Bill C-60 (Historical)

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1

An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures

Part 1 implements certain income tax measures proposed in the March 21, 2013 budget. Most notably, it
(a) allows certain adoption-related expenses incurred before a child’s adoption file is opened to be eligible for the Adoption Expense Tax Credit;
(b) introduces an additional credit for first-time claimants of the Charitable Donations Tax Credit;
(c) makes expenses for the use of safety deposit boxes non-deductible;
(d) adjusts the Dividend Tax Credit and gross-up factor applicable in respect of dividends other than eligible dividends;
(e) allows collection action for 50% of taxes, interest and penalties in dispute in respect of a tax shelter that involves a charitable donation;
(f) extends, for one year, the Mineral Exploration Tax Credit for flow-through share investors;
(g) extends, for two years, the temporary accelerated capital cost allowance for eligible manufacturing and processing machinery and equipment;
(h) clarifies that the income tax reserve for future services is not available in respect of reclamation obligations;
(i) phases out the additional deduction available to credit unions over five years;
(j) amends rules regarding the judicial authorization process for imposing a requirement on a third party to provide information or documents related to an unnamed person or persons; and
(k) repeals the rules relating to international banking centres.
Part 1 also implements other income tax measures and tax-related measures. Most notably, it
(a) amends rules relating to caseload management of the Tax Court of Canada;
(b) streamlines the process for approving tax relief for Canadian Forces members and police officers;
(c) addresses a technical issue in relation to the temporary measure that allows certain family members to open a Registered Disability Savings Plan for an adult individual who might not be able to enter into a contract; and
(d) simplifies the determination of the Canadian-source income of non-resident pilots employed by Canadian airlines.
Part 2 implements certain goods and services tax and harmonized sales tax (GST/HST) measures proposed in the March 21, 2013 budget by
(a) reducing the compliance burden for employers under the GST/HST pension plan rules;
(b) providing the Minister of National Revenue the authority to withhold GST/HST refunds claimed by a business where the business has failed to provide certain GST/HST registration information;
(c) expanding the GST/HST exemption for publicly funded homemaker services to include personal care services provided to individuals who require such assistance at home;
(d) clarifying that reports, examinations and other services that are supplied for a non-health-care-related purpose do not qualify for the GST/HST exemption for basic health care services; and
(e) ending the current GST/HST point-of-sale relief for the Governor General.
Part 2 also amends the Excise Tax Act and Excise Act, 2001 to modify the rules regarding the judicial authorization process for imposing a requirement on a third party to provide information or documents related to an unnamed person or persons.
In addition, Part 2 amends the Excise Act, 2001 to ensure that the excise duty rate applicable to manufactured tobacco other than cigarettes and tobacco sticks is consistent with that applicable to other tobacco products.
Part 3 implements various measures, including by enacting and amending several Acts.
Division 1 of Part 3 amends the Customs Tariff to extend for ten years, until December 31, 2024, provisions relating to Canada’s preferential tariff treatments for developing and least-developed countries. Also, Division 1 reduces the rate of duty under tariff treatments in respect of a number of items relating to baby clothing and certain sports and athletic equipment imported into Canada on or after April 1, 2013.
Division 2 of Part 3 amends the Trust and Loan Companies Act, the Bank Act, the Insurance Companies Act and the Cooperative Credit Associations Act to remove some residency requirements to provide flexibility for financial institutions to efficiently structure the committees of their boards of directors.
Division 3 of Part 3 amends the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act to renew the equalization and territorial formula financing programs until March 31, 2019 and to implement total transfer protection for the 2013-2014 fiscal year. That Act is also amended to clarify the time of calculation of the growth rate of the Canada Health Transfer for each fiscal year beginning after March 31, 2017.
Division 4 of Part 3 authorizes payments to be made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund to certain entities or for certain purposes.
Division 5 of Part 3 amends the Canadian Securities Regulation Regime Transition Office Act to remove the statutory dissolution date of the Canadian Securities Regulation Regime Transition Office and to provide authority for the Governor in Council, on the Minister of Finance’s recommendation, to set another date for the dissolution of that Office.
Division 6 of Part 3 amends the Investment Canada Act to clarify how proposed investments in Canada by foreign state-owned enterprises and WTO investors will be assessed and to allow for the extension, when necessary, of timelines associated with national security reviews.
Division 7 of Part 3 amends the Canada Pension Plan to ensure that the Canada Revenue Agency can accurately identify, calculate and refund overpayments made to the Canada Pension Plan and the Quebec Pension Plan in a particular year by contributors who live outside Quebec.
Division 8 of Part 3 amends the Pension Act and the War Veterans Allowance Act to ensure that veterans’ disability benefits are no longer deducted when calculating war veterans allowance.
Division 9 of Part 3 amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to authorize the revocation of temporary foreign worker permits, the revocation and suspension of opinions provided by the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development with respect to an application for a work permit and the refusal to process requests for such opinions. It authorizes fees to be paid for rights and privileges conferred by means of a work permit and exempts, from the application of the User Fees Act, those fees as well as fees for the provision of services in relation to the processing of applications for a temporary resident visa, work permit, study permit or extension of an authorization to remain in Canada as a temporary resident or in relation to requests for an opinion with respect to an application for a work permit.
It also provides that decisions made by the Refugee Protection Division under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act in respect of claims for refugee protection that were referred to that Division during a specified period are not subject to appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division if they take effect after a certain date.
Division 10 of Part 3 amends the Citizenship Act to expand the Governor in Council’s authority to make regulations respecting fees for services provided in the administration of that Act and cases in which those fees may be waived. It also exempts, from the application of the User Fees Act, fees for services provided in the administration of the Citizenship Act.
Division 11 of Part 3 amends the Nuclear Safety and Control Act to authorize the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission to spend for its purposes the revenue it receives from the fees it charges for licences.
Division 12 of Part 3 enacts the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act, sets out the powers, duties and functions of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister for International Trade and the Minister for International Development and provides for the amalgamation of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and the Canadian International Development Agency.
Division 13 of Part 3 authorizes the taking of measures with respect to the reorganization and divestiture of all or any part of Ridley Terminals Inc.
Division 14 of Part 3 amends the National Capital Act and the Department of Canadian Heritage Act to transfer certain powers, duties and functions to the Minister of Canadian Heritage from the National Capital Commission. It also makes consequential amendments to the National Holocaust Monument Act to change the Minister responsible for the construction of the monument to the Minister of Canadian Heritage from the Minister responsible for the National Capital Act.
Division 15 of Part 3 amends the Salaries Act to add ministerial positions for regional development responsibilities for northern Canada, and northern and southern Ontario. It also amends the Salaries Act to replace a reference to the Solicitor General of Canada with a reference to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. It also makes an amendment to the Parliament of Canada Act to provide that the maximum number of Parliamentary Secretaries who may be appointed is equal to the number of ministers for whom salaries are provided in the Salaries Act.
Division 16 of Part 3 amends the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act to remove the requirement for the Minister of Public Works and Government Services to obtain a request from a government, body or person in Canada or elsewhere in order for the Minister to do certain things for or on their behalf. It also amends that Act to specify that the Governor in Council’s approval relating to those things may be given on a general or a specific basis.
Division 17 of Part 3 amends the Financial Administration Act to give the Governor in Council the authority to direct a Crown corporation to have its negotiating mandate approved by the Treasury Board for the purpose of the Crown corporation entering into a collective agreement with a bargaining agent. It also gives the Treasury Board the authority to require that an employee under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Treasury Board observe the collective bargaining between the Crown corporation and the bargaining agent. It requires that a Crown corporation that is directed to have its negotiating mandate approved obtain the Treasury Board’s approval before entering into a collective agreement. It also gives the Governor in Council the authority to direct a Crown corporation to obtain the Treasury Board’s approval before the Crown corporation fixes the terms and conditions of employment of certain of its non-unionized employees. Finally, it makes consequential amendments to other Acts.
Division 18 of Part 3 amends the Keeping Canada’s Economy and Jobs Growing Act to provide for increases to the sums that may be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for municipal, regional and First Nations infrastructure through the Gas Tax Fund. It also provides that the sums may be paid on the requisition of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1

[Julian Fantino, Conservative, Vaughan, ON]

moved that Bill C-60, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to seek unanimous consent to split my time with the hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have the consent of the House to share her time?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues in the House.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to kick off debate on Bill C-60, the economic action plan 2013 act. As the name suggests, Bill C-60 would implement key measures from the recent federal budget, economic action plan 2013, which is a positive and forward-looking blueprint to help grow the Canadian economy today and into tomorrow. This plan would make our economy stronger by helping our manufacturers buy new equipment with tax relief, help small businesses create more jobs with a hiring credit, help rebuild our roads and bridges with record new support for infrastructure and much more.

Today's legislation, along with the standard second budget implementation bill, which will be introduced in the fall, will help implement that ambitious and positive plan.

Before I get into the substance of the bill, I would like to say that, as a proud member of the Standing Committee on Finance, I look forward to studying the bill in committee.

As the Minister of Finance said earlier this week, the study of the Economic Action Plan 2013 Act will not be exclusive to the Standing Committee on Finance.

In fact, the government members on the Standing Committee on Finance will move a motion that some other committees review specific aspects of the bill. I hope the opposition will give us its support.

In terms of the legislation we are dealing with today, we must not forget that the economic action plan 2013 is part of a comprehensive plan that goes back to 2006 when our Conservative government came to power. The priorities at the heart of the plan were the Canadian economy, job creation and tax cuts to help families keep more money in their pockets.

I am pleased to say that the plan worked even in the worst global recession since the Great Depression. As we conduct our study, the NDP and the Liberals will try to have us swallow bogus figures, if you will, on Canada's labour market. They will distort the facts and play every conceivable shell game to conceal the truth.

However, the facts are in. All of Canada's credible, independent organizations, such as the Bank of Canada and even Statistics Canada, have the figures and can substantiate them. Canada has created slightly more than 900,000 net new jobs since the depths of the recession in July. More than 90% are full-time jobs and nearly 80% are in the private sector.

This outstanding record has made Canada the top G7 country in terms of job creation since the end of the global recession.

Despite what the NDP and the Liberals would have Canadians believe, over 1.4 million net new jobs have been created since January 2006 when the Conservative government took power. We have also seen that as the best job creation in the entire G7 during that entire time period.

It is not only on the job front where Canada is leading the way. I want to share some of that positive news to counter all the talking down of Canada and of our economy that we are hearing from the NDP and the Liberals.

While the opposition will try to bash the Canadian economy with negative messages and their procedural games to scare people watching at home, I am going to try to build it up with positive facts about the relative success story Canada's economy has been.

To start with, both the independent International Monetary Fund and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development are projecting that Canada will have among the strongest growth in the G7 in years ahead. Even better, here is what the IMF had to say about Canada only a few weeks ago, “Canada is in an enviable position”. For the fifth straight year, the World Economic Forum has ranked Canada's banking system the soundest in the world. Canada has the lowest overall tax rate on new business investment in the G7.

All major credit rating agencies, like Moody's, Fitch, and Standard and Poor's, have affirmed Canada's rock-solid AAA credit rating. Our net debt to GDP ratio remains the lowest in the G7 by far.

The list goes on and on. Little wonder, when asked about Canada's economy recently, Don Drummond, a well-known and widely respected Canadian economist, said the following:

We look like the poster child for the fiscal messes around the world. We are in pretty good fiscal shape, certainly relative to everybody else.

I could not agree more with him, but as Don Drummond noted, there are some fiscal and economic messes around the world, as we are reminded on the evening news or in the morning newspapers all too often.

Some big global economic challenges from beyond our borders remain, especially in the United States and Europe. These are among our most important trading partners. Even though these are not made in Canada problems, they will continue to negatively impact Canada. Like any smart person would in any situation like this, if a problem is out there, we protect ourselves against it. That is exactly what we are doing in economic action plan 2013 by staying squarely focused on what matters when facing a challenging global economy: jobs and economic growth, keeping taxes low and balancing the budget by 2015.

What we are not doing is listening to the NDP and Liberal calls for spending, spending and more spending in order to expand government and add to the national debt.

The NDP and Liberal proposals are doomed to failure and will mean ever-increasing taxes.

Canadians know what happened in European countries that chose to expand government and spend endlessly, which is what the NDP and Liberals are suggesting. Those countries ended up with monster deficits, paralyzing government bureaucracy and massive unemployment.

Just this week we learned that unemployment in the eurozone climbed to 12.1% in March, an all-time high according to EU statistics agencies.

The NDP likely does not want to hear that its economic philosophy of unlimited spending and ever-increasing taxes does not work. However, economic ruin in Greece and Spain illustrate the consequences of the very policies the NDP wants to bring to Canada.

Our Conservative government understands what the NDP and Liberals refuse to believe. In an uncertain global economic economy, the best way for government to build confidence is to maintain its own sound fiscal position, not engage in reckless deficit spending. That belief is at the very heart of economic action plan 2013 and that is why the Liberals and the NDP so vigorously oppose it.

I want to read a great quote by one of the most respected newspaper columnists in Canada, Peter Worthington. It is worth reading at length. He said:

The federal budget...is one of those things that should please every thinking Canadian...it's reality....Think for a moment....When you look at Cyprus, Europe, the U.S. and the rest of the world, this should be a huge relief to Canadian taxpayers...jobs are more or less secure as are pensions and health-care costs. Working Canadians will continue to be the blessed of the developed world.

Although I hear the NDP and Liberals making the heckling noises, it is because they do not buy into the fact that we are leaders. We cannot help the fact that we are leaders. The world looks at us with envy because we did not follow its suggestions and we will not follow its suggestions. Canadians can rest assured that this Conservative government will maintain a low-tax plan, we will maintain a plan for job creation and we will look to prosperity for our country for years and years to come.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, most observers will agree that investing in young people is absolutely essential for the future of our society and for a healthy economy. The fastest-growing demographic of youth in Canada is aboriginal youth. I would like to know why the government has provided a mere pittance to address the 30% gap between what children of first nations on reserve get compared with kids in the rest of the country. Why the gap and why did the CEO of the Assembly of First Nations tell the finance committee yesterday that the government had no meaningful consultation with first nations about education or any other topic?

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's question is misleading because it is not true at all. In fact, we as a federal government have been providing equal or more funding for youth in first nations communities for some time now.

For Canadians watching, I would like to know why on earth the New Democrats would ask such a question and then vote against things like the $10 million in the budget for bursaries and scholarships for first nations youth. In fact, Indspire says that the budget 2013 contains great news for indigenous youth across Canada. That is its comment. I have absolutely no clue why they would embarrass themselves and ask a question like that when they have no intention of supporting this funding.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I tried to take the speech seriously, but I had to laugh many times with the government talking about sound fiscal management. How does one equate sound fiscal management with, let us say, in 2015, about $150 billion added to the national debt, with the fact that we have 1.4 million Canadians unemployed, with the fact that 10 of the last 12 trade balances have been deficits in our country? How can government members have the temerity to stand and say that they are sound fiscal managers?

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite obviously does not want to hear the government talk about sound fiscal management. Let us have a look at what other organizations and people have said—in fact, organizations from the member's own region.

This is what the Fédération des chambres de commerce du Québec said:

The Fédération des chambres de commerce du Québec supports the federal government's decision to implement fiscal restraint and spending control in order to balance the budget.

If that is not enough, here is what the Conseil du patronat du Québec said:

The federal government made a prudent and responsible choice to stay on course toward a balanced budget in 2015 by, among other things, reining in the growth of public spending.

I will add that we are not doing anything to shoulder all of this responsibility for fiscal management by cutting from the provinces and people across the country, as the former Liberal government did by cutting $25 billion out of health care, as an example. We will not do that. They should be ashamed of themselves for having done it.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about an extraordinary economic situation. Sometimes I have to wonder whether we are even living in the same country.

Canada's food banks are busier than ever. Nowadays, almost all young university students have to rely on food banks because their economic situation is so extraordinary.

If everything is going so well, then why are people forced to turn to food banks? Can the member explain that?

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

One of the reasons for that is that people cannot pay the taxes that have gone up across the country.

For example, in my home province of Manitoba, the New Democratic government recently increased provincial taxes for all Manitoban families. That is why some families cannot make ends meet.

For its part, the federal government is reducing taxes for families by including measures to help them in the budget. I hope that all members of the House will vote in favour of these measures to help our Canadian families.

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

Mr. Speaker, I too am very pleased to rise today to speak to the budget implementation act, economic action plan 2013.

First, we have to note that this is a very timely discussion, because of course, yesterday, April 30, was our tax-filing deadline. By yesterday, there were probably about 28 million individuals throughout Canada who had filed their taxes, and we know that they put over $120 billion into taxpayers' coffers. We have almost two million corporations who again put significant dollars into our coffers.

Too often I hear the opposition members talk about OAS for people who have been residents for only three years, 45-day work years and private member's bills and many motions that ask us to increase spending. This is not the government's money. This is not the opposition's money. We are talking about the hard-earned dollars of everyday Canadians. This is the nurse who works for maybe $70,000 a year, but she might be paying up to $20,000 in taxes. This is the family that works in a corner store. The mother, father and the children are there seven days a week, 16 hours a day, to try to make a living for their family and pay their taxes on time. This is the entrepreneur. He has an idea and is starting a business. He has hired some people. He has dreams and goals and is desperately trying to make it a success. He pays his taxes, and that comes in terms of opportunities he could spend that money on in other ways.

We as a government recognize that we have a very important obligation to the taxpayer, and that is to make sure that every single dollar we spend is spent appropriately. Canadians are generous, but Canadians also expect fair play. Canadians know that there are times when there are extraordinary challenges, whether it is health, mental health, or disability. They have challenges in their lives. They have times when they might lose their jobs.

Again, Canadians are very generous. They understand that there are times when, for the greater good, they will participate, but they do not want to feel abused. They do not want to feel that their EI programs are abused. They do not want to feel that temporary foreign worker programs are not being used appropriately. As we have this debate about the budget implementation act No. 1, it is absolutely critical to remember whose dollars we are spending and whose dollars we are talking about.

The context for the budget for this year was articulated very well by my colleague from Saint Boniface. She talked about the global recession we came through, when we had to put in some extraordinary stimulus. Then she talked about how well we have done in reports from the OECD and the IMF. Canada has come through a very challenging time in very good shape. However, we are now responsible for withdrawing that stimulus spending and returning to balanced budgets, and that is exactly the focus of this budget implementation act.

This budget implementation act focuses on three areas. Most important is ensuring that we have an environment that supports growth and long-term prosperity. Second is continuing to support Canadian families and communities. Finally is respecting the Canadian taxpayer.

The budget implementation act is divided into three sections. The first two relate to our tax structure and our GST. The third section has more details in terms of specific measures we are looking at.

We did not come to this place without a long and comprehensive process. Not only was the context set many years ago, but the conversations with Canadians had been happening for well over a year before we got to this point. As a member of the finance committee, I know that we started our consultations in the summer of last year. We heard from groups from across the country, and we gave them three themes. We asked how we support economic growth and long-term prosperity, how we support Canadian families, and how we ensure that we respect taxpayers' dollars.

We need to talk a bit about what we heard. Whether it was a parliamentarian sitting down with people in his or her riding or the Minister of Finance having round tables across the country, we heard about supporting jobs and economic growth.

I heard time and time again that mining is important in British Columbia. We heard that the mining exploration tax credit is an absolutely critical feature and that we should continue to support that industry, which ultimately provides so much back in terms of our tax base.

We also heard that manufacturers have been having a challenging time. They have found that the accelerated capital cost allowance is of enormous benefit. They indicated that if it continued for a while longer, it would really support them as they continue to rebuild after what have been some challenging times.

Every member of Parliament talked to council members and mayors. They talked about the infrastructure deficit. They talked about how important the gas tax fund was and how pleased they were that it was doubled and will now be legislated. They also talked about indexing it. We heard that suggestion from our municipalities, and we took action. Now municipalities are not only able to plan for the long term, but every infrastructure program they undertake will have important jobs associated with it.

I heard in my riding that the temporary foreign worker program plays a valuable role and that there are times when Canadians are unavailable to meet the needs of employers. We also heard that we need to ensure that Canadians have first crack at these jobs. The budget implementation act would make those changes. Canadians have said that the temporary foreign worker program has a role to play and is important but that we need to make some changes to ensure that Canadians have the first opportunities for these jobs.

It is incredibly important to provide some general fairness to all Canadian taxpayers. Therefore, we have included measures that would close loopholes and ensure that everyone pays their fair share. As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue, I know that there are a number of measures. I talked earlier about the amount of money that comes in from individuals. Over 94% of Canadians pay their taxes on time. They pay what is due.

We know that there are some loopholes, or perhaps some inequities. We have changed that. We know that people sometimes move their money offshore. We have taken the opportunity to give the CRA more tools to deal with that.

The final theme is supporting Canadian families and communities.

Every member, I believe, has a legion in his or her community. Members heard from legion members about how important they were in supporting our veterans.

I see a number of items in Division 4 of this legislation. Officials from the CNIB talked to me about a hub and how that could really improve their lives. That is another important item we see in the budget implementation act.

Finance committee did a comprehensive study on charitable giving. We were looking for ways to encourage young people to give to the charities that play such an important role in our communities. The donor super credit is a fantastic idea. It is targeted at encouraging people to give for the first time. That will probably help in terms of lifelong giving.

The federal government is like any household, any business, any municipality or any provincial government. The principles are the same. We have a budget. We have to live within it. It is absolutely critical that we get back to balanced budgets. It is absolutely critical, as a federal government, that we create an environment that encourages jobs, growth and long-term prosperity.

The budget implementation act, Bill C-60, is an excellent step in terms of the long term and fair taxes. I call on the opposition to support our government in terms of this important and strategic document with its very good measures to move forward with respect to Canada's growth.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague opposite for her remarks. We sit together on the finance committee. She talked about the work of the finance committee, which I think spent about a dozen meetings looking at how to increase charitable giving.

Given that this omnibus budget implementation act will affect over 50 different laws in Canada, will she now commit that the finance committee will spend at least ten meetings fully examining the important provisions that she has outlined in the budget implementation act, Bill C-60?

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister presented the budget in the spring of this year. We had comprehensive debate regarding it. I cannot speak for the decisions of what the committee does in terms of moving forward for study.

However, if I look at the threads that go throughout the budget implementation act, we are seeing things we have actually heard for well over a year. I believe the opposition can do its homework. There are 160 some pages.

I look forward to having the opposition come on board and supporting this very important bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would make one initial observation of the budget implementation bill. By my reading, at least, everything in it was actually mentioned in the budget. That makes it a first since I was elected to this place. Other omnibus budget bills have been full of things that were not there.

I take nothing away from the member for Parkdale—High Park that we do need to have it adequately studied. There are many provisions, particularly relating to crown corporations and government involvement, in there.

My question is provoked by the member saying that this budget is budget implementation bill number one. I would like any information that she may have about what will be in budget implementation bill number two? Is there going to be another one coming?

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, certainly the tradition of the House has been that there is a budget that is tabled and there is legislation that follows, so I cannot speak to what will be coming.

We do know that in the budget there were a few other measures that the Minister of Finance will perhaps look at moving forward at some other date.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to congratulate my colleague. I intend to support the budget implementation act, but if there was any doubt in my mind, certainly listening to her confirmed that we need to move forward with this important implementation piece.

Sometimes what is more important about a budget is what is not in it rather than what is in it. I have been concerned listening to the official opposition, particularly the finance critic. When she was lightly peppered with questions around an alternative budget, she could not explain certain increases in government revenues. She said she was not concerned, in effect, with numbers.

My question to the member is, are there any hidden things in the budget, like a carbon tax? Are we focused on numbers, and does this translate into a focus on jobs for our economy?

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I stated in my opening remarks, we are the government that understands that every dollar we spend is a dollar out of Marsha the nurse's pocket and a dollar out of someone else's pocket.

As I looked at the NDP platform and saw the extraordinary list of expenditures they intended to make, I could feel many people wanting to tighten up, sew up, their pockets to protect their very hard-earned dollars.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on yet another Conservative omnibus budget bill.

Like its predecessors, Bill C-60 includes a wide variety of complex measures, such as changes to the temporary foreign worker program, changes to the Investment Canada Act and the merger of DFAIT and CIDA. Each of these alone is an important issue and an important measure that deserves thorough consideration and scrutiny, both here in Ottawa and in communities across the country. People would like to understand exactly what is being proposed.

This is the Conservatives' third attempt to evade parliamentary scrutiny on their job-killing agenda by packing the bill full of unrelated measures into one big bill and trying to push it through Parliament. That is no way to show leadership in a democracy.

I rise today to speak to yet another Conservative omnibus bill. Like its predecessors, Bill C-60 includes a large variety of complex measures—from changes to the temporary foreign worker program and the Investment Canada Act to the merger of DFAIT and CIDA. These are important issues that deserve thorough consideration and scrutiny, both here in Ottawa and in our communities from coast to coast to coast.

This is the Conservatives' third attempt to evade parliamentary scrutiny on their job-killing agenda by packing dozens of unrelated measures into one bill and ramming it through Parliament.

The Conservatives are trying to tell Canadians to move along because there is nothing to see in Bill C-60. In a way, they are right. It is true. There is no job creation strategy, nothing to make life more affordable and nothing to strengthen the services that Canadian families rely on.

Following the 2008 economic crisis, the Minister of Finance begrudgingly ramped up infrastructure investment. He was forced to do it by the opposition. Now he is cutting billions of dollars in infrastructure investments to communities across Canada. These cuts will cost tens of thousands of jobs in cities and communities right across this country. Cuts to services, coupled with tax hikes on thousands of products that Canadians need, will serve as a double whammy to Canadian families. These are families, certainly in my community, like communities across Canada, who are already far too stretched and struggling to make ends meet.

The Conservatives claim to be good fiscal managers—we will set aside the fact that they just lost over $3 billion of our tax dollars—but there are other facts that speak to the contrary. The Minister of Finance missed his economic growth target for 2012 by 35%. He has presided over a record $67 billion trade deficit, and now private sector economists are telling us that this year will be even worse.

It is clear the Conservative economic agenda is not what Canada needs. Perhaps the most ironic part of the Conservatives' reckless cutting is that the Parliamentary Budget Officer has clearly demonstrated that the cuts in budget 2013 are just not necessary for Canada to return to a structural budget surplus. In other words, all this pain is not needed.

The PBO has pointed out that what budget 2013 is really about is eliminating thousands of jobs, cutting direct program spending and weakening GDP growth. This is not what leadership looks like, and what a time for leadership to go missing in action here in Canada.

A recent article in The Economist, entitled “Canada's economy: On thinning ice” warns:

—consumers are showing signs of flagging. The economy is set to expand by a paltry 1.6% this year. So the authorities are casting around for another source of growth. The trouble is they cannot seem to find one.

The article in The Economist goes on to say:

Jim Flaherty, Canada's finance minister, has repeatedly warned of the threat household debt poses to the economy. Yet in his budget on March 21st, [the finance minister] did little to encourage business investment or exports to take the place of consumers in supporting growth. Rather, his focus was on eliminating the federal deficit—currently at 1.4% of GDP, low compared with most G7 economies—before the next general election in 2015. His plan, which relies on spending restraint and unusually high revenue growth, is seen by many as wishful thinking. So the Canadian consumer remains the main hope for the economy. It is an odd situation where both government and business have decided to be excessively prudent in their spending, but are hoping that consumers will not follow suit just yet.

Despite these risks to our economy, the Conservatives insist on pushing stubbornly ahead with their austerity agenda, and they are crossing their fingers that Canadians, who already have a record 167% household debt, are going to keep spending. It has become clear that the minister's timetable for deficit reduction has little to do with external reality. A growing number of bank economists, including Craig Alexander and Don Drummond, agree that the government is fixated on eliminating the deficit ahead of the next federal election, but that it is not needed; it could wait a year.

Following a pre-budget meeting with the finance minister, BMO's chief economist, Doug Porter, told reporters, “It probably would be unwise for the federal government to step on the brake further than it already has”. In other words, there is no need for more austerity. There is growing consensus from the IMF to participants at the World Economic Forum in Davos that austerity is not the way to go. In fact, it is making problems worse.

In March, Carol Goar of the Toronto Star wrote of the finance minister's austerity agenda:

Since he began chopping programs and expenditures, the economy has drooped, the job market has sagged, consumers have pulled back and the corporate sector has hunkered down, sitting on its earnings. The same formula has delivered worse results in Europe.

In fact, an IMF report released in January estimated that in the European case, every dollar in government spending cuts would cost $1.50 in lost output. This past week, the hand-picked interim Parliamentary Budget Officer, put in place by the government, confirmed that the overall impact of budget 2012, fiscal update 2012 and budget 2013, will be a loss of 67,000 jobs by 2017 and a 0.7% reduction in GDP. This is at a time when our economy is only expected to grow by 1.5% annually. In other words, the economy is barely growing at all. This is an additional significant drag on our country's economic growth.

Despite what the Conservatives claim, their plan is actually holding back the Canadian economy, instead of accelerating it. What is worse is that they have failed to outline any contingency plan to deal with slowing growth and increasingly negative fiscal indicators. Instead, they are stubbornly moving ahead with austerity measures despite warnings from economists about the consequences.

Right now, at any given time, there are more than six Canadians looking for work for every job that is available. Statistics Canada figures recently released showed that the number of vacant jobs has fallen to the lowest level since record keeping began in March 2011. Our youth unemployment rate is double the national rate. TD Economics has said that the spike in youth unemployment from the recent recession will cost our economy $10.7 billion over the next years alone.

These are young people whose futures are on the line. They are people just starting out and trying to get a toehold in our economy. Young people should be full of optimism and willing to take chances at the beginning of their adult life. However, too often they are saddled with debt, they are saddled with very limited or no job prospects, and they are saddled with a tremendous amount of insecurity and huge costs.

Our aboriginal population is growing faster than any other group in Canada, yet this vibrant young population faces significant barriers to economic participation and development, including chronic underfunding of education at all levels.

Budget 2013 presented an important opportunity for the government to put forward real solutions. Unfortunately for Canadians, the only job creation strategy the Conservatives have is for temporary foreign workers and some parliamentary secretaries.

The Conservatives like to crow about their 900,000 net new jobs, but what kind of jobs and for whom? Too many are temporary. Too many are insecure. Too many are held by temporary foreign workers instead of Canadians.

Nearly 1.4 million Canadians are still unemployed. There are still 240,000 more young people unemployed today than before the recession. The Conservatives can clap on the other side about this situation, but it is a national tragedy that they are turning their backs on Canada's youth and all of Canada's unemployed.

At a time when families are struggling to make ends meet, hundreds of thousands of Canadians are in part-time and precarious work when they would rather have full-time permanent jobs. In fact, a recent report by the United Way in Toronto and McMaster University has shown that 50%, fully half, of the workers in the GTA and Hamilton regions are in this kind of precarious work. It means a day-to-day struggle against insecurity and uncertainty.

For those Canadians who do have employment, wages have stagnated. In fact, in the 25 years between 1981 and 2006, including one of the most prosperous periods since the 1950s, workers' wages across Canada fell sharply behind. While Canada's real GDP per capita grew by 51%, average real weekly earnings did not increase. In other words, workers are being left behind.

At the same time, the number of temporary foreign workers in Canada has doubled in the past six years and tripled in the last decade. As Gil McGowan, the president of the Alberta Federation of Labour, notes:

The bottom line is that Canadians are being displaced by temporary foreign workers, wages are being suppressed and employers are being allowed to abdicate their responsibility for training Canadians.

Professor Miles Corak of the University of Ottawa agrees:

Flooding the market with workers from elsewhere year in and year out—even during a major recession—is not about an acute labour shortage. It is nothing more than a wage subsidy to low-paying firms, a subsidy that stunts the reallocation of goods, capital and labour that is the basis for efficient markets.

What is the government's response?

Just yesterday Barrie McKenna of The Globe and Mail wrote: “... the federal government is now belatedly acknowledging that two of its signature workplace programs may be making the country's employment landscape worse, not better.”

Belatedly, indeed. After years of mismanagement, the Conservatives are proposing to fix major flaws by giving the minister an override power when work permits and labour market opinions approved by government become political hot potatoes.

This is a band-aid solution that does not get to the heart of this government's mismanagement of the TFW program.

In the meantime, not only are the Conservatives failing to create jobs, but they are continuing their attacks on Canadian workers.

Bill C-60 gives the Treasury Board sweeping powers to interfere in free collective bargaining and impose employment conditions on non-union employees at crown corporations.

With an enduring jobs crisis and cash-strapped households, where do the Conservatives expect Canada's growth to come from?

In a National Post op ed, economist Armine Yalnizyan writes about household debt in Canada:

Yes, many goods are cheaper than they were a generation ago. But the list does not include higher education and home ownership, both of which lead to greater economic security.

For many people, these two items are increasingly out of reach.

Those costs have zoomed past most people's income growth. Increasingly, Canadians have been pursuing these two dreams with ever-growing piles of debt. You don't need to work at the Bank of Canada to know that current levels of household debt offer a precarious foundation for sustained growth.

No matter your political leanings, most people understand that endless concentration of income, wealth and power is bad for the economy. After all, businesses rely on rising purchasing power of the many, not the few, to deliver growth and profits.

In 2001, a study by the International Monetary Fund found that:

...when growth is looked at over the long term, the trade-off between efficiency and equality may not exist. In fact, equality appears to be an important ingredient in promoting and sustaining growth.

This comes at a time when inequality is rising in Canada.

Budget 2013 does nothing to address the record levels of household debt or the rise in inequality. Instead the Conservative government has remained focused on an austerity agenda that has made major cuts to the services families rely on.

Putting people to work is clearly the best way to reduce our deficit. There is no need to reinvent or to privatize public services, no need to trample on economic and labour rights, no need to sacrifice equality in the name of efficiency.

New Democrats know that investing in education and infrastructure, making life more affordable and supporting our small and medium-sized businesses in creating high-quality, high-paying jobs is the real solution to our deficit.

Canadians are counting on us to provide leadership and to bring forward ideas and proposals that put the public interest first. New Democrats have tried to make this point time and time again. The Conservatives just do not seem to be getting it, so let me be clear: we do not want a budget that pushes aside the concerns of first nations groups and pushes stubbornly ahead without real consultation.

We do not want a budget that attempts to balance the books by downloading costs onto struggling families, provinces and municipalities.

We do not want a budget that fails to account for the long term and leaves the next generation further behind than the last.

We do not want a budget that fails to move Canada forward in a 21st century economy and leaves a huge environmental debt for our children and grandchildren.

We do not want a budget that not only ignores the concerns of Canadians but will also actually make it harder for families to make ends meet.

New Democrats will continue to stand up and hold the government accountable in the interest of all Canadians. We do not support the Conservative budget of 2013 or its implementation bills unless they are revised to address the real priorities of Canadian families and unless the government starts providing real leadership for this country.

With that, I seek unanimous consent to move the following motion: that notwithstanding any order or usual practice of the House, that Bill C-60, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures, be amended by removing the following clauses: (a) clauses 136 to 154, related to the Investment Canada Act; (b) clauses 161 to 166, related to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the temporary foreign worker program; (c) clauses 174 to 199, related to the proposed department of foreign affairs, trade and development act; (d) clauses 213 to 224, related to the National Capital Act and the Department of Canadian Heritage Act; (e) clauses 228 to 232, related to the Financial Administration Act and collective bargaining between crown corporations and their employees;

that the clauses mentioned in section (a) of this motion do form Bill C-61; that Bill C-61 be deemed read a first time and be printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology; that the clauses mentioned in section (b) of this motion do form Bill C-62; that Bill C-62 be deemed read a first time and be printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities; that the clauses mentioned in section (c) of this motion do form Bill C-63; that Bill C-63 be deemed read a first time and be printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development (FAAE);

that the clauses mentioned in section (d) of this motion do compose Bill C-64, that Bill C-64 be deemed read a first time and be printed, and that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Heritage; that the clauses mentioned in section (e) of this motion do compose Bill C-65, that Bill C-65 be deemed read a first time and be printed, and that the order for the second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates; that Bill C-60 retain the status on the order paper that it had prior to the adoption of this order and that Bill C-60 be reprinted as amended; and that the law clerk and the parliamentary counsel be authorized to make any technical changes or corrections as may be necessary to give effect to this motion.

