research showed that the health impacts include: increased consumption of fruit, vegetables, whole grain foods, and healthy eating habits which prevents diabetes, high blood pressure and obesity.

Student nutrition programs are needed in aboriginal, remote and rural communities, and the same behavioural learning and health impacts are found in all communities.

Feeding Our Future showed that 78% of grade 10 students, who reported eating morning meals most days, were on track to complete their diploma, meaning they earned 15 or more credits versus 61% who went without food.

The Boston Consulting Group, BCG, has shown that on average each high school graduate contributes an extra $75,000 annually to the economy. If providing food at school increases graduation rates by just 3%, based on the BCG figures, a national school meal program implemented in Canada's high schools at a cost of just $1.25 a day would result in a net payback of more than $500 million annually.

Outside Canada school meals are viewed as an investment rather than a cost. Improving child and youth nutrition, health and social development feeds regional economic development.

For example, in Brazil food is a constitutional right. A massive national program feeds 47 million students at 190,000 schools each day. Access to nutritionally adequate and safe food is a right of every individual. Therefore, I think it is incumbent upon each of us to fight for a national school nutrition program for all of our children.

I would like to address a second item missing from the budget: funding for clinical trials for chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency, or CCSVI.

After much resistance, the federal government announced this summer that it would fund clinical trials for CCSVI. This was welcome news for Canadians with MS and for their families. However, this decision took far too long to arrive at, and, since the announcement, no plan has been provided describing how the government plans to establish these trials.

I want to be very clear: right now, all we have is announcements; what we need is action. Canadians with MS cannot afford to wait, as any delay possibly means more damage.

Mr. Speaker, 30%-50% of MS patients who are untreated worsen by one EDSS score in one year, and 50% with relapsing-remitting MS later develop a progressive form of the disease for which there are no drugs. The reality is that one month can mean the difference between walking and not walking, or between living independently and living in care.

CIHR has recommended a phase I/II clinical trial, which is usually undertaken to assess safety. However, angioplasty is an accepted standard of care practice and routinely used for many conditions. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has accepted the basic safety information for angioplasty, since it has already approved three double-blind phase II clinical trials, which are already being conducted in the United States. There is no need for a phase I trial in Canada. It will waste time and money and would provide nothing beyond what is already known worldwide about this procedure.

What is needed is an adaptive phase II/III trial, which would permit a rapid and seamless transition from the phase II trial--subject, of course, to interim assessments of safety and efficacy--to a full phase III trial. This approach would still address all the regulatory requirements and answer all the key safety and efficacy questions, but it would also save time and cost.

Moreover, we need experts who are actively engaged in diagnosis and treatment of CCSVI on the CIHR's expert working group.

I would like to address a third omission from the budget.

Some 2.7 million Canadians are affected by rare disorders such as cystic fibrosis, sickle cell disease and thalassemia. Most rare disorders are difficult to diagnose and are chronic, degenerative, progressive and life-threatening.

Families who face rare disorders lack access to scientific knowledge of their disease and to quality health care. They face difficulties and inequities in accessing treatment and care.

Canada is one of the only developed countries without a policy for rare disorders. As a result, Canadian patients are frequently excluded from many clinical trials and often have delayed access to treatment. Moreover, Canadian patients cannot always access drugs available to patients elsewhere. Only a fraction of the drugs approved in Europe and the U.S. are brought to Canada. Going forward, let us all commit to working together to develop a national policy for rare disorders.

I wish there were more time. I wish there were time to address the cuts that have decimated Environment Canada, particularly its adaptation group. Eight were fired in June, and twelve of 17 have received workforce adjustment letters. Many of these scientists share part of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for climate change.

Adaptation science is the bridge between climate predictions and practical applications. Why, then, would the minister cut climate impact and adaptation scientists? Does he really think an investment of $149 million will truly counter the problem? When will the Minister of the Environment restore activities in the Environment Canada adaptation group so that the economic well-being, health and safety of Canadians will be protected?

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Minister of State (Transport)]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to discuss Bill C-13 and point out that it clearly illustrates how the government is keeping its promise to Canadians.

As we all know, Canadians have weathered some difficult economic times over the last several years. The government has taken unprecedented action to help them through this challenging world environment. Indeed, we are seeing reassuring signs throughout the economy, though the international economy is still fragile.

The next phase of Canada's economic action plan builds on the government's record by announcing new measures for families and additional support for communities. This includes encouraging hiring by providing a temporary hiring credit for small business of up to $1,000 against a small firm's increase in its 2011 EI premiums, or those paid in 2010. The plan also includes an extension of active or recently terminated work-sharing agreements by up to 16 weeks so companies can avoid layoffs by offering EI benefits to workers willing to work a reduced work week while their company recovers.

Our government is focused on supporting Canadian families with a range of targeted measures that will help Canadians find and hold on to good, high paying jobs, while improving the quality of the lives of Canadians in big and small communities across the country.

Other areas that we are working on include assistance for remote communities that often lack the same level of services as larger centres. Our government is taking measures to address this unfortunate reality. For example, we propose to strengthen the health care in rural communities by supporting family physicians, nurse practitioners and nurses who make the choice to practise in underserved or remote communities. Today's bill proposes to forgive a portion of the federal share of the Canada student loans for new family physicians, nurse practitioners and nurses who practise in underserved rural or remote communities, including communities that provide health services to first nations and Inuit populations.

Starting in 2012-13, practising family physicians will be eligible for federal Canada student loan forgiveness of up to $8,000 per year to a maximum of $40,000. Nurse practitioners and nurses will be eligible for federal Canada student loan forgiveness of up to $4,000 per year to a maximum of $20,000. By bringing doctors and nurses into our rural communities, we are helping all Canadians access essential health services no matter where they live.

The other part of the action plan deals with firefighters. The next phase of Canada's economic action plan recognizes the invaluable contribution that volunteer firefighters make every day to the safety and security of their communities. Specifically, Bill C-13 proposes a volunteer firefighter tax credit, a non-refundable tax credit on an amount of $3,000, for volunteer firefighters who perform at least 200 hours of service in their communities during the year. This credit will provide up to $450 in tax relief to eligible firefighters who volunteer in this often thankless task. Eligible volunteer firefighters who currently receive honorariums in respect to their duties as a firefighter will be able to choose between the new tax credit or existing tax exemptions of up to $1,000 for the honorarium.

The president of the Canadian Volunteer Fire Services Association, Martin Bell, called the tax credit “wonderful news” and said that the tax credit would contribute significantly to the capacity of volunteer fire departments to protect lives and property.

Budget 2011 also keeps our commitments for the future of the gas tax fund.

In 2007 we extended the gas tax fund by four years, delivering $11.8 billion in gas tax funding from 2007 to 2014 for infrastructure in cities and communities.

In 2008 we committed to making the gas tax fund permanent.

In 2009 we doubled the gas tax fund to $2 billion a year.

In 2010, despite challenging economic circumstances, we pledged to protect the gas tax fund.

In 2011, this legislation, Bill C-13, contains a permanent annual investment of $2 billion in municipal infrastructure through the gas tax fund.

The gas tax fund provides predictable, long-term infrastructure funding for municipalities, allowing them to better protect their future infrastructure investments.

Given the current environment, the number one issue for this government is to get people back to work which will help grow our economy.

Temporary measures in support of the economic recovery were included in the economic action plan to reinforce the substantial support the government already provides to job creators. The measures in this bill will build on that momentum, laying the foundation for long-term prosperity by encouraging business investments that are necessary to sustain economic growth. This includes extending the accelerated capital cost allowance treatment for investments, manufacturing, and processing machinery and equipment for two years to support the manufacturing and processing sector.

As members are aware, providing support for families and communities helps to ensure Canadians benefit from the opportunities and wealth that long-term growth creates no matter where they live.

The government is showing its commitment to help families and communities. It has stood up for all Canadians to help ensure that their needs are addressed through a wide variety of tax reliefs and targeted investments.

Canadians should be proud of how the government has responded to these challenges today. We are far better off today than we were even a few years ago, and we are well-positioned to deal with the issues that are ahead.

Canadians need the skills to participate fully in society and to secure Canada's position as a leader in the global economy. Further action is required and we are taking that action.

Canada is the best country in the world to live. We are living at the best time in human history. We are doing far better than most in the world. The government will ensure that in the future we remain the best country to live. A strong economy is key to that and to the quality of life for Canadians to ensure that every Canadian can reach their full potential as human beings.

May God keep our land glorious and free.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak against Bill C-13, An Act to implement certain provisions of the 2011 budget as updated on June 6, 2011 and other measures.

This bill does not give us what we need. When the Standing Committee on Finance travelled and heard from witnesses, we saw that this bill is out of touch with reality.

For example, last month, we lost 72,000 jobs. The government continues to say that everything is fine.

This bill came out a long time ago. It does not take into account everything that is going on now. It does not take into account that 1,400,000 people are currently unemployed. If we include people who are discouraged and who have stopped looking for work, that number is nearly 2 million. That is huge.

Yet the government says that everything is fine, that it is carrying on as planned and that it will not make any changes to what it put forward, even though some economists have suggested investing in infrastructure and helping seniors by increasing their pensions. The government is still doing none of that.

Last summer the youth unemployment rate was 17.2%. That is much higher than before the recession, when it was 14%.

Once again, the government is not really looking at the numbers or at reality. It is completely out of touch with reality and with the people. And that is what we are seeing with those who are outraged as well as with the Occupy Montreal and Occupy Ottawa movements. People do not understand why this government is not listening to them. They protest, yet the government is still not listening.

And when it comes to household debt, for every dollar earned, a person owes $1.49. That is a ratio of 150%. How can the average family find a way out?

And what is the government's solution? It lowers taxes on big business. We have seen that lowering taxes on big business does not help those without an income.

Instead of moving in that direction, the government should listen to certain economists and even the Conference Board of Canada, who are saying that the gap between rich and poor is growing. And we have seen it.

Quebec's consumer protection bureau is also saying that lowering taxes on big business is contributing to this wealth gap. The government is sticking its head in the sand and refusing to budge.

If we look at the OECD figures, economic growth over the past 20 years has benefited the rich more than the poor. Bill C-13 is inadequate.

We want leadership and a vision for the economy. Why not invest in a green economy that is geared toward the future?

We can offer projects and research and development programs that could help Canada get ready for the future, for an economy that will not only bring us wealth and economic growth, but also provide wealth for our children and protect the environment.

The government has nothing for that.

We want concrete results.

To get back to the bill and the amendments we are proposing, the government tends not to want to debate or discuss the issues. We see that in the case of Bill C-10, and as far as Bill C-13 is concerned, everything is mixed together. All sorts of things are combined and we are told to just deal with it.

I sit on the Standing Committee on Finance, and we got an explanation for Bill C-13 while we were on a pre-budget tour. This illustrates the government's bad faith.

In this bill, one part addresses the $2 per vote subsidy.

Part 18 of the bill would amend the Canada Elections Act to phase out quarterly allowances to registered parties.

At a time when the government is completely out of touch with reality and people no longer trust certain politicians—especially on the other side of the House—the government is now eliminating a tool linked to the fact that people vote. It is an important tool. The reason why we are in the House today is because people voted for us. If we do not belong to a big political party, or if we have ideas but not the financial backing, things can be very difficult. We know that those on the other side of the House who stand for election already have a great deal of money because they are in government. They have their friends. There is a lot of payback.

The reason for the $2 per vote allowance was to prevent big business from funding election campaigns. It was to create a separation and give a voice to the people. This government is doing the opposite.

The $2 per vote allowance is an important equalizer that gives all parties, regardless of their presence in Parliament, a fair chance at equal participation in a general election and campaign. It is also a tool that rolls back the power of big money in influencing the outcome of elections and the policy agenda. It reflects also the support of voters and increases their motivation to vote. What we are doing right now is going against that. It rewards parties for convincing people to vote for them, therefore ensuring that parties have a message that is meaningful to all voters. It is also a way of facilitating a campaign donation.

The government says that if people have money and believe in the party, then give money to that party. Not everyone has money, but everyone has a right to vote and their vote should count. If people are poor or unable to pay their bills at the end of the month, they do not think of sending contributions to a political party. However, if they go out and vote and they know their vote helps the party, even though it does not win, even though it is not in government or even not sitting in the House, at least people feel it is something they have done and it helps someone else, without having to take the money out of their wallet, if they do not have any, and having to help the party.

Again, the Conservatives are successful in raising money because they are in government, so it is helping their friends and their friends helping them. That is why there is a policy right now. With this budget, the Conservatives are helping the big corporations, which are already profitable, by giving big corporate tax cuts.

There is a lack of understanding of what is happening with the population. There is a disconnect between the government and the population. For people who want their voice to be heard, the government is shutting them down and telling them their vote does not really count.

One thing is really disturbing. I stood for election in 2008. People told me that they voted for me. It was important to them that their vote count. It was also important to them that this advance democracy in some way. Now, this government is making us take a step backward.

With the votes that I garnered I was able to continue. It helped my party and moved things forward. This bill is anti-democratic for people with new ideas who do not yet have a party. This government's bill is a setback for democracy. For that reason, I will be voting against the bill.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-13, An Act to implement certain provisions of the 2011 budget as updated on June 6, 2011 and other measures, as reported without amendment from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Motions in Amendment

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in the House at this time to speak in support of Bill C-13, Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act.

Canada has weathered the global recession better than most other industrialized countries. We are the only G7 country to have more than recovered all of the output and all of the jobs lost during the recession. In fact, Canada has posted by far the strongest growth in employment among G7 countries during the recovery. This is in no small measure due to the stellar and diligent work of our Minister of Finance and the extraordinary measures in Canada's economic action plan, which is a road map to improve the well-being of all Canadians over the long run by securing the recovery, eliminating the deficit, and investing in the drivers of long-term economic growth.

The Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and this government have made protecting Canadian jobs and the economy the top priority. In fact, 600,000 more Canadians are working today than when the recession ended, and nine out of ten of those jobs are full-time positions.

Our government's plan is to strengthen and secure Canada's economic and financial fundamentals. That is why the government has responded to critical situations with flexibility and pragmatism. Its response is designed to keep our economy secure and resilient.

The government, unlike the official opposition, is not bound by ideological dogma, and unlike the third party, by political expediency and opportunism. That is why Canada is held up as a shining example of stability and prudence in an ocean of instability. Doug Porter, deputy chief economist at BMO, said during his appearance at the finance committee in August:

I would say that compared to policy-making in the rest of the world, Canada's economic policy-making has been exemplary. I don't think there's been a significant misstep in recent years.

That is why the global leadership that Canada has displayed since day one of the economic crisis has earned Canada the praise of a number of the world's respected organizations and institutions.

For instance, Canada's banking system has been deemed the world's best for four years running now by the World Economic Forum. The World Bank also said that Canada is the easiest place to start a business in the G7. Forbes magazine recently ranked Canada as the best country to do business in. The international credit rating agencies, such as Moody's, Fitch and Standard and Poor's, have all renewed Canada's AAA credit rating. The G20 young entrepreneur summit recently said that Canada is a start-up paradise, an entrepreneurial hotbed of business confidence. The IMF has also praised Canada's deficit reduction plan and has said that Canada is one of two countries that will have the fastest economic growth in the G7 this year and next.

It does not stop there. There is more. The Economic Intelligence Unit says Canada is the best country among the G7 to do business in and will continue to be over the next five years.

The finance committee, of which I am a member, recently concluded its pre-budget consultations. We met with dozens of individuals, associations, businesses, and organizations, both here in Ottawa and around the country. We also received over 600 written submissions.

The overwhelming consensus from our hearings was support for our government's plan. For instance, the Canadian Home Builders' Association stated that:

Today's budget provides a responsible transition from stimulus spending towards creating the conditions that will renew private sector demand and job creation.

Regarding the budget, the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants stated that:

...it strikes the right balance by keeping Canada competitive and demonstrating prudent fiscal management.

All these results do not just fall from the sky. As the Minister of Finance recently stated:

Countries, just like individuals, do not stumble into prosperity. They set out a plan and stick to it, so that they are fully capable of seizing opportunity when misfortune hits, instead of merely being overwhelmed by it.

The government has followed a low-tax plan that has successfully branded Canada as a low-business-tax jurisdiction. Our government paid down substantial amounts of debt before the economic crisis even arrived. By doing so, our government has been successful in keeping net debt to GDP ratio well below G7 counterparts at 34%, while at the same time other countries were piling vast amounts of additional debt onto existing debt.

Under the leadership of our Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, Canada chose not to go down the road of ruin by recklessly taxing and spending, the path the opposition would have us take. Our government chose rather to support Canadian families by creating jobs, and the average family has over $3,000 in tax reductions.

Our government's top priority is the economy. Although Canada's economy is outperforming other advanced industrialized countries, Canada is not immune from the impact of events that originate beyond our shores. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have always been very clear about this fact.

Therefore, with the global economy still fragile due to the European sovereign debt and banking crisis, the Minister of Finance announced last week that the government will be reducing the maximum potential increase in next year's EI premium from 10¢ to 5¢ per $100 of insurable earnings. This measure will leave over $600 million in the hands of Canadian businesses and workers and their families.

In response to this measure, Dan Kelly, senior vice-president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, said:

It is clear Finance Minister Flaherty has heard the concerns of Canada's entrepreneurs by taking action to lower the planned EI hike.

The CFIB press release also stated:

This move will reduce the burden of business and leave more money in the pockets of their employees.

To continue to support jobs and growth, the Minister of Finance also announced an additional extension of the successful work-sharing program, which has already benefited some 300,000 workers.

Other measures designed to create jobs and growth included rebuilding the fleets of the Royal Canadian Navy and Canadian Coast Guard, which will create long-term jobs and generate significant economic benefits in shipbuilding and related industries across Canada.

Also announced was the investment of additional funds to modernize and expand the capacity of priority border facilities across Canada.

The Minister of Finance also announced that our government is on track to eliminate the deficit in a balanced and responsible way. We will balance in 2015. This is due to the ongoing financial crisis in Europe and the uncertainty in the United States.

The Minister of Finance once again demonstrated that our government's top priority is the economy. We will do this through our low-tax plan to create jobs and growth in a way that is both flexible and pragmatic.

In support of this move, the Honourable Perrin Beatty, president and CEO of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, said:

While we understand that the slower economic growth will delay Canada's ability to return to balanced budgets, we agree with the Minister that the government should not be adding to the deficit by increasing spending at this time.

Budget 2011 will preserve Canada's advantage in the global economy. It will strengthen the financial security of Canadian workers. It will give more income security to seniors and families and will provide stability during a fragile and uncertain global recovery.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are told that the budget measures in Bill C-13 will make life better for families.

I would like to know what my hon. colleague thinks of the cuts affecting children that have been made by the Conservative government over the past few weeks. Social services and community organizations are sounding the alarm because the government is taking child tax benefits away from the most vulnerable families. To verify whether these measures are justified, they are being asked to fill out a six-page questionnaire. Then it takes time to assess the questionnaire, while families are being deprived of money to pay the rent. This is cruel. What should we be doing instead to help them?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the chamber to speak to Bill C-13 and participate in the debate.

I will start with the caregivers tax credit and point out some of the problems with this overall government agenda and strategy. The government often announces programs. That was done well by the Mike Harris Ontario government when it had one dump truck full of $1 million in cash and would literally move that from community to community announcing program after program and service after service. However, nobody could really access it. Nobody could really get the necessary support that the government was promoting in the programs.

We have seen that with the current government and with previous governments where there would be billions of dollars in slippage or money that never actually went out the door because the mandates and the criteria for those incentives did not work well with either the taxpayers, citizens in general or with the businesses the government was trying to support in terms of new programs and services.

This tax credit for caregivers is another one. It is something I am fairly familiar with. I worked for the Association for Persons with Physical Disabilities for five years and with Community Living Mississauga for about three years helping people who needed assistance and caregiving. These people did not qualify for unemployment, did not have proper medical support and would not be able to take advantage of a tax credit. That is an important issue that we need to acknowledge. The tax credit that is being proposed would literally be dangled in front of some Canadians but would not be available for others. It is building inequality.

We have a middle-class that is shrinking. All of the evidence supports that, especially given what we have gone through with the recent economic recession and what is happening in the global economy. This would create a separate class of people who have access to caregivers, leaving the rest behind because they are too poor. How is that fair? How does that stand in a budget for a country that is supposed to be known for social justice, humanity and not leaving people behind? How does it even get to the point where the Conservatives are getting up here proudly celebrating the fact that some Canadians will get the support they need?

I can the House that support is critical. We are talking about people being able to have a bath, have their homes cleaned and live in better and humane conditions. These are critical elements. I have done that work myself. We are talking about people who need assistance right now to improve their quality of life but will not get it because they do not have enough money, are not rich enough or do not make enough.

How is it possible that members can stand in the chamber to support a program like that? I do not understand that logic. I cannot see through it. I cannot see how the Conservatives can brag about segregating people who have physical and mental impairments or disabilities into classes of those who will get that service and those who will not.

I thought we were supposed to be helping the people who are worse off in this country. I think about the people I served who, at that time, were put into institutions. After being institutionalized, they were released between the ages of 30 and 40 and were left to the wind because there was not enough support. They had never worked before and never had the opportunity to be part of the community. If they were lucky, they got into programs like mine and, if we were lucky, we would be able to get them a job and train them. We would go on site.

A lot of measures are required to ensure that people who have physical or psychological impairments can re-enter or enter the workforce. A lot of training has to happen. There are front-line support workers. It took a lot of effort. It would often require a government program with significant resources but at the end of the day it was worth it. We proved that for every dollar the government put into our program we saved it $3 in welfare.

When those people came through the door, we did not look at their income bracket to determine whether they could get support. We did not tell them that they were too impoverished and that, although they needed the service, we would give it to someone else who could afford it because he or she could get a tax break.

How is that fair? What some of these caregivers can do is prevent people from going to a hospital. They can help people get structure around their life so they can work part-time. It is all important and it is all related.

How can people go for an interview or be involved in their community if basic hygiene is a problem for them. They may have a problem physically or they have a problem doing that work in their house? Their apartment or house or wherever they live can create an impediment for them going out into the community.

What we are saying with this tax credit is that those Canadians who have the biggest insurmountable elements in their life will be left behind. They will not get that assistance. Their neighbour might, if their neighbour has enough money or makes enough money. We know from the evidence that most people in Canadian society will not be able to take advantage of this tax credit.

I have a hard time understanding the logic in this. How can anyone actually get up and proudly say that this will be separated to ensure Canadians have two options: one, nothing; and two, others will get their tax credit back and they will get assistance.

I think the philosophy that the government has adopted about winners and losers has really turned Canada upside down. It is picking winners and losers right now. That is what it is doing with the Wheat Board and with other issues. It is very divisive, which is unfortunate.

We need to start looking at why we cannot afford this tax credit for all Canadians. The government is making some poor choices, between prisons and planes. It is important to talk about some of the choices with regard to tax cuts that are taking place right now.

Since we are in a fiscal deficit, we have been borrowing money from ourselves to pay interest on tax cuts largely for profitable corporations. It is not for the ones that are value-added and have been struggling during this process, like the manufacturing sector in my home town. It has been struggling but it does not benefit from a tax cut because it is not making a profit.

What ends up happening is that the oil and gas industry benefits and the pharmaceutical companies benefit. All the companies, ironically, that are doing extremely well right now are also getting massive subsidies. Those companies get them for fossil fuels. They get fuel subsidies and they will continue to get them.

The interesting thing is that we are not even talking corporate tax reductions. We are talking about some of what the oil and gas industry gets in terms of subsidies. I would ask members to listen to a few of these: the flow-through share subsidy, the Canadian exploration expense subsidy, the Canadian developmental expense subsidy and the Canadian oil and gas property expense subsidy. All those together add up to $1.256 billion in lost tax revenue since 2008 alone.

We are still paying for those subsidies because we actually borrowed money. It is just like the HST. To bring in the HST, the government had to borrow $6 billion and now it has a debacle going on with British Columbia in this regard. We had Library of Parliament analyze the borrowing costs of the HST. The HST will cost the government, if it pays it over a 10 year cycle at the average interest rate, anywhere between $6 billion to $8 billion. We will pay those costs.

I again want to emphasize that a budget does not need to be about winners and losers, which is what this is right here. Some people will do really well and others will not. That is not the Canada I want.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not have the actual figures at my fingertips and I am not going to make them up like so often happens in this place.

What I can say is that there is no government in recent history that has invested more in Canada's social housing stock than this government. In fact, in the Waterloo region, my own region, there have been incredible investments. We work with community partners that come to the table with a great objective, a great idea, and they partner with the Canadian government, the Ontario government, and, in our case, the Waterloo regional government to create amazing projects.

More importantly, there are other more foundational changes that this document, Bill C-13, would implement that all of our members should be supporting when it comes to allowing students to earn money. Students do not just want handouts. They want to be able to earn money and not have it clawed back off of their student loans.

This budget would implement that. I cannot understand why members on that side stand and vote against these great initiatives.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise today on behalf of the constituents of Kitchener—Conestoga in favour of Bill C-13, the keeping Canada's economy and jobs growing act. I rise today proud of our government's record, the best fiscal record in the industrialized world.

I rise today recognizing the accomplishment as even more significant when we examine the state of our largest market to the south and I rise today in recognition that these challenges confront us still, that the global economic uncertainty which inspired Canada's economic action plan remains with us today.

Government does not create jobs, but government can create and foster an environment in which jobs are created. We cannot force businesses to conduct research or invest in their own competitiveness, but we can encourage innovation. Canada's federal government cannot fix the world's economy, but we can ensure that we are poised to seize on the best opportunities as the world recovers.

However, we also have responsibilities beyond today's economy. Members of the House must ensure that a stronger country is left for our children, not only a stronger economy. It is with these thoughts in mind that I stand in favour of the keeping Canada's economy and jobs growing act.

Before budget 2011, this Conservative government had already cut taxes over 120 times. Over one million lower income Canadians were removed from the tax rolls altogether by this government, 85,000 of them seniors. We introduced tax free savings accounts which offer lower and moderate income earners the ability to save their hard-earned money without the disincentive of taxation.

Last week in Waterloo region we celebrated entrepreneur week. This week-long festival dedicated to the entrepreneurial spirit reminds me that it was this government that declared 2011 to be the year of the entrepreneur. We all know the numbers. We understand that the vast majority of jobs created in Canada are created by entrepreneurs running small or medium-sized businesses.

Last week, Communitech inducted several business people into the Waterloo region entrepreneur hall of fame. One of the recipients, Carol Leaman of PostRank compared starting a business with another profession entirely. An entrepreneur, she said, is like a skydiver. They both jump out of planes from great heights, but only entrepreneurs are expected to make their parachutes as they fall toward the ground. The metaphor is clear. Our entrepreneurs are willing to risk their time, their savings and their available credit, everything they have, in the dream of building a business.

Iain Klugman, Communitech president and CEO, put the challenge for us as policy-makers even more clearly. He stated, “If you don't have people who bet the farm you don't have a strong economy. Entrepreneurs drive the economy”.

This government has worked hard since our first minority mandate to unshackle our entrepreneurs. I am pleased this work has continued in budget 2011. We have instituted a new hiring credit for small business that will provide up to $1,000 against a small firm's EI premiums for new hires. We have offered new and increased support to young entrepreneurs to build the next generation of global business leaders. We are focused on building a stronger Canada, better able to withstand global challenges.

Under this Prime Minister and this finance minister, Canada withstood the recession better than any other country. Thanks to this Prime Minister and this finance minister, Canada will emerge stronger from this period of global uncertainty. The measures in this budget build upon work done in previous budgets, an economic action plan that kept Canada leading the world, an economic action plan that opposition parties consistently failed to support.

Over the past six years, our government has lowered personal income taxes, corporate income taxes and the small business tax rate. We have increased the amount that Canadians can earn before being taxed. We made it easier for seniors by instituting pension splitting. We have introduced choice in child care through the universal child care benefit and passed the children's fitness credit. All of these positions were supported by Canadians and none of them were supported by the opposition.

While we have worked hard to keep Canadians working, we have also put in place measures to protect families. In years past, we overcame opposition objections to help Canadians through new items like the registered disability savings plan, the first time home buyers' plan, the public transit tax credit and an expanded home buyers' tax credit.

Today we are asking for support on new measures to help Canadians: measures to help students afford the costs of post-secondary education such as allowing them to earn more without having their loans clawed back; measures to help Canadians pay for the health care they need such as removing the limit on medical expenses they can claim on their taxes, or to take time to care for their loved ones through the family caregiver tax credit; and measures to make homes more energy efficient by extending the eco-energy retrofit program.

Budget 2011 will provide low income seniors with some much needed relief by increasing the guaranteed income supplement payments they will receive by as much as $600 for single seniors and as much as $840 for couples. There are no surprises in this budget. We stand clearly in favour of lower taxes and balanced books. We stand for long-term sustainable growth and we stand for the family.

These times are unprecedented for the modern Canadian family. While the experts seem to agree that Canada has emerged from the recession, our major trading partners remain mired in doubt and uncertainty. I am grateful to the finance minister for extending vital programs in times like these, programs like work sharing which allows viable employers to retain critical talent during lean times and which allows employees to work reduced hours until times improve.

Several companies in my riding of Kitchener—Conestoga have unfortunately been in the position to use the work share program. Ontario Drive & Gear was one of those companies. Thanks to support from this government, ODG remains one of Wilmot Township's largest employers. ODG President Joerg Stieber was also named to the Waterloo region entrepreneur hall of fame last week. He said, “The foundation of our success is really in the hard work and dedication of the good people who work at ODG.

The people are what is important. Work share allowed ODG to keep the staff in whose skills it had invested so much and it allowed the employees to remain gainfully employed rather than left out of work.

Kuntz Electroplating, one of the largest employers in the city of Kitchener, would tell a very similar story. Work share, to put it simply, keeps Canadian employers and employees working. But there are Canadians who are more vulnerable in an economic downturn than the average worker. I speak in this case of young Canadians who may not have had the experience or the networks that they need to find that first job and older Canadians who have trouble finding that new career when laid off during the end of their working lives.

To help new entrants to the job market, budget 2011 will make all trade, occupational and professional exam fees tax deductible. It will allow students pursuing a degree or diploma to earn twice as much money before their loans are clawed back. It ends discrimination against part-time students by reducing the interest they must pay on their Canada student loans.

This government recognizes that education is a provincial responsibility, but that our global economic competitiveness is an issue of federal importance and we are willing to act.

Canada's seniors will benefit from budget 2011. This government has already done so much for seniors. After 13 years of empty Liberal promises, this Conservative government introduced pension income splitting and removed 85,000 seniors from the tax rolls altogether. In fact, this government has delivered to Canada's seniors over $2.3 billion in tax relief since taking office.

Budget 2011 builds on that solid foundation promising to enhance the GIS payments made to low income seniors, but just as importantly, budget 2011 will also extend the targeted initiative for older workers.

I stand firmly in favour of passing Bill C-13, the keeping Canada's economy and jobs growing act. It puts us on a path to surplus while investing in Canada's most critical assets, our people.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I feel it is very important to rise today in the House to speak out against Bill C-13, which combines a myriad of proposals. If we could take the time to analyze them one by one, we would have the opportunity to debate a number of important issues. But these proposals are wrapped up in a single bill, which means we cannot debate them. That is an affront to democracy. We are not able to take the time needed to explain the details of each proposal in this bill to the Canadian people.

This bill is an empty shell. As my colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin said earlier, the Conservatives make a great many extravagant announcements. They say they will be investing in a number of areas, but if we look at the details, we see these investments are superficial. There is no real, concrete, strategic plan for stimulating the economy and creating local, sustainable jobs. Jobs that do not pay enough and that keep people living below the poverty line are not helpful.

I would like to suggest some concrete ways to really help Canadian families. Consider the health care system. As we all know, thousands of families do not have access to family doctors and nurses at this time. There is a personnel shortage in the health care system. It is a problem everywhere, in all provinces and territories. Hospitals and clinics do not have enough human resources. The public health care system is particularly short-staffed. The Conservatives have not done much to prevent private services from taking a larger share of health care. The bigger the private sector becomes, the bigger the gap between the poor and the wealthy when it comes to access to health care, even though poorer people are the ones who need health care the most.

Earlier, my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue explained, as have many others, that family caregivers need a great deal of help. The Conservatives are always telling us over and over about the tax credit for family caregivers; however, that tax credit can only benefit people who make enough money. Most family caregivers do not have enough income to benefit from tax credits. Why would the government not grant direct tax benefits instead, which would really help these people? That would put money directly into the pockets of people who help families who are in need because of health problems and other concerns. This would be a concrete, positive, constructive measure for family caregivers.

Still in the area of health, we have to invest in home care to allow people to maintain their independence and remain active. I am on the Standing Committee on Health and I am our deputy health critic. Every week since October, witnesses have been coming to the committee to tell us that, as far as chronic illnesses are concerned, the government must invest in creating a strategic plan for healthy eating and urban planning in order to allow people to have an active lifestyle. Simply improving the public's eating habits would help unburden the health care system. It would also create jobs.

There are already a number of farmers, growers and fresh food producers in our regions, in Canada, who could supply food to seniors living on very low incomes who do not have the means to buy fruit and vegetables. Fruit and vegetables should be a staple in our diet. A number of health experts who have come to testify at the Standing Committee on Health have said that seniors cannot afford to buy fruit and vegetables. That is appalling. There are plenty of farmers who want nothing more than to offer their products at local markets and grocery stores at affordable prices. This is basic nutrition. We could make use of it in schools and hospitals, but the government lacks leadership on the issue.

Another aspect of health is physical activity. The provinces are trying to promote physical activity and healthy living, but problems related to obesity and diabetes are on the rise. The federal government should invest more in helping the provinces and territories in their promotion and prevention efforts.

A number of people and organizations such as those that support seniors have managed to implement projects in more than 500 cities in Canada, including over 300 in Quebec. The purpose of these projects is to configure cities differently and adapt them to more active living. This may involve ensuring that sidewalks are safe for seniors and the children of young families and having more green space in neighbourhoods, which in turn encourages people to use local services, drive less, walk more and get together. In addition to making neighbourhoods livelier, it would encourage people to be physically active.

We have many suggestions just in the area of health. The Conservatives often say that the opposition makes few suggestions. I just provided five in the area of health. We can provide more. With regard to public safety, we could create more jobs, except that the Conservatives are once again being very contradictory.

They say that they want to promote local employment. I will repeat that, in my riding, an entire section of the border is not protected. RCMP officers told me last week that closing the Franklin border crossing has been and continues to be a nuisance for them. There has been a resurgence of smuggling and crime, and people can cross the border between official crossings because of the decrease in surveillance. The customs officers who worked at the former Franklin border crossing also provided security and surveillance. Now there is none, because of the Conservatives' decision.

I see my time is nearly up and I will move on to another matter. There is not much in the budget, Bill C-13, in terms of the environment. In my riding, the budget for the St. Francis Lake National Wildlife Area was cut by 56% even though it attracts more than 5,000 tourists every year. It is located in Dundee, a point of access to the United States and to the Akwesasne Mohawk Reserve.

We keep hearing that Canada is trying to encourage ties with first nations communities. Instead, the government is cutting funding and many people are losing their jobs. To make matters worse, the jobs that are being lost are green, sustainable and local. There are many small measures like this that are negatively affecting our local and national economy. In Quebec alone, the budgets of four other wildlife areas have been cut. Canada has a total of 51 national wildlife areas. Why does the government have to cut funding to a profitable area?

Bill C-13 does not promote the local economy and does even less for the national economy. I am asking the Conservatives to be open and accommodating and to include our proposals in their budget.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a simple question for my Conservative colleague.

Bill C-13 is called Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act. For months now, the NDP has been talking about a significant measure to stimulate job creation and give some tax relief to the job creators that create more than half of new jobs in Canada—small and medium-sized businesses, or SMEs.

Will the Conservative government commit to lowering the small and medium-sized business tax rate from 11% to 9%, as the NDP has been calling for? It is a very simple question. I want to see if the Conservative government can show some leadership and support our entrepreneurs who work so hard and if it can support our SMEs and create more jobs in the regions.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate on Bill C-15. I would call the title of the bill “the bill with no real plan to create jobs”. Why do I say that? It has been extremely disappointing to see the tremendous disconnect between the Conservative government's policies and the tough realities that people face in urban and rural communities alike.

Given the global economic uncertainty and the fact that 1.4 million Canadians are out of work, one would have thought that when the government introduced its budget implementation bill, it would have had one priority focus economically, and that being to create jobs. This is not the case. Unfortunately, there is no plan to create jobs in the bill.

Today we have over 500,000 fewer net full-time jobs than we had before the recession. The government's continual crowing about having created jobs is false. It measured from the trough of the recession to today. However, we have to look at where we were in August 2008. Today we have 525,000 fewer net full-time jobs than we had before. That is a crisis. It is a real human crisis for the constituencies of many of my colleagues across the aisle. For example, Nanaimo has an unemployment rate of 16%. For youth, unemployment is far too high.

On top of this net loss of jobs, we have a million new Canadians in our country since that time. Therefore, there are a far greater number of people looking for work with no plan to recover those jobs.

Instead of helping to create jobs, the government's budget is helping to kill jobs. I am referring to the increased EI payroll taxes that have increased by $600 million in 2011 and will increase by another $600 million in 2012. Everyone knows these taxes placed on both the employees and the employers kill job creation. Yet that is what the government is doing, despite repeated requests from the Liberal caucus to hold off on that EI payroll tax increase.

The Conservatives know payroll tax increases kill jobs. In January 2009 the Minister of Finance said, “For many businesses, an increase in payroll taxes would make it harder to sustain existing jobs”.

In May 2009 the current Minister of Foreign Affairs said, “That is what Canadians do not want, a job-killing payroll tax increase. Those of us on this side of the House will not...raise taxes”.

The last quote is from the Conservative government's 2008 election policy declaration, which states, “unnecessarily high payroll taxes are a tax on job creation. Lower payroll taxes encourage hiring and business expansion“.

Why is the Conservative government and its members ignoring their own wisdom? Let us think about it.

The Liberals and the economists have both said that this is not the time to raise EI payroll taxes. The government has claimed that it has no control over the EI tax increases. Therefore, one would assume it recognizes that is a negative factor for which it has claimed to have no control.

Recently the government actually appeared to have control over this and it reduced the proposed increase by 50% for 2012. That is a good thing. However, if it can reduce it by 50%, why not by 100% and just hold off on EI payroll tax increases? Why does it claim it has no control over something that it does have control over? It speaks to the heart of citizens' trust in what their government has to say. This is a government that has been repeatedly undermining that trust.

The members opposite have been crowing about the hiring credit for small businesses worth $165 million, which in fact is small change when the increases are costing $1.2 billion. That is an insult, not a policy.

Canada has about one million small businesses, but over 600,000 would not qualify for this credit. Therefore, I hope the government would continue to make the reductions in the EI payroll tax increase that we have asked for and bring it down to a zero increase.

Also, there is nothing in the budget that reflects the concerns of female business owners. Here is some information from the Taskforce for Women's Business Growth.

In 2007 women retained ownership in almost half of Canada's small and medium-sized enterprises. In 16% of our SMEs, women were majority owners. That is a major force in the small business landscape. However, 37% of the majority female-owned businesses are considered high growth, while 63% of majority male-owned small businesses are considered high growth. Why that discrepancy?

There are some historical and structural factors that make it tougher for women to grow their businesses. Therefore, the task force and its members have asked for some very reasonable support from the government to facilitate the job growth in small and medium-sized businesses owned by women. They are not asking for a handout. They are asking for some assistance in coordinating, consolidating and communicating.

The task force wants the government to: consolidate existing small business program information and target it to women; improve financial and technology literacy for women business owners; increase access to growth capital, grants and other resources, which women historically have found more difficult to access; and, report on the economic contributions of women to the Canadian economy.

These are very reasonable requests, but I do not see them anywhere in the government's budget. These individuals are struggling where they could be contributing $2 billion a year to the Canadian economy simply through a 20% increase in total revenues in majority female-owned enterprises. That is doable. The government should provide some framework for assistance.

Speaking of individuals, a huge concern that Liberals have is the deliberate exclusion of low-income Canadians in the budget. By that I am referring to the non-refundable tax credits, and there are several of them such as the family caregiver, volunteer firefighter and children's art tax credit. Since these are non-refundable tax credits, it means they would only apply to taxes owing. Therefore, those families and children who are in households without a taxable income, the very people who need assistance the most, are cut out. These programs would not increase the number of people engaged in these good and worthwhile activities because it is targeted at families that already have the means to do that.

In fact, this kind of program increases inequality in our country. We know that income inequality leads to many decreases in social well-being. A lot of evidence has proven that. Increased income inequality leads to higher crime rates, worse health and mental health outcomes, greater child mortality and a whole host of social ills.

We need to work toward income equality. However, this is not the direction Canada is going in and the gap in income is increasing. These non-refundable tax credits are simply unbelievable and will increase income inequality.

I had a meeting with small businesses in Vancouver Quadra. A number of measures were requested, but they are nowhere to be seen in the government's budget. I consider it a failure and I will vote against Bill C-13. The government has no real plan to create jobs.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I come from the business side and I believe my colleague does. A number of small business owners in my riding have told me that this credit just might make the difference between hiring one employee and hiring two employees. It is the right direction. Our goal in this budget and in Bill C-13 is to create jobs and economic activity, and that is exactly what it will do.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak once again in favour of budget 2011, or Bill C-13.

Our government has been working hard to keep our promises. We are continuing to focus on the economy, which is our top priority.

The current fragile stage of the global economy is apparent in the current situation facing Greece, Italy and our neighbours to the south. Canada's economy will no doubt feel the effect of what is happening in Europe and the United States; our government realizes that Canada's economic recovery is still fragile, and we are focused on creating jobs and economic growth for Canadians.

Budget 2011 includes many important initiatives designed to help strengthen our economy and provides support for our communities, our families, our farmers, our businesses and our small towns and rural communities.

The next phase of Canada's economic action plan will invest in the key drivers of economic growth: innovation, investment, education and training.

Canada's economic performance during the recovery stands out among advanced countries, showing seven straight quarters of economic growth. Nearly 540,000 net new jobs have been created since July 2009, with over 80% of them being full-time positions. Job creation and economic growth are important to the residents of Bruce--Grey--Owen Sound and certainly to all Canadians.

Our economic action plan is working. Our government's investments have been effective in shielding hard-working Canadians from the worst of our global recession, and we are committed to continuing our efforts to foster long-term growth and job creation.

Today I would like to highlight a number of initiatives included in budget 2011 that would benefit my riding and many communities across Canada.

The first is Canada's retirement income system. Our government understands the importance of a secure and dignified retirement for Canadians who have spent their lives contributing to our society. We continue to be committed to improving the financial literacy of Canadians, particularly by helping those who are saving for retirement to make informed decisions. Budget 2011 proposes to provide $3 million per year to undertake financial literacy initiatives.

Another initiative is the children's art tax credit. Since 2007, Canadians with children have been able to take advantage of the children's fitness tax credit, which promotes physical activity among children and recognizes the costs associated with extracurricular sports such as hockey, soccer and swimming.

As can be the case with participation in fitness activities, a child's participation in artistic, cultural, recreational and developmental activities can be difficult for parents to afford. Budget 2011 introduces a 15% non-refundable tax credit that would be available for a wide range of activities that contribute to a child's development and that are currently not available under the children's fitness tax credit. This credit will be provided on up to $500 of eligible fees per child. The introduction of this tax credit would promote the participation of young children in my riding and across Canada in extracurricular activities and would ease the financial burden on their parents.

With respect to seniors, budget 2011 would invest more than $300 million per year to enhance the GIS, or guaranteed income supplement, for seniors. This measure would provide a new top-up benefit of up to $600 for single seniors and $840 for couples. This benefit would improve the financial security of seniors in my riding and of more than 680,000 seniors across Canada.