In proposing this motion, we are attempting to allow for proper study of some very complex clauses of this bill, rather than have them all merge together in one large bill for study at the finance committee. We believe that the sections that pertain to industry should be studied at the industry committee, which can invite witnesses and actually hear testimony, and similarly for the foreign affairs committee, et cetera.

That is the rationale for introducing this motion.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Does the hon. member for Parkdale—High Park have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

There is no consent.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Edmonton Centre.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we all listened with interest to our colleague's comments. Before I get to a question, I want to mention something that I think she misstated.

She talked about many things in this bill that are unrelated to the budget. I do not always agree with the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, but I know her to be extremely thorough. She mentioned in a question today in question period that everything in this bill is in fact related to items in the budget, so I would take exception to that misrepresentation.

I want to ask the member a more specific question about the forecasts by the minister widely acknowledged to be world's finest finance minister with respect to growth forecasts.

He says it is 1.6% and the IMF says it is 1.5%—close enough—for 2013, but that puts us well above the average for all advanced economies. We do not operate in a vacuum. We are about even with Japan. The only one we are behind in that group is the United States, which is clearly coming from much lower to start with. In 2014, it is the same story. We are behind only the U.S. and we are above the average in the advanced economies.

Would my hon. colleague admit that there is perhaps some context that could be put around the numbers, rather than just simply picking a number and saying that number is not good enough?

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me clarify.

In my remarks, I did not reference whether anything in this bill had or had not been included in the budget bill, although those of us who were at the technical briefing found that in fact there are things that were not mentioned in the budget bill. What I said is that there are many things in this bill that should be studied by other committees: foreign affairs, industry, government operations. That is what I was talking about.

However, let me clarify. The Minister of Finance has been far wide of his economic projections. He has been off by 35%. Every time he says the measures he brings in are going to make things better, lo and behold, the economy slows down even further. That is the kind of economic management the government provides. If people in Canada want to see what better economic management is like, the New Democrats are ready to take office in 2015.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with what my colleague from Parkdale—High Park said about this government's fiscal incompetence.

Unless it manages to balance the budget, in 2015 we will have our eighth consecutive deficit with this government. The Conservatives only balanced the budget in 2006 and 2007 because they inherited a big surplus that we, the Liberals, left them. Before that, the last time a Conservative government balanced a budget was in 1912. These people do not know how to manage an economy.

My colleague from Parkdale—High Park said that measures were urgently needed to meet the needs of families.

What specific measures would address these needs?

I agree with her, but I would like to hear specifics.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will take this opportunity to point out that if we look at all provincial and federal budgets across the country, in fact we see that it is the New Democratic Party that has the best fiscal record and the best record of balancing budgets right across Canada. Members do not have to believe me. If they would like to do their homework, they can check the record.

I will tell members what we will not do. We will not be like the Conservative government and lose over $3 billion of taxpayer money, as the Auditor General pointed out this week. We will not increase taxes on thousands of consumer goods that will make life more difficult for Canadians right across the country. We will not slow the economy, increase unemployment and throw people into precarious, uncertain jobs. That is what we will not do.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague, the official opposition's finance critic, on her excellent speech that gets to the heart of our concerns about budget 2013 and Bill C-60, which we are currently examining.

A lot of figures have been thrown around. We know that the International Monetary Fund lowered its projections for Canada's economic growth to 1.5%. That is 0.3% lower than the previous projection, which is a significant amount, considering the slow economic growth we are currently experiencing.

The OECD says that in terms of economic growth among G7 countries, Canada will not only be behind Japan and the United States, but it will also be below the G7 average. The reason is simple. Budget 2013, like budget 2012, is an austerity budget. As the Parliamentary Budget Officer and most economists agree, austerity budgets do nothing to increase growth. On the contrary, they limit economic growth.

Does my colleague from Parkdale—High Park think that budget 2013 and the measures in Bill C-60 will promote or limit economic growth?

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. I would like to thank my colleague.

The austerity measures set out in budget 2013, like those in budget 2012, will make the economic situation worse and will slow down our economy. Instead of creating good jobs for Canadians who need them, these measures will increase unemployment and job insecurity throughout Canada.

We need the opposite of what this government is doing.

[Bruce Hyer, Independent, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Parkdale—High Park is always well-researched, well-spoken and logical. I thank her for her recent topic.

I wonder if she heard my statement today at the beginning of statements by members. Mr. Stern of the London School of Economics has said that Canada is facing a huge carbon bubble with the risk that if we continue to export huge volumes of fossil fuels and do not diversify our petro-economy, at some point the bubble is going to burst, and it will cost us thousands of jobs and huge amounts of economic benefit to Canada.

Would she like to comment on that, particularly given that her leader has made very valid comments about how rushing the huge volume of oil into other countries has put our loonie and our economy at risk in other ways?

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's sincere passion about the environment. Clearly in the New Democratic Party we share that passion. We understand that in a 21st century economy we want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and we understand that we need to leave our environment in better shape for our children and grandchildren than the situation in which we found it.

As in many other countries around the world, priorities for Canadians need to be energy efficiency, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and developing the new technology for the kinds of energy-efficient industries that will be needed around the world. Canada needs to be a leader, not a laggard as we are now under the Conservatives.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the NDP economic model is Greece and, if ever implemented, Greek results would occur.

This government is a prudent government. We live within our means and we have a public policy that creates wealth. All those members say is “spend, spend, spend”, and their name should really be the “spend-DP”.

Does the member think a country can spend itself rich? I doubt it.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I find the member's comments a little surprising. I know he has a sense of humour, so perhaps he is saying that with his tongue in his cheek. I am not sure.

Again, I would encourage the member to check the record. The NDP has the best record for balanced budgets of any party in Canada.

One thing I do know is that we cannot austerity our way to prosperity. The more we cut, the more we slow the economy. In case he has not noticed, our economy is almost at a stalling point now, so the Conservatives putting their foot on the brake is not exactly what we need. We need prudent management, but we need strategic investments that create jobs.

We do not need to lose another $3 billion that the Conservatives cannot find. They have lost $3 billion of taxpayer money.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, The Environment; the hon. member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, Employment Insurance; and the hon. member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges, Ethics.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, today we are dealing with Bill C-60, the first Conservative omnibus bill following its 2013 budget. It is a bit less abusive than Bill C-38 and Bill C-45 from last year, but it is still an omnibus measure, lumping together various unrelated matters. By my count, at least 18 different government portfolios are implicated.

At the end of the day, the government will force a single vote on all of that all at once. That renders the vote so meaningless, because it cuts across so many unrelated disciplines. Again, democracy is compromised in the process.

There are some items for sure in Bill C-60 which people could generally support: better allowances for veterans, for example; dealing with the adoption tax credit; more incentives for charitable giving; the extension of capital cost allowance; and additions to the gas tax transfer.

However, these positive things are intermingled, unfortunately, with many very negative measures, especially large tax increases that will hit and hurt middle-class Canadians in particular, and we cannot and we will not support those negative measures.

Budget 2013 is crafted to feed several false illusions. The first of those is the mythical notion that the Conservatives are the competent economic managers that they claim to be, but let us look at the facts.

When they took office in 2006, they inherited from their Liberal predecessors 10 straight years of balanced budgets, an annual surplus that was running at the rate of $13 billion every year, lower debt, lower taxes, low and stable interest rates, a sound and solid Canada pension plan, steadily dropping employment insurance premiums, annual economic growth rates of 3% or better, the best banking system in the world, the best ever transfer payments to provinces and territories, progressive investments in child care, skills and learning, science and innovation, environmental integrity, infrastructure, trade and three and a half million net new jobs. That is what the Conservatives inherited. That is what was handed to them as a starting point in 2006.

Just as an interesting historical sidebar, before the Conservatives inherited 10 years of Liberal balanced budgets and robust surpluses, the last time a Conservative government actually balanced a budget for Canada was 101 years ago in 1912. The prime minister at the time was Robert Borden, originally a school teacher, as a matter of historical fact. He, too, inherited his surplus from a Liberal predecessor, namely Sir Wilfrid Laurier, but sadly, he managed to maintain it for only one year before dropping into deficit.

The current Conservative government has behaved in a similar manner through excessive spending and reckless budgeting. Between 2006 and 2008, they put Canada back into the red again before, not because of, the recession, which hit in the latter part of 2008, and they have not balanced the books every since.

In budget 2013, the Conservatives claim they will eliminate the deficit hocus-pocus by 2015. Is that not convenient? Just on the eve of the next federal election they are projecting a balanced budget. A close look at their financial plans provides ample reason to be just a little bit suspicious. Here are some of the fiscal tricks.

First, they use rosy growth estimates. To puff up government revenues, the Conservatives have based their fiscal planning on optimistic projections about economic growth. They ignore the reality that in years just passed, their numbers have never ever been correct. Time and time again, their initial forecast has had to be downgraded, as both the International Monetary Fund and the Bank of Canada have just done once again in this last month.

Second, they use deficient reserves. To create the illusion of more financial flexibility and strength than they really have, the Conservatives have lowballed the reserves that should be in place to serve as fiscal shock absorbers for Canadians against unpleasant future economic surprises. The amounts set aside should grow in the outer years because the risk is larger in the outer years, but the Conservative government has foolishly flatlined its reserves going forward, meaning it is not protecting adequately against future risk.

Third, they use exaggerated lapses. When a government department does not use all the budget in any given year that is given to it, the excess money naturally lapses back to the central treasury. The Conservatives in their budget are counting on very large lapses over the next several years. In fact, that is worked right into their arithmetic. In other words, they are planning to make big announcements of big new spending plans but never actually investing the money.

Fourth, they use excessive optimism about catching those tax cheats. While cracking down on those who do not pay their rightful taxes is an absolute necessity, the Conservatives claim of a balanced budget depends heavily on quickly collecting billions in unpaid taxes, and that seems highly improbable at a time when they are chopping the resources needed in the revenue department to go after those tax cheaters.

Fifth, they use big program cuts. For big programs like infrastructure, the government claims to be increasing its investment, but any hypothetical increase would actually occur only years down the road, beyond the mandate of this Parliament, sometime in the latter part of this decade, conveniently well after 2015. It is a trick that is called multi-year bundling and back-end loading. When the government has nothing to announce, it rolls a bunch of years together and pretends it is going to spend money five or ten years down the road while it actually cuts in the short term. That is happening here. In reality, the build Canada infrastructure budget has been cut by $1.5 billion this year, $1.5 billion next year and $1 billion in the year after that. Any hypothetical increase is only well after 2015.

Sixth, they are claiming before proving. Using all of the tricks that I have just mentioned to concoct the false notion of a balanced budget by 2015, the Conservatives will claim that they have met their fiscal objective just before they call an election and, importantly, before proof to the contrary can become available. In the normal financial cycle, the audit report on the government's books for 2015 will not get published until much later, that is well into 2016, long after any election has come and gone. So much for the Conservative illusion of fiscal and economic competence.

Their second illusion is that they really care about jobs and job training and they boast about their proposed new jobs grant. The Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development mentions it in the House almost every day, but again it is fiction. It is spin. It is make-believe. It does not exist.

What exists are labour market agreements, and they have existed since the late 1990s. They are job training agreements between the Government of Canada and all the provinces. The latest versions of these labour market agreements were negotiated about five years ago, and they are worth now about $2.5 billion all together. Federal money is regularly transferred every year by the Government of Canada to the provinces. The provinces use those funds to tailor job training and labour market programs and services that suit their local circumstances. The provinces are in charge of the design. That is what exists now.

The Conservative government wanted to appear to be doing something about skills and jobs in the 2013 budget. People without jobs and jobs without people is one of Canada's biggest economic problems at the present time. The government wanted to look as if it were aware of that and doing something about it.

However, the government was not prepared to invest any new money to try and make an actual difference in terms of job training. What it did do was create an illusion of action and the fiction it was doing something about jobs and training. What it is basically proposing to do is claw back the $2.5 billion per year labour market money that it now sends to the provinces and renegotiate it with provincial governments. That is all. It amounts to recycling existing money. There is nothing more. There is nothing new. There is no additional federal investment.

The provinces will need to contribute more and so will the private sector. That may actually serve to reduce the extent of job training in some sectors and some provinces, because some of those other partners, the provinces or the private sector, may not be able to match the federal dollars. Even the provincial treasurer in Alberta has made the comment that he does not know whether Alberta would want to participate in that kind of initiative.

The bottom line here is that there is no new money and no additional federal investment in training. It is an illusion to try to create the impression that something new is happening when it is not. That is tragic, especially for young Canadians looking for some hope and opportunity.

Here are the numbers. More than 212,000 fewer young Canadians are working today than just before the recession began in 2008. The youth unemployment rate is a very stubborn 14.2%. That is nearly twice the rate for other Canadians. The actual number is 404,000 jobless young people. Worse still, another 171,000 have simply given up and dropped out of the labour market altogether. The government and the budget do nothing but shuffle the deck chairs on the Titanic. It is simply not good enough.

Another fiction, the third one, is the government's bogus claim that is does not increase taxes. That assertion is completely false, and that is one of the key reasons we cannot support Bill C-60. It increases taxes, especially the tax burden of middle-class Canadians and all those who are working so hard to join the middle class. It happens in dozens of nefarious ways. New hidden Conservative taxes on safety deposit boxes total $40 million a year. On certain medical services, it is $2 million a year. New Conservative taxes on credit unions amount to $75 million a year. It goes on.

However, there are three hidden Conservative tax hikes that hit especially hard at the middle class. They are taxes on small business dividends, taxes on payrolls and taxes on imported consumer goods.

First, the Conservative small business tax, a new tax burden on small businesses, will absorb $550 million every year, taking it from small businesses and hurting the middle class.

The second new Conservative tax is the EI payroll tax, which will suck up $600 million every year in higher EI premiums, again hurting the middle class. By contrast, facing a job challenge in the 1990s, a Liberal government did not increase EI payroll taxes. We in fact cut them. We cut them 12 consecutive times and we cut them by 40%. Employers and employees saved billions of dollars and 3.5 million net new jobs were generated. The Conservative government's record is the opposite of that.

Finally, the third tax increase that we object to is the new Conservative increase of tariff taxes, taxes on imports, which will take about $333 million every year from middle-class Canadians.

The cost of vacuum cleaners will go up by 5%. Bicycles will go up by 4.5%. Baby carriages will go up by 3%. Plastic school supplies will go up by 3.5%. Scissors will go up by 11%. Ovens, cooking stoves and ranges will go up by 3%. For coffee makers, the cost will increase by 4%. On wigs, especially cosmetic wigs for cancer patients, the cost will go up by a whopping 15.5%. The cost of USB drives will go up by 6%. On blankets, the cost will go up by 5%. On toothbrushes, the cost will go up by 2%. On pillows, the cost will go up by 6%. On alarm clocks, the cost will go up by 6%. There are dozens and dozens of imported products.

The government's excuse for this is that it only wants to provide these higher tariffs in order to give a benefit to a lower-income country overseas. However, the reality is, when we put on these tariff increases, the country overseas does not levy the tax and does not pay the tax. The tax is levied in Canada and it is paid by Canadians. The burden is on average middle-income Canadian families. This is a self-inflicted cost burden in Canada, which is why we cannot support it.

When all of these measures I mentioned are fully implemented, as well as some other taxes that are buried in this legislation, the burden will add up to more than $2 billion per year in new Conservative taxes that are being levied on Canadians. The largest portion of that burden will fall squarely on the backs of middle-class families.

For substantive reasons of public policy today, we will not vote for these measures. Also, because the government is trying to hide these new taxes and deny them, we cannot sanction such deceit. Liberals oppose Bill C-60.

Therefore, I move, seconded by the member for Westmount—Ville-Marie:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:

the House decline to give second reading to Bill C-60, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures (Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1), because it:

A) raises taxes on middle class Canadians in order to pay for the Conservatives' wasteful spending;

B) fails to reverse the government's decision to raise tariffs on items such as baby carriages, bicycles, household water heaters, space heaters, school supplies, ovens, coffee makers, wigs for cancer patients, and blankets;

C) raises taxes on small business owners by $2.3 billion over the next 5 years, directly hurting 750,000 Canadians and risking Canadian jobs;

D) raises taxes on credit unions by $75 million per year, which is an attack on rural Canadians and Canada's rural economy;

E) adds GST/HST to certain healthcare services, including medical work that victims of crime need to establish their case in court;

F) fails to provide a youth employment strategy to help struggling young Canadians find work; and

G) ignores the pressing requirements of aboriginal peoples.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member for Wascana's speech, and I must say that we share the same concerns about budget 2013 and Bill C-60.

He spoke about some of the proposals in the budget, including the tax hike that the official opposition has spoken out against.

There are two measures that I would like my colleague to comment on. One of them is not included in Bill C-60, but is included in budget 2013, while the other is included in Bill C-60.

I would also like to know the third party's position on the elimination of the tax credit for additional deductions for credit unions and for caisses populaires in Quebec. This actually constitutes a tax hike since an existing tax deduction is being eliminated.

The tax credit that is not being eliminated in Bill C-60, will likely be eliminated in the next bill, since it was announced in the budget. I am talking about the elimination of the tax credit for investors—including small investors—in labour sponsored venture capital funds over a period of five years.

I would like to know the position of the third party, that is the Liberal Party, on these two measures. I would like to remind hon. members that one of these measures was announced in the budget while the other is included in Bill C-60.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I did make reference to the credit union issue during my remarks, and it is explicitly referred to in the amendment that is now before the House. Obviously, we think the tax changes with respect to credit unions are regressive. We think they are a mistake.

Credit unions have long performed an absolutely fundamental service in the financial services sector of our country. Probably the extension of credit unions is most successful in his province and mine. Quebec and Saskatchewan have a long heritage with respect to credit unions and the co-operative movement generally. We oppose the tax changes in Bill C-60 with respect to credit unions.

As for labour sponsored venture capital funds, there has long been a consensus in the House that those funds need review and revisiting. The government indicated that it was going to do something with respect to venture capital in the budget speech itself. Until we see exactly what it is proposing, how it is structured and how it is worded, I am not sure we could actually pass an opinion on the detail of what the government seeks to accomplish. There needs to be some reform, but I am not sure I am comfortable having the reform in the hands of this particular government.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's proposal. I am not sure if he read the budget and looked at what we are doing in relation to Canada's skills grants, in relation to the accelerated capital cost allowance for Canadian manufacturers and in regard to the Canadian Youth Business Foundation. We are investing $8 million in youth to make sure they receive proper advice for their start-ups and inspiration for the future. In addition, Indspire is receiving $5 million from 2013-14 for first nation and Inuit post-secondary education.

I am not sure if he heard that or read that in the budget, but I would encourage him to do so to see exactly what this government is doing and how we are helping Canadians and not sticking up for the banks, as the Liberal Party usually does. In this particular case, it is credit unions. The reality is that we all have to pay our fair share, credit unions as well.

I am wondering if this is actually a move by the Liberals to deflect from the tremendous amount of investment in infrastructure this government has made over the past six years and the tremendous amount of infrastructure in which we are investing in the current budget. Of course, they cut $25 billion in social transfers to the provinces. Is that what this is really all about? Is it about changing the channel from the cuts by the Liberal government in the nineties?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the positive measures the hon. gentlemen referred to in the opening of his question, such as the accelerated capital cost allowance and so forth, as I said at the opening of my speech, some things in Bill C-60 are positive. I specifically mentioned the capital cost allowance and two or three other things he referred to just now.

The problem is that amid all those things that might be considered positive are interwoven all the negative things the government is trying to bootleg in through this omnibus bill. If those positive measures the gentleman referred to were stand-alone items on which there could be clear votes, yes or no, indeed, the Liberal Party would support a great many of them. However, they are not stand-alone measures. They are mixed in with $2 billion worth of new Conservative tax increases on the Canadian middle class, and we will not vote for those tax increases that will burden Canadians and set back the Canadian economy.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the effort by the Conservative Party to deflect away from all of these taxes, on the eve of the budget, is quite egregious. It leaves people with the impression that the cost of helmets is going to go down and hides the fact that there are billions of dollars hidden in this budget. I thank the member for Wascana for bringing this to our attention.

I contacted a bike retailer in Guelph. He told me that if we had bikes made in Canada in the $400-$500 range, then he could go to the manufacturer and get those bikes and sell them, but we do not have bikes made in that price range, so we have to bring these bikes in from the very countries in which these tariffs have gone up.

I am wondering if the member for Wascana could talk to Parliament about the fact that when we do not have manufacturers in Canada to replace all those products on which there is a tax, they will come in, and we will pay higher prices.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly correct. The most graphic demonstration of that was the bicycle shop owner here in Ottawa whose shop was used a year ago as a prop for a Conservative photo opportunity. The Minister of Finance had something to say about small business, and he used this bicycle shop owner's store as the backdrop for his announcement. That was about a year ago.

This year, that same bicycle shop owner has discovered that he is a victim of these tariff changes in Bill C-60. In fact, the bicycles he sells to his customers will all be going up by 4.5%. Therefore, there is an added cost to him, which he will pass along to his customers, and those customers will have to pay that extra cost, or they might just drive across the border and do their bicycle shopping in the United States. Either way, small business and Canada are the net losers.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I must confess, I am a little dismayed by what the hon. member for Wascana said in his speech.

After all, that member was part of the Liberal government that dumped a huge load of debt onto to provinces in the mid-1990s.

When it comes to co-operation and discussing federal policies with the provinces, any member of that Liberal government has no lessons to give. It is rather troubling.

It is so unfortunate that Canada's provinces had to pay such a high price to join the Canadian federation at the time.

How can my colleague justify what was done at the time, and who is still suffering the consequences today?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, at that time, Canada's debt ratio was in excess of 70%. In other words, the size of the federal debt was in fact 70% of Canada's entire GDP. The IMF was knocking on the door, just as they are doing today in a number of European countries. The IMF was knocking on Canada's door back in the 1990s, and it required significant action.

The changes in transfer payments made at that time were, in fact, temporary. By the time of the budget in 2002, the level of transfer payments to the provinces had been entirely restored, and they went on to all-time record levels with the changes made to equalization and the changes made to the health transfer in the budgets of 2004 and 2005. I am proud to say that I was the finance minister at that time who took those federal transfer payments to the highest level ever in history, up to that point in time.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time this afternoon with the member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in support of our Conservative government's economic action plan 2013, as implemented through Bill C-60, the economic action plan 2013 act no. 1. This is a positive plan that would continue Canada's momentum in creating jobs, growth and long-term prosperity. Many of the measures in Bill C-60 are aimed at strengthening our economy and ensuring a prosperous future for all Canadians.

However, our government also understands that a successful society also includes the capacity to respond to the needs of all Canadians, including the most vulnerable. That is why I am proud that our government is working so hard to support the charitable sector.

Charities play an important role in our communities. It is vital that we celebrate and support this excellent work. I have to say that I am constantly impressed by the remarkable work that all charities are doing, and I would like to commend them, especially their volunteers, for their commitment to improving the lives of others and contributing to our high quality of life.

In my riding of Kitchener—Waterloo, I have witnessed the collaboration and the commitment of our charities and volunteers who are determined to make a difference in our community. This has inspired me to focus many of my efforts on supporting the charitable sector. As a member of Parliament, I have been actively engaged and involved in advocating for charities, raising awareness of the important work they do in our communities and serving as their voice in Parliament.

In 2010, I tabled a motion in the House of Commons that triggered a finance committee study that reviewed the current tax system and considered changes that could motivate increased giving. By all accounts, this was a very worthwhile exercise. It brought together charitable organizations, experts and stakeholders, and generated a very comprehensive discussion about the challenges and opportunities faced by the sector. I would like to thank the finance committee members for their excellent work, as well as the witnesses who contributed their expertise and their suggestions.

The committee's report, tabled in the House last February, proposed several recommendations aimed at creating positive change in the sector, with a focus on tax incentives, transparency, reducing red tape for charitable organizations, and, of course, increasing public awareness.

Now with Bill C-60, our government is responding to the report's recommendations with the creation of the first-time donors super credit. This innovative new measure would increase the value of the charitable donations tax credit by 25% on eligible cash donations of up to $1,000 in any one taxation year if neither the taxpayer nor their spouse have claimed the credit since 2007.

This is a creative response to the challenge of growing the donor base in Canada, an issue that was brought forward during the committee study. The committee heard that there was a need to foster and promote a culture of giving and that tax incentives can play a role, both in increasing the number of new donors and in encouraging existing donors to give more. Studies have shown that 25% of donors provide almost 85% of all charitable donations. In other words, charities find themselves relying on a smaller number of people to make large gifts. Furthermore, the level of donations increases with age, and older Canadians tend to give more.

That is why I believe the first-time donors super credit would create new opportunities for supporting charities. It would significantly enhance the attractiveness of donating to a charity for young Canadians who are in a position to make donations for the first time, creating an immediate positive impact on the sector.

In fact, a survey recently conducted by BMO Harris Private Banking found that this initiative would go a long way toward achieving these objectives. Quoting from its press release, the survey found that nearly 70% of Canadians support the first-time donors super credit introduced in the federal budget. It goes on to say that 93% of Canadians feel the new credit would encourage more charitable giving or maintain current levels of support. Fifty per cent of young Canadians aged 18 to 34 said they would strongly consider contributing more to charities because of this new credit.

The charitable sector is also enthusiastic about this new initiative that will help to rejuvenate its donor base and encourage increased charitable giving. Imagine Canada, which had a proposal for a stretch tax credit, received a favourable response in the finance committee report subject to balancing the budget. It applauded the new super credit as a step in the right direction. It said in a press release, “This is a significant investment in our communities at a time of ongoing restraint”. This immediate and positive reaction is very encouraging, and it shows that a small change has the potential to make a big impact.

I also believe that the first-time donor super credit will provide an opportunity for charities to foster effective relationships between charities and a new generation of donors. By engaging young people and demonstrating the difference that their contributions can make in our communities, we will build a core of lifelong donors and enhance the long-term sustainability of our important charitable sector. This new initiative would also help to raise awareness of the tax benefits of donating to charities, which as I mentioned earlier was one of the core recommendations of the finance committee report.

This is already happening throughout Canada's charitable sector. In fact, I have seen a number of charities that are already highlighting the new super credit in their website communications for their fundraising campaigns in an effort to engage young people and first-time donors. This includes SicksKids Foundation, Easter Seals, and a number of smaller charities that are seizing the opportunity to inform their potential donors about the tax credits to which they may be entitled. All of these efforts are aimed at the overarching goal of long-term sustainability for the charitable sector.

Our government has a strong record of taking action to support our charities, and since 2006 we have been steadily increasing the generosity of the charitable donations tax incentive. Budget 2006 introduced a complete exemption on the capital gains tax associated with the donation of publicly listed securities to public charities. It also extended the exemption of donations of ecologically sensitive land to public conservation charities. Budget 2007 extended the exemption for donations of publicly listed securities to private foundations. Budget 2010 further reformed the disbursement quota rules for charities, reducing administrative complexity to better enable charities to focus their time and resources on charitable activities.

As the member of Parliament for Kitchener—Waterloo, I have been personally focusing many of my efforts on advocating for our charities with my first private member's motion that initiated the important charity study, and more recently my private member's bill, Bill C-458, which proposes to extend the tax deadline for charitable donations.

In conclusion, I am extremely pleased that our government is taking concrete action to support and sustain charitable organizations. As a result, I encourage all members to support all the important measures in Bill C-60, including the first-time donors tax credit that will benefit charities, donors and our society as a whole.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the nefarious way in which the government has increased taxes is really inexcusable. It puts these tariffs on items such as bikes, school supplies, appliances, and wigs, particularly wigs for cancer patients, and it does it on things that are not manufactured in Canada. Therefore, local retailers cannot go to manufacturers in Canada and replace those items to sell to Canadians, those items that will now have this high tariff on them. In that way the tariff is going to come into Canada and trickle right down to the consumer. The government has increased taxes.

I know what the member is going to say. He is going to say there is no party in Canadian history that has decreased taxes like his party. However, the fact is that the Conservatives give with one hand and then they took all of it away today with this budget bill. I want the member to stand and tell Canadians why they feel compelled to raise taxes on the people who can least afford it, the working and middle class. Why have they raised taxes on them now?

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the only nefariousness seems to be coming from the member for Guelph. I might also add that he had part of his question right, that no other government in history has reduced taxes like this Conservative government.

The average Canadian family of four now pays $3,200 less in taxes. We have reduced the GST. We have reduced hundreds of millions of dollars of tariffs. At the same time, it is important that the tax system be fair, that it be consistently applied and that individuals and companies play by the rules.

Finally, the general preferential tariff was first created in 1974. I was 10 years old. The world has changed since then. Countries like China and South Korea and Brazil are no longer developing third world countries.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague across the way from Guelph did mention manufacturing. I know my colleague has a strong manufacturing base in his community, and in this budget we have support for manufacturers. The shameful thing is that the Liberals and the New Democrats say they are going to be voting against this budget, which contains so many good things for manufacturers that are the engine of our economy in Ontario.

We have seen that the Liberal provincial government has put in all kinds of policies to drive manufacturers out of Ontario, including the insane energy program that it put in.

Why does my colleague think the New Democrats and the Liberals have turned their backs on manufacturing? Why does he think they can stand in the House and say they are supportive of all these great union jobs in manufacturing, yet they are going to stand up in this House and vote against all the support our government gave for manufacturers, not only in this budget but also in our previous budget?

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely correct. The manufacturing sector is still a very important part of our national economy. Even for a community like mine, Kitchener-Waterloo, which is so innovation-based, the manufacturing and advanced manufacturing sectors still represent almost 25% of our local economy. Economic action plan 2013 would deliver for our manufacturers in Kitchener-Waterloo and across Canada.

We would extend the capital cost allowance. The Canada job grant would assist manufacturers as well. With the renewal of FedDev Ontario, which is so important for southern Ontario and communities like Kitchener-Waterloo, we would see an advanced manufacturing fund. The initiatives we would take through budget 2013 would continue to support our important manufacturing sector in southwestern Ontario and across the country.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to talk a little bit about what I think is a great budget, economic action plan 2013.

Clearly, we can see the difference between the political parties in this House. On this side of the House are the Conservatives, who stand up for the Canadian economy, which ultimately means more and better jobs for Canadians.

On the other side, they stand up for banks, Chinese manufacturers of bikes and other manufacturers from other countries. Instead of supporting local manufacturing, they stand up to support Chinese manufacturers. It seems absolutely absurd, and frankly, Canadians will punish them at the next opportunity they have.

Let us talk about the positive things in the budget that we are bringing in to promote a stronger economy and to make sure that Canadians have a far stronger and better quality of life.

First, in my part of the country, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, we have problems filling jobs. We cannot find enough people to do the jobs we have. It does not matter whether it is in a car wash sector, a Tim Hortons or even lawyers or doctors; we cannot find enough people to fill the jobs, and we have the highest household income in the country. That is right: $185,000 is the average household income in my city of Fort McMurray.

One of the things I really like is the Canada job grant. This is to help align individual skills with high-demand jobs. It is a $15,000 amount in a tripartite fashion, with the provinces, the federal government and employers working together to find people to fill the jobs. What could be more important than that? This is a very positive initiative. It makes sure we do not just give a handout but a hand up, and we do so in a way whereby every level of government is working together with employers to do exactly that.

Another thing I really like is directing the gas tax fund payments to build a job-creating infrastructure throughout Canada. This is very important. When we came to office, as I am sure we heard from many people and as we have seen in the streets of our country, we had a $123 billion deficit in infrastructure. It takes time to catch up, so in our budget we brought in one of the largest infrastructure investments in Canada's history, $33 billion.

We heard clearly from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and right across the country that these were great initiatives for ensuring that Canada's quality of life continued to be the greatest in the world by ensuring that potholes were filled, by ensuring we had new roads and less congestion on our roadways, by ensuring we had water and waste water infrastructure. We are doing exactly that in this budget. We are doing so in collaboration with other parties: with the provinces, with the territories, with municipalities and now with employers.

We are also amending the temporary foreign workers program. On one side we cannot get enough employees in Fort McMurray for many of the jobs there, especially in the service sector. Those people in the service sector make a better quality of life for the people in the higher-paying jobs with that $185,000 average household income. However, clearly everybody in the House would agree that there has been some form of misuse of the program. That cannot be put up with. Clearly, our Prime Minister has laid out a plan, a strategy, to ensure that employers cannot do that any more.

There is always a need for tweaks. There is always a need for some changes in legislation to make sure that it would be unacceptable for people, companies or employers to take advantage of the system to the detriment of the Canadian economy and Canadians as a whole.

In this particular case, I have heard from union and non-union members throughout my constituency that they clearly want some changes to the temporary foreign worker program. We are here for Canadians, and Canadians should have first crack at any job they want, no matter what part of the country they are from.

We have also extended the accelerated capital cost allowance for two years to create new investments for Canadian manufacturers. This means that companies will buy equipment, and we hope it will be Canadian equipment. Somebody will then need to make sure the equipment works, so we will have to train people. Those will be Canadian jobs. Then employers will have to make sure they have people to operate the machinery.

This is a kick-start to employers to encourage them to go out and buy new machinery. It is a tax advantage for them, in that it defers tax a bit, and it is clearly a financial advantage for them to do so.

All the way down the assembly line of that manufacturing company will be Canadians working for Canadian output. That is an advantage for all Canadian manufacturers. It is an advantage for southwestern Ontario, for Quebec and for other places where the manufacturing sector has been hit. This Conservative government stands up for, and will continue to stand up for, the manufacturing sector in this country.

We are also doing some other interesting things. We are providing $165 million in support for Genome Canada. I know this is a very popular thing in some parts of the country and not so popular in others, because those areas do not know what the company does. This company makes sure that Canadians are on the forefront of research and development. In whatever field, Genome Canada is going to be the first in the world. We heard clearly in the finance committee that Genome Canada is at the forefront of the field, and this government will continue to support that to ensure Canadians have the best jobs through research and development.

We are also worried about youth. Although we have a low unemployment rate, we have a high youth unemployment rate. Compared to the rest of the world, though, it is very low, and we are going to work on youth because we need to fill those jobs. We are going to invest $8 million in the Canadian Youth Business Foundation to provide advice for young entrepreneurs.

As the father of three children in their twenties, I know it is difficult for them to find jobs in some areas, especially in the lower service sector. This will provide advice for people who want to start up new businesses, for people who want to start on an opportunity that they would not have otherwise or would not know how to fulfill. This government sees today's youth as tomorrow's future. We are going to concentrate on the future of Canada through youth, through quality of life and through a strong economy.

We are also providing $5 million in 2013-14 to Indspire, which supports scholarships and bursaries for first nation and Inuit post-secondary education. This program is important in all parts of Canada, but it is especially important for our economy. That is because we have heard in the finance committee that there is a clear correlation between success in aboriginal communities and the resource sector.

That is right. The resource sector is usually found in remote places in northern Canada. Aboriginal communities are usually in the same places. Here is an opportunity to make sure that those people who are the captains of industry are people from those communities, and they should be. Not only should they have first crack at a job, but they should be the people leading this country in that particular area of development.

In the oil sands in Fort McMurray, aboriginal communities are, for the most part, highly successful. They have integrated very well with the industry to create successful aboriginal stories and successful community stories. Fort McKay would be a perfect example. I would suggest it is one of the best success stories in the country as far as aboriginal communities are concerned.