We also have the family caregiver tax credit. Our government recognizes the personal sacrifice that many Canadians make to care for their family members with serious illnesses such as MS or ALS, just to mention a couple. We are proposing a family caregiver tax credit that would provide a 15% non-refundable credit on an amount of $2,000. This credit would help many families in my riding and an estimated 500,000 caregivers across Canada.

I have a sister who suffers from MS and I understand the toll that this disease and many other diseases can have on the victim and certainly on families. This tax credit can help ease the financial burden of individuals who provide care for family members who are combatting serious illnesses.

There is also the enhanced medical expense tax credit. Our government is also committed to helping ease the financial burden on Canadians who care for a dependent relative with extraordinary medical and disability-related expenses. Budget 2011 removes the $10,000 limit on the amount of eligible medical expenses that can be claimed on behalf of a financially dependent family member. This measure will apply for 2011 and subsequent tax years. This initiative is welcome news to the many constituents in my riding who care for a very ill or disabled family member.

Next is palliative and end-of-life care.

For Canadians living with life-threatening illnesses, no matter how old they are, appropriate palliative and end-of-life care helps maximize their quality of life and ensures respect for the patients and their families as they approach death. This government continues to support various programs and initiatives related to palliative and end-of-life care. This budget would provide one-time funding of $3 million to support the development of new community-integrated palliative care models.

Another very welcome and appreciated item in this budget is the volunteer firefighter tax credit.

My riding of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, with the exception of the City of Owen Sound, relies solely on the services of volunteer firefighters. Our government is proud of the nearly 85,000 volunteer firefighters who keep our communities safe across this country.

In recognition of their brave service, the budget introduced a 15% non-refundable volunteer firefighter tax credit on an amount of $3,000 for volunteer firefighters who perform at least 200 hours of service in their community each year.

Agriculture is the number one industry my riding. It is an important part of Canada's economy and is, as I said, the biggest industry in my riding. One of our government's priorities is to continue to promote long-term profitability and global competitiveness of Canadian farmers and agribusinesses. We have announced a two-year, $50 million agriculture innovation initiative to help Canada's farmers remain on the cutting edge of agriculture innovations. This is an investment we must make.

In early 2011 the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food had the opportunity to travel across Canada during our biotechnology study. One key theme that was top of mind with producers and industry stakeholders was the importance of research to the competitiveness and profitability of Canadian farmers and agribusinesses.

Another important initiative to our government is strengthening food safety. Food safety from field to fork is fundamental to the health and wellness of all Canadians. In the 2011 budget, our government has taken steps to improve Canada's food safety system by providing an additional $100 million over five years, on a cash basis, to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to enhance our food inspection capacity.

Without a doubt, investing in research and innovation and food safety initiatives would strengthen the foundation of Canada's agricultural sector and improve the ability of Canadian farmers and agribusinesses to compete in the domestic and global marketplace.

Another initiative is enhancing environmental protection of the Great Lakes. This measure is near and dear to my heart, as my riding is bordered on three sides by Georgian Bay and Lake Huron.

Protecting the water quality and the health of the Great Lakes is vital to ensuring that Canadians can depend on this rich ecosystem for drinking water, for recreation and for jobs. The Great Lakes are an important resource to the residents of my riding and to many other Canadians.

Building on the existing Great Lakes action plan and action plan for clean water, budget 2011 announces an additional $5 million over two years to improve near-shore water and ecosystem health and to better address the presence of phosphorus in the Great Lakes.

I have to mention that early in the new year, I intend to table a bill that would ban the sale or diversion of our fresh water in this country. It is something that is, as I said, near and dear to my heart.

In closing, I will mention that local small businesses are going to benefit. Our government recognizes that they are job creators and help to stimulate our economy, making them a crucial part of economic recovery. For these reasons, we have created the new hiring credit for small business, which would provide a temporary one-time credit of up $1,000 against any potential increases in 2011 EI premiums over 2010. This new credit would help over 525,000 employers to pay the cost of additional hiring.

Mr. Speaker, I know I am running out time. I look forward to answering any questions.

[Jonathan Tremblay, NDP, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in debating Bill C-13, we can talk about how little the Conservative Party is proposing. We can also talk about what the Conservative Party is not doing. We can also talk about the promises the Conservative Party has broken during this Parliament and previous Parliaments. I will focus on only one aspect.

We have to remember the date of May 7, 2007. Hon. members might not remember that date. Although I am new, I certainly remember it. Following a promise in the previous budget to fight tax evasion, the current Minister of Finance made an about-face at the time and said that he was not able to fight tax evasion after all.

Where do the Conservative government's interests lie? Do they lie in defending all Canadians or the interests of Conservative taxpayers?

[Lawrence Toet, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House to speak on this matter that is most important to Canadians, Bill C-13, the Canadian economic action plan.

First, I would like to express my gratitude and humble honour to the constituents of Elmwood--Transcona for placing their trust in me to represent them here in Ottawa. It is a job that I take most seriously. It is also why I am very happy to speak to this next phase of Canada's economic action plan, something that I heard so much positive feedback about while speaking with my constituents in Elmwood--Transcona.

Canada can be proud that under the leadership of the Prime Minister and the Conservative government we have accomplished seven straight quarters of economic growth. In a time where in so many places across the globe people are suffering because of the weakness of their economy, here in Canada we can take pride and confidence in the fact that we are seeing movement in the right direction.

Canada is in one of the strongest fiscal positions of the world's top performing advanced economies. This is not an accident. With our continued focus on the strength of our economy, we can ensure that we will continue to see strong economic growth. In a time where so many places in the developed world are seeing serious job losses, we can be proud of the fact that since July 2009 Canada has created almost 600,000 net new jobs and over 80% of these being full-time.

With the Conservative government's continued focus on the Canadian economy and the things that are important to all Canadians, this next phase of the Canadian economic action plan offers a solid amount of strong initiatives that will aid all Canadians. With a focus on the people and groups of citizens that are important to Canadian society, such as families, seniors, small businesses, job creators, volunteer firefighters, manufacturers, students, farmers, and so many more, we can acknowledge that the primary concern of the government is to strengthen the ability of all Canadians. With initiatives that will keep taxes low and keep us on track to balance the budget, Canadians can be confident that we will continue to be a leading force in global economic recovery.

Families are integral to the strength of Canadian society, so it is important that as part of our economic strategy we offer programs and initiatives to help the families of Canada. In my riding of Elmwood--Transcona, I have spoken with many families, asking them for their thoughts on what is important to them. Many were able to remind me of their excitement regarding the tax credits promised during the federal election.

Today, I can proudly say that the Conservative government is ready to deliver on that front. With a new children's tax credit of a 15% non-refundable tax credit on up to $500 in eligible fees for programs associated with children's artistic, cultural, recreational, and developmental activities, the government is taking Canadian families seriously. We understand that it is important for children to be involved in positive activities. We also recognize that we can aid families in having their children participate in these types of activities with a tax credit that will help families keep more of their hard-earned money in their own pockets.

Often families have shared their concerns with the limit that was placed on claimable medical expenses of a dependent relative. With the next phase of the Canadian economic action plan, our government will be removing the $10,000 limit for these eligible medical expenses.

I am happy to share with members and all Canadians the facts regarding the new family caregiver tax credit. This is a 15% non-refundable tax credit on the amount of $2,000 for caregivers of all types of dependent relatives, including, for the first time, spouses, common law partners, and minor children. Along with the other incentives offered for families, I can attest that the concerns of families in Canada are recognized.

We take to heart the concerns that have been brought forward by Canadian families. It is due to our strong record of tax relief that the total tax saving for a typical family in Canada is over $3,000. That is taking to heart the concerns of Canadian families. That is a testament to this government's strong commitment to deliver on the promises it made to Canadians to keep more of their hard-earned money in their pockets.

Along with families, we recognize the growing needs of our seniors. Our Conservative government understands that Canada's seniors helped build and make our country great. That is why it is important to us to enhance the guaranteed income supplement, enhance the new horizons program for seniors, eliminate the mandatory retirement age for federally regulated employees, and extend the targeted initiative for older workers by $50 million.

By enhancing the GIS, where eligible low income seniors will receive additional benefits of up to $600 for single seniors and $840 for couples, we will be helping more than 680,000 seniors across our great country.

One elderly gentleman has stopped by my office multiple times, occasionally for other issues, but each time he comes in he is sure to tell me about how this increase to the annual GIS will make the difference for him and his wife between living very tight and being relieved of their financial concerns.

I am happy to speak today to our government delivering what is more than deserved by our Canadian seniors and to say to all the seniors in my riding of Elmwood—Transcona that another election promise is being delivered.

In my riding of Elmwood—Transcona I have had the pleasure of conversing with many of our small businesses. These men and women are happy to hear and see the incentives offered by the government to help them offer employment, start up their businesses, and run successfully in the Canadian marketplace.

With the new hiring credit for small business, a temporary one-time credit of up to $1,000 against a small firm's increased employment insurance premiums, this credit helps up to 525,000 employers defray the cost of additional hiring.

The Conservative government is excited to offer support also to youth entrepreneurs with $20 million to support the Canadian Youth Business Foundation's activities. This program has helped young entrepreneurs become the business leaders of tomorrow, through mentorship, learning resources and start up financing.

We have increased the small business limit to $500,000, referring to the amount of income earned by a small business eligible for the reduced federal tax rate. We have reduced the small business tax rate from 12% to 11%, along with other incentives on which I do not have time to go into details.

These incentives show our government's commitment to helping Canadian small businesses continue to be successful. We recognize the importance of small business to the Canadian economy.

Before I wrap up, there are a few other key parts of this phase of Canada's economic action plan that I would like to touch on.

In the continued efforts of the Conservative government to strengthen the integrity and accountability in government, as well as political activities, I would like to draw attention to the fact that in this stage of the economic action plan, we will continue to take taxpayers' dollars seriously. That is why, in this stage of Canada's economic action plan, we are following through on our government's campaign commitment to phase-out per vote subsidies for political parties.

The government will introduce legislation to gradually reduce the per-year, per-vote subsidy in increments, starting from April 1, 2012 until it is completely eliminated in 2015-16. This will generate savings of up to $30 million.

Our government has always opposed direct taxpayer subsidies to political parties and believes that political parties should rely primarily on their supporters for financing.

One other area I would like to touch on is the recognition of Canadian charities. We understand the important role that charity plays in Canadian society and we are committed to supporting that. That is why in budget 2006 we eliminated the capital gains tax associated with the donation of publicly listed securities to public charities. That is why budget 2010 reformed the disbursement quota to reduce administrative complexity.

In the next phase of Canada's economic action plan, we will build on our support for charities by cracking down on the few individuals who abuse the charitable system by enhancing transparency and strengthening compliance requirements, and providing the CRA with the necessary tools to deal with the charitable status of organizations where individuals involved have a history of abusing the system.

The Canadian government, with this next phase of the Canadian economic development plan, continues to show it puts all Canadians first. The Conservative government proves in this phase to continue to deliver on the election promises made to concerned Canadians. Our government will not lose focus of what is most important to Canadians, our economy. Rather, we will continue to implement good and transparent use of tax dollars that will be used to enhance our economy and allow us to remain the economic envy of the world.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-13, the second budget implementation act for the budget 2011.

While I agree that some of the topics covered in Bill C-13 are also subjects that we on this side of the House feel are important, I feel that this bill misses the mark widely and would not deliver what Canadians need, and I think my colleagues would agree. The topics are important but the content is weak.

While the government has entitled the bill, “keeping Canada's economy and jobs growing act”, I feel, and we feel on this side of the House, that it would do little to grow jobs or the economy.and suffice it to say that I support the title but, unfortunately, not the content.

While I will return to the specificsof the bill in a moment, I feel that it is important to discuss the context in which the bill has been tabled and to talk about what I see are a few very alarming trends, both with our own economy and internationally.

As both sides of this House will recognize, the world economy has become increasingly unpredictable and, due to the now globalized trading network, it is very hard for governments to insulate themselves from shocks, such as we are seeing in Greece, Italy and other European countries.

The mood of this uncertainty is often reflected in the moods shown by members opposite during these unpredictable times. On one day we see the members of the government thumping their desks and on the next day they almost seem to be in a panic about current events. The global waves seem to washing over on the government. One day it is boasting and the next day it is not sure what to do and it is wringing its hands.

What is most perplexing to me is that, while the government often wants the public to believe we are helpless in the face of these global forces, we hear over and over again that while there is really nothing we can do, these are economic shocks coming from elsewhere that we have no control over and, in the same breath, the government has single-handedly created hundreds of thousands of jobs within the economy. I think this is very inconsistent and it is something that the government has to remedy.

The government cannot have it both ways. It cannot say on the hand that it absolves itself from any responsibility for our current economic woes while, at the same time, taking the entire credit saying that the government itself creates these jobs, when it is clearly not true.

To be fair, this practice of double standards is a very bad habit, which most governments undertake, but, it is much better to be honest with Canadians and to really own up to what is going on within our economy and internationally. The government needs to tell Canadians the truth about what lies ahead for Canada and how the government plans to help Canadians maximize their potential in these uncertain economic times.

The government, for example, made a good start, or a small start, when the finance minister warned Canadians about reducing their personal debt loads. This is something that I think was honest and from the heart. It was not rhetoric. It was a genuine concern that I think we all share in this House, that Canadians are massively over-leveraged with their own budgets and they need to do something to reduce them. The government made a good start when it admitted this and it tried to warn Canadians about what is coming and what needs to happen in the future.

However, after that slight warning, the government seemed to go back to the rhetoric and now all we hear is that the world economy is in flux and that there is nothing the government can do about it. However, when there is any kind of report of job creation, the government takes credit for it.

The government needs to be honest, stick with being honest with Canadians and acknowledge the extent to which the global economy is shifting. European and North American economic dominance is being replaced with an Asian dominance. This is a trend that all Canadians see and it is something that the government needs to recognize and adapt to.

If we just look at GDP growth rates, that is what says it all. World Bank data shows that Canada's GDP growth rate was around 3% in 2010, where China's was around 10%. In 2009, we actually had a negative GDP growth rate of -2.5%, where China's economy continued to grow at a rate of 9%. While we went through a huge shock in 2008, China's growth was business as usual.

As one of my colleagues at Simon Fraser University, noted economist, John Richards, once said to me, “We've had our run. Now it's Asia's turn to dominate”. This is something that we need to recognize in this House and adapt to it.

It does look like times will increasingly get tough. The IMF has slashed our growth projections to 2.1% this year and just 1.7% next year. We can compare that again with China, which will be at a projected rate of about 9% or 10%. We can see that this is not a one-time, one-off event. This is a consistent happening where the GDP growth rate in Canada is shrinking while China's is growing.

We need to be honest with Canadians about where we are headed and what we can do to weather these economic times.

Bill C-13 and other measures taken by the government indicate to me that the government does not have much of a plan for the Canadian economy. It seems the government is content to encourage massive foreign investment in our resource industry, ram pipelines through to ship unconventional crude from the Alberta oil sands to Asian markets, roll back regulation in the north and mine it for all its worth, and then continue to ship unrefined products to foreign markets.

The problem is, that is yesterday's approach to managing the Canadian economy and it really lacks vision. The government needs s to stop relying on yesterday's flawed solutions to Canada's economic problems or Canada will be swamped by the global economy. It needs to recognize where we stand in relation to the rest of the world and plan accordingly.

Now that the major portion of this so-called budget bill centres on removing a relatively small amount of money from political parties does not show me that the government is serious about the major challenges that lie ahead for Canada, but rather that it is immersed in petty politics. This shines through in the rhetoric that we cannot do anything, that it is an international crisis and yet the government still takes credit for any kind of job creation in Canada.

Bill C-13 should include a vision for Canada that does not rely on hoping foreign companies and governments will pillage our natural resources, ship them to their shores, add value and then ship them back to us. This is yesterday's way of running the Canadian economy and we do not need that any more. In fact, we will not grow or flourish if we continue with this approach.

Bill C-13 would instill much more confidence in Canadians if it contained real measures to grow a secondary industry in this country. For example, in recent meetings I have had with petroleum producers in this country, with individual industries and their associations, they have revealed to me that the number of refineries in Canada has dramatically declined from almost 50 to under 20, with others under serious threat of closure. The bill has no plan to maintain this valuable refinery industry. It appears that the Conservatives would be happy to fade it away, and these refineries will fade away. We have seen them closed in Quebec, as has been mentioned here today in the House.

However, to put this in context, the largest refinery in Canada produces 300,000 barrels per day, which was a massive refinery when it was built many decades ago. India has recently built a complex that refines 1.2 million barrels per day. That number is sometimes hard to get one's head around but that is a massive refinery and more of these are on the horizon both in China and India.

We need to take stock of where we stand, not just in this industry but in other industries as well, in relation to our secondary production. We need to come up with a real plan to save these industries and ensure we think about how to grow them, if we can. We need a closely targeted investment to help these industries survive and thrive. Other countries have done it and we need to follow their lead. To simply throw up one's hands and say that the market will do this or that foreign investment will come in and save us is not the way forward.

The challenge for the government is to be honest with Canadians and provide an economic vision for the country that does more than rely on shipping raw resources to foreign countries. The bill does nothing to reassure me that the government has such a vision and I doubt that it does much to convince Canadians of this either.

It is worth reviewing a few facts and figures in my remaining minute or so to show where we stand.

Official unemployment in the country shows 1.4 million people out of work. However, if we include all of those who are discouraged and unemployed, it pushes that number to two million unemployed. This number may be structural. I have asked the government in the House to reveal what it thinks the natural rate of unemployment is. The U.S. tells us every month what its natural rate of unemployment is. The Conservative government will not do this. In fact, sometimes I wonder if it even knows what that statistic means. Is their plan to maintain our unemployment rate at 7% or to move forward and try to reduce that rate?

We need a vision but we do not have one.

[Eve Adams, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to discuss Bill C-13, An Act to implement certain provisions of the 2011 budget as updated on June 6, 2011 and other measures, better known as the keeping Canada's economy and jobs growing act.

Canada has come out of the global economic downturn with the strongest growth record in the G7. Our government has created nearly 600,000 net new jobs since July 2009.

Our government is standing up for Canadians and fulfilling the strong mandate they gave us to focus on the economy and to create jobs. That is certainly what I heard at the door. Everyone wanted us to focus on the economy and create jobs for our communities and our neighbours.

One such job creation measure present in the next phase of Canada's economic action plan is the hiring credit for small businesses. This one-time credit of up to $1,000 is aimed at encouraging hiring by Canadian small and medium-sized businesses. It is a wonderful measure to help stimulate the Canadian economy and it is mutually beneficial to both our strong small business sector as well as hard-working Canadians who are seeking a job.

Do not just take my word for it, let us hear from Dan Kelly, senior vice-president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. This is what he had to say about the small business tax credit. “Since the 2011 budget announcement, many members have called about the credit and reported it will make it easier for them to hire”. I think that is what everybody across the country wants. He went on to stress that this was a particularly important initiative as the government had declared 2011 as the year of the entrepreneur.

It is not just the CFIB that is pleased with our hiring credit. It is also the Toronto Board of Trade, which had this to say:

[We] welcomed new initiatives to spur small-business productivity and hiring, such as the Hiring Credit for Small Business.

SMEs are the engines of job growth...Spurring productivity and employment growth among SMEs, as this Budget does, should help Canada's economic recovery.

The hiring credit for small business is getting high praise from such respected institutions as the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and from the Toronto Board of Trade. It is no surprise to me since I have been getting excellent feedback from small businesses in my community of Mississauga—Brampton South.

I am honoured to be speaking today on the great initiatives for small business and job creation that will be implemented as part of the keeping Canada's economy and jobs growing act.

I also want to highlight that the next phase of Canada's economic action plan has a strong focus on helping Canadian families as well.

As a mom to a wonderful six-year-old boy named Jeffrey, there is nothing that is more important to me than my family. I am proud to be a part of a government that stands up for hard-working Canadian families, like those that are the bedrock of my community in Mississauga—Brampton South.

Any mom who has ever signed up their child for music, sport or dance lessons knows how quickly those fees add up. That is why our government already has provided for the very popular fitness tax credit for children that has helped with the cost of sports and has helped to keep our kids fit. I am proud to stand and vote in favour of a budget that will provide tax relief for moms and dads who would like to sign their children up for music or art lessons.

One way our government is standing for families is through the new children's arts tax credit for programs associated with children's artistic, cultural, recreational and development activities, as I have just mentioned. This would allow Canadian families to claim a 15% non-refundable tax credit on up to $500 in fees for eligible programs. The tax credit would not only help both our children, who would benefit from some of the best programming available, but it would also help encourage Canadians from a very young age to make the best use of the world-class artistic community available to all Canadians.

Another measure introduced as part of budget 2011, aimed at helping Canadian families, is the new family caregiver tax credit. This 15% non-refundable tax credit, on an amount of $2,000 for caregivers of all types of infirm, dependent relatives, including for the first time spouses, common-law partners and minor children, would help Canadian families receive all of the support they may require. This initiative has been welcomed as a huge step by important groups like the Canadian Caregiver Coalition that has the following comments:

—the Canadian Caregiver Coalition...applauds the Federal Budget. The measures announced in the budget are an important acknowledgement of the vital role of family caregivers. The announcement of a Family Caregiver Tax Credit demonstrates the federal government's commitment to families and the caregiving responsibilities that they assume.

Financial support for those who must take time off work is a critical component of effective policy for family caregivers...We are pleased to see the federal government recognizing and furthering the support for family caregivers by mitigating their financial burden through this program.

The final initiative from the next phase of Canada's economic action plan that I would like to speak about today is legislating a permanent annual investment of $2 billion in the gas tax fund.

I have already had the pleasure to speak about how implementing the bill would help our small businesses, our children, our families, but all of these things need a strong community in order to thrive and reach their full potential.

Our government has made, and will continue to make, significant commitments to cities and communities through the gas tax fund. In fact, we recently tabled legislation to make the gas tax fund permanent, at $2 billion per year, so municipalities would now be able to count on this stable funding for their infrastructure needs well into the future.

Our government also recognizes the need for future infrastructure support beyond 2014. That is why budget 2011 included a commitment that our government would work with provinces, territories, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and other stakeholders to develop a long-term plan for public infrastructure that extended well beyond the expiry of the building Canada plan.

I am very proud of the unprecedented investments in public infrastructure that our Conservative government has made since taking office in 2006. We will continue to build on this momentum by working with provinces, territories and municipalities to address Canada's infrastructure priorities and challenges.

As a former city councillor, the gas tax investment that was provided by this federal government to municipalities across the country provided for massive investment in transit. For instance, in Mississauga the gas tax funding allowed for us to have our largest expansion in Mississauga transit history. That meant more routes, more buses, more often. It also allowed for us to have the first wheelchair accessible buses throughout our community.

I have risen in the House today and spoken about how the keeping Canada's economy and jobs growing act will help our economy, our families and our communities. I would like to thank all members who have taken the time to listen today and hope they will join with me and support this vital legislation and help to implement the key elements of the next phase of Canada's economic action plan. I would implore the opposition parties to support our budget and help all Canadians.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Madam Speaker, of course. Thank you for the reminder.

As for the 85,000 volunteer firefighters, the government announced that the budget envelope to support them was about $15 million. The conditions are that they must work more than 200 hours as volunteer firefighters and they cannot be on the municipality's payroll. This reduces the number of firefighters eligible for the credit by 35% to 65%. The $15 million shared by 50,000 volunteer firefighters amounts to $300 each.

Does anyone here actually think that volunteer firefighters work for $300? Their motivation is not that $300. Their motivation is supporting and serving the public. They want to help and be recognized. The fire chiefs said that it was a step in the right direction, but this is just classic Conservative speak. The Conservatives say that they are in favour of volunteer firefighters and will support them, they sing their praises, but then they give them $300. Wonderful. What big spenders. What a great recovery plan. The government did not look into whether these people have the equipment, training and support they need. It says, “hurray for volunteer firefighters”, and then expects them to fend for themselves. It expects the municipalities that do not have the means to operate a permanent firefighting service to just keep going. Municipal services that do not have the necessary equipment will not get any. Yet more empty rhetoric from the Conservatives. Behind this paper there is no coherent policy.

We could also talk about children's access to culture. A $500 tax credit is attractive, but, once again, it is not a refundable tax credit. The second important point is that the culture deficit is greatest among people who have the most financial problems. Unfortunately, as long as we do not address that deficit, those who need it most will not be able to access this tax credit. This is nothing new with the Conservative Party. It makes a big speech to say that it supports culture, but the people who need it still do not have access to it. This is the proof that the Conservative Party is all talk when it comes to Bill C-13.

We could talk about what this bill is missing. Canada is in an economic slump and that is not addressed. All of the economic stakeholders have mentioned that. We have $500 billion tied up and only 200,000 jobs have been created since the economic recession.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my first comment about Bill C-13 pertains to its omnibus nature.

Parts of this bill would have been worth examining separately and in more depth. The creation of a Canadian securities commission is one of them. The creation of such an institution deserved a higher level of debate, a more heartfelt, thorough and better documented debate. The government killed debate on this issue by introducing a resolution on the funding of this institution as part of an omnibus bill that contained so many elements and so many chapters that it was impossible to figure out. This issue was addressed in just one of over 150 chapters. That is unacceptable. This is important legislation that will play a key role in Canada's economic future and constitution, and the government excluded it from debate by quietly slipping it into an omnibus bill. This is clearly yet another democratic deficit.

We could say the same about the reform of financing for political parties. Was it truly the Standing Committee on Finance that should have considered this key element of the bill? There are committees that deal exclusively with the Canada Elections Act. The Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics could have identified this as an essential element of the bill and discussed only this reform. However, such was not the case.

Once again, the Conservative government is misusing omnibus bills. We find ourselves with elements buried in a mountain of tax measures that are detailed and difficult to understand. Yet, that particular element would have been worth debating on its own, because it concerns the future of democracy in this country, the future of political party funding and the possibility of creating new political parties. There is no talk of that; it is all about money, not democracy. Is there anything more fundamental to democracy than a country's election legislation?

That is the whole problem with this government that does not want debate, that does not want to discuss key issues and that keeps on introducing omnibus bills to deny Canadians their right to discuss things that are essential to their everyday lives.

There is another difficult element in this bill. The Conservatives are once again making use of non-refundable tax credits. That is a problem for people who do not have enough income, who do not pay income tax because they are very poor or because they are retired. For a variety of reasons, these people will never be able to access these tax credits. That is a major tax inequity. These people are unable to access existing credits that could be refundable. But the government is not taking that step and it is indicating that these tax credits will be non-refundable.

Since the Conservatives came to power, we have noticed a growing gap between the rich and the poor in Canada. This is one of the things that is exacerbating this poverty. They are not considering the people who earn less than $15,000 a year, and there are many such people. These people are entitled to a great number of things as well.

We could also talk about the people with ailing children or spouses. Illness in the family has a major impact on the family income. We see tax credits for family caregivers that do not do enough to support those who take leave to care for their loved ones. It is not adequate income. It is not enough. The government has come up with a fine and noble measure with no income and no impact.

We do not see what this measure will achieve. You do things for media attention only. They look good, but they lack substance. They only look good on paper. The best example is the non-refundable tax credits. You are not giving enough. You are not proposing a structured and organized national policy to allow people to stay at home to take care of their ailing loved ones. You are only making a speech and throwing a bit of money around, saying how wonderful it is that you are helping family caregivers. That is not what it means to help people.

There is absolutely nothing to help people in one of the first clauses of Part 1, which deals with family caregivers. First of all, caregivers will receive a credit provided they earn income. Second, it is not enough and does not meet their needs. You say that you will give them something for looking after their family members, but it is not enough money to allow them to live with dignity and not in poverty. Clearly, you accept that some Canadians are poor. You accept the unacceptable. That is the major difference between the Conservative Party and the NDP. That shows that we will govern on behalf of Canadians and that you will govern on behalf of your big business friends.

[Corneliu Chisu, Conservative, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Madam Speaker, first I will take this opportunity to thank my constituents in Pickering—Scarborough East for the trust bestowed on me to represent them here in the House.

The particularity of this riding is that it encompasses two cities united by diversity and the 416 and 905 phone codes. One is the largest in Canada, Toronto, and the other, the city of Pickering, is much smaller.

Dividing and at the same time uniting the communities in my riding is the magnificent Rouge River, with its unique park containing unique biodiversity, such as the remnants of the Carolinian boreal forest. The Rouge Park will soon become the first urban national park in North America with 20% of the Canadian population in its immediate proximity.

My riding also has the Pickering nuclear power plant and several strongly research-oriented establishments such as the University of Toronto Scarborough Campus, Centennial College and companies such as Purdue Pharmaceuticals and others on the high technology end.

Certainly we need more in the future. In this context, I am delighted on behalf of my constituents to speak in support of Bill C-13. The bill provides the means to continue the recovery and the stability phase of our economy in these complicated world circumstances. It is very important for my constituents in Pickering—Scarborough East. Availability of jobs, economic stability and growth are important for the families in my riding.

Our responsible Conservative government continues to be focused on what matters to Canadians: creating jobs and promoting economic stability and growth. Canada is recognized to have the strongest job growth record in the G7, with nearly 600,000 net new jobs created since July 2009, and the International Monetary Fund projects that we will have among the strongest economic growth in the G7 over the next two years. However, we are not immune to global economic turbulence. That is why we need to stay the course and implement the next phase of Canada's economic action plan.

Bill C-13 supports Canada's economic recovery and outlines a vision for the future by proposing action on the following pillars of good governance and stability: promoting job creation and economic growth, supporting communities, helping families, investing in education and training and respecting taxpayers.

To promote job creation and economic growth, the bill would provide a temporary hiring credit for small business to encourage additional hiring, expand tax support for clean energy generation to encourage green investments, extend the mineral exploration tax credit for flow-through share investors by one year to support Canada's mining sector, simplify customs tariffs in order to facilitate trade and lower the administrative burden for businesses, extend the accelerated capital cost allowance treatment for investments in manufacturing and processing machinery and equipment for two years to support the manufacturing and processing sector and eliminate the mandatory retirement age for federally regulated employees in order to give older workers wishing to work the option of remaining in the workforce.

Being an engineer with extensive Canadian and international experience in both public and private service, I know well that the creation of a safe, secure and inviting environment for business is paramount for economic development.

To support communities, the bill would legislate permanent gas tax funding for municipalities, putting into law the permanent annual investment of $2 billion in gas tax funding for cities and towns to support infrastructure priorities.

This provision is of utmost importance for our infrastructure. It provides for payments to be made to provinces, territories, municipalities, first nations and other entities for municipal infrastructure improvements on a continuous basis, and it is predictable.

The bill would enhance the wage earner protection program to cover more workers affected by employer bankruptcy or receivership.

It would increase the ability of Canadians to give more confidently to legitimate charities by introducing a package of integrity measures designed to help combat fraud and other forms of abuse.

To help families, the bill introduces a new family caregiver tax credit to assist caregivers of all types of infirm dependent relatives. It would remove the limit on the amount of eligible expenses caregivers can claim under the medical expense tax credit in respect of financially dependent relatives. It introduces a new children's arts tax credit for programs associated with children's artistic, cultural, recreational and developmental activities.

It introduces a volunteer firefighters tax credit to allow eligible volunteer firefighters to claim 15% of non-refundable tax credits based on an amount of $3,000.

To invest in education and training, the bill would forgive loans for new doctors and nurses in underserved rural and remote areas. It would help apprentices in the skilled trades and workers in regulated professions by making operational, trade and professional examination fees eligible for the tuition tax credit. As a member of the regulated profession of engineering myself, I know the cost of annual fees and certification examinations.

I take this opportunity to cite some of the remarks from my professional bodies.

Engineers Canada states:

Making professional examination fees eligible for the Tuition Tax Credit...demonstrates a real commitment to fostering the highly-skilled and qualified talent the country needs to compete....

It further states:

It will help in the pursuit of a strong, diverse, and modern economy.

Polytechnics Canada says that it:

...welcomes the 2011 federal budget for its recognition of the role our members play in advancing innovation through applied research and commercialization activities.

It further states:

These budget measures demonstrate ways to use existing programs with modest new investment to encourage Canadian SMEs to generate smart, long-lasting jobs.

The bill would improve federal financial assistance for students. It would make it easier to allocate registered education savings plan assets among siblings without incurring tax penalties or forfeiting Canada education savings grants.

Finally, the bill respects taxpayers. It would phase out the direct subsidy of political parties. It would close numerous tax loopholes that allow a few businesses and individuals to avoid paying their fair share of tax. My constituents especially like this provision.

In conclusion, I encourage my colleagues from the opposition to support this bill. It is good for our country in our common quest to keep Canada as the best place in the world to live.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure today to speak to Bill C-13, the budget implementation bill.

Traditionally, in this House, budget implementation bills are introduced to legislatively implement budget initiatives and, at times, include some of the failures of past budgets. Usually they are only technical failures, nothing major, but that is why we end up with these 600-page documents that contain everything but the kitchen sink. However, I think that is normal.

Usually there are two budget implementations a year and after seven budgets that would be about 14 budget implementation bills. However, the government, to date, is not willing to concede that amendments are an acceptable way in which Parliament can do business. The finance minister, even before appearing at committee, made statements saying that there would be no changes, no amendments, the budget bill would go ahead with what is in it.

The finance committee, usually responsible for reviewing the bill, hears from witnesses both good and bad things, and members decide whether a budget bill requires an amendment. They weigh the positives and negatives. Often there are discussions between government and opposition members and there would be some agreement that changes need to be made. However, once we come into the House and the proposed amendments are put forward, we see that government members no longer want to make any amendments. I think that is very sad because we just saw one particular amendment which I think is very positive.

With this bill, once again, the Conservatives are deliberately excluding low-income Canadians. Ever since the budget was tabled in May, the Liberal Party has been asking for certain amendments. The Conservatives are proposing measures like the family caregiver tax credit, the volunteer firefighters tax credit and the children's arts tax credit. How can low-income families and individuals benefit from a non-refundable tax credit when, quite often, they do not have enough income to be taxed? Why did the Conservatives decide to exclude the most vulnerable among us, at a time when the economy is so precarious?

The current economic situation is not the same as it was a few years ago or even a few months ago. I do not understand why this government will not be a little more flexible and make these tax credits refundable. For instance, if someone leaves their job to care for a loved one at home, how can they benefit from a tax credit when they no longer have an income? If they have left their job, it means they no longer have an income. That is just one example, among many others, of how these proposed measures will not benefit those who need them most. If someone is not working full time and does not earn enough money to be taxed, how can they benefit from these tax credits?

Some members from western and eastern Canada have many volunteer firefighters in their ridings, especially in rural areas where most firefighters are volunteers. Some of them are retired.

While I was on the finance committee, many volunteer firefighters came before it. They said that they became volunteer firefighters to contribute to their community. It was not for pay because they were not getting paid. They spent time in training and ensuring that everything was functional in case there would be a fire. All they wanted was a credit to put back in their pockets a little bit of the money that they spent getting to the fire station and on these inspections.

Here we have a great initiative that the government introduced. Some of these volunteer firemen have given up their time, they may be retired or low income, but we cannot even get money back in their pockets to pay them for some of the gas expenses they incurred in getting to do their volunteer work. It would be appropriate for the government to reconsider and make these credits refundable instead of non-refundable. However, again, the Conservatives are playing politics.

They have decided to play petty politics by not making these tax credits refundable, which would enable low-income Canadians to benefit as well, as we have suggested a number of times. This shows once again that the Conservative government is ignoring Canadians in need.

The Liberal Party would like to work with the government to improve this bill. However, it realizes that the Conservatives never listen to the advice of this House or the Canadian public in general. This government must start tackling the problems faced by Canadians rather than trying to pit the people against one another. A responsible government would not choose the winners and the losers, as it is currently doing. It would not choose to ignore a large part of the population. It would not choose ideology over facts and reason.

There are some good measures in the budget such as the mining and exploration tax credit. However, it has only been extended for one year and it is temporary. Therefore, mining companies that need to make decisions over a five to ten year period are not sure how long they can rely on this tax credit.

There is the extension of the accelerated capital cost allowance. It is a great initiative and something that has been done for the last couple of years. However, the government has extended it for only two years. The productivity of companies in Canada is one of the lowest in the world because they cannot plan for the future. As a member of the finance committee for many years, we kept hearing that companies not only need the accelerated capital cost allowance but also need to know how long it will be effective for because if they are to invest in capital equipment, the investment into this heavy equipment would take a period of five to ten years to pay off. Therefore, it is a good initiative but not good on the follow through.

We talked about the amendment from the NDP. It no longer wants to authorize or provide the government with the $30-odd million for a transitionary office for the national securities regulator. All members in the House agreed to wait for the Supreme Court ruling. Instead, the government decided to give $33-odd million to a transitory office rather than wait for the ruling from the Supreme Court on whether the national securities regulator will be accepted or not. We are throwing away money, which we could use for other purposes, on friends of the Prime Minister, when all these professionals are sitting there waiting for a ruling from the Supreme Court.

There is the hiring credit for small businesses. On the one hand, the government is increasing EI premiums. If we add that up over the next year, it will be bringing over $1 billion into the government coffers and over the next couple of years it will be in the billions of dollars. Meanwhile, it is providing credits worth $135 million to small businesses if they hire an extra person. However, to get this credit they can only hire an extra person if they have less than 10 people whereas the majority of small and medium-size businesses have more than 10 employees. Therefore, this credit will only be made available to a small portion of employers.

Another problem is that the credit is only worth $1,000 and businesses can only apply for the credit at the end of the year, after they have paid the increased EI premiums on a monthly basis. I find that unacceptable.

Again, we are looking to see if the government is willing to accept some amendments and increase the hiring tax credit for small businesses to include some medium-size businesses that have between 20 to 50 employees.

I will end here with the gas tax which was introduced by the previous Liberal government. It was based on a percentage of the GST. Again, the government is capping it instead of putting a minimum. If the amount of the GST collected increases, why would the municipalities not be entitled to receive their fair share? We do not understand why there should be a ceiling instead of it continuing to be a percentage of the gas tax collected.

I look forward to any questions.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour and a pleasure for me to rise to support Bill C-13.

This is a wonderful opportunity for me to speak to Bill C-13, the keeping Canada's economy and jobs growing act. I was happy to support the bill when it was referred to the finance committee for study earlier this month and I am pleased to speak to it once again.

Our government has introduced the next phase of our economic action plan, which keeps us on track to return to balanced budgets in the medium term.

This legislation builds on the success of our stimulus plan by creating the right conditions for business to create jobs and grow our economy through low taxes and a clear plan for sustainable economic prosperity.

As we know, these are troubled financial times. Mark Carney, the Bank of Canada governor and newly appointed chairman of the Financial Stability Board, warns us that Europe is headed for a second recession. Sovereign debt and the undercapitalization of European banks threaten economic stability.

While Canada's strong regulation and prudent fiscal policy keep us strong in the face of crisis, we are not an island. We are not immune. Global events demand sound decision-making to be certain that we do not succumb to the mistakes of others.

The best way to ensure that our economy remains productive is with a fair, efficient and competitive tax system.

Lower taxes support Canadian business by providing entrepreneurs with the freedom to grow. Reductions in corporate taxes increase incentives for firms to invest in new equipment, undertake innovative research and create high-quality jobs. That is why I am pleased to support Bill C-13, because it gives employers the advantage they need to keep our economy strong.

I am proud that this legislation continues to build on the success of Canada's economic action plan, especially through the support it provides for small business.

Local enterprise is the engine of our economy, creating opportunity not just for owners, but for those that they employ.

The government agrees with the Canadian Federation of Independent Business when it says that small businesses are indispensable in their role as job creators and innovators all across Canada.

To hedge against resurgence and global economic uncertainty, it is important that small businesses are able to hire new workers so they can take advantage of emerging opportunities.

That is just one reason Bill C-13 includes a temporary, one-time hiring credit for small business which provides up to $1,000 against an employer's increase in its 2011 employment insurance premiums over those paid in 2010. This temporary credit will be available to approximately 525,000 employers, reducing their 2011 payroll costs by about $165 million.

Again, I would like to quote the Canadian Federation of Independent Business which told us:

This credit will be a major help to small firms in growing their workforce.... This credit will exempt some small employers from having to pay premiums on an increase in their payroll in 2011 over 2010 levels. As an example, this credit will allow a [new] firm with less than $413,000 in payroll to create one new $40,000 per year job without paying any EI on that new position.

These businesses may be small but their impact on the Canadian economy is anything but. They represent almost half of Canada's economic output, and we are grateful for their resilience in supporting our economic recovery.

Our government's support for the job-creating power of business extends beyond main street to a growing number of international markets.

Canadian business owners need the ability to compete not just next door, but with partners all around the world. We are opening these markets through an ambitious trade agenda, including mutually beneficial deals with the European Union and India.

To maximize the benefits of these agreements, we are improving our trade policies and regulations.

By simplifying and streamlining the Customs Tariff Act, we are lowering the administrative burden for business and government. Less red tape will result in lower customs processing costs for Canadian businesses, ensuring that they are more competitive both at home and in the global marketplace. Our government understands that Canada is a trading nation. This measure recognizes the importance of remaining globally competitive in order to sustain a fragile economic recovery.

While we have made great strides in improving our open and efficient trading system, we know that global competitiveness demands highly skilled workers. That is why the keeping Canada's economy and jobs growing act invests in education and training by making occupational, trade and professional examination fees eligible for the tuition tax credits. It is estimated that more than 30,000 individuals will benefit each year from this measure. This includes foreign trained workers who are often required to complete additional examinations in order to obtain their professional status here in Canada.

This tax relief builds on the support provided to apprentices through the apprenticeship incentive grant provided in budget 2006, and the apprenticeship completion grant, which was introduced in budget 2009.

Furthermore, this legislation makes important enhancements to the Canada student loans program to ensure that large numbers of full- and part-time students have access to financial assistance. We are expanding eligibility for Canada student loans and grants by allowing students to earn more money without impacting their loans, allowing part-time students to have higher family income without affecting their eligibility for support, and reducing the in-study interest rate for part-time students to 0%. These measures will save part-time students approximately $5.6 million per year, making part-time study more affordable for more Canadians. Not only that, they will ensure that Canada's workforce remains highly skilled and internationally competitive, helping to lay the foundation for sustainable economic growth.

In keeping with our investments to strengthen our global competitiveness in uncertain economic times, this legislation offers targeted tax reductions to further encourage business to drive our economy forward. We are expanding tax support for clean energy generation to encourage green investments. We know that clean energy technology and innovation are essential to realizing economic opportunities, creating employment and enhancing the Canadian economic advantage.

We are extending the mineral exploration tax credit for flow-through share investors by one year to support Canada's mining sector. We understand the importance of promoting the exploration and development of Canada's rich mineral resources.

We are extending the accelerated capital cost allowance treatment for investments in manufacturing and processing equipment for two years. We realize that our manufacturing sector needs our support, now more than ever, in adapting to the demands of the recovery.

As recent world events demonstrate, there remains considerable risk and uncertainty in the global economy and too many Canadians remain out of work. For these reasons, the government is building on the achievements of Canada's economic action plan with Bill C-13, designed to secure the recovery, create jobs and preserve Canada's fiscal advantage.

The government knows that this is the right action to take. I urge members of the House, and all Canadians, to remember that the alternative, which is the NDP's massive tax hikes, would kill jobs, stall our recovery and set Canadian families back.

I will take a moment to address something that my colleague said earlier, something that was misleading to Canadians. When it comes to this Conservative government, we have made a promise to make sure that jobs are protected. We have made a promise to protect Canadians and we have said that, to protect Canadians, an office for a securities regulator is important to prevent things like the Earl Jones tragedy in Quebec. I would implore the Quebec MPs on that side of the House, who were elected by Quebeckers who want this to happen, to support that decision, if that in fact is the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, to allow the jurisdiction to be recognized by the Government of Canada.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

moved:

That Bill C-13 be amended by deleting Clause 162.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the issue of amendments to Bill C-13.