We are also renovating the Investment Canada Act to further clarify foreign state investments in Canada and national security reviews. I have heard that clearly from constituents too. They are concerned about foreign investment. They are concerned about Chinese investment and other countries investing in the oil sands, for instance, or in key industries such as uranium or potash. Canadians want those industries to be owned by Canadians, to be run by Canadians and to have Canadian employees. Canadians are worried about that. They trust us to make sure we do what is best for them.

I do not have a lot of time left, but I want to talk briefly about something that is near and dear to me.

Our government has set record levels on infrastructure investment in this country. I mentioned $33 billion, but that amount is actually $45 billion over that period of time. That is the highest investment by any Canadian government in our history.

People might ask what this does for them. The answer is that it employs them. As well, it makes sure that they have more and better highways and better bridges, and other infrastructure such as social infrastructure. It gives them a better quality of life.

Some of those things include $32.2 billion in the community improvement fund, which will provide stable funding for community infrastructure projects. We have heard from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and from mayors and provinces right across the country that they need to have stable, predictable, long-term funding so they know where they are going to spend money in the future. They need to know when they are going to get it, just as any business does. If we just tell them that every year they are going to get a certain amount and it is a surprise to them, how can they do any long-term planning? It is impossible.

This government is going to make a variety of other infrastructure investments to build on our economic action plan. We are going to make sure we place Canadians first, for Canadians, for the Canadian economy and for the future of Canada.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Fort McMurray—Athabasca for his speech.

Yesterday, at the Standing Committee on Finance, my colleague was forced to acknowledge before experts from the parliamentary budget office that the 900,000 jobs that were supposedly created by this government—at least, that is what it claims—were created naturally and had absolutely nothing to with his government's measures.

However, I would like to bring the discussion around to another subject—namely, the $600 billion accumulated by and tied up in Canadian businesses. That works out to $25,000 per Canadian family, money that is not creating jobs or increasing the competitiveness of businesses.

Why is there not a single measure in BIll C-60 to encourage, if not force businesses to invest some of their cash assets?

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I find that troubling. The PBO did correct that particular statement that the individual brought forward, and indicated clearly that those jobs would not have naturally occurred without the government investing in Canada. It just simply makes sense.

I would like to talk about a few other things that have happened that I am very proud of as well. They include an investment of $1.25 billion for affordable housing that we are bringing forward in this budget. In fact, in the homeless partnership strategy of $600 million, the investment there is to help people move from the streets to shelters, with jobs or with mental health treatment.

Those are things the government is doing. We are making sure that Canadians are going to do better, no matter whether they are on the streets and have health or mental issues that we need to resolve, or whether they need jobs somewhere else in the country. We are going to make sure, no matter where they are from, they are treated fairly and equally. Canadians are the number one priority of government.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Should he wish it, the hon. member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca will have three minutes remaining for questions and comments when the House next returns to debate on the question.

Notice of Time Allocation Motion

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise that an agreement could not been reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-60, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 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 the proceedings at the said stage.

I would like to give the House the courtesy of knowing that I intend to propose that four further days of debate be allotted, which would mean a total of five days of debate for second reading of this very important bill to create jobs and economic growth.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I am sure the House appreciates the notice by the hon. government House leader.

Bill C-60—Time Allocation Motion

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

moved:

That, in relation to Bill C-60, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures, not more than four further sitting days shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the Bill; and

that, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the fourth 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.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

We will now have a 30-minute question and comment period.

The hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not too happy to be here yet again. This government has no respect for Parliament or the process, especially when we have before us a huge bill like this, which will amend almost 60 acts.

It is incredible that with its majority, the government feels some need to constantly inflict time allocation upon Canada's Parliament, and this further breaks the record. The Conservatives seem to have no shame whatsoever that they will be known forevermore as the government that shut down debate more often in Parliament than all other governments in Canadian history, governments that I am sure the Conservatives used to loathe.

I can remember that when the Liberals were in power and used the same measure to shut things down just as debate was getting started, the Conservative members who are now the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs got up in this place from the very seats where I am standing and said it was wrong and inappropriate for the government to use the tactic time and time again. Now with these omnibus bills we see the Conservative government further abusing the systems we have in place to hold the government to account, as all members of Parliament are meant to do.

The Conservatives feel absolutely no shame. If they showed a little shame, it would give some hope. If they stood in their places today to say that they were sorry and that it was unfortunate that they have to keep using these bullying tactics in Parliament, but it is what they have to do because of such and such a situation, it would give some hope. However, that is not the case here.

The Conservatives have grown addicted to this particular tactic, apparently thinking that holding government to account no longer is important, yet we have seen the same government lose $3 billion meant for national security. The Conservatives shrug and say, “Big deal”. Well, it is a big deal to Canadians.

Why can the Conservative government not simply allow Parliament to do its job and allow members of Parliament to do their jobs on behalf of their constituents, instead of using these heavy-handed bullying tactics time and time again?

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from my hon. colleague across the way, but there are a lot of inaccuracies in some of the comments that he made.

This is a very important piece of legislation. This is the blueprint of our government's mandate moving forward, our plan to continue to create jobs, help businesses continue to create jobs, help grow the economy and help the long-term prosperity of this country. We think it is very important that we move this along.

However, the most important factual error that I need to point out is that we are providing five full days of debate before the bill ever goes to committee. As we all know, this is the primary phase, wherein the bill is discussed in the House of Commons and then moves to committee.

We felt that five days was more than adequate. We will then move the bill to committee and, once again, to make sure that we have more than adequate time to debate all of the clauses, the bill will go to more than just the finance committee this year.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

I will ask all members henceforth to limit their questions and comments to approximately one minute.

The hon. member for Wascana.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the timing issue here, obviously it is unfortunate when debate in the House is curtailed by the use of time allocation or closure. That impinges upon the democratic right of members of Parliament to adequately consider matters that are before the House.

I look at the calendar on the table before you, Mr. Speaker, and it properly identifies today as May 2. The budget was presented on March 21. It has been well over a month since the budget was presented and yet the legislation to implement a portion of it has only been put before the House in the last couple of days. It seems a bit unusual for the government to move so expeditiously to bring time allocation to the discussion of the budget when it has had well over a month to put the legislation before the House.

I would like to ask the minister a very specific question. He has said the subject matter will go to a variety of committees; that may be useful. Would he go the further step and make sure that the House has the opportunity to vote on each one of the subject heads separately so that we are not confronted with one omnibus vote at the end of it all where we have to vote on soup to nuts all together at once, thus defeating the principle of proper democratic--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

The hon. Minister of State for Finance.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would point out to my hon. colleague from Wascana that the budget was actually tabled in the House almost 50 days ago. There has been ample discussion in question period about some of the items referred to in the budget. There have been answers to clarify many of those questions, and we know that this place always gives good answers to good questions.

I am not sure which Liberal finance minister's budget it was in 2001, but I would remind that hon. member that in 2001 there was a slightly larger bill than the present budget implementation bill and closure was forced on that. Members had three days in the House of Commons to debate that bill. There was no option for it to go to more committees than just one.

I would suggest that through transparency we are providing more opportunities for politicians to debate the budget implementation bill and more opportunities for witnesses to state their concerns or their support for what is in the budget.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with sadness that I rise today to ask my colleague a question.

As we know, this government has already broken the record for the most time allocation motions in Canadian history. Today again it has introduced a motion to cut the debate short.

On Monday, for the first time, we had an opportunity to see the content of the budget implementation bill. Today is Thursday and we are being told that we have four days left to study a bill that will amend almost 60 different federal laws.

If we do the math, this bill, which is about 100 pages in length, will amend approximately 10 acts a day. We are being asked to read it on a Monday for the first time and vote on it the following Tuesday. Yet this 100-page bill amends 50 pieces of legislation.

How does my colleague suppose that, as parliamentarians, we will be able to fully examine the bill and make informed decisions?

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's question provides me with the opportunity to remind him and other hon. members that this legislation, should it be approved, will go to multiple committees after second reading, where it will be studied and witnesses will come forward and speak to the pieces of legislation that need updating.

Our fundamental role as government is to move forward with the plan that we put forward following the recession, a plan that I would argue has been very successful, especially when it is benchmarked against other countries, many of them in recession. Eight of the seventeen large economies in the European Union are in recession while Canada continues to grow. We continue to grow because we have kept the plan for jobs and growth and the long-term prosperity of this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening attentively to the comments made from all corners of the House. I was particularly impressed by claims on the side of demagoguery made by the opposition House leader when he referred, for instance, to the Minister of Foreign Affairs speaking in the House during the 37th and 38th Parliament. He was not a member of the 39th Parliament. He never sat in opposition in the House.

Then the member made reference to the Auditor General's report and an amount of money having been lost. Well, sorry, the Auditor General never said any such thing and never wrote any such thing.

That is my comment.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for pointing that out. I knew the House leader for the official opposition was probably referring to another minister from that time who sits on the front bench.

However, it does give me an opportunity to remind hon. members that we are being encouraged to get this done as soon as possible. If I have the opportunity, I will go through a litany of supportive quotes from different associations, different industries and businesses across the country.

In fact, just last evening I met an individual who is on the board of Genome Canada. I was not even aware that he was on the board. He thanked us for the contribution to Genome Canada and highlighted some of the incredible work that it has done. He said the sooner we can get that money flowing, the sooner it can get this science to work. His main theme was in the agricultural sector. There have been incredible breakthroughs through Genome Canada, and we need to get this money out as soon as we can to get it working on that.

[Jean-François Larose, NDP, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is cowardly and insulting.

We keep saying that every time they introduce a bill, everything gets lumped in together. This budget, yet again, contains a large number of provisions. Of course we oppose some of them. That stands to reason. Since they do not have the courage of their convictions, they lump everything in together and try to hide things.

Once again, they want to speed up the process and shove this bill down our throats, assuming that we are all idiots. I cannot understand it. Either this is urgent or the government needs therapy.

If this is urgent, is it because there is a zombie invasion? Is it the end of the world? Is that why we need to hurry and cannot take time for debate? If the government needs therapy, honestly, I would be happy to give out hugs.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thought we put the issue of zombies to bed. The Minister of Foreign Affairs, in answering a question one day, actually did put that fear to bed, so I am glad that is not going to happen.

There are a number of items that I would suggest are very urgent. We consulted broadly with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. It thanked us, first of all, for making the gas tax rebate to municipalities permanent. Then it thanked us for the legislation that we put in place so that municipalities could legally put it in their budgets. However, it did say to us that their costs continue to go up with inflation and asked if there was any way they could have that gas tax fund indexed. We went through it and did the number crunching, and it is feasible. We understand the challenges that municipalities are facing, so we indexed the gas tax fund.

We need to get this legislation through so the municipalities have confirmation that they can continue with their infrastructure projects.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate we have time allocation so early in this process because there are some important questions that a more thorough debate would possibly deal with.

Youth employment numbers are actually five points worse than they were five years ago. Young Canadians are looking for work. Students are looking for work. In fact, last summer we saw the worst summer jobs numbers since Stats Canada started tracking those number in the 1970s. It is estimated hundreds of thousands of young Canadians are working in unpaid internships. Why, at a time like this, is there nothing in the budget implementation bill to help young Canadians find opportunities?

There is one measure, the first-time donor—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Order, please. I am limiting questions to one minute. The member will please take his seat.

The hon. Minister of State.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think I understood what the hon. member was getting at, which is the first-time donor's credit.

The hon. member will have heard many witnesses come before the finance committee during its study of charitable giving. He would have heard the challenges of many of the associations that pleaded for more support. The not-for-profit and charitable organizations in this country are feeling the same pinch that many of the companies are. Therefore, we felt this was an appropriate way.

Many young Canadians want to start giving, so this is an opportunity to leverage their charitable giving, which I think is an honourable goal.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is an outrage. I am furious.

This government is asking us to hastily pass the budget. Yet we have learned that there is $29 billion worth of declared, acknowledged tax debt and $11 billion in disputed tax debt, for a total of $40 billion in tax debt. We have no way of knowing how much of that money is going into tax havens. Historically speaking, Statistics Canada carried out that kind of analysis, but it no longer has the budget to do so.

I am outraged because the Conservatives are not asking us to vote on a budget; they are asking us to vote on a sieve. Would it not seem slightly more reasonable to the government member for us look at what we are really spending and what revenue we are missing out on? Could the government be logical or exercise sound management for once?

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to tax havens—or aggressive tax planning, as it is referred to by accountants in a more equitable fashion—we need to make sure that taxes are levied fairly across all Canadians. That is our fundamental principle. Honest, hard-working Canadians pay their taxes, and there should not be those who are able to avoid that, whether internationally through holding companies or whatever it may be. Those are challenges that the Canada Revenue Agency is dealing with. It has had a tremendous success rate using our double taxation agreements with many countries, and we continue to add to that list of countries. The foreign investment promotion protection agreements help us on that as well.

There are items in this budget that will help us crack down on tax avoiders.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about a principle that we hold dear here in the House of Commons, the principle of democracy in action. This government, which was elected in a democratic country, is showing a total lack of respect for democracy and the debates that are needed to ensure that bills are studied by representatives of all Canadians, regardless of their party.

Could the parliamentary secretary tell us what he thinks about the fact that this time allocation motion is not allowing Canadians to benefit from the representation they deserve because it does not allow the budget to be fully examined and understood on their behalf?

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Order, please. The hon. Minister of State has both had a promotion and now a demotion. I think he still remains the Minister of State for Finance.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate that recognition. It is an easy mistake to make because I did fill that role, a role that is covered very ably by our colleague from Saint Boniface, who has handled this file very well.

There are five full days of debate within the House of Commons. Once it moves from this place, it then goes to multiple committees. We are still working on which committees it should go to. That provides an incredible number of hours to debate it.

Rather than standing up and asking process questions, the hon. member had lots of time to ask me a specific question about something that was in the first budget implementation act 1. She chose not to.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for recognizing that I am looking forward to riding my motorcycle this weekend.

On a very serious note, it is quite concerning that we once again see debate being shut down in the House. All of us were elected in the House to represent the voices of our constituents and to debate ideas. In the budget and in the budget implementation bill there are good ideas and bad ideas. In the House is where we are supposed to debate them, both good and bad. It also gives us the opportunity to find things that were done right and done wrong.

Last week, my office went through the budget implementation bill and found an oversight by the government. When it was talking about hockey equipment and the tariffs, it forgot about helmets. By our bringing that forward, the Minister of Finance changed it. Would keeping debate going not allow us to find the errors and the good things in this bill, fix it and make it better for all Canadians?

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I actually thought I was going to get a question about motorcycle helmets, not hockey helmets, but that is fair enough.

We made certain that hockey helmets are exempt protective headgear. Protective headgear was a definitional issue, so we made sure that hockey helmets were part of that. I hope the hon. member did not actually have a copy of the budget implementation bill last week, because it only tabled in the House recently.

There has been plenty of time, and this points out something very important. The hon. member was able to stand in his place and ask questions on that. I would encourage other members to do the same in the four days after today. The best use of their time would be to ask questions about what is actually in budget implementation act 1.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish to support the points that have been made by the House leader of the official opposition and the House leader for the Liberal Party. Limiting debate is always antidemocratic, but I want to raise the particular situation of members of Parliament who, like me, are members of parties that obviously lack 12 members in the House. That would apply to members of the Bloc Québécois and to other independent members as well as to the Green Party.

We do not have the opportunity to sit on committee, and every time debate is limited, we are precluded from any opportunity to speak to the bills. While it is always antidemocratic for every member in the House, it is particularly egregious in the case of members like me, who never have an opportunity to speak for 10 or 20 minutes on the bills that are debated in this place, because there is almost always time allocation.

I would like to ask the junior minister to please reconsider limiting debate, because it is particularly antidemocratic.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, with no disrespect meant to my hon. colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands, she had 30 seconds or perhaps a minute—I was not timing it—to ask me a substantive question about this, to follow the debate, instead of asking what I hear so often from the NDP, a process question. There are a lot of things in this piece of legislation that could be discussed, a lot of positive things that Canadians are waiting for. They are urgently asking us to get this done. I refer to the funding for Genome Canada. Also, the mandate of the Nature Conservancy of Canada will soon expire, and it is looking for the replenishment that we have set out in the bill to help preserve natural lands all across this country. The Nature Conservancy is hoping we get this done as soon as possible.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again, I rise in this House of Commons, because the government is imposing yet another gag order to prevent members from asking the government questions and from holding it to account on a bill that it has introduced in the House.

Let me repeat that this bill is amending dozens of Canadian laws. I must also mention that it is ridiculous that the member opposite is talking about science when the Conservatives have made cuts to science and technology. It is also ridiculous that he is talking about infrastructure, because the Conservatives announced in this budget that they would spend less in that area.

The bill deserves to be debated in the House of Commons, because this budget will slow down the economy at a time when more and more Canadians are looking for jobs.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, ridiculous is a pretty harsh word, but since I am not the first one to use it, what would be ridiculous is to see the opposition vote against $30 million for housing in Nunavut.

That would be ridiculous. The people of Nunavut need new housing. With the issues up there with property ownership, with fee simple, it is necessary that the Government of Canada step forward to help those individuals.

It would also be ridiculous to see palliative care deprived of $3 million to help develop a palliative care plan that would help end-of-life patients all across this country.

I certainly hope the NDP members would take a second look at those sorts of pieces that are in this budget, which are important to Canadians, and I hope they would actually support them.

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

Mr. Speaker, my friend across the way complains about questions on process when what he has initiated today, through his House leader, is a debate on process.

Maybe he does not like these process questions because they highlight the fact that a government lacking in confidence has to keep ramming budget bills through, ramming through enormous pieces of legislation, in which we will have to debate ten pieces of law per day. That is what he thinks is sufficient debate: that on every day of these four or five budget days, we are going to change ten Canadian laws on average.

The member was asked a direct question by my friend down the way: if there are individual pieces in the budget implementation bill that are good and the opposition wants to support them, will he divide those up into separate votes? Of course he will not.

The Conservatives prefer this omnibus bill so they can then make these false accusations about programs we do not support, when he knows full well we do.

The Minister of National Defence got himself into a bit of trouble. When we went through the record, we found all sorts of things he had voted against when in opposition. He knows the way the system works, and he is trying to game the system.

Why not just come clean with Canadians and allow separate votes on the pieces of the omnibus bill so that opposition can declare their support or opposition to the various measures the government is offering?

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as the question was being put, I was reminded by the chair of the finance committee that not only is that where most of the work is done but that it is done clause by clause, not just in the finance committee but at all committees.

Everyone can substitute in on those committees, and I would encourage the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands to do the same thing, to sub in on a committee so she actually has an opportunity to hear the witnesses who appear on different clauses.

Hon. members in this House, and especially at committee, have ample time to debate all of these and to hear witnesses come forward. They have more time than they have had in the past, I would suggest, except for our last budget bill, for which we had an incredible amount of time. I would encourage them to get on with this process.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I just heard the Minister of State say that we voted against some parts of the budget. Right beside him, however, the member for Edmonton—Leduc, the chair of the Standing Committee on Finance, said we supported some parts of the budget, but that we did so in committee.

If we do in fact support some parts of the budget, why does the government feel so free to stand up in this House and say the opposite of the truth regarding what we supported or did not support in committee? As the official opposition, we will support many things in committee.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is pretty obvious. The tradition of this House is, in a budget, to lay out the plan of the government for that year. It is the same as a business, and the board of directors in any business actually has the opportunity to say yea or nay on the budget.

It is the fundamental, go-forward plan for our government. It is making sure we continue on the path of growing jobs. We have 900,000 net new jobs since the end of the recession. That is pretty incredible. That is the best job growth record in all the G7 countries.

Obviously what we are doing is working. We need to stay on that plan and make sure we support families directly in a number of the measures that are in the budget. There is a piece in here to help caregivers stay home and look after their disabled family members.

These are important things to Canadians. However, the most important thing to Canadians is to make sure we continue with this plan, continue to grow the economy, and make this the best country on earth to live in.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #673

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

I declare the motion carried.

I wish to inform the House that because of the proceedings on the time allocation motion, government orders will be extended by 30 minutes.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: “That this House call on the government to announce without delay what measures it plans to implement to respond to the motion adopted unanimously by the National Assembly of Quebec on April 16, 2013.”

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

The House resumed from May 1 consideration of the motion that Bill C-60, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Second Reading

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it was exactly two years ago when the people of Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques did me the honour and privilege of choosing me to represent them in the House of Commons. I would like to thank them once again. I believe I have done an excellent job these past two years, and I promise to honour the privilege bestowed upon me of representing them in the House.

It is very appropriate that I rise on this first day of the third year to debate Bill C-60, the federal government's first budget implementation bill. It is appropriate because, as others have already mentioned in this place, the official opposition will not be voting for the bill for a number of reasons. I could probably talk about the 125-page bill for an hour or an hour and a half. This bill is not as hefty as the previous one, but it is nevertheless an omnibus bill that we will call omnibus bill 3.0. This one bill will amend about 50 pieces of legislation with one vote. It is an important bill and we would have liked the Conservative government to be much more pragmatic given the very uncertain economic situation in which we find ourselves.

Yes, there was a major recession in 2008-09, and we are still feeling its effects. Contrary to what the Conservative government is saying, we are not out of the woods yet. In fact, the situation is still uncertain.

For instance, three weeks ago, the International Monetary Fund scaled back its forecast, its economic growth outlook for Canada, reducing it from 1.8% to 1.5%.

A rate of 1.5% in 2013 is less than what Canadian economists were predicting and less than what the Conservative government had predicted. The Minister of Finance predicted growth of 1.6%, and the minister himself admitted that it was a cautious projection. The IMF's projection is even lower than the finance minister's cautious forecast.

Very recently, just two weeks ago in fact, the OECD said that Canada would have one of the slowest growth rates during the first quarter of 2013, which contradicts what the parliamentary secretary was saying. According to him, Canada has the strongest economic growth in the G7. That is completely false. Canada's growth is slower than that of not only the United States, but also Japan, Germany and the G7 average and many G7 countries are still in serious trouble, including Italy for example, and to a lesser degree, France.

Why is the government doing the exact opposite of what it should be doing?

In her latest report, which the Standing Committee on Finance examined this week, the Parliamentary Budget Officer described budget 2013 as an austerity budget, much like budget 2012. The consequences of budget 2012 and budget 2013 mean that, in relation to our economic potential, measures included in budget 2013 will lead to a growth rate that is 0.57% lower than what it could have been without those austerity measures. In terms of job creation, if those austerity measures had not been included in the Conservative budget, we could have created 77,000 additional jobs over the next five years. That is not insignificant.

In the depths of the 2009 recession, Canada created a lot of jobs. This made sense, since we had hit rock bottom. However, the Conservative government's measures are curbing the growth we could achieve without these austerity measures. For example, the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report showed that we are nearly 2% below our potential for economic growth. Our growth is currently very slow, and the Conservatives's measures are doing nothing to improve that. On the contrary, they are limiting our economy's potential growth.

Anyone who does not believe me can read the report issued by the International Monetary Fund three weeks ago. This report says something very interesting:

Although fiscal consolidation is needed to rebuild fiscal space against future shocks, there is room to allow automatic stabilizers to operate fully if growth were to weaken further.

For those watching at home, I will point out that “fiscal consolidation” means “budget cuts” or “austerity measures” in order to balance the budget in 2015-16. This objective to balance the budget before the election is artificial and arbitrary. All Canadians know that.

The International Monetary Fund agrees with the general objective of balancing the budget at some point. It does not mention 2015-16 specifically; it talks about some point in an economic cycle. It also says that there is room for the federal government to allow automatic stabilizers to operate fully if growth were to weaken further. What are these automatic stabilizers? These are measures that directly help the public. We are talking about employment insurance and old age security. These programs are automatic stabilizers that can help avoid stalled economic growth by putting money in people's pockets, particularly people who will spend this money.

But what is the Conservative government doing? It is going against the IMF's recommendations and moving forward with fiscal consolidation, with austerity measures, decreasing the federal government's ability and willingness to strengthen stabilizers such as employment insurance and old age security benefits.

I wonder how we as the official opposition could vote in favour of a budget that flies in the face of growth and job creation in Canada.

Another factor prevents us from voting for this budget: it goes against what the government promised. The Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of State for Finance promised that there would be no tax increases for anyone in the 2013 budget. However, the opposite is true. There are numerous tax increases that total $8 billion over the next five years, $8 billion worth of tax increases.

We could have an adult discussion in the House, to determine whether the government’s measures are reasonable. The government does not even want to consider this. Despite the evidence, it is still denying that there is even one tax increase in the 2013 budget.

The proof is the tax credit for labour-sponsored funds and venture capital corporation funds. The elimination of this tax credit is not included in Bill C-60, but it is something that we expect to see in the next budget implementation bill. This is worth mentioning. The government plans on getting rid of this tax credit, something that will ultimately mean a tax increase for small investors, people who invest small amounts in these labour-sponsored venture capital funds. This represents $355 million over the next five years.

These labour-sponsored venture capital funds are essential for a number of reasons, one being that they help people save. The savings rate in Quebec was one of the lowest in Canada before the early 1980s, prior to the creation of the Fonds de solidarité FTQ. This fund enabled people to save and to set aside money for their old age. The government wants to eliminate the supplementary tax credit, the 15% labour fund tax credit, and in so doing, it will eliminate the major incentive to save that was provided by the Fonds de solidarité FTQ and now the CSN’s Fondaction.

It is also important for investment. Now we have a private venture capital industry, but the fact remains that most of the investment in regional economies comes from labour funds. It is important and interesting to note that one of the first organizations to speak out against the Conservative measure announced in the budget to eliminate the 15% labour fund tax credit was Canada’s Venture Capital and Private Equity Association. Why was this group opposed to the measure? It was because it recognized the importance of these two major funds which, by the way, also invest, just like private venture capital organizations.

The government, looking for a good deal and thinking that it could get rid of one more labour organization, announced a totally regressive measure in the budget that goes against our need to encourage savings and venture capital investment.

Bill C-60 also contains another measure, which aims at increasing taxes by eliminating the additional deduction for credit unions and caisses populaires. Eliminating this deduction will lead to a tax hike of $205 million by 2017-18.

The Conservative government is bringing in boutique tax credits and saying that they are tax reductions for Canadians, but of course when you get rid of labour fund or credit union tax credits, it is actually a tax hike.

By getting rid of this deduction, the Conservatives are ignoring the specific mandate of credit unions and caisses populaires. These are not profit-making institutions, as any surpluses are redistributed as dividends to the members, investors and depositors. It is important to note that the mandate of organizations such as credit unions and caisses populaires is very specific and also very different from the mandate of private financial institutions.

When I am in my home riding, I note that there are credit unions in Lac-des-Aigles, Esprit-Sain and Saint-Jean-de-Dieu. There are no longer any banks or bank branch offices, only credit unions. The reason for this is that, even though they are not the most lucrative institutions, they offer essential local services for the people in those areas. No bank is going to do this, and the additional deduction for credit unions and caisses populaires reflected this reality and their specific mandate.

Bill C-60 also eliminates the dividend tax credit, but I will not be able to go into this in detail because I also want to discuss other essential elements in the bill. By eliminating this tax credit, the government will recover $2.4 billion over the next five years through tax increases. Here again, eliminating the tax credit is the same as raising taxes.

It is therefore not true to say that there are no tax increases, as the government has been saying, because there are tax increases totalling $8 billion. I would like to list them all, but I realize that I will not have enough time.

There is a key and crucial element in Bill C-60, and that is the changes to the Investment Canada Act. This legislation requires the Minister of Industry to conduct a systematic review when the acquisition by a foreign company of a Canadian business exceeds a certain threshold, which is currently $344 million. This means that any acquisition over $344 million by a company operating in a country that is a member of the World Trade Organization, the WTO, must be reviewed.

It should be noted that the dollar amount has been increasing gradually. In 1997, the threshold was set at $172 million. Over the years, the threshold has been increased to its current level of $344 million. Over the next three years, the government will be increasing the threshold to $1 billion. Therefore, all acquisitions under $1 billion—for instance an acquisition valued at $800 million or $900 million—will no longer be reviewed by Industry Canada to determine whether they are likely to be of net benefit to Canada and meet Canada’s economic development requirements.

Furthermore, the legislation also specifies that foreign state-owned enterprises will not be covered by this higher threshold. Therefore, a Chinese, Indian, European, American or North American state-owned company that wants to invest and make an acquisition will not be subject to the new threshold levels, and the minimum threshold will still be $344 million.

This is obviously a response to the Prime Minister’s statement in December 2012 on the acquisition of Nexen by CNOOC, a Chinese state-owned company. The Prime Minister said at that time:

When we say that Canada is open for business, we do not mean that Canada is for sale to foreign governments.

However, that is clearly the direction this is going in. The Conservative government is blind to the fact that this measure is absolutely useless and will be challenged by companies such as CNOOC as soon as the government signs the FIPA, the Foreign Investment Protection Agreement.

It could be challenged right out of the gate because FIPA gives foreign companies, including foreign state-owned enterprises, the right to the same treatment as a Canadian company.

With a provision like that—which is meant to exclude CNOOC or any other investor from those provisions or an increase in that threshold—a company will say that there is no national treatment, that it is not being treated like a Canadian business, which is not subject to the Investment Canada Act. The Conservative government is trying to please everyone with measures that make absolutely no sense and that are inconsistent with its international trade measures.

Part 3, division 17 of Bill C-60 allows the federal government to meddle directly in collective bargaining within Canada's crown corporations. The government does not even hide the fact that it is targeting the CBC, VIA Rail and Canada Post.

The Treasury Board Secretariat oversees all of this independently, because crown corporations are supposed to operate at arm's length.

Under this bill, the Treasury Board Secretariat can give direct instructions to directors of crown corporations about salaries, standards, benefits and so on. Basically, the Treasury Board Secretariat can tell directors at the CBC, VIA Rail and Canada Post what they can and cannot negotiate. That takes away the arm's length relationship that defines Canada's crown corporations.

According to another rule set out in Bill C-60, which pertains specifically to negotiations within crown corporations, a Treasury Board Secretariat employee—a federal government employee—can sit alongside directors at the negotiating table.

What happened to the crown corporation's independence and ability to manage its own affairs? Yes, it is accountable to the government for its performance, but the government must not interfere with crown corporations in this way. I did a quick calculation, which is very telling.

When we ask the Minister of State for Transport questions about Canada Post or VIA Rail, he always says that nothing can be done because they are at arm's length from the government. Since the 2011 election, the Minister of State for Transport has refused to answer questions in the House on 22 occasions and has stated that crown corporations make their own decisions and are responsible for them.

In a recent statement made on April 19, he said:

Mr. Speaker, Canada Post will respect the Supreme Court's decision on pay equity and implement the ruling as soon as possible.

As members know, the Crown is at arm's length from the government and is responsible for its own operations, including human resources. The issue the member is referring to is before the courts, and therefore I cannot comment further.

About one month ago, the Minister of Canadian Heritage told the committee:

Library and Archives Canada, like the CBC, like our national museums, operates at arm's length. I don't involve myself in their day-to-day decisions.

For two years, the ministers have refused to answer questions about crown corporations because they are at arm's length from the government. However, the government is tabling Bill C-60 to directly interfere, quite openly, in the negotiations that are supposed to be conducted by the crown corporation's managers and their employees.

The government is not even trying to hide this. It is obvious that it wants to interfere, create downward pressure on wages, claw back benefits and meet its objectives that it keeps trying to ram down Canadians' throats. We saw the general downward pressure exerted on wages by the temporary foreign worker program and the employment insurance reform. That is absolutely irresponsible.

For all these reasons, the official opposition will have no choice but to strongly oppose Bill C-60. This bill does nothing for job creation, good working conditions and economic growth.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague and deputy finance critic on his excellent speech. He gave us an in-depth, passionate and informative overview of the issue.

I would like to hear more about the loss of tax credits, especially with respect to credit unions.

What impact will this have on the regions in particular? I know that he represents a primarily rural riding.

How will these co-operatives, which help people with their finances, be affected by this major change?

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this question is important for several reasons.

However, there will definitely be an impact because the government is saying that the measure will help level the playing field and will eliminate a special advantage credit unions in Quebec had over banks. On the contrary, this measure will put credit unions at a disadvantage.

Credit unions have a specific mandate to operate in small, less profitable communities. That is why private banks no longer do business there. Credit unions provide local services to communities, which are often rural and spread out, and they invest directly in the economy to help stimulate regional growth.

By eliminating this additional deduction, the government is not leveling the playing field between credit unions and banks. It is giving an advantage to the banks, which are not required to invest and operate in small communities. We do not really understand the government's logic here. This measure will be counterproductive.

Unlike their slogan in the 2011 election, “Our region in power”, the Conservatives's measures are leaving the regions high and dry.

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's speech. I serve with him on the finance committee. I know he is very hard-working, even though we often disagree.

I would like to have him address one aspect of this particular bill, Bill C-60, which deals with infrastructure.

As he knows, many witnesses come before our committee from many municipalities and other individuals from across the country. They came to the government this past year and asked us to index the gas tax fund, which was done in the budget in March and which is being done in this particular piece of legislation. They asked us to do this in order to allow municipalities to address their infrastructure needs across this country, to count on that going forward over a longer period of time so they can in fact use that as a source against which to borrow money to address their infrastructure needs, in addition to other programs that this government has initiated, such as the public-private partnership funding.

Does the member opposite's party in fact support the measure in this bill, in Bill C-60, that would index the gas tax fund?

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, things are not always black and white.

In fact, we think some of the measures in the budget implementation bill are attractive. However, we cannot support the budget as a whole.

As the official opposition, the NDP has been asking for additional investments in infrastructure for a long time now. Clearly, those additional investments require funding and the budget has to include measures for that. For instance, we could give the municipalities a chance to have a 10-year plan with initiatives such as the building Canada plan or by extending that plan. Another appropriate measure would be to raise more funds with the gas tax, since we are dealing with specific infrastructure needs.

However, as was discussed at the Standing Committee on Finance this morning, there are problems with the investments. The government actually decided that $6 billion of the infrastructure budget, meaning 35% of the total amount for the building Canada plan would not be spent. That amount appears in this budget again. The government says that it is a new amount for infrastructure whereas it is in fact the amount that was already earmarked for infrastructure and was not spent. We have a problem with that.

In general, like the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the Union des municipalités du Québec, we are happy that there is at least a 10-year period, even though we would have liked to have 15 or 20 years. Specific investments will in fact be made to meet the needs of communities. That will not be enough, but at least an effort was made.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague mentioned that Bill C-60 contains some poison pills, which suggests to us in the Bloc Québécois that a bill does not have to be huge in order to be filled with poison pills.

In particular, my colleague mentioned the government's interference in crown corporations. We had a taste of this—or should I say a bad aftertaste of this—during the most recent labour dispute, the lockout at Canada Post. There are other poison pills, and I would like my colleague to comment on one of them, namely the contentious Canadian Securities Transition Office. The government said that that office was supposed to cease its operations on July 12, 2013. However, under Bill C-60, that office will remain in place.

The Quebec National Assembly has adopted some unanimous motions, whether under the former Liberal government, the current PQ government or any other party present in the National Assembly. Other provinces have also expressed their displeasure at the Minister of Finance's plans to impose a Canada-wide securities regulator in Quebec and other provinces.

I would like to hear what my colleague's position and that of his party are regarding this direct attack by the Conservative government on Quebec's values.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to answer that question, which is related to the last part of my speech. I did not have time to talk about that issue because I was not given very much time.

Our position is well known. We oppose the government's attempts to create a single national securities regulator. The December 2011 Supreme Court ruling was clear. I would like to quote from that ruling:

The proposed Securities Act represents a comprehensive foray by Parliament into the realm of securities regulation. If validly adopted, it will create a single scheme governing the trade of securities throughout Canada subject to the oversight of a single national securities regulator.