It must be said that, by proposing an amendment today to eliminate clause 162, we want to hold the government to the promise it made during the last election.

As hon. members know, in the May 2011 election, the government made a number of promises. Then, the Canadian public saw the government break its promises on a number of occasions. Here, on this side of the House, we think it is important for the government to keep the promises it made to the Canadian public. That is why we made this first amendment to Bill C-13.

What does clause 162 contain? As my colleagues know, this provision establishes a Canadian securities transition office. In fact, it ensures that the funding is granted to the securities transition office to begin its operations.

Given that the government promised exactly the opposite during the last election, it is our responsibility as the official opposition to remind the government what it clearly told the public prior to the May 2 election. I would like to quote the promise that the Conservatives made in their election platform—the same platform where they said that they would be moderate, that they would take care of the economy and that they would create jobs. They then broke every one of these promises.

In its election platform, the Conservative Party said the following about the establishment of a Canadian securities transition office: “We will not proceed unless the Supreme Court rules that this matter is within our jurisdiction.”

This was a very clear election promise. The government said that it did not want to proceed and that it would not proceed because it had to wait for the Supreme Court of Canada to rule on this issue.

As the hon. members know, a number of provinces reacted to the government's desire to impose something on the provinces that comes under provincial jurisdiction. And this reaction comes not only from the Quebec nation, but also from the majority of Canadian provinces, which said that this comes under their jurisdiction and that it should go no further.

The Conservative Party, when campaigning to become the federal government, clearly said that it would go no further with this plan. Now what is happening? This brick of a bill, which was drafted after the election, states the opposite: the Conservative government is ready to move forward, no matter how Quebec feels about it, no matter how the majority of Canadian provinces feel about it and no matter what promises it made to the Canadian people. It wants to go ahead. It wants to impose this transition office and it wants taxpayers across the country, from coast to coast, to pay for it.

The government made clear, unambiguous promises, saying that it would not go ahead with the plan. The Canadian people voted: 62% of Canadians said that they did not believe the Conservatives, and a tiny minority, 38% of Canadians, voted for the Conservative Party.

Despite these promises, the Conservative government wants to use this bill to go ahead with the plan. So today we want this clause to be withdrawn.

It is a bit odd that the official opposition, the 102 NDP members, has to force the government to keep its word. Normally, ethically speaking, when a political party runs in an election, it has to keep its word. Since the government very clearly told Canadians that it would not proceed with this, it should show them a little respect and honour the promise that it made, specifically, that it would not proceed with this and that it would allow the Supreme Court to rule on this matter and decide whether this falls under federal jurisdiction. The government did not do that.

It decided to impose this brick of a bill, which contains some things that we support, such as the tax credit for volunteer firefighters. We support certain parts of this bill. We will be talking more about them later today and over the next few days. There are other things that we do not support, such as clause 162, which creates a glaring contradiction between the Conservative Party promises and the reality of the Conservative government, which is not keeping its word. That is why we are proposing that the clause be deleted.

The report stage is an important one. Even the Conservative members would have to agree with me on that. During the last election, they campaigned on that very claim—that they would not go ahead with this. Since they promised not to act on this, why put these clauses in Bill C-13, clauses that go against what they promised in the last election campaign?

When we talk about Bill C-13 and those aspects that go against the Conservative government's promises, it becomes clear that the government was so concerned about ways to break its promises and to play shell games—on so many levels—that serve the Conservative Party, it forgot that its responsibility is the Canadian economy. We can see this in the numbers that have been released over the past few weeks regarding job losses. Canada lost 62,000 full-time jobs in October. That works out to just over 2,000 jobs a day, roughly. Every day in October, the Conservative government lost over 2,000 jobs.

At that rate, it being November 15, we may have lost another 30,000 jobs in the first half of the month alone, but we will not get the figures until the end of the month. We do not know because the figures the Conservatives bring to this House are inaccurate and do not reflect the reality on the street in terms of job losses. Those could have been avoided if this Bill C-13 had done what we proposed. It could have included investments for job creation, to help the middle class and the poorest Canadian families. If this government had taken action, we would not have lost so many jobs in October and we would not be in the process of losing even more in November.

Instead of taking action to create employment, which we still advocate, the government inserted clauses like clause 162 and thereby broke the solemn promises it made to the Canadian public during the last election campaign. For that reason, we want to get rid of clause 162.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

There are four motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-13. The motions will be grouped for debate as follows: Group No. 1, Motion No. 1; Group No. 2, Motions Nos. 2 to 4.

The voting patterns for the motions within each group are available at the table. The Chair will remind the House of each pattern at the time of voting.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-13, An Act to implement certain provisions of the 2011 budget as updated on June 6, 2011 and other measures, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Finance

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Finance in relation to Bill C-13, an act to implement certain provisions of the 2011 budget as updated on June 6, 2011 and other measures.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House without amendments.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Fine. Thank you, Mr. Mai.

I have a ruling on this amendment as well.

Bill C-13 amends the Canadian Securities Regulation Regime Transition Office Act to allow the minister to make additional payments to the transition office above the previous $33-million threshold.

This amendment attempts to restrict the minister's ability to make these payments until such time as the Supreme Court of Canada has rendered a decision in the matter of a reference by the Governor in Council concerning the proposed Canadian Securities Act.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, states on page 766:

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.

In the opinion of the chair, the introduction of this restriction on the minister's ability to make payments is a new concept that is beyond the scope of Bill C-13 and is therefore inadmissible.

The ruling is not debatable, and therefore the amendment is inadmissible.

Thank you.

We'll go, then, to clause 162.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Concerning section 162, we move the following amendment:

(1.1) The Minister shall not make any payment to the Transition Office under subsection (1) until the Supreme Court of Canada has rendered a decision in the Matter of a Reference by Governor in Council concerning the proposed Canadian Securities Act, as set out in Order in Council P.C. 2010-667, date May 26, 2010, and the Minister has taken that decision into account in determining whether he or she should make any payments to the Transition Office.

Right now, as worded in Bill C-13, this section allows supplementary payments to be made to the Canadian Securities Regulation Regime Transition Bureau. As you know, Quebec is opposed to it, as well as six provinces. A $33 million payment has already been approved. We were told by the officials that $14 million have already been spent. All this issue has been referred to the Supreme Court of Canada and we still don't know whether it is constitutional.

Why then spend so much money for something which might be invalidated and which is opposed by Quebec and other provinces? Ironically, the Conservatives said during the 2001 election campaign that they would not proceed until they had a ruling by the Supreme Court.

That is the amendment we move.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

When we're talking about the financial abuse issue, whether it's through abuse of the power of attorney or just abuse of a bank account, how do you get into nursing homes and retirement homes with this kind of information? It's a very delicate thing.

I suspect that there's probably a huge amount of what we would term financial abuse going on, yet you can't.... One of the witnesses we had the other day was suggesting that there was a particular clause in Bill C-13 involving the banks that they had some concerns about. You don't want to take away the independence of an individual, and usually it's family involved. I think we're caught, in some ways, in trying to help and trying to protect them from themselves. Sometimes they don't want to be protected and helped either, yet we call it...and it is financial abuse in many ways. It's very difficult to help everybody.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Chair, we heard from organizations and witnesses ranging from the Canadian Association of Retired Persons to the Canadian Home Care Association to the Canadian Caregivers Association--and it was confirmed by financial officials--that the tax credits in Bill C-13 for family caregivers, volunteer firefighters, and children's arts activities are all non-refundable tax credits, and that because of this they exclude low-income Canadians, who most need the help.

In fact, we heard last night from CARP that people who quit their jobs to act as caregivers probably wouldn't qualify for the caregiver tax credit at all because their income is too low.

In my own family situation, my sister, who's a VON nurse, has had to cut back her hours to help take care of my 82-year-old mother, who has Alzheimer's. There are a lot of Canadian families in the same situation. They are caught in a situation where they have to cut down their work hours to take care of a loved one, so there's a negative impact on their family income that would take them below the threshold to actually qualify for this caregiver tax credit.

We believe that excluding the poorest Canadians--the Canadians who have the greatest need--from these tax credits is wrong, morally wrong, and that it will worsen the growing income inequality in Canada. So in an effort to address this constructively, my office has worked with the House of Commons legislative counsel to draft an amendment that would make these tax credits refundable, so that low-income Canadians could qualify for the benefits of these programs.

The legislative clerk has a copy of this amendment. I'd appreciate his advice on the admissibility of the amendment. Specifically, could he advise us as to when and how this amendment can be moved?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Just to clarify matters, what the chair is doing is calling clause-by-clause consideration. The document we're working with is Bill C-13.

This is the document we're working with. Any documents by the Library of Parliament or by the Department of Finance in addition to this are helpful in informing about this piece of legislation, but the bill is actually what we're going through.

This bill is the document that I'll be working with today. Other documents may be provided to help members in terms of informing them as to the specifics of each clause, but this is the bill I'm dealing with.

I'm dealing with the clauses in part 1, and I'm dealing with clauses 2 to 33 because I don't have any amendments for those, so I was going to call those clauses.

Mr. Julian.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I call this meeting to order. The orders of the day for the 28th meeting of the Standing Committee on Finance, pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, October 17, 2011, are a discussion of Bill C-13, An Act to implement certain provisions of the 2011 budget as updated on June 6, 2011, and other measures.

Colleagues, you should have in front of you clause-by-clause consideration, as that is exactly what we are doing here today. We do have a number of amendments, which I'll obviously call upon members to introduce and argue for when we get to those clauses.

We are going to proceed by part, and consideration of clause 1 is postponed pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), so therefore we're going to start with clause 2.

Part 1 deals with clauses 2 to 103.

The first clause I have an amendment for is clause 34. In the interests of organization, I'm going to ask if there any amendments on clauses 2 to 33.

No? Okay.

Mr. Julian.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, nobody would be more delighted than I if we could actually not have to use time allocation, but so far we have not seen an indication from the opposition parties that they are prepared to deal with bills on an expeditious basis. We feel the need to actually get things done here and deliver on our commitments.

In fact, in each of these cases since we started in September, each one of those bills continues to be debated in the process in the House of Commons. At committee, they have not even returned here for report stage yet, let alone third reading. Extensive debate is taking place.

The fact is that the parliamentary process is a lengthy one with many stages. We want to ensure that bills have an opportunity to get through those stages so they can become law, so we can keep the commitments that we made to Canadians.

We are making good progress this week, democratic reform week.

We introduced the Political Loans Accountability Act, which will prevent future leadership contestants from bypassing the law’s contribution limits by running up huge interest-free loans from supporters. We saw this in the 2006 Liberal leadership race. Many of those loans do not get paid off and are really donations over the legal limit.

We have also begun debate on Bill C-20, the fair representation act. I am pleased that this bill will be voted on tonight before being referred to committee for study. The bill restores respect for the founding principle of our country at the heart of Confederation, that Canada's first Prime Minister, Sir John A. Macdonald, forged, that of representation by population. The bill moves every single province closer to the principle of representation by population, that each vote should have, to the extent possible, the same weight.

I know that some members may be disappointed that we have not yet had an opportunity this week to debate Bill C-7, which is the Senate reform act, but they can rest assured I will be calling that bill for debate as our first item of business on the Monday following constituency week. It is part of what one opposition member properly calls our comprehensive democratic reform plan.

Tomorrow, I hope we can deal with Bill C-16, the Security of Tenure of Military Judges Act, and Bill C-15, the Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act. I hope both bills, which make important revisions to the military justice system, will garner all party support.

Of course, next week is a constituency week where members will be in their ridings speaking to Canadians about the issues that are important to them.

I know that most Canadians, whom I have spoken with at least, think that the jobs and economic growth issues are the top priority and they expect their government to focus on that right here in the House. With this in mind, the next week that we are back will be a jobs and economic growth week.

Jobs and economic growth week will kick off on Monday afternoon when we will again debate the copyright modernization act. The opposition introduced a motion to keep this bill from ever being debated at committee. This is disappointing. The bill would modernize our copyright laws and encourage job creation in one of Canada's most dynamic and important sectors of the economy.

I understand that the finance committee is meeting later today to conduct its clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-13, the keeping Canada's economy and jobs growing act, that implements the next phase of Canada's economic action plan. I will give priority to this job creation bill when the committee has completed its study. I anticipate scheduling report stage for Tuesday and Wednesday, which will undoubtedly be the highlight of jobs and economic growth week. This bill would implement important measures from our low tax plan for jobs and growth, including tax relief for small businesses that create jobs and a new tax credit for children who go to dance classes or take arts, music, or language lessons. I hope that it will pass swiftly through the House so that the measures can be implemented for the benefit of our economy and indeed all Canadians.

Finally, Thursday, November 17, will be an allotted day.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

You can see that we want to make sure we get all the information from you. It has been a very interesting discussion, both the questions from the chair and the comments from Mr. Giguère.

Mr. Macdonald, I don't think you had a chance to respond to Mr. Jean. He was being a little over-eager when he was asking questions. I wanted to give you the opportunity to respond a little bit more, because I think this is important. This is where the bubble that Ottawa lives under bursts—when we start talking about Bill C-13, what's missing, and what the reality is out there. There will be 100,000 more breadwinners put out in the streets in the coming months.

You referenced rising inequality. I'd like you to talk about that. I think your institute has done some studies on this. Some people have talked about the late 1920s, saying that the clock has been turned back on inequality, back to those times. Could you confirm to what extent we've turned the clock back, because of the policies of the last few years?

You've talked about the lower-paying jobs and the fact that we have more people without work than in May 2008. That's important. You also talked about the debt load of the average Canadian family. The middle class is living a debt crisis. There's no other way to put it. They have debt loads of 150% of their annual income. Families have been struggling with lower and lower wages by indebting themselves more and more. If you could have this committee revise Bill C-13 so that it actually dealt with some of these realities, what changes would you bring in to address these problems that don't normally penetrate the Ottawa bubble?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I've been pretty lax with respect to every member with respect to questions on Bill C-13. There's lax and there's lax.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Are we now discussing Bill C-13?

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I am going to ask rather technical questions, and I apologize for that. I will address the first one to Mr. Koeller.

When Bill C-13 was tabled, I did not pay too much attention to this tax avoidance measure proposed by the Revenue Department, and I apologize for that.

After reading your document, I realize that, because of the complexity of the bill, we might have missed something important. It might be interesting to have an official from the Revenue Department to explain to this committee all the complexities of this measure. At first, it is a measure to prevent tax avoidance, because the department realized—as I did—there was some abuse with fiscal planning. There might be some unexpected collateral damage, because as we can see, up to half of the bill itself is worded in a way to reflect the need to close this loophole. In any event, I am examining your document.

My second question is addressed to the CALU representatives and deals with individual pension plans. The department cannot simply look at the question of a small business owner's right to an individual pension plan, they have to look at the whole spectrum, and I quite understand that. They have to ensure tax fairness.

Already, private business owners under Canadian ownership—what is called a CCPC—are eligible to a sizable capital tax exemption. They are allowed to charge a rent to their company for their headquarters. They are eligible to income-splitting. So, very frankly, I think that the department is right to impose some kind of limits, if only for tax fairness purposes.

If you look at the whole spectrum of CCPC owners, don't you agree they already have quite a lot of tax benefits?

[Susan St. Amand, Chair, Conference for Advanced Life Underwriting]

Mr. Chair and committee members, thank you very much for allowing us to appear before you this evening.

My name is Susan St. Amand and I am chair for the Conference for Advanced Life Underwriting. I have run my own small financial services business in Ottawa for the past 22 years now, and prior to that I spent seven years in management with one of the largest Canadian chartered banks. Our brief provides more information on CALU and our sister organization, Advocis, but I want to remind you that more than 10,000 of our members are largely self-employed, independent small-business owners spread out across Canada. Each one of us advises approximately 300 families, many of whom are owners of small to medium-sized businesses.

Like you, we are very concerned about the ability of our business clients to fund their own retirement and the retirement of their employees, while preparing for the succession of their businesses. Although I have not implemented many individual pension plans myself for our clients, I do know they have a very valuable place in our system. When the new IPP rules were first introduced last March, I understood the proposed changes were directed at a small group of business owners who were obtaining unintended tax benefits from their individual pension plans. It appeared that the Department of Finance was now quite properly dealing with this problem. But then I started getting calls from our members, expressing concerns about the general impact of the proposals on the ability of their business clients to participate in defined-benefit-style pension plans.

Based on this feedback, CALU formed a working group of members who had expertise in this area. In mid-September, the working group completed its submission to the Department of Finance, noting a number of issues and requesting more time for consultation. It appears that the finance department was operating under a tight deadline, and Bill C-13 was tabled a mere two weeks after the close of the consultation period. Thanks to previous dialogue and input, the final IPP regulations did contain a change designed to mitigate the impact of one of the proposals.

However, CALU continues to have a fundamental concern with these proposals. We believe the IPP legislation challenges the ability of business owners and key employees to participate in retirement benefit programs with similar terms and conditions available to employees in larger private and even public companies. We see this as a dangerous trend that seems to assume that business owners will abuse employee benefit plans. We don't believe most of our business clients or their professional advisors design plans with the intention of taking advantage of the rules, and we are concerned about this perception and the role it may play as a basis for the development of tax policy.

I would now like to invite Kevin to make some specific comments on the legislation that will hopefully illustrate my points.

[Susan Eng, Vice-President, Advocacy, Canadian Association of Retired Persons]

Thank you very much.

I represent CARP, a national non-profit non-partisan organization with 350,000 members and 50 chapters across the country. We advocate for public policy change that improves the quality of life for all Canadians as we age.

Health care remains a top priority for our members, as it is for all Canadians, but it matters more as we age. Despite the fact that today's generation of older Canadians are living longer, healthier lives, the Canadian health care system serves Canadians very well for acute care, but it's not mandated to provide continuing care for those with chronic diseases for which medicine has no cure. That responsibility falls to informal caregivers and the home-care sector, which is at best a patchwork across the country.

CARP's particular focus today is on clause 23 of BIll C-13, which provides for a non-refundable caregiver tax credit. CARP is recommending that the tax credit be made refundable, that it be increased, that it be targeted at those who provide the heaviest care, and that all of this funding be within the same funding envelope.

The vast majority of Canadians want to stay in their own homes as long as possible, even if they have medical challenges. Being able to do so not only improves their health outcomes but keeps them among their friends and family, all of which adds to their quality of life.

This good social and health policy is also good fiscal policy. A well-integrated and successful home-care strategy has the potential of diverting massive amounts of demand from the formal health care system. It's estimated that home care is 40% to 75% less expensive than institutional care is.

Finally, not only is the comprehensive home-care and caregiver support strategy good public policy, it also makes good political sense. CARP polls its members regularly on our advocacy proposals, and they consistently rank caregiver support as a top priority. They appreciated the attention given to the role of family caregivers in the recent federal and provincial elections. They appreciated the acknowledgment of family caregivers with the specific non-refundable tax credit proposed and now passed in the recent budget, but they would prefer the refundable tax credit or allowance proposed in other platforms. Fifty percent of those polled by CARP last week thought the best way to support caregivers was through an allowance or a refundable tax credit.

The amount set forth in the budget, if it were refundable, would be welcomed by the 2.7 million Canadians now providing care to older loved ones. However, there should be a focus on those providing heavy care: those who are most likely to be reducing their hours of work or quitting their jobs altogether to look after a loved one, either permanently or during an acute period. Such people would not benefit from a non-refundable tax credit unless they had other sources of taxable income. Not only should they receive a refundable tax credit, but the amount should be increased beyond the $300 resulting from the budget changes. We believe it's possible to limit the budget expenditures with such a measure.

One in five Canadians over the age of 45 is providing care to an older person. That's about 2.7 million Canadians, according to Statistics Canada. Of that 2.7 million caregivers, 25% provide heavy care, defined as 30 hours or more of care each week. That brings us down to about 675,000 Canadians. Of the 2.7 million caregivers, some 25% are themselves seniors, and 30%, or some 200,000 people, are themselves over 75 years of age. A modest $1,500 per year for 675,000 caregivers would cost about $1 billion a year.

There are existing models of caregiver support and allowances here in Canada. Nova Scotia targets low-income families. It looks at the 20-hour threshold of care per week, and it provides up to $4,800 per year. It has budgeted a small amount and would look after only about 375 families. Manitoba has an option as well. Germany has something interesting, which is long-term-care insurance that provides a significant amount of care to caregivers.

I will be able to give you some more specific facts and figures, but suffice it to say that if there were an opportunity to divert a massive amount of care, and if you looked at the differential between home-care costs and institutional costs, there is the potential for anywhere from $4 billion to $10 billion a year in diverted costs.

Thank you very much.

[Dale Koeller, Vice-President, Calvert Home Mortgage Investment Corporation]

Thank you very much.

Monsieur le président, ladies and gentlemen of the finance committee, good evening.

It's a great pleasure for me to speak to you today.

I consider it a great opportunity to speak about a matter that affects many honest Canadians, not just business people but also the thousands of people who rely on the specialized services of mortgage investment corporations.

A mortgage investment corporation, known as a MIC, is a business structure created by an act of Parliament in 1975 to increase investment in the mortgage sector and to make home ownership more accessible to Canadians. MIC shares have been eligible for registered accounts, RRSPs, and RRIFs since their creation. The Income Tax Act outlines stringent criteria to maintain eligibility as a MIC. Among the rules are an ownership limit of 25% as a shareholder, and related parties counted together in this 25% include a spouse and minor children.

The current ownership rules were legislated into the Income Tax Act in the late 1990s as a result of a comprehensive review of MICs by the Department of Finance. The rules were implemented with a ten-year penalty-free window for MICs to fall into compliance. MICs represent a legitimate form of lending that was conceived of by people like you. MICs were an excellent idea, and they continue to fulfill the purpose for which they were designed. However, changes to the rules governing registered accounts represented by Bill C-13 will have the effect of moving MIC shareholders into illegitimate and prohibited territory.

We understand the intent behind many of the changes, which is to address inappropriate tax planning schemes. These kinds of schemes do no favours for legitimate lending businesses like ours, and we applaud the government for the priority it places on tightening up the rules.

Bill C-13 accomplishes this in many ways. However, in our view it goes far beyond its therapeutic intent. What should be a surgical instrument aimed at a troublesome issue appears to be more like a sledgehammer that threatens healthy tissue over a much wider area.

Bill C-13 will in effect change the way the government has regarded MICs for more than 35 years. It will effectively limit ownership to 10% for the owner to maintain registered account eligibility of the shares. In addition to the ownership limit being reduced by 15%, those counted together in this maximum will be expanded from spouse and minor children to include any blood, marital, or adoptive relative.

All of this may sound benign or harmless, but from the point of view of those who operate a MIC, the short-term effect will be harsh, punitive taxes. The long-term effect may be the collapse of many businesses across the country and possibly financial ruin. Those who exceed the 10% ownership cap, together with their relatives, people who were all along in compliance with the Income Tax Act previously, will have their RRSP and RRIF taxed in the current year and every year until 2022. At that point, if the shares are still in their registered account, they will have their entire income confiscated with a 100% tax rate.

As you can see, law-abiding business people will be hurt; but more importantly, so will the many thousands of Canadians who hold shares in these companies. Who are these shareholders? A teacher, a farmer, a shopkeeper, a retiree. Together with the managers of the company, we the affected shareholders will have to deregister our retirement savings. The remaining shareholders may also suffer a penalty in the value of a company that must restructure to comply with this change in policy.

My company's a small business. We have only one office with eight employees. We've operated as a lender since 1982 and currently have $26 million invested in mortgages. Most other MICs are equally small. Yet together as an industry, we represent over a billion dollars and hundreds of MICs across Ontario, B.C., and Alberta alone. The contribution to the economy is significant across the entire country. We grant mortgages to builders and renovators, who employ carpet layers and plumbers, and many of these borrowers would be hard-pressed to find the financing they need through institutional lenders. We work with borrowers in small or rural communities, where institutions may not be able to help them.

What we finance directly fuels jobs, fuels economic opportunity, builds communities, and helps to support entrepreneurs and small industry in Canada. We ask for the opportunity to keep these dollars working in an economy that desperately needs our nurturing, and we commit to continue to work hard to invest wisely to support that growth.

In conclusion, I ask that you please remove the sections of Bill C-13 that apply to MICs. I understand your need to close inappropriate tax planning schemes. We have suggestions to help you prevent schemes without negative effects on the MIC industry. We can help you make this work more fairly. I would be at your disposal if I can help in any way.

Again, thank you for the opportunity to share this information with you, and thank you for the leadership and service in your work as members of our federal Parliament. Merci.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I call this meeting to order. This is the 26th meeting of the Standing Committee on Finance.

I want to welcome our guests here tonight and thank them so much for coming in on fairly short notice, and especially for attending the night session of the standing committee.

We are televised, ladies and gentlemen, and pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, October 17, 2011, this is our study of Bill C-13, an act to implement certain provisions of the 2011 budget as updated on June 6, 2011, and other measures.

We have five organizations represented at this panel: the Calvert Home Mortgage Investment Corporation, the Canadian Association of Retired Persons, the Conference for Advanced Life Underwriting, the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs, and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

You will each have a maximum of five minutes for an opening statement, and then we'll have questions from members. We'll begin with Mr. Koeller, please.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

And we totally agree with you. That's why we were pushing for it. The other one was more an economic multiplier, so it was just a fact.

A question for Mr. Myers. In your brief you mentioned that we should invest in R and D. In Bill C-13 there is a capital cost allowance for clean energy generation and conservation of equipment. Can you tell us, if we were to move toward a cleaner energy, greener economy, how that would benefit your members and the economy in general, and why it would be better for us to invest in that type of energy?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I'll just respond to that point of order.

It's not a point of order, and it's not beyond the scope because I allowed the questions from Mr. Hsu who brought up the issue of something that was not in Bill C-13.

Mr. Lake.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I understand Mr. Lake has been brought in late on this. He may not be aware of the details on Bill C-13, but that is indeed what we are speaking to, and I'm sure his colleagues on the Conservative side understand that's completely out of the scope of what we've asked witnesses to come here to speak on tonight.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Thanks to our witnesses for coming forward. We apologize for the delay as we were sorting out our committee business. It's very good that you're here this evening.

I wanted to start with Mr. Buda and Mr. Vrbanovic on the issue of infrastructure generally. We heard testimony yesterday that we have an infrastructure deficit that was evaluated before the stimulus program at about $125 billion. But of course, as you know, there is an ongoing year-to-year stimulus deficit. In transit alone it's been estimated to be about $10 billion a year.

This is an important step. It's only a very small first step to what's needed to address the deficit on an annual basis and the overall infrastructure deficit that exists across the country--or the infrastructure debt, if you like.

If you could, I'd like you to speak to the issue of the gas tax transfer and to what extent that addresses the annual deficit, where you see the FCM's evaluation overall as to the infrastructure deficit generally across Canada, and what measures could be taken to increase the amount set aside in Bill C-13 to seriously address on an ongoing basis the deficit that exists in infrastructure in this country.

[Berry Vrbanovic, President, Federation of Canadian Municipalities]

Thank you very much, and good evening, Mr. Chairman and members of the House finance committee.

On behalf of the 2,000 member cities and communities of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak to you again this evening as you consider Bill C-13, and in particular part 9 as it relates to the gas tax legislation.

Our central message is brief and has three points.

One, the government's recent budget commitment to develop a long-term infrastructure plan, which would provide permanent long-term stable funding, holds great promise for Canada's cities and communities.

Two, the gas tax fund should be the cornerstone of this new infrastructure plan.

Three, as this new plan is developed, we must ensure that the gas tax fund is indexed to protect its purchasing power over time.

That's the only way for all the governments to continue reversing our infrastructure decline. The gas tax fund was a great way to address the infrastructural issue in Canada.

From 2005 to 2014, the fund will invest $13 billion in municipal infrastructure, from new drinking water facilities to public transit, from roads and bridges to waste water facilities. The GTF has gone a long way to slowing the decline of our economic infrastructure.

We all know how inflation, no matter how mild at the moment, erodes buying power. For example, between 2005 and 2009, the construction price index, tracked by Statistics Canada, increased by 21%, more than double the consumer price index we're familiar with. Without indexation, the gas tax fund will effectively shrink while infrastructure costs rise. In fact, the gas tax fund will lose one-third of its purchasing power over the next 20 years. That means the fund will be able to invest in one-third less infrastructure in 2030 than it does today. That means our cities and communities will be back to juggling priorities and delaying much needed infrastructure investments.

Let me be quite clear. We applaud the government's economic action plan and its commitment in the budget to developing a new long-term infrastructure plan. The success of the economic action plan demonstrated that when governments work together we can provide better value, services, and programs for Canadians. We know that if governments work together we can restore aging roads, bridges, water systems, and public transit and still provide people with the everyday services they need. We can continue to do all this if we work together to develop a truly long-term, fully financed plan to invest in our country's public infrastructure.

Financing is the foundation of any long-term infrastructure plan, particularly long-term financing. Infrastructure projects are long-term projects requiring long-term commitments, so we need a frank and serious discussion about protecting the value of the gas tax fund into the future. The most appropriate venue for this discussion is the long-term planning process being led by Minister Lebel, and I fully hope and expect that this discussion will occur.

Without an infrastructure investment plan that protects the value of the gas tax fund, we will see the recent advances slow and then reverse. Our cities and communities will be left without a long-term predictable funding source they can count on, and that will have a significant impact on all of us.

Canada needs first-rate and efficient public infrastructure to maintain its quality of life and its economic competitiveness.

To build and maintain that infrastructure we need that long-term plan, the cornerstone of which needs to be a permanent gas tax fund indexed to protect its value over time.

Thank you. Merci beaucoup.

[Jean-Pierre Laporte, Pension Lawyer, As an Individual]

Thank you for this opportunity to provide the standing committee with some observations about certain aspects of the proposed legislation contained in Bill C-13.

By way of background, I am a pension lawyer and I currently practise in the city of Toronto with the law firm of Bennett Jones, LLP. I've been specializing in the area of pensions and benefits since 2001, and I have a particular interest in pension law reform. Some of the committee members who served on this committee in the last Parliament may remember that I have made presentations to parliamentarians on reforming the Canada Pension Plan in the past.

One particular element of Bill C-13 that may be of interest to this committee is the provision of new rules affecting individual pension plans. I have written one of the very few academic papers on individual pension plans in Canada. In March of 2007 the Estates, Trusts & Pensions Journal said of individual pension plans, “Are they worthy of a second look?”

In the brief time allotted to me, given the relative dearth of expertise in Canada on IPPs, or individual pension plans, I thought it would be a most judicious use of your time to focus my remarks on two proposed changes that could impact IPPs.

I don't want my remarks to be overly technical. I'm sure the officials from the Department of Finance are quite capable of explaining the current regime and how the proposed new laws would work, and I leave that to them. But I want to make some general comments. My intervention is simply as a private sector service provider who's acquired familiarity with these pension rules and how they interact with the day-to-day lives of Canadians.

The two changes I want to talk about are those relating to buy-back restrictions and forced distributions at retirement. I propose to comment briefly on both.

In terms of the buy-back restrictions, this is the ability that someone has under a registered pension plan to buy back years of service at a time the plan wasn't in existence. By way of illustration, if you have an employer, for example, an individual who has incorporated a company, a small business owner who has been carrying out that business for a number of years and then decides to set up a pension plan, an IPP, if it's a defined benefit plan, which most IPPs are, the actuary for the plan would say that's going to cost, say, $600,000. In order to fund that $600,000 hole in the pension fund, you would have to transfer moneys from your existing RRSP or other registered sources, like a defined profit-sharing plan. If there isn't enough money in the RRSP, the company could make a tax deductible contribution to make you whole, so that the pension fund has enough moneys to pay the pension that was promised.

The proposed new rules would force you to not only use the money in your current RRSP, but also to use up any RRSP unused contribution room you have. This would mean that at the end of the day you would be left with no ability to tax shelter in excess of what is in your pension fund. That is a change in the law that I think may not be to the advantage of small business owners, the very people who are usually tasked with the job of creating employment and creating economic activity. So that's one concern I have with the buy-back.

The other is the new rule that would force the moneys that have accumulated in the pension fund to be distributed as if the pension fund was a registered retirement income fund, or RRIF.

Currently, in the Income Tax Act and regulations, there are some rules that say that if you have a RRIF, based on your age you have to start taking parts of it out, and of course you get taxed on that. My concern is that if the RRIF rules are such that you're forced to take more money out of the pension fund than what the pension plan itself contemplates, you're creating a bit of a deficit, because the fund was supposed to last for a number of years. Now you're increasing the amounts that are coming out of it, so you're creating an imbalance between the moneys that you had set aside for retirement and what they're supposed to do for you.

So that's another kind of issue with the proposed rules, and I just wanted to make sure that this committee had a chance to think about that, because, again, IPPs are really targeted at small business people, and those are the very people to whom we're trying to give a break, so they can keep employing people, etc.

That's about it.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Well, they're mentioned in the briefing notes from the minister, of course, Mr. Chair, so obviously if the briefing notes from the minister talk about those three other aspects of political support, taxpayer-funded political support in the system, it is part of this committee's work to ensure that we can compare the $30 million contained within Bill C-13 to the other taxpayer-supported contributions mentioned by the minister in his briefing notes.

Part 18, page 1--the minister talks about it, so obviously it's legitimate to ask.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. St-Martin and Mr. Lynch, for being here this evening.

The notes on Bill C-13 actually mention other types of taxpayer support at the electoral level. It is estimated that the change set out in Bill C-13 will involve $30 million.

Could you tell me how much is spent on other things, such as the 50% reimbursement of political parties' election expenses, the reimbursement of up to 60% of eligible candidate spending in their riding and tax credits for contributions to political parties? I assume you don't have those figures, but it would be beneficial to know roughly how much the Senate costs taxpayers.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay.

I want to thank Mr. Lalonde and Mr. Cook. We are not going to do part 2 or part 5. I apologize to those officials who stayed, but we are going to move to part 8. I understand there's one question on part 8. Could I ask the officials responsible for part 8 to come forward?

Part 8 of Bill C-13 deals with amendments to the Employment Insurance Act—hiring credit for small business. We have three officials with us. I want to welcome them to the table. If you'd like to introduce yourselves, we'll ask our questions afterwards.

Mr. Cuthbert.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Take a few minutes now to respond on those other three parts that you've mentioned. Notwithstanding that, we should come back Thursday for some of the questions we have. I think that's a way of sorting out these two agendas for one evening. We get through some of the questions, bring our other witnesses forward, get into a more general discussion on C-13, and then leave some of the questions for Thursday.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

I've been speaking to my colleagues just to understand what the purpose was this evening. It almost looks as if there were two things scheduled at once: a technical briefing or general questions on the parts of the act, and witnesses speaking more generally to Bill C-13. Would it be correct that we're actually looking at two agendas for one evening of meetings?

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

So you are confirming that a daycare claiming to have an educational component could be allowed to increase its fees by $500. That way, parents could be leaving their children in educational daycares. That's exactly how I had understood it.

In the French, this is on page 65 of your document on finance and on page 55 of your document on Bill C-13.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Colleagues, please take your seat.

I apologize to the officials and colleagues. We are going to be interrupted by a vote, but we should get started on this.

It's been indicated that part 1, which is obviously a very large part of Bill C-13, is of interest to many members. I think, in the interest of time, we'll do question rounds, and I'll try to follow the same format we typically follow.

We have two officials here who are able to answer questions on part 1, so I'll begin with questions.

Perhaps I'll just have the officials introduce themselves and tell us their role with the Department of Finance.

Welcome to the committee.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

You're welcome to buy us coffee any morning.

Minister, welcome. I'm glad to see you here again.

You'll know better than most that the New Democrats and myself have been raising concerns about pensions in the House for a couple of years now. I have to say that, in my opinion, when we look at where it stands, Bill C-13 doesn't begin to address the very real pension problems facing Canadians. It also suggests, sir, that part 15 of Bill C-13, which deals with the CPP disability, could only have been agreed to at meetings of the federal, provincial, and territorial ministers. For me—and you'll know this well because I questioned you in the House prior to Kananaskis—this was a great opportunity to have started a phased in enhancement of the CPP. I have to question why instead you undertook what appears to be house cleaning. It really strikes me as strange, because we felt before that there was an opportunity here, that going forward it seemed to be something you had recognized as a serious concern.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Part 10 of Bill C-13 vests the Minister of Finance with the power to provide additional funding to the Canadian Securities Regulation Regime Transition Office.

First, could you explain why the original amount of $33 million was not enough for the Canadian Securities Regulation Regime Transition Office?

Second, most of the provinces are against this bill, and the Conservatives promised in their 2011 platform not to carry out this project before the Supreme Court had ruled on it. So, why are we going ahead with it?

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for appearing here before us.

I want to talk a little bit about small businesses and why small business owners in my riding are encouraged by Budget 2011, especially by things like better transparency and accountability in the Canada Revenue Agency and the hiring credit for small businesses.

We've heard quite a bit. I wanted to quote some of the good news we've heard, for instance, from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. They said:

In this Year of the Entrepreneur, we give credit to the government for continuing to work to balance its books while finding important, low-cost ways to help small firms grow the economy.... The government took some important steps to enhance job creation and recognize the economic contributions of small businesses in Canada.

The Timmins Chamber of Commerce said:

In Timmins, we estimate the hiring tax credit will affect approximately 90% of all Chamber members. It's something that can be used for training and to encourage hiring.... It's great to see some of the tools being given back to businesses.

I wonder if you could talk to us for a few moments and tell us about the hiring credit for small businesses included in Bill C-13 and how it will help small businesses.

[Jim Flaherty, Conservative, Whitby—Oshawa, ON]

The change involves the reallocation of assets in registered education saving plans for siblings without incurring tax penalties, which is important when one has a number of children, whether you have them at the same time or not. I know my parliamentary secretary has five children. I appreciate that. You'll be able to move money around from one RESP to another without having some of the tax consequences that have proven to be difficult for parents, so we're sorting that out in Bill C-13.

I hope members will see fit to support it.

[Jim Flaherty, Conservative, Whitby—Oshawa, ON]

Thank you.

As members of Parliament, I think all of us frequently have constituents speaking to us about their responsibilities in caring for infirm parents or relatives. This measure, which is in Bill C-13, addresses that challenge. It proposes to provide new support for caregivers of infirm dependent family members by introducing a new family caregiver tax credit.

Technically it is a 15% non-refundable credit on an amount of $2,000, to provide tax relief for caregivers of all types of infirm dependent relatives, including, for the first time, caring for spouses, common-law partners, and minor children.

Assuming it is passed by Parliament, the measure will apply for the 2012 taxation year and subsequent taxation years. It's estimated that over 500,000 caregivers will benefit from the tax credit, receiving $160 million in new annual support.

I hope you will support this measure in Bill C-13.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

I want to talk briefly about our tax plan and the good news in my riding. In 2008, one of our mills closed down because of competition and the opportunities with more trade. The mill locally put in $25 million, and the community re-employed approximately 250 workers. So I think our plan is working.

Canadians saw the budget in March, and they had an opportunity to spend many months looking at it. I think they have given us a strong mandate to move forward with many of the measures. I'm really pleased with how things have been going in the riding that I represent, but I also see it across the country.

The NDP, I think, typically likes to think there are no measures that will help everyday Canadians in this budget. They seem to think there's nothing there.

As a former health caregiver, I see many items in this budget that I think are very, very important. I have to look, first of all, at the new family caregiver tax credit, which is a 15% non-refundable credit on an amount of $2,000, providing relief to caregivers. We certainly know that more and more often we have challenges in that area. Many families are facing those challenges. We've seen the very, very positive response from the Canadian Caregiver Coalition.

Can you briefly talk about the family caregiver tax credit in Bill C-13 and how it will help caregivers in Canada?

[Jim Flaherty, Conservative, Minister of Finance]

Thank you, Chair. I'm here, of course, with officials from the Department of Finance who can be helpful on any technical questions after I make some relatively brief opening remarks.

Now before I begin, let me congratulate the chair and the members of the finance committee for your hard work over the past few months doing pre-budget consultations. I know you've been travelling across the country to places large and small, and I appreciate the effort you do.

Along with my consultations as Minister of Finance, the finance committee's pre-budget consultation does help ensure that Canadians are heard and that their voices are reported, through you, from across the country.

Recommendations flowing from your pre-budget hearings always inform and influence the ultimate budget document. I urge the finance committee to conclude its pre-budget consultations, and I look forward to reviewing your findings.

First, I want to urge the committee to study and pass Bill C-13, the Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act.

That legislative measure, adapted to today's realities, is an important and positive solution to the current economic challenges. It also prepares Canada to take advantage of tomorrow's economic prospects.

While the economic recovery remains fragile and uncertain, as exemplified by the situation in the U.S. and Europe, Canada will continue to face and feel the effects of global headwinds from abroad. In any event, our government knows that this is not the time to rest on our laurels, as we are still faced with very real economic challenges.

On economic growth, both the IMF and the OECD forecast that here in Canada we will have among the strongest economies in the G-7 in the years ahead. On jobs, Canada has the strongest job creation record in the G-7, with about 650,000 net new jobs created since the end of the recession in July 2009. Nearly 90% of those jobs are full-time. On our fiscal situation, Canada, based on IMF projections, has and will continue to have by far the lowest total government net debt to GDP ratio in the entire G-7.

On our financial sector, the World Economic Forum has, for the fourth straight year, rated our banking system the best in the world. On fiscal and economic fundamentals, Canada's credit rating, unlike that of numerous other countries, has been affirmed as the highest possible by all three major credit-rating agencies. Indeed, only last week, Standard & Poor's renewed Canada's leading credit rating, declaring, and I quote:

Canada's superior political and economic profile rests...on its policymaking and political institutions, which we see as highly effective, stable, and predictable. Canadian authorities have a strong track record in managing past economic and financial crises and delivering economic growth.

On competitiveness, Forbes, the influential business magazine, ranked Canada—largely due to our low tax plan for Canadian businesses—as the best country in the world for businesses to grow and create jobs. And the list goes on.

As RBC chief economist Craig Wright recently observed, and I quote:

In Canada's case we're well positioned, whether you look at it from our fiscal position in Canada, or indeed from our economic fundamentals. ... ...our domestic economy has a very solid foundation....

Nevertheless, our government recognizes that now is not the time to rest on our laurels, as very real economic challenges persist.

In fact, too many Canadians are still looking for work. As I just pointed out, the global economic recovery is still fragile. That is why our government continues to focus on supporting the Canadian economy and helping it grow.

At the first signs of economic downturn, at the end of 2008, our government responded by introducing Canada's Economic Action Plan. That measure earmarked $60 billion to support employment and growth while the country weathers the worst global economic crisis.

It is an economic action plan that, according to independent observers, was both appropriate and effective. In the words of BMO economist Doug Porter, it was, and I quote, “arguably one of the most successful stimulus programs in the industrialized world”.

Now, earlier this year, our government further built on the record of accomplishment with Budget 2011, which is the next phase of Canada's economic action plan. The next phase seeks to promote long-term economic prosperity while staying on track to return to balanced budgets and helping Canadian families.

Since March 22, Parliament and all Canadians have examined and debated the provisions included in the next phase of Canada's economic action plan. I'm happy to report that the reaction has been positive. Indeed, Canadians expressed their support for it this past May, and their support for a government squarely focused on helping Canada's economy and job growth.

Today's legislation, the Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act, is an important component of the next phase of Canada's economic action plan, as it includes many of the key provisions from Budget 2011.

While I do not have enough time, nor would I take that much time, to highlight every measure in today's legislation, I would like to provide the committee with a brief overview of some of the measures and how they will assist Canadians.