The Supreme Court's decision was clear, so why is the federal government still pursuing its agenda by maintaining the transition office? I should point out that the federal government has already dumped $27 million into the project, and that was before the Supreme Court handed down its ruling.

At the Standing Committee on Finance this morning, I asked how much the government has spent since the Supreme Court ruling in an attempt to get around it even though it was clear.

Currently, all of the provinces but Ontario belong to a passport system, which allows for instant accreditation across Canada, except in Ontario. That means that if a person is an accredited stockbroker or portfolio manager in Quebec, or if a company is listed on an exchange, it is automatically accredited in all of the other provinces.

The Canadian government's goal of stronger nationwide regulation can be achieved through organizations, such as the Autorité des marchés financiers in Quebec, that work together in Canada. That is what the federal government should be doing.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I negotiated for the CBC for 25 years. I am well aware of how things are done in that crown corporation, and a number of very serious trades were made over those years in order to protect its pension plan, for example. The government has given hints that it wants to go after some pension plans. It has already gone after the OAS for seniors over 65 and has given very broad hints that it believes pension plans to be too rich. I am very concerned that this is just a smokescreen and, in fact, what it is going to do is order the CBC to start dismantling its pension plan.

Would the member like to comment?

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board has been very clear about his objective to try to equalize social benefits, including pension plans, with those in the private sector. Once again, the government is putting downward pressure on social benefits and on salaries in general.

Since the 2011 election—and likely even before that, but I have only been here for two years—the government has been saying that crown corporations must remain at arm's length. It does not many any sense for the Treasury Board Secretariat to be able to give itself the authority to withdraw offers that were supposedly made by the crown corporation itself, which is in the best position to determine its priorities and direction. This interference is completely unacceptable. Even the Conservatives have been saying that it is unacceptable for two years now, yet they are still going to do it.

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to address Bill C-60, economic action plan 2013. I will be splitting my time with the very hard-working member for Brampton West and I look forward to his speech very much.

This is budget implementation act 1. Just for the benefit of those following this debate, I will outline the process at the beginning. Each summer, the finance committee initiates pre-budget hearings to hear from Canadians and organizations from across the country. Last year we heard from approximately 800 organizations and individuals who had input into the pre-budget process. We table our report in Parliament each year in December. The government considers that report and tables its budget, typically in February or March. We tabled it in March this year. It then follows up with two implementation acts, one in the spring, which the government hopes to pass by June, and then one that follows in the fall.

What the budget implementation acts do is take the budget, which was debated for four days this spring and then passed by this Parliament, and then make all the necessary legislative changes to ensure that the budget will in fact be implemented.

This particular bill, Bill C-60, has a number of measures that were included in our budget presented in March.

It would extend for two years the temporary accelerated capital cost allowance for new investments in machinery and equipment by Canadian manufacturers.

It would index the gas tax fund payments to better support job-creating infrastructure in municipalities across Canada. This is something I just asked my colleague across the way about.

It would extend for one year the mineral exploration tax credit for flow-through shares for investors, especially for the junior mining sector in our country.

It would modernize the Investment Canada Act, as announced in December 2012 by the government, to clarify the treatment of proposed investments in Canada by foreign state-owned enterprises and the timeline for national security reviews.

It would provide $165 million in multi-year support for genomics research through Genome Canada, following up on our research and development agenda.

It would provide $18 million to the Canadian Youth Business Foundation to help young entrepreneurs grow their firms.

It would provide $5 million in 2013-14 to Indspire, which is an excellent organization, for post-secondary scholarships and bursaries for first nations and Inuit students.

It would support Canadian families through such measures as promoting adoption by enhancing the adoption expense tax credit to better recognize the cost of adopting a child.

Following up on recommendations from the finance committee with respect to our report on charities, it would introduce a new temporary first-time donor super credit for first-time claimants of a charitable donations tax credit to encourage all young Canadians to donate to charity.

It would expand tax relief for home care services to better meet the health care needs of Canadians.

It would remove tariffs on imports of baby clothing and certain sports and athletic equipment.

It would provide $30 million in fiscal year 2013-14 to support the construction of new housing in Nunavut.

It would invest $20 million in the Nature Conservancy of Canada to continue to preserve ecologically sensitive land.

It would provide $3 million to the Pallium Foundation of Canada to support training in palliative care for front-line health care providers.

These last two measures, with respect to palliative care and the Nature Conservancy of Canada, I should point out were both brought to members of the finance committee over the last year.

It would commit $3 million to the Canadian National Institute for the Blind to expand library services for the blind and partially sighted. This, again, was brought to members of the finance committee as well.

It would support veterans and their families by no longer deducting veterans' disability benefits when calculating other select benefits supporting veterans in this manner.

It would streamline the process for approving tax relief for Canadian Armed Forces members and police officers.

We are also very much respecting Canadian taxpayer dollars. We are proposing to improve the fairness of the tax system by eliminating duplication. We are proposing steps to align employee compensation offered by crown corporations with what is available to federal employees.

I want to address a couple of these points in particular. I will start with the accelerated capital cost allowance for new investments in machinery and equipment. This is an extension of a measure that was first put forward by our government in the March 2007 budget. It follows on a report by the industry committee in February 2007. That committee did an intensive six-month study of the manufacturing sector. We travelled across the country. Members of both sides did an excellent job in surveying what the challenges were for that sector.

The committee made 22 unanimous recommendations at that time. The first recommendation was to have an accelerated capital cost allowance. For people who are not aware of all the technicalities, it allows businesses in the manufacturing sector to write off their equipment at a faster rate. It enables them, therefore, to purchase more equipment on a much more expeditious basis to ensure that they are as up to date as possible. This makes them more productive, as they can have the most recent equipment in their shops. Having the most up-to-date equipment is also better from an environmental point of view. It has multiple benefits.

In the past, the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, led by Jayson Myers, who has done an outstanding job as head of that association and of the Canadian Manufacturing Coalition, has argued that this enables companies to invest in their own productivity.

I see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health here. He was an instrumental part of that report as well.

This is fundamental to ensuring that our manufacturing sector is competitive. We often hear that manufacturing is sort of a thing of the past. In fact, in Canada, considering the challenges they have had to face in the past, such as a rapidly appreciating dollar, variable energy costs, finding enough skilled and unskilled labour to meet their challenges, and responding to some real challenges from emerging and now emerged economies such as China, the manufacturing sector, in my view, has responded very well, in part because of specific measures like these and some of the other measures in the budget that was presented in March.

The accelerated capital cost allowance was first introduced in March 2007. It has been extended a couple of times, and it is going to be extended in this year's budget. This is an excellent reason for the members opposite, particularly those who have manufacturing bases, to support this particular piece of legislation. I encourage them to take a very good look at that.

The second item I want to spend some time on is the gas tax fund. Municipalities from across Canada have been coming to provincial and federal governments for years, saying that they need a long-term infrastructure plan to address their needs. They cannot go by this variable rate on a year-to-year basis. They are asking for a long-term sustainable plan. They asked, obviously, for gas tax funding.

Every time we, as Canadians, fill up our vehicles, we pay the 10¢-per-litre federal excise tax. Approximately half of that flows into funding, through the federal government, through the provinces, back to municipalities to ensure that it meets their needs. What we are doing is indexing that gas tax fund so that municipalities can not only count on it over the long term but will know how much it is going to be and will know that it will, in fact, be increasing on an annual basis.

This allows municipalities such as Edmonton—Leduc, Devon, Leduc County, in my area, to then borrow against that if they have something large. In Edmonton, light rail transit was expanded in my area. I believe that the City of Edmonton took approximately $100 million out of gas tax funding and put that money into light rail transit, which I think all parties in this Parliament should support.

Further to that, Edmonton recently announced another extension of their light rail transit system by using the P3 model the government has put in place. That is another excellent model municipalities across the country should look at.

The one-year extension of the mineral exploration tax credit was first put in place in 2000. This credit is sort of like Groundhog Day, because it is constantly extended by one year each and every year. This is especially important for the junior mining sector. It is very important for us to realize the importance of the mining sector in Canada.

The largest mining conference every year, the PDAC conference, is held in Toronto. It is an outstanding conference that not only shows the importance of the mining sector but the importance of that sector in relation to our other important sectors, such as the financial services sector.

I will just finish up by talking about investments such as those in Genome Canada. This follows on the government's science and technology strategy. We released our S and T strategy, again going back, in 2007. Following on that report, we have been investing in a number of areas, whether it is in the Canada Foundation for Innovation, Genome Canada, or the research granting councils, which received increased funding in this past budget, as well. That is why organizations such as the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada have strongly endorsed this budget.

I would ask all parliamentarians to endorse the government's initiatives in this budget to support research and development, science and technology and those high-quality jobs of the future in this country.

I look forward to questions from all members in this House.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Edmonton—Leduc for his speech.

We work together on the Standing Committee on Finance, where he does excellent work as chair. As he mentioned, we often disagree when it comes to political and economic issues, but I do not think that it is a stretch to say that he has earned the respect of all the members of the Standing Committee on Finance.

Earlier, before his speech, the hon. member mentioned some issues pertaining to Bill C-60. The NDP is often told that opposing certain government measures will hinder economic growth. However, the hon. member mentioned in his speech that this work could be done in committee. He is familiar with the process, since we follow it in committee.

I would like a confirmation from him. Is it possible for us to support some aspects of the budget but to oppose the budget as a whole? Can he confirm that support for certain budget measures is being expressed in committee?

Some of his colleagues are saying that we are opposing measures that we once supported. Can he ask his colleagues to stop telling the opposite of the truth?

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague opposite for his work on the finance committee, and I appreciate his words about my chairmanship. We disagree sometimes on economic and political policy, although I will note that he quoted Milton Friedman this past week in committee, which impressed me, as he has inspired us both in different ways, I suppose.

With respect to the process, obviously what happens here is that at second reading, the vote is on the principle of the bill. I strongly urge the member opposite to look at all of the very good items in this bill and to move it forward to committee.

With respect to committee, as the member knows very well, we vote clause by clause. If there is a certain clause in the bill members opposite feel they can support, they can vote in favour of that measure. If there is a clause they oppose, for whatever reason, they can vote against that particular clause of the bill.

However, in terms of the overall items, and because of the items I identified in my speech, I would strongly encourage members opposite to vote for increased funding for Genome Canada; increased funding for Indspire, which is a fantastic program for our first nations students; and increased funding for municipalities across the country. These are items that should be supported by members on both sides of the House. That is why I encourage the member to do that.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Edmonton—Leduc for his great speech. I was a little disappointed that he did not get to give a 20-minute speech, because if he had, I know he would have talked about the excellent improvements for veterans that have been made in this budget implementation act.

I know that the hon. member is a strong supporter of veterans in his area. I am hoping he can expand on what this budget and this implementation act would do to improve services, not only in terms of the pension but also in terms of the burial funding that was previously cut. I am hoping that he can expand on that.

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would have loved to have given a 20-minute speech, but the member for Brampton West, I am sure, will top it off and be even better.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak about veterans. This is an area in which the government has made a number of additional investments for veterans, both those from previous wars, who are quite aged, and those from recent engagements such as Afghanistan. They have encountered all sorts of challenges, whether they are challenges with respect to physical health or with respect to mental health. In my view, this government and this minister have made some real strides forward.

With respect to this particular bill, it would support veterans and their families by no longer deducting veterans' disability benefits when calculating other selected benefits. In terms of a specific measure in this bill members on both sides of the House should support, they should definitely support this one. It is another strong argument as to why members should support this particular bill.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is an exceptional program that would help our manufacturers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when the government talks about science and technology, it clearly has no credibility.

In fact, last year, the Conservatives cut science and technology funding by 6%. The funding for science and technology in Canada is nothing like the funding provided by other countries and jurisdictions in the world.

Why does the Conservative government insist on closing down research centres that focus on the environment, Canada's north, our waters and rivers? Why does it insist on governing without looking at scientific data?

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I missed this section of my speech when I talked about those kinds of things, but I will answer the question, even though it had nothing to do with what I talked about.

Most of the things the hon. member is saying, in fact all of the things, are not true. My question to her would be this: when she hears the great resounding support for the budget implementation act from local business owners in my riding, local mayors, the FCM, manufacturers and exporters, will she for once support the things that would be good and important for the Canadian economy?

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member just reproached her for asking a question about something he failed to discuss.

I see that the two government speakers who spoke one after another were very careful to talk only about certain budget measures in Bill C-60, the budget implementation bill.

However, they avoid talking about any measures that are not budget measures and that are in the budget, particularly when it comes to the government's intention to interfere in crown corporations, CBC in particular.

Since the member did not talk about this in his speech, could he elaborate on what the government is planning to do exactly?

Why does the government want to meddle in negotiations at Canada Post, VIA Rail and CBC? Does it want to take over CBC?

It already has control over Sun News Network. What more does it want? Does it want CBC as well?

I would not have a problem if the government wanted to discuss Don Cherry's contract, but I do have a problem when it wants to meddle in CBC's broadcasting and other operations.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I prefer to talk about what is in the budget, not what is not in the budget. That is why I am focusing on certain things that are in there.

We want to be good guardians of Canadian taxpayer money and be responsive to taxpayers. We look at those organizations and we want to make sure they are being operated in the most lean and efficient way possible, which responds to the desires of Canadians and taxpayers who want to pay their fair share of tax but not be overtaxed.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the hon. member for Brampton West could connect our communities. I am from Oshawa, he is from Brampton West, and we both have a very proud history of manufacturing.

He talked about our colleague from Edmonton—Leduc, with whom I was very proud to serve on the industry committee. We brought in this accelerated capital cost allowance and the importance for manufacturing in this budget.

We have heard from the NDP members, and unfortunately, each and every time we brought a budget in since 2007, they have voted against all these wonderful things we have for manufacturing. They want to filibuster everything, delay everything, and frankly, communities like ours need the things that are in the budget in order to get our economy growing.

The NDP claims to support union jobs and claims to support manufacturers. Could he contrast the things that are in the budget as opposed to, say, the NDP policy and its style of going down to the United States, for example, to lobby against Canadian jobs in the energy sector, which has huge spinoffs for manufacturing in Ontario?

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is hard to reconcile the seemingly incomprehensible strategy that the NDP puts forward on many of our economic programs, but the member raises a great point about accelerated capital cost allowance.

I have large automotive manufacturing in my riding. I know the hon. member has in his riding as well. These are programs that would be well used by the automobile manufacturing community, because they allow it to invest in new machinery and equipment, improve productivity and be more competitive globally.

That is the issue facing Canadian manufacturers right now. We have an increasingly competitive global environment, and we have to find ways to enable our manufacturers to compete with the most efficient countries around the world, and that is exactly what the accelerated capital cost allowance would help to do.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that I will share my time with the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord.

I find it somewhat exasperating to rise once again to express my disapproval at third reading of this omnibus bill. This one is not quite as thick as the others, but even so, this so-called budget implementation bill will change over 50 laws.

The people of LaSalle—Émard are against the omnibus bills that the Conservative government has introduced repeatedly in the House. What is more, it has once again limited debate, as it has done a record number of times since the beginning of this Parliament.

In my remarks today, I will focus primarily on division 6, which is about the Investment Canada Act. Much ink has been and continues to be spilled over this act, particularly in 2012. The largest transaction yet to be reviewed under the Investment Canada Act was the purchase of Canadian oil company Nexen by Chinese state-owned CNOOC.

Many experts have expressed their views on this transaction and on the Investment Canada Act. They have said that the rules were not clear. Throughout the development of that saga in 2012, every time we asked the minister a question, he said that yes, a decision was being made and that yes, the government was going to take net benefit for Canadians into account.

The government waited until December 7, 2012. During a press conference at 4:00 p.m. on a Friday afternoon, the Prime Minister signed off on this major transaction. The interesting thing is that, during the press conference, the Prime Minister said that the government had approved CNOOC's purchase of Nexen, but then he turned around and said he was going to change the rules. That indicates that the government realized such decisions have significant consequences, but approved the transaction anyway. A closer look at the government's measures suggests that it might be aware it made the wrong decision. This is about natural resources in a strategic sector of the Canadian economy, and now a foreign state-owned company controls part of it.

Once again they have hidden away one of the most important laws, the Investment Canada Act, in an omnibus bill. We have been asking the government for a number of years to carry out an in-depth review of this legislation. Instead, the government is making announcements. It has announced two things. During the Prime Minister's press conference, one of the people attending commented on how the takeover of Canadian companies by foreign corporations would be handled. Those rules are in this bill and, what is more, the Minister of Industry is being given the authority to define or decide what rules will apply to foreign state-owned enterprises. That is worrisome.

The other aspect that I would like to talk about is the increase in the thresholds that trigger the review of these transactions under the Investment Canada Act and the application of the infamous net benefit to Canada test.

The Conservatives are establishing new review thresholds, which will first increase from $600 million to $800 million and then to $1 billion in less than five years. The valuation will no longer be based on asset value but instead on the corporation's market value. With these two factors, fewer and fewer takeovers by foreign corporations will be reviewed under the Investment Canada Act or be subject to the net benefit to Canada test.

This is disturbing because it means that the government is hanging up a big banner across the country that reads “Canada is for sale to the highest bidder”. Even Chris Hadfield will be able to see it from space. That is the government's message.

The NDP recognizes that foreign investment in Canada is important. It stimulates the economy. However, we must understand that some foreign business people and investors see Canada as a pool of talented workers. They come here because they recognize that Canadians are very talented when it comes to innovation and creativity.

They also recognize that Canada has appealing and favourable work conditions. People are treated well here. We have high health, safety and environmental standards. They also recognize the importance of establishing themselves and participating in the community. These foreign investments are a good thing for Canada because they help advance science and technology and improve knowledge sharing.

I have had the opportunity to visit many businesses that are well established here in Canada. They see Canada as a place that supports growth and trade. However, in the last 20 years, a number of businesses have been fair-weather friends. They have come to establish here, have more or less complied with working conditions and then have left. That is my concern, and I demand that we be able to study the Investment Canada Act in committee.

I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move the following motion: “That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, clauses 136 to 154 regarding the Investment Canada Act be removed from Bill C-60, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures, and that these clauses do compose Bill C-62; that Bill C-62 be deemed read a first time and be printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology; that Bill C-60 retain the status on the order paper that it had prior to the adoption of this order; that Bill C-60 be reprinted as amended; and that the law clerk and the parliamentary counsel be authorized to make any technical changes or corrections as may be necessary to give effect to this motion.”

We are moving this motion because we believe that this section of Bill C-60 is very important and complex and should therefore be carefully studied as a separate bill.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague, the NDP member for LaSalle—Émard, what she thinks about the fact that the government is scrapping the 15% tax credit for labour-sponsored funds. This tax credit was of great benefit to Quebec savers.

At 163% of disposable income, Canadian household debt has reached unprecedented levels. It is no secret that Canadian families are having a hard time making ends meet and saving.

Families want to use this tax credit to sock away more money for retirement, yet the federal government is scrapping it.

What does she think about that?

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is extremely unfortunate.

We know that these funds are key to stimulating economies throughout Quebec, including in the regions.

The Conservatives do not seem to appreciate this model, because it is democratic, encourages savings and fosters regional development. We know that the Conservatives have abandoned the regions.

This measure is totally counterproductive. It will not stimulate the local economy or Canadian businesses. I am vehemently opposed to this measure.

[Tyrone Benskin, NDP, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague if she could offer her comments in regard to the ham-fisted nature in which the government has interfered with the collective bargaining process of crown corporations.

Through the last two years, we have heard the government say that Canada Post and VIA Rail are arm's-length organizations and it cannot do anything about certain situations, yet it feels it is able to interfere in their collective bargaining processes.

Could the member comment on that?

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for the question.

This budget implementation bill continues to advance an ideology that is totally opposed to free bargaining between an employer and its employees. The government has said it over and over again. In responding to our questions, the Conservatives have said time and again that these corporations are at arm's length and that the government should not interfere in free bargaining between employers and employees.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my hon. colleague on her speech.

There are a number of issues that need to be discussed regarding this bill. My colleague already addressed several of them.

However, I also wanted to hear her comments on another topic, one that she has not yet addressed, namely, science and technology. I think this is an important issue. Perhaps she has already addressed this; I cannot say for sure. The government seems to say one thing and do the exact opposite.

Could she comment on the government's attitude and what it is not doing versus what we would have liked to see in the area of science and technology to help our businesses be more innovative?

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for raising this matter, which I am very passionate about. I am talking about both basic and applied science.

Investments in basic science, which this government has neglected, are what make a country a leader in this area. If we are not doing basic research, we will not make any of the basic but important discoveries that will move our country forward. This sector is extremely important, but it is being increasingly neglected by this government.

The other topic has to do with applied science. It is very important to have access to research centres, even within the government, in order to develop public science that belongs to all Canadians, that paints a picture of Canada and that allows us, as parliamentarians and Canadians, to better understand our country and the challenges it faces. For instance, the government took away Statistics Canada's ability to do any research about how much new technology small and medium-sized businesses are adopting.

That is what moves a country forward and that is what an NDP government with long-term vision will bring in 2015.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to thank my NDP colleague from LaSalle—Émard for her excellent speech.

Just a few minutes ago, before coming into the House, we were in the lobby discussing my beautiful region, the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean. I must say that she knows my region very well. If the member for LaSalle—Émard were the minister of industry, I would bet quite a lot of money that my region’s economic development would be flourishing in a way that it is not under the current Conservative Minister of Industry.

Today is a special day. I have time to discuss the budget. I think it is very important for members to be able to express themselves in the House. It makes me angry every time the Conservative government decides to silence the NDP members of Parliament. It is important for our democracy to be able to speak out. I will therefore take advantage of this opportunity, and I treasure the time I have to speak about my beautiful riding and the economic situation there.

Today is May 2. It has now been two years since the people of Chicoutimi—Le Fjord put their faith in me to represent them in Ottawa. I think I am representing their interests quite well, especially when I see what the Conservative government is trying to do to the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region. As the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, I feel that what is happening in my riding is as important to me as what is going on in the riding of Jonquière—Alma and the riding of Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, the current riding of the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

The Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean is a very complex region. It is isolated because of its rural nature. It is one region: Lac-Saint-Jean must help Saguenay, and vice versa. Our ancestors go way back. We are a nation within a nation within a nation; we are closely connected. The same can be said for our economy.

Two years ago, the Conservative government tabled an omnibus bill that took aim at the people of Canada and the people in my riding by implementing a variety of inappropriate tax measures. The same thing happened last year: a monster bill sent a shock wave through Quebec voters, particularly those in my riding. For the past two years, people have been talking about their concerns, about how to make ends meet, how to create jobs, decrease unemployment, and spur regional development. The fact is that society and the world are moving forward, and we do not want to be at the back of the pack. We want Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean to be a strong region in a strong Quebec, within a strong Canada.

This year, unfortunately, I must condemn omnibus bill 3.0 and I will vote against it on behalf of all the people of Chicoutimi—Le Fjord. Once again, the Conservatives have introduced a bill that is inadequate for many reasons. In my short speech, I will list a number of those reasons. I hope the Conservatives on the other side of the House will listen, because I will first talk about the economy and the reality of my riding.

Right now, even though the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities comes from a riding in my region, I do not think the Conservative government really understands my region's socio-economic situation. I do not think this government is putting its energy into developing the region. On the contrary, over the past two years, I have noticed that the Conservative government has been erecting barriers to the development of Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean.

I am the proud representative of one large municipality and eight little ones, including cities and villages. When I go to Saint-Fulgence, which has about 2,000 residents, those people are very concerned about employment insurance. In omnibus bill 3.0, the Conservative government is once again going after workers who rely on certain industries. In Saint-Fulgence, the forestry industry is very important. It is no secret that, since the 2008 recession, Quebec and Saquenay—Lac-Saint-Jean have had a hard time revitalizing the forestry industry. As a result, the unemployment rate is higher.

Yesterday, during question period, my colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine mentioned that the youth unemployment rate for Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean is 13.5%, which is very high.

When I see that level of unemployment, it tells me that our young adults and even our young children want to stay in the region. They like our region, which is very nature-oriented. The pace is a little slower than in the big cities. We want to keep our young people. In recent years, the population of our region has been declining. We have been working very hard to turn things around. However, this means that young people must have jobs. At present, with an unemployment rate of 13.5%, it is hard for our young people to find work, especially in Saint-Fulgence, which depends on one particular industry.

I am very disappointed that the government is not putting more energy in the right place in order to help the people of Saint-Fulgence, both youth and adults, find work. The next generation of workers, or at least the young generation of workers, is the future of our region. If they leave, they are giving up the opportunity to raise a family in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean. It is appalling that my region is declining because of that.

Ferland-Boileau is a municipality that is quite similar to Saint-Fulgence, because the forestry industry is very important there, too. The Conservative government injected 10 times more money into the automotive industry in southern Ontario than it did into the entire Canadian forestry industry, and only a small fraction made its way to Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean. I deplore what is happening, because this government is creating winners and losers.

In the latest budget, omnibus 3.0, the government did not allocate any new funding for the forestry industry, although it tried to claim that it did. Canadians are not the fools that this government seems to think they are.

In Sainte-Rose-du-Nord, a charming town of 500, people are concerned that their small community does not have the financial resources it needs to build a waste water treatment plant. I know that waste water treatment is under provincial jurisdiction, but the problem in my region is that waste water gets dumped into the Saguenay Fjord. I am not sure many people know this, and I am not even sure that government members are aware, but the Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park is co-managed by the provincial and federal governments. That is why the federal government must do its part to protect water and environmental quality within the Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park.

Unfortunately, when small communities like Sainte-Rose-du-Nord dump waste water into that lovely expanse of water, which is protected by the federal and provincial governments, I have to wonder. The government is doing two contradictory things. It is not putting in the effort or coming up with the money that these small communities need to treat their waste water. All they need is a $5 million waste water treatment plant. The government could do something to support these small communities financially. I am not talking about transferring the gas tax, which is worth $500,000 over a period of four years, to Sainte-Rose-du-Nord. I have done my homework, so I am not interested in hearing any nonsense. We can all agree that a community with a population of 500 will not be able to come up with $4.5 million to build a waste water treatment plant. The government's lack of vision for the development and support of the small communities I represent is deplorable.

Unfortunately, the community of Petit-Saguenay is wasting away. Its population is declining rapidly, as are the revenues that would enable it to recover and thrive. When I talk to elected officials there, they all say that the Government of Canada, specifically Canada Economic Development, is not helping them.

Saint-Félix-d'Otis has a lot of great projects going on, such as the Site de la Nouvelle-France and the transformation of its elementary school into a nature-focused school. Unfortunately, Economic Development Canada is not doing enough.

I wish I had more time to talk about my riding, but I urge the Conservative government to take note of my concerns.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for taking me again on a tour of the beautiful region that he represents and for highlighting the creativity, the goodwill and the attachment of people who live in rural areas and create vibrant and economically strong communities.

My colleague also pointed out that, over the years, the Conservative government has abandoned the regions. We have proof of that again with this austerity budget, which is not at all a visionary budget and does not seek to support the creativity of the people of the beautiful region of Chicoutimi—Le Fjord.

I wonder if he could elaborate on how the government, in this budget, has completely abandoned some programs set up to help regions and their small businesses.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for giving me the opportunity to comment further on my constituency. The Canada summer jobs initiative is very helpful to small municipalities in my riding.

I spoke to the mayor of Saint-Honoré, who told me that her municipality was lucky because it is among the very few whose population is growing, because an increasing number of young families come to live there.

During the summer, 84 children use the playgrounds. Previously, the Canada summer jobs program provided seven young monitors, but now it only provides two or three. This prevents the municipality from providing a service to its residents. That is a very specific and current example of the importance of programs such as the Canada summer jobs initiative, which help our regions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member to take note of a few things in the budget implementation act that I believe are of benefit not only to his riding and to Quebec but to all of Canada.

I would ask if he is prepared to support and is interested in supporting the program that is going to look for youth entrepreneurs. It is a very important program that I know has had great benefits.

Genome Canada is well known across the country in terms of the very important work it does, as is CNIB in terms of the hub that it will be creating, and I could go on and on about the improvements in veterans' benefits.

How can and how will the member justify to his constituents his voting against all of these very important measures that will help him directly in his riding, as well as help Canadians across the country?

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I find it hypocritical that a Conservative government would claim to be doing good things for the development of my region when that is clearly not the case. The Conservative member said the government wants to support young entrepreneurs.

Here is a very concrete example. A resident of l'Anse-Saint-Jean who was receiving employment insurance benefits told me he wanted to start his own business and become an entrepreneur. Incidentally, I congratulate all the entrepreneurs in my beautiful region who decide to start a business to create wealth and jobs. However, this constituent explained to me that this transition caused him a problem. Indeed, as soon as he declared himself a full-time entrepreneur, they cut his employment insurance benefits, because creating his own job meant he was no longer looking for work. This severely restricted that person's ability to set up his business as a self-employed worker.

The Conservative member made me laugh when she said the government is trying to help young entrepreneurs, because the reality is quite different. Residents of l'Anse-Saint-Jean tell me they want to start a business but cannot do so because the employment insurance program does not provide a transition period that would help them meet their basic needs. These people have a wife and children to support. They need a minimum income to meet the needs of their family and start their business.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to rise in the House today to speak in support of Bill C-60, economic action plan 2013 act, no. 1.

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister of Finance for remaining committed to what matters most to Canadians, and that is jobs, growth and long-term prosperity.

Canada's economic action plan 2013 advances a solid vision with a proven track record. We are the only party with a plan and that plan is working for the Canadian people. Let us look at the evidence.

Before I continue, I would like to mention that I will be splitting my time with the member for Barrie.

Just this week, Statistics Canada announced that Canada's economy grew by 0.3% in February. Over 900,000 net new jobs have been created since the end of the recession in July 2009, the strongest job creation record of any G8 country.

All major global institutions say that Canada is a model of economic leadership. The OECD says that Canada has the most sound economic fundamentals in place for a strong economy for the next 50 years. We also have the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio of any G8 country.

However, we must remember, and this is a very important point, that Canada is not an island. We are not immune to economic shocks emanating from our global neighbours. Therefore, while the Canadian economy continues to grow and create jobs, the challenges confronting us remain significant and we cannot afford to become complacent.

That is why now, more than ever, we must remain focused and on track. Economic action plan 2013 is a balanced and responsible approach. What we propose is not partisan; it is simply good for Canada and will lead to further growth in our economy and to job creation.

Bill C-60 contains a number of substantive measures to build a stronger economy and create jobs. Some of these include extending for two years the temporary accelerated capital cost allowance; indexing the gas tax fund payments to better support job creating infrastructure in municipalities across Canada; extending for one year the mineral exploration tax credit for flow-through share investors; modernizing the Investment Canada Act to clarify the treatment of proposed investments in Canada by foreign state-owned enterprises, the timeline for national security reviews; and providing $18 million to the Canadian Youth Business Foundation to help young entrepreneurs grow their firms.

One critical area we are focusing on is Canada's skilled worker shortage. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce has identified the skill shortage as the number one obstacle to success for its members. There are too many jobs that go unfulfilled in Canada because employers cannot find workers with the right skills.

We heard this message time and time again at finance committee. Therefore, our government has taken action. The temporary foreign worker program has been reformed to enable employers to hire foreign workers on a temporary basis to fill immediate skills and labour shortages when, and only when, Canadian citizens and permanent residents are not available to do the job. However, let me be clear. The temporary foreign worker program is designed to ensure that Canadians are given the first crack at available jobs.

Bill C-60 also has a number of proposals to support Canadian families and communities. Some of these are introducing a new, temporary, first-time donor super charity credit for first-time claimants, expanding tax relief for home care services to better meet the health care needs of Canadians and removing tariffs on imports of baby clothing and certain sports and athletic equipment.

I want to take this opportunity to talk a bit about the general preferential tariff. I am proud that the economic action plan would modernize Canada's general preferential tariff regime, which has not been updated substantially since 1974. A lot has changed since the 1970s in the global economy.

Let us consider this. In 1980 the Canadian economy was $269 billion. It was bigger than China's, bigger than Brazil's and bigger than India's. Why would we continue to administer, virtually unchanged, a foreign aid subsidy program based on what the state of the global economy was in 1970s? We should not.

The GPT was a collective commitment from developed western countries in 1974 to help the economies of the poorest third world countries. The program gave companies from these countries preferential access to the Canadian market. Throughout the years, as some of the poorest countries grew stronger, many in the west modified their list of countries to ensure it properly reflected changing economic realities. In fact, the United States revises its program every two years.

Remember, as I said just a few minutes ago, that in 1980 the Canadian economy was bigger than China's, Brazil's and India's. Compare this to today. The economy of China is $7.3 trillion, Brazil is $2.5 trillion, India is $1.8 trillion, and all have overtaken Canada, which is $1.7 trillion. If our government does not revise the general preferential tariff with these countries, all three countries will continue to receive the same benefits as the poorest third world countries.

The general preferential tariff is not a free trade program. There is no increased access for Canadian exporters to those preferred countries. In fact, many Canadian companies face hurdles when they try to enter those very markets. That is why our government has been pursuing an aggressive trade strategy, negotiating nine free trade agreements since 2006 and negotiating to open more markets for our goods and diversify our trade. However, we cannot accomplish that by letting an outdated program from the 1970s continue indefinitely.

The recent changes would provide an incentive for many countries to open their markets to Canada, meaning better jobs for Canadians and tariff reductions for Canadian consumers. I recently heard from a business owner in my riding who was having trouble competing with his counterpart in China. He was quite upset that Canada was giving tax breaks on imports from China. He did not seem to think this was fair, and neither do I. I am proud, therefore, that t his new budget would graduate countries from the list of developing countries and ensure Canadian companies could better compete so jobs would be created in Canada rather than in China.

I would like to conclude by clearly stating my support for Bill C-60, economic action plan 2013 act, no. 1, which would keep our promise to the generation that made us great but also would invest in the next generation that would make Canada even greater.

I thank the Minister of Finance for his hard work on this budget. The people of York Centre and Canada truly appreciate it.

[Jean-François Larose, NDP, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as if having something so absolutely deplorable were not enough, to add insult to injury, the government is not even letting us debate each item in this very dense and problematic budget.

We are told that we can send the bill to committee where, as the government knows, it has a majority. We are always being muzzled. Moving a time allocation motion to shorten the debate is another insult.

Since the 1960s, we have been fighting like crazy to prevent foreign takeovers here in Canada. At some point in Quebec, a very large number of private American corporations, for example, controlled the market to their benefit and not ours.

This situation created incredible poverty. People's quality of life, job security and standard of living suffered. We fought to get rid of the problem.

I wonder if my hon. colleague has anything to say about that.

I do not know why he wants to encourage takeovers. We should not sell out, period.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it has become patently clear that the opposition really has nothing to say about the substance of the bill, so it resorts to criticism of the process.

When it comes to process, this government has been crystal clear. This government will be sending the bill to various committees for comprehensive study. In fact, at finance committee, we will go through Bill C-60 clause by clause, and the NDP can raise amendments and objections at that point.

This is the old bogey that the NDP and socialists love to bring out, that we are being taken over by American companies or foreign companies. We have heard this from the NDP going back to the 1960s, from the waffle movement within its party, and time and time again it has been proven wrong. It was against the Auto Pact. It was against the free trade agreement. It was against NAFTA. It has been against six free trade agreements that our party has negotiated to create jobs in our country. The NDP does not stand with the Canadian worker.

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

Mr. Speaker, the excellent speech by the member for York Centre really highlighted some important features of the budget implementation act no. 1. What I especially appreciated was his talk about the preferential tariffs and how this was a very positive measure.