For instance, the act supports job creation and economic growth by providing a temporary hiring credit for small business to encourage additional hiring; by expanding tax support for clean energy generation to encourage green investments; by extending the mineral exploration tax credit for flow-through share investors by one year to support Canada's mining sector; by simplifying customs tariffs in order to facilitate trade and lower the administrative burden for businesses; by extending the accelerated capital cost allowance for investments in productivity-improving machinery and equipment for Canada's manufacturing sector; and by eliminating the mandatory retirement age for federally regulated employees in order to give older workers wishing to work the option of remaining in the workforce.

The act helps Canada's communities, large and small, by legislating a permanent annual investment of $2 billion in the gas tax fund to provide municipalities predictable long-term infrastructure funding; by enhancing the wage earner protection program to cover more workers affected by employer bankruptcy or receivership; by introducing a volunteer firefighter tax credit for volunteer firefighters; and by increasing the ability of Canadians to give more confidently to legitimate charities by helping combat fraud and other forms of abuse by illegitimate charities.

The Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act helps families from coast to coast by introducing a new family caregiver tax credit to assist caregivers of all types of infirm, dependent relatives; by removing the limit on the amount of eligible expenses caregivers can claim for their financially dependent relatives under the medical expense tax credit; and by introducing a new children's arts tax credit for programs associated with children's arts, cultural, recreational, and developmental activities.

The act also makes key investments in education and training by forgiving loans for new doctors and nurses in underserved rural and remote areas; by helping apprentices in the skilled trades and workers in regulated professions; by making occupational trade and professional exam fees eligible for the tuition tax credit; by improving federal financial assistance for students; and by making it easier to allocate registered education savings plan assets among siblings without incurring tax penalties or forfeiting Canada education savings grants.

With that, Chair, I invite questions from the committee. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I call this meeting to order, and I ask all of our friends in the media to cease recording, please.

Thank you.

It's our pleasure today to welcome the Minister of Finance, The Honourable Jim Flaherty, to the finance committee to discuss Bill C-13, An Act to implement certain provisions of the 2011 budget as updated on June 6, 2011 and other measures.

Minister, it's a pleasure having you here. We have you here for one hour, from 4 p.m. to 5 p.m., and then we'll have your officials after that. We want to welcome you to the committee. I think the last time you were before us was on August 19, and a lot has transpired since then. But you're here in particular to discuss the budget measures. I know you'll have an opening statement, and then you'll have questions from members.

You may begin your statement at any time.

Copyright Modernization Act

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague whether he thinks that this bill will protect creators and artists the same way Bill C-13 will protect refugees by taking away their means of integrating into society and being productive.

Something like a tablet has no value without any content from creators. If people are not protected and compensated for their work, I do not see how our society will be able to advance.

Poverty

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, poverty is no longer just an inner city problem. Pockets of poverty are appearing in the suburbs of cities across Canada. Inequality continues to grow in the regions. Because of isolation and under-funded community organizations, the suburbs are not properly prepared to address poverty. Meanwhile, the government has no action plan to fight poverty. Bill C-13 does not propose any solutions to improve the situation.

When will the Conservatives bring forward a real plan to fight poverty?

Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate that I will not be able to give my entire speech. Nevertheless, I will begin my speech on Bill C-13.

This bill would give large tax breaks to very large business without setting any conditions. What a mistake. Not only are these tax cuts not contingent on the creation of new jobs but they also do not put Canada on the right track for the future, that is the green track, the environmental track.

I will explain why this legislation is but a drop in the bucket in terms of the challenges we will face in coming years. And they will be significant challenges.

First, as I mentioned, the legislation will not create any jobs—and we need jobs. We must continue to create jobs because there are still too many people left behind in Canada and in my lovely region of Drummond. The huge gap between the rich and the rest of the population continues to grow. The vast movement of global occupation and protest make us realize that Canadian families, and those of Drummond as well, are feeling a tremendous amount of pressure. I recently noticed that relief agencies, such as the Comptoir alimentaire Drummond, are being used by more people, which worries me a great deal.

In this respect, let us look at the numbers and statistics that prove that the Conservative government is missing the mark when it comes to job creation.

The number of Canadians who are officially unemployed is still approximately 1.4 million. In addition, if we include those who are discouraged or underemployed, the number is close to 2 million.

So, we would expect serious and concrete job creation measures. For example, the Conservatives could draw on our excellent election platform in which we proposed the introduction of a job creation tax credit of up to $4,500 for each new job created. This initiative would help to create 200,000 jobs per year, jobs that would meet the needs of families.

We also have other proposals that hon. members can find in our election platform. Unfortunately, I do not have time to share those proposals with them. These are concrete measures to reward businesses that create jobs, not just gifts for very large corporations, banks or the oil and gas industries. No. These are real measures that would benefit families in Canada and in my riding, Drummond. They are real measures that would create good-quality jobs for the future.

Speaking of the oil and gas industries, does the Conservative government really believe that these are the industries of the future? No, they are not. And it is not true that oil sands are an ethical oil source, that is for sure. Give me a break.

In my riding, people have joined forces. I have to stop there? Okay.

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-13. I enjoyed the last speech and the questions and comments. The very short answer to that is my relatives who live in Wainwright, Alberta should have the same rights that my relatives who live in Lucan, Ontario currently have, which is choice in terms of how they market their grains. Rights should extend across the country.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I know the member opposite does not like what he is hearing but I can assure the member that it is completely relevant to the debate. Had he been listening in terms of the comments and looking at the book, and I can appreciate it is a fairly thick book, he would find that there are many expenditures that deal with our agricultural community. The actions of the government and the profound impact that it would have on the Prairie farmer is worthy of debating today. I suggest that in time the government will regret taking the actions that it has decided to take on the Prairie farmers.

The title of Bill C-13 is “keeping Canada's economy and jobs growing act”. I have had the opportunity to question members and one of the things I raise constantly is the fact that back in August 2008 there were actually 14,631,300 jobs. Today, there are 14,106,100 jobs. We all know that statistics can be used for all sorts of arguments but the point I am trying to get at is that over the years we have lost half a million full-time jobs.

Let there be no doubt that the biggest concerns Canadians have today is the economy and the need for jobs. I believe that this budget document could have done a lot more in terms of being able to create the jobs that Canadians want to see. With a little more imagination, we could have seen a budget that was fairer and that could have generated the type of jobs that Canadians believe government has a role to play in terms of providing the necessary incentives to have an impact on providing those jobs.

In fact, one of the questions I posed to one of my New Democrat colleagues was on the whole issue of housing. It is an area in which I believe the government could do so much more in terms of providing more incentives to improve our housing stock and so forth.

With so little time to speak, I want to pick up on a couple of other very important issues.

The health care accord is something that is of critical importance. Having been in a provincial legislature for a number of years, I can say that the greatest challenge a province has is that percentage of the budget, the need to deal with it, the need to provide funding and the need to look at future federal budgets. The federal government has a role to play in ensuring that there is a basic standard of health care services from coast to coast to coast. However, there is concern in terms of the government not taking the necessary action to make a difference.

I have raised the issue of seniors. Far too many seniors in Winnipeg North and everywhere else in our country are having a difficult time meeting their basic economic requirements. We need to do more to provide that support to our seniors. I would have liked to have seen more going toward senior pensions and the guaranteed annual income portion of it.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Minister of State (Transport)]

Madam Speaker, as I was listening to the member, I had the opportunity to also look at the summary that is outlined in Bill C-13. I would like the member to respond a bit more about the tax credit advantages.

In the summary we talk about the tax credit for children in artistic, cultural and recreational programs. We talk about tax credits for students in post-secondary education. There are different tax credits or treatment for accelerated capital cost allowance, treatment for investments in machinery and equipment, and in the mining sector.

Could the member explain a bit more about the benefit of these tax advantages and how they empower Canadians and job creators in making our economy stronger?

[Joe Daniel, Conservative, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today in support of Bill C-13, keeping Canada's economy and jobs growing act, as introduced by my colleague, the Minister of Finance.

Since the last federal election, I have heard a common message from constituents, business owners and community leaders alike. They have said again and again that they want our government to continue to focus on strengthening the economy and creating jobs for Canadians.

Through the economic action plan, our Conservative government delivered a record $60 billion in investments across Canada to aid Canadians and businesses during the worst global recession since the Great Depression. Through these investments and the leadership shown by our Prime Minister, Canada has seen seven straight quarters of economic growth, one of the strongest fiscal positions among the world's top performing and advanced economies.

However, more important, Canada has seen a record of 600,000-plus jobs created since July 2009, with over 80% of them being full-time jobs. Clearly, our economic action plan is working and it is putting Canadians back into the jobs they want and need.

The good news does not stop there. On October 7, Statistics Canada further reinforced that our action plan was working. In September of this year, Canada saw employment rise by 61,000 new jobs, almost all of which were full-time jobs. This increase pushed our national unemployment rate to the lowest it has been since December 2008, down to 7.1%. These jobs were spread across a number of industries, such as education services, accommodation services, natural resources and public administration, all of which provide meaningful employment opportunities to Canadians.

The good news does not stop there. Last Friday, our good friends at Statistics Canada further reinforced that the action plan was delivering to Canadians the way our Prime Minister and ministers had envisioned. In August of this year, manufacturing sales rose by 1.4%, to $47.6 billion, which is the highest level we have seen since October 2008.

Despite this good news, I find it ironic that the “new voice of Quebec”, as they call themselves, the official opposition, has and continues to vote against every economic measure the government makes. After all, it was Quebec that saw one of the highest increases in manufacturing sales of 3.5% to be exact, to $11.8 billion.

For every realist in the House, we know that magnificent increase is due to the stimulus this government made in industries, such as manufacturing, as well as industries in our markets and our economy, and yet the opposition members continues to vote against our economic plan. When good news like this is released they are the first to claim how they did this or they attempt to take credit for it.

We must not be fooled. The facts are there. The economic action plan is working and we need to stay the course to ensure that we continue to lead our G7 and G20 colleagues in coming out of this economic recession. Why will the opposition not see that and join us in building a more vibrant, stronger and better economy by supporting this bill?

Our government tabled the economic action plan which has seen enhancements in a vast array of sectors: the economy, the programs and services that the Government of Canada delivers to its citizens, and the leadership our country has taken on the global financial stage. Whether it is extending programs to help businesses keep workers on the job and gainfully employed or enhancing benefits to seniors in our country, Canadians know they can count on this Conservative government to deliver for Canadians.

Supporting job creation, families, communities and investing in innovation and education will continue to be important pillars of our government's economic plan. Even with all these continued investments to help Canadians most in need, the Minister of Finance is still on track to balance Canada's budget. Is it a miracle? I think not.

It is clearly the result of sound fiscal management, expenditure review and proper economic management by the government, our ministers and the Prime Minister.

As stated a few moments ago, supporting job creation has been and will continue to be the top priority of our government.

From providing a one-time credit of up to $1,000 to small businesses to encourage additional hiring to enhancing and extending successful programs such as the work-sharing program and the wage earner protection program, our Conservative government is focusing on sustaining and creating jobs across this nation while improving government services and programs so that they are delivered efficiently, effectively and affordably to Canadians.

Our great initiatives do not stop there. We have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in economic sectors that are important to our country and our economic recovery. From innovation, agriculture, energy and manufacturing to forestry and tourism, Canadian businesses know that they can count on our government to deliver the best balance to keep their doors open and business flowing, and to aid them in hiring Canadians.

That is what it is all about: building our economy to create new jobs for Canadians, young and old alike.

However, our focus has not only been on business; we are focused on two other things that are also important to Canadians: their families and their communities. That is why the government has put into law the permanent investment, annually, of $2 billion in gas tax funding for cities to support the infrastructure programs and projects that matter most to them.

In my riding of Don Valley East, this has enabled the City of Toronto to plan and prioritize local projects because they know they will have stable funding to better our city and our local community's infrastructure.

Building strong and more vibrant communities has been a priority of our government. In Don Valley East, I am confident to say it is evident. In addition, it was our government that introduced a new children's arts tax credit that enables parents to claim up to $500 for programs associated with arts, culture, recreation and development. We did this because we know that a child's education and intellectual growth happens not only inside the four walls of a classroom but also in the extracurricular activities that they do in the mornings, after school or on weekends.

Just as important is what we did for the most needy seniors--over 680,000 of them, to be exact. In the budget, we took action to enhance the guaranteed income supplement to enable seniors to receive additional annual benefits of up to $600 for single seniors and up to $840 for couples.

Our parents and grandparents worked hard for many years to build Canada into the great nation it is today, and when it comes to keeping their money where it belongs, in their pocket, they know they can count on the Conservative government to deliver without the reckless spending that the opposition proposes.

I think one of the most important investments our government has made in Bill C-13 is the new family caregiver tax credit, which alleviates the financial burden on families who have loved ones who are not well. As someone with parents who are seniors, I find it reassuring to know that if a family member has to take care of them, the government will recognize their sacrifice by providing them with a tax credit when they have to file their returns with the government.

As we all know, families should always come first, and I believe the government and the ministers have made that clear in this budget and through all the programs and services we have created or enhanced. As a former professor at Centennial and Seneca Colleges in Toronto, I strongly support the investments in innovation, education and training that Bill C-13 makes.

After speaking with former colleagues of mine, I know they too applaud the government's investment and commitment to education, innovation and research. As we all know, education and training provide our young citizens with bright, vibrant and encompassing opportunities for their future.

[José Nunez-Melo, NDP, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to oppose Bill C-13, introduced by the Minister of Finance.

This bill—a second version—is entitled the keeping Canada's economy and jobs growing act. It contains a number of amendments by replacing certain measures and is broken into 22 parts that affect that many laws, from part 1 and the Income Tax Act, to the Customs Tariff Act, the Canada Education Savings Act, the Children’s Special Allowances Act, the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act, the Employment Insurance Act, the Canadian Securities Regulation Regime Transition Office Act, the Wage Earner Protection Program Act, the Canadian Human Rights Act, the Canada Labour Code, the Conflict of Interest Act, the Canada Pension Plan, the Jobs and Economic Growth Act, the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, the Department of Veterans Affairs Act, the Canada Elections Act, the Special Retirement Arrangements Act and more.

To give hon. members an idea of why this bill does not make any sense, part 1 implements measures that pertain to the Income Tax Act but actually do very little. For example, part 1 forgives a portion of a guaranteed loan to doctors who work in the regions, introduces a family caregiver tax credit to assist informal caregivers, refunds employer premiums for SMEs, and extends to 2013 the temporary accelerated capital cost allowance treatment for investment.

Indeed, these are small things that will not really help to stimulate the economy and create employment. These measures are also completely insufficient. It would be better to give refundable tax credits to taxpayers or to provide direct payments to finance investments in SMEs and foster true economic growth.

Moreover, despite the Conservatives' repeated claims that 600,000 jobs have been created, we hear all sorts of news about the unemployment rate, which is currently the same as it was in 2008. In absolute terms, 1.4 million Canadians are unemployed; however, if we take into account those who have already withdrawn from the labour market because they cannot find work and those who are not considered to be looking for work because they are not receiving employment insurance benefits, there are actually 2 million unemployed Canadians.

No real stimulus plan has been proposed, save for a few small credits. Some measures are truly praiseworthy and satisfactory, as was so wonderfully stated by the member for Vancouver Kingsway. Other rather interesting measures were also mentioned by the member for Halifax.

Despite all the glowing references made to Forbes magazine by the members from other cities, economic growth is still fragile. And the International Monetary Fund, the Bank of Montreal, the TD Bank Financial Group, Scotiabank, the Conference Board of Canada, the Bank of Canada, the Toronto Board of Trade,and the Canadian Medical Association have confirmed this. Even the Minister of Finance recognizes that infrastructure investment has five times the economic impact of corporate tax cuts.

I am opposed to the bill being passed as is. I recommend that the Conservatives take another look at all of these proposals and make the necessary amendments.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to give the perspective of the constituents of Vancouver Kingsway to Bill C-13. I have read the bill and given a great deal of thought and analysis to it. I would like to point out a few things that come to my mind as some preliminary observations about the bill.

First of all, the bill provides some positive measures. The bill also contains some negative measures and most notably from my analysis, the predominant feature of the bill is that it is marked by what it does not deal with, what it is silent on.

In terms of some of the positive measures that are contained in the bill, I would like to point out some of them and congratulate the government on picking up what are some policies that most Canadians would support. First, the bill offers partial loan forgiveness for family physicians, nurses and nurse practitioners who begin practising in underserved rural or remote areas. This is a provision that I personally must stand in support of in the House because it mirrors in part a private member's bill that I drafted a year and half ago and introduced in the House.

I proposed a bill that would reward doctors, nurses and nurse practitioners who serve in underserviced areas with a freeze on their Canadian student loans for the first five years of practice and then for each year from year 6 through 10, they would have their loan erased at the rate of 20% per year meaning that rural and underserviced areas in our health care system in terms of family doctors, nurses and nurse practitioners would get that very important service. People who practised in those areas would have their federal loans forgiven as a result of that commitment.

The bill also introduces a family caregiver tax credit for caregivers of infirm dependants. Once again, that is a positive measure although, as has been pointed out by many experts in the tax field, the government is moving toward increasing reliance on the use of tax credits and that reflects a certain philosophy of delivering government programs that is not without its problems. Most notably, it requires Canadian families to lay out the money first and then claim the tax credit much later. For millions of Canadians that is simply not a reality. For millions of Canadian families they simply do not have that money to lay out at first and so tax credits are of limited utility.

The bill also provides a temporary measure to refund a portion of employer premiums for small business. This is truly a case of giving with one hand and taking away with the other, although one must support a measure that would refund a portion of EI premiums for employers and workers in this challenged economic time. On the other hand, we must also remember that it was the government that is raising EI premiums starting in January to the tune of $2 billion per year.

Taking back money or giving businesses the ability to save some money after having their overall premiums raised is a cynical approach to politics that Canadians should be aware of. Also, Canadians must always remember when we talk about EI that the EI surplus of over $50 billion, premiums paid by the businesses and the workers of this country to create an insurance fund for them to draw in times of high unemployment, which as I will talk about in a few minutes we are experiencing right now in Canada, and taking that money and putting it into general revenue is still an unredressed problem that cries out for redress.

The bill also expands the eligibility for accelerated capital cost allowance for clean energy generation and conservation equipment. Again, that is a positive measure; however, in the grand scheme of things and I see my colleague from Halifax is here who has done wonderful work on the environment file, I am sure she would point out to the House, as has been done day after day, that this measure is really a drop in the ocean in terms of what Canada must do in terms of clean energy creation and environmental protection.

In terms of some of the negative things in this bill, as we have heard, the bill proposes to end the per vote subsidy for political parties that receive more than a certain percentage of the vote. If I am not mistaken, I think it is more than 5% of the vote. In my view this is a regressive policy and it amounts to poor public policy at the same time. Canada has created what can be fairly regarded as one of the finest and fairest election finance systems in the world. Canadians want an electoral system that is fair and is controlled by the citizens of our country.

The features of our federal campaign and electoral finance system are as follows. We have put in measures that limit the contributions of any one person to $1,100, so that takes big money out of politics. It has eliminated donations entirely from corporations and trade unions. That has taken the influence of non-individuals out of politics. It has set spending limits in what we can spend in a particular riding in an election and what we can spend nationally in a campaign. It evens the playing field and again it takes big money out of our political system. In short, it is a system that enshrines the concept of democracy run by people, paid for by people and to serve the people.

Canadians have a great interest democracy. Democracy is not free. A democratic system must be paid for. However, a democracy that is paid for by the public means that we do not have a democracy that is bought and paid for by private interests. I think that is what Canadians want. They want a publicly financed democracy, not a privately financed democracy.

Interestingly, in Afghanistan right now our troops are fighting ostensibly for the establishment of democracy in there. The public financing of the electoral system here in Canada helps maintain a democracy in our country.

As has been pointed out by my colleague from Newfoundland just a few moments ago, providing public money based on the number of votes that a party gets at the rate of $2 per vote is the fairest way of all to finance political parties in our country. The government has said that it does not want that. It wants parties to go out and raise money from private sector citizens, that this does not represent a subsidy, but we know that is not true.

People who contribute to a party get back, at taxpayer funded expense, 75% of the first $400 they donate and that declines to 66% for the next $350 and then 50% for the remainder of the $1,100. Therefore, we do have public subsidies of donations to political parties. The only question is one of philosophy, whether, as the Conservatives want, we do that through private interest as opposed to public funds, which the New Democrats support.

I want to talk briefly about the economy in our country. Millions of Canadians across the country know they are having a difficult time right now. They know this economy is not working for them. Statistic after statistic shows that over the last 25 years there is a growing gap between the wealthy and the poor in our country.

We also know, with statistical certainty, that the middle class is shrinking. That is because of policies pursued by the Conservatives and the Liberals before them for the past 25 years, policies of incessant corporate tax cuts, of shrinking government, of reducing public services, of pursuing free trade agreements and lowering tariffs and of attacking workers and the trade unions, which is one of the only forces that is serving to create and fight for good, family-sustaining, middle-class jobs with benefits.

The government stands in the House every day and brags that it has created 600,000 jobs since the recession began, but what kind of jobs are those? We do not hear it talk about the quality of those jobs. Those jobs are temporary, in large part, they are part-time, they are low-paying, they do not have benefits and they are primarily in the service sector. Hundreds of thousands of those jobs are those types. The government cannot take the good, middle-class, family-sustaining jobs with benefits, erase them and then replace them with $10 an hour mc jobs and call that an economic success. The government is doing exactly that.

Millions of people around the world are talking about the 99% of us who are no longer going to tolerate 1% owning 40% of the wealth in our country. The government should pay attention to that sentiment and start pursuing policies that reflect equitably a better share of the wealth of the country so we have an economy that works for everyone.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to stand today in support of Bill C-13, Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act. The passage of this bill is very important to my riding of Newmarket—Aurora, as it is to all Canadians.

Bill C-13 would complete the passage of budget 2011. It contains measures that are critically important for Canada's long-term prosperity by boosting research and development, innovation and productivity. It speaks to what Canadians elected us to do, focusing on economic growth, job creation and stability.

I will direct most of my comments today on how Bill C-13 supports job creation in my riding. Over the past months, I have met with thousands of residents in my community, whether at the door, on the street, or in my office, and, by far, the top of mind priorities above all others were jobs and the economy. They made it very clear to me that they wanted their government to focus squarely on these priorities, jobs and economic growth. Why is this? It is because a stable, growing economy creates job opportunities. It supports families and it creates confidence. It is the fundamental backbone of what vibrant communities and a prosperous nation are all about.

Newmarket--Aurora is comprised of thousands of entrepreneurs, most of them small and medium sized businesses. They will all benefit from the one time hiring credit for small business of up to $1,000 contained in budget 2011 and formalized in Bill C-13. Through this measure, over 525,000 employers across Canada will be helped with the costs of additional hiring. This is an average of almost 1,400 businesses in each of the 308 ridings across the country. With this initiative, a small business can hire one additional worker at a salary of up to $40,000 or two part-time workers at a salary of up to $20,000 each without having to pay additional EI premiums.

Entrepreneurs in my riding would benefit from budget 2011 measures to support the development of clean energy technologies through a $97 million investment over two years to renew funding for technology and innovation in the areas of clean energy and energy efficiency. Measures, such as the new children's arts tax credit and the extension of the eco-energy retrofit homes program, are boosting economic activity in hardware shops, contracting companies, music and art stores across my riding, just as they are throughout the country.

Manufacturing and processing businesses would benefit from the extension of the temporary accelerated capital cost allowance rate that encourages investments in machinery and equipment. This measure builds squarely upon our previous support for the manufacturing sector.

Last week, Statistics Canada released a report showing that manufacturing sales rose 1.4% to $47.6 billion in August, the highest level since October 2008. In fact, last Friday, a news release from AirBoss of America crossed my desk. AirBoss has its head office in my hometown of Newmarket with manufacturing plants in Kitchener, Ontario; Acton-Vale, Quebec; and North Carolina. The news release announced the securement of two contracts worth $20 million with the U.S. department of defense in supplying that company's rubber based products. So we know that strategic investments, like the accelerated capital cost allowance rate, the hiring tax credit for small business and the expansion of tax support for clean energy generation, are working to create jobs for Canadians.

Indeed, earlier this month, Forbes magazine rated Canada as the best place in the world for businesses to grow and create jobs.

I am very excited that budget 2011 provides $20 million to support young entrepreneurs by providing mentorship, resources and start-up financing through the Canadian Youth Business Foundation. Many business icons today began their careers as budding entrepreneurs and this investment would help create the business leaders of tomorrow.

I would like to share a few examples from my riding of Newmarket—Aurora of how these initiatives create jobs.

Earlier this year, I announced a contribution of $115,000 for the National Research Council of Canada industrial research assistance program, or IRAP, to Treefrog Interactive Inc.

Treefrog is an award-winning Newmarket graphic design and web development agency and a shining example of a leading-edge small business. The IRAP funds, made possible through Canada's economic action plan, allowed Treefrog to fund an innovative research and development project and create new products for local and international markets. Sean Stephens, the CEO of Treefrog Interactive, said in February of this year:

These last few years, help from the federal government stimulus has been a clear and inspiring drive for us at Treefrog. Where many talk about a period of “recession”, we at Treefrog talk about a period of “innovation”. Thanks to IRAP, we have greatly increased our staff, doubled our revenue, significantly matured our products and helped many other businesses grow through web initiatives in the region--mostly through innovations in our products. This period of incredible growth has been through that extra little “shot in the arm” from IRAP--and we have Canada, through IRAP and the federal government, to thank for it.

Here is another success story in my riding.

Last year, a collaborative project led by the Newmarket Chamber of Commerce involving the Newmarket Public Library, South Lake Regional Health Centre, town of Newmarket and Newmarket-Tay Power Distribution received $2.1 million from Canada's action plan for a shared digital infrastructure project. The project created new community partnerships and received national recognition.

The Newmarket Chamber of Commerce was able to parlay this investment into an asset now benefiting hundreds of entrepreneurs, businesses, community organizations and residents through this information-sharing infrastructure. The past president of the Newmarket Chamber of Commerce, Jim Gragtmans, regarding the success of this project said last year, “Dozens of jobs have been created. New creative and effective partnerships have been established and we are only beginning”.

Canada's economic action plan has assisted many businesses in my riding to expand, innovate and create jobs. In the town of Aurora, for example, Axiom Group Inc. was able to extend its product line and open new markets through support from the southern Ontario development fund and industrial research assistance program.

In fact, last year I was honoured to present, on behalf of the minister of state, a Canadian innovation leader certificate to Axiom President, Perry Rizzo, in recognition of that company's success. On the assistance that Mr. Rizzo received from Canada's action plan, he said:

We appreciate the SODP and its contribution to helping small to medium sized businesses like Axiom create jobs and stimulate economic growth in the local community of Aurora and abroad.

We know that small business owners and entrepreneurs create jobs and generate wealth in communities across Canada. Our government declared 2011 the official year of the entrepreneur to help increase public awareness of the important role played by small businesses.

It is most fitting that we are debating Bill C-13, keeping Canada's economy and jobs growing act, during small business week. By supporting our small and medium-sized businesses we support all Canadians by facilitating the conditions for investment and job creation.

It is important to note that Bill C-13 supports the creation of jobs and economic growth by allowing the continuation of work done by the red tape reduction commission to root out and cut business red tape. We know that red tape ties up Canadian businesses and entrepreneurs, reduces their competitiveness, and forces them to spend time and money that could be better spent strengthening Canada's economic recovery.

In January 2011, our government fulfilled its budget 2010 commitment by establishing the red tape reduction commission, to which I am honoured to have been appointed. Bill C-13 allows the means to continue this important work and the commission will present its final recommendations for lasting reforms in the coming months based on the “What Was Heard” report released last month.

I also want to note that among the many significant measures contained in Bill C-13, of great importance to my riding and all municipalities across the country is the legislation to make permanent gas tax funding for municipalities. It is why Bill C-13 and its key job creating measures, like the hiring credit for small businesses, are critically important as we continue to solidify our recovery and position Canada for a prosperous future. That is what Canadians want.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-13, An Act to implement certain provisions of the 2011 budget as updated on June 6, 2011 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague. It was evident that he was very negative about the great measures in the bill.

He forgot to mention the 650,000 new jobs that have been created. He tried to take credit for the $2 billion tax incentive for municipalities. That was $1 billion. We have doubled it and made it permanent.

Most of all, I cannot understand why he would avoid mentioning the tax credit to assist caregivers. He is trying to make it look like we are not compassionate for people who are caregivers. That is clearly a part of Bill C-13. I would like him to comment on that.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to debate Bill C-13. This bill implements certain provisions of the 2011 budget.

I am sad to see that the Conservatives are once again showing their lack of respect for our democratic institutions and for Canadians by imposing strict time limits on the debate. The Conservatives' arrogance is an insult to Canadians, more than 60% of whom did not vote for their narrow ideology that defies reason and facts.

The Liberal Party cannot support this bill because it contains a significant number of inadequacies in its current form. With this bill the Conservatives are deliberately excluding low-income Canadians from measures such as the family caregiver tax credit, the volunteer firefighters tax credit and the children's arts tax credit.

How can low-income families and individuals benefit from a non-refundable tax credit when quite often, they do not have enough income to be taxed? Why are the Conservatives choosing to exclude the most vulnerable among us at a time when the economy is so precarious?

For example, if people quit their jobs to take care of loved ones at home, how will they take advantage of a tax credit when they have no income? There are many more examples of how these proposed measures will not benefit those who need them most.

The main problem with this bill has to do with the fact that to be eligible for most of the measures, there is a minimum income threshold. The Conservatives decided to play petty politics with tax credits instead of making them refundable so that low-income Canadians could also benefit, as we proposed. That shows once again that this Conservative government is ignoring Canadians in need.

The Liberal Party wants to work with the government to improve this bill, but it also understands that the Conservatives never listen to the advice of the House or the Canadian public. This government must start working on the problems facing Canadians instead of creating conflicts. A responsible government would not choose winners and losers. It would not choose to ignore a large segment of the population. It would not choose to ignore facts and reason for ideological purposes.

A number of other measures in this bill do not serve Canadian interests and demonstrate that this government has mishandled many issues. Take, for example, the higher charges being imposed on Ontario and Quebec softwood lumber exporters. A few years ago, the Conservative government tried to buy peace with our American forestry competitors, at a cost of $1 billion. Here we are today, forced to comply with the London Court of International Arbitration ruling of January 21, 2011, and increase taxes on this sector of our economy, which continues to be targeted by U.S. trade claims despite the $1 billion already wasted.

The higher charges that Ontario and Quebec exporters will have to face is another demonstration of poor Conservative management. Why does this government prefer to placate Washington instead of standing up for the Canadian workers it is supposed to represent? More than $1 billion has been wasted already, yet the Conservatives have decided to kowtow to the United States once again.

In addition, certain credits set out in this bill are completely ineffective. For example, the small business hiring credit aims to compensate for an increase in employment insurance premiums for some small and medium-size businesses. The problem is that this credit is taxable and is capped at $1,000. To obtain this credit, the business must have paid higher employment insurance premiums in 2011 than in 2010, as long as the 2010 amount was $10,000 or less. Because of these restrictions, the credit targets very small businesses as opposed to all small and medium-size businesses.

For instance, a small business that employs 11 people, each earning $38,000, would be too large to qualify. Based on our calculations, approximately 600,000 small and medium-sized businesses could not take advantage of the credit, which is just another example of this government's petty politics that do nothing to help Canadians.

On top of all that, let us not forget that the Conservatives also announced they want to increase EI premiums by 5.6% in January 2012. Because of that increase, a business with 10 employees, each earning an annual salary of $40,000, would have to pay $800 more in EI premiums next year. In short, any amount left over from the credit will all be clawed back in taxes and increased EI premiums.

The Conservative government seems to be trying to fool Canadians by offering just a few small and medium-sized businesses a hiring credit, when it knows very well that that amount will be taken back in full. This is so typical of the Conservatives: lots of hoopla, with no real results—except for their friends. Instead of giving tax breaks to wealthy corporations that are eliminating jobs in Canada, why not give real tax credits to our small and medium-sized businesses that are creating jobs in Canada?

Another weak point in this bill relates to the gas tax fund. The provisions of that section place a $2 billion limit on annual transfers to municipalities for infrastructure projects. That very fund was created in 2004 by the previous Liberal government, which had, at the time, made provisions for that $2 billion limit to be increased in order to account for inflation and population growth, things that this Conservative government is choosing to ignore. The amount set out in this bill does not correspond to today's reality and does not provide all the help the municipalities need to address the infrastructure deficit, which the Federation of Canadian Municipalities now estimates at $123 billion.

Municipalities—perhaps with the exception of Muskoka—are suffering, and the government is not taking their needs into account. If we consider the facts that municipalities have been growing since 2004, that costs are increasing as a result of inflation, and that our infrastructure is crumbling, as we have unfortunately seen with the Champlain Bridge in Montreal, setting a $2 billion limit now is illogical.

The transfer to municipalities should have been increased in order to take demographic growth and inflation into account; instead, the government preferred to load an additional burden on the backs of municipalities in a typically Conservative manner, namely, without consultation, without debate and without a logical rationale.

Another problematic section is that pertaining to the Canadian securities regulator. The Canadian Securities Transition Office was supposed to be a temporary body set up to establish the permanent organization; however, under Bill C-13, Parliament will have to allocate additional funds to maintain this transition office. By so doing, the Conservatives are trying to force the provinces to accept what they want rather than working with the provinces to implement a functional regulatory system from coast to coast.

If the government wants to show good faith, it will take into account the proposals of the Liberal Party and Canadians. These simple and realistic proposals could easily be implemented. However, by limiting the debate on this 642-page bill to 15 seconds per page, the government is showing that it does not care about debate or about the reasonable proposals that Canadians and the opposition are making. This is an insult to Canadians who do not support the Conservative agenda. Given the current economic situation, we cannot abandon those in need.

The Liberal Party thus commits to defending those whom this government neglects. We cannot support Bill C-13 until the many deficiencies we have pointed out have been fixed.

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-13, an act to implement certain provisions of the 2011 budget.

As we navigate through these troubled economic waters, this is a sound budget to maintain our fiscal advantage while offering Canadians the support to enhance their quality of life. I fully support this budget for its measures to create jobs and economic growth to support hard-working Canadians while maintaining Canada's fiscal advantage.

Throughout this period of economic instability, Canada has received many international accolades for its relatively sound fiscal position. I would like to mention a few of these accolades to show that our economic plan is working and should be continued.

First, for the third straight year, the World Economic Forum has ranked Canada's banking system as the strongest in the world. Second, Canada made headlines recently as Forbes magazine ranked Canada number one as the best place to do business worldwide. Third, the International Monetary Fund recently declared that Canada's overall fiscal outlook is the best in the G20. What is more, Canada has had seven straight quarters of economic growth, which is quite remarkable considering the economic instability worldwide.

I congratulate the finance minister for the leadership role he has played in the excellent financial management of Canada. “Canada's low tax plan has created a healthy economic environment for business investment and we applaud the government for staying the course,” said the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, which represents business across the country.

Our government is fully aware that to employ people we need to create a favourable climate for business, and we are doing our best to create favourable climates throughout the country. Measures include tax credits to hire new staff and a reduction in red tape. Support for the hiring credit comes from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture which stated that it will help farm operators that are looking to expand. Speaking of creating favourable climates for business, our government is reducing the red tape that impedes economic growth.

Businesses like Yanke, a Saskatchewan based trucking company, will benefit from reduced bureaucratic hurdles. Recently, Yanke announced that it will be building a transportation and logistics centre, a hub which will bring between 400 and 500 truckloads per week and 40 new jobs to the Regina area. A couple of weeks ago, Alliance Grain Traders announced it will build a pasta processing plant that will employ 60 full-time employees upon completion.

Companies like Yanke and Alliance Grain Traders are able to expand operations which require additional staff because the conditions in Canada are favourable for expansion.

I am proud to say, as my colleagues have said, that 600,000 net new jobs have been created since July 2009. I am especially proud to say that Saskatchewan boasts full employment. It has the lowest unemployment rate in the country at 4%, with 5% being considered full employment. Our low tax plan for jobs and growth is working.

I would like to speak for a moment about how the bill will help communities. Having previously been involved with the municipal government, I realize the challenges involved in funding infrastructure. For this reason, I am pleased our government is investing $2 billion in the gas tax fund. This will provide predictable long-term infrastructure funding for municipalities. Regina, Moose Jaw, and the 11 rural municipalities in my riding will be able to develop long-term plans to fix roads, build power plants, repair bridges and water treatment facilities, and do many other projects. This funding will replace aging infrastructure for the health and safety of Canadians while reducing the municipal tax load that families carry. I call that a good plan.

Let me take a moment to talk about benefits for the agriculture industry. A significant portion of my riding revolves around the agriculture sector. Whether directly or indirectly, Bill C-13 contains measures that will promote sustainable agriculture through targeted assistance to support innovation and long-term profitability. This includes an investment of $50 million over two years to support innovations. Farmers from Caronport to Rouleau to Mossbank and across western Canada will benefit from innovations created through this funding in the years to come.

Let me talk about seniors. Seniors have shaped a generation. They fought for our freedom and built the foundation of our country. We introduced pension splitting a couple of years ago which helped Canadian seniors better manage their finances. Additionally, we have removed over 85,000 seniors from the tax rolls and increased the age credit amount by $2,000. Now, to further support seniors, we are enhancing the guaranteed income supplement for low income seniors to the tune of about $600 for seniors who are single and $840 for couples. The Canadian Labour Congress encouraged this measure and our government listened. It stated that enhancing the guaranteed income supplement is a win for every senior living in Canada.

To further improve the quality of life for seniors, we are expanding the new horizons for seniors program. The extra funding for this program will help ensure that seniors benefit from activities to maintain active and social lives.

Canadians are living longer and much healthier lives than a generation ago, and as a result, remain capable past 65 years of age. I perhaps more than anyone else in the House believe that individuals should not be required to retire at age 65 if they can still do the job competently. Since being elected in 2008, I have taken great pride in being able to help businesses, seniors, youth and hard-working people in my riding with their issues and concerns. Our seniors are a valuable commodity and deserve to be treated as such. I very much support the elimination of this outdated age requirement.

We are continuing to increase support for seniors as shown through these measures.

Let me take a minute to talk about how Bill C-13 would have a positive impact on education.

Our government recognizes the economic benefits that come with investing in education and training. Having been involved in the education system for many years, I am pleased that our government is taking real steps to improve the financial stability of Canadian students as they pursue post-secondary studies. Through Bill C-13, our government is enhancing and expanding access and eligibility for student loans and grants for full-time and part-time secondary students.

Our government realizes there is a shortage of skilled labour and we are offering tax relief with respect to occupational, trade and professional examination fees.

Our government realizes that today's students are tomorrow's leaders and need support to realize their potential.

We are committed to a responsible, credible approach to balancing the budget by 2014-15 in a manner that will create greater efficiency and effectiveness within the operation of government and the many services it provides. We will do this without raising taxes, and without slashing transfer payments to health, education and support for seniors.

Measures included in the bill would help ensure the Canadian government is supporting Canadians as we work our way out of the economic crisis and into a period of sustained economic growth while maintaining a relatively strong fiscal advantage.

I hope all members of the House will join me in supporting this important budget which provides help to Canadians. I look forward to a continuing discussion of this bill.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

In fact, the hiring credit in Bill C-13 will not help at all to create jobs. Furthermore, the status quo for taxes on small business will have a serious impact on their budgeting and will not create new jobs. Small businesses in my riding are asking for assistance. Keeping these taxes will not help small and medium-sized businesses at all.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's speech on Bill C-13 was very thoughtful. We have talked about small businesses being the economic engine that drives our economy and creates jobs. We know for a fact that the Conservatives are going to tax small businesses through the payroll tax.

Would my colleague comment on how it will hurt small businesses in her constituency and whether taxing small businesses is a good idea?

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, many of those who spoke before me talked to the House about poverty and about Canadians who are living in very difficult situations. More and more people are relying on food banks. That is a telling indicator. From coast to coast, Canadian families are having a harder time taking care of themselves and feeding, housing or clothing themselves. The cost of living is rising higher and higher for these families, and they cannot manage to make ends meet. They are finding it even more difficult to meet these basic, fundamental needs because of the current crisis, which is rocking the foundations of the world economy.

In Canada, the gap between the rich and the less fortunate is growing. The current crisis has a particular impact on the most vulnerable people in our society, such as single-parent families, seniors, welfare recipients and the unemployed. Even people who are employed are making use of food banks.

Canada 's economic and social situation is worrying. According to recent statistics, approximately 1.4 million Canadians are officially unemployed. That number is close to 2 million if we include those who have given up or are underemployed. The International Monetary Fund predicts that Canada's unemployment rate will rise this year to 7.6%. According to the projections of this financial institution, the unemployment rate will rise from 7.6% in 2011 to 7.7% in 2012 because our economy is growing more slowly than expected. This high unemployment rate is costing $20 billion a year in lost income, not to mention the losses in terms of economic stimulus and tax revenue.

No segment of the population is immune. Youth employment is considered to be a disaster. The youth unemployment rate reached 17.3% last summer, which is an increase from the previous year and from the pre-recession unemployment rate, which was under 14%.

As we all know, Canada's current economic situation requires measures that will help reduce unemployment, create jobs and support the economy.

On September 29, 2011, in his fiscal sustainability report for 2011, the Parliamentary Budget Officer stated that Canada's fiscal structure is not sustainable over the long term. Economists and other financial experts are constantly pointing out how fragile the current economic situation is.

In order to reduce unemployment and stimulate the economy, considering how fragile the current economic situation is, we need measures that will support the economy and create jobs. Bill C-13 is completely out of touch with the problems facing Canadians. Accordingly, the measures it calls for do not address the current economic imperatives or the problems facing Canadian families, seniors and youth hit hard by unemployment.

The measures proposed in Bill C-13 are based on forecasts that no longer apply, as demonstrated by the International Monetary Fund, and on minimal-state theories that reject social programs. The measures are unrealistic and completely out of touch, not only with the real needs of Canadians, but also with the general economic situation that experts are describing as fragile and shifting. The budget proposed by the Conservatives does not even begin to respond to the needs of Canadian families, who want concrete measures to create jobs and promote economic growth. The measures proposed in Bill C-13 do nothing to address concerns about employment, improving health care for all Canadians, strengthening pensions and taking care of seniors in need. The measures set out in the bill do nothing to promote job creation.

Bill C-13 is sacrificing Canadian families while offering large corporations lavish and substantial tax reductions, which are not even conditional upon job creation. These tax credits are granted even if the corporations do not create any jobs to respond to the challenge of unemployment. In other words, the reductions serve only to reward companies that already have employees, whereas the economic recovery needs new jobs to put Canadians who are looking for employment to work.

Furthermore, since they are based on a certain income level, the tax credits in Bill C-13 actually benefit only a very few Canadians, mainly wealthy individuals. They exclude many people who, because of their poverty, do not pay taxes and therefore cannot benefit from these tax credits. Seen from this perspective, it is clear the tax credit measures are just for show. For example, Bill C-13 talks about tax credits for family caregivers. Creating such a tax credit is not a sufficient response to the needs of people who take time off to take care of their loved ones who are ill, simply because they must have a sufficient level of income to be able to benefit from the tax credits set out in Bill C-13. A total of 65% of households with a caregiver declare a combined income of less than $45,000 and 23% declare less than $20,000. In short, most caregivers cannot benefit from the tax credits in question.

For this measure to provide direct support to caregivers, we, the NDP, are proposing that these tax credits be turned into tax credits for caregivers. That is a concrete measure that responds to genuine needs. And that is why a number of members who spoke before me have proposed that the child disability benefit be used as a model. Caregivers would receive a monthly non-taxable amount that would help them cover the costs associated with taking care of a sick family member. This type of credit would be of particular help to low- and middle-income caregivers.