We hear the NDP regularly say that it supports Canada, it supports jobs and it supports measures. On the other hand, we also hear the NDP argue against these important changes that would really help our manufacturers and create a playing field that would be fairer and would no longer needed because they were not developing countries.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is on the finance committee and is the very hard-working Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue.

In fact, in budget 2012 the Minister of Finance ad called consultations on the general preferential treatment. In December last year, hundreds of representations were made during that consultative process. I have the list of all the individuals, companies and organizations that made representations. I cannot find one New Democrat on this list. I cannot find one Liberal on this list. Those members seem to be crying crocodile tears. Their job creation strategies are not for Canada. Their job creation strategies are for China.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to show my support for economic action plan 2013, the budget implementation act. I am pleased to see our government continue to invest in the programs and services that are most important to Canadians.

The impact of Canada's economic health is vital to all Canadians. The economic action plan was initially designed to lead Canada out of the worst recession in generations. The temporary stimulus measures of the economic action plan had their intended effect. The projects created jobs at a time of recession while making investments in local infrastructure that would benefit our communities for years to come, leaving a lasting legacy.

Our agenda has kept Canada's economy on the right path. For instance, we are increasing skills and training support by introducing the new Canada job grant to help more Canadians get high-quality, well-paying jobs. We are also helping businesses succeed by extending the accelerated capital cost allowance to encourage manufacturers to invest in new equipment, extending the hiring credit for small businesses, and making strategic investments in world-class research and innovation.

Through the strong leadership of our Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, Canada has created over 950,000 net new jobs since July 2009. I am pleased to report that the vast majority are full-time, private sector jobs. That is the best record in the G7.

We have seen Canada maintain its Triple-A credit rating through this period of difficult economic instability and uncertainty. We continue to see Canada with the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio and the lowest overall tax rate on new business investment in the G7. Moreover, the IMF and the OECD have forecast that Canada is on track to stay near the top of the G7 in economic growth in the years ahead.

I would like to take a closer look at some of the initiatives in the budget and share with the House some information on how this budget would benefit the people of the city of Barrie, whom I have the honour to represent.

Set around Lake Simcoe, Kempenfelt Bay, Barrie's waterfront is one of the most beautiful natural assets we have. It is a major boost to tourism across Simcoe County and all around the province. There is no doubt that the health of Lake Simcoe is vital to our region and to the people who live in the city of Barrie. Unfortunately, in recent years, the presence of zebra mussels has become an increasingly large threat to the lake's well-being. The growing presence of invasive species has continually posed a problem in Lake Simcoe's waters.

Our government has been very committed to making sure that the lake is as healthy as possible. It all started in 2007 when we announced a historic $30 million cleanup fund, which is a five-year fund from 2007 to 2012. It was going to deal with some of the concerns over rising phosphorus levels, which result in excessive weed growth and a reduction of marine habitat. This fund was very successful in working with stakeholders at reducing the phosphorus levels. In 2013, this fund was extended for another five years with an additional $29 million.

I would note that, historically, the health of Lake Simcoe has been left to local governments. It took a Conservative government to finally invest in cleaning up the lake. I have to say that it was very well received in our region. The fact that we continue to fund that cleanup has been absolutely terrific.

However, it is not just cleaning up the lake; this budget also deals with the concern of invasive species, as I mentioned. It allocates an additional $4 million over three years to continue this battle against zebra mussels through the continued enforcement and monitoring of ballast water regulations.

Our government's commitment to protect our natural environment is commendable on many levels. I am pleased to note that younger generations in our region can be confident that they will be able to enjoy Lake Simcoe for years to come.

In furthering this commitment to protect and sustain our precious waters, our government has paid close attention to the depleting water levels, particularly in the upper Great Lakes, including Georgian Bay. I have heard from many of my constituents in and around Barrie that this is a major concern, especially for cottagers. It is not just people living along Georgian Bay; an incredible number of people use the water area. Therefore, I was pleased to see this budget address the concern of lower water levels.

In March 2012 the International Joint Commission received the results of the water levels study. It is great to see that this budget commits to working with the IJC on resolutions and recommendations to deal with this growing concern.

There are also a few more highlights for Barrie in the budget.

We have seen the importance of infrastructure, such as transportation, community centres and water treatment facilities, in our communities. Our government's investment in infrastructure in the Barrie area alone has totalled well over $100 million since we were elected in 2006. It makes the city much stronger, a much better place to attract business and a healthier place to live. It is great to see that this current economic action plan would enhance that commitment to infrastructure.

The budget would deliver the new building Canada plan, which is a combination of other measures in the budget. It actually is the largest infrastructure program in Canadian history. The building Canada plan would provide stable funding for 10 years and help keep our communities moving with investments in roads, bridges, commuter rail and other aspects of transit. Over the next two years alone we would be investing close to $10 billion. That is more than the previous government's entire 13 years in office. This plan's three main components include the community improvement fund, the new building Canada fund and the renewed P3 Canada fund to include in total over $70 billion in federal infrastructure funding, which is just incredible.

The gas tax, a temporary program by the previous government that we have enhanced and made permanent, has a tangible benefit for every community in the country. It means $7.8 million on an annual basis to the city of Barrie.

Let me speak of some other positive aspects of the budget.

In order to promote the culture of giving in Canada, the 2013 economic action plan proudly increases the federal charitable donations tax credit and introduces a new temporary first-time donor super credit for first-time claimants. I am particularly impressed with this aspect of the budget as it creates an appeal for young Canadians to donate to charity. There are many huge capital campaigns in my community where that is exactly what they are working on, finding new first-time donors, whether it is the hospital expansion, the Georgian College expansion, the new Gilda's building or Hospice Simcoe. This is another great initiative that our Minister of Finance has illustrated.

As Barrie is a growing community, one of our ongoing concerns is jobs, and I think this is pretty common across the country. I very much recognize that this is a budget that focuses on jobs.

Economic action plan 2013 continues to support education and training, helping Canadians be prepared for good, high quality jobs. That is why our government is introducing the Canada job grant. This grant aims to transform the labour market by providing funds for the skills training that many Canadians need. In doing so, it encourages employers to recognize these skills and qualifications in order to fill the jobs of Canada's high demand fields.

In building upon this commitment to job growth, economic action plan 2013 also focuses on creating opportunities for apprentices. Canada is currently facing a shortage of skilled tradespeople that is expected to grow in the future as the population ages. Georgian College in Barrie offers 10 valuable apprenticeship programs alone. Our government responded to the shortage of new tradespeople by creating important new opportunities for apprentices. This would be done through the implementation of various grants and tax credits that would open the doors for apprentices at every stage in their career. I am confident this plan would promote accessibility to the training that Canadians need to find employment.

I realize I am running short on time. I just want to highlight two other aspects of the budget, the first being the importance of the Southern Ontario Economic Development Agency. This agency alone has been absolutely fantastic for job creation; IBM located in Barrie because of it. We have seen expansions to Southmedic Inc., the moving of the plant from China to Barrie, the expansion of TNR Doors and the expansion of Wolf Steel Ltd.

In my final 30 seconds there is another aspect of the budget that I want to emphasize. We continue to keep our ironclad investment to universal health care in support for the provinces for health care. We are reaching record levels in funding of the Canada health transfer. It will be nearing $40 billion by the end of the decade, which is just an astronomical commitment to something that Canadians tremendously value.

Overall, this is a terrific budget for Canadians. I applaud our Minister of Finance for such a fine job.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat concerned by the bill's attack on workers. His colleague who spoke before him has a plant in his riding. Our agreements with Europe, which are being touted by the government as the next wave of free trade, could directly threaten those workers in the riding of York Centre where Bombardier has a significant workforce. There is a lot of that stuff going on in Europe. If we are making it easier for these things to come from Europe to Canada, that will directly affect those workers. That is part of what our concern about the bill is: it is attacking workers. It is attacking workers both in terms of taxes and in terms of direct attacks on collective bargaining.

Could the member comment on that?

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe this budget supports workers. It supports workers by creating jobs. What workers value and appreciate is an economy that is vibrant with jobs. It would do that through the many investments in apprentices, in innovation and technology. In terms of the connection to free trade, New Democrats have a record of fighting free trade at every stage. In 1988, they said free trade with the U.S. would be horrible. It turns out that it has been a huge net benefit to Canada where we have gained because of that free trade agreement. New Democrats campaigned against NAFTA. It turns out that there has been a huge benefit to Canada.

The NDP does not seem to appreciate the fact that free trade means cheaper goods for consumers and more jobs for Canadians because we have an industrious workforce that is able to compete with the best abroad. I am glad that this is a government that recognizes the value of free trade and how it benefits Canada. History is on our side because every trade agreement that we have signed, and every study complements this, has resulted in a net benefit to Canada.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, interestingly, the member does not talk about the taxes that have been raised in this budget. On the eve of the budget Conservatives talked about tariffs being lowered on certain items, therefore bringing down the cost of certain items coming into Canada, which would be a benefit to Canadians. At the same time, without telling us and it became disclosed afterward, they were increasing tariffs on hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars of other items.

We know that raising a tariff is designed to keep products out of Canada, provided that those products that we are keeping out are made in Canada, but in this case, from toothbrushes to appliances to school supplies and to bikes, those products are not being made in Canada. Those products are still going to come in, the tariff is going to have to be paid, and when I talked to a bicycle retailer in Guelph last week, he told me the price of bikes is going up because of that tariff.

Would the member talk to us about why there is a nefarious effort to raise hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes, borne by the people who can least afford it, including the middle class?

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this has been the latest argument by the Liberal Party of Canada—that, yes, the Government of Canada should subsidize countries like China and subsidize its goods. Certainly that is not an approach that is in the best interests of Canadians.

In terms of the tariff relief that is offered in the budget, it is a focus on an industry that really does not exist in Canada. That is why we saw the tariff reductions on those goods that represent $76 million, on items like baby clothing and certain sports and athletic equipment. This would result in lower prices for Canadian families on those specific goods.

I would also say about the budget that because we would not be using large sums of money to subsidize competitors in China as the Liberal Party has suggested, we would be able to invest in things that greatly help Canadians. The budget initiative put $3 million into the CNIB to help it have a new digital hub to help Canadians who have lost their vision. This budget has so many little investments like that, which would have an enormous local impact. Overall, this is a very measured and very prudent Canadian budget.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what would this budget do for everyday Canadians?

For families, it would mean dealing with lengthy wait times for surgery or not being able to find a family doctor. For young Canadians, it would mean not being able to find a job or get the training they need to get a job. For commuters, it would mean being stuck in traffic gridlock or on overcrowded buses.

The Conservatives promised to focus on jobs, but instead they are pushing ahead with their job-killing austerity cuts. They are maintaining their fatally flawed temporary foreign workers program that takes jobs away from Canadians and they are hiking taxes on Canadians.

This budget introduced no new measures to create jobs and plays a shell game on infrastructure and skills training funding.

The Conservatives are pushing ahead with $36 billion in reckless cuts to health care funding. For Canadians who cannot afford home care to begin with, this budget would not help them, nor would it improve caregiver support for families who are struggling to provide personal care service for their loved ones.

There are 240,000 more young people unemployed today than before the recession. All this budget does for youth job creation is reannounce funding for internships. This is hardly an adequate strategy for addressing the very real problem of youth unemployment.

The government would scrap the $300 million in skills training funding to the provinces in order to give the money to companies on a matching fund basis. It is a shell game, plain and simple.

Instead of addressing Canada's skilled labour shortage, the government has close to half a million temporary foreign workers in Canada while 1.4 million Canadians are out of work. With this fatally flawed immigration policy, the federal government is undermining the labour market, signalling to companies to hire cheap labour overseas to replace Canadian workers.

Banks and insurance companies do so by outsourcing their IT jobs. Airlines lay off Canadian pilots to hire foreign workers. Mining companies bring in workers from overseas, even though there are unemployed miners in Canada. Construction companies do exactly the same. Such short-sighted immigration policy eliminates all incentive for companies to train and hire talent permanently.

This policy also depresses wages, making it harder for working families to get by. Immigrants are nation builders, not just economic units. Canada is built by immigrants, and the way to deal with a labour shortage is to train our young people and bring in immigrants as permanent residents so they can build a future in Canada, establish a family and set down roots in this country, just as many generations of immigrants did before them.

The Conservatives have failed to deliver a comprehensive strategy to deal with our growing skills gap. They have failed to deliver greater educational opportunities to first nations, newcomers, youth and the aging workforce. This budget would provide no additional funding to close the 30% funding gap for students in first nations communities.

On the pension front, Canadians have to wait two years longer to receive benefits under old age security. They now have to wait until age 67, up from 65.

Investing in health care, skills training and opportunities for youth is crucial to the well-being of ordinary Canadians and our economy. We need to do better.

I am splitting my time with the member for York South—Weston.

This budget is a disappointment, not only for Canadians who want reliable and accessible health care and job opportunities but also for those who rely on a car or on public transit to get to work. Canada's cities continue to be mired in gridlock. We are losing $10 billion in economic productivity every year. The average commute time in the Toronto area is 82 minutes. That is almost as long as a soccer game or preparing and having dinner at home.

Our cities are overwhelmed. They only get 8¢ on every tax dollar collected in Canada and they are experiencing a whopping $171 billion infrastructure deficit. What does the government do about traffic gridlock, the lack of proper transit and crumbling infrastructure? The answer is, not much.

When it comes to federal investments in roads, bridges and public transit, the budget is a disappointment. Instead of giving communities predictable, long-term and non-partisan funding, they get a net cut in infrastructure investments. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has determined that municipalities will be in fact receiving $2 billion less each year in 2014 and 2015. This is the hard truth when we compare current federal funding on infrastructure with what is planned going forward. Ten billion dollars less in 10 years is a lot of buses and streetcars not being purchased or replaced, a lot of roads and bridges not fixed and a lot of commuters waiting for subways and light rail in vain.

A slew of programs got cut completely, such as the green infrastructure fund. The government believes there is no need to invest in green technology and no need to make our communities more energy efficient.

The same goes for small-town Canada. There will be no more designated infrastructure money for small towns or rural communities. They will now have to compete with the big cities over less money.

What a deep disappointment it is. For 2014, grant-based infrastructure spending is going down from $3 billion to $2 billion. The building Canada fund will be 10% of the size it was last year, from $1.2 billion a year to $210 million. Canada's commuters will pay the price for this cut. They will pay for the lack of federal leadership on breaking the gridlock.

However, I am happy that the government also listened somewhat and changed its way, in a small way, after much encouragement from both the New Democrats and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. For years we have been calling for indexing of the gas tax transfer. This vital fund gives cities across Canada a minimum of stable, long-term funding. However, until now, it shrank every year in real terms because of inflation.

Partially indexing the fund to inflation would give cities slightly more secure funding, at least from this source. However, the municipalities would not be getting a nickel more in the next three years because of a very regressive formula.

Let me provide details. For 2013, 2014 and 2015, the municipalities would continue to get only $2 billion across Canada. It is only in 2016 that the indexing would go up somewhat and an extra $100 million would kick in.

However, indexing is only the first step. Now the government needs to get serious about long-term, predictable funding that closes the gap. We need gas tax fund no. 2.

There are some promising signs in the budget, but we need to make it concrete and deliver results to Canada's unemployed youth. Infrastructure spending has to be tied to apprenticeships and training so that a new generation can get good-paying jobs in skilled trades and we can get young Canadians the training and jobs that they need to succeed while we fix our cities.

Much work needs to be done, but if the government gets serious about fixing Canada's crumbling infrastructure and creating jobs, we can turn the budget from a disappointment to an opportunity.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Trinity—Spadina for her wonderful speech. She has long been a champion of our cities in this country and a much-needed champion and strong voice for greater urban economies and for fixes for the social issues in our cities.

Her speech comes in the context of a missing $3 billion on the government side, as pointed out by the Auditor General's report. Could the member for Trinity—Spadina comment on how that kind of money could be put to use productively for the cities and the urban economies of our country?

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think the people from the member for Beaches—East York's riding should send out a search party to see if it can find this missing $3 billion, which is a whole lot of money. It can buy a lot of new streetcars and light rapid transit. It can even build subways.

Our mayor in Toronto kept saying that he wanted subways. He does not have the money to build those subways, but if we can find this $3 billion, we can begin to build a good comprehensive public transit system in the GTA area and break the gridlock.

Right now, we do not know where that $3 billion is residing. Perhaps you do, Mr. Speaker.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her very interesting speech, in which she placed a lot of emphasis on transport. I would also like to thank her for her work on this file.

Could she talk about the new infrastructure program, which sounds to me like a bogus announcement? If we do the math, we see that it does not even live up to the government's promises or any requests that were made. In fact, municipalities will end up with less money than before.

Can the hon. member comment on this new program and its impact? Is it really a nice announcement or is it just a smokescreen?

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Budget Officer issued a report two weeks ago in which she notes that the funding in the so-called new infrastructure fund is actually a reprofiling of old funds that have not been spent because a lot of the infrastructure projects have been very slow in getting approval. That is why the municipalities have not received the funds and why the federal government still has a chunk of cash left.

Instead of just transferring that funding as quickly as possible to the municipalities, what the federal government did was take the old money and say that it was a new infrastructure fund, except it is being spread out over a much longer period of time. As a result, the PBO has said that we would be cut by $2 billion each year. We would have $2 billion less in municipal transfer of federal funds for infrastructure projects than last year. It would be the same in 2014-15 . We would have $2 billion less compared to the year before.

In the meantime, because the so-called gas tax indexing would not kick in until 2015 and this so-called new funding would really not kick in until after 2015, we would be losing $4 billion in total in the next two years.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-60 today, which is yet another salvo in the Conservative attack on working people in this country.

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

A war on working people, not an attack.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

It is even a war on working people. I thank the minister for making sure I got my terminology correct.

We were given the role of Her Majesty's official opposition two years ago today, and almost immediately the Conservatives began their assault on working people in this country.

Canada Post locked out its workers, and despite being at arm's length from the government, the government not only legislated them back to work, but that legislation included reducing the workers' wages and attacked their pension plan.

Shortly after that, the government went after the workers at Air Canada, twice, legislating them back to work before a strike or lockout even began, again with conditions unfavourable to workers.

Later, the government legislated another private company back to work: Canadian Pacific Railway, a private company. I remind the House that it was not even a public corporation or a crown corporation.

Air Canada then closed its maintenance bases in Winnipeg, Montreal and Toronto. Despite the government's assurance that those bases and those workers would be protected, the jobs are now performed elsewhere, and the Conservative government sat on its hands and did nothing.

Caterpillar closed its Electro-Motive Diesel plant in London, Ontario, after getting a lovely cheque from the Prime Minister during the election campaign. The workers were tossed out and production moved to the U.S.

The U.S. government then loaned money to Iron Ore Company of Canada in Labrador to buy its locomotives in the United States. The U.S. government is loaning money to a Canadian company to buy American. How ironic is that? Again, the Conservatives did not even raise a finger to help the workers. We do not have a buy Canadian policy. Nothing in the budget suggests we should be buying in Canada.

However, the Conservatives had not finished. They attacked working Canadians again by demanding they work an additional two years before retiring. The Prime Minister announced this broken promise in Davos, Switzerland, I guess because he is afraid of facing Canadians on issues as big as that.

Next, the Conservatives attacked workers unlucky enough to need access to the safety net called employment insurance. They have reduced the number of weeks of payment, raised the premiums and put in place new rules that demand workers take jobs that pay up to 30% less and can be up to an hour's drive away. Of course, that 30% less becomes a vicious circle and a downward spiral, because the next time individuals are laid off, they have to take 30% less, and the next time they are laid off, another 30%, until finally they are paying to work.

While workers were trying to fathom those changes, the government made it easier for employers to not hire Canadian workers by easing rules for importing workers from other countries. A staggering 338,000 such workers are in Canada now, in jobs ranging from food service workers in fast food restaurants to airline pilots. Banks are even so bold as to ask the outgoing laid-off staff to train their foreign replacements.

This is not what we should be doing in this country. This is not what we want in a budget, to have Canadian jobs fleeing as fast as we can get them out the door in favour of cheaper foreign labour. That is not how to run this economy, and the Conservative government is running our economy quickly into the ground.

Bill C-377, a government bill in private member's bill clothing, attacks the unions that help support these workers by subjecting those unions to mountains of red tape. So much for being the party of red tape reduction.

Now we have Bill C-60, the next anti-worker salvo in the government's arsenal of weapons aimed at workers in this country. I notice that, as of today, the government is afraid of debating that bill. It has now limited the ability of this House of Commons to actually bring to this House of Commons issues with regard to this bill, in front of every member of this House. Instead, the Conservatives have given us time allocation, which will force the bill to be voted on in four days, after only four days of debate.

There are 60 separate acts of Parliament that will be discussed in only four days.

How on earth are we, as representatives of the people, going to give the proper accounting of how we looked after their interests over the course of the next four days? I stagger to think how we can do it.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport has mused about eliminating the Rand formula, another attack on working people in our country. The Rand formula is a uniquely Canadian solution to the problem of union membership, which was put forth in the 1940s and is a model around the world of how to protect employers and union members, yet the government would perhaps try to attack it.

The Minister of State for Transport has suggested on a number of occasions that the wages at Canada Post are too high. He would attack wages. That is part of the problem we have with the government. Each time we turn around, the government is trying to lessen Canadian wages and expectations of job and wage. Foreign workers are allowed to be paid 15% less than the prevailing Canadian wage, yet we are supposed to think that is a good thing. The government is driving down wages time after time with its policies and formulas, and even this budget would do it again.

How would it do it specifically? It would do it by attacking, through the Treasury Board, the collective bargaining process in crown corporations. Some 49 crown corporations would now have to face the government, supposedly at arm's length, but the arm is in a stranglehold around the neck of the crown corporations and their workers.

By that arm's length now permitting the Treasury Board to determine how much money these crown corporations get, which the government does already, the crown corporations would be faced with trying to make do with what they have. The government has already lowered the budget for VIA Rail. It has lowered the budget for all of the crown corporations, generally, across the system.

Now the government wants to go in and tell the crown corporations how to do business with their workers. It has not consulted with anyone on these changes.

The Treasury Board can apparently change a crown corporation's bargaining mandate at any time in collective bargaining, which could force the employer to engage in regressive bargaining, going backward. That is what the Conservatives seem to want to do. They want to take Canada backward as fast they can and take wages backward to make us compete with low wages in parts of the world with which we have no business trying to compete.

The Treasury Board could dictate that a crown corporation violate countless rules under the Canada Labour Code. We have the Canada Labour Code for a reason. It is to govern the working relationships between federal employers, including crown corporations, and their workers in a manner that everyone can read and understand. Now we have the Treasury Board saying it is going to set different rules and not pay attention to the Canada Labour Code. I do not know if that would survive a court challenge, but it is scary nonetheless.

The Treasury Board can have one of its employees present at bargaining to ensure that the crown corporations follow its dictates. Not only will the big hand of Big Brother be no longer at arm's length, but it will be right there at the table. Big Brother will be watching as they try to bargain with their employees in a manner that is fair, reasonable and just, which is what we want in this country.

The Treasury Board can also dictate that a crown corporation can change the conditions of employment for a non-union employee at any time. There are laws against that in this country, called the Canada Labour Code, which the members opposite should read one of these times. The Canada Labour Code suggests that it would be tantamount to a constructive dismissal and is illegal. It is illegal here in Canada to constructively dismiss individuals by changing their terms and conditions in a way that they can no longer stand. That would be challengeable under the Canada Labour Code.

The provisions that have come to us in the form of Bill C-60 are, unfortunately for us, just another salvo in the war against the working people in this country.

[Jean-François Larose, NDP, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have Electrolux closing in my riding. I approached the Minister of Human Resources, and she made a promise here in the House, which she did not respect, because all we are getting is silence.

My question to the hon. member is this: am I interpreting this in the correct way when I see that high wages and good conditions in jobs are being attacked because we are trying to encourage low-wage jobs, for corporations to be able to get those jobs?

That is what is happening with Electrolux. It is going to the States. Is it the government's strategy to create cheap jobs to get those corporations back to our country?

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it would appear that the government's strategy is to lower Canadian wages in any way it can, and lowering Canadian wages is counterintuitive to a government that is expecting growth in the economy. There will not be growth in the economy when, every time we turn around, the majority of working people in this country are told to expect less in the following year, because that will lower tax revenue. That will lower the ability of those individuals to continue to function in society.

In the case of Electrolux in his riding, it is yet another example of the Conservatives having failed to protect Canadian workers in this country through policies and practices, and even a buy Canada policy that would protect Canadian workers.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech and especially for his commitment and dedication to Canadian workers.

I was struck by what he said about the increasing plant closures that are making medium-sized businesses in Canada disappear. We have already lost a number of small businesses, but this government has not implemented policies that would help our businesses expand, cross the so-called valley of death, and develop into medium-sized businesses that would hire more people, provide better working conditions and put down strong roots in Canada.

Could the hon. member expand on that and explain what the danger is in losing these medium-sized businesses that provide good conditions to our workers?

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is exactly what people are facing in southern Ontario. They have watched as industry after industry has closed, and nothing is filling the gap. There is no federal policy to try to encourage small and medium-sized businesses to take the place of those large manufacturing businesses. There is nothing in federal policy that looks at the next wave of technologies that will need to be created in the new energy economy. Where is the Conservative help for the new energy businesses? It does not exist in this budget, and it has not existed in previous budgets. All we get is the same old, same old from the government. It thinks the economy will continue to roll along, but it is failing. It is failing in places like southwestern Ontario and other places in Canada as well.

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

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

Since the global economic recession, this government has been putting in place vital economic action plans to get Canadians back to work, invest in infrastructure and regional projects, cut taxes and put more money back into the pockets of hard-working Canadian families and of keep us on track to eliminate the deficit by 2015-16.

The results speak for themselves. While the U.S. continues to flounder and European countries teeter on the brink of bankruptcy, Canada stands as a global leader and model for prudent, effective and responsible fiscal management. Canada's fiscal position is envied globally, and all the major credit rating agencies continue to reaffirm our rock-solid Triple-A credit rating.

None of this is by accident; rather, it is by design. Economic action plan 2013 would further strengthen Canada's fiscal position, the best among the G8. Unlike the $21 billion job-killing carbon tax and the $56 billion in spending proposed by the NDP, budget 2013 would keep federal spending in check and Canada on track to balancing the budget by 2015-16, while at the same time putting forward a strategic plan to invest in education and skills training, as well as record investment in infrastructure.

Speaking of our sustained and predictable support of infrastructure, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities said:

By maintaining and extending unprecedented investments in our cities' infrastructure, it will spur growth and job creation while laying the foundation for a more competitive economy.

By renewing critical housing programs, it reaffirms the federal role in addressing the challenges of housing affordability and homelessness.

Speaking of our strategic and innovative approach to skills and job training, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce said:

The skills problem leads our Top Ten list of critical barriers to Canada’s competitiveness...It’s showing up all across the country, in every industry. We are pleased to see the government is moving to confront it, and to include business directly in the solutions.

The Canadian Home Builders' Association, the Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters and chambers of commerce from coast to coast, and I could go on, the positive reception of budget 2013 is further indicative of the government's responsible steering of the Canadian economy through this very fragile recovery.

This balanced approach of keeping spending low while maintaining predictable funding for important initiatives has kept the Canadian economy growing. Our budgets have produced growth and 900,000 net new jobs are testimony to this.

I would like to identify and discuss a few measures of the budget implementation bill that are of particular significance to the communities, businesses and peoples of Nipissing—Timiskaming.

The first topic I would like to—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

I must interrupt at this time. The hon. member for Nipissing—Timiskaming will have six minutes remaining when this matter returns to the floor of the House following question period.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-60, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Nipissing—Timiskaming has six minutes left to conclude his remarks.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, I would like to identify and discuss a few measures in the budget implementation bill that are of particular significance to the communities, businesses and people of Nipissing—Timiskaming.

The first topic I would like to discuss is that of the manufacturing sector. My constituency is home to several leaders in the manufacturing of mining equipment and technologies that provide many high-paying jobs to our local economy. When these companies grow, it is the local communities that benefit.

During this fragile economic recovery, it is important to ensure we support manufacturers. To provide support for investment in machinery and equipment for the manufacturing and processing sector, the budget implementation bill outlines in greater detail how the government will extend the temporary accelerated capital cost allowance for an additional two years to include investment in eligible equipment in 2014-15. This will provide the manufacturing and processing businesses in Ontario approximately $562 million in tax relief to grow their companies and create jobs. This tax break for new manufacturing machinery and equipment will help reduce costs for businesses, like those in my riding, meaning they can invest more in additional production and employees.

This will help them grow. It will help Nipissing—Timiskaming grow. It will help Canada grow.

The Canadian Auto Workers Union president, Ken Lewenza, commented, “The future of Canadian prosperity is tied to a vibrant manufacturing sector...These funding announcements are crucial...”.

This budget further assists Canadian manufacturers and other sectors by levelling the playing field through the modernization of Canada's general, preferential tariff regime for developing countries.

Manufacturing businesses connected to the mining sector in my constituency will further benefit from Bill C-60 with the introduction of a mineral exploration tax credit for flow-through share investors. The tax credit will help initialize investors to explore and of course subsequently develop new or existing mining sites.

With the Ring of Fire so close to Nipissing—Timiskaming, I am confident in the results this measure will help produce for my constituency and for development across Canada.

Concerning the families and individuals in my constituency, I am pleased with the introduction of yet additional tax relief for Canadians in this budget. The elimination of all tariffs on various items, such as baby clothing and certain sports and athletic equipment, will help put back even more money into the pockets of Canadian families.

This, in addition to the adoption expense tax credit, temporary first-time donor super credit and the expanding tax relief for home care services are also part of budget 2013, is exactly why under this government the typical Canadian family saves over $3,200 in taxes, $1,000 of that alone from when we cut the GST from 7% to 6% to 5%.

The opposition parties like to talk about the nasty surprises lurking in Conservative budgets, but Canadians know this is not the case. Canadians know and can rely on this Conservative government to put forward responsive, effective budgets focused on keeping the economy growing, balancing the budget by 2015-16 and, as always, continuing to ensure Canadian families keep more of their hard-earned money.

Another measure of Bill C-60 important to many of my constituents is that of improving veterans' benefits. As many know, my riding is home to CFB 22 Wing and Canada's Norad base during the Cold War. The military, particularly the air force, has played a predominant and respected role in our communities.

We are proud of our veterans and the distinguished role they play in our communities. Bill C-60 would ensure that additional disability pensions provided for Veterans Affairs to eligible low income veterans would no longer be deducted from them or their survivors under the war veterans allowance.

Canadian veterans have demonstrated exceptional courage and have served Canada with distinction. The government honours their sacrifices by working to ensure their quality of life is continually improved.

This first budget implementation bill will keep Canada on the right track. Canada has one of the strongest fiscal positions, globally, with the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio among G7 countries.

Our unemployment level has continued to be well under that of the U.S., and our economy has expanded for six straight quarters now.

In closing, I call upon the NDP and Liberal Party to rise above party politics and vote in favour of Bill C-60. I call upon them to vote in favour of Canadian jobs, Canadian businesses and Canadian families. Canadians know that this Conservative government is committed to delivering economic growth, jobs and low taxes. Bill C-60 would be yet another part of that. I call upon the opposition to be a part of the solution and not the problem. Bill C-60 would greatly benefit the local economy in my constituency and indeed Canada as a whole. I look forward to their supporting it.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member speaks about reductions in tariffs, but this budget would increase tariffs by over $250 million. In fact, overall tax increases would be just over $10 billion over the next five years, a cumulative increase in taxation.

Therefore, why does the Conservative member not actually admit that his government would increase taxes on middle-class Canadians, not reduce them?

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

Mr. Speaker, this is actually an update on preferential tariffs. These countries no longer really need these tariffs, and this is a countermeasure to increased competition against Canada. We are updating this measure as part of updating our global measures. It will be, in the long run, a positive measure for Canadians. It is a measure that will create Canadian jobs and ensure our long-term prosperity.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the member's speech and I know that he would have been paying attention when the budget bill was introduced. On that day, there was a press conference in the National Press Theatre. I would have expected the press conference to have been held by the Minister of Finance because this is the budget implementation bill, but instead the press conference was actually held by the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism and by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development. One might wonder why.

I suspect it is because the government wanted a photo op with respect to the temporary foreign worker program, because the Conservatives have been hit pretty hard in the media, in this House and by their constituents for their complete mismanagement of that program. Now, of course, they are touting this bill as being the fix-all and the cure-all for the issue of temporary foreign workers.

If the Conservatives think this issue is so important that they need to highlight in a press conference at the National Press Theatre, would the member agree with me that it is also so important that it deserves a separate study and that therefore we should sever that part of the bill from the rest of the budget implementation act so that it can get the due scrutiny it deserves? Could the member just indicate whether he agrees with the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development about the very critical importance of this program?

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

Mr. Speaker, I do agree with the member that this is an important component of economic action plan 2013. It is a measure that many businesses have asked us for and a measure that many businesses need. They need skills development in today's world.

We put Canadians first, but we certainly are not in a position to fill all the skills gaps. Therefore, it has a great deal of priority to our government, and I am proud to support it.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, in his comments the hon. member touched on the importance of the mining industry to his community.

I wonder if he might discuss a bit further some of the incentives in this budget with respect to the mining industry and business. As well, could he also comment on the impact that some of the opposition members' comments or suggestions would have on these very well-paying jobs in a sector of the economy that is so important to Canada and to his riding specifically?

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

Mr. Speaker, mining is very important in our region. In our region alone, there are some 2,000 to 2,500 jobs related to mining.

The manufacturing incentives will be a very positive move. The new training program will also be very positive. Those are two measures that would improve the economy of our region.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to be here this afternoon to explain and highlight to my colleagues some of the items in Bill C-60, the budget implementation act.

When I look at my riding and the province of Saskatchewan and I look at how well Canada is doing compared to the rest of the world, I must say that we are truly blessed people. In contrast to the global recession going on around the world, the province I live in has an unemployment rate of 3.7%. I live in a province that has good health care, good taxation, good policies and good law and order. I live in a great province in a great country. The things contained in budget 2013 will just make it that much better. This country is going to thrive as we go forward.

We are setting the stage for our kids. Our kids will have even better opportunities and a better qualify of life than what we have today, and that is because we are putting the proper platform in place for them to thrive and succeed.

There are lots of things in the budget implementation act that we could talk about, but I am going to talk about the Income Tax Act and the Tax Court of Canada Act and the changes to regulations. A lot of people do not realize some of the nuggets in there that need to be highlighted, and I would like to do that in the time I have to speak about the bill.

First I would like to talk about the adoption expense and tax credit. A lot of couples are looking to adopt a child, but they face many hurdles in order to overcome the fact that they cannot have a child themselves. This measure would allow them to get a tax credit when they go through the process of adopting a child. The adoption expense tax credit would allow them to use some of the expenses they incurred in the adoption process. It would actually become a tax credit. This would make it a bit more affordable for them as they go through the process. This measure should be highlighted, and it is something that I think everyone here in the House of Commons supports.

One of the other things I want to talk about is the first-time donor super credit. Members on the finance committee talked about what we could do to increase charitable donations, and this is a really good incentive plan that would get Canadians to start making charitable donations. The budget includes a 25% additional tax credit of up to $1,000 for first-time donors.

What a great program. What a great way to get Canadians to donate to good charities, and what a great way to get that money flowing through the economy and helping people who need it by supporting these charities that do great work right across Canada.

Another item that we could talk about is the mineral exploration tax credit, or flow-through shares for investors.