Another example from Bill C-13 is the tax credit for medical expenses. This credit allows Canadians to claim medical expenses that are not covered by the public health system. But the problem is that this measure does not fix the underlying issue in its entirety—Canadians with excessive medical expenses that are not covered by our public health system cannot recover all the expenses they incur.

The NDP is calling upon the government to listen to the needs of Canadians by creating a national pharmacare program, which would reimburse Canadians for all their medical expenses.

This same inconsistency exists with the children's arts tax credit. Where will people who already have a hard time feeding themselves find $500 to invest in arts activities to benefit from this credit? The measure proposed by Bill C-13 regarding the partial forgiveness of student loans for doctors and nurses raises the same questions.

Canadian families deserve better. They want concrete action to create jobs and fix the economy, not the Conservative government's half measures. Concrete measures need to be taken—ones that target the real job creators—instead of tax cuts being handed to big business.

According to the IMF, long-term, stable economic growth depends on equitable revenue distribution. In light of the objections I have raised, we believe that Bill C-13 does not contain enough measures to support the economy and jobs in Canada. It should be rejected, pure and simple.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I heard it loud and clear. Certainly in Edmonton—St. Albert the constituents are adamant that the $1.95, soon to be $2.00, per vote subsidy which costs taxpayers $30 million on an annual basis ought to be eliminated, and thankfully it would be eliminated with Bill C-13.

Political parties, and all other voluntary organizations, ought to be able to raise their own money. Of course, there is assistance that will continue, including a 75% tax credit for donations up to a specified amount. When we are dealing with a generous tax credit system, there is no reason for a political subsidy of $2.00 per vote. Canadians should only have to pay for and support the political parties that they support.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise today and speak to Bill C-13, keeping Canada's economy and jobs growing act. This is important legislation, which seeks to implement the next phase of Canada's economic action plan.

The bill seeks to implement a number of important initiatives announced in June's throne speech and also in the spring election, and reiterates our government's firm and strong commitment to continued economic growth and job creation for all Canadians. Our government's record speaks for itself and speaks loudly.

Since July 2009 our government has created 600,000 net new jobs, most of which are full-time, and our economy is consistently rated as one of the strongest in the world.

This weekend we saw protests concerning the banking system. We know Canada's banking system is on solid ground because of appropriate regulations regarding lending habits. Thanks to that, we have a strong economy and it is consistent with our government's overall vision for the economy. However, we are not immune to turbulent events occurring in the world economy and that is why we must pass the legislation before us to ensure that we are capable of withstanding whatever lies before us.

Bill C-13, also known colloquially as the budget implementation act, would create five general themes in which there are many provisions to implement the next phase of Canada's economic action plan. The five general themes include: first, the promotion of job creation and economic growth; second, support of communities; third, help families; fourth, investment in education and training; and, fifth, respect for taxpayers. What I propose to do today is highlight one or two specific implementation measures contained in Bill C-13 under each of the five broad categories.

With respect to job creation and economic growth, it is important to note that this legislation would provide a temporary hiring credit for small businesses to encourage additional hiring. There is some agreement on both sides of the House that small business really is the engine of economic growth in Canada.

I talk to small businessmen and women frequently when I am back home in Edmonton--St. Albert and they have told me that the cost of hiring is an impediment to the expansion of their business. It is not just simply a matter of salary. With respect to an individual who might draw a salary of $40,000 per annum, I understand the actual cost to that small business is probably closer to $55,000 or $60,000 when benefits, unemployment insurance premiums and training are calculated. The government's solution to this is the $1,000 hiring credit for small businesses to encourage them to hire individuals and add to their payroll. I think we would all agree that is an appropriate tax credit and one that would help small businesses continue to hire and continue to build and grow our economy.

Also of significance are the provisions that would eliminate the mandatory retirement age for federally-regulated employees in order to give older workers who wish to work the option of remaining in the workforce.

I come from Alberta, and it is blessed in its ability to somewhat sustain economic downturns because of its resource-based economy. Notwithstanding current instability, some economists predict that there will be labour shortages in Alberta of up to 70,000 workers, mostly in construction but also in manufacturing and administration.

Reducing the mandatory retirement age for workers who reach the age of 65 would do two important things. First, it would give workers the option, if they so choose and their health is good, to stay in the workforce. Second, it would help employers who might otherwise be experiencing employee shortages to have some benefit in terms of maintaining their existing workforce and not retiring those people who have reached the age of 65. In many cases these long-tenured employees are the most valuable employees because they have been with their employer for a long time. If they are of value to the employer, the employer will want to keep the employees notwithstanding some arbitrary number of 65 years of age.

The second major theme in Bill C-13 is with respect to the support of communities. Certainly, it is of benefit to all municipalities, legislation of a permanent annual investment of $2 billion in the gas tax fund to provide predictable, long-term infrastructure funding for municipalities.

The municipalities in Edmonton—St. Albert have benefited from this gas tax fund. We have major infrastructure funding in Edmonton. Road construction seems to be an ongoing issue from the month of April to October. The city of Edmonton and the province of Alberta have nearly completed an aggressive ring road system, the Anthony Henday. The federal contribution with respect to that was from the gas tax fund.

Municipalities have been asking for stable funding, so to make this a permanent annual investment allows the municipalities to plan for their future capital infrastructure needs, and I credit the Minister of Finance with that provision in Bill C-13.

The other support for communities that I want to talk about is the tax credit for volunteer firefighters. This is an important provision, perhaps not that well understood. There are some 85,000 volunteer firefighters in Canada. These are individuals in small towns and counties who voluntarily fight fires to protect the property of their neighbours. Often fires occur in the middle of the night and individuals would be called from their sleep to fight a fire.

I am sure most members of the House know that there was a terrible fire northwest of Edmonton this year in Slave Lake. That required the resources of volunteer and professional firefighters. These individuals ought to be recognized for their contribution.

Third, with regard to helping families, we are introducing the new family caregiver tax credit to assist caregivers for all types of infirm dependent relatives. This is important to allow individuals to perhaps reduce their hours or, if they are self-employed, to reduce their revenue, to take care of elderly or infirm members of their family. Their business or employment opportunities will be compromised, but it allows the infirm or elderly member to be cared for in the home as opposed to putting that individual in some sort of group home, nursing home or retirement home. Ultimately, this is a great cost savings to taxpayers when these individuals can be looked after by their own families.

The new child tax credit would allow parents to deduct a tax credit for a portion of the fees for enrolling children in dance or music. We know these things can be expensive. There is value to both children and society and to families when children are involved in those types of activities. I credit the government for recognizing that and giving a tax credit to the parents.

We are forgiving loans to new doctors and nurses in underserved rural and remote areas. The last speaker talked about the doctor shortage and it is acute, but it is especially acute in rural and remote areas. This would help encourage doctors and nurses to relocate.

Finally, the fifth theme in this legislation is the respect for taxpayers. I am honoured and proud, and I wave this flag whenever I can, at the phasing out of the direct subsidy of political parties. I really believe, as do my constituents, that political parties ought to raise their own money and the taxpayer should not be compelled to pay for political causes that they do not support or believe in.

The economic action plan has been successful. The economy is on firm ground. We have one of the strongest, if not the strongest economy in the G7, and it is the result of this government's management.

Targeted investments are a reflection of the results we can achieve while working together toward the common goal of building strong and vibrant communities. The success of Canada's economic action plan is a tribute to the partnerships between local, provincial and federal governments.

We have risen to the challenge of the worst economic downturn in half a century, and with the keeping Canada's economy and jobs growing act, Bill C-13, we will ensure a robust and durable economic recovery that will continue to keep Canadians employed and sustain Canada's economic advantage now and in the future.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is true that the small tax credit the government is offering to small businesses does not compensate for the losses small businesses will have. It is really shocking when the government says that this is small business week and that small businesses are important. In the end, it is increasing the burden on small businesses, which we know are creating more than 50% of new jobs. Basically, the government is not heading in the right direction and that is why we are opposed to the proposals in Bill C-13.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am speaking out today against Bill C-13, which supposedly supports economic and job growth in Canada. I do not feel that it does enough.

I will be focusing on two issues: first, the fact that this bill demonstrates that the government is out of touch with what families and individuals in Canada are facing. Second, I will talk about the lack of vision in this bill.

When we look at the current situation, it is obvious that the government is out of touch. Families are having more and more trouble making ends meet. Families are in debt and household debt sits at more than 150%. Just look at what is happening with the Occupy Canada, Occupy Montreal and Occupy Toronto movements. People are unhappy and the government is not listening. People are unhappy because the gap between rich and poor is growing. Yet the government continues to contribute to that gap. Just like the IMF, the Conference Board is saying that the gap between rich and poor in Canada is growing, and at an alarming rate.

What is the government's response? To reduce the taxes of large corporations. We know that, in reality, reducing the taxes of large corporations does not help the population. In the Standing Committee on Finance, we have heard it said that this will benefit everyone. That is not true because not everyone owns shares in large businesses and corporations. We also know that the large businesses that benefit from these tax reductions are currently keeping $500 million in their own coffers rather than reinvesting it. So the entire population is not benefiting.

From a job creation perspective, we need look no further than the case of Electrolux, which benefited from tax reductions and then transferred jobs to the United States. Is this how the government should move forward? We do not think so, and many economists agree with us.

This government remains out of touch because it is still not taking action. The economic situation is a growing concern. People need reassurance. The New Democratic Party proposed a motion, which was unanimously adopted by the House, indicating that action must be taken; however, there is nothing in the bill to deal with this issue. We asked what Canadians want, and they said that they want more jobs and more security and that they want the government to take action.

The hon. member spoke about the election promises that the Conservatives made. However, the Conservatives are not really looking at what is happening right now, for example, the bank debt crisis in Europe or the uncertainty in the United States, which were not issues at that time. Nevertheless, the government is still not taking action. The government is therefore extremely out of touch with what is currently happening.

I spoke of this government's lack of vision. In this budget, the government could really move forward and think about a green economy. With regard to the economy, job creation and industries, the government could think about developing and investing so that employment is created not just now, but also for a long time to come.

The hon. member spoke about Germany. Germany was one of the first countries to invest in research and development in the public sector, and the country is currently reaping the benefits. Our government, on the other hand, is giving some tax credits, but they do not benefit everyone. We are not saying that tax credits are a bad thing. On the contrary, they are important, but they are not enough. The government needs a more comprehensive, more long-term vision. The government needs a strategy. That is what this government is lacking.

We asked for investments in infrastructure. As many members know, the Champlain Bridge is in my riding. We thank the government for finally listening to the NDP and giving in to our requests. However, this still does not appear in the budget. Why are there no infrastructure investments? We are not even the ones saying this; it is the Minister of Finance. In 2009, he said himself that infrastructure investment has five times the economic impact of corporate income tax cuts.

This is purely economics. The government, which claims to care about the economy and job creation, should listen to what its own finance minister said. It is important to invest in infrastructure; however, we are not necessarily talking about just stimulus, but rather about a structural deficit of $130 billion for Canadian municipalities. This government is doing nothing about that, and instead prefers giving gifts left and right, like the $50 million given to the riding of the President of the Treasury Board. It hands out gifts instead of making infrastructure investments that would benefit Canadians now. And, in the long term, this would also mean savings in terms of productivity.

My riding has suffered a loss of $1.3 billion in terms of productivity and, for over five years, we pressured this government to act. Once again, we still have not seen any schedule or plan for moving ahead with the Champlain Bridge project. We asked to work with this government, not only on the Standing Committee on Finance but also on the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, but this government refuses to act or to work with the other parties. Quite the reverse, it stubbornly clings to its ideology and its election promises, which do not take into account the current reality. It has no vision whatsoever.

During the last campaign, I met people affected by the pension issue. A woman who had worked for Nortel told me she was devastated because she had worked for years and contributed to her pension fund only to lose everything. We know what happened with Nortel. This government did nothing to protect the pensions of those people. It is doing nothing to help seniors living below the poverty line. Do you realize that seniors are now being asked to go back to work and pay? Nothing is being done to help them, which we believe demonstrates a lack of vision and compassion.

As for nurses and doctors, the proposed measures are already in place, but they are not enough. It is important to create positions for doctors and nurses. In Canada, there is a problem in that regard. Just ask those around you if they have a family doctor. It is difficult to find one, especially in rural areas. This government has not yet taken action on that issue.

We are not asking for much. First, the government must listen to us and to our proposals, which are very logical. Members spoke earlier about small businesses and the fact that they create more than 50% of jobs. Why not help these small businesses not just by giving them a tax credit to hire people, but also by lowering their taxes? Instead, the government has decided to cut taxes for big business—unfortunately, the Liberals got the ball rolling on that one— which really has no impact. We can see that.

What is really shocking is that this government still continues to say that everything is fine and that it is business as usual when, in fact, 1.4 million people are unemployed. And if we add those who are discouraged or who have stopped looking, that number climbs to 2 million. That is serious.

The government lacks vision and is not in touch with reality. With regard to job cuts, this government has cut 600 or 700 positions at Environment Canada. It clearly lacks vision when it comes to the future and a green economy.

Oil and gas companies are receiving $761 million in tax credits or reductions.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-13, the government's second implementation bill for the 2011 budget.

My comments will generally focus on two themes: first, there has been a growth in unemployment under the Conservative government; and second, there has been a deliberate decision by the Conservatives to exclude low income Canadians from many of the measures of budget 2011.

The first point is the growth in the number of Canadians looking for work. The Conservatives have been patting themselves on the back about the job situation in Canada. However, the fact is that today the job situation is worse than it was when the Conservatives took office and it is worse than it was before the fall of 2008.

Today, Canada has over 525,000 fewer net full-time jobs than in August 2008. In August 2008, there were 14,631,300 Canadians who had full-time jobs. Today, that number is down to 14,106,100 Canadians who have full-time jobs. There are more than half a million fewer Canadians with good, full-time jobs today than in August 2008.

The Conservatives like to claim credit for creating jobs, but the fact is that all of the net new jobs created since the recession have been in part-time work. Today, there are more than 1.3 million Canadians who are unemployed and looking for work, and the number of jobless Canadians has been growing. Even when we factor in part-time work, there are over 310,000 more jobless Canadians today than before the downturn in October 2008.

Job growth in Canada has simply failed to keep up with population growth, so it is harder for people who are out of work to actually find a job today. This is the reality that is faced by Canadians across the country, including in my riding of Kings—Hants and the Annapolis Valley of Nova Scotia.

There is also a very uneven recovery, if any recovery, in Canada. If we look at provinces like Alberta and Saskatchewan, provinces that have the wealth of natural resources of oil, gas, potash and minerals, there is a very different economic story from that which exists in provinces like Ontario, Quebec and the maritime provinces.

The reality is that if there has been any recovery, it has been a very uneven recovery, and the macro numbers in terms of employment figures in Canada simply do not reflect the disparity within Canada, and the growing gap between haves and have nots, including have provinces and have not provinces.

The economic region of the Annapolis Valley in Nova Scotia is made up of Annapolis county, Kings county and Hants county. In this House of Commons it is represented by two members of Parliament, the member for West Nova, a Conservative MP, and myself.

This region is one of many across Canada that has not recovered from the last recession. We have seen massive layoffs at Fundy Gypsum, Eastern Protein, Maple Leaf Foods in Canard, and the Larsen's Plant. We have seen people who have worked at these companies, in some cases for 20 or 30 years or longer, who have watched their good full-time jobs disappear. Now they are struggling to make ends meet and put food on the table with part-time work, if they are actually able to find it.

In an area with a population of just under 100,000, the Annapolis Valley now has 5,800 fewer net jobs today than in August 2008. The unemployment rate in the Annapolis Valley of Nova Scotia has grown from 5% to 8% since the fall of 2008.

The number of people without jobs who are looking for work has grown by 1,700, and more than twice as many as that have simply stopped looking for work and have left the labour force completely.

The local population has declined by 600 people, as people give up and, in many cases, move away. The region is struggling to pay for local services with an aging population and a shrinking tax base.

This is not an isolated example. We can see this happening across large parts of Ontario and Quebec, across the Maritimes. The population we see in a lot of rural Canada is aging disproportionately. The proportion of people paying taxes is shrinking, while demand for government programs, health care, education and social assistance continues to grow.

There is a growing number of unemployed Canadians who are looking for work but have become discouraged under the Conservative government. They want their government to develop a real plan to create real jobs, but we see nothing, no imagination, no long-term thinking from the Conservatives.

In fact, the Conservatives are moving in the opposite direction. They are endangering Canadian jobs with their reckless increase in EI premiums.

In January, the Conservatives will hike EI premiums by 5.6% even though they know that payroll taxes like EI premiums are known job killers. This increase in January follows last January's increase by the Conservatives. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business estimates that the 2011 EI payroll tax increase will cost small businesses about $600 million and the 2012 increase will cost $1.2 billion. Are jobs created by increasing job killing payroll taxes? I do not think so.

The Conservatives claim that their small business hiring tax credit will create jobs. This is only a tax credit of $165 million when the Conservatives are actually increasing premiums by almost $2 billion. Most small businesses in Canada will not even qualify for the hiring credit for small businesses because they already pay too much in EI premiums. For the small businesses that do qualify, the Conservatives are giving with one hand and taking away with the other. They are treating the credit as business income and then they are taxing it.

The Conservatives hiring credit for small business is too small to make a significant impact on the economy. It will not even come close to matching the negative impact of the massive increase in EI premiums that they are imposing on Canadian employers. Only the Conservatives could claim that a tax credit that only increases EI premiums by over $1.6 billion instead of $1.8 billion is actually a measure to increase Canadian jobs.

The truth is that these EI premium increases will cost Canadian jobs at a time when unemployment numbers are up and our economy is teetering on the edge of recession. By refusing to act and present a real plan to create jobs, the Conservatives are failing the more than 1.3 million Canadians who are unemployed and looking for work.

The second issue that I want to comment on is the decision by the Conservatives to exclude low income Canadians from many of the benefits in budget 2011.

The Conservatives are deliberately excluding many low-income Canadian families from programs such as the family caregiver tax credit, the volunteer firefighters tax credit, and the children's art tax credit. The fact is if someone quits a job to take care of a sick family member at home, in a lot of cases that individual will not qualify for a dime under the family caregiver tax credit.

By making these benefits non-refundable, the Conservatives are excluding a lot of low-income families from receiving these benefits, so perversely, the families that need the help the most will not qualify for these boutique tax benefits because they do not have a high enough minimum income level to actually qualify, so, the person who quits a job to take care of a loved one at home, who is not making enough money, will not benefit from the Conservative family caregiver tax credit.

My riding has an aging population. Family members are taking a lot of their time away from work to help loved ones. In my own family, my sister, as an example, by day is a VON. She is taking a lot of time to help take care of my parents who are in their eighties and at home. A lot of these families do not make enough to qualify to benefit from the family caregiver tax credit. It is the same thing with the volunteer firefighters tax credit. In many cases rural Canadian volunteer firefighters in low-income families need the help to serve their communities.

It is fundamentally unfair for the Conservatives to not make these tax credits fully refundable in order to benefit all Canadian families, but particularly unfair to deny benefits to those low-income Canadian families who need the help the most.

[Wladyslaw Lizon, Conservative, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my remarks, Bill C-13 is the plan that was presented to Canadians. Canadians spoke very clearly on May 2 and we know the results. We have the full support of Canadians on our plan. We have to make sure that we deliver what we promised to deliver. This government has a record of actually delivering on its promises.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised by my colleague's attitude this morning. He is generally a positive guy but he is grumpy today. Maybe he had a bad constituency week.

My colleague is implying that there is no plan. If he would take the time to look, there have been 650,000 new jobs created. There is no better plan for a person who is trying to make ends meet than a good job.

The member also complains that there are no targeted investments. Bill C-13 includes green energy investments. As well, there are targeted investments in communities. The permanent gas tax funding will help municipalities with long-term planning and initiatives.

What the member is really missing are the amazing investments that the bill makes in education and training, forgiving loans for new doctors, helping apprentices in skilled trades and improving federal assistance for students. These are all fantastic initiatives.

Why would the NDP be against helping students and our next generation get the kind of good jobs that they need to support their families?

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-13 today. I will start by taking about what Bill C-13 should be doing and what we should be doing with any budget bill in 2011. The most recent economic slowdown has made it clear that policy makers and legislators, we in this chamber, have some really important decisions to make to ensure that Canada has an economy that is healthy and responsive to not only the realities of 2011 but also beyond that. This budget is not just about today or next week; it is about Canada's economic future.

The decisions that we are about to make are, in reality, an opportunity to establish an economy of the future for Canada. It could be a green economy. It could be an innovative-based economy. It could be a knowledge-based economy. It is such a gift that we actually get the chance to think about the future and about the direction toward which we want to bring Canada.

I would like to see an economy that is based on green technologies and renewable energy, for example, not fossil fuels. I would like to see an economy where students would not come out of school graduating with crushing student debt, but would have a chance to start work right away, to contribute and invest in their local communities. I would like to see an economy of the future where older workers are supported to transition into new work as industries evolve. I would also like to see an economy where we realize that it costs less to eradicate poverty than it does to pay for the negative effects that poverty has on our system as a whole, in particular our health system and our social security system.

We need to invigorate productivity in the country and we need to promote research and development. I have been working on this in the riding of Halifax. As members probably know, Halifax is an emerging knowledge-based economy. We understand that an innovation and knowledge-based economy will give Canada the flexibility it needs to help the country weather economic ups and downs in a global economy.

I think a paper came out this weekend for the Institute for Research on Public Policy. It said that we needed a renewed research and development strategy, one that stressed the fact that innovation was a key component to the future of our economy.

A report from the Mowat Centre for Policy Innovation points out that there are successful and productive systems in countries considered innovation leaders where targeted grants are used instead of just tax breaks. This makes really good sense because Canada has an innovation problem. This has been noted internationally. One way we can help our entrepreneurs, our knowledge thinkers and innovators get a leg up is by having very targeted incentives to reward innovation, to reward solid R and D plans and to reward commercialization of innovation. This is an area where we are lacking. It is not the money per se. We are doing okay when we look at other countries and when we look at what and how much the government is investing. The problem is the lack of strategy. The government is investing in blanket tax cuts and not saying in what direction we should be going.

For example, Halifax has so many PhDs in oceans research. It is really a hub of oceans research and innovation around oceans and marine technology, but we do not have a real strategy to build and develop that. Luckily, we have some incredibly innovative thinkers and civic entrepreneurs who have taken it upon themselves to bring the Bedford Institute of Oceanography together with Dalhousie, the National Research Council and Bionova and facilitate a hub development in Halifax around oceans and marine research.

A lot of that had to do with one person, the vice-president of research and development at Dalhousie, Martha Crago, who said recognized that the people were there and suggested they get together and have coffee. Believe it or not, having a cup of coffee with innovators and entrepreneurs can do a lot to come up with good ideas and strategies for the future that will catapult us toward an innovation and knowledge-based economy.

I point out that the Conservatives do not seem to want to do any of this. They are sticking to their own outdated policies, their pretty ideological policies. It is all about tax cuts. It is not about thinking strategically. This way of thinking is contrary to many of Canada's leading thinkers on this issue.

The government is also ignoring what history and current statistics have taught us; that is tax breaks do not necessarily lead to greater investment by companies in research, innovation or in capital and that improving the conditions for productivity through investment, infrastructure and research is often much more responsive and effective.

However, are we really surprised by that? If we think about recent history, in 2008 the Conservative government was dragged kicking and screaming toward the realization that we actually had an economic crisis. If it were not that the NDP and opposition parties were relentless in telling the Conservatives to wake up and recognize that we were in an economic crisis, pointing it out and showing that there was a way we could get out of this, we would not have even had the stimulus package that was brought forward. We are grateful there was some recognition that we needed a stimulus package, but it lacked that vision for critical investment. It was about policies to give tax cuts and not targeted investments.

Three years later the New Democrats are still focused on addressing the real priorities of Canadian families. We know what those are: jobs, health care, pensions and helping seniors in need. On May 2, Canadians voted for change. This budget is a fantastic opportunity to recognize that and to have that vision for change.

The government should be looking at ways to make life affordable for people. We could look at ways to do the “belt tightening”, but we could invest targeted moneys that would help us save money, for example, and I have talked about it in the House before, pharmacare. Imagine if we had a program that would take a very small amount of initial investment that would save Canadians and the government possibly billions of dollars.

We are one of the few G20 countries in the world that is not negotiating prices for drugs. We just pay whatever the drug companies want us to pay and say that is fine. That makes no sense. The Conservatives purport to be great business leaders. Why are they not at least saying that they will negotiate, because company A has a better price than company B.

Bulk purchasing is a very small step that we could take. We see it happening in individual provinces, like Nova Scotia, and they are saving buckets of money. Why would we not look at programs like pharmacare that could bring down the expenses for government and Canadians, make life more affordable and provide a framework like this?

The House resumed from October 7 consideration of the motion that Bill C-13, An Act to implement certain provisions of the 2011 budget as updated on June 6, 2011 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what a pleasure it is to rise today and speak to Bill C-13, Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act.

Before I do, I would like to wish all my constituents, you, Mr. Speaker, and my colleagues a happy Thanksgiving. I too would like to remind people that there are those who are less fortunate, and if we cannot be there to help out at one of the places that the less privileged go to have a meal, perhaps we could drop a few extra dollars in the collection plate on Sunday or on the day we choose to worship.

While I am on my feet, I would like to congratulate the Progressive Conservative candidate in Northumberland—Quinte West, Rob Milligan, for his success last night in Ontario's election.

As I say, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to this new budget implementation plan.

Our government remains focused on what matters to Canadians. We will follow through on our commitments that we made during the last election. The keeping Canada's economy and jobs growing act would make further investments in training and education while enacting new provisions that will support families and communities like those in Northumberland—Quinte West.

I would like to spend just a few moments speaking about the important initiatives included in this bill. Extending the accelerated capital cost allowance would help manufacturers make new investments in machinery and equipment. That means they would be able to create the productivity necessary to compete with other countries in this very competitive global economy.

Providing a hiring credit for small business, which will be a one-time credit of up to $1,000 to encourage additional hiring, is geared specifically to those small enterprises that foresee making an investment in human resources and creating one or perhaps two jobs that will give somebody a living wage and at the same time increase their competitiveness and create an even better economy.

Another measure would enhance the medical expense tax credit by removing the limit on the amount of eligible medical expenses that can be claimed on behalf of a financially dependent relative.

With regard to Canadian families, the government's economic plan would support families through targeted initiatives such as the children's arts tax credit, which would provide up to $500 in eligible fees for programs associated with arts, culture and recreational activities.

I am always encouraging my children. I only had two, and they each have two. I think that is about the Canadian average. If people happen to have a son or a daughter, because of what the government has done with regard to assistance to families, if their son happens to play hockey, there would be a $500 tax credit. If their son wants to take guitar or piano lessons, this initiative in the budget would provide an additional $500. If they have a daughter who plays ringette or badminton, there would be $500 for her.

In total, for a family of two who are very active in their community, and I would suggest Canadians are active in their communities, there would be significant benefits in this budget for just such a family. I encourage all my constituents and Canadians to take full advantage of those benefits.

The bill also addresses one of the most dangerous challenges to our health in this country, and that is obesity. This government wants to incent people to go out and be the fullest, best people they can be by becoming active in sport and by becoming active mentally and displaying those talents that the good Lord gave us, whether they be in music, vocal, painting or sculpting.

Also included in this budget is the family caregiver tax credit, which would provide up to $2,000 for the caregivers of loved ones with infirmities.

This budget has targets and initiatives that will benefit all Canadians. However, there are also multiple aspects of this budget that will benefit my riding of Northumberland—Quinte West. There is $20 million in funding over the next two years for the eastern Ontario development program. The EODP is essential for the funding and support of our local Community Futures Development Corporation. The CFDC provides direct guidance and consultation to local businesses and helps foster growth and prosperity throughout eastern Ontario and in my riding of Northumberland—Quinte West.

I often speak with constituents who are starting a new business. It may be someone with a talent in hairdressing or someone who is a good cook and wants to open up a healthy neighbourhood restaurant like the 100 Mile Diner. At one time the items on that diner's menu contained only products and produce found within 100 miles to support local agriculture. The CFDCs are there to help.

For the entrepreneur who wants to expand his or her business beyond the borders of Ontario or Canada into the United States, the CFDCs are there to help mentor and provide access to those avenues of additional funding, whether they be venture funding or funding through the Export Development Bank. There is hundreds of millions of dollars to support innovation, investment and market diversification.

We are legislating a permanent gas tax rebate for municipalities. This means a total annual investment of some $2 billion in gas tax funding for infrastructure priorities in Canadian municipalities. The rebate is also a sign that the government realizes the challenges that Canadians with low incomes face. As such, the rebate is an attempt to further ensure that infrastructure costs are not downloaded onto the taxpayer.

What does this really mean?

By legislating this, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities says that the municipalities that want to leverage their gas tax money to acquire funds to build the infrastructure necessary to attract businesses and to further develop their communities would be able to do so.

The government is there for municipalities, unlike past governments which, to balance their books, actually downloaded costs onto the provinces which further downloaded costs onto the municipalities. We are doing the exact opposite. I am very proud of that.

We are establishing a volunteer firefighter tax credit for firefighters who bravely serve our communities. This tax credit is of great importance to many of my constituents who live in communities like mine that often rely on volunteer firefighters.

Whenever I go into the village of Warkworth where I live or the other towns and villages in my riding, the first thing I notice is the volunteer fire stations in those smaller communities. Men and women are prepared to jump into their vehicles at any time of the day or night to help save people's homes and lives. While we sleep soundly in our beds, they are out there helping people, sometimes in the worst weather conditions. We need to help them.

Bill C-13 reinforces the government's commitment to the communities of eastern Ontario. The bill includes a tax credit for volunteer firefighters, legislation for a gas tax rebate and infrastructure for funding for the eastern Ontario development program. These initiatives will encourage job growth in our communities and put more money into the pockets of the hard-working people of Northumberland—Quinte West.

In listening to some of the questions and answers today we were given a good lesson on how something as simple as a pencil can increase employment and make the communities in which we live an even better place.

When I hear people talking about less privileged Canadians, I think of all the good work we have done in previous budgets. We have taken one million low income Canadians off the federal tax rolls completely. Many of those Canadians are seniors, like my mother, who asked for an increase in the guaranteed income supplement. We provided that. I was proud to be able to call her to tell her that.

My mother was at my re-election victory party and I told her about her input with regard to single seniors. Most of the single seniors are mothers like mine who depend on their old age pension and their guaranteed income supplement. I know that she, as well as many of my constituents, were happy with the second increase in the guaranteed income supplement.

It is for that reason and many more that I encourage all members of the House to support Bill C-13.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are here today to debate a bill to keep Canada's economy and jobs growing. I would like to express my doubts about the effectiveness of such legislative measures, which I feel do very little to encourage economic and job growth.

Yet last week, this same government voted in favour of an opposition motion. The government committed to taking immediate action to create jobs and deal with unemployment. It also committed to taking immediate action so that Canadians can count on guaranteed pension benefits. Unfortunately, we are not seeing these things, and there is every reason to be disappointed with Bill C-13, which is before us today.

I am not at all convinced that this measure will stimulate job creation, improve health care, guarantee a stable retirement for all or tackle poverty among seniors. The hon. member across the way recently spoke of the magic of the free market, but this magic unfortunately does not benefit everyone. Bill C-13 overlooks far too many people who are in need of help from the Government of Canada right now.

We are told that our GDP is fine and that our economic situation is much better than that of many other countries. I do not wish to argue that here today, but even if that is true, we cannot be lulled into thinking—as one easily could be—that if our economy is doing fine, this has a positive impact on all Canadians. That is false. The magic of the free market does not include a magic wand that can be waved for the benefit of all Canadians. In fact, the middle class is shrinking and the gap between the rich and the poor is increasing. Just because the economy is doing alright, that does not mean that everyone benefits. Bill C-13 unfortunately seems to ignore that fact and does nothing to protect those who need any particular support.

I can give examples of measures that will not benefit everyone. For instance, consider the measure to eliminate the $10,000 limit on eligible expenses caregivers can claim under the medical expense tax credit in respect of dependent relatives. It has been mentioned several times today, but I would like to ask once more: do my colleagues across the floor truly believe that the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who are unemployed or living below the poverty line are really going to care about the elimination of a $10,000 limit on expenses that can be claimed for tax credits? I do not think so.

I doubt that the 1.4 million Canadians who are “officially” unemployed will jump for joy at the idea of a $10,000 limit on medical expenses being eliminated when a great deal of money—$11.5 billion—could be invested in other measures besides medical tax credits. It could be invested in getting people back to work, in updating people's professional skills and in retraining. In our recent motion, we also proposed concrete measures such as strategic investments in infrastructure, and tax relief that targets job creations, not the banks and large oil companies.

I do not want anyone to misinterpret what I am saying. I do not mean that this measure in particular is a bad thing. Of course, any help is a good thing. What I find unacceptable is the fact that there is nothing for those who need it most. The proportion of part-time workers who are looking for full-time work has increased very rapidly. The Conservatives brag about the number of jobs that have been created but they do not talk about the quality of those jobs or about the number of people who are still looking for quality, full-time employment. Jobs that truly allow families to make a living are very hard to find in many regions of the country. The actual unemployment rate, which includes discouraged workers who have withdrawn from the labour force and part-time workers who would like to be working full-time was 11.1% in July 2011. It was 9.4% in 2008.

The Conservatives therefore cannot stand idly by patting themselves on the back and telling themselves that they have done all they can and everything is going well. There is still much to be done, yet very little has been proposed today.

These statistics do not show the exorbitant unemployment rate among youth. In 2008, 2.6 million Canadians aged 15 to 24 had a job. Today, only 2.4 million of them are employed. We are therefore seeing another drop here. It is time to seriously tackle unemployment, and I am afraid that there are not enough concrete measures here to truly deal with the problem.

If we consider that 85,000 young people have entered the labour market since 2008, we quickly see that it is not only our seniors who have money problems; our young people do too. Does the government plan to one day give these people some help, which they are entitled to expect from their government?

Tax credits like the ones proposed by the government are generally useless for part-time workers, the unemployed and seniors who live in poverty—basically, for anyone who tries, and fails, to make ends meet every month. These Canadians do not have enough money to spend to have access to these credits and do not pay enough taxes to qualify. However, they are the ones who need the most help right now.

I have a particular interest in seniors, and I would like to take some time to talk about what this bill fails to address. I would like to share my disappointment at the almost complete lack of measures to help our seniors living in poverty. There is nothing in Bill C-13, or virtually nothing. What we see is nothing but smoke and mirrors. Nothing addresses seniors' issues. Most Canadian seniors will not benefit from the measures set out in Bill C-13. Statistics clearly show that a very large number of seniors—not to mention single parents and people who earn minimum wage—live below the poverty line, and two-thirds of these people are women.

In fact, 11 million Canadians do not have an employer-sponsored pension plan, and approximately 250,000 seniors live in poverty. However, last June, the government agreed to address seniors' poverty. What measures did they propose? We saw measures to provide a supplement of approximately $1 a day for seniors living in poverty. Are these the kinds of measures that the government is proposing to truly help poor seniors? I am afraid so, and I also fear that this government believes the file is closed, because there is nothing more in the documents indicating that our seniors' situation will improve.

What is the government proposing to do to address seniors' poverty? I will say it once again: nothing. Today, there is nothing. Once again, I disagree with my colleagues in government. My consultations with seniors' groups, community organizations that provide services to seniors, and workers on the front lines of health care have convinced me that our seniors need affordable and adapted housing, investments in gerontology, investments in home care and services, and investments in a drug plan. I repeat, I am not at all convinced that they need a bill that includes the removal of a $10,000 ceiling for eligible expenses.

Before closing, I would also like to mention my disappointment that the Conservatives want to limit debate on this bill.

I will wait for questions to make further comments.

[Susan Truppe, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the House today to speak in support of our government's low-tax plan for jobs and growth, the next phase of Canada's economic action plan.

On May 2 Canadians voted for continued economic growth and stability. Our Conservative government has continued to deliver for Canadians, with a strong, stable and ever-growing economy.

The members opposite believe that raising taxes on Canadians and small businesses is the right thing to do. This is simply not the route to continued prosperity. Tax cuts, not tax hikes, create jobs.

How effective is our government's tax-cutting plan for Canadians?

Our Conservative government believes in low taxes and in leaving more money where it belongs: in the pockets of hard-working Canadian families and job-creating businesses. The opposition's high-tax agenda would increase taxes on job-creating businesses to pay for billions of dollars in reckless spending and bloated government programs in Ottawa. The opposition's high-tax plan would kill jobs, stall our fragile economic recovery, and set families back.

Since 2006 our Conservative government has cut taxes over 120 times, reducing the overall tax burden to its lowest level in nearly 50 years.

It is a shame that the members opposite do not believe that a typical family saving over $3,000 due to our government's tax-cutting plan should be entitled to that. It is a shame that the members opposite show disregard to the arts community by opposing the children's arts tax credit, a tax credit that would deliver up to $500 for parents across the country who enrol their children in arts, cultural, recreational and developmental activities. It is a shame that the members opposite do not believe that Canadians should be entitled to our government's new family caregiver tax credit. This credit would provide $2,000 for caregivers of all types of infirm dependent relatives, including, for the first time, spouses, common-law partners and minor children.

Finally, it is a shame that the members opposite do not believe that small businesses should be given the necessary tools to be successful in this country of ours.

In this budget, our government provides a new hiring credit for small businesses. I know there are a lot of small businesses in my riding that are pleased about this.

I heard the comments from the member for London—Fanshawe, who painted a bleak, negative picture of our great city of London. Perhaps she would like to explain to the small businesses in our city why she opposes a $1,000 one-time credit against the increase in their 2011 EI premiums over those paid in 2010.

I, for one, am proud to be a member of Parliament from the great city of London, Ontario, and I am proud to support our small businesses, because tax cuts create jobs.

As I just mentioned, the member opposite from London—Fanshawe decided to paint a bleak picture of our great city. As a proud Londoner, I would like to highlight to this House why we should all be proud of our city.

First, the member opposite claimed that London has the highest unemployment rate in Canada. The hon. member is factually wrong. We do not. According to last month's labour force survey from Statistics Canada, London's unemployment rate actually dropped in the month of August.

Further, today Statistics Canada indicated that the economy created 61,000 new jobs across the country in September, with the unemployment rate dropping to its lowest level in nearly three years. Ensuring my constituents and all Londoners can find employment is certainly a priority of mine and of our government. That is why I was pleased to participate in August, via teleconference, in a job summit hosted by the mayor of our city of London, a job summit that the NDP member for London—Fanshawe did not attend.

This summit brought together political representatives from all three levels of government, businesses and other stakeholders from across this city to discuss how, together, we can strengthen economic growth in our city. If the member for London—Fanshawe had decided to attend, she would know that the answer was resounding. We must work together to create more jobs and strengthen economic growth in our city.

This budget would do exactly that.

The member opposite stated that she is worried that Londoners would get the short end of the stick with our government's investment in the Ontario federal development agency. I am happy to report that the member opposite has nothing to worry about at all, and I will explain why. Instead of speaking negatively about our city and its hard-working residents, our government has been hard at work to provide the necessary tools to strengthen our economy and create jobs.

Since being elected to represent my constituents of London North Centre on May 2, I have been pleased to deliver over $7 million in investments to businesses and organizations in my riding through Federal Development Ontario and millions more through other departments.

It is a shame that the member for London—Fanshawe failed to mention that the London Economic Development Corporation reports that 1,451 new jobs have been created in the city of London thus far in 2011. These new jobs mean $163.3 million for the local economy.

It is a shame that the member for London—Fanshawe failed to mention the millions of dollars in investment our government has made in the University of Western Ontario , located in my riding of London North Centre.

What do these investments mean for businesses and institutions in our city? Ted Hewitt, the vice-president of research at the University of Western Ontario, had this to say:

By providing researchers with the tools they need to develop innovative ideas, treatments and technologies that benefit us at home, we are able to continue to enhance the country’s research reputation on the global stage

There is more.

Our government has supported the arts by investing in festivals, such as the TD Sunfest, one of the largest music festivals in Canada that takes place in the heart of the city of London. Our government has invested in the seniors and disabled in my riding of London North Centre and all Londoners by investing $3.2 million in the centretown project. This initiative will create jobs for Londoners and offer 72 affordable housing units for low-income seniors and the disabled.

Also, our government supported job creation for youth in my riding by investing in nearly $30,000 in Youth Opportunities Unlimited, an organization in my riding that offers top-notch training to youth.

Londoners are hard at work in almost every aspect of the everyday life of Canadians and those abroad.

Canada's military is equipped with quality light armoured vehicles, thanks to the employees of London's General Dynamics. It is worth noting that, in 2010, our government invested $34.4 million into the LAV III upgrade project at General Dynamics.

Balanced breakfasts are brought to families across Canada by Kellogg Canada located in London.

Synergy Manufacturing, a small business in my riding that manufactures specialty windows for homes, has doubled its employment numbers, thanks to our government's economic action plan.

One hundred thousand pounds of honey are produced by McCormick Canada located in London, Ontario.

The hundreds of Londoners working at Labatt Brewing Company in my riding of London North Centre produce 1,029 bottles/cans of beer every minute.

New York city will have 2.5 billion gallons of safe, clean water thanks to London's Trojan Technologies.

Employees of London's Brose Canada ensures one in three cars are safer and more efficient.

There are 2,000 tonnes of CO2 that will not be in the air that we breathe tomorrow, thanks to the 100 new jobs created for Londoners at the London Plant of KACO New Energy.

For two million Canadians, retirement is secure due to the efforts of Freedom 55 Financial, an insurance company located again in the heart of London.

Millions are traded on the New York Stock Exchange, thanks. in part. to the design team at London's Cyborg Trading Systems. There is a number one best selling app for that created by designers at London's Big Blue Bubble Inc.

Those are just some of the examples that the hard-working Londoners put in for us.

Actions, not empty rhetoric, are why Canadians have sent us to this House. Since 2006, our government has put on its hard hat, steel-toed boots and have built a strong foundation for Canada's future. The members opposite, however, choose empty rhetoric over economic growth, empty rhetoric over helping seniors and empty rhetoric over helping families and job creation.

Our government chooses to stand up and deliver for seniors, for small business and for students. Our government chooses to stand up and deliver for the volunteer firefighters. Finally, our government chooses to stand up and deliver for Londoners and all Canadians.

I am pleased to support Bill C-13, a budget that delivers for my constituents and all Canadians. I am proud to be a member of Parliament from a city that is truly second to none. I am proud to be a member of Parliament from the greatest city in the greatest country in the world, London, Ontario.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-13, which is awkwardly titled keeping Canada's economy and jobs growing act.

I will focus my remarks on jobs. I want to first touch briefly on the general failure of the government and this bill in particular to address what is the most important challenge to this country and indeed to the world at this time, and that is climate change.

Whether it is the increased frequency and intensity of severe weather events, be that storms or flooding, whether it is the rapid shrinkage of the Arctic ice shelves, evidence of climate change is all around us.

The government seems not to understand that threat to our entire economy and indeed our way of life. In this bill we have a much more specific failure. We have a very specific threat here to cut our capacity to even understand and respond to climate change.

With the levels of reductions in expenditures by the government that are needed to reach its financial targets, the climate scientists at Environment Canada have been receiving layoff notices, the very people who might help us design a way out of this crisis and to limit the effects on our economy.

I do want to be alarmist on this issue because to state the obvious, ultimately there are no jobs on a dead planet.