Last year I was in Toronto at the PDAC international convention. I spoke to a lot of mining companies and discussed the challenges they will be facing in upcoming years. We also spoke about what has worked successfully for them in the past. They told me that this program has actually saved their lives. This program enabled them to get the capital they required to develop the mines that Canadians need to see our economy thrive and grow. This tax credit basically allows an investor to take on some of the expenses of the project, and as the project comes into fruition, it can be turned into shares. This is a great, creative way to encourage this industry to grow and expand.

Saskatchewan is known for its agricultural industry. It is also now known for its potash, oil and gas, uranium and gold, and hopefully soon its diamonds. This province has a great mining sector that is expanding. Thanks partly to the mineral exploration tax credit, the sector is expanding even more quickly than it would have otherwise.

Some great farm machinery is built in Saskatchewan. The accelerated depreciation or capital cost allowance allows those manufacturers to buy the equipment they need to build more air seeders, cultivators, sprayers and harrow bars and get that machinery out to farmers, who are doing very well right now, so that they can get their crops in the ground.

Saskatchewan is a little white right now. There is still a lot of snow out there. It is going to be a tough spring for farmers. They are going to have a tough time getting their crops in the ground, so they are going to need those bigger air seeders, those harrow bars and those tools to get their crops in quickly so that they do not lose those crops when the frost arrives in the fall.

That is one thing that manufacturers understand in Saskatchewan, companies like Bourgault Industries, Morris Industries, Conserva Pak Seeding Systems and Seed Hawk. These companies will embrace the program. They will modernize their shop machinery, employ more people because of it and continue to provide first-class, first-rate machinery throughout the world.

If we look at the tax relief for Canadian Forces members and police officers deployed on international missions, that is just the right thing to do. I think most Canadians would agree with that. When we put our folks in harm's way and send them abroad, should they not have some sort of tax benefit or tax relief for doing that? I think we could all agree in this chamber that our forces are deserving of this type of acknowledgement. This is a no-brainer, and it is here in the budget implementation bill. It is just another reason all groups should get together and support this area.

The registered disability savings plan for adult beneficiaries is, again, a small program, but it means a lot. It actually helps Canadian families cope and move forward and help their loved ones who have disabilities.

There are so many other things we could talk about. We could talk about tax relief for Canadian consumers. That hockey helmet and other sports equipment would actually cost less. It would be tax relief for Canadian consumers so that they could actually buy those items at the store at a cheaper price. I think Canadians will respect that.

Our government, since it came into power, has lowered the income tax on Canadian families by some $3,200. That is after-tax dollars. That is real money they can go out and spend on their families. They can put their kids into different sports events and different cultural and arts events. That is serious money they can utilize.

When I go back to my riding, that is one thing a lot of my constituents talk about. They notice it. They feel it in their back pockets. They know they have a little more cash to spend on their kids, and they express their gratitude for having that amount of money left in their back pockets. Of course, they do not want to see anything that takes it away.

When I was in the riding the last little while, one of the things I noticed, with our 3.7% unemployment rate in Saskatchewan, was that we have a shortage of skilled workers. However, we have a population in the aboriginal community that needs to acquire skills. That is where the skills training program could be such a major factor in the province of Saskatchewan. It could have such a strong benefit for our kids and our aboriginal kids going forward. Here is a program whereby the employer, the provincial government and the federal government get together and provide the financing for an individual to get the skills he or she needs.

If I look at a mechanic at an ag dealership, for example, and a 19-year-old coming out of school, that dealer can now train that person right up to journeyman status over three or four years. People will have skills they will use for the rest of their lives. It is the right thing for us to be involved with. It is the right thing to do, and it is appreciated.

I made an announcement at a science college in Prince Albert, where they are adding the fourth-year journeyman's program. It used to be that when someone went for a journeyman's certificate for electricians, he or she had to go to Moose Jaw for the final year to get journeyman's certification. Now, thanks to our government's funding to SIAST, plus this program, these kids will no longer have to travel to the southern part of the province. They can actually take that training in Prince Albert and be closer to their families and closer to job sites.

There are so many nuggets in the budget. I have touched on just a few. When I look at the budget and the budget implementation bill, I see so many common sense things that are here for Canadians and Canadian families. I cannot see how anyone would actually vote against it. In fact, I just looked at the benefits for families and the $3,200 each family has had in the past. This is a good budget. This is a good implementation bill.

I encourage the opposition members to actually, as my colleague said before, put away the partisan politics, look at the actual paper sitting in front of them, look at the benefits Canadians and Canadian families are going to receive from this and get behind it. Let us improve it and let us move forward.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Prince Albert for his comments. He is fellow Prairie folk.

He spoke a bit about giving support to farmers. I just had the privilege of spending some time in Saskatchewan meeting with the growing number of people who are concerned that the government has killed a 75-year-old program called the PFRA. What the government has done is download the responsibility to farmers to be managing hundreds of thousands of hectares of very delicate land that provides habitat for threatened and endangered species. Does he not think it would have been useful to have, as his constituents are calling for, a lengthened time period for our wonderful farmers, growers, ranchers, first nations peoples and conservationists, who are trying to take on this program that was downloaded to them? What does he have to say about the fact that there is nothing in the budget to support their efforts to replace this program that was downloaded to them?

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member is a little confused. It is not the PFRA she is talking about. It is probably the pasture program or the Indian Head grow area, where they are growing shrubs and trees and stuff like that.

The agriculture scene in Saskatchewan has changed so much in the last 20 to 25 years. When we grew crops in the 1970s, we had issues with blowing dust and dirt. We did not have no-tillage or crops that were GMO. We did not have the tools we have today to seed into stubble, to do conventional or no-tillage.

When we go to the Prairies now, we do not have the issue of soil erosion because they are seeding straight into stubble. That ground has never been worked up. They are basically spraying it with a little bit of Roundup and 2,4-D, and they are seeding right into it. The farmers can actually grow a crop now on eight or nine inches of rain, when before they needed 15 or 20 inches of rain.

The agronomics that they are improving in the soil is amazing. If we look at the organic factors, they are going up 2%, 3% and 4%. The agronomics have actually been taken out of Saskatchewan and applied in other areas of the world, because they are so much further ahead.

It is important that the government recognize these changes and modify its programs so that they are effective and efficient, not outdated, like some of the programs she has talked about.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I was interested to hear my colleague talk about how good the economic policies of the Conservative government have been for the province of Saskatchewan, where the unemployment rate is 3.7%. The government decimated the economy of my province with the disproportionate civil service cuts and the gutting of employment insurance.

My question relates to the super credit for first-time donors. Here we have a bill that does absolutely nothing for the youth of this country. It does nothing to address the outlandishly high rates of youth unemployment in this country, and the government is patting itself on the back for developing a philanthropic gene among our youth.

I would suggest that for our youth to develop a sense of philanthropy, they would have to have something to give, which would involve having a job. The government has done absolutely nothing in this bill in that respect.

I would like to have my colleague respond to the contradiction in giving a credit for donating money that, under these circumstances, they undoubtedly will not have.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

The hon. member for Prince Albert has just a little more than a minute.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I can see the pain the member faces in his province, and it is unfortunate.

When I go to my province, unemployment is 3.7%. When I look at programs like the skills training program that is in the budget, that is going to be utilized by the employers in our province for students and young people so that they can achieve journeyman status and take on the jobs that are high paying. Most of them are unionized jobs. It is a good program, and that is what is in the budget.

If the member is looking for improvements or things to cut, I would tell him to look at the skills training program and tell the youth in his province to take that journeyman status. If they cannot find a job there, because of their provincial government, maybe they can go somewhere else to find a really good-paying job and take advantage of those opportunities in Canada.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

There is a point of order from the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to seek unanimous consent to move the following motion:

That notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, clauses 161 to 166 related to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the temporary foreign worker program be removed from Bill C-60, an Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures and do compose Bill C-62; that Bill C-62 be deemed read a first time and be printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the standing committee on human resources, skills and social development and the status of persons with disabilities; that Bill C-60 retain the status on the order paper that it had prior to the adoption of this order; that Bill C-60 be reprinted as amended; and that the law clerk and parliamentary counsel be authorized to make any technical changes or corrections as may be necessary to give effect to this motion.

New Democrats are moving this motion because we believe that this section of the omnibus Bill C-60 is extremely important and complex and that it deserves to receive a thorough study as a separate piece of legislation.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Does the member for Hamilton Mountain have the unanimous consent of the House?

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

There is no unanimous consent. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Kings—Hants.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I rise today to speak to Bill C-60, the Conservatives' first bill to implement budget 2013, I find it sad to have to remind Canadians that the bill imposes significant, in fact massive, tax hikes on middle-class Canadian families, who are already struggling to make ends meet. This is on top of massive tax increases that were included in the Conservatives' last three budgets. The Conservatives are raising taxes, because they need the money to cover for their waste and mismanagement. Unfortunately, the bill will only increase that wasteful spending by actually increasing the number of bloated ministers' offices, while at the same time cutting vital services middle-class Canadian families need. Finally, the bill does nothing to help young Canadians, who are desperate to find paid work.

As the House has heard, Bill C-60 is an omnibus bill that lumps together a large number of unrelated measures. These measures are being combined into one single bill on which we can vote yes or no. With a bill of this size and scope, with 233 different clauses, after all, it is bound to include some measures that we, in fact, may support.

For example, we are broadly supportive of some of the following measures: removing the deduction on disability benefits from the war veterans allowance; expanding the adoption expense tax credit; introducing a tax credit for first-time donors, although it is ironic that this first-time donor tax credit is not going to be utilized by too many young Canadians, given the fact that most young Canadians are having difficulty even finding jobs and opportunities or making ends meet; combatting tax evasion; extending the capital cost allowance again this year, although we would recommend that the government, instead of extending it for two years, should follow the advice of Canadian manufacturers and extend it for five years; expanding the GST and HST exemption for home care services; reducing tariffs on baby clothing and sporting equipment; supporting organizations such as Indspire, Canada Youth Business Foundation, Genome Canada, Nature Conservancy of Canada, Pallium Foundation of Canada and the Canadian National Institute for the Blind; providing funding for Nunavut housing; increasing the gas tax by 2% per year; reversing the Conservatives' earlier policy on the temporary foreign worker programs; and correcting the Conservatives' mistakes in terms of earlier changes made to registered disability savings plans when they rammed Bill C-38 through Parliament last year.

Given a chance to vote on some of these measures individually, we might, in fact, vote yes on some of them. Unfortunately, due to the approach taken by the Conservatives with this omnibus legislation, they have lumped some of these more reasonable measures in with massive tax increases on middle-class Canadians.

One measure alone, the proposed change to the dividend tax credit, will raise taxes on small business owners by over $2.3 billion over the next five years. This massive tax hike will hurt 750,000 Canadians, who will watch their tax bills go up by an average of more than $3,000 each, and it will put Canadian jobs and small businesses at risk. We cannot take $2.3 billion out of the economy without it hurting small businesses and hurting job creation in Canada. Remember, this tax hike is on top of the Conservatives' annual increase of EI premiums. Each and every year, the Conservatives increase the amount of money they take out of the economy through EI payroll tax increases by more than $600 million.

Bill C-60 also raises taxes on credit unions by $75 million per year. This is a direct attack on rural and small-town Canada, because credit unions play a vital role in the economies of small towns and communities across Canada.

The Conservatives seem to have forgotten that the goal of tax breaks for credit unions is to ensure that they can compete with big banks.

The fact is, credit unions are smaller and they face challenges that the big banks do not. That is why the tax deduction for credit unions ensures that only smaller institutions can qualify for this credit.

If the Conservatives believe that the deduction was not being used properly they could have proposed changes to the qualifying rules. It is not fair to punish all credit unions and the Canadians who depend on them by getting rid of this tax deduction altogether.

Bill C-60 also increases other taxes, some that will mean significant price increases for Canadian families and others that would nickel and dime Canadians who are already struggling just to make ends meet. The legislation would add GST or HST to the costs of certain health care services that Canadians already pay out of pocket.

For example, victims of crime would now pay GST or HST on the medical work that they need to establish their case in court, such as X-rays and lab work, which are not cheap to begin with. Bill C-60 would punish these victims by raising the costs of their medical expenses by up to 15%. I cannot understand for the life of me why the Conservative members of Parliament would want to punish victims of crime.

Bill C-60 would not only raise GST and HST on these health care services, it would make these increases retroactive to March 22. Doctors would now need to collect HST from their patients, and they are not sure which of the services would be subject to sales tax. There is a lot of confusion because the government has said that the tax is going up on health care services for non-health care purposes. What exactly does that mean?

Would couples who are struggling with fertility issues now have to pay taxes for certain lab work? Would Canadians have to pay taxes on doctors' notes they need for school or work? Would parents who have a child with special needs now have to pay tax on medical assessments they need in order to get a decision from a school board? Are the Conservatives now placing a tax on mental health services? We do not know.

While the Conservatives were quick to introduce this tax hike on health care services, they have been slow to provide Canadian doctors and their patients with the information they need.

Earlier this week the Canadian Psychological Association wrote to finance committee members asking for clarification. They wrote:

This announcement has created some confusion for psychologists, many of whom are small business owners, regarding which services are and are not HST-exempt. There is some urgency to the need for clarity given that changes outlined in the budget are retroactive to March 21st, 2013. Many of our members have spoken with their accountants but, unfortunately, this has yielded contradictory information and direction.

This type of confusion is the direct result of poorly thought out and hasty decisions brought forward by a government that is desperate to raise taxes and has not done its homework. It is what happens when a government becomes arrogant and refuses to hold public consultations and ignores the very Canadians who are most impacted by government decisions.

There are more tax hikes. Bill C-60 would increase taxes on safety deposit boxes.

Now the Conservatives will want to focus this debate on a few tiny tax decreases in the bill. For instance, they want to focus on tariff reductions for sporting equipment, those tariff reductions that we incidentally would support. However, it was my Liberal colleague, the member for Cape Breton—Canso, who stood in the House last November and demanded that the government remove these tariffs.

While this budget would reduce a few tariffs, it would increase many more. There is a net increase by $250 million per year in tariff taxes on Canadians. For every $1 in tariff reductions in this budget, there are $4 in tariff increases.

It is the Conservatives' tax increases that we do not support. These tax increases, otherwise known as tariff increases, which are import taxes, are a hidden tax on just about everything. Taxes on almost 1,300 different types of products would go up, everything from basic toiletries like toothpaste to home furnishings. The Conservatives would raise taxes on everything, including the kitchen sink. The fact is the import tax on kitchen sinks would more than double as a result of this budget.

The Conservatives have claimed that they are increasing these taxes because they do not want to help Chinese companies. That argument is ridiculous. It is not the Chinese companies that would be paying these taxes. It is middle-class Canadian families who are already struggling to make ends meet.

Second, if the tariff increases were not just simply a naked attempt by the Conservatives to take more money out of hard-working Canadians, then we would also see tax decreases in the budget in order to compensate Canadians.

When we tally it up, budget 2013 includes much more in the way of punishing tax increases than the pittance of tax relief. In fact, we could say there is a thimblefull of tax relief in a sea of tax hikes in this Conservative budget.

If we add up all the tax changes listed on the back of the budget, we would see that there is a net tax increase in every one of the next five years. This year, budget 2013 would impose a net tax increase of $65 million. Next year it would be a net tax increase of $615 million.

Over the next five years, the Conservatives' budget 2013 would impose a net tax increase of more than $3.3 billion. That is $3.3 billion of money earned by hard-working Canadians that the Conservatives would now be taking out of the economy. It is $3.3 billion less for Canadian families to spend on food, transportation or mortgage payments. That is on top of the almost $6.5 billion net increase in taxes imposed in the previous three budgets.

Combined, it is almost $10 billion in net tax increases on Canadians since budget 2010. That is $10 billion more that the Conservatives are taking out of the Canadian economy. It is $10 billion less in the hands of Canadian families and investors.

The government can do two things to help create jobs: cut taxes and increase public spending.

In fact, the Conservatives are doing the opposite. They are raising taxes while cutting public investment. It is no wonder that they are not creating enough jobs for young Canadians.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer has forecast that the last two Conservative budgets will kill far more jobs than they create. According to the interim PBO, tax increases and spending measures in budgets 2012 and 2013 would have a net effect of 12,000 fewer jobs this year, 33,000 fewer jobs next year and 67,000 fewer jobs by 2017.

It is little wonder that the Conservatives cannot match the job creation record of the previous Liberal government. Under Prime Ministers Chrétien and Martin, the Liberals consistently lowered taxes and helped create 3.5 million net new jobs in Canada.

Looking at just the last seven years of the Liberal administration, there were over two million net new jobs created. Compare this with the Conservatives. Only 1.3 million net new jobs have been created in the last seven years.

Many Canadians have dropped out of the workforce altogether. A lot of young Canadians are giving up. A lot of young Canadians are working in unpaid internships, and the Conservatives simply have not created the jobs young Canadians need at a time when we have lost a lot of good-paying manufacturing jobs and there have been a lot of Canadians who have gone from full-time jobs to part-time work. That is why Canadian families are falling behind.

Why are the Conservatives, during this time of economic uncertainty and challenge, raising taxes? It is to pay for the Conservatives' wasteful spending and mismanagement of public resources.

In this budget, we get more waste from the Conservatives. Budget 2013 does nothing to curb the Conservatives' addiction to partisan government advertising. Canadians are sick and tired of watching the Conservatives throw their money away on partisan economic action plan ads. We know that these ads are not a good use of taxpayers' money. The Conservatives know that they do not provide good value for the taxpayers.

Last year the government commissioned a poll to see if the economic action plans were working. These are the ads the government took out ostensibly to promote measures in the budget. Here is the result. While 23% of Canadians who saw the ad could remember the phrase, “economic action plan”, far fewer Canadians actually knew what the ads were about.

Half as many thought the ads were about Canada or the governing Conservative Party. They did not relate them to the budget at all. While almost 5% of Canadians could remember that the ads included arrows that pointed up, less than 1% of Canadians knew the ads were about the federal budget.

In fact, when the survey went further and asked whether or not it affected the behaviour of Canadians who watched them, 92% said the ads did not affect their behaviour whatsoever. There was no result for them whatsoever as a result of watching these ads. They said that the ads had not provided them with any useful information. Ninety-two per cent of Canadians said that.

Of the people who did something, more than one in five “expressed my disbelief”. I am quoting from the actual survey commissioned by the finance department. Apparently, expressing one's disbelief about the economic action plan ads was such a popular option in the survey that it actually got its own category in the results.

Unfortunately, there is nothing in this legislation that would help wean the Conservatives off this wasteful use of partisan advertising. There is another area of spending that is covered in Bill C-60 that reflects the disconnect between the Conservative priorities and those of Canadian families: the number of parliamentary secretaries and the size of the cabinet.

The bill would not only increase the number of parliamentary secretaries, it would actually add three more cabinet positions to the list of salaried ministers. This means the Prime Minister would continue to increase the size of his cabinet and that these cabinet ministers and their parliamentary secretaries could continue to give pay increases to their Conservative staffers. If we compare this to the plight that an awful lot of young Canadians face today, it would seem that the Conservatives are only interested, in terms of young Canadians, in helping young Conservative staffers, because it seems that they are leaving everyone else out of the equation totally.

In fact, only two measures would really will help young Canadians in this budget overall; well, I would say three.

First is the Canada Youth Business Foundation. I think, broadly, that investment is a positive investment. It is not nearly enough. There is so much more that needs to be done to foster entrepreneurialism in Canada.

Second, one could argue that expanding ministers' officers would create more jobs for young Conservative staffers. I guess we could say that is helping somebody out.

Third, at a time when young Canadians cannot find work, when the youth job numbers are five points worse than they were five years ago--last summer we had the worst summer jobs numbers since Statistics Canada started tracking these numbers--the Conservatives have come up with a new super donor credit for young Canadians who contribute. It is pretty hard for young Canadians to contribute when they are suffering under staggering consumer debt. Over 30% of them between the ages of 25 to 29 are living at home, with their parents, because they cannot pay for their own apartment. Yet what do the Conservatives do? They say, “We're going to help these people. We're going to make them great philanthropists.”

There are not too many young Canadians I know who are going to have wings of hospitals named after them in the near future. The reality is unless the Conservatives are talking about kids with trust funds or something, I do not know too many young Canadians who are in a position to give significant donations to charities or who have tax planners telling them how to do that in a tax-efficient manner. That shows us how out of touch the Conservatives are with middle-class Canadian families.

The reality is young Canadians are suffering. We risk losing a generation of potential in Canada as a result of Conservative inaction.

Nothing speaks more to the degree to which the government is out of touch with the needs and the realities of young Canadians than the fact that one of the few measures it puts in the budget to help young Canadians would help them become philanthropists, at a time when they cannot even make ends meet or pay for their own apartment or get out of debt from their student loans.

In summary, the bill would do nothing significant to help young Canadians who are struggling, it would punish middle-class Canadians with massive tax increases, and it would continue with wasteful spending that reflects the Conservatives' interest in politics and not in the people of Canada. Therefore, we cannot support the budget implementation act.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Minister of Veterans Affairs and Minister for La Francophonie]

Mr. Speaker, the member frequently mentioned youth in his speech.

Youth and their future are at the heart of the economic action plan's 2013 budget. For example, the Canada job grant will help match our job-seeking youth with the additional training they need. Adequate training will help them find a job.

Why is he opposing the economic action plan and all of the measures it contains for internships and support for entrepreneurs? Not only would it allow our youth to gain the experience they need, it would also allow them to work for businesses and gain the skills that will help them find jobs and contribute to our country's prosperity.

Why is he opposing the economic action plan, given that it is a tool for our youth?

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

Mr. Speaker, this budget does nothing for Canada's youth. More needs to be done. Slightly increasing resources for education is not enough. We need to create jobs for youth, for students in the summer, for example. The Conservatives cut funding for that.

I disagree with my colleague, who defends a government that does nothing for Canadian youth.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my hon. colleague on his speech. I was hoping we would talk about the next generation, the generation that we are losing, because this and previous governments have not taken care of them.

Once again, there are no real measures to stimulate job creation and incite young people to join the labour market. There is no extra little boost to help them start their own business or get some post-secondary training.

Could my colleague talk a little more about the measures that are missing from this budget but that could have helped young Canadians find work and contribute to Canada's future?

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

Mr. Speaker, more and more young Canadians want more than anything to gain some work experience. A growing number of youth are having to take unpaid internships or pursue their studies. It makes no sense in a country like Canada.

We need to invest money to encourage the success of Canada's youth. However, that is not a priority to the Conservatives. The Conservatives are completely out of touch with the reality facing young people and their families.

All parties of the House of Commons should work together to examine and present solutions for our youth. However, that is not possible with the Conservatives, since this is not a priority to them.

[Bruce Hyer, Independent, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we all know that raising payroll taxes is one of the most effective ways to kill jobs. The EI program was projected to be in a surplus even before the Conservatives decided to hike the EI premiums on employers in this budget. Raising premiums might make some sense if there were a real need, but clearly there is not. The unemployment rate is 1.4 million Canadians out of work, with six job seekers for every job.

My question to the hon. member for Kings—Hants is this: would he like to comment on why the Conservatives are raising payroll taxes at a time like this?

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, it is the Conservatives who have called payroll taxes a “job-killing tax”. In fact, the Minister of Finance is on the record saying that, yet he has increased payroll taxes by at least $600 million per year.

This makes no sense at a time when unemployment rates remain stubbornly high. Unemployment rates are still over a point higher than they were five years ago. Employment rates for young Canadians are five points worse than they were five years ago. It makes no sense to increase payroll taxes during a downturn.

In fact, it was the Conservatives who brought in measures on the governance of the EI system to force the system to balance itself over a shorter time horizon, which created the perverse effect of higher payroll taxes during times of downturn. They have since ignored their own mechanism to do that, but it is bad public policy in any case. It has created a lot of uncertainty and it is killing the capacity for small business people to create jobs in Canada.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from Kings—Hants for his very clear presentation on the downsides of budget 2013.

My question is about the increase in taxes on dividends for small and medium-sized businesses.

We know that sometimes dividends are a way that small business people can withdraw funds from their company. Often they use it to reinvest in the company. Small and medium-sized businesses often do not have access to public capital; they are not listed on a stock exchange; so that is necessary for their growth, their ability to hire and their ability to invest in innovations.

What explanation does the member have for why it would make sense to put billions of dollars in extra taxes on dividends for small and medium-sized businesses over the coming five years?

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague for Vancouver Quadra knows of which speaks, because she is one of the most successful entrepreneurs in this House. She and her husband and family have built a global business in reforestation. It is one of the great examples of green businesses that can employ Canadians and create the green jobs of tomorrow.

The member is absolutely right that the Conservatives' increase of $2.3 billion in taxes on small businesses is going to cost jobs. We cannot take $2.3 billion out of the economy without it affecting jobs in Canada. However, it is part of the Conservatives' continued tax hikes on the job creators of Canada, which are the small businesses that we need to be encouraging to grow and prosper and employ more Canadians. Instead, the Conservatives are taxing the heck out of them.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I found it odd that the member was talking about the last seven years of the Liberal government, because he spent much of that last seven years telling Canadians how bad a government it was. It was not until he was offered a cabinet position that he had a big conversion and thought maybe it was a better government than he remembered.

My question is this: is it now the position of the Liberal Party that our foreign aid dollars should be redirected from helping vulnerable people around the world to actually helping those economies that compete with our Canadian manufacturers to put our Canadian manufacturers at a disadvantage?

Specifically, there is a manufacturer in my riding that competes directly with a Chinese business and has applauded the changes to foreign aid that we have made, which will allow him to compete, succeed and hire more people.

Is it now the Liberals' position that our foreign aid should be directed to—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

The hon. member for Kings—Hants has 30 seconds to respond.

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

Mr. Speaker, in December 2003, I joined the Liberals. I was elected as a Liberal for the first time in 2004, after which I was invited to join the cabinet.

The reason I joined the Liberals when the Progressive Conservatives merged with the Canadian Alliance was that, as the Progressive Conservative Party's first openly gay member of Parliament, I did not believe there was a place for me with the social conservatives in the Canadian Alliance. I can say that the fact that they still do not have an openly gay member of their caucus or cabinet validates my decision. I am very proud to have followed my—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Resuming debate, the hon. Minister of Veterans Affairs.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Minister of Veterans Affairs and Minister for La Francophonie]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak this afternoon and share my time with an outstanding person, namely the member for Ottawa—Orléans. He represents a community in the suburbs of the greater Ottawa area, which includes a large French-speaking community, and he serves it very well.

He also serves veterans very well. He is a member of the Royal Canadian Legion. I can always count on him. He always attends events organized for veterans. I want to thank him and tell him that I am extremely proud to be with him in a Conservative caucus that is working every day to improve the quality of life for the entire Canadian population.

I want to say in no uncertain terms that I will be supporting our government’s 2013 economic action plan without reservation, for three very simple reasons.

First, this budget is tailor-made for Canadian families. It is consistent with our policies. For example, we have the lowest taxation rate for families. What we want is for the money to stay in the pockets of our families, so they can use it for their many needs.

We want to be an efficient government that is at their service. That is why we have reduced taxes more than 150 times since 2006. As a result, an average family with four children has $3,200 more in its pockets because it is paying less in taxes. Young families, among others, are also receiving grants to raise their children up to age six. People are also paying less in GST. We are naturally staying the course on the economy, and a return to a balanced budget.

Second, every person elected represents municipalities or cities. I have the privilege of representing a large portion of the city of Lévis, with my colleague the member for Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière. Now, the city of Lévis has significant infrastructure needs in order to support families and economic growth, and to be able to provide a quality of life in a changing environment. The city of Lévis has infrastructure projects, but so does the municipality of Bellechasse and the Des Etchemins regional county municipality. I am also thinking of Beaumont, which is growing very quickly, and Saint-Louis-de-Gonzague. These municipalities have infrastructure projects.

I support the economic action plan because the huge sums involved will enable municipalities to invest in infrastructure not only this year, but in the years to come. More than $50 billion in infrastructure spending is planned. For example, we are making the transfer of the excise tax on gasoline permanent. That will enable our municipalities to invest. We will be partnering with the provincial governments to enable them to generate leverage with the investments they make in infrastructure. This will consolidate the economic prosperity of our country.

Third, I support this budget because it is designed to serve people who have put their lives at risk for our country. They have served under Canada’s flag. Whether they are still in the ranks of the Canadian Armed Forces or have left, they are our veterans and their families.

I would like to take a few moments to show how much this budget respects the government’s responsibility towards its veterans and their families.

In the economic action plan, we have, so to speak, an investment that will represent huge sums in the years ahead for veterans and their families. Among other things, there is one specific measure in the budget: the war veterans’ allowance. For this measure to come into force, however, the economic action plan must be supported. I will talk a little more about it.

What struck me first in the budget with respect to benefits for veterans and their families is the need for support when a veteran dies. The funeral and burial program has been substantially improved with respect to funerals for eligible veterans. We are receiving constructive comments from the veteran community on this matter.

We are also improving our contribution to the important date coming up in 2017, namely the 150th anniversary of our country. That will also be the 100th anniversary of a landmark event in our history: the Battle of Vimy Ridge, where Canadians fought together for the first time. We were victorious, but we suffered substantial losses. That is why it is important that we, as a nation, make sure that people do not forget their sacrifice. That is also why we will be investing $5 million in an interpretation centre at the Canadian National Vimy Memorial.

The measures contained in the economic action plan 2013 take our unprecedented support for Canada's veterans and their families to the next level and demonstrate our continued commitment to veterans. We can see this commitment clearly in our government's response to a Federal Court ruling last spring.

The judge who made the decision did not specify its scope. However, he did indicate that there is no connection with the programs provided by National Defence and Veterans Affairs Canada. That said, under the leadership of our Prime Minister and with the support of the Conservative caucus, our government has decided to go beyond this decision, which involved only National Defence, so that the harmonization of our programs also covers those delivered by Veterans Affairs Canada.

This is an envelope of nearly $1.9 billion. Our government therefore decided immediately to go beyond the court’s decision and to stop deducting the disability pension from Veterans Affairs Canada in calculating the monthly payments as an allowance for lost revenue from the department and as an income support allowance from the Canadian Forces. We were able to do it immediately because that was what we wanted to do.

We wanted to accomplish a third item: the war veterans allowance. To do this, we need regulatory changes. That is why we need support from all parliamentarians for the approval of this measure, which is included in the 2013 economic action plan. Some 2,500 modern-era veterans and survivors should benefit from these changes in the first year alone. We also intend to adjust this veterans allowance in the same way.

Economic action plan 2013 calculates that the total impact of these measures, when we combine National Defence and Veterans Affairs Canada together, would be $1.9 billion over seven years. That is an extra $1.9 billion in the pockets of disabled veterans and men and women in uniform. We think this is the right thing to do and we seek support from the House to do so. This includes an additional $95.4 million to veterans above what was announced previously when calculating the earning loss benefit and the Canadian Forces income support benefit.

I want to reiterate how important it is as a government to support the budget for three reasons.

The first is the major increase in the funeral and burial program for those who need it.

The second is the support for the commemorations that would occur at the Vimy memorial centre, which is important. We actually have the Vimy memorial on our new $20 bill. It is our duty to remember.

The third is the harmonization of all of our programs, especially the veterans war allowance.

That is why I invite members to support the budget not only for all Canadian families, but especially for what it does for our veterans and their families.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's comments. He is urging the opposition to support the bill, yet the Conservatives have once again packed many complex and important issues in the bill to debate before the House. If the member thinks these measures are so important, why has the government crammed them all into this document, not allowing members of Parliament to do the job that Canadians elected us to do, which is to properly scrutinize these measures and come up with the best and most appropriate measures for Canadians?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is really simple. It is three points that gather to the same reality: economic prosperity and taking care of our families and our veterans. This budget is all about that.

Clearly, this is simple: first, do we support investment in our country’s infrastructure? I think we do. We need it. That is obvious.

Second, do we want to stimulate economic prosperity and job creation by ensuring that our young people have the training they need to secure the jobs that will enable them to respond to the labour shortages we are facing? Yes.

Third, does it make sense to do what is appropriate for veterans, and harmonize all our programs? As a nation, should we not offer a decent funeral and burial to a veteran who has died from service-related injuries? It is the least we can do.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, it will come as no surprise that, as the Veterans Affairs critic for the Liberal Party, I do not share the minister's view with respect to the impact of this budget on veterans.

With respect to the Last Post Fund, first, the budget trumpets a $65 million increase over the next two years. The minister knows, and I would like him to admit it, that this $65 million would not be spent over the next two years, in spite of the announcement in the budget.

Second, that increase to the Last Post Fund would not help one more veteran. The veterans who qualify would get more money, but not one more veteran would qualify, because the criteria have not changed.

The last thing I will say is that there is much trumpeting over the fact that the government has been beaten into submission by disabled veterans in court and now it is paying up. The exact same day as that lawsuit was launched, there was another lawsuit launched by disabled RCMP veterans. The government has refused to include them in the settlement discussions.

Therefore, does the minister really believe this budget has gone far enough to address the serious problems that exist in the veterans community?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there are important needs for the veterans community and their families, and we are always striving to improve our program. That is exactly what we would do in this budget.

I can assure the member that we will not do like the Liberals did, which was to cut those programs, to cut the funeral and burial program. This is the last thing Canadians would expect us to do. Therefore no, we are not doing that. We are not cutting this program.

Instead of speaking of large numbers, let us see what the impact would be for a deceased veteran who had a service-related injury. We are proposing to raise the maximum funeral services rate from $3,600 to $7,376 on top of continuing to provide for the full cost of burial. This means that if a Canadian who has a service-related injury is dying and is in need, this government will cover funeral and all burial costs. This is in the budget. This is why I invite my colleague to support the legislation.

I would like to comment further on the performance and the recognition of the veterans community for the harmonization of our program, but I will share the time with some colleagues.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Cape Breton—Canso, Human Resources and Skills Development Canada; the hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, Science and Technology.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Ottawa—Orléans.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to address the House this afternoon about the merits of economic action plan 2013.

I would like to especially thank the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Minister for La Francophonie for his kind words at the beginning of his speech.

Although the worst of the economic crisis seems to be behind us, the government's priority must continue to be the economy and job creation. In that regard, economic action plan 2013 is right on the mark.

When the recession struck the best country in the world in 2008, the government responded with a bold plan to invest in our infrastructure. The city of Ottawa and the district of Ottawa—Orléans have benefited greatly from this economic stimulus program.

We need only consider the construction of an east-west light rail in Ottawa, a total investment of $2.1 billion, $785 million of which is from the federal taxpayers through the building Canada plan and the federal gas tax fund.

What is more, this capital investment, which is the top and only priority of the City of Ottawa, will create 20,000 jobs a year until 2018.

I would like to take this opportunity to salute the member for Ottawa West—Nepean and Mayor Jim Watson and councillors Rainer Bloess, Bob Monette, Stephen Blais and Tim Tierney for their leadership in advancing this file.

We can also point to the investment of nearly $25 million for the first two phases of the Ottawa River action plan and of $6.7 million for the extension of the Hunt Club Road to Highway 417.

Thanks to the infrastructure improvement fund announced in January 2009 to help kick-start the Canadian economy, the people of Ottawa—Orléans have seen the delivery of 11 projects that directly affect them, at a value of over $11 million.

With an economic recovery that was lagging due to economic instability in other countries, the government understood that it had to meet the demands of municipalities and move ahead with another plan for long-term investment in Canada's infrastructure.

What economic action plan 2013 is proposing is $53 billion over 10 years.

Even though construction of Ottawa's light rail began only last week, elected officials and employees are already working on plans to expand it—even as far as the eastern end of Orléans.

This important project is close to my heart, and it could be supported by the building Canada plan and the community infrastructure improvement fund.

As you all know, linguistic duality is one of the values of this country that I cherish the most.

The French and English languages are integral to our history, our identity and our future. They are a treasure that must be defended.