Let me come back to the main topic that I want to talk about today, and that is the topic of jobs. Just like climate change, the warning signs are all around us here. We have instability in the international financial markets, the sovereign debt crisis in the eurozone, stagnant growth projections for Canada, all-time high levels of household debt, an increasing balance of payment deficits for this country, and low levels of private investment here at home.

Low levels of corporate investment, despite a 43% tax cut for the big corporations, yet their business investment levels as a share of the GDP have not increased one iota despite those tax cuts.

What do we hear from the government? We hear a very familiar message. We hear, “Stay the course. Continue with corporate tax cuts. Continue to slash public expenditures”.

When did we last hear this? We heard this in the election campaign of 2008 and we heard this from the new Conservative government after that election. The government continued on that path and only brought in its much discussed economic action plan after the threat of defeat in this House of Commons by its failure to act on the economic crisis at that time.

Here we are again, staring another recession in the face with a government that continues its plan of inaction rather than an action plan that would truly benefit Canadian families. I am afraid this time, because we have a majority government, we will continue down this path and leave Canadians at the mercy of these unstable markets.

Conservatives like to trumpet their record on job creation, but when we take into account labour force growth, the new jobs created fall 250,000 jobs short of what we would need just to keep employment levels steady in this country.

When we look at unemployed workers and discouraged workers, they amount to nearly two million in this country. When we look at youth unemployment rates, we have reached a high this summer of more than 17% of youth unemployed. The Conservative response was, “Well, let us continue to cut those corporate taxes.”

As I said, there is no evidence, in fact the evidence is to the contrary, that these corporate tax cuts will do anything to create jobs.

Now the Conservatives, in this bill, are talking about a small business tax credit of $1,000, but it is very clear that this is too small to have any major impact. The NDP has talked about a much larger credit available over a much larger period of time.

Rather than getting stuck in the details of this bill, I want to return to that question of broader economic policy, though these radical spending cuts that we are facing in the budget bill will only make the situation worse. On top of the direct hits these will cause for public services, it will mean a decline in jobs in our economy as economic growth is slowed by the cutting of public sector spending.

One of the things that we know is key to an economic recovery is demand. In order to have sufficient demand in our economy, employees need to earn a living wage. When they go to work every day, work hard, come to the end of the month, there has to be a little bit left over to spend. What we are finding, increasingly, that for families this is not the case.

In 1996 the Liberals eliminated the federal minimum wage and instead adopted the provincial wage rates. These rates have continually fallen behind inflation. Now in my own province of British Columbia, the minimum wage is $8.75 an hour. When the social service agencies in Victoria got together and calculated what it takes in my community to actually earn enough to pay for basic food, clothing and shelter, and transportation to get to a job, the answer was $18.03 an hour.

There is a gap of $10 an hour here for families. When they get to the end of the month, it is no surprise that they are choosing between putting away a little for retirement, putting away a little for their kids' education and actually paying the bills that are coming due.

The major contributor to our economic crisis in the long term is inequality. This is a concern not just of New Democrats, but of business leaders in this country.

In September the Conference Board of Canada, not a noted left-wing organization, put out a report that discussed the increase in poverty rates in this country. After 10 years of some modest progress up to 2009, these rates began to increase once again, and that gap continues to grow.

The Conference Board of Canada pointed out that the gap between the rich and the poor in this country is now growing at a much faster rate than it is in the United States and that very soon we will catch up to them as among the developed countries with the largest gaps between the rich and the poor in the entire world.

Why are we having this increase in inequality? The Conference Board said it is a result of globalization and other market forces. When the government says market forces will fix the recession, it is also saying that market forces will fix inequality, and we have seen that simply is not true.

The Conference Board of Canada also points to dwindling unionization of the Canadian workforce and the stagnation of minimum wages as two key contributors, yet we have seen a constant attack from the government on trade unions as the representatives of workers in the attempt to get a living wage, a family-supporting wage and a wage that will actually promote economic growth and development in this country.

As a spokesperson for the NDP on the Asia-Pacific region, I have also spoken in the House about the lack of investment in this key area, an area in which we can make great progress. We should listen to the president of the Asia-Pacific Foundation, Yuen Pau Woo, who spoke at the Asia-Pacific conference sponsored by the B.C. council of business about two weeks ago in Vancouver. He said that yes, we have made some progress in exporting resources like forestry resources, and yes, the government has done some good work on infrastructure around the ports, but we are missing the boat when it comes to the key factor in expanding our trade with the Asia-Pacific region because we are failing to invest in human capacity.

He said that we need increasing investments in language training, cross-cultural communication and international business education, but there is nothing in the government's Asia-Pacific strategy that speaks to any of those fundamental needs that would help forge more ties with the Asia-Pacific region and help build the basis for strong trade in the future.

When it comes to equality, I read a book over the last year called The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better, by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, two demographers who looked at the actual evidence. I know the government does not like evidence, but they looked in 11 areas of health and social services challenges, everything from physical health to mental health to child health to obesity to crime rates to violence. What they found was that in every case, a society that is more equal does better on every indicator.

Unexpectedly, it also shows that the rich in those countries also do better than the rich in the less equal countries, so this is not just a matter of benefiting the poor but a matter of benefiting all parts of our society by increasing equality.

I see nothing at all in the budget that would move us in that direction of more fundamental equality.

Despite a few crumbs and gestures toward small business and health care and a few non-refundable tax credits that will not help those really in need, there is nothing in the bill to promote jobs. There is nothing here to promote retirement security. There is no action to help the most vulnerable.

As we head into this Thanksgiving weekend, I wish all members of the House and all Canadians a happy Thanksgiving, but like others who have spoken today, I ask them to think about those less fortunate, those who will be going to food banks for their Thanksgiving dinner and those who are in even more dire situations: those who are homeless and who will be going to the soup kitchens for their Thanksgiving dinner.

I would much like to see the government take action that would decrease the inequalities in our society so that veterans, seniors and families with children do not end up in these dire situations on the next Thanksgiving.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, before the hon. member for Kenora leaves, I want him to know that I agree with him on two things: one, pickerel is very good; and two, small business tax reductions are always positive. However, I will tell him that the multinational corporate tax rates the Conservatives are planning would be wrong because they would shift the tax burden from multinational corporations to small businesses and individuals.

While I am speaking to Bill C-13, I would remind members that it is the Conservatives who increased payroll taxes for this year and it is the Conservatives who will once again increase payroll taxes next year. I would remind them that every economist out there, every student who studies economics, every person who understands fiscal responsibility knows it is payroll taxes and income taxes that are a drain on our society. It is simply wrong that hard-working people have to pay those exorbitant taxes, yet the multinational corporations get further tax cuts.

I remind this House that in the 1960s corporate tax rates were in the 40% range and tax rates for individuals were in the 20% range, but now they have completely flipped around. Corporate tax rates have gone down to 15% but tax rates for individuals are into the high 40% range. This is why Canadians say they are taxed too much. Add provincial and municipal taxes to that and there is outrage. Yet the Conservatives constantly say that it is the NDP that would raise taxes.

With the greatest respect, I remind everyone that it is the Conservatives who raise these taxes. That is the truth.

There is something that Bill C-13 and all the Conservatives' budget implementation bills never talk about. I have scoured the pages of all the Conservatives' budgets and not once did I see the two words “food banks”. Twenty-seven senators were appointed by the Prime Minister in one year at a cost over 20 years of $100 million. The Conservatives are still appointing their hacks and flacks to the Senate, but here is their economic action plan for the poor: there is none.

In February 2006 when the Conservatives took power, there were 604,000 Canadians using food banks, but now, 910,000 Canadians are using food banks. It is bad enough that some Canadians would have to beg for food for themselves and their families, but what is worse is that in the city of Calgary, the richest city in Canada, in 2005 a food bank opened up for veterans only. Fifty-eight veterans were there as the first customers of that food bank. The volunteers at the food bank do a wonderful job looking after those veterans. Last year over 200 veterans used that food bank in the richest city in the country.

As a person who was born in Holland, whose parents were liberated by those heroes, I say that is a sin, a shame and the fault of the Conservative government that the heroes of our country would have to do that. The ones who passed away we honour in our Memorial Chamber as we do those who are buried in over 72 countries around the world. It is a sin and a shame. The Conservatives should hang their heads in shame. As we celebrate Thanksgiving with our friends and families, I can go to a store and buy food. Most of my friends and family will purchase their food at a store or go to a farm to get their food. But many veterans and their families and many other Canadians will have to go to a food bank.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if you yourself have ever used a food bank, but I volunteer at one in my riding. It is the most humbling, upsetting experience to see people who at one time had a job have to stand in line at a food bank. They are asked a million questions about who they are in order to get food. This is occurring in one of the richest countries in the world. All projections are that next year there will be a million Canadians who have to use a food bank. That is the entire population of New Brunswick and P.E.I.

Is that the track record of the Conservatives? Unfortunately, yes. That is a shame. Does their budget talk about that? No.

Here is another thing about their budget. The Conservatives crow and brag about a $3,000 tax credit for firefighters. All the firefighters think that they are getting $3,000 out of that, but they are not. They are getting 15% of $3,000 to a maximum of $450. They already get a $1,000 tax credit. Therefore, it is either or. They do not tell us that in the budget.

The $500 arts credit is not $500. It is 15% of $500. It is $75. It is similar to when we buy an item and the company offers a mail-in rebate. Most Canadians will not hold onto those receipts and subject themselves to an audit to get $75. It is a myth. It would be good if they said it was $500 clear. If they said it was $3,000 clear for paramedics and firefighters that would be good. However, it is simply not true. It is similar to when they gave parents $1,200 a year to look after their own kids through the child tax benefit. That is not true at all. That $1,200 is taxable. They did not tell us that when it came out in the budget.

These are the sneaky ways the Conservatives try to pull the wool over the eyes of many Canadians. It is time to stop picking on the sheep of this country. They should not be pulling the wool over anyone's eyes. They should at least try to be honest and forthright about what they are doing. It is absolutely incredible.

I look at this issue in terms of veterans and their families. I will give the government credit in that there have been some improvements since it has come here.

I will give the government top marks for the income splitting plan on pensions, which is a very good thing to do for seniors. I personally thank the hon. members for that because I plan to use it if and when I ever leave politics. I know some of the Conservatives would like me to leave a little earlier, and I appreciate their sentiment. That is a good plan. However, it does not help anybody who is poor. It does not help anybody who is using a food bank. It does not help anyone who is homeless.

While I am speaking of the homeless, is it not a shame that a growing number of those veterans who once wore this country's uniform are homeless?

I will add an anecdote to this. A few years ago we had the consecration of the Queen's colours at the Garrison Grounds in Halifax. Governor General Michaëlle Jean came down. She was wearing a military uniform. She said one of the most poignant things I have ever heard. She said, “I am so proud as a Canadian to wear this uniform because when I was a little girl in Haiti I was afraid of uniforms”. This shows us the type of country we have.

I ask the Conservatives to stop looking after their corporate buddies, to stop the $50 million slush fund for their ridings, to stop getting gold-embossed cards, and to stop taking Challenger jets or helicopters to fly from fishing camps to lobster festivals. We call that “Dingwalling”. When the front bench starts to “Dingwall” the Canadian people it means a level of arrogance is setting in. That is when the backbenchers start getting nervous. I have been around long enough to see what happened when the Liberals did that. The government is not entitled to its entitlements, but Canadians are entitled to proper governance.

Bill C-13 does absolutely nothing for the poor and the homeless veterans of the country, or for the aboriginals on reserves who unfortunately are committing suicide at a record rate. These are the issues facing our country.

Most of us can look after ourselves and we do a good job of it. However, there are millions who deserve the government's attention. I ask that the government, once and for all, have a national food strategy so that Canadians will no longer have to line up at a food bank to get sustenance, especially during Thanksgiving weekend.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-13, An Act to implement certain provisions of the 2011 budget as updated on June 6, 2011 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-13. On behalf of my riding of Etobicoke North, the beautiful community where I was born and raised, I must first fight for jobs. It is an absolute priority for me, my office and our community. It is heartening to see some modest employment growth in today's statistics but it does not bring us back to where we were before the recession.

I want members to know that we have helped many residents with resumés. I personally spend hours correcting each line of cover letters and resumés. We help with job-finding skills. We send people to career agencies and we help find them jobs.

I am particularly proud that we have secured a new jobs program to help more people in our community find work. However, it is not enough. The reality is that more Canadians face economic insecurity compared to a few short years ago. This threatens Canada's economic growth and fiscal balance. We need concrete proposals to stimulate job creation right away.

Twenty per cent of my riding is engaged in manufacturing, the second-highest percentage for the country's entire 308 ridings. What new support can the government offer young Canadians? This past summer, it was heartbreaking to meet with so many young graduates who were distraught because they were unable to find work. Many of these graduates were the first person in their family to go to college and university. The only thing harder than meeting with the graduates was meeting with their grandparents who begged for help to find their grandchildren a job. We must reduce the worst youth unemployment rate in a generation.

We must also build the jobs of the future. This means we must shift to a green economy to stimulate growth, create new jobs, eradicate poverty and limit humanity's ecological footprint. It is no longer a choice between saving our economy and saving the environment. It is a choice between being a producer and a consumer in the old economy and being a leader in a new economy. It is a choice between decline and prosperity.

The government should work in partnership with provinces, territories, municipalities, labour organizations, industry sectors, first nations and others to develop a national sustainable energy and economic growth strategy to position Canada to succeed in the global economy. It should develop a clean energy employment transition for Canada with goals for 2015, 2020, 2025 and 2030. This strategy should include skills development, training programs and certification courses.

I will now address environmental, economic and human costs. Climate change is our most pressing environmental issue, perhaps the defining issue of our generation, and it requires both moral responsibility and intergenerational responsibility. Yet the government failed to mention the issue in the throne speech.

This week we learned that the government has reduced climate change reductions by a shocking 90% since 2007. More stringent action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions cannot be postponed much longer. Otherwise the opportunity to keep the average global temperature rise below 2°C, relative to the pre-industrial level, is in danger. Serious impacts are associated with approaching or exceeding this limit, including the increased frequency and severity of extreme weather events, shifts in growing seasons and sea level rise.

The National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy predicts that climate change could cost Canadians between $21 billion and $43 billion per year by 2050.

Our capacity for managing the impacts to come is adaptation. While it is not cost-free it is a cost-effective way to alleviate some of those impacts. I must then ask why the government is cutting climate impacts and adaptation research at Environment Canada. The group was started 17 years ago. It performs groundbreaking research by examining how climate change affects agriculture, human health and water quality in Canada. Some of its scientists shared part of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize on climate change.

My concern is that the government wants as little as possible to do with climate change and wants to pass the buck to the provinces and the municipalities. The reality is that we need research governance arrangements on adaptation at all scales.

I will now turn to human costs and what failure to take preventive action would mean.

Governments worldwide are concerned with the rising tide of dementia. Some 500,000 Canadians have Alzheimer's disease or related dementia. Some 71,000 are under the age of 65 years and 72% are women. Today in Canada one person is diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias every five minutes. The human cost is huge. The economic cost is $15 billion. In 30 years it will be one person every two minutes and a cost of $153 billion.

It is my absolute hope that the health committee will reconstitute the Subcommittee of Neurological Disease which I founded in the last Parliament and will bring back the report which the subcommittee passed.

Moreover, will the government commit to a national brain strategy? Will it commit to a national brain health awareness month and a national year of the brain to raise awareness of brain health in Canada? Will it commit to a national Alzheimer's office within the Public Health Agency of Canada to reduce the rising tide of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias, and provide a national plan with specific goals and an annual report to Parliament? Will it take necessary measures to accelerate the discovery and development of treatments that would prevent, halt or reverse the course of dementia? Will it encourage greater investment in all areas of research?

If we could merely slow the onset of dementia by two years for each affected Canadian we would see a return on investment of 15,000% over a 30 year research effort.

I will finish by tackling another devastating neurological disease, that being multiple sclerosis. It affects 55,000 to 75,000 Canadians, of whom 400 die each year from the disease, and many take their own life. The suicide rate in MS patients is seven times that of the national population.

In May 2010, my colleague from St. Paul's and I brought the fight for clinical trials and a registry for chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency, CCSVI, to Parliament.

Almost a year later, in March 2011, the government announced a registry, although it will not actually start until July 2012.

In June 2011, at last the government announced clinical trials.

I want to be clear. All we have right now is announcements. What we need is action. Canadians with MS cannot afford to wait.

Instead of tracking patients who have had the CCSVI procedure and developing the most appropriate scales to measure any health impacts following treatment, MS patients were left with no follow up and important data was lost post procedure at one, three, six, twelve and twenty-four months.

Since when do scientists fail to collect data or, worse, choose not to gather evidence?

The CIHR is currently recommending phase I or phase II clinical trials for CCSVI.

I would argue that there is no need for a phase I trial, which is usually undertaken to assess safety. Angioplasty is an accepted standard of care practice in Canada.

I would, therefore, suggest that we need an adaptive phase II or phase III trial, for example, clinical trials for the CCSVI procedure in multiple centres across Canada.

I will finish by thanking the people in my riding, as well as the stakeholders in the environment, health and particularly neurological disease.

Finally, I would like all of the people who are living with MS to know that they inspire me every day.

The House resumed from October 6 consideration of the motion that Bill C-13, An Act to implement certain provisions of the 2011 budget as updated on June 6, 2011 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

One single Liberal is all there was.

Anyhow, Mr. Speaker, back to this exciting budget. This is exciting because these initiatives are simply a handful of the many positive ones contained within this bill that would help create jobs.

Furthermore, I am very pleased to see that the bill is striving to create the right conditions for Canada's economic success by not just creating jobs but also working to respect the taxpayers. We are a government that is working for all Canadians and we are committed to keeping taxes low. In fact, under this government, taxes have been reduced 120 times since 2006. We are continuing to keep taxes low because, unlike the opposition, we know that higher taxes would kill jobs. It is a fragile economic recovery and it sets Canadian families back.

I know our government's tax relief for families and job-creating businesses has been extremely important in my riding, and I am proud of our record on that issue.

The bill goes far in providing critical support for our communities. In particular, I am pleased to see the commitment to legislate a permanent annual investment of $2 billion in a tax fund, the gas tax fund, that would provide predictable infrastructure funding over the long term.

I believe that this builds upon the many projects that our government invested in during the first phase of Canada's economic action plan. These were important and necessary projects. They created jobs and they contributed to economic growth. Many of these projects will be well used for many years by communities across the country.

I would like to bring to the attention of my colleagues the many measures in this bill designed to assist Canadian families. Canadian families stand to gain much from this next phase of Canada's economic action plan. In particular, there is the new family caregiver tax credit that would assist those Canadians already striving to care for the infirm and their dependent relatives.

As well, Bill C-13 would remove the limit on the amount of eligible expenses caregivers can claim under the medical expense tax credit in respect of financially dependent relatives.

Finally, we are introducing the children's arts tax credit for recreational and developmental children's programs.

We understand how difficult making ends meet can be for Canadian families. Our government desires to make life easier for families, which is precisely what the initiatives in this budget are outlined to do.

I wish to speak to something of tremendous importance in my riding in the province of Saskatchewan that is addressed in this budget. It is the important measures in Bill C-13 that invest in education and training.

Our government recognizes the importance of a well-educated and talented workforce in today's modern economy, especially within the context of a highly competitive, global economy where education and skills are of the utmost necessity to guarantee success. Bill C-13 invests in education and in training so that Canadian workers are the best equipped to tackle the challenges of today's work environment. We are ready to build on Canada's reputation as a world leader with a strong, well-trained and well-educated workforce that is flexible to meet the labour needs.

To accomplish this, I am proud to see that Bill C-13 contains a number of important measures. In particular, we are investing hundreds of millions of dollars in research and development, in higher education and in new technologies. We are extending tax relief for skills certification exams by extending the scope of the tuition tax credit. We are forgiving loans for new doctors and nurses who choose to live and work in remote and rural areas, which frequently were underserved. We are doubling the in-study income exemption so students can earn more while at school without negatively impacting the loans. The last measure alone would assist nearly 100,000 students.

These are investments so fundamentally important to Canada's economic prosperity that we will see benefits not just now but in the future and for many years into the future.

In my home province of Saskatchewan, investments are both very necessary and are extremely welcome.

Our government fully understands the importance of remaining competitive in the global economy. We recognize the role played by investments in innovation and education. The bill, the next phase of Canada's economic action plan, is clear and concise. It is a plan for tackling the challenges faced by Canada's economy.

It is important that the bill be passed. It is important because our government can then continue to build on the highly successful first phase of Canada's economic action plan. The government remains committed to the principles that served Canadians well during the recent global economic downturn. We have emerged from that downturn and our economy is showing very positive results. It is necessary that we be allowed to continue down this path. In the next phase, we will continue. We will continue to support job creation. We will lay the groundwork for economic growth and, importantly, we will do this while assisting families, investing in education and innovation, and supporting communities and keeping taxes low.

I am proud of the work we have done. I am proud to be supporting the bill. I am thankful for the opportunity to speak.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification)]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand in the House today to speak to Bill C-13, the keeping Canada's economy and jobs growing act. Our government has made Canada's economy our number one priority. We have been keenly focused on creating jobs and providing the right conditions for economic growth. We recognize the economy is what Canadians are concerned about and we are working hard on their behalf.

The bill that we are debating is an important part of the next phase of Canada's economic action plan. It builds on the tremendous work done by our government to secure Canada's economic success. There are many positive aspects of this bill that are deserving of mention and that I am pleased to address. Most important, this bill is a clear plan to promote job creation. It is a clear plan to create economic growth. It provides support for our communities. It helps families and invests in education and training. Not only does this bill address these many important issues, but it does so while respecting taxpayers, something that has been the hallmark of our government.

This bill contains several measures that would encourage the hiring of more Canadians and create necessary jobs. It would provide a temporary hiring credit for small businesses, the very companies that are so vital to building our economy. This bill would reduce red tape because reducing red tape makes it easier for Canadians to get jobs and keep them. We are also supporting young entrepreneurs by providing $20 million to enable the Canadian Youth Business Foundation to continue assisting young entrepreneurs.

These initiatives—

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-13 contains a number of intolerable elements. For one, the Conservative government wishes to use this bill to end public funding for political parties. What a shameful proposal. Public funding for political parties is a key element to maintaining democracy in Canada.

The political party financing system offers equal access for all political parties and gives political parties that cannot afford it an opportunity to have their voices heard. Obviously, the Conservative Party would prefer to have a system that favours rich political parties to the detriment of smaller parties. No one is surprised by the fact that the Conservative government is proposing such a measure. It is yet another tactic to solidify their power and muzzle those who have a different vision for Canada.

Public funding for political parties was implemented to put an end to corruption in politics and meddling by rich entrepreneurs. If the state does not subsidize political parties, the funding must come exclusively from private sources. Without public funding, the government would not be much different from a business. Perhaps the government's next proposal will be that political parties be put on the stock market, I do not know.

I will tell hon. members a little tale. About a year ago I was a student and my wife was a student as well. We are both educated people. I have a master's degree. She was a lawyer in Turkey. All the same, we had a hard time making ends meet through these difficult economic times.

An organizer saw me in the summer of 2010 and asked me if I was interested in becoming a candidate for the NDP. Here I was, struggling to keep my business running, studying and taking care of my family. The party thought I might make a good candidate, so it approached me. I accepted, knowing that the campaign financing through the per vote subsidy would support me rather than having to raise my own money, which would have been an impossibility at that time, since I was working, studying and taking care of my family.

I clearly did not have the time to raise money while I was studying and doing all these things, so the elimination of the per vote subsidy might eliminate guys like me as candidates. Instead, they will prefer the professional politicians who have well-polished political machines and this will leave the grassroots voiceless and further alienate the people from the political process.

Voting and elections are part of the common good, so I do not understand why the Conservatives continue to deride the electoral process and thus show their contempt for the electoral process.

However, with that said, we will be in good shape to raise our own money as a party, living without the subsidy, but my fear is that it will discourage certain candidates, those who cannot get involved in the political process because they do not have the money.

There is nothing worse when one is broke to get hit up by a political party for money. I know this from experience. That is when an individual is earning $25,000 a year and a political party says it needs help and asks if he or she has $500 to give. Most Canadians do not have that money and they resent being asked for it.

That is why the subsidy is in place, so the costs of political activity are borne by the greater public for the greater good. Everyone pays, but those who do not have any money will not get dinged for this $2 per vote. It will be borne by the more well off in the taxation system. That is what happens. Those who do not make enough money during the year do not have to pay for this. Those who are well off would end up paying this money through their taxes.

This is the way of the government. The Conservatives believe more in the prosperity of the few rather than the prosperity of all Canadians. They believe that the electoral and democratic system, through the per vote subsidy of our country, is not worth investing in.

I will leave this subject briefly and say that the government is also scattershot on the economy. The Conservatives continue to applaud their Minister of Finance, who was chosen by Euromoney magazine as the best finance minister in the world two years ago.

The current best finance minister in the world is Wayne Swan, a Labour brother from Australia. Why? Because he not only acted quickly on this year's economic downturn, but the one in 2008 as well.

Both times, Canada's Minister of Finance was asleep at the wheel. While he was reading Forbes, with his feet up on the desk in his fine tailored suit in the warmth of his leather and wood office, perhaps he could not hear the voices of our most poor from his Ottawa bubble. He waited too long before acting and it shows, because these measures in this bill are scattershot. They lack coherency.

That is why the government rests upon its platitudes. It says that it is leader of the G7, while ignoring that the top four countries in the World Economic Forum competitiveness report are not from the G7 at all. Why ignore these countries? Because countries like Switzerland, Sweden, Singapore, Finland invest in public transit. They have coherent plans. They have state-of-the-art infrastructure. Their governance models are orderly and transparent.

The solution of the government has been like the kid in class who neglects to study. He sits next to the smart kid and when he can peek at what the smart kid is doing, he cribs the smart kid's notes.

The small business tax credit was our idea, except our proposition is in a half measure.

The government's tax credit for small business will not be effective in helping small businesses. We proposed the $4,500 tax credit for small businesses and a reduction in small business tax from 11% to 9%. Perhaps the government did not see that part when it was peeking over our shoulder.

Regarding Montreal's infrastructure, we said that the Champlain Bridge needed to be built. We talked about the economic significance of the bridge and its contribution to productivity. Six months later I listened to the minister repeat my exact words to a room full of journalists. He also said it would not cost the taxpayers anything. I guess he missed part of our notes. We have done our homework on the way PPPs work and they often cost more than a regular procurement. There is no such thing as off-the-book accounting and the government should be transparent about that.

However, I guess when the Conservatives cribbed from our notes, they missed the substance of our argument. They prefer the comfort of their own ideology.

Let me remind the hon. members of the 12 pillars of the World Economic Forum's competitiveness index. I will open the answer book to give them a peek so perhaps they can create the jobs necessary to build this economy. We will give them the answers so we know they do not have to copy off of us.

The basic requirements of the 12 pillars are: institutions, infrastructure, macroeconomic environment, and health and primary education. These are the keys for factor-driven economies.

Efficiency enhancers are: higher education and training, goods market efficiency, labour market efficiency, financial market development, technological readiness, and market size. These are keys for efficiency-driven economies.

Innovation and sophistication factors are: business sophistication and innovation. These are key for innovation-driven economies, of which Canada is one.

The Conference Board of Canada identified weaknesses in these last two areas, business sophistication and innovation. That is why since 2009 Canada has slipped from sixth place to ninth place and in September of this year to twelfth place.

The member for Calgary Centre can cherry-pick the facts and figures in this report, but the fact remains that the stability of our financial system was not due to his government but the foundations built by Canadian governments of the past. That is a fact I will acknowledge to the third party in this House even though its last Prime Minister wished to change that system. We are glad he decided not to. Members can take credit where credit is due, but they must realize that it is a misleading practice to claim credit for something someone else has done.

Let us return to the weaknesses identified in the report, that being innovation and business sophistication. The report states:

--greater R and D spending and producing goods and services higher on the value chain, would enhance Canada’s competitiveness and productive potential going into the future.

What is the government's answer to this criticism on competitiveness? It is to focus on export of raw materials like bitumen from the oil sands. To make it a priority to invest in basic--

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to add to the debate on behalf of the people of Don Valley West on Bill C-13, keeping Canada's economy and jobs growing act. It is the people of Don Valley West who placed their confidence in me to ensure that we continue to move the economy forward and work to create a better Canada for all Canadians.

In April during the election campaign, there were three main issues that were foundational to my campaign, three issues that were consistently discussed on the doorsteps of my constituents, and it is these three issues that I would like to address with regard to Bill C-13 this afternoon. These three issues are: families, job creation and the economy.

I would like to begin with the economy as resolution to all of these issues flow from a strong and strengthening economy. Our Canadian economy is being recognized as one of the strongest and most stable in the world today and this is clearly a result of strong leadership and vision. Our government has cut taxes over 120 times since 2006, helped remove over one million low income families, individuals and seniors from the tax rolls altogether, and helped an average family save over $3,000 a year through our economic initiatives.

I note that both the IMF and the OECD have forecasted that Canada will be at the head of the pack for economic growth in the G7 for several years to come. Canada enjoys the lowest debt to GDP ratio among its G7 partners. With all of these positive initiatives, we cannot forget that the global recovery remains fragile, something we have spoken about over the past four months.

Our government campaigned and committed to balancing our books and eliminating the deficit. Before the global recession, our Conservative government paid down nearly $40 billion in debt. Our plan to balance our budget over the next few years is the cornerstone of the next phase of Canada's economic action plan. The good news is that we will do all of this without raising taxes on Canadians, unlike the official opposition that would raise taxes immeasurably and kill jobs or something the previous Liberal government accomplished by slashing provincial transfers to health, education and seniors in order to effect their balanced budget.

We understand that when Canadians are balancing their budgets at home, sacrifices need to be made. That is why, as a government, we are going through an extensive review of government spending, including scrapping the per-vote subsidy that was given to all political parties. We believe in using taxpayers' money wisely and that includes no free handouts to political parties.

The Toronto Board of Trade recently stated:

The 2011 federal budget achieves a prudent balance of tax stability and deficit reduction measures while pointing to longer-term infrastructure investment opportunities.

Additionally, the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants stated:

[The budget] strikes the right balance by keeping Canada competitive and demonstrating prudent fiscal management. This budget charts a course that will help Canada be competitive in attracting investment while establishing a fiscal framework that sets the stage for sustainable recovery and economic growth.

With regard to business and job creation, Canada has the lowest overall tax rate on new business investment in the G7, an open invitation to new investment in this great country. In the Year of the Entrepreneur, we introduced a new hiring credit for small business. I have heard from constituents in my riding of Don Valley West who own a small family manufacturing business that they are able to hire two more employees as a direct result of this specific initiative.

We are working to reduce red tape through the Red Tape Reduction Commission.

Since we formed government in 2006, over one million new jobs have been created. Since July 2009 over 600,000 net new jobs have been created, taking us to a higher level than the pre-recession level.

We are lowering taxes for businesses in order to help create an environment that encourages sustainable growth, so that they can continue to hire Canadians. Let us not forget that over 90% of businesses in Canada are small and medium-sized businesses.

Our economy has become so well regarded that even Forbes business magazine, the influential business magazine, has just this week ranked Canada the number one country in which to do business and create jobs.

To again quote the influential Toronto Board of Trade, it stated:

--welcomed new initiatives to spur small business productivity and hiring, such as the hiring credit for small business. SMEs are the engines of job growth. Spurring productivity and employment growth among SMEs, as this budget does, should help Canada's economic recovery.

And it is doing just that.

Within this sector, manufacturing continues to play an important role. Our government is working hard to create the right environment to stimulate manufacturing growth and job creation in Canada.

The Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters Association said:

The extension of the two year write-off for investments in manufacturing and processing technologies announced in [budget 2011] is critical to sustaining Canada's economic recovery...In an era of economic uncertainty, this tax measure gives manufacturers the confidence to invest in their future by boosting purchases of productivity-enhancing technologies.

Finally, I would like to address what our government is doing to assist families at this time.

We believe in families, and to prove that we have introduced a new children's arts tax credit of up to $500 in eligible fees for programs associated with children's arts, cultural, recreational and developmental activities.

We introduced the children's fitness tax credit, promoting physical fitness among our youth through a credit of up to $500 in eligible fees for programs associated with physical activity.

We brought in the landmark tax free savings account, the most important personal savings vehicle since the RRSP was born.

We have introduced a new family caregiver tax credit, an amount of $2,000 for caregivers of all types of infirm dependent relatives, including for the first time, spouses, common law partners and minor children.

Our government is extending the eco-energy retrofit program to help families lower their heating and electricity bills by making their house more energy efficient.

I have nine seniors homes in my riding and this past weekend on National Seniors Day, I had the pleasure of visiting hundreds of seniors in these homes and witnessing the impact the new horizons for seniors program has on the every day lives of seniors.

Our government has enhanced the guaranteed income supplement. Eligible seniors will receive additional annual benefits of up to $600 a year.

The C.D. Howe Institute stated:

--the new Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) top-up benefit for low-income seniors, would bring a meaningful increase in benefits too low-income seniors.

We have eliminated the mandatory retirement age, allowing Canadians to work longer.

According to the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, “People have a right to determine how long they work, and this is a major step toward eliminating poverty for seniors”.

Our government is working for Canadians. I urge the opposition parties to abandon their high tax, job killing agenda, and support these initiatives which are working for Canadians and for all of Canada.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is my third 10-minute speech during debates on bills in a week, and I truly feel honoured to express my vision of Canada in the House.

I have taken the time to study aspects of the bill on implementing certain provisions of budget 2011 and, although I am in favour of some of the measures, others are not very useful and are even harmful in my eyes. As I have already mentioned on other occasions, the government is a major, essential economic player, and anything we do or stop doing has significant consequences for taxpayers, businesses and public servants.

In other words, Bill C-13, dubbed the “Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act”, is not worthy of its name. While the government claims to be promoting economic growth and job growth, we quickly see that it is not taking into consideration the priorities of Canadian families and that small businesses are being overlooked.

I will start with a tax measure that is useless to most and irritating because it is a shameless vote-buying ploy. I am talking about the children's arts tax credit, which will cost the national budget $110 million in lost taxes without clearly promoting participation in artistic activities or affecting the millions of families who do not pay taxes because of their specific situation.

Between 35% and 40% of Canadian taxpayers do not pay taxes for one reason or another. In the vast majority of cases, it is because of their low income. A significant portion of these low-income taxpayers are our seniors. We cannot blame them for not paying taxes, because they are living on less than $20,000 a year.

Another portion of these taxpayers is made up of families with young children whose parents are either young workers who earn close to minimum wage or victims of occasional or long-term unemployment. Most of these Canadian families will not be able to benefit from this tax credit because they do not have a high enough income. This is an elitist measure that excludes a large number of Canadians, people who need to get involved in society and give their children an opportunity to have enriching experiences.

Why exclude these families? Did the government call it a day after creating those 600,000 jobs and give up on addressing the pressing needs of Canadian families?

We have known for a long time that the Conservatives have decided to favour major corporations at the expense of small businesses. This year alone, the government has given nearly $2 billion in tax cuts to businesses that are not held accountable for this massive amount of money. Although our plan is clear on predictions for job creation, the Conservatives refuse to listen to us and implement support measures for Canadian small businesses. The NDP wants to help families directly by creating good-quality jobs. These jobs will enable Canadians to live a decent life in this fragile global economy.

This week, we received the Conservatives' support on a motion calling for immediate economic action. The motion received the unanimous support of the House. Since they recognize the need to act quickly, why do the Conservatives not use their strong mandate to take immediate action instead of giving us this bill with a misleading title? Yet they gave us a strong mandate by supporting that motion.

This bill includes very few measures to stimulate the Canadian economy. There is a temporary tax credit of up to $1,000 on employment insurance premiums, for one year only. This measure announced by the Conservatives does not target new job creation since it applies only to existing jobs. A business can obtain this tax credit by simply increasing an employee's hours. So how will this measure create jobs? It is wishful thinking to expect that that this measure will create jobs. Furthermore, since this measure is temporary, what guarantees that the jobs created this year will be kept next year? If the incentives for businesses are no longer there, why would they create jobs? While we are proposing sensible and responsible solutions for job creation, the Conservatives are throwing money out the window. Instead of giving a tax credit to create jobs, the Conservatives are blindly handing out tax credits.

In addition, there is no information available about the estimated number of jobs that will be created by this bill. We have the impression that the bill was thrown together. Canadian taxpayers do not want this government to squander their taxes, and they want to know what results to expect. This government must be responsible and forecast the results of this fiscal policy before implementing it. How many jobs will be created by these half measures or by this almost total lack of measures?

Is the government searching for economic priorities? I would like to provide one that is important to me in this “year of the entrepreneur”. In Canada, the entrepreneurship rate is declining and, according to the report on entrepreneurship, could sink into the red by 2018. The situation is that serious. Briefly, the report explains that the number of new entrepreneurs is not even sufficient to replenish firms that are already on the market. Owners of profitable and productive businesses will be forced to shut their doors if we do not act quickly.

Quebec has been hit harder than the other provinces by this problem. The government has a duty to take immediate action to deal with the problem of entrepreneurial renewal in Canada. It must get its priorities right and be proactive. Encouraging entrepreneurial renewal is the best way of ensuring that our economy will develop in a sustainable manner.

The NDP is proposing clear actions to support the Canadian economy: cut small business taxes from 11% to 9% and offer a tax credit of up to $4,500 for each job created within the Canadian economy. We also proposed an employee retention incentive that would include offering employers a tax credit of up to $1,000 if they commit to maintaining the jobs created.

Our employment plan aims to create 200,000 sustainable jobs each year, jobs that will support Canadian families. That is concrete action, touch wood. We will ensure Canada's economic prosperity by supporting small business. That is a plan that works and that will work if the government agrees to use it to create jobs. It is solid. It is a plan that responds to the needs of Canada's small businesses.

To conclude, I would like to say that one of my many weaknesses is the pride I inherited from my late father. I refuse to be treated like a monkey being tossed a handful of peanuts. These crumbs are an insult to the intelligence and dignity of this country's families—I am talking about the tax credit for families for art activities—and a large number of families are excluded, as I explained earlier. People need far more dignified and respectful measures.

Can I, as a member of Parliament, accept that a mostly ineffective, needlessly expensive measure—one that has no effect on the families that need it most—is being inserted into this bill?

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to enter the debate on Bill C-13 this afternoon, a very lively debate, and I am glad to see interest from members on all sides of the House on this important bill.

Bill C-13, Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act, is a very important one that follows up on our economic action plan that helped steer Canada through one of the most difficult recessions since the 1930s and in the lifetimes of most of the people here.

This is now the second phase of our action plan. The budget implementation bill we are discussing today brings into reality many of the things that were in the budget that was introduced in the spring and debated all the way through the course of the election. We ran on the pledges that are in the budget, and now it is time to implement them.

I will review a few of the things contained in this very big bill. It is a heavy piece of work, some 600 pages, and it is very important because it covers measures that will help keep our economy going in the right direction.

Our focus remains the economy. Our focus is creating jobs and keeping Canadians employed and making sure of the economic advantages we have in Canada, making sure they help us provide the measures that people depend on from government in this country and that we have the resources to keep meeting the needs of Canadians.

Some of the measures in the act include a temporary hiring credit for small business to encourage additional hiring. Some 525,000 small businesses in Canada will have the opportunity to take advantage of this credit to hire employees in the next year.

We are also expanding the tax support for clean energy generation to encourage green investments. Even in a tough economy, this is an important measure to help our environment. We are working on that as well, and provisions are in the bill.

We are extending the mineral exploration tax credit for flow-through share investors by one year to support Canada's mining sector. I come from the province of British Columbia, where mining is an extremely important part of our economy. We are a resource-rich country, and our mining sector is an important contributor to our GDP.

We will be simplifying customs tariffs in order to facilitate trade and lower the administrative burden for businesses. We are extending the accelerated capital cost allowance for manufacturing and processing machinery. That is very important to help keep Canada competitive in a competitive world. Those measures have been well received by the manufacturing sector, which has helped us maintain an economic edge in difficult times. That measure is being extended to that important part of our economy.

We are eliminating the mandatory retirement age for federally regulated employees in order to give older workers who wish to work longer the option of remaining in the workforce.

It is true we have an aging workforce. We have a shortage of skilled workers. I have a very skilled retirement community on Vancouver Island, but many of these people are quite able and willing to continue to contribute to Canada's economic activity by working just a little bit longer for the benefit of their own retirement in the future and for the benefit of their families.

Those are just some of the measures.

We are doing something to help our communities. For example, there will be a permanent annual investment of $2 billion in the gas tax fund to help our municipalities. This is something that the Federation of Canadian Municipalities has been asking for. Our B.C. municipalities have been asking for it. It is tremendously important to help catch up on the infrastructure deficit that many of our municipalities are facing.

Another very important measure is the volunteer firefighters tax credit. Since many of our rural communities cannot afford a full-time professional fire force, we depend on our volunteer firefighters, and they have been asking for this measure for some time. I am very proud we are able to deliver on that. It is a 15% non-refundable volunteer firefighters tax credit to the amount of $3,000 for those firefighters who perform at least 200 hours of service. In my community, this measure is very much appreciated.

While I am talking about volunteer firefighters, I want to mention a citizen we lost last year. He was named the Citizen of the Year in Parksville. His name was Don Brittain, and Don was the chief of the Coombs-Hilliers Volunteer Fire Department. He was fire chief for nearly two decades. This man exemplified what it means to be a volunteer. He motivated many other people. He knew everything there was to know about fighting fires.

I was at his funeral, and the community came out in a remarkable way to honour the contribution by this man to our community. This tax credit will not benefit Don Brittain, but many of the people he motivated will benefit from it in our rural communities, and I know it is very much appreciated.

We are helping families by introducing a new family caregiver tax credit to assist caregivers of all types of infirm dependent relatives. That is a welcome benefit in our communities.

We are removing the limit on the amount of eligible expenses that caregivers can claim under the medical expense tax credit in respect of financially dependent relatives.

These are all important measures to people in our economy.

Then there is the children's arts tax credit, which even in tough times will encourage young people and families not to miss the opportunity for young children to develop their artistic talents, and I know it is very much appreciated.

All of our efforts are geared toward respecting taxpayers, including phasing out the direct subsidy of political parties. I received an email from one of my constituents this morning stating how much he appreciates that measure, because he does not believe he should have to fund parties that he does not agree with or support.

Canada's economic performance has been noted around the world. Our debt to GDP ratio is one of the lowest in the G7 and in the G20, at about 34%.

I was recently at a Canada-EU forum at the EU Parliament in Strasbourg. The target for EU nations set by the Maastricht Treaty was 60%, just for comparison. We are way ahead of our competitors in our debt to GDP ratio. That is something we are proud of. Since 2006, this government paid down nearly $40 billion on our debt before the recession, and that has contributed to our healthy situation going through these troubled times.

We had more encouraging news from the IMF and the OECD. Both these organizations recently forecast that Canada's economy will be one of the strongest in the G7 this year and next. Similarly, Fitch Ratings and Moody's recently renewed Canada's AAA ratings. Moody's August statement credited Canada's strong rating to what it termed “economic resiliency, its high government financial strength, and its low susceptibility to event risk”.

One of my favourites is a quote from a Forbes business magazine that just came out:

Canada ranks No. 1 one in our annual look at the Best Countries for Business. While the U.S. is paralyzed by fears of a double-dip recession and Europe struggles with sovereign debt issues, Canada's economy has held up better than most. The $1.6 trillion economy is the ninth biggest in the world and grew 3.1% last year. It is expected to expand 2.4% in 2011, according to the Royal Bank of Canada.

We have a lot to be thankful for. Managing an economy through difficult times is something that has to be done very carefully and delicately. That is why these measures in Bill C-13 are very carefully crafted.

I note that time is getting skinny for me, so I would just like to comment on some of the economic measures that were put in place to stimulate the economy on Vancouver Island, in my area.

The new cruise ship terminal cost some $24 million. Approximately $8 million of that was from the federal stimulus plan.There are cruise ships coming in to that facility right now.

The Nanaimo Museum just reported it is seeing three to four times more visitors on the days when a cruise ship is in port. That is an indicator of the restaurants and businesses in the downtown Nanaimo area that are benefiting. As word gets out and more ships take advantage of this, we will see more tourism. When people come back to the cruise ship, we are ranked about 90% in terms of the experience people have had, and as the word gets out, we are expecting to see that spread to the entire mid-island area.

The pulp mills in our area are receiving benefits through the green energy transformation fund.

There was funding for our Vancouver Island University for the Deep Bay shellfish research centre. We are pushing forward with science that helps the expansion of our aquaculture industry, which is a very responsible industry, and recently there was more funding for a brand new international centre for sturgeon research, the only one of its kind in North America. That is attracting an international forum to Nanaimo that will bring scientists from around the world, and that will also help stimulate our economy.

All of these measures that we have been taking, including measures helping to keep people employed and measures targeting older workers and keeping people engaged, contribute to helping us get through the economic challenges.

We want to stay the course, keep our taxes low, keep our spending low and make sure we help Canada cruise through to more stable times.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I wish to reiterate the comments made by my colleague from Nova Scotia. It is with great regret that the time is now limited. The government is forcing us to make fewer comments on what we consider are great inadequacies in this budget. So, I will try, in 10 minutes, to share some of the concerns that have been raised with me about the budget document tabled here today, Bill C-13.

Canadians face an historic deficit, through no fault of those impacted by the recession, and yet those most reliant on federal programs will suffer the effects of cuts to those critical services and programs, as we have been hearing for the last couple of weeks: cuts to Service Canada, assistance, employment insurance, immigration, pension benefits. I can speak personally for my riding that people desperately need assistance. They do want a 1-800 number.

Shifts to computerize further centralized responses deeply hurts those who most need this assistance: immigrants, those who live in isolated communities, the people of the regions.

Many seniors and aboriginal peoples are challenged in gaining access to computers. Many have problems with basic literacy.

To their credit, some volunteer organizations have stepped up to the plate, including the South East Edmonton Seniors Association in my riding which, with some help from the government, is actually trying to train the seniors on how to access this kind of information on line. However, it is still very stressful for seniors.

Many immigrants are challenged by government systems and language skills, in particular, temporary foreign workers. The reference to “just go and look it up on a computer” is basically not helpful to these contributing members to our society.

The second aspect of concern to this budget, which some of my colleagues have spoken to, is innovation in the next generation economy. Most disturbing are the blinders on the government in recognizing the need to invest in the new, cleaner energy economy. Strong support has been expressed for enhanced investment in the clean energy economy from provinces, the fossil fuel sector, the energy efficiency sector and by a lot of think tanks, including the right-wing think tanks.

However, most surprising is the support for investment by the federal government in moving forward on a Canadian energy strategy so that Canadian businesses and, generally, Canadians, can benefit from the investments that have been made around the world. What is happening is that our clean energy sector, our energy efficiency sector, because of the reneging of investments by the government, are moving to other nations. We are losing in investment in securing our economy of the future.

Instead, the government is gifting billions in public dollars to a handful of energy companies to simply test technologies to deal with carbon, with no obligation in law to reduce the carbon emissions and no obligation to invest in R and D. The fossil fuel sector is known to be one of the worst sectors in the Canadian economy in investing in R and D. This is short-sighted and would put Canada at risk as a player in the new economy.

The third segment of my comments are about aboriginal Canadians. No segment of our population has suffered more under the Conservative economic strategy than aboriginal Canadians. This was clearly delineated by our former auditor general, Sheila Fraser, in her final audit this year.

Among her key messages for the 2011 audit was the failure by the current government and previous Liberal governments to take action on her 31 audit reports on aboriginal issues; 16 reports in the last decade addressing first nation and Inuit issues and 15 additional chapters dealing with issues of importance to aboriginal peoples.

As noted by the former auditor general:

It’s no secret that their living conditions are worse than elsewhere in Canada. Only 41 percent of students on reserves graduate [from high school], compared with 77 percent of students in the rest of the country. And more than half of the drinking water systems on reserves still pose a health threat.

She went on to say:

What’s truly shocking, however, is the lack of improvement. Last year, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada reported that between 2001 and 2006 there was little or no progress in the well-being of First Nations communities. In a wealthy country like Canada, this gap is simply unacceptable.

Over the past two years, the former auditor general presented 31 reports. However, despite those 31 reports and despite some federal action, some attempts by the bureaucracy, the first nations still lack, according to the auditor general, what most other Canadians take for granted. “On the surface”, she said, “it seems that the government simply needs to work harder”. She suggested that we needed to look much deeper, and that, after 10 years, she had come to believe that we needed fundamental changes and that we needed to see meaning progress in the well-being of our first nations.

The auditor general said that we could not simply turn to the same old ways of doing business, that we needed substantive changes. We need funding but we also need major legislative initiatives. We see none of that in the budget tabled.

More specifically, the auditor general pointed out that there was no action on education. First nation children still receive 2% less support than other children. As for access to quality water sources, far too many communities still do not have access to safe drinking water. As for housing shortage, there is disrepair and dangerous mould in houses. Child and family services are not being delivered. First nation children are eight times more likely to be removed from their homes. Still, there is no major commitment by the government. It wants to address crime but where is the investment in facilities to help youth come together with elders and actually avoid the gangs with which they are becoming entangled?

The government has failed to implement obligations under land claims agreement. I have heard delegation after delegation of first nations concerned both with the specific treaty process and with the overall comprehensive treaty. The government is simply not living up to the honour of the Crown.

The problems that the auditor general reported involved not just the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, but also Health Canada, CMHC and Treasury Board. The auditor general, parliamentary committees and expert panels appointed by the government have all recommended deeper reforms beyond budget allocations. These include legislative regimes to govern such things as education, child and family services, health services and drinking water. They are the kinds of regimes that other Canadians benefit from.

However, the key to developing these regimes, as the auditor general recommended, as the Assembly of First Nations recommended and as many individual first nations recommended, is that they need to be consulted and accommodated. They need to be directly engaged. What the first nations do not want is one size fits all. They want to have the support of the government to provide the framework so that they, too, can be engaged, as the provincial and territorial jurisdictions are, in the delivery of their own services to the people in their communities.

The government fully endorsed the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People. By endorsing the UNDRIP, Canada has committed to ending discrimination against indigenous peoples in this country and yet we see nothing specific in this budget to address the long-standing discrimination, despite unilateral federal jurisdiction and the duty to uphold the honour of the Crown.

The government has criticized aboriginal leaders who, in frustration, are taking their concerns to the courts or to the media. Where else are our aboriginal leaders to turn? I call upon the government to reconsider its spending priorities, to provide hope to young aboriginals and to show that we value their potential to contribute to society and to contribute to the economy.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise and speak for too brief a time on Bill C-13. The bill has the august title of “keeping Canada's economy and jobs growing act”. It is quite a bit of fluffery, frankly, but let me move on to it.

Part of the trouble that I have with this legislation and the claims that government members are making about what it would do is that the government is the same government, with the same Minister of Finance, that had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the realization that the economy was in trouble in 2008 and that the government needed to respond. Only when the Conservatives had a near-death experience did the Minister of Finance bring in a fairly significant stimulus plan that made investments in infrastructure. Opposition parties were involved in ensuring that took place.

Now we have this bill before us. It would implement the budget that was introduced back in the spring, when the economy was at a different point.

Increasingly over the past number of months, we have seen what has happened in the United States, where the economy continues to sputter along. It is not making the kind of growth and the kinds of improvements that we would like to see. We are seeing European countries having significant financial problems and threatening to default on the bailouts they received from the banks in the European community.

It causes us some concern to hear the Minister of Finance continually saying, “Steady as she goes” and that the budget introduced last spring in very different economic circumstances is still the bill that the government is going to move forward.

Bill C-13 is full of half measures. It is a budget full of half measures.

For example, some members opposite were talking about increases to the GIS. We talked about that in June. We talked about the government failing to make the kinds of investments that would lift all poor seniors out of poverty.

We were not talking about ensuring that all seniors would have a home and a two-car garage, for heaven's sake. We were talking about lifting all seniors out of poverty, but the government was not able to go that far. It went halfway. For those people who will receive the $50 a month, it will undoubtedly make some difference, but a lot of seniors will continue to suffer in silence.

That is just an example of the kind of half measures I was referring to.

We have heard government members claim ad infinitum and ad nauseam that the government has created 600,000 net new jobs. My colleagues have put some of the facts on the record to show that this is absolutely not the case. We have seen the addition of barely 200,000 new jobs since the pre-recessionary employment high point in May 2008.

As well, the labour force has grown by 450,000 since then. Those new jobs fall 250,000 short of the number needed just to hold employment steady. The government's claim of creating 600,000 new jobs is just specious. It is wrong. It does not hold water. It is not true, and the facts make that clear.

However, the most troubling thing about it is what these figures say about unemployment in the 15- to 24-year-old age group.

At the high point in May 2008, before the recession, 2,600,000 Canadians between the ages of 15 and 24 had jobs. The participation rate at the time was 67.6%. The official unemployment rate was 11.9%.

In August 2011, there were only 2,400,000 people between the ages of 15 and 24 years of age employed. The participation rate had fallen three percentage points, to 64.7%. The unemployment rate was 14%.

That means that there are almost 127,000 fewer jobs for the 15- to 24-year-old group today than there were before the recession. If we take into account the lower participation rate, that is another 133,000 jobs.

What that points to is the problem faced by so many young people in this country. When I rose in the House the other day, I spoke about how young people in Dartmouth—Cole Harbour invest in their education. As a result of the lack of support from the federal government for post-secondary education, those who can afford to pull some resources together to acquire student loans go into very significant debt in order to try to increase their employability by improving their skills and qualifications. They come out and, as the statistics show, at a time like this the jobs are simply not there.

It is a remarkably discouraging situation faced by young people, who are the talent and the human resource needed to continue to build our country into the future. Unfortunately, they find themselves working at part-time jobs and trying to cobble things together. The problem is discouraging at best; it is creating desperation at worst.

There is a gaping hole in these employment numbers, and the numbers are particularly affecting young people.

As for manufacturing jobs and jobs at NewPage, the pulp mill in Port Hawkesbury, Nova Scotia, hundreds of middle-aged workers there, women and men, are laid off right now. The provincial government, with no help from the federal government, is trying to put together a transition plan so that company could perhaps be purchased and restarted in some form.

It would be nice if the federal government would recognize that there are Canadians living down in the eastern end of this country and that it should start giving support to those people and communities. However, another several hundred Nova Scotians are going to be either heading out west or staying in Port Hawkesbury and competing with one another for those significant jobs.

In conclusion, let me say that there is another area where there is a desperate need for the government to invest.

I am the international trade critic, as members know, and the government is bullish on all the trade agreements it is trying to negotiate around the world. The one thing that really concerns me, and has concerned a number of business leaders in this country, is that the government is doing this without having an industrial policy in the country, without having a policy that has identified those sectors where good jobs are going to be created. That is where it should be investing, in order to ensure that we do not lose the potential to continue to build our economy and that we do not keep going down the road that returns us to what we were in the 1960s, which was hewers of wood and drawers of water.

We need to have good manufacturing value-added jobs in order to provide the kind of economic activity in our communities, jobs for people in our families that will make our communities strong today and tomorrow.

I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to the bill and I would like to indicate that I will not support the government.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that very important question because the promotion of job creation and economic growth is of paramount importance.

Included in Bill C-13 is the temporary hiring credit for small business to encourage additional hiring, which will help all businesses. Also included is expanding the tax support for clean energy generation to encourage green investments as well. Also included is the mineral exploration tax credit for flow-through share investors by one year to support Canada's mining sector. Earlier today, several members talked about the importance of the mines in their northern constituencies. The government is listening to that and needs that to happen.

There are other things too. We talked earlier about the accelerated capital cost allowance treatment for investments in manufacturing. I have manufacturing in my own riding and the business people are telling me that it is of paramount importance for this to get through so they can have it.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as I said when I first spoke this morning to Bill C-13, it is so important to get this implementation bill passed. It is important because there has been a great deal of debate, starting as early as March when the first phase of this bill was tabled in the House.

We have not only gone through debate, but we have also gone through a full-fledged election. In that election, the members on all sides of the House ran on the budget and explained it very thoroughly to everyone. After that, Canadians were well aware of what we stood for on this budget and brought us back to Parliament with a majority government. That was a clear message from the rest of Canada that Canadians wanted to have this budget.

What things were they supporting? One of them was 600,000 jobs. Those 600,000 jobs have been created due to the fiscal management under the Prime Minister and under this government.

What are some of the other things that are so important? I would ask members opposite to think about some of these things because this would impact all communities across our nation, both on this side and on the opposite side of the House. I think Canadians are paying attention to this debate in the House today. I think that in the municipalities, for example, in my municipality of West and East St. Paul, Canadians are very supportive of a permanent annual investment of $2 billion in the gas tax fund to provide predictable long-term infrastructure funding for municipalities. Too often, municipalities had to wait to see what the transfer payment would be, and they put that very money to good use. This is in this implementation bill.

Also, the volunteer firefighters are waiting for their tax credit, which is waiting in the bill.

As everyone knows in the House, we have an aging demographic. It looks as if within the next 10 years as much as 25% of our population will be in the older age sector. The government, in its implementation bill, has introduced a new family caregiver tax credit to assist caregivers of all types of infirm and dependent relatives. It is very important to have that tax credit available. When family members need specific help, there is an expense to that help. Having this caregiver tax credit would be very important for them. We also propose to remove the previous $10,000 limit on the amount of eligible expenses caregivers can claim under the medical expenses tax credit in respect of financially dependent relatives.

The children's arts tax credit is waiting in the implementation bill. In prior budgets, we gave tax credits for sports. Members of my family and many of my constituents participate in soccer, basketball, hockey and other wonderful sports for which Canadians are so well known. However, there was a cry from the communities all across Canada asking, “What about the arts? What about the music?” In this implementation bill is this tax credit waiting to be launched and implemented. However, without the support of members opposite to get this through right away, that tax credit is held in abeyance.

Education and training are of paramount importance. I know many school children are considering what they are going to be doing when they grow up. Even my own daughter wants to go into medicine and there are many new doctors and nurses who want to go to underserved rural and remote areas.

In this very important implementation bill, Bill C-13, there is the opportunity to forgive loans for new doctors and nurses who make those choices. I just visited Churchill. I was up north and I looked at the wonderful medical facility and talked with the nurses up there. I was discussing this particular part of the budget bill and they said that this would attract people into remote northern areas. I think this is very important.

Also, for students going to university, it is very expensive. That is also in the implementation bill.

There are many good things in this implementation bill, such as phasing out the direct subsidy to political parties. Canadians are saying that they want their tax dollars used for roads, infrastructure, all the things that they need. They do not want to give their tax dollars to political parties so they can do their political things and run for office. Political parties need to take responsibility.

I hope to see this implementation bill pass very shortly.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-13, An Act to implement certain provisions of the 2011 budget as updated on June 6, 2011 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Business of the House

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to ask the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons what his plans are for the rest of the week, as well as for when Parliament resumes following next week's recess, during which we will all be working in our ridings. In particular, I would like to know when the next opposition day is scheduled, for we have not yet been told.

Furthermore, my hon. colleagues know as well as I do that, for the second time in two weeks, the government is using a guillotine to cut off the normal debate process in our Parliament. We find this extremely worrisome, since it has become quite common with this government. Now that they have a majority, the Conservatives' contempt for Parliament is clear. I would also like the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons to tell us when, in his mind, there has been enough debate.

The government is using the term “enough debate”. For the second time in two weeks, it is using a guillotine to cut off the normal work of parliament that we were elected by Canadians to do.

Bill C-13 was cut off after exactly three hours of debate. That is a budget bill. It is one of the primary reasons we get elected to the House and after only three hours of debate, it is cutting it off.

I would like, on behalf of all Canadians and the House, to understand when, in the opinion of the majority Conservatives, there has been enough debate.

Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand today in support of the budget implementation bill, Bill C-13. The bill has been debated for a very long time. It was initially tabled in the House on March 22, and today we are dealing with the implementation of the second phase of that bill.

What has happened since we started this discussion? Not only was it debated in the House, not only did it go to committee for a thorough examination and not only did it come back to the House, but we had an election. During that election, I think every member went door to door and talked about the budget. What happened in the end? The Conservatives have a majority government. Why? It is because Canadians said that this government would take care of the economy in this country.

Why were Canadians worried about that? They were worried because there was a disaster in Haiti, a disaster in Japan and a disaster in Iceland where two volcanoes erupted and caused a lot of problems with air quality and things like that. During those disasters, Canada generously participated to help communities and it kept a close eye on what was happening on our economic home front.

The Prime Minister has taken an amazing leadership role. Canada is known as the country with the most economic stability in the world at this point in time. It is not just this side of the House saying that. Many well-known companies, organizations and third parties have said that. Canada has the strongest job growth record in the G7.

What has happened because of this good planning? Six hundred thousand new jobs have been created and Canada's people are working. That is incredible.

The International Monetary Fund is forecasting that Canada will have the strongest overall economic growth in the G7 over the next two years. That is why we need to pass the second phase of this budget implementation bill and allow the economy to grow. Many wonderful things are happening and Canada is in a stable situation. Why? It is because our Prime Minister and the caucus have put together an economic plan that is good for Canada, Canadians, families and seniors.

Canada has the lowest total government net debt to GDP ratio in the G7, which is something to be proud of. We will get the deficit under control. There is a plan to do that.

The World Economic Forum ranks Canada's financial system as the soundest in the world for the fourth consecutive year. That is amazing in this global downturn. Moody's is renewing Canada's triple A credit rating due to our economic resilience. There is very high government financial strength. The world is saying that it is looking to Canada as a leader. As the prime minister of England said, “this is Canada's year”. This is Canada's year because of the leadership.

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

I do apologize, Mr. Speaker.

The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance and this Conservative government have cemented the strongest job growth in the G7. Since July 2009 we have created nearly 600,000 new net jobs. This is a result that our government can hang its hat on.

The International Monetary Fund projects that Canada will continue to be one of the strongest nations in the G7 over the next two years. While we appreciate that claim, it does not mean that Canada is protected from the global economic turbulence it is now facing. That is why our government is moving forward with, and implementing, the next phase of Canada's economic action plan.

One of my favourite features of Bill C-13, and one which would help my constituents tremendously, is the forgiving of loans for new doctors and nurses in rural and remote areas. This excellent program will help make access to quality health care in my riding and across Canada easier. It will create jobs in the riding and also support numerous communities in my riding.

Another example of our government helping communities and the excellent volunteers within them is the introduction of the volunteer firefighters tax credit. I know from my own experience serving in the RCMP what it was like to be in the line of duty and see volunteer firefighters at motor vehicle accidents. These are the individuals who put their lives on the line every day just for a simple thanks.

These individuals not only serve in the line of duty but do so as a volunteers. These volunteer firefighters are hard-working taxpaying Canadians. This tax credit would help ease the burden in these difficult economic times. Nearly 85,000 volunteer firefighters provide their services to protect the lives and property of Canadians living in communities across Canada. I greatly respect the work that they do.

As a result of our Conservative government, families are now able to enrol their children in artistic, cultural, recreational and sporting activities. This is great, and with a young family myself, I know the value and results that this brings. Youth stay active and their minds are challenged. It keeps them working hard for their future endeavours so they can contribute to the Canadian economy in years to come.

We are also investing in education by helping apprentices in the skilled trades or workers in regulated professions by making their occupational or professional examination fees eligible for the tuition tax credit.

These are excellent policies that will improve the lives and livelihoods of all Canadians.

Bill C-13 also has excellent measures for supporting Canada's forestry industry, something that is very important for my constituents.

By extending the powers of Export Development Canada to provide financing support to Canadian forestry companies, we have created new jobs and growth. In fact, a new mill is opening in Big River in northern Saskatchewan, and it will provide over 100 new jobs in the reforestation and transportation fields and also in the sawmill process. By extending the enhanced work sharing program to assist forestry employers, we have protected those forestry jobs that were at risk.

Another excellent initiative that helps my riding is the mineral exploration tax credit.

The Canadian mining industry is very important to my riding in northern Saskatchewan. There are numerous mines, and they employ thousands of people. In fact, 300,000 Canadians are employed in the mining industry today. This industry promotes economic stability and growth in the many rural towns and first nations and Métis communities in my riding.

I am very proud to be a part of the Conservative government. We are leading the way on the world stage on how to manage the economy effectively through this dangerous recession.

It is no wonder Canada is the envy of the world.

Our Conservative government set out on a mission to provide stability and growth in these troubled economic times while keeping taxes low, and we have accomplished that.

I would like to quote from Warren Jestin, the chief economist at Scotiabank, who pointed out in the Daily Commercial News and Construction Record on September 27 that “Canada is the best place to be and almost everything I look at screams that out to me.”

We cut taxes over 120 times since 2006. This has resulted in the overall tax burden being at the lowest level in nearly 50 years. We reduced the GST, as it was pointed out, from 7% to 5%. We provided seniors with pension income splitting. We introduced a child fitness tax credit. We cut the personal tax rate to 15%, the lowest it has ever been, and we introduced a children's arts and tax credit. This has resulted in a total savings of over $3,000 for the average Canadian family. That is $3,000 back in their pockets. These are results that all Canadians can be proud of.

The number one issue for this government is getting people back to work, which will help the communities and the country grow.

Today's bill announces measures that would encourage hiring and provide additional financial support to Canadian workers and families during the recovery, including a temporary hiring credit for small businesses of up to $1,000 against small employer increases in their 2011 EI premiums over those paid in 2010.

Today's bill also proposes $4.5 million annually to expand the wage earners' protection program to cover employees who lose their jobs when their employer's attempt at restructuring takes longer than six months, is unsuccessful and ends in bankruptcy or receivership.

In conclusion, Canadians gave our Conservative government the mandate to continue to lead the way on the world stage. I am here to tell members that we will continue to lead the way and Bill C-13 is the way forward for this country.

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my fine colleague from Kildonan—St. Paul.

I am pleased to rise on behalf of my constituents and to speak with my colleagues about the next phase of Canada's economic action plan. The legislation introduced by our Minister of Finance, Bill C-13 is a key element in the next phase of Canada's economic action plan.

We made a promise to Canadians to focus on the economy and to continue to deliver new jobs and strong economic growth.

With the excellent leadership of Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Minister Flaherty, this Conservative government—

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of particulars in Bill C-13 that we can all support.

A temporary hiring credit for small business would encourage additional hiring. Right now businesses are in a state of uncertainty. They read things in the newspaper. We want to encourage them to hire new people by reducing those costs. By reducing those costs we give them more certainty which allows them to expand their business, which could be by getting more sales or providing better service.

Going back to the accelerated manufacturing credit, I would also mention that it is those kinds of business decisions that we want to encourage where they can buy that new equipment, such as a big master planer. We want to ensure that businesses feel encouraged that now is the time to be supporting economic growth and getting those jobs.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House today to speak in support of Bill C-13, keeping Canada's economy and jobs growing act.

As this is my first time as a member of Parliament to have the opportunity to speak in support of a bill, I would like to say what an honour it is to be here on behalf of the citizens in my riding of Okanagan—Coquihalla.

While it is easy to cite statistics and quote numbers in support of the bill, Canada's economic performance and job creation record are without equal under the leadership of this government. However, it is more important to share with members of the House how the policies and direction contained in the bill would create jobs and support our Canadian economy.

Before I begin, I feel the need to share something that is important. Day in and day out in the House we consistently hear the opposition attack the very notion that any form of tax relief or tax incentive for a business is somehow a bad thing. Yet it is the same business community that provides the jobs that keep our citizens employed and our economy strong.

Perhaps I am too new, but I believe that members opposite care about jobs and keeping citizens employed in their ridings that they represent. However, it is not talk or increases in taxation that create jobs. It is economic policy and investment that will help create employment. That is why I will be supporting the bill.

I would like to speak to a very specific example of one of the many important job creation aspects contained in Bill C-13 and how that would create jobs in my riding of Okanagan--Coquihalla.

Bill C-13 proposes to extend the accelerated capital cost allowance for investments in manufacturing and processing machinery and equipment for two years.

The community of Okanagan Falls in my riding was particularly hard hit by the collapse of the U.S. lumber industry. The economic fall-out resulted in the community's largest employer Weyerhaeuser lumber mill to shut down. I am certain that other members in the House know first-hand what kind of economic devastation that can create in a small community such as a loss of jobs, the decrease to the total tax base and the increase of incidents of domestic violence. These are some of the unfortunate byproducts of unemployment.

To add insult to injury, the mountain beetle epidemic also threatened much of the local timber supply around Okanagan Falls and many forest-dependent communities in British Columbia.

This past June I was back in Okanagan Falls to attend the opening of Canada's, and in fact North America's, first large scale, state-of-the-art cross-laminated timber manufacturing production facility. This new plant created many vitally needed well-paying jobs in Okanagan Falls.

However, we have to recognize that this plant represents a multi-million dollar investment. The machinery and equipment alone are highly specialized and critical to the operation and success of this plant. The big master is the world's largest planer. It is one of the keys to the success of cross-laminated construction. Unfortunately, it is also incredibly expensive.

That is why it is critically important to extend the accelerated capital cost allowance for investments in manufacturing machinery and equipment, exactly as Bill C-13 proposes. In fact, it is precisely these tax incentives and relief policies that ensure that big businesses invest in big equipment like the big master. The big master, that mammoth-sized planer, creates jobs. The opposition sees big business as nothing more than a source to increase taxes, but increasing taxes means more money flows to Ottawa instead of investing in jobs and equipment like the big master.

This is a really important success story and I hope all members, especially the opposition, will listen carefully as I continue.

The new jobs and machinery at this cross-laminated timber manufacturing plant will create highly specialized cross-lam panels that are used in commercial and industrial applications as a replacement for concrete. Compared to concrete the cross-lam panels are six to seven times lighter and, as a result, are much more easier and economical to transport. They also require considerably less energy to produce and generate less waste, so it is also a more environmentally friendly product.

Here is what is really exciting. Cross-laminated timber can actually use surplus pine beetle killed timber as a fibre source. This is potentially the first commercially viable application for beetle wood in a structural application. What is more, cross-laminated construction can create in the very near future an entire wood sourced building that has vastly superior earthquake resistance than anything currently on the market. Think about the job potential of state-of-the-art, economically constructed earthquake resistant structures for a province like British Columbia that is strategically located to the Asia-Pacific gateway. The potential is huge.

All that stands in the way is another multi-million dollar investment in equipment and machinery from business. That is why the proposal in this bill to extend the accelerated capital cost allowance for investments in manufacturing and processing machinery equipment is so critically important. It creates jobs and has the potential to create a whole new industry, an innovative value-added sector that could be a boon to many forest-dependent communities.

Bill C-13 also proposes to extend the mineral exploration tax credit for flow-through share investors by one year to support Canada's mining sector.

Recently the premier of British Columbia announced that more provincial resources would be allocated to help the opening of eight new mines.

Let us also recognize that big business is the same big business that the opposition likes to try to tax out of existence. These are the very companies that are needed to invest literally hundreds of millions of dollars in machinery and equipment which in turn create not just jobs but high-paying jobs, even jobs for working people. We all know the term “working people” includes the exclusive worker who the opposition members consistently place ahead of all others.

Before we can have mines that lead to jobs we need mineral exploration. The mineral exploration tax credit helps create mines which help create these jobs.

In my riding of Okanagan—Coquihalla is the Highland Valley copper mine. It provides hundreds of well-paying jobs.

Recently big business announced its intention to invest $475 million to upgrade Highland Valley's mill to extend its output and its ore recovery. This announcement also allowed for a five year new tentative agreement between big business and the workers who are members of the United Steelworkers Union.

Instead of sending more money to Ottawa, as the opposition is calling for, big business is investing money directly into my riding where it continues to create more well-paying jobs. I raise this because it is important for the members of the opposition to realize that we cannot tax business out of existence. Business has to have the funds to reinvest and create jobs.

I have briefly touched on just two points in Bill C-13 to illustrate how this bill can and will help to create jobs in my riding of Okanagan—Coquihalla, as well as continue to help keep our economy strong.

There are over 20 other measures contained in Bill C-13 that will also create jobs and support the local economy in my region. The temporary hiring credit for small business, the permanent annual investment of $2 billion in the gas tax fund, the family caregiver tax, and the new children's arts tax credit are a few examples.

I also believe Bill C-13 will support jobs and the economy as well as provide a balance that will help families and seniors improve their quality of life. I thank the members opposite for listening to my comments and the reasons that I will be supporting Bill C-13, which will support the economy in my riding of Okanagan—Coquihalla.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Beaches—East York for not only sharing his time with me but for the thoughtful presentation he just gave on Bill C-13.

Some members of the House today are newly elected members and so I will begin by prefacing my remarks by saying that there is nothing normal about what they are seeing unfold today. I do not want them to think that the House of Commons debates have been, or should be, curtailed and shut down by use of time allocation motions and closure in the way they may have seen as newly elected members in this 41st Parliament. In fact, closure, in and of itself, is an affront to democracy.

We are seeing a worrisome motif that the government is using, misusing and abusing closure to a point where it is detrimental to the institution of Parliament itself and the fundamental, most basic tenets of democracy.

I am not overstating things when I say that democracy is undermined by the use of closure in such a cavalier manner. Time allocation has always been in the standing orders but it was meant to be used judiciously, only after a matter of debate had been dealt with in a fulsome way and when all members who wished to speak to a bill had the opportunity. When there is deliberate obstruction of parliamentary procedure, that is when a government of the day may contemplate the use of the closure.

However, what we have seen in the 41st Parliament are huge, complicated omnibus bills being given a day or two of consideration by this chamber and then, bam, the heavy hammer comes down and we have the iron fist of time allocation and closure. Nobody should ever accept this as the norm. I hope the Canadian people are taking note because it is worthy to note.

I have been elected six times to this chamber. I was an opposition member during the times when the Liberal government was in majority and we criticized it vigorously for what we thought was an overuse of time allocation and closure. Frankly, the Liberals were pikers at the game because at least when it was introduced by our colleagues, the Liberals, it was after days and days and weeks and weeks of debate on a certain bill. Yes, there were people who would have liked to have spoken again on a bill, but at least every member of the chamber had ample opportunity on behalf of their constituents to wade into a debate.

It is getting to be a matter of privilege, and I would like to see that researched. It gets to be a matter of parliamentary privilege when members are systematically denied the right to stand in this chamber and voice the concerns of the people who sent them here to represent them.

I am being allowed 10 minutes to debate a bill of this magnitude and substance. Frankly, Bill C-13 is perhaps the most important bill of Parliament in that it is the introduction of the manifestation of the whole financial cycle of estimates, to budgets to budget implementation, et cetera. No bill put forward by a government within the parliamentary cycle is more critical than the budget implementation act and we are being denied the right to give it a thorough vetting in the House.

Having said that, and with such limited time, I will limit my remarks to broad-brushed impressions of what the bill seeks to do.

I saw a bumper sticker when I was in Washington, D.C. last year that kind of says it all. It said, “At least the war on the middle class is going well”. That sums up the attitude that we are seeing in the government's introduction of its budgetary process and the frustration that has manifested itself and is playing out on Wall Street as we speak.

The Americans were quicker to go into this blind faith that the corporate world had their best interests at heart. They were first to go into it, but they seem to be the first to come out of it as well. Americans are sick of rewarding the very architects of the economic malaise they find themselves in, whereas we are plowing ahead with that exact same mindset by rewarding corporate Canada, which has failed us with its wretched excess, greed and failure to provide the leadership in its own corporate sector. We are going to reward that sector. The biggest ticket item in this fiscal year's spending priority is in fact another $6 billion tax cut for corporations.

I come from the province of Manitoba. The small business tax in Manitoba was 11% when the New Democrats took power in 1999. That small business tax has been systematically reduced to zero. The NDP has just been re-elected to its fourth majority government in that province partly because the targeted tax cuts which the NDP government put in place were in an area that would in fact generate jobs and stimulate the economy. That is giving a break to small entrepreneurs who will in fact reinvest in their businesses and create jobs. No such empirical evidence exists about the much larger tax giveaway that is contemplated by the government in this fiscal year of $6 billion more in corporate tax cuts.

My colleague from Beaches—East York said that the Department of Finance itself recognizes that infrastructure investment has five times the economic impact of corporate income tax cuts. This fact is published in the appendix to budget 2009. We know full well where the bang for the buck is and yet the government seems to feel some obedient subservience to the very architects of the economic malaise we are experiencing. It rewards bad behaviour with even more handouts, the biggest corporate giveaway, by the way, since the review of the drug patent law in the mid-1990s when drug patents were extended from 17 years to 20 years. That was a corporate handout to Pfizer and others by the Liberal government of the day.

The Conservatives are plowing ahead by borrowing $6 billion because they do not have it. We are in a deficit situation so they do not have the $6 billion to give to corporate Canada, but they are going to give it anyway.

As my colleague from Beaches—East York pointed out, that profit is not even domestic. In fact, very often these corporations are actually foreign corporations. They take that money and expatriate it back to the United States where they came from and the United States taxes them at a reasonable rate of 35% on their foreign earnings abroad.

The government of the day is not thinking of the big picture. We have a shrinking middle class. Wages are shrinking from year to year when adjusted for inflation. When I began my remarks I said that at least the war on the middle class is going well, but have the Conservatives thought through what it will do to the economy when they injure the consuming middle class, when they fail to promote and expand the consuming middle class? If it is a low wage, low cost economy they are striving for, let me remind them that we cannot shrink our way to prosperity. No country has ever shrunk its way to prosperity. Countries grow their way to prosperity. Even Henry Ford understood that workers with money in their pockets are going to buy one of the products they create. Somehow we seem to have lost that mindset.

The Conservatives' war on labour and the left is another example of what they intend to do. When Ronald Reagan was in power, he managed to reduce the unionized workforce in the United States from 33% to 12%. It is now at 5%. The war on labour and the left is just beginning with the Conservatives' majority government. This bill is the first indication of the type of financial planning they intend to do. It is deficient. It is faulty. It is old-school thinking. It is so last century that it does not serve the needs of the working people I represent.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his discussion on Bill C-13, even though I completely disagree with his approach.

I want to ensure that the opposition members understand. If they look at the 2009-10 public accounts books, because we are a year behind in public accounts, corporate tax revenue for the Government of Canada is 13.9% and personal income tax is 47.6%.

The opposition members talk about an infrastructure program and so on. Have they set a number for how big a deficit they want this country to carry? How much more would they add to the debt? How much more money would they borrow to make that happen? Will they tell Canadians exactly how much they would increase personal incomes tax to pay for it or cut spending? How would they do it? There is only one way to get money and that is by either cutting spending or increasing revenues.

The opposition members are talking about a huge infrastructure program but they will not tell us what the numbers are. They would need to raise taxes, and the vast majority of taxes in this country are collected from personal income tax.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise you that I will be splitting my time today with my colleague from Winnipeg Centre as part of what seems to be the all-party Winnipeg caucus here in the House today.

On this side of the House, we often refer to the Conservative government as being out of touch. That language is often dismissed by the government as rhetorical flourish, but if there was ever evidence of this point it is this bill, Bill C-13, and more broadly the approach of the government to the economy of this country.

Since the Canadian economy came crashing down around us in 2008, very many Canadians have been affected profoundly and in material ways. While in technical terms a recovery of sorts followed, and for some it was in material terms, what never dissipated was a sense of economic insecurity and worry.

In my riding of Beaches—East York, from the neighbourhoods where poverty and unemployment are deep and persistent, through East York and down to the beach, people from all walks of life and living in all sorts of circumstances are worried.

Those who have lived in the hope that they will someday enjoy some material comfort and security see those prospects becoming more remote. Those who have experienced material comfort and security wonder whether it will last. Those who have accumulated some savings wonder whether it will survive for its intended purpose, whether that be retirement or the kids' education.

The worry, of course, is not unfounded. In 2008 we were plunged into the worst recession in over 70 years. The recovery has been tentative and much slower than has historically been the case, with the persistent threat of a second significant economic contraction. Of course we are bombarded daily with news and images of economic catastrophes occurring or threatening to occur all around us, including with our biggest trading partners, the United States and Europe.

It was in this context of well-founded and widespread economic concern that I opened the paper the other day to read that our Minister of Finance had said he is prepared to let these circumstances persist until such time as the technocrats looking in the rear-view mirror tell him that we are, or more properly were, in economic trouble.

Now, what is it that we do not know here? We know that Canada is a small and very open economy, and therefore we are far from immune to global economic turmoil. We know that the largest economies in the world today, Europe and the United States, are in fact experiencing considerable turmoil.

We know also that they are our largest trading partners. With respect to the United States in particular, we know that there is a high correlation between its economic growth and our own. This is particularly the case in my own province of Ontario. For example, had the U.S. recovery from 2008 been a typical recovery, their GDP would be 2.5% higher, and Canadian exports would be 6.5% greater.

With European and U.S. economies struggling and our dollar remaining persistently high, it appears that we will be stuck with a massive current account deficit for some considerable time. Unemployment levels remain stubbornly high, particularly for youth, and are forecast to go higher.

We also know that things could get worse--much worse, in fact. In the quaint phraseology of the Governor of the Bank of Canada, “The risks...are skewed to the downside”.

According to a September 30 forecast from TD Economics:

In our view, there is a 40% recession risk in the United States over the next year.

This leads to the obvious conclusion that our own risk of a slip back into a recession remains heightened. Thankfully, not all economists are as technocratic and as out of touch as the government. In response to the minister's pledge to wait and see what happened, and note the past tense, BMO capital markets economist Douglas Porter said:

I think the risks of a downturn in North America are serious enough that the government should definitely have a Plan B.

That plan B is, of course, what we on this side of the House have been arguing for: government investment in infrastructure.

Mr. Porter went on to say:

Infrastructure spending is one of the most effective short-term stimulus measures a government can use, but it takes time to get it going and that’s why we should be studying a Plan B right now.

We know that economists can be just as adapt at fighting among themselves as we are in this chamber but there does seem to be near unanimous agreement with the value of infrastructure spending in economic circumstances such as those that we are experiencing today.

As was pointed out at the time of the debate over the budget, even the annex to the government's document entitled, “Canada’s Economic Action Plan Year 2: Built to keep our economy growing”, a seventh report to Canadians, confirms the potency of stimulus spending on infrastructure, particularly in comparison to other measures.

It is not as though we are lacking infrastructure in need of repair. Our cities are experiencing an infrastructure deficit in the order of $123 billion. In addition, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities has estimated new infrastructure requirements totalling $115 billion.

While economists, very gently and generously, urge the development of a plan B, it seems fair and responsible for us to call out first for a plan A, because Bill C-13 does not add up to a plan. What Bill C-13 amounts to is paralysis, not planning. Were it the case that the government was frozen with a plan in place, that would be one thing, but what is frozen in place here is policy confusion.

The central policy piece of the government's response to our economic circumstances is the cut to corporate tax rates. As a stimulus measure, that is, as a measure that is responsive to the economic circumstances of Canadians, we know that this measure does not work.

First, it does not create jobs. A study of almost 200 large Canadian corporations that benefited from corporate tax cuts starting in 2000, showed that by 2009 profits had increased by 50%. Their corporate tax remittances had decreased by 20%, or $12 billion a year, while creating jobs at a rate slower than the national average.

Second, corporate tax cuts do not stimulate investment. Capital spending in Canada has been declining as a share of GDP since the early 1980s despite corporate tax cuts that have reduced the combined federal-provincial tax rate from 50% to just less than 30% last year.

Third, the U.S. treasury loves our corporate tax rates. American corporations repatriating their profits to the United States are obligated to pay 35% corporate tax minus a credit for taxes already paid in Canada. The amount of tax revenue flowing to the U.S. treasury, which is the amount of tax revenue foregone by Canadian jurisdictions owing to our lower corporate tax rate, is estimated to be between $4 billion and $6 billion per year.

Finally, as a policy prescription for our current circumstances, corporate tax cuts miss the mark by a wide margin. In spite of the economic misery and insecurity faced by so many Canadians, corporate profits have continued to increase year over year. Corporations are now sitting on half a trillion dollars of cash, the world is awash with goods, keeping inflation numbers in check, and it is in this context of over-supply that the government is prescribing, of all things, expanding supply. It makes no sense.

The prescription for what ails us is very different. We need to boost demand. While corporate profits increased by 15% in the second quarter of this year, the real disposable income of Canada was shrinking. Real wage growth fell year over year by 1.3% in July. That includes a 2.3% decline in Ontario. Meanwhile, households are finally strapped, carrying record loads of debt.

This is why, in part, our party champions creating jobs through government investment in infrastructure, more profitable pensions for seniors, increasing EI benefit eligibility and free collective bargaining, all measures that are responsive to the needs of the Canadian economy and economic growth.

When we cast our eyes forward, it is clear that this country not only faces some economic challenges, but also some incredible opportunities. Seizing those opportunities for the benefit of Canadians to ensure health and prosperity for Canadians is the responsibility of our government. On this account, the government, like its predecessor, has failed miserably. For years, it has insisted on locking Canada into disadvantageous and disproportionate trading relationships.

Finally, I want to pick up on the words of the Governor of the Bank of Canada. He stated:

...Canada is like a ship. We can be tossed by the waves or pulled by the current, but we are still able to chart our course in even the stormiest of seas.

I do not see a course set here by the government. To the contrary, the government has left Canadians bobbing in stormy economic seas.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure today to share my time with the member for Winnipeg South Centre and to talk about Bill C-13, keeping Canada's economy and jobs growing act.

For those who are new in the House, how this actually works is, every year we put a budget forward in the spring. There is a motion on the budget and it passes through the House as a budget in principle. For it to become law and be implemented, which is partly what we are debating today, there have to be implementation bills. That is what Bill C-13 is. However, the budget is so big that, since I have been here, for five years, it is split into two pieces. One we already passed in the spring. The first phase of the implementation bill has actually gone through the House. There is a ways and means motion that goes with that. For people who do not know what that is, it gives the authority to tax, or change the tax system, and that bill needs to happen.

There is a process. We are in the last part of the process that deals with the budget that we presented. It was turned down by both the NDP and the Liberal Party, as they were in the opposition benches before the election in May. We were progressing. We were doing things for Canadians. The opposition decided that it was time for an election. We had an election and the public, the voters of this country, decided it was time to get some things done. That is why we got elected as a majority government, so we could move our budget processes through, the things we are doing for Canadians and the things we are doing for communities. That is why we are here today talking about the second portion of that budget bill.

The implementation bill is actually broken into five parts. There is a section to promote job creation and economic growth, support for communities, help for families, investment in education and training, and respect for taxpayers. I am going to highlight a few things in each piece that is in the bill.

It is a big bill, as my colleague from the Liberal side said because there are important issues that we are dealing with to make sure that we have the economic growth and the job growth, and stability that the country is asking for. That is what Canadians elected us to do, and we are implementing it as of today.

To give some examples of what is in the promote job creation and economic growth piece, we will hear quite a bit today and have heard over the past number of days about the hiring credit we are giving to small businesses, $1,000 to encourage them to hire new employees. This will create jobs and ensure that we have economic growth in every community across the country.

We are doing other things. I know, as a member of the finance committee for the last five years, that the accelerated capital cost allowance was a big item for our manufacturers. They wanted to see that tool that they could use to invest in their companies and in machinery, so they can grow and supply new customers in order to have the economic growth. In this implementation bill, which we are discussing today, it has the accelerated capital cost allowance treatment for manufacturer investment increased and added to.