This is a value dear to the hearts of the wise electors of Ottawa—Orléans, where about 30% of the population is French-speaking.

That is not to say that this value is not also important to the English-speaking residents of Ottawa—Orléans. When they come to settle there, they know that one of their immediate neighbours is going to be French-speaking and they regard this as an asset. They regard linguistic duality as an asset.

The government shares this way of thinking. In addition to supporting the spirit of Bill C-419, the language skills act sponsored by the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent, the government has slightly increased the envelope of the roadmap for official languages, which stands at over $1.1 billion for 2013-18. This represents the most far-reaching investment in official languages in our history—an increase of 40% over the previous government's plan.

The new road map will continue to support the learning of English and French as second languages and will continue its support for minority school systems so as to foster the development of citizens and communities.

In an interview with L'Express, Ottawa's French-language weekly newspaper, Marie-France Kenny, the president of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadiennes du Canada, said:

We are happy; this will provide important leverage. For us, it's a real feat for the communities, the minister and the Prime Minister to have managed to maintain funding under the roadmap. For us, it is proof of the importance attributed to linguistic duality and the hard work that has been done in our communities for a year and a half to make our priorities known.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage promised to listen to Canadians before renewing the road map. He toured the country, organizing 23 round tables, in two of which I participated. He delivered the goods.

A little earlier, I was saying that job creation had to continue to be the government's priority. Small and medium-size enterprises are the engine of the Canadian economy. SMEs are the backbone of the Ottawa—Orléans economy. Businesses such as SURE Print, Lacroix Source for Sports in Orléans, the Massage and Treatment Clinic and Cuisine & Passion have come to set up shop.

It is my pleasure to recognize André Lacroix, who has owned Lacroix Source for Sports for 40 years. A terrific businessman, he is equally effective at giving back to the community, and he was awarded the Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal.

These companies are very well represented by the Orléans Chamber of Commerce and its dynamic team, with its president, Dan Levesque, its board of directors and its executive director, Jamie Kwong.

In addition to reducing income taxes and cutting red tape, the economic action plan is proposing to expand and extend the hiring credit for small business for one year.

This measure, which has proven its worth in recent years, should benefit 560,000 SMEs.

Furthermore, we are going to increase the lifetime capital gains exemption from $750,000 to $800,000, and then we will index it. This positive measure will improve the return on investment in small businesses by making things easier for entrepreneurs who want to pass on the family business to the next generation of Canadians.

The fate of our soldiers and veterans is very important to me. These brave people have sacrificed so much that our country can enjoy the benefits of freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law. We owe our freedom to them. I see them often, especially when I go to my weekly Saturday breakfast at the Royal Canadian Legion in Orléans.

Economic action plan 2013 contains measures to support these important people.

We are suggesting an investment of $1.9 billion over seven years to ensure that our disabled, ill or aging veterans and their families receive the support they need.

We are also proposing to double the reimbursement ceiling for the funeral and burial program. It is the least we can do to offer dignified funeral services for those who have lost their lives defending our country.

Families and communities are not being left behind. We are proposing to invest $1.9 billion over five years to create more affordable housing and to combat the unfortunate phenomenon of homelessness. We would also like to support families who want to adopt a child by granting them tax relief.

Economic action plan 2013 is a reasonable plan that will help our country prosper in spite of these uncertain times.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very attentively to the speech by my honourable colleague, who is the member of Parliament for the town where I grew up. I know the area very well. I have a question for him.

I understand that the budget is going to be advantageous for some groups, but there is a specific group for whom the budget will be distinctly disadvantageous: public servants in the area. There are many public servants in the member’s riding, and I am wondering if he finds anything of benefit for them in this budget. Tens of thousands of positions have been cut in the region.

How can he defend the budget, in light of this situation?

I would still like to thank him for his speech, though.

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

Mr. Speaker, public servants are also taxpayers.

These taxpayers and these public servants keep supporting the government, over and over and despite all the pressure from unions, because they know we are vigilant about public money.

In terms of the moves happening in the public service, they are inconvenient, but they are carried out much more openly and with a great deal more compassion than they were in 1995, under the previous regime. What is really happening is that young people are being promoted and people who are taking early retirement are going on with their lives, and perhaps they are even happier than they were before.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I again want to address my question to the comments made by the member for Ottawa—Orléans with respect to the measures in the budget for veterans and his specific reference to the doubling of the amount of support that is available for funeral and burial expenses.

The chair of the Last Post Fund testified at the veterans committee a year and a half ago, as follows:

For more than a decade, the Last Post Fund has advocated that the program be extended to modern-day veterans in the same way it was offered to traditional veterans. Unfortunately, the governments of Canada during this period have declined to do so, despite the urging of all veterans organizations.

That wrong has still not been righted by this budget. This budget has increased the amount available to those who are eligible, but it has not changed the eligibility criteria. Not one additional veteran will benefit. Is this really the best we can do?

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from the hon. member, but he should probably be red in the face for asking it, because members of the third party do not have very much credibility on issues that have to do with veterans. As far as I remember, the last minister of veterans affairs of the Liberal Party who was believable with veterans was Dan MacDonald. Some of the members across the way were not even born then.

I am glad he asked, because the doubling is from $3,600 to $4,400. I visit veterans every week and talk to 50 to 100 of them. They told me it is just what they wanted.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for that encouraging response. I will be sharing my time with the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel.

I rise today on behalf of the members of my riding of Davenport in Toronto to speak to the bill, the so-called economic action plan.

We have been arguing since I got here in 2011 for some kind of action from the government for cities, some kind of action around, for example, gridlock in Toronto and the fact that the Board of Trade has pegged the cost of gridlock at about $6 billion a year in the GTA alone. That is a huge drag on the economy of the biggest city in the country.

While I know many members opposite love to hate the city of Toronto, I must say that if the health of the economy in Toronto is going well, we can bet the economy of the region improves, and I dare say that of the country.

There is really no focused attention on the GTA in this budget. In fact the government has cut almost $4.7 billion in infrastructure from the budget. When we have a gridlock to the tune of $6 billion in Toronto, we would think there would be something in the budget on that.

Just recently, McMaster University and the United Way tabled a report that showed that almost 50% of workers in the GTA, in Toronto, could not find stable, full-time employment. That is 50% of the workers in the biggest city in the country who cannot find a full-time job.

Some of the members opposite like to pretend we are still living in Pleasantville, 1950, not that it was so pleasant, I do not think, in 1950. However, they like to think that people can still get a job for life when they leave school, and then they can retire with a pension and live their senior years in dignity.

That story, if it ever was true, certainly ended. Today, young people are entering the job market to serial contract jobs. Those jobs have no benefits, and they certainly have no pension and no job security. This is the kind of economy into which the government is welcoming young people, if they can get into it in the first place.

We already know that the official unemployment rate for young people in this country is about 15%, but we know that the unofficial rate is much higher. That 15% is extremely high. It is higher than any of the members across the way ever experienced when they were young, but this is what we are welcoming young people into in the job market.

It is hard to stomach sometimes listening to the government members crow about how great the economy is. They should come to Toronto and talk to the many young people who are working these serial part-time jobs.

The Conservatives have nothing to say. They wax poetic in the way they can, which is marginal to say the least, about the unemployment rate in Saskatchewan. That is fantastic. Their jobs plan is to have everybody who does not live in Saskatchewan and Alberta move there to find the jobs.

Here on this side of the House we are proud of the fact that in those regions things are going well, but I came here to represent the people of Davenport, people in Toronto, and the government has absolutely ignored this city in this budget, certainly, but not just in this budget.

It is an outrage that we have engineers and physicists working as cab drivers in the city while the government is allowing temporary foreign workers to come and essentially work in jobs that people, many of them Canadian citizens, cannot access.

It is an outrage to most fair-minded people in our country. It is certainly an outrage when we try to imagine the economy of Toronto the way it is today and the needs we have in the city. For example, we have over 100,000 families on the affordable housing waiting list in the city of Toronto. There are millions of people across the country on an affordable housing waiting list. There is nothing in the budget to deal with the issue.

We know the economic multiplier of building affordable housing, and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities has mapped it out. We know that this is a key economic engine, yet the government has continually wasted opportunities to deal with the issue. It can only be described as one of the most serious issues we have in the country. In fact, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities has said that affordable housing is the key issue for big cities, small towns and rural municipalities.

Certainly the members from Alberta and Saskatchewan know this quite well, yet they sit there day in and day out, just like the Conservative members from Toronto sit day in and day out and vote against the interests of cities. We can only see that writ large in this budget.

I want to address another issue that urban workers deal with on a daily basis, and there is nothing in the budget that speaks to it. We are trying to develop a 21st century economy and part of that, necessarily, involves what analysts peg as either a $60-billion or $80-billion industry. That is the arts and culture sector.

We hear day in and day out from the government that it loves Canadian history and it is a big supporter of this and that battle. For example, it is willing to spend tons of money on the War of 1812. However, many of the arts and culture institutions in our country, I believe 10 of them, are being deeply affected in the budget. These institutions nurture the sector and teach the next generation of technicians, artists, directors and curators, these professionals we rely on not just to preserve our culture but to gather it together and share it with others. The government has thrown away all pretensions of these agencies being third-party, arm's-length to the government with the changes it is proposing in the budget. It is outrageous.

I want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that tomorrow is World Press Freedom Day. I thought it would be worth it to share a small quote, and then I will conclude.

I quote, “...the fostering of an independent, pluralistic and free press is essential to the development and maintenance of democracy in a nation, and for economic development.”

Note “economic development”.

“By an independent press, we mean a press independent from governmental, political or economic control or from control of materials and infrastructure essential for the production and dissemination of newspapers, magazines and periodicals.”

The quote comes from the Declaration of Windhoek on May 3, 1993 at the UN General Assembly. The declaration calls for free, independent, pluralistic media worldwide, characterizing the free press as essential to democracy and as a fundamental human right. Measures in this budget wreak havoc on this essential element of a democratic society.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned housing, something that always piques my attention.

In Toronto, the vacancy rate, or in other words the number of available housing units, is very low. It is around 1.5%. This results in higher rents, because not many places are available. However, there is not much money in the budget for affordable housing. What does this kind of thing do to the economy of a big city like Toronto?

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague and applaud her for the great work that she is doing on this important file. Affordable housing and housing security is one of the key determinants of health. That is why this is so essential and is such an egregious omission in this budget.

When we have families and young people spending 40%, 45%, 50% and over 50% of their gross income on housing, they are not spending that money on anything else. They are living in precarious situations. They have precarious jobs. Due to their precariousness, they are not able to help our economy in the way that they really could be, in the way that they really should be, and in the way that we really need them to be.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his excellent speech and particularly for the little bit about the performing arts. Arts and culture have once again been ignored by the government, which believes that culture and entertainment make no economic contribution to our society.

I would appreciate it if my colleague would discuss the importance of developing training programs for stage and film technicians. Canada’s film industry is internationally recognized for our films, which win awards around the world. The industry is viable and vibrant, but it always needs further refinement. I would also be grateful if he could tell us just how important the record industry is.

I would like him to tell the House more about the importance of this entire industry and why it is important to invest in it and support our culture. After all, we are talking about our heritage.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is true. We talk a lot about the knowledge economy and we talk a lot about the economy of the 21st century, that we have to move to a different model.

Yes, we have the basics and we have the model right here. It is in the arts and culture sector, where we are competing against the best all over the world. We have developed a phenomenal recording industry and a film industry. We have world-recognized writers and visual artists. We have an industry that supports it to the tune of between $60 billion and $80 billion.

This budget, like many other actions of the government, missed great opportunities to leverage this. This is an export commodity that the current government is letting lie fallow when it should be actually supporting the sector and presenting it to the world.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the areas, additionally, that we do not find in the bill is any investment in energy efficiency. We had hoped for, and my constituents had hoped for, a return of the home energy retrofit. What I had also hoped for, following a review we are doing in committee, is a major investment of energy efficiency in government buildings instead of cutting civil servants.

Would the member speak to that?

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for the work that she has done raising awareness constantly on issues of the environment. Certainly, in my city in Toronto we have a huge need for investments in energy efficiency.

We saw in the House very recently that the government voted down our motion on the perils of a 2° rise in temperature, yet we can do many things to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. One of the main ones is reducing and conserving energy.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today, May 2, two years after the NDP was elected as the official opposition. It has bee two years, but this budget implementation bill still contains the worst of the Conservative policies, even though this legislation should only include budget measures. Therefore, I will oppose this bill because of its content and because of the process.

Bill C-60, which implements parts of budget 2013, increases the tax burden on Canadians with tax increases for credit unions and small businesses. It also includes higher tariffs on thousands of products. It gives Treasury Board very broad powers allowing it to intervene in the collective bargaining process and to impose terms and conditions of employment on non-unionized crown corporation employees. It also amends the Investment Canada Act to significantly reduce the number of takeovers that are subject to review. Finally, it proposes a symbolic but inadequate solution to the flawed approach to the temporary foreign worker program.

To fully understand the problems with Bill C-60, we must go back to its source, the 2013 budget. That budget did not include anything really new, nor did it propose anything satisfactory regarding employment. It continued to target services provided to Canadians by trying to shrink the size of government. In this budget, the government tried to pull a fast one with funds allocated to worker training, and by pretending that infrastructure funds were going to increase when in fact they have been reduced, as my NDP colleagues found out. It is very important to point out that what was announced as new money is in fact a budget cut.

This budget also targets workers' funds and all those who benefit from such funds, including small investors and businesses in our regions. Moreover, the budget does not take seriously the problems facing producers, such as the labour shortage. The changes made to the employment insurance program did not help at all, and many farmers and seasonal entrepreneurs in my riding are having a hard time hiring skilled labour this year. They worry about the impact that these changes will have on them. The budget also does not do anything to help them with risk management.

The budget also shows a lack of conviction regarding the implementation of the Emerson report recommendations. That report, commissioned by this Conservative government, was drafted by the industry. The fact that its recommendations were not fully implemented means the Conservatives are not clearly siding with the aerospace industry, even though that industry creates thousands of jobs in a riding like Mirabel.

Again, with this budget, the government missed an opportunity to reverse its decision to slash old age security and many other programs. It is really unfortunate that this budget does absolutely nothing for the citizens of Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel.

By amending close to 50 different acts, Bill C-60 follows the same pattern as omnibus Bills C-38 and C-45.

While it is smaller than similar bills we have seen from this government, it still amends 49 pieces of legislation, which is a lot. The mere fact that the bill has fewer pages does not mean it is no worse. In any case, what Canadians want is not something that is no worse. They want something better. To achieve that, measures should be proposed properly, separately, and they should be debated fairly, based on their merits. They should be proposed responsibly in this Parliament.

Omnibus bills like this one and all the other budget implementation bills are fundamentally bad for democracy and for our Parliament.

With Bill C-60, the Conservatives are trying, for the third time, to circumvent parliamentary and public oversight. Canadians deserve better than a Conservative omnibus bill that adds to their cost of living and does not create jobs.

I want to be clear. I will oppose this omnibus bill because it is altogether bad for the Canadian economy. Regardless of what the Conservatives are saying, budget 2013 and Bill C-60 are measures that will slow down the Canadian economy instead of boosting it.

Budget 2013 cuts thousands of jobs, cuts program spending and weakens GDP growth. The Conservatives' plan, starting with budget 2012, will lead to the loss of 67,000 jobs by 2017 and a 0.57% drop in GDP. That is far from the prosperity the Conservatives promised.

I want to talk about something other than figures, but I do want to say that I did not make them up. They came from the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who was appointed by this government.

As if it were not enough that this budget does nothing for the economy, with this bill, the government continues to go after workers. The bill gives extensive powers to the Treasury Board to intervene in the collective bargaining process and impose terms and conditions of employment on crown corporations. This interference in the negotiating process is very disappointing. The Conservatives are continuing their direct attack on collective bargaining. What a perfect example of doublespeak. They talk about independence for crown corporations, but they want to impose their austerity ideology and they are crushing that independence by interfering in the management of crown corporations.

I also want to mention that workers are not the only ones who will be negatively affected by this bill. The Conservatives really seem to have it in for the regions. Their tax hikes for credit unions and small businesses represent a direct attack on my riding's economy. Credit unions and SMEs are an important part of our communities' economic and social fabric. The Conservatives are taxing them to benefit the major banks and big businesses.

They amended the Investment Canada Act to considerably reduce the number of takeovers subject to review. That means that businesses outside of major urban centres will no longer be reviewed and, without oversight from the government, could be taken over by foreign companies.

Furthermore, how can we forget their ill-advised EI reform, which targets seasonal workers, who are essential to rural economies, or their attack on labour-sponsored funds, which are supported by workers, investors, unions and businesses, especially in the regions?

It is clear that the budget does nothing for my riding.

In conclusion, the government is trying to say that it is doing a good job managing the economy. In this budget, there is nothing for workers and nothing for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel. People deserve much more, and I hope to have the opportunity to give them more in 2015.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague said that there is nothing in this bill for workers. That is definitely true, but I want to know if she agrees with the idea that it will harm workers. Sixty-seven thousands jobs will be lost between now and 2017 because of the 2012 and 2013 budgets.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is true.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer said that it will harm workers. It will reduce the number of jobs.

Basically, the Conservatives are putting austerity measures in place to reduce the government to nothing. Many people will lose their jobs and services will be cut. In the meantime, changes are being made to employment insurance and many people are worried about their job.

The effects are already being felt in Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, even though these measures have only been in place a few months. Almost every week, a new example of EI mismanagement comes to light.

For example, this week a woman came to my office. She said that they threatened to take her employment insurance benefits away if she did not go to Saint-Jérôme, which is a 30-minute drive from her home in Lachute. The only way to get there is highway 50. However, she does not have a car. That makes it pretty hard to do.

The measures this government is taking are clearly against workers, especially workers in the regions.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I especially understand the comments made by the member in response to her last question on the impact EI changes have on a region.

The Atlantic premiers wrote a letter. In it they said:

These impacts are most acutely felt in seasonal industries, which make up a significant portion of the Atlantic economy. These changes were introduced without consultation or shared analysis, and therefore without a full understanding of the effect of the changes. Atlantic premiers urged the Federal Government to suspend the changes to the program pending the completion of an evidence-based approach.

That is in information from the Council of Atlantic Premiers, and what those people are saying is that the current government's changes—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I hear some of the backbench members from Atlantic Canada over there chirping, but they stand and support the Prime Minister like trained seals.

My question for the member is this. Does she see the same kind of impacts in the rural areas of Quebec?

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in Argenteuil and Papineau we have already seen a lot of people coming forward with issues surrounding the changes to employment insurance, impacts that they have already felt, whether it is clawbacks or fear of what will happen to them when their job is to plant things, and they cannot plant things in the winter. It has definitely had an impact for employers in the region that are no longer able to find people who want to come back in the summer because they are afraid of what it will mean for their salary down the road.

Therefore, this is having a huge impact on whether people live in the regions. Bringing new generations into rural areas is something that places like Argenteuil and Papineau are putting so much work into doing right now. We are not far from Ottawa or Montreal. It should be a place where people want to go, live and work, and not too far from the city. However, unfortunately people are afraid they are going to have to drive to Gatineau or Montreal just to work for a minimum wage. People do not want to move into the region anymore.

Unfortunately, this is what is happening and it is clear it is because the Conservatives did not study how this would impact Canadians when they made the changes to employment insurance.

I also want to mention, while I am on my feet, that it is too bad the Conservatives also did not go back on their changes to OAS. Canadians have been calling for this as well, and it is not fair to ask these people to work longer. OAS is supposed to be a security net, not something that makes people work longer.

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Burlington.

It is very interesting. I have listened to the debates this afternoon and opposition members have been arguing about the rationale as to why they cannot support Bill C-60, our economic action plan.

I would like to give them a few examples of reasons why they should support it. It is rather important legislation that continues a growth pattern that we have started on as a government.

We have come out of the recession as number one in the world, which is really rare for Canada as it has never been there before. It is exciting to see the numbers of jobs that have been created and the opportunity that we have as far as growth as we move forward.

Maybe I will close with some of the optimistic things that we can talk about within our country, but this legislation builds on that. Just for one reason alone, if the opposition is looking at something it could support, it certainly could support our veterans. This legislation would give a very nice benefit to our vets. For that reason alone, the opposition should support it.

Then again, it should also be supporting what the legislation does with regards to going after tax evaders, something that has not happened for many years. Just in fairness, as Canadians, and for no other reason, the opposition should support it to ensure everyone pays their fair share of taxes and to deal with those who cheat.

When it comes to the indexing of the gas tax, I heard the opposition say that the number one problem in municipalities was housing. I would beg to differ. The number one problem in municipalities, as we have heard right across the country from coast to coast to coast, is infrastructure. The legislation deals with $53 billion of infrastructure over a 10-year period, the most aggressive infrastructure plan that we have ever laid out as a country. For that reason alone, the opposition should support the legislation.

We would be lowering taxes and providing flow-through shares for mining and keeping that industry going. The accelerated capital cost allowance creates a tremendous amount of opportunity in manufacturing and opportunity for job growth and industry growth for many years to come. This is a great benefit in the legislation. The opposition should be supporting it because of that, or because of the hiring tax credit that has been continued for small businesses, which is a real benefit that it should be supporting. Even the capital gains exemption has gone up for lifetime capital gains for individuals. This is should be supported.

For those reasons alone, and I could go on about many other reasons, the opposition should support the bill. Instead, we hear a lot of negativity and some things that are negative have nothing to do with the legislation as far as arguments go. I guess I should not be alarmed about that, because when the opposition runs out of manufactured reasons for not supporting it, it comes up with reasons that are not even in the bill.

I would like to spend my time on the number one issue in my riding, which is the lack of labour. It is different from what I heard from the hon. member from Toronto, who suggested the number one problem was unemployment.

I have the opposite problem in my riding, which is a good thing in some ways, but in other ways it is not. The temporary foreign worker program was there to address it in the last election. When the people of my riding discerned whether I was the right person to vote for, the number one issue they came forward with was a lack of labour. The importance of the temporary foreign worker program was to deal with the kinds of reduction and the ability for corporations and industries to grow and create the kinds of opportunity for our region and our country.

However, the temporary foreign worker program was something we said we would take a look at, to see if we could find ways to make that program work even more effectively. Guess what? We did. We made the program work even more effectively and efficiently. However, there is a bit of a problem with the temporary foreign worker program and this legislation addresses that.

In my riding, unemployment is zero. The real objective of the temporary foreign worker program is that it does not take away jobs from Canadians, but helps complement the workforce where there are no Canadians to fill those jobs.

Even where unemployment is virtually zero or very close to it, there are people in the system who have abused the program, even in my riding. This needs to be addressed. In this piece of legislation, we are going after those individuals, tweaking the program and will be consulting on this program in the future to make it better so that it actually deals with what it was intended to do, which was complement and not replace Canadian workers.

There are seven ways that this piece of legislation lays out how it is going to be changed. The first one would come into effect immediately and it is with respect to the pay differential, which was brought in about a year or a year and a half ago and was not being used. Only about 5% of those using the program even bothered with it. Let us get rid of the compromised price of 15% for skilled workers or 5% for lower-skilled workers on the differential of what those individuals are being paid. That we got rid of in this piece of legislation.

We are going to temporarily suspend in this piece of legislation the accelerated labour market opinion process, which was something they were asking for. In my riding, people needed it. We are not going to cancel it in this legislation, just suspend it while we take a breather, do some consultation and look at how we build on this program to make it even better.

The third thing in this piece of legislation on the program is to make sure it has the power to deal with those who abuse the process in the sense of being able to take away, revoke or suspend the labour market opinion process, the work permit as well as the LMO. This is something we need if we are going to be able to deal with those who refuse to see it as a program to complement Canadian workers and use it to replace Canadian workers, which we are seeing even in an area such as ours.

The fourth change to the temporary foreign worker program in this piece of legislation is to make sure we stop outsourcing. The program was never intended to replace the Canadian workforce and to have people work outside our country is a total abuse. This piece of legislation deals with that as well. That is another reason for certain that the opposition should be supporting it.

The fifth reason is that we want to make certain there is a plan in place for corporations that get LMOs and use temporary foreign workers to replace them long term with the Canadian workforce. That may be the most difficult one in my riding to comply with, so we are going to go through a process of consultation on that.

The sixth thing is to make sure that the fund is self-funded. There is no way that the taxpayer should be supporting this fund. The employer should be doing that.

The seventh thing is to make sure that English and French are the only mandatory languages necessary for foreign workers.

Those are the seven changes. The agricultural community and the agriculture workforce are exempt from most of these, except that if people abuse the system, the work permits will be revoked.

These are wonderful changes to the program, but it is in a process of consultation. It is one of the most important pieces in this bill that will impact all of Canada, but particularly my riding.

We have a wonderful experience in Canada. When we were coming through the recession, my colleagues in America went green with envy. They call Canada the miracle to the north because of the jobs created, the lower taxes, how we are freeing up the private sector to grow, capitalizing on international markets and moving to balanced books. For that, we should be very excited as Canadians. We have a great story to tell. We are doing some wonderful things not only in this budget, but in past budgets. This complements past ones. All members should think soberly about that and support this piece of legislation.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the problems, of course, with an omnibus budget bill is that one can pick and choose what one decides to talk about and skim over some of the rest. With the Conservatives, unfortunately, the devil is always in the details when it comes to their budget bills.

I want to ask about two issues in particular that I did not hear the member mention and that trouble me.

As members will recall, I have quite often risen in the House to talk about issues related to Canada Post as they were brought to me both by constituents, and when I was the labour critic, by communities right across the country with respect to post office closures, staff layoffs and particularly with respect to collective bargaining. When I was asking those questions, the government always said, “Oh, it's an arm's-length relationship, and we couldn't possibly comment.”

Well, in this budget bill we learn that those are the shortest arms in the world. In this budget bill, the government is interfering quite directly in the collective bargaining rights of the workers at not only Canada Post but also CBC and with respect to VIA Rail.

I ask the member quite specifically: why is this budget bill meddling in the managerial autonomy of crown corporations?

Second, there are provisions in this budget that also deal with the Investment Canada Act.

The member would also know that on a number of occasions I have raised the story of the U.S. Steel buyout of Stelco under the Investment Canada Act where absolutely no production or employment guarantees were met by that company. The government took them to court, and was winning every step of the way, but then folded like a cheap shirt.

How do these Investment Canada Act provisions actually help the people who are now for the third time, in three collective agreement negotiations, locked out by the company?

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an absolutely wonderful story that we have with regard to investments in Canada, and for those who come to this country to invest and create opportunities for employment in manufacturing, as well as the opportunity in the long run for Canadians on investments. This is one of the first times in the history of our country that we actually have the floodgates wide open because it is all about confidence. People are going to invest in this country because of the confidence that is here that they would actually be making money.

In fact, I was talking to a group this morning from chemical corporations in this country that are dealing with investments. They are looking at infrastructure builds of $5 billion over the next five years. They are saying that they have corporations all over the world, but the corporations that are making the most money are really Canadian corporations. Why? It is because of the competitive advantage that we are giving them. We are working to make certain that we have the opportunities for Canadians to be able to develop manufacturing jobs and good jobs in the long run. These are one small example of the kinds of investments that are coming into this country.

When it comes to Canada Post, CBC and other crown corporations, they are arm's-length from government, but we want to make sure that they are sustainable in the long run. We have to work and be responsible to Canadians and to the public we represent by making sure that these crown corporations move in that direction. That is where I believe this piece of legislation will take us.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have no idea how he can say that with a straight face.

He mentioned infrastructure earlier. However, the infrastructure money is coming from the building Canada fund, an old program that did not use up all of its funding. They are claiming that there is new money but, in reality, they are cutting $5.8 billion over five years.

These are not new funds and this is not the most money any government has ever spent. That is untrue.

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I beg to differ with my hon. colleague: it is absolutely new. It is indexed gas tax funds, which is brand new, plus $14 billion in larger projects. I do not have the numbers in front of me, but collectively it is $53 billion in 10-year, long-term, stable funding.

This is exactly what the Federation of Canadian Municipalities has been asking for across Canada. This is what it is getting in this piece of legislation. It is the most excited. When I talk to mayors and reeves in municipalities across my riding, they are absolutely ecstatic about this bill. They want it passed because they then can make some long-term plans for solid infrastructure that will build this country a long way into the future.

My hon. colleague should support this piece of legislation if for no other reason than the infrastructure alone.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to stand and talk about Bill C-60, the first BIA. There is normally one in the spring and one in the fall.

I want to say a couple of words before I begin on the actual substance of the bill. We are hearing from the opposition about the length of the bill. That is a legitimate concern. Therefore, I looked at it. It is 115 pages, in English and in French. It is not 115 in English and 115 in French. It is a total of 115 pages.

I am absolutely positive that my colleague from Hamilton Mountain can read 50 pages and understand what it is in it. The argument that this is some sort of big bill that is unmanageable is completely false. If the opposition cannot read 50 pages, then we have something to really worry about.

Let us be fair. This is a 50-page bill, 115 pages in both languages. If members are talented enough, which I am not, to read it in both languages, it is 115 pages. It is not that long.

I want to thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance for hosting the overview of the bill on Monday night. There was a decent crowd there of members of Parliament and staff.

Every section was reviewed, not by the political staff but by members of the finance department. They went clause by clause, division by division, and answered questions from the floor from all parties on what was in this implementation bill, Bill C-60. They gave non-partisan answers to what was in the bill.

I would encourage all members of Parliament who are interested in the financial aspects of the budget and the implementation bill to take advantage of the opportunity that the government is providing to all members of the House. The briefings that took place on Monday night of this week made a significant difference in the understanding of what was in these clauses before us today.

Let me go to some of the points I think are very important to my riding, to me personally, to my constituents and to the country as a whole. I will see how much time I have and how far I can go on these.

Let us talk about the adoption expense tax credit that the opposition will vote against. With this tax credit for adoptive parents, we are adding to what they can deduct in their quest as a family to adopt a child or baby. It is an opportunity. We understand, on this side of the House, that there are costs and effort for young families to adopt a child.

We are using the tax credit system to say that we understand what they are trying to do, that they are doing a good thing for their family, that they are doing a good thing for the country and we are providing some assistance in the adoption expense tax credit.

We are also offering a first-time donor's super credit. For people who have not donated before, we are adding an extra 25% to that first-time donation that they make to an organization, if they and their spouse have not donated since 2007. We are encouraging Canadians to support charities.

Where did we get this from? We have done consultations as individual members and the finance committee heard people from across the country. These are the kinds of support for which the not-for-profit charity sector asked. That is what is being delivered. It is in the budget, which is a policy document. The implementation bill is what takes parts of that budget and puts them into law. It implements those changes. I am very supportive of that change.

Another important change we are making has to do with more of a technical issue. We are providing assistance to the registered disability savings plan for adult beneficiaries.

I am very proud of this government for developing the registered disability savings plan that did not exist before we took office. We heard that at the finance committee. In the field we talked to different individuals and organizations about what is needed for disabled adults and disabled children and parents who were concerned about their financial well-being after they had passed.

We developed this registered disability plan, and that plan came back for a review. In my riding there was a meeting to discuss changes that could be made, and one of the issues was somebody being able to take out a registered disability savings plan for another adult who was unable to do it at that time because of physical or mental issues, just not being able to do it. The change we are implementing in this bill will make that happen. I am very proud of this.

In my riding, 50% to 60% of people are over age 55, which is relatively senior. I am not quite there yet, but I am getting closer by the day. In this bill we are adding some services such as bathing, feeding, assistance in dressing, taking medication and so on to the GST-HST exemption for health care services for seniors. This is a very positive piece of relief for those who require those services from publicly funded organizations. In the past and up until this bill passes, they had to pay HST in Ontario, and this bill would remove that. I cannot believe the opposition members are voting against it.

We often hear in the news about how much influence a member of Parliament can have. On tariff relief for Canadian consumers, I have an organization in my riding called Source For Sports, and a gentleman named Randy Hooper, who is now retired from that organization, said to me a few years ago that they were big importers of hockey equipment and they were not competitive with U.S. counterparts because of the tariff on hockey equipment. People in Burlington can easily go to the border, one hour away, cross into Buffalo and buy hockey equipment. I took that issue up and wrote a letter and spoke directly to the finance minister. It did not happen right away, but it did happen eventually. I am thankful that I had the opportunity as a member of Parliament to represent my constituent, represent my constituent business and make the point that we need to look at this issue. I may have had a small influence on making that happen, and that is what a member of Parliament should do. I am very proud of that and I want to make sure, even though Mr. Hooper is retired, that he gets credit for bringing that to my attention.

Another area I would like to talk about, as I said, is that we have a fairly large senior population in my riding, and we also have a fairly large veterans group in my riding. Many of them are naval veterans. For some reason the navy did a very good job of recruiting in Burlington. We have one of the nicest naval monuments in the country in Burlington on our waterfront. I am very proud that the Minister of Veterans Affairs recognized the issue of the disability payment being deducted as income from recipients before they received the rest of the allowance. We are removing that so they can keep the full amount. It is excellent that it is in the budget and we are implementing it. It will have a major impact on many veterans in my riding.

Finally, we are obviously looking at the gas tax. The member who spoke before me talked about the importance of infrastructure. I hear it all the time from my municipality. I hear it from FCM. I have an open-door policy with my local council group. We have a very good relationship, and they talk about infrastructure all the time. We are indexing the gas tax. We are providing support for infrastructure. That is another area that will have a direct impact on my riding.

I appreciate the time I have had to speak to Bill C-60. I hope everyone in the House will support it.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I always enjoyed being on committee with my colleague. He does drop in from time to time. He just cannot stay away from the estimates.

I have two questions for the hon. member.

I did take the time to go through this bill. I have a question for him on something that puzzles me. I would appreciate his explaining to me, in division 16, amendments to section 227 of Department of Public Works and Government Services Act, why these needed to be amended and put in the bill.

My second question is about the previous comments that were made by his colleague about the temporary foreign worker program. I come from the same province, and I must say that the feedback I am getting on the temporary foreign worker program does not appear to be the same as the member is getting, but then again I do not just consult with corporations, which is where he said he consulted.

I wonder if the member could advise me as to whether or not, in bringing forward these amendments, the government has consulted widely with organizations such as the Alberta Federation of Labour, which has done some extensive analyses and given support to temporary foreign workers. Has he consulted with churches? I have heard from the Lutheran Church and the Anglican Church. They are very upset about this program and the lack of support for temporary foreign workers.

I have also been told that the supposed new provision to analyze future work plans for a company always had to be provided. It is not a new provision. It was just never enforced.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not exactly sure why the member would be opposed to the changes in division 16. Those members talk about working together here in the House, and here we have division 16, the proposed amendments that would allow the minister to seek both specific and general approval from the Governor in Council from public works for tools and services to help other jurisdictions, particularly in the purchasing area. The actual change would allow the Minister of Public Works to have more flexibility when it comes to working with municipalities and provinces on procurement issues, so that we can provide services to those organizations in a more efficient and effective way.

I am not exactly sure why those members are opposed to that, but that is what it would do. Maybe it needs to be explained. I am sure somebody from the Department of Finance would be happy to explain it to the member.

The other issue was about temporary foreign workers. We have been clear that the temporary foreign worker program has a role to play in this country, that there are parts of this country that need support and that there are companies having trouble finding employees. We recognize that there are some issues and, as with any government program, there are abuses sometimes. We have to make sure those abuses are eliminated or at least minimized to the absolutely greatest possible extent, and that is exactly what we are doing. I am assuming that those members are supportive of that.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Burlington, just like the Minister of Finance, talked a fair bit about hockey helmets. I guess he believes that his request to reduce the cost of hockey helmets really helped, and maybe it did.

Does the member for Burlington not have any young families in his riding who happen to ride bicycles? Does he not have any really young families that like to buy little red wagons?