There are a couple of things that I wanted to talk about under job creation and economic growth, but there is another area I want to talk about. As a member of city council for 13 years for the City of Burlington, in the region of Halton, rarely did we ever get any support, either from the province or the federal government. In the implementation bill we are making the $2 billion gas tax fund a permanent fund for municipalities to rely on for their future infrastructure planning. When opposition members vote against that, they are voting against assistance to municipalities. That is what is actually happening.

We have the volunteer firefighters tax credit for volunteer firefighters. In Burlington we have a composite firefighting force, which means we have both professional, or permanent, firefighters and we have a volunteer base. We have a mix, so it is important for us. I heard from my fire chief. I went through an exercise with the firefighting team last Friday, actually. They put me through some training paces and we heard directly from the chief that they are having difficulty attracting and maintaining volunteers, because we all have busy lives. It is an important, key job, particularly in the rural area of Burlington. This tax credit will help them recruit and maintain volunteer firefighters. That is some of the support for our communities that is in the bill.

We are helping families in a number of ways. There is a new tax credit for family caregivers who give assistance at home to family members who are infirm.

There is one point I would like to make and it is very important to me. I used to be an employee of Easter Seals. My wife is an employee of Easter Seals. We help raise money and awareness for disabled kids across the province of Ontario.

Members may not know, but there was a limit of $10,000 of eligible expenses that caregivers could claim through their medical expense tax credit. Through Bill C-13, which we support and which the voters sent us back here to complete, would remove that $10,000 limit so families could use the tax credit for all the expenses they incurred for helping those who need that medical expense, whether a child, a mother, a father, a brother or whoever.

I want to remind members opposite that when they vote against the bill, they will vote against that change.

We are also adding a tax credit for children studying the arts. To be frank, my two daughters have been very active in sports, but not the arts. However, as a city councillor, and now as a member of Parliament, I am proud that we have just opened a new performing arts centre in the city of Burlington, which I have worked on since 1999.

I see the value in having children, families and grandparents involved in the arts. This children's tax credit would ensure there would be a level playing field for not only families with children who are active in athletics, but also in the arts. The arts are very important to us. That is why we encourage young people to be involved through this tax credit.

We are investing in education and training. We have a number of improvements to the financial assistance we are providing students. We are making it easier to allocate registered education savings plans to siblings without incurring any penalties. However, a key part to this, which does not affect my riding as much as others, is that we would forgive the loans for doctors and nurses who serve in rural and remote areas.

That is very important to me. I grew up in a little town called Port Elgin on Lake Huron, a rural of Ontario. It is a very lovely area, but it is very difficult to find a doctor. An individual would have to travel for hospital and medical services, as they would do in many parts of the country.

The forgiving of loans would assist communities to attract young medical professionals to their areas to provide the services to those individuals who need them.

In terms of the five items, the final thing I would like to speak to is the respect for taxpayer dollars. The key piece in this one is that we are ending the direct subsidy for political parties. Frankly, it affects the Conservative Party. The way it worked was the more votes we got, the more money we got from the taxpayer. It was a direct subsidy from the taxpayer, whether they voted for us or not.

We are removing that. It would be up to parties to talk to their supporters and get their direct support financially, instead of being like some parties in the House that almost exclusively rely on the taxpayer subsidy to fund their elections and their operations. We do not think that is fair and we do not think it is a good use of taxpayer money.

Our government's top priority remains completing the economic recovery. Canadians gave the Conservative government a strong mandate to stay focused on what matters, and that is creating jobs and economic growth. I will leave it at that, and I am happy to answer any questions anyone may have.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to speak to Bill C-13 which the Conservatives have dubbed the “Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act”.

That would be an appropriate title if we had actually been experiencing growth in employment and the economy, but it is impossible to keep something that we never had in the first place. Let us look at the facts.

Canada has a weak job market. The current job market is still weaker than it was before the crisis in October 2008.

There is a continuing recession in the job market, with unemployment far above what it was before the last recession and job creation well below what is needed just to keep employment steady.

Economic growth is stagnant. Economists across the board have slashed their projections for Canada's economic growth. The Conservative budget is based on growth projections which no longer appear viable.

There is ongoing uncertainty regarding Canadians' retirement savings.

Household debt is skyrocketing. Canadian household debt levels have hit all time record levels of 150%.

There is the failure of our primary export markets. The International Monetary Fund projects that Canada's balance of payments deficit as a percentage of GDP is on its way to becoming one of the worst among advanced economies. It is worse than that of the United States and soon to be worse than that of Italy and Spain. The IMF predicts that our current account deficit will reach almost 4% of GDP by 2012.

As well, there is a lack of adequate private investment in Canada.

Urgent action is required on Canadians' top priorities, namely health care, jobs, pensions and helping seniors in need.

Earlier this week the Conservatives voted in favour of the NDP's economic action plan. It is time for them to live up to that commitment by doing more than talking the talk. They need to walk the talk. They need to follow through on their vote by coming forward with a plan for real and decisive action.

As I have been afforded only 10 minutes to participate in today's debate, I will only be able to highlight a few of the areas that are of critical concern to voters in my riding of Hamilton Mountain.

Members who listened to their constituents in last May's election and since cannot ignore the fact that health care continues to be a primary concern for Canadians. They are absolutely right to be concerned.

Five million Canadians do not have a regular family doctor. Of those Canadians who do not have a doctor, 73% are dependent on hospital emergency rooms or walk-in clinics for the front-line medical care their families rely on.

Canada ranks 26th of 30 industrial countries in terms of doctors per capita. In 2008, the Canadian Medical Association found that Canada would need an additional 26,000 doctors to meet the OECD average doctor-to-population ratio.

If no action is taken on training, there will also be a shortage of 60,000 registered nurses just 10 years down the road. In spite of this huge shortage of health professionals, the Conservatives do not plan to hire any new doctors or nurses. Rather, they will only move health professionals from urban to rural areas.

How does that help a city like Hamilton? We are experiencing a profound shortage of health care professionals. Instead of addressing that crisis, the Conservatives are adding insult to injury. They are luring doctors and nurses away from urban centres by offering loan forgiveness only to those who are willing to abandon cities and work in rural areas. That is robbing Peter to pay Paul. Canadians deserve better.

That is not a partisan observation; the Canadian Medical Association agrees. It warned:

If we do not act soon, an aging medical profession combined with an aging population will create a “perfect storm” with respect to our supply of physicians.

It is not only the health care system that is being put at risk by the Conservative government's inaction, Canada's economy is also being battered. The Conservatives simply shrug their shoulders and tell Canadians to take solace in the fact that we are better off than countries like Greece.

That is an insult. It is an insult to the hard-working Canadians who lost their jobs in the last recession through no fault of their own.

It is time to act decisively on job creation so that the middle-class citizens who built our country can finally get back on their feet.

Let me underscore the urgency for such action. The official unemployment figure is close to 1.4 million Canadians. If we include those who are discouraged or underemployed, that number would be closer to two million.

Unemployment is up to 7.3% and the proportion of part-time workers and involuntary part-time workers has risen rapidly. Full-time, permanent, family supporting jobs remain very difficult to find in many areas across the country. The real unemployment rate, counting labour force dropouts and involuntary part-time workers, was 11.1% in July, up from 9.4% in July 2008.

The government's claim to have created 600,000 net new jobs is also a sad distortion of the truth. We have seen the addition of barely 200,000 new jobs since the pre-recessionary employment high point in May 2008. However, the labour force has grown by 450,000 since then. So, those new jobs fall 250,000 short of the number needed just to hold employment steady.

Perhaps the most staggering figure of all is that today's lower employment rate represents lost wages alone of more than $20 million, and that is to say nothing of the economic stimulus and tax revenues that go with them.

In light of these realities, the lack of action on job creation is not just disappointing, it is completely unacceptable.

The Conservatives often liken government to a business. However, there are few businesses that would overlook the opportunities facing the government: plenty of available skilled labour; a desperate need for infrastructure across the country; infrastructure that would pay handsome returns; and capital available at almost record low rates. A good businessperson, in such circumstances, would be investing like crazy. But not the government. It does not know a good deal when it sees one.

Despite Canada's shaky economic recovery, the Conservatives want to cut off all stimulus and cut tens of billions out of our economy. Radical spending cuts, even before the private sector is prepared to start investing again, hurt Canadian families and communities.

It is not just New Democrats who are pointing out the folly of this approach. The government's own finance department recognizes that infrastructure investment has more than five times the economic impact of corporate income tax cuts. It published this fact in the appendix of budget 2009.

The Toronto Board of Trade emphasized that a strong infrastructure foundation is a top priority in ensuring economic competitiveness now and into the future.

Glen Hodgson from the Conference Board of Canada also agrees. He told the finance committee this week that now is not the time for government spending cuts. Instead, he emphasized that the government must be willing to be flexible in its approach. He also emphasized, repeatedly, that tax expenditures, including the Prime Minister's ineffective and costly corporate tax cuts, ought to be included in any review of government spending.

Even the Governor of the Bank of Canada is on record saying that the government can help with strategic investments.

But perhaps Sherry Cooper, the Chief Economist of BMO Nesbitt Burns, said it best. She wrote on Monday:

The misplaced belief that the road to economic prosperity is paved by near-term fiscal tightening, as espoused by our own Prime Minister and British Prime Minister David Cameron last week, shows we have learned nothing from Herbert Hoover’s response to the Great Depression.

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

I cannot sit idly by and let the government continue on with its do nothing approach while people in my community are suffering the consequences. I am proud to fight for the hard-working families and seniors in Hamilton Mountain, and I will not stop until that job is done.

The House resumed from October 5 consideration of the motion that Bill C-13, An Act to implement certain provisions of the 2011 budget as updated on June 6, 2011 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Bill C-13—Time Allocation Motion

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate that we are beginning to see a trend here with government bills with the new majority government. Unfortunately, it will stifle the proper debates that need to happen.

I would like to draw attention to the fact that one of the big shortcomings in this budget implementation plan, Bill C-13, is the fact that, once again, the government is discriminating against those who are poor, those who have less than the average Canadian. I will give an example. It has to do with the fact that some of the tax measures that the government talks about are non-refundable. This is something that perhaps escapes many Canadians but, unfortunately, it has a very real effect on those who are poor in this country.

I will talk about the example of the volunteer firemen who will have the opportunity to have a non-refundable tax credit. We, in the Liberal Party, gave a refundable tax credit. However, the reality is that if they are well off as volunteer firemen, they will be able to take full advantage of that tax credit against their imposable tax. If they are not, they will not have that opportunity to take advantage of it. That means again that it is the poor in this country who will be discriminated again, and we need to talk about that.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That, in relation to Bill C-13, An Act to implement certain provisions of the 2011 budget as updated on June 6, 2011 and other measures, not more than three further sitting days shall be allotted to the consideration of the second reading stage of the bill; and

that, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government orders on the third day allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

Bill C-13—Notice of Time Allocation Motion

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I would like to advise that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-13, An Act to implement certain provisions of the 2011 budget as updated on June 6, 2011 and other measures.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

I would like to give the House the courtesy of knowing that I intend to propose that three further days of debate be allotted, including today. I understand that this is more than the average time for a budget bill at second reading for at least the past two decades. In fact, it would be more hours of debate than any Liberal majority government's budget bill got during this time.

My aim is to provide the House with sufficient debate on these important economic measures, including a hiring tax credit for small businesses. At the same time, it would bring certainty to the process and aid members of the House on the finance committee in managing their busy work schedules.

Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-13, An Act to implement certain provisions of the 2011 budget.

It is always interesting in a context to hear what the governing Conservatives have to say. The member who just spoke was quite interesting at the end. He said, “This is how we are going to get out of this economy”. I think he is quite right. We once had a balanced economy in Canada and the Conservatives have been taking us out of that balanced economy.

I believe what he was trying to say is that this is how we will get ourselves out of these economic problems. But in fact, what the Conservatives are doing with the Americans is a continuation of a series of mistakes that they have made in international trade over the years.

The North American Free Trade Agreement was supposed to set a certain standard for reciprocity. Instead, when the Americans came to rough times, they established for themselves buy America programs, which is a flagrant violation of the North American Free Trade Agreement. However, the governing Conservatives have turned out to be a bunch of pushovers. They do not even stand up for what has already been signed that would have been in Canada's interests.

Last week, we had another example, with the Keystone pipeline. Instead of providing that we would apply the normal rules of sustainable developments, such as internalization of costs and polluter pay, they are going to export jobs without adding any value here. It hearkens back to a day when we used to export raw logs to the United States and then import furniture. That is the same kind of economy that they want us to have today. That is their lack of vision.

Governing is about vision. Governing is about establishing choices. We have heard them have a series of consultations over the past three years about pensions. We often hear them say that it is not fair that people in trade unions should have good pensions. It is what we call in French “le nivellement vers le bas”, we are going to bring everything down to the lowest common denominator instead of bringing everyone up.

A country as rich as Canada should not let people who have worked all their lives arrive at retirement age without a proper pension. Instead of removing the pensions, as they are now doing and fighting case by case to remove pensions as collective agreements come up for negotiation, we should, together, be fighting for a fair deal for all Canadians and a proper decent pension, because that is also part of sustainable development. Otherwise, the young generation of today is going to be stuck with that bill also.

The Conservatives, by their choices, are now leaving the largest environmental, economic and social debt in our history, and they are leaving it in the packsacks of the young people who are in university now and telling them that they do not have a choice, that they cannot do anything about it, and that is the only way things are going to be.

They have provided tens of billions of dollars in tax reductions to Canada's richest corporations, in particular, the chartered banks and the oil companies, and they have so little to show for it. They have this little piecemeal approach: they are going to announce this thing here and this thing there. Overall, their approach to the economy has been damaging.

What they have done, and it has been documented well by Statistics Canada, is the same mistake that has been done in other countries over the years. In Holland, in the 1960s, when large sources of gas were found off the coast, it was quite pleased. The Dutch said, “This is going to bring in a lot of money from other countries”. They were never so right. However, at the same time, the guilder went through the roof and their exports dropped because other countries could not afford to buy their products.

That is the same thing that we are doing now. We are bringing in an artificially high number of U.S. dollars into Canada. Why artificially high? Simply because we have never internalized the environmental costs; a basic principle of sustainable development.

By doing that, we have brought the Canadian dollar to heights that it has not seen in decades, and that has killed off our manufacturing sector. Just in Ontario, over 250,000 good paying manufacturing jobs have been killed by the choices of the Conservatives. In Canada, the total number is closer to 500,000 manufacturing jobs lost.

That is why we say that they have destabilized the balanced economy that Canada had built up since the second world war, with the different sectors: the primary sector, with our forests and our mines, the manufacturing and processing secondary sector, and of course an important service sector.

However, as those good paying manufacturing jobs are being killed off, not only are we leaving, because of the errors of the Conservatives, the biggest debt in our history, in terms of the ecology and the environment, we are also leaving year by year, now, the largest economic debt.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to be splitting my time with my friend and colleague, the member for London—Fanshawe.

That is the essential error that the Conservatives have committed since they came to power nigh six years ago. They have had nothing but concern for how quickly they could exploit the tar sands.

Let us not make the mistake of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. No one who realizes the importance of that industry in our economy would say we should ever shut it down outright. People who are calling for that are not thinking any further than the end of their noses. We cannot say we will stop an industry that represents such an important part of our GDP.

What we can do is apply basic principles of sustainable development to that industry. It would have a salutary effect on what we just described, in other words, this artificially high Canadian dollar because of the large number of U.S. greenbacks that we have taken in. That is artificially high, as I say, because we have not included the real costs. We are leaving the costs for cleaning up the soil, the water and the air to future generations. That is the environmental debt, and the tar sands is but one example.

When we realize that Keystone is but one of several pipelines that have been rapidly approved by the Conservatives, others would be the Alberta Clipper, Southern Lights, there are several that have been approved, each of those pipelines is exporting at the same time tens of thousands of jobs. We are in such a rush to get the raw bitumen into the pipeline that we do not even realize that all the processing, manufacturing and transformation will take place south of the border. They will be making more money and getting more jobs from our raw resources than we are ourselves.

That is a fundamental economic error that the current government is making and one that shows where the its priorities are. The concrete result of that is a little bill like Bill C-13, where we have a sprinkling here and a sprinkling there. It is trying to show that there is some activity.

The real world is that an existing infrastructure, a federal obligation, a federal infrastructure like the Champlain Bridge in Montreal, we learned today, will now be a toll bridge. This is the same bridge that is used in an agglomeration of over four million people. It is not just important as part of the lifeblood of the island of Montreal and the greater Montreal area, it is extremely important for all of eastern Canada. When trucks come through from Toronto or points west going to the Maritimes, they all go through Montreal, through the island and over the Champlain Bridge. That infrastructure is a crucial economic infrastructure for all of Canada.

We found out today that because the Conservatives have given away tens of billions of dollars of taxpayers' money to the banks and the oil companies, hard-strapped families who have trouble making ends meet, who have trouble getting to the end of the month with what they have, will now have a new bill, a bill that will be slapped on them by the Conservatives because there is no money left. They will have to pay for something that was a public infrastructure that will become a private property. It will become for profit and the public will again be stuck with the bill. Again, the result of choices by the Conservatives.

This is a clear illustration of the errors committed by the Conservatives. They have been committing the same error for six years. The failure to apply basic principles of sustainable development has caused us to import an artificially high number of U.S. dollars. As a result, the value of the Canadian dollar has increased and it is more difficult for our manufacturing companies to export because our exports have become too expensive.

We are in the process of committing a well-documented error made in the Netherlands in the 1960s, when they discovered large gas deposits. The term “Dutch disease” is used to describe what happened.

The Conservatives preferred—it was their choice, their priority—to give tens of billions of dollars in tax cuts to corporations and the clear result of that is that families who are already unable to make ends meet are being taxed again in the form of a royalty that would be paid to the private partners who are going to build the new Champlain Bridge, when that infrastructure, which is vital to the economy in eastern Canada, is currently being used free of charge by the people who live on Montreal's south shore.

That is the Conservative approach at work. The Conservatives can stand up and pat themselves on the back and claim that their Minister of Finance—just listen to what the Conservative member who spoke before me said—was voted the greatest minister. Get real. That does not exist.

We believe that the Conservatives have made serious mistakes in the choices they have made and their choices are having an adverse effect on the Canadian economy.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank this new member for her question. I have watched her across the way today. She has tried to stand on a number of occasions and I am glad she had her opportunity today.

One of the things that our government is committed to doing in the new part of this budget implementation, Bill C-13, is to get rid of the taxpayers' funding of political parties, the millions of dollars that go to the NDP, the Liberal Party, the Bloc, and to all parties. We are saying it is time that political parties raise their own funds to free up all these millions of dollars to invest in families and put back into cutting taxes and creating jobs.

The member talks about many of the families in her riding who are without and do not have a job. It allows us the opportunity to create jobs for these families and to ensure there is a breadwinner in those homes and in those families.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a real honour to again stand in this House and speak on behalf of the constituents of Crowfoot to Bill C-13, Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act.

The legislation that we are debating today introduces our Minister of Finance's key elements of the next phase of Canada's economic plan, a low-tax plan for jobs and growth.

My constituents of Crowfoot know that our Conservative government is focused on creating jobs and promoting economic growth. Under the leadership of our Prime Minsiter, Canada has the strongest economy and the strongest job growth record in the G7. We have created nearly 600,000 net new jobs since July 2009.

The International Monetary Fund, IMF, projects that Canada will continue to be among the nations with the strongest economy and the strongest economic growth in the G7 over the next two years.

However, Canada is not immune to the global economic turbulence. Bill C-13 provides our government with the means to stay the course and implement the next phase of Canada's economic action plan.

One of the features of Bill C-13 is a temporary hiring tax credit for small business. It would make it easier for small businesses to hire workers or enhance wages. This is precisely the kind of measure that Canadian workers need at this time. This would create new jobs and help save the jobs presently had by the workers across this country.

Hard-working, tax-paying Canadians raising their families need stable and predictable employment to see them through this difficult economic time. The keeping Canada's economy and jobs growing act would help support Canada's economic recovery.

I just want to touch on a couple of highlights of Bill C-13.

First, it would expand tax support for clean energy generation to encourage green investments. According to what opposition members have said today, they will vote against that, the opportunity to enhance green investments and clean energy generation.

Second, the bill would extend the mineral exploration tax credit for flow-through share investors by one year to support Canada's mining sector.

I had the privilege in the past Parliament to chair the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and international Development. At that committee, we studied a number of bills, such as Bill C-300 and others. I know that the Canadian mining sector contributes over $300 billion to Canada's GDP each year and over 300,000 Canadians are employed in the mining industry.

The mining industry stimulates and supports economic growth, both in large urban centres and in remote rural communities, including numerous first nation communities across the country. However, again, the opposition members say that they will not support that.

Mining accounts for 19% of Canadian goods exports and $5.5 billion in taxes and royalties paid to the federal, provincial and territorial governments. The industry also generates considerable economic spin-off activity. There are more than 3,200 companies that provide the industry with services ranging from engineering consulting to drilling equipment. In addition, over half of the freight revenues of Canada's railroads are generated by mining.

Many Canadians are not aware of the large role that Canada's mining sector plays in our economy. However, it is important to nurture Canada's mining industry.

Bill C-13 also would simplify custom tariffs in order to facilitate trade and lower the administrative burden for all businesses.

Most Canadians do not know that Canada is a nation built by trade. We do more than $1 billion a day in trade flowing over the Canada-U.S. border. While many Canadians understand the important role of trade, they do not realize that trade just with the Americans amounts to $1.8 billion a day.

Since 2006, our Conservative government has been working diligently to boost Canada's access to markets, not just across the border with the neighbours closest to us, but all around the world, and we are having success.

I look in the House today and I see our agriculture minister who has been working hard at his desk here all afternoon. I commend him and our trade minister for the amount of work they have done around the world to open new markets and give, whether it is our agriculture sector or our manufacturing sector, the opportunity to market their goods in many of those countries. Yes, we are having success.

The agriculture producers, the farmers, who I represent work hard every day to take advantage of the opportunities that the Minister of Agriculture and the government are providing. We could feed the world from where I come from in Alberta and from the west, so we welcome all customers, and that includes the new customers. The more the merrier. We pledge to fill all the orders that our Minister of Agriculture and our Minister of International Trade can find for our agricultural sector.

The bill would extend the accelerated capital cost allowance treatment for investments in manufacturing and processing machinery and equipment for two years to support the manufacturing and processing sector. Bill C-13 would extend this well received measure from one of our previous budgets. Our Minister of Finance has been fighting the effects in Canada of the global economic recession since 2009. Canada's manufacturing and processing base has been using this measure to create and save jobs. They still want this accelerated capital cost allowance and our Conservative government is glad to give it and to be in a position where we can allow it to continue.

We are eliminating the mandatory retirement age for federally regulated employees in order to give older workers the option of staying in the workplace. We know that Canadians are healthier and they are living longer than ever before in our history. In economically difficult times, older workers sometimes want to choose to stay working for another year or two and make some extra money for their families or for themselves in their retirement. This contributes to economic growth. Older workers have a great deal to contribute and our government is giving them the go-ahead. However, it sounds like the opposition will be voting against it.

There is a very important initiative in Bill C-13 for the constituents in my riding. The government would provide a permanent annual investment of $2 billion in the gas tax fund to provide predictable, long term infrastructure funding for municipalities. Unlike the Liberal governments of the past, our government has returned gas tax revenues to jurisdictions where they were raised. We deliver these revenues to local jurisdictions earlier in the year than ever before so they can plan for the building in the summer season. This allows local governments to free up other funds in their budgets and get more accomplished through the calendar year.

In my riding of Crowfoot, we have many small county municipal governments and they rely on these funds. When I attend those council meetings, they let us know how much those funds are needed and appreciated. In some cases, the amounts of revenues in small villages or communities seem small but it makes projects possible and it allows small communities to grow when it spurs on local employment.

There are a number of other initiatives in Bill C-13 for creating and saving jobs and helping Canada's economy. Over the course of the debate on this bill, other speakers from this side of the House will detail some of these initiatives.

Bill C-13,, as already mentioned by the member for Souris—Moose Mountain, introduces the volunteer firefighters tax credit for volunteer firefighters. When the opposition talks about tax credits for those who do not need it, well we are talking about the volunteer firefighters of my constituency.

The bill would increase the ability of Canadians to give more with confidence to legitimate charities by introducing a package of integrity measures designed to help combat fraud and other forms of abuse. I know that the people in my riding are very charity minded. My constituents are generous and engaged in many charitable projects. They appreciate this initiative to ensure their efforts are not in vain.

Bill C-13 has help for families. It introduces the new family caregiver tax credit to assist caregivers of all types to help with dependent relatives.

This is a good bill. I appreciate the number of opposition members who have been here to listen to the debate today.

When we are in opposition, it is not always about opposing. It is about standing up and supporting families in tough times in the economy. We would appreciate members' support.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add a bit of reality to this debate following on the hon. member opposite.

Let me begin with a recent report published in Toronto, Canada's largest city. It is a report called “Vital Signs”. It documents the transformation that is taking place in many Canadian cities but especially in Canada's largest city.

The report talks about a dramatic reduction in quality of life which could affect almost half the population of the city over the next 10 to 15 years. It does offer some good news. It claims that the quality of life for Torontonians is improving when it comes to the environment. Toronto is a healthier city. Its crime rates are lower than ever before, which is significant. However, it indicates that there are huge challenges which range from affordable housing to public transit.

I want to share a significant point with the members opposite: the gap between the rich and the poor in Toronto and in many other cities is growing. As well, skilled immigrants are twice as likely to face unemployment than workers born in Canada and when skilled immigrants are hired they usually receive about half the annual salary of other workers. During the period of growth from 1998 to 2007, one-third of the income growth across Canada went to 1% of the wealthiest Canadians, those averaging incomes of more than $400,000 a year. The country is becoming increasingly divided and that is what is playing out in our largest city.

Child poverty rates have increased by more than 40% in one year. As a result of the lack of investment in urban transit and transit infrastructure, lower income residents in Toronto live in what is being called transit deserts. They spend an hour a day on average trying to get from one part of the city to another and spend a greater portion of their income trying to get there.

Canadians need governments for affordable housing, transit, social connections, to get to jobs and for opportunities. Journalist Royson James reported that just when they need it most, our civic institutions and governments are looking to withdraw from the field. In other words, governments are withdrawing money. I use that as an introduction to my remarks.

In spite of the member opposite's glowing report on Bill C-13, this legislation represents what I assume are the government's best efforts to cope with Canada's current economic dilemma, but it is a disturbingly inadequate effort. I want to enter a few facts into this argument.

The government likes to pretend that we are in a recovery, but as this report indicates, two million Canadians would work if there were jobs available for them. The report makes it clear that talk of recovery not only is misleading but is dishonest when it comes to these Canadians who are unemployed or underemployed.

We have a continuing recession in the jobs market. Unemployment is far above what it was in the last recession. Job creation is well below what is needed just to maintain a steady employment. The government claims to have created 600,000 net new jobs, and it keeps repeating that number, but the facts clearly indicate otherwise.

We have seen the addition of barely 200,000 new jobs since before the recession in May 2008, but the labour force has grown by 450,000 since then. Therefore, we are short a quarter of a million jobs just to keep employment steady. This is nothing to brag about, but the government, instead, misleads Canadians rather than have an honest, open debate about where we need to go and how we put plans in place to get people back to work.

It is a fact that the job market is currently more fragile than it was before the October 2008 crisis. The unemployment rate has risen to 7.3%, while the number of part-time workers and the number of workers looking for full-time employment have increased very rapidly.

Quality, full-time jobs that allow families to make a living are very hard to find in many regions of the country.

Moreover, the actual unemployment rate, which includes discouraged workers who have left the labour force and part-time workers who would like to be working full-time, was 11.1% in July 2011, a very significant increase over the July 2009 rate of 9.4%.

Youth employment really is a disaster in this country. It really is quite shocking. The fact is that at the high point in May 2008 before the recession, 2.6 million Canadians between the ages of 15 and 24 had jobs, the participation rate was about 67.6% and the official unemployment rate about 11.9%. However, in August 2011, there were only 2.4 million 15 to 24-year-olds employed, the participation rate had fallen three percentage points and unemployment was at 14%.

This means there are almost 127,000 fewer jobs for 15 to 24-year-olds, 127,000 fewer jobs than before the recession. If we take the lower participation rate into account, in other words, a lot of people have just stopped looking, we would recognize that there are about 134,000 fewer jobs at the same participation rate.

Another fact is that the true measure of the jobs deficit for young people compared to May 2008 is about 260,000 jobs that were missing. Of course, another 85,000 young people have joined the labour force since May 2008, so there are even more young people looking for work. There are no net new jobs here, contrary to what the government says, just a gaping hole for young people to fall into and an enormous short and long-term loss to the economy.

The IMF recently predicted that Canada's unemployment rate will rise this year and in 2012 because our economy is growing far more slowly than anticipated.

In reality, real GDP growth of 2.5% annually is needed just to maintain the status quo, and growth has been much weaker since the start of the great recession.

It is a fact that economists everywhere have lowered their forecasts with regard to Canada's economic growth. Scotiabank economists have stated that we are facing a very real possibility that the Canadian economy could be the first to fall into a recession.

The BMO deputy chief economist has noted that even if Canada and the U.S. are able to avoid another recession, Ottawa will not achieve the rate of economic growth projected in the budget.

The budget was based on growth projections that are no longer realistic.

Another claim that the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister tend to make is that the economic fundamentals of the Canadian economy are great. Let us examine that.

An economy depends on four key economic drivers for growth: private business spending and investment, consumer spending, exports, and the public sector.

The government has pinned all of its hopes on the private sector, spending billions of public revenues on rolling back corporate taxes. The result: very little investment, very little job creation. In fact, Canadian corporations are sitting on $500 billion in cash rather than spend or invest it. Of that, $120 billion has come from the government's no strings attached corporate tax cuts. That is $120 billion.

It is a fact that the combined federal and Ontario corporate tax rates were slashed from 45% in 1999 to 30% in 2010. That is a drop of 15%. Over the same period, investment in machinery and equipment fell from just over 8% to just over 5% of the province's gross domestic product. Therefore, a measure designed to increase investment and productivity in machinery failed. In fact, investment fell even though taxes were cut and we were shovelling over $100 billion back into corporate profits.

So much for the claim that corporate income tax giveaways boost business investment and job creation. Worse still, the government's response, illogical as it seems, it to just stay the course and waste more money on further tax cuts. Brilliant.

Instead of patting itself on the back because we are doing relatively better than some very sick economies, the government must put in place policies that encourage private sector investment in our economy here at home over the long-term. This budget is full of temporary half measures when long-term strategic action is needed.

We all know what happened to the second economic driver, consumer spending. There is a growing inequality in the distribution of income in this country, and I just cited one study. This is an inequality the government does not seem to worry or care about, but it means that Canadians have had to borrow to spend on essentials, and borrow they have. Canadians have never been more indebted; an average household owes 150% of its income.

We cannot count on overstrapped consumers to get us out of this mess. Consumer spending is tapped out. That is not the solution.

This summer the IMF published a study on inequality. It found that the more equitably incomes are distributed, the longer and more stable are periods of economic growth. The more equality, the longer the periods of economic growth. Even so, this budget does nothing to address inequality in Canada.

As for exports, the third driver, the IMF projects that Canada's balance of payments, deficit, as a percentage of GDP is on its way to becoming one of the worst among advanced economies; worse than that of the U.S. and soon to be worse than Italy or Spain.

The IMF predicts that our current account deficit will reach almost 4% of GDP in 2012. That is a major negative on our economy. However, we would never hear the government mention this piece of bad news.

With business, consumers and exports on the sidelines as drivers of economic growth, that leaves only the public sector. Once again, the government is doing the illogical thing in pursuing austerity, cutting back public services and missing the opportunity of a lifetime to invest in Canada and Canadians.

The Minister of Finance is accusing my party of recommending spending—according to him, that is why the European economies are bordering on ruin—without taking into account the role that private sector financial institutions, which are overenthusiastic, played in the impoverishment of our larger trading partners.

However, although the Minister of Finance must be aware of it, he does not seem to understand the difference between investments and expenditures. The NDP is not talking about expenditures; it is talking about investments in targeted sectors to promote job creation and in infrastructure, including roads, bridges, public transit and high-speed Internet. We are talking about investing to train our workers so that they are productive in the new economy, investing in housing, and investing in our children's education.

I attended a meeting recently where a former deputy minister of finance called for a division on the government's books to help overcome the failure to distinguish between investments, investments that create assets and lead to significant returns in the economy, productivity, employment, competitiveness and the public purse, the difference between these investments and spending on things like the government's beloved gazebos and fake lakes that are of little economic value.

The fact is that the Toronto Board of Trade emphasizes that a strong infrastructure foundation is a top priority in ensuring economic competitiveness now and in the future.

In fact, the OECD has concluded that Toronto's lack of transportation infrastructure is the leading drag on the region's global competitiveness. Yet, the bill contains no new investments in infrastructure. It is really shocking.

The Conservatives often like to compare the government to a business, as though that were a good thing. However, rare is the business that would cast aside the opportunities available to the government, such as the availability of a qualified workforce, a desperate need for infrastructure across the country, infrastructure that would earn a generous return on investment, and capital available at a rate that is at an almost record low. In similar circumstances, any self-respecting business person would invest extensively, but not this government. The Conservatives do not know how to recognize a good deal.

What we get are missed opportunities to build a world competitive economy with infrastructure second to none to attract new capital investment and to give our homegrown industries a permanent advantage over our competitors, and public policies that would only make the recession and the labour market more severe.

The Conservatives call themselves economic managers. It is a cruel joke.

Here is a bill that they claim would address the problems our economy faces. It would fall so far short of what is needed, it is really embarrassing.

Mr. Flaherty admitted yesterday the Conservatives would maintain their do-nothing approach to the economy. The New--

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

moved that Bill C-13, An Act to implement certain provisions of the 2011 budget as updated on June 6, 2011 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to begin debate on the keeping Canada's economy and jobs growing act. This act represents a key component of the next phase of Canada's economic action plan.

Today's legislation represents an ambitious, substantive, and positive response to the economic challenges of today and the opportunities of tomorrow.

Indeed, the global economic recovery is challenged, as demonstrated by ongoing events in Europe and in the United States. While the roots of these global challenges are not from within our borders, they could nevertheless impact Canada. That is why our Conservative government has remained squarely focused on helping protect and grow Canada's economy to the greatest extent possible since the onset of the global economic turbulence.

In our initial response, Canada's economic action plan, we delivered $60 billion in extraordinary investments to support jobs and growth during the worst of the global recession. It was a plan that helped families and businesses deal with the short-term challenges, while also supporting Canada's long-term prosperity through, for instance, landmark infrastructure investments in roads, bridges, universities, colleges, and many more.

It was a plan that, according to countless independent observers, worked.

As BMO economist Doug Porter publicly declared, it was, “arguably one of the most successful stimulus programs in the industrialized world”.

Earlier this year, our Conservative government built on that record of accomplishments with the next phase of Canada's economic action plan: a low tax plan for jobs and growth.

The next phase seeks to foster positive conditions for long-term economic prosperity, while staying on track to return to balanced budgets, while helping Canadian families.

The keeping Canada's economy and jobs growing act represents a vital component of the next phase as it implements many of its key elements. For instance, the act would promote job creation and economic growth by: providing a temporary hiring credit for small business, to encourage additional hiring; expanding tax support for clean energy generation, to encourage green investments; extending the mineral exploration tax credit for flow-through share investors by one year to support Canada's mining sector; simplifying customs tariffs in order to facilitate trade and lower the administrative burden for businesses; extending the accelerated capital cost allowance treatment for investments in productivity-improving machinery and equipment for Canada's manufacturing sector; and eliminating the mandatory retirement age for federally regulated employees in order to give older workers wishing to work the option to remain in the workforce.

The act would support communities from coast to coast to coast by: legislating a permanent annual investment of $2 billion in the gas tax fund to provide predictable long-term infrastructure funding for municipalities; enhancing the wage earner protection program to cover more workers affected by employer bankruptcy or receivership; introducing a volunteer firefighters tax credit for volunteer firefighters; and increasing the ability of Canadians to give more confidently to legitimate charities, by helping combat fraud and other forms of abuse by illegitimate charities.

The keeping Canada's economy and jobs growing act would help families by: introducing a new family caregiver tax credit to assist caregivers of all types of infirm, dependent relatives; removing the limit on the amount of eligible expenses caregivers can claim for their financially dependent relatives under the medical expense tax credit; and introducing a new children's arts tax credit for programs associated with children's arts, cultural, recreational and developmental activities.

The act would invest in education and training by: forgiving loans for new doctors and nurses in underserved rural and remote areas; helping apprentices in the skilled trades, as well as workers in regulated professions, by making occupational trade and professional examination fees eligible for tuition tax credit; improving federal financial assistance for students; and making it easier to allocate registered education savings plan assets among siblings, without incurring tax penalties or forfeiting Canada education savings grants.

Finally, it would respect taxpayers by: phasing out the direct subsidy for political parties and closing numerous tax loopholes that allow a few businesses and individuals to avoid paying their fair share of tax.

The keeping Canada's economy and jobs growing act includes so much more to help families, students, businesses, seniors, communities and obviously the economy and jobs. To keep Canada's economy on the right track, I am confident that Parliament will endorse today's legislation in a timely and overwhelming manner.

Before spotlighting a couple of the numerous and very positive measures in today's legislation, let me underline that, while indeed the global economy is in a period of turbulence and there are challenges that lie ahead, Canada has performed relatively well. Over the course of the debate on the keeping Canada's economy and jobs growing act, the opposition, NDP and Liberals, will attempt, in the starkest terms and with the greatest hyperbole, to talk down the Canadian economy with its non-stop negativity.

The NDP and Liberals will downplay the achievements of our businesses, our workers and our government that have in recent years made our economy stronger and more competitive. Carried by the weight of the heavy pessimism in their overstated rhetoric and tired talking points, the NDP and the Liberals will throw their collective hands up and claim that Canada has not been up to the challenges of the global economy.

That is where we on this side of the House must differ. As Winston Churchill once noted, “The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty”. Without a doubt, our Conservative government has seen, and sought to capitalize on, the opportunities and global economic turbulence of recent years. Unlike the NDP and the Liberals, we have believed that Canada and Canadians could meet that challenge, especially with the support of our low tax pro-growth economic policies.

Let me say it once again for the opposition. The facts are indisputable. Canada is standing tall.

On economic growth, both the IMF and the OECD forecast that we will have among the strongest economic growth in the G7 in the years ahead.

On jobs, Canada has the strongest job creation record in the G7 with nearly 600,000 net new jobs created since July 2009, with over 80% of those being full-time jobs.

On our financial sector, the World Economic Forum has, for the fourth straight year, rated our banking system the best in the world.

On our fiscal situation, Canada has, and will continue to have, by far the lowest total government net debt to GDP ratio in the entire G7 based on IMF projections.

On fiscal and economic fundamentals, Canada's credit rating, unlike numerous other countries, has been affirmed as being the highest possible by major rating agencies. Indeed, Moody's recently renewed Canada's triple A credit rating, praising our “economic resiliency, very high government financial strength, and a low susceptibility to event risk”.

On our competitiveness, Forbes, the influential business magazine, ranked Canada as the best country in the world for business to grow and create jobs, largely due to our low tax plan for Canadian businesses.

The list goes on.

There is little wonder that The Economist and global leaders have singled out Canada's economy and our Conservative government's economic leadership for repeated praise. BMO economist, Doug Porter, testifying before the finance committee this last week, declared, “--compared to policy making in the rest of the world, Canada's economic policy-making has been exemplary. I don't think there has been a significant misstep in recent years”.

We recall the words of U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron before this chamber:

In the last few years, Canada has got every major decision right. Look at the facts...Your economic leadership has helped the Canadian economy to weather the global storms far better than many of your international competitors.

As encouraging and positive as those facts and quotes may be, they should not serve as an invitation to rest on our laurels, especially in the light of the ongoing global economic turmoil in the EU and United States.

We all know resting on our laurels is no way to stay ahead. That is why, as I mentioned previously, our Conservative government remains focused on what matters to Canadians: creating jobs and promoting economic growth through the implementation of the next phase of Canada's economic action plan outlayed in today's legislation.

As I mentioned, the keeping Canada's economy and jobs growing act is a very substantive piece of legislation at over 640 pages. While there is no way I can spotlight each and every great measure in the bill, I would like to spotlight a couple of them, one of which garnered strong attention to date, and another that some have overlooked.

First, I would like to talk about a measure that has garnered pretty strong attention, that being the new volunteer firefighters tax credit and what it means for communities across Canada. Every day, without hesitation, volunteer men and women across Canada put their lives on the line to protect our families from harm.

Canada is incredibly fortunate to have volunteer firefighters across this country who are willing to put themselves at risk to protect the lives and the property of their fellow Canadians.

Our Conservative government is proud of these brave men and women who volunteer their time in the service of their and our communities.

While there is no way we can every truly repay them, we can show them we value all of the nearly 85,000 volunteer firefighters who keep our communities safe. That is why I am proud that we have proposed the volunteer firefighters tax credit in this legislation. It will help volunteer firefighters by providing them with a 15% non-refundable tax credit of $3,000.

Day after day, volunteer firefighters play a vital role in serving our communities. By helping these brave men and women, our government is working to make Canadian cities and towns safer.

I should note that this new tax credit has been received extremely positively. In fact, the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs declared:

This measure will help with the recruitment and retention of volunteer firefighters across the country, which will in turn help protect Canadians and our communities.

The Charlottetown Guardian editorial remarked:

For all the time they devote to training and responding to fires in communities across the country, our volunteer firefighters deserve that much...it's a gesture of appreciation for the work our firefighters do for Canadians.

Second, and lastly, I would like to briefly talk about a measure that has not received a lot of attention: tax relief to help apprentices in the skilled trades and workers in regulated professions with the cost of occupational trade and professional examination fees.

As we all know, apprentices in the skilled trades must complete certification exams at the end of their apprenticeship to practice their trade. Likewise, students in fields like nursing, medicine, law and accounting are also required to complete examinations to practice their occupations.

Until now, the cost of these certification examinations were generally not eligible for tax relief. The keeping Canada's economy and jobs growing act will now make all occupational trade and professional examination fees eligible for the tuition tax credit where the examination is required to obtain a professional status, certification or licence in a trade recognized by federal or provincial law that allows the individual to practice that profession or trade within Canada.

Examples of eligible occupations, trades and professions include: architects, machinists, bakers, bricklayers, carpenters, chartered accountants, dental technicians, hair stylists, motor vehicle body repairers, welders and much more. In fact, it is estimated that more than 30,000 individuals would benefit just this year.

The new tax relief for certification examinations builds on other measures the government has introduced since 2006 for students and those helping to improve their own skills. This includes the apprenticeship incentive grant and the apprenticeship completion grant under which eligible apprentices could receive up to $4,000 which can be used to pay for tuition, travel, tools or other expenses.

I should also note that this new measure was also very well-received. Engineers Canada has applauded it and has stated:

“Making professional examination fees eligible for the Tuition Tax Credit...demonstrates a real commitment to fostering the highly-skilled, and qualified talent the country needs to compete....It will help in the pursuit of a strong, diverse, and modern economy.”

The Canadian Home Builders' Association stated that the measure would “target a very important issue--the shortage of skilled people in our industry”.

Those are two of the countless measures in the Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act that are positive and should be supported unanimously by Parliament. The NDP and Liberal members have opposed the many positive measures that we have put forward in this legislation. Their constituents and I would be interested in hearing their explanations why.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-13, An Act to implement certain provisions of the 2011 budget as updated on June 6, 2011 and other measures.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)