Does he not recognize that in that area the government is proposing to put $338 million, which is a tax, on people? If the government was doing something to improve the manufacturing sector in Canada, that would be one thing, but what it is really doing is taking that $338 million out of the back pockets of middle-class families. Why?

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the question tells a story. Not only is the leader of the Liberal Party over his head, but the whole Liberal Party, at least the political arm, is over its head. This country would drown with them in charge, if they ever came back.

They talk about fairness. How is it fair for companies in China and India to get an advantage over our Canadian companies? We are moving forward. We are making it fair for our companies to compete.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Order, please. We will now resume debate at a somewhat more civilized level. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to comment on this budget. I listened attentively to those who spoke before me. I believe that the debate will generate some passion, as we just heard in a few of the previous comments.

To begin with, I would like to point out that this is the 32nd time that the Conservative government has taken away our right to comment in the House. It is truly a scandal, and it must stop. It is essential that members be allowed to give their speeches, say what they have to say, and speak about their needs and the problems society will have to face if a budget like this one is adopted. Under this budget, the Conservatives are increasing taxes and reducing services.

I would like to comment on a number of things such as family, freedom and poverty. The budget cannot avoid addressing matters like these. I would also like to talk about job creation.

Even though the government quotes figures and tweaks them from one year to the next, they never give us a start date for how these figures were calculated, and the fact remains that jobs are being lost. Jobs have been lost at White Birch in Quebec. I could mention other companies, like Electrolux, where jobs have been lost. Work may be moving from one province to another, but we are after all living in a confederation and jobs need to be created everywhere. The youth unemployment rate has spiked significantly, and this should compel us to do something.

What the government gives with the right hand, it takes away with the left. I believe that many of my colleagues have been able to demonstrate this. On one hand, a fund is established to help young families, and tax credits are made available for artistic activities; but on the other, a surcharge is imposed on products that cross the border, which takes back the money that these families had saved from their reduced taxes. They are therefore disguised tax hikes.

Just now, the member for Ottawa—Orléans took the floor. I wonder whether he lives on the same planet as my colleagues and I. He said that cuts have been made in a compassionate manner.

Cutting jobs and employee salaries is not a very compassionate thing to do. I will explain how it was done. Those whose jobs were being cut received a letter telling them that jobs would be eliminated in their department.

They were told that X number of positions would be eliminated, but were not immediately told which jobs would be eliminated. Is that what the Conservatives mean by "being compassionate"? Sometimes, employees were asked to choose from among the duties and work being done, what positions were less useful than others. Is that what they call "being compassionate"? That is not what I would call it. There is one small restriction.

This budget is a direct attack on labour funds. In Quebec, the CSN and the FTQ have labour funds. Not so long ago, I sent my constituents a ten-percenter and the highest response rate I ever received had to do with labour funds and the FTQ. These funds allow people to deduct 15% extra from their taxes to make some savings. What the right hand gave away, the left took back, yet again. This additional deduction to which these people were entitled has been taken away.

Who contributed to these funds? They were often people whose wages were very low. It enabled them to save about $1000 a year. Year after year, they would try to save an extra $1,000. Then, by retirement, they would have saved a total of roughly $10,000, $15,000 or $20,000. They saved their entire lives.

Before being a member of Parliament, I worked in an organization. I met people who were earning $30,000 or less per year. In spite of this, they managed to put a little money aside to invest in this terrific fund.

The 15% tax break for the labour fund contributions encouraged them to save their pennies. These are the people who are being attacked. The labour funds, whether the CSN’s or the FTQ’s, are being attacked.

Labour force training is also being attacked. We succeeded in getting something into the budget that says that a company can now deduct $5,000 for training if it invests that much in training.

What companies are we talking about?

In Quebec, there is the 1% labour force training program. Now none of the small companies will be able to make that deduction because once again, this budget helps the big players, but not the small ones. Small businesses will not be able to invest $5,000 in labour force training to match what the government might give. This skews the debate. The companies lose out and labour force training will suffer. Workers, individuals and competitiveness, when all is said and done, will lose out.

I do not know whether the government thought about this aspect, but it is essential; the less training one has, the less competitive one is and the less competitive, the lower the sales, the lower demand for the product and you begin to go under. Our leader has pointed out that in Canada, small businesses and manufacturers have lost a great deal in recent years.

For 2013 and 2014, the budget forecast a deficit of approximately $16.5 billion. In reality, this will be $18.7 billion. Despite all these cuts, Canada's deficit is growing. People are being fooled when they tighten their belts and deprive themselves of everything. It might be worth asking which people are really depriving themselves.

Everything is really upside-down. They are going to pick the pockets of the smallest companies to pay for the majority, rather than the other way around. What are taxes for? Why were they created? Taxes are collected to redistribute wealth through infrastructure, worker training and various other mechanisms. When roads are built, a group of individuals pays and it is all redistributed.

Clearly, the company for which a four-lane road is built does not pay for it. Nor does it pay for the time its trucks spend on the road to deliver a product from point A to point B. People pay for it through taxes. They pay out of their pockets, and they are going to pay more and more. The sales tax was lowered, but the prices of products entering the country are going up.

I have been putting together a file for a year now. This bill follows on from two others, Bill C-38, which was introduced a year ago in the spring, and Bill C-45, which was next in line. In the latter, employment insurance was hard hit. The bill tried to define suitable employment and discarded the previous definition. What we have is the party in power deciding what is suitable for them.

Mr. Speaker, when you retire one day, we will decide for you what you are going to do. You will be able to do something other than what you are doing now. In fact, you will be able to do many things, because you are highly skilled in several areas. Others will therefore decide what is suitable for you.

Some extremely strange things have happened: people who worked in agriculture, for example, being offered jobs washing dishes in restaurants. I think everyone is aware of these strange goings-on.

I would like to talk about a letter I received from the elected representatives in the north shore region, who tell us that the employment insurance reform—and hence the consequences of these notorious mammoth budgets—runs counter to the interests of north shore workers. It will completely undermine the economy.

People remember what the government said during the last election: “power to the regions”. Yet for now, the regions have been totally abandoned, and our elected representatives are saying so.

Next week, people from Prince Edward Island, including the minister, will be coming here to speak to us about employment insurance. The people of Prince Edward Island and the Atlantic provinces are being thoroughly swindled. Seventy percent of all seasonal workers are in the Atlantic provinces.

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

Mr. Speaker, it may have been a translation issue, but I just want to clarify. I thought I heard my colleague say that the deficit continues to grow with the 2013-14 budget. On page 12 of the budget, it is clear that the deficit in 2012-13 is $25.9 billion and in 2013-14 it is $18.7 billion. My math indicates that this is a clear reduction.

I wonder if my colleague would clarify what her intent was in saying that the deficit is growing, when in fact, the deficit is going down dramatically.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the figures I have before me clearly indicate $264 billion in revenue and $283 billion in expenditures, which means a deficit of about $19 billion.

[Jean-François Larose, NDP, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my hon. colleague for her excellent presentation.

She talked about how this government seems to be attacking workers. In my riding, Electrolux workers are losing their jobs, while the government does nothing to help. Very little is being done, despite the promise made by the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development in question period. People are still waiting.

It seems to me that this government is doing whatever it takes to eliminate jobs with excellent working conditions, and even precarious jobs—because middle-class Canadians are having a hard time making ends meet—in order to create a class of accessible jobs.

Is the goal here to help the multinationals that want to come and take over our huge country, or to support the multinationals that are already here, who seem to be in bed with the Conservatives? This has been proven over and over. The Conservatives are very proud to say they created new jobs, but all it is is cheap labour.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I did not want to name Electrolux earlier, because I did not know whether it was official. Indeed, this is another company whose head office is moving to the U.S. As a result, we will lose nearly 2,000 jobs if I am not mistaken. From what we saw, absolutely nothing was done about it.

Conversely, the Conservatives will let in a company like Target, which will hire people at minimum wage. The Conservatives welcome it with open arms, even though it will mean competition in our own market.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her excellent speech. I listened to her carefully and she was right about workers, the middle class and families being neglected in this budget. She also talked about labour-sponsored funds.

In my riding of Drummond, people are offended, shocked and angry that the labour-sponsored funds tax credit is being eliminated. The same goes for employment insurance. Nothing is being done to fix the employment insurance reform. This past weekend, the whole team was in Montreal again to support our constituents and chambers of commerce, which are telling us that this makes no sense.

Just now, my hon. colleague, who is the chair of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, did not ask a single question about the environment. Let me tell you why. It is because there is nothing in the budget for the environment. That is why he did not ask any questions about the environment, even though he is the chair of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. It is truly deplorable. He is ready to stand up, but unfortunately it is not his turn.

Can my hon. colleague tell me what could have been done so much better to meet the needs of our families?

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is currently an originating motion to deem unconstitutional that famous manoeuvre that allowed the government to take $57 billion from the employment insurance fund, whether under Paul Martin or Mulroney. Maybe the first thing we should do is think about giving the money back to the workers.

In addition, they now continue to help themselves to $1.3 billion or so. That means that they continue to take money out of workers' and employers' pockets for the simple reason that the ceiling has been raised and the employee contribution rate has gone up by 5¢ per $100.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

It being 6 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from May 2 consideration of the motion that Bill C-60, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak about Canada's economic action plan 2013, which would continue to deliver results for Canadians, keep us in the lead among G7 nations and keep Canada on track to return to balanced budgets by 2015.

One of the ways that we would accomplish that is by creating jobs by building equipment for the Canadian Armed Forces in Canada. We owe it to our men and women in uniform to give them the best equipment possible to fulfill the demands we place on them and to bring them home safely. We owe it to Canadian industry to give it the opportunity to play a major role in that process and develop a stronger manufacturing base with the capacity for leading-edge technology and innovation. Finally, we owe it to Canadian taxpayers to ensure that their dollars are spent for the maximum benefit of Canada in all respects.

Building on the success of the national shipbuilding procurement strategy, the government would better ensure that purchases of military equipment create economic opportunities for Canadians by developing key domestic investment capabilities to help guide procurement, by promoting export opportunities and by reforming the current procurement process to improve outcomes.

The recently released Jenkins Report frames the unique once-in-a-century opportunity presented by major investments in Canada's Armed Forces to create jobs and economic growth, while enhancing Canada's ability to defend its sovereignty.

Many highly industrialized countries have clear strategies to promote their defence sectors, based on a recognition that it is in the national interests to have a strong domestic defence-related manufacturing base that produces leading-edge equipment. For Canada, such a strategy can generate high value exports and support high paying jobs for Canadians.

A key opportunity for doing so is by targeting the $49 billion in industrial and regional benefits obligations that foreign companies are expected to accumulate by 2027 to support high skill and high value opportunities and jobs in Canadian industries. These opportunities would be selected based on the needs of the Canadian Armed Forces, the potential to access global markets and the potential for increasing investments in Canadian research and innovation. Our government would work with industry sectors and stakeholders, such as the Canadian Association of Defence and Security Industries, to identify areas of Canadian competitiveness and trends in global supply and demand in defence-related industries.

Further, we would ensure that major procurements include a plan for participation by Canadian industry prior to approving the project. We would develop a refined set of key industrial capabilities for use over the long term, and examine how existing policies and programs can be tailored to support a government-wide strategy, while remaining cognizant of Canada's international trade obligations.

In parallel, the government would reform the current procurement process to improve outcomes. This would include thorough and rigorous options analyses, a challenge function for military requirements, early and frequent industry involvement, and strengthened oversight with the use of third-party expertise.

Canada has many success stories to tell in using the purchase of equipment for the Canadian Armed Forces to create jobs and economic growth in Canada.

CAP Inc. sells its products and services to over 190 countries and employs more than 8,000 people. CAE is the world leader in simulation equipment, commercial aviation training, helicopter aviation training, military virtual air training and health care simulation technology. I had the pleasure of using CAE products for many years in one of my previous lives and I can attest to their excellence.

General Dynamics Land Systems Canada , or GDLS, based in London and Edmonton, is a world leader in the design, manufacture and support of wheeled light armoured vehicles, or LAVs. It is a multi-billion dollar firm with over 2,300 highly skilled employees. As a result of procurements and related support from the government, GDLS Canada has generated direct sales of light armoured vehicles in excess of $17 billion over the past 35 years. It has created approximately 500,000 person years of employment in Canada and established a supplier base of over 400 Canadian companies, located in every province.

Recently, I had the pleasure of attending the rollout in Edmonton of the first of the LAV III upgrades. Having ridden around Afghanistan a few times in its predecessor, I know that the upgrades will be welcomed by our soldiers.

The $35 billion national shipbuilding procurement strategy, announced in 2010, means jobs and economic growth for the country, stability for the industry and vital equipment for the men and women of the Royal Canadian Navy and Canadian Coast Guard. Over the next 30 years, it is estimated that 15,000 direct and indirect jobs may result from national shipbuilding procurement strategy projects, including skilled work in a variety of sectors.

Through this process, our government is helping small and medium-sized enterprises to participate in global supply chains that will result from these projects, creating growth and jobs throughout the country. A good example of that would be the supply of landing gear assemblies on about 4,000 F-35s by Héroux-Devtek of Longueuil, Quebec.

The Government of Canada acts as a first user of pre-commercial innovations through the Canadian innovation commercialization program, or CICP. Through CICP, federal departments test prototypes developed by Canadian businesses and provide feedback to help improve these innovative products before they are marketed to customers. This program is particularly useful for small and medium-sized enterprises, which often find it difficult to find the resources to bring innovative products to market.

Participating companies have been strongly supportive of CICP since it was launched in 2010, and our government will officially launch the military component of the program in the near future.

Canada's aerospace sector is a global technology leader and a major source of high quality jobs, directly employing 66,000 people across Canada. It is among the most research-intensive industries in the country.

The hon. David Emerson, head of the Aerospace Review, delivered his final report to the Minister of Industry on November 29, 2012. The report detailed a series of recommendations aimed at strengthening the aerospace and space sectors in Canada. Our government is carefully reviewing the advice of the Aerospace Review and will take action over the coming year to improve the focus and coordination of programs and practices of relevance to the aerospace and space sectors.

The largest aerospace-specific innovation support program is the permanent strategic aerospace and defence initiative, or SADI, which provides repayable contributions to support strategic innovative projects by aerospace, space, defence and security companies. Since its launch in 2007, SADI has authorized $826 million in assistance to 25 projects, of which $411 million has been disbursed to date. Two examples of Alberta-based companies supported by SADI are SemBioSys Genetics Inc. and AeroMechanical Services Ltd.

We will continue to provide stable funding for SADI, close to $1 billion over five years, and will review the programs, administration and operation over the coming year to ensure that it continues to respond to the needs of this dynamic sector.

Economic action plan 2013 would provide $110 million over four years beginning in 2014-15, and $55 million per year on an ongoing basis thereafter for the creation of an aerospace technology demonstration program. This program would support large-scale technology projects that exhibit strong commercialization potential and promote collaboration among industries, including simulation trials, systems integration testing and refinement activities. A component of the program would support research costs at post-secondary institutions that serve wider industry needs. As recommended by the Aerospace Review, a portion of these resources, rising to $20 million annually, would be reallocated from the strategic aerospace and defence initiative.

We will also launch consultations in the coming months regarding the creation of a national aerospace research and technology network to be led by Industry Canada in collaboration with relevant stakeholders. The network will engage stakeholders and industry, post-secondary institutions and government laboratories to identify strategic technology areas and encourage collaboration in research and development.

The motto of the Royal Canadian Air Force is per ardua ad astra, “through adversity to the stars”. It is not just within our atmosphere that economic action plan 2013 will have effect.

Canada's space industry is a sophisticated research and innovation leader, successfully turning investments in knowledge into a global advantage in several niche areas, including robotics and satellite communications. Canada's space capabilities will be showcased through the ongoing development of the RADARSAT Constellation Mission for which a $706-million satellite construction contract has recently been signed with MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates.

Canada's leading role in space is also demonstrated through continued participation in the International Space Station mission and the command of Expedition 35 of the station by Canadian astronaut, Chris Hadfield. Commander Hadfield has made all Canadians proud and I have been privileged to fly CF-18s with him in the past in Cold Lake and Bagotville.

The Aerospace Review has made important recommendations with respect to policies and programs specific to the space sector, and our government is currently examining these recommendations carefully to determine the way ahead.

Canada's high-tech defence-related aerospace and space industries have a bright future. Our government will continue to encourage growth of Canadian capacity to lead the world. Economic action plan 2013 takes several steps that would enhance that process. I encourage all members of this House, indeed, all Canadians to get on board, work hard and enjoy the ride.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech.

I would like to speak to part 3, division 6 of Bill C-60, specifically clauses 136 and 137, which provide some definitions relating to state-owned enterprises. The definitions are set out there, and that is of some interest.

Unfortunately, during the information session on Monday night, officials seemed to be telling us that, despite the definition, all purchases of Canadian businesses by state-owned enterprises would be subject to the definitions in clause 137, meaning that in a few years, the value of transactions will be $1 billion or more.

How does the hon. member think this could protect us from interference from foreign governments, considering that we have had some specific cases of concern that had to do with control of our natural resources?

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague specifically mentioned the resource industry. Canada is a leader in the resource industry. We have tremendous capacity for foreign investment in Canada to help us develop that industry. We are always going to do that with the best interests of Canadians in mind first, but that does not mean....We have to operate with foreign investment; it has helped to develop our resources to this point and it will help in the future. We have to deal with people who can be challenging from time and time and that is why we put measures in place to protect Canadians. It is not going to be a one-way negotiation. It will always be two-way.

Foreigners have to benefit as well from doing business in Canada, and we understand that, just like Canadians have to benefit from doing business in other countries. We do not live in a bubble. We have to work within the environment of international co-operation and international law. We will put in place, as we already have put in place, measures that will protect Canadian investors. At the same time we have to work in the much broader world market.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's perspective and his speech. As everyone knows, he has served Canada nobly and when he brings his comments forward he always gives an overview of the entire country.

I want to ask him about the interconnectivity of Canada's economy, especially for manufacturing. As he knows, I come from Oshawa. Oshawa is a city that is very dependent on manufacturing. He mentioned the SADI program and how that program helps manufacturers in the aerospace industry. There are some excellent things in the budget that would really help Canadian manufacturers.

The member has a lot of knowledge about the energy sector and the challenges it is facing in his province. However, developing energy sector resources creates a great spinoff for places in my community and in Ontario as a whole with respect to manufacturing.

Could he contrast our government's approach to helping manufacturers and creating jobs to the NDP's approach of going to another country and lobbying against Canadian jobs and Canadian industries? If he could give a perspective of the two different approaches to the House today that would be wonderful.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite true that when it comes to doing business, we take a different approach than the opposition, whether it is in Canada or abroad. Frankly, its approach of leaving the country and trashing our industries is quite shameful.

There is no question that the resource industry in Alberta is a key driver of the Canadian economy. It sure as heck is not a disease of any particular nationality. It is the driver of the Canadian economy. A job in the oil sands in Alberta means a job in manufacturing in Ontario or Quebec or somewhere else in the country. A very high percentage of Ontario's manufacturing process is tied to the oil sands. If the oil sands were ever shut down manufacturers in Ontario would shut down, the steel industry would shut down. I know some members across the way would like the oil sands to shut down, and they can take that view, but that would be the result. They lose perspective entirely on the interconnectivity of all businesses in Canada.

A lot of it is geographical. Alberta has an oil industry because of geography. Quebec has hydro power because of geography. B.C. has a forest industry because of geography. It is the sum of the parts that makes Canada strong, not focusing on one at the expense of the other.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to be able to speak to Bill C-60, the budget implementation bill, so that I can make some comments.

I will say right off the bat that I will focus on one specific part of the bill, which reads as follows:

Division 17 of Part 3 amends the Financial Administration Act to give the Governor in Council the authority to direct a Crown corporation to have its negotiating mandate approved by the Treasury Board for the purpose of the Crown corporation entering into a collective agreement with a bargaining agent.

As a result, other provisions and other legislation may also be amended, because the consequences are far-reaching.

I will not hide the fact that this is quite a concern. I will use my experience on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to speak to the principle of the appearance of justice, which is so important in our legal system. It lets Canadians trust that institution and be confident that, by using all the recourse available to them, they will be able to get a ruling that is consistent with the law and with justice.

There is also a balance to be achieved, and there are very important principles to uphold when it comes to negotiations. There really needs to be a clear balance, and real dialogue and discussion among the parties involved in the negotiations. There is no denying that this is a sensitive issue and something that is difficult to achieve. Division 17 of part 3 of Bill C-60 poses a direct threat to this process.

This is a very serious problem. I feel, and I am sure that all of my colleagues do as well, that this aspect alone is reason enough to oppose this bill.

I will now talk about my personal experience. After all, my Conservative colleagues love to share their life experiences about much bigger issues. I will talk about the experience my late father had as a member of Local 9 of FTQ Construction's Fraternité nationale des charpentiers-menuisiers.

My father worked for 12 years as a union activist, trying to convince the guys to come to the union's general meetings. At the time, most construction workers were men. He told them every time that it was important for them to participate. Indeed, their participation was very important because it made the decisions taken at those meetings much more credible.

During the second half of his career as a carpenter-joiner, my father spent most of his time as a foreman or superintendent responsible for job sites. He was around in the 1960s, a difficult period for the construction industry when there was much less protection and safety was a major issue. As a manager, he was very concerned about the safety of the people he supervised.

This week, there have been some very hot days where people could easily go without a jacket. That is understandable, but imagine how unpleasant it must be to have to wear a hard hat on a work site on a hot summer's day. Unfortunately, hard hats hold in a lot of heat.

My father's approach was very simple. He asked the worker to put on his hard hat because it was important. If the worker protested because it was too hot out, my father insisted. He would walk away once the worker had put on his hard hat. However, if my father came back that same day to find that the same worker had once again taken off his hard hat and left it on a wall or somewhere else, my father would get in that worker's face. He would get really angry because he was responsible for the job site and the physical safety of the worker who, unfortunately, was unintentionally putting his life and health at risk.

That is one of the union movement's greatest achievements. Recently, we have again been hearing about how workplace safety is still a major problem even though there has been significant progress. A single worker has very little power to stand up for his rights against a huge organization, particularly if the management or the owner is firmly opposed to that. There must be a balance of power to deal with these issues.

Also quite recently, there have been many examples of people getting together to achieve a common goal. I am thinking of chambers of commerce and groups created in response to our campaign against excessive credit card fees. There are groups of restaurant owners and corner store owners. National groups bring thousands of small businesspeople together. Getting together for these reasons is a very noble thing. There are also seniors' groups.

I am a Knight of Columbus, a member of the La Nativité council in Beauport. The K of C is yet another excellent association dedicated to reaching out to others and helping the less fortunate. Churches of all faiths bring people together for spiritual and community reasons. That, too, is noble.

In the business community, people get together to form corporations to launch for-profit and non-profit businesses, companies with share capital or investors who may decide to risk their capital on a reasonably safe venture that could return a lot. That is yet another example of a noble reason for people to get together.

Why is the government, why are Conservative elected representatives, so intent on stigmatizing perfectly legitimate groups, such as the union movement? That makes absolutely no sense. They have provided no justification here in the House or elsewhere for their visceral hatred of the union movement and their desire to work against it. The government is certainly right to address problems. There have been very disappointing examples of obvious wrongdoing in some unions. However, does that merit such an over-the-top, unreasonable attempt to crush the union movement? Absolutely not.

While the government is at it, it needs to do something about the flagrant abuses by mining companies, for example. Canada is a haven and refuge for mining companies, which is a disgrace. After what has happened elsewhere in the world—in Latin America and Africa, for example—the government could choose to shut down numerous large companies. It could put them under guardianship to set them back on the right path. Obviously, the managers and shareholders are not able to do the right thing.

The other reason, the compelling argument that keeps us from supporting the government on part 3, division 17, is that it gives the Treasury Board president the means to intervene in bargaining.

How can we trust a man who kept a slush fund to look after friends in his riding and who protected the millionaires, with their teak decks and fancy houses, who live on certain lakes?

It all happened in the context of the Navigable Waters Protection Act, when the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities tried to convince us that only commercially used waterways would be affected. It is quite possible that a number of agreements were worked out on those teak decks. Nevertheless, the government is talking out of both sides of its mouth, and this opens the door to terrible abuse. It is an absolute disgrace to trust this man with such privileges.

I would like to conclude by talking about scripture. It is important to me, and I try to follow in Christ's footsteps. During the Sermon on the Mount, Christ called forth the children and comforted them. He spoke about people who take advantage of others, but he did not hesitate to drive merchants out of the temple with a whip. I will follow his example.

I am completely, 100% opposed to this bill. The government will find me, along with my colleagues, blocking its way, because of this one point.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his passionate speech.

I have to ask my colleague about some of the comments made by the former member, when he talked about the Ontario steel industry and what has happened there because of mismanagement by the government on the Investment Canada file. That is again being changed in this budget, and it is not something that was previously announced. The changes break another Conservative promise to actually consult with business, constituents and stakeholders before making changes, a promise the government has made several times.

With the budget introducing these changes, again with no consultation whatsoever, perhaps the member could offer his opinion on what those changes might do for Canadian businesses that would get gobbled up by foreign entities without protection for workers.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. He has an interesting perspective, and it brings us back to the question about Investment Canada that I had put earlier to a Conservative speaker.

By amending the Investment Canada Act, they are tilting the playing field. Workers will suffer because of Part 3, section 17, as will Canadian and foreign investors alike. In fact, the rules will be so lax and broad that scammers and thieves will be able to walk right in and hold our natural resources sectors hostage.

I have an excellent example to back that up. The White Birch Paper Stadacona plant in Beauport—Limoilou was owned by a private investor, and therefore was a private enterprise. We know that the government is trying to open unions' books, so why not force investors—who pay hundreds of millions of dollars and can work in complete secrecy—to open their books when negotiating? That way, we could provide some minimum protections for workers, business partners and retirees.

Retirees in my riding, who have had a lot of money stolen from them, do not expect to ever recover that money.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, a key stakeholder in the manufacturing sector, the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters association, had this to say:

The federal budget sends an important signal. It positions manufacturing and exporting at the heart of Canada's Economic Action Plan by focusing on practical steps that will enhance competitiveness, productivity, innovation, and business growth.

This is very good news for companies creating jobs in Canada, investing in our communities, and developing and selling world-class products and services around the world.

I would ask the member if he agrees with the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters association on the importance of this budget for Canadian manufacturers and exporters.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

If we are going to cherry-pick our quotes, then we are going to get the result we want, but the government's real record is the outright loss of 500,000 jobs in manufacturing alone.

I will ask my colleague the following question. We had the opportunity to examine this issue last Tuesday at the finance committee, together with the Parliamentary Budget Officer and the experts and analysts who accompanied her. Despite the desperate attempts by the member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca, not one analyst from the Parliamentary Budget Officer's office was able to confirm for my colleague that the 900,000 jobs were created strictly by the actions of the Government of Canada. Obviously, a trained economist cannot state that in absolute terms.

In any event, my colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques responded by saying that if the government wants to take credit for the 900,000 jobs created, then it should also accept responsibility for the 500,000 jobs lost during the 2008 recession. I believe that that is something the government would never do. If we want to take credit, then we should also take responsibility.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today in support of Bill C-60, economic action plan 2013 act no. 1, the government's bill to implement the budget.

It is important when considering any budget bill to understand the circumstances to which it must respond, so I will begin with those.

First and foremost, the economic polices of this government during and after the world's worst economic recession in almost 80 years are recognized around the world as an example for others to follow. Governments alone, of course, do not create jobs or prosperity. However, it has been a happy, if unintended, blessing to have been led by a Prime Minister with a strong grasp of economics through these troubled times. Keeping taxes low, time limiting stimulus spending and focusing on long-term infrastructure and job creation investments, while modestly restraining program spending, have been key, sensible policies for supporting our recovery.

Canadians can be grateful that time and again the Conservative government has been able to resist the high-tax, high-program spending demands of the opposition. This was particularly challenging during the recession, during two and a half years of opposition-controlled Parliament. Fortunately, the last election produced a strong, stable Conservative majority government to stave off reckless tax-and-spend policies.

As a result, Canada has led the G7 significantly in net employment gains of almost 950,000 since the recession and in GDP growth. Just this week, Statistics Canada announced that Canada's economy grew once again in February.

While Canada has fared well in global comparisons, we continue to confront significant global challenges. The eurozone remains in recession. The United States, our major trading partner, is experiencing only very modest growth. Global competition from emerging economies is very intense. Too many Canadians are still looking for work.

Fortunately, this bill addresses the challenges we face. It would strengthen the Canadian economy and increase jobs, all while supporting Canadian families and respecting taxpayer dollars. This bill would deliver on the real concerns of Canadians.

One of the timely, targeted measures included in this bill is the reform of the temporary foreign worker program. The temporary foreign worker program was created to fill acute labour needs when Canadians are not available. Canadians have expressed real concerns about the use of this program by some. The program was never intended to bring in temporary foreign workers to replace already employed Canadian workers. Recent events that suggest otherwise made very clear the need to reform this program to match that intent.

The reforms brought forward in this bill stem from the government's ongoing review of the program to ensure that Canadians are the first to be considered for available jobs. The bill would increase the government's ability to revoke work permits and labour market opinions, enabling immediate action against employers who do not comply with the program's rules. Changes to the bill would require employers using the temporary foreign worker program to pay temporary foreign workers the prevailing wage for a job. These are common sense changes to the program to remove unintended incentives to look abroad for employees.

The bill also introduces user fees for employers applying for foreign workers so that these costs are no longer absorbed by taxpayers. The bill does not dispute the ongoing need for temporary foreign workers to meet acute labour shortages. Rather, these reforms create incentives to hire Canadians and ensure that temporary foreign workers are a short-term solution to skill shortages. These reforms introduced in this program would ensure that Canadians are always at the front of the hiring line.

To fulfill the commitments of the 2013 budget, this bill would also deliver targeted tax relief. The enhancement of the adoption expense tax credit, the new first-time donors super credit for charitable donations and the expansion of tax relief for home care services are all targeted tax relief measures to support Canadian families.

This bill would also remove tariffs on imported baby clothing and sports equipment, resulting in significant savings for families. All parents know the expenses that come with raising a family. From basic necessities, such as clothes and food, to education and recreational activities, it adds up very fast.

Through the delivery of the family caregiver tax credit, the child tax credit, the children's fitness tax credit and the children's arts tax credit, the average family now saves $3,200 a year in tax reductions compared to when the present government took office.

These tax credits deliver important savings for Canadians. However, the fact is that the price of too many products needed to support families are consistently priced higher in Canada than the same products sold in the United States. Through the removal of tariffs on imported baby clothing and sports equipment, this difference will be reduced.

The bill also delivers a two-year extension of the accelerated capital cost allowance for eligible manufacturing and processing machinery. This demonstrates that the government recognizes the importance of sectors that provide skilled jobs. The bill provides continued support for Canada's manufacturing employees, support that is especially important for my constituents in Kitchener Centre.

Canada's manufacturing economy will compete in the global economy. Members need not take my word for it. The Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters Association, a key stakeholder in the manufacturing sector, has already come out and said this:

The federal budget sends an important signal. It positions manufacturing and exporting at the heart of Canada's Economic Action Plan by focusing on practical steps that will enhance competitiveness, productivity, innovation, and business growth.... This is very good news for companies creating jobs in Canada, investing in our communities, and developing and selling world-class products and services around the world.

Constituents in my riding of Kitchener Centre are well aware of the importance of a healthy manufacturing sector, a major economic driver in southwest Ontario. The manufacturing sector employs approximately 1.8 million Canadians across Canada. In providing tax relief for new investments of manufacturing equipment, this bill creates a favourable environment for manufacturing employees.

As mentioned, in addition to tax credits to support Canadian families, this bill also ensures that taxpayer dollars are respected. The bill takes steps to close tax loopholes that allow a select few to avoid paying their fair share.

The government has already introduced loan rules to prevent foreign affiliates from converting otherwise taxable surplus income into the form of loans, thereby avoiding taxation. This bill also provides an information reporting regime for tax avoidance transactions. This, in turn, will help the government track down and monitor a loss of tax revenue and collect it for the rest of us.

Hard-working taxpayers can be confident that this bill will ensure that everyone pays their fair share of taxes.When everyone is paying their fair share of taxes, it keeps taxes low for Canadian families and improves the incentive to invest in Canada. I am very pleased that the budget implementation bill delivers a solid plan for creating jobs and economic growth, all while keeping taxes low and balancing the budget by 2015.

This bill is great news for my constituents in Kitchener Centre. I invite all members of the House to put aside partisan differences to join me in supporting jobs, growth and long-term economic prosperity. Please pass this bill.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the member opposite that if his party really wanted to set aside partisan differences, it would allow us to debate this bill instead of imposing yet another time allocation motion.

His party is again shutting down debate after making 50 changes to 50 pieces of legislation, including one that has to do with the temporary foreign worker program, which has been a fiasco from the start. The Conservatives have mismanaged it so badly that there have been many problems.

Thousands of jobs at the Royal Bank have recently been given to foreign workers, who are paid 15% less. In addition to this legislation, a number of other changes are being made, which shows how poorly crafted the program really is.

Can we trust a government that says it wants to stimulate the economy, when everything is so flawed? We cannot even discuss it; it is really confusing. What does my colleague have to say about that?

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to answer my colleague's question about whether Canadians can trust this government to bring us through economic difficulty, because the answer is just so self-evident.

Look at what happened in late 2008, with the deep, steep dive around the world and global economic turmoil and the government's speedy response in coming up with a budget by the end of January 2009. I know that my friend was not here when that happened. The stimulus program we enacted at that time, and the measures we have built year after year in the last three years, have brought this economy through the recession, the greatest economic turmoil in 80 years, in a fashion better than any other country around the world. That is a good reason for Canadians to continue trusting us.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the member for Kitchener Centre. Having been there not that long ago, I know that small business is a very important part of the economy in his riding. I would like to know whether the member has described for the businesses in his riding, especially, small- and medium-sized businesses, how $2.3 billion would be taken out of their pockets because of the increased tax on dividends. Has he done that? Has he had a response to that move in this particular budget? I would love to hear what they had to say about that.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I suppose the best thing I can do to respond to my colleague's question, and I thank her for it, is to provide her with the reaction of the group that, in my view, most closely reflects the views of small businesses across Canada, and that is the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. It said this about the budget:

The skills problem leads our Top Ten list of critical barriers to Canada's competitiveness. It's showing up all across the country, in every industry.... We are pleased to see the government is moving to [ confront it] and to include business directly in the [solution].

That is just one example of the many good things that are said across the country by small business in relation to this budget. I could give quotes from the Canadian Home Builders' Association and the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association. Canadian building trades unions, in fact, have said some great things about this budget.

In all respects, I think my colleague would find that small business is solidly behind the government in this budget.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the budget implementation bill, Bill C-60, but I think we have to understand in the beginning that many of us do it under some duress. Under the Prime Minister's leadership, he is again suppressing debate with another time allocation motion, which seems to become the norm in this place, and a budget that seems to have been prepared without the proper analysis. Certainly, the Atlantic premiers said that the proper analysis was not done, and I will get to that in a moment.

On the positive side, this document is not quite as big an omnibus bill as the previous two budgets were, so it is a little shorter and does not cover pretty near everything the government does. However, on the negative side, in following up on the budget, the budget implementation bill builds on the damage already done by the federal government on its ability of be a leader in Canada among the provinces to build our economy, to put some foundation under our social programs, to assist industries, to establish more trade in a way that benefits Canadians. This builds on the damage and even makes it worse from previous budgets.

Members will recall quite vividly when theMinister of Finance stood in his place and said that the government would balance the budget by 2015. Is there a Canadian who actually believes that? There are a couple of members who have raised their hands over there, but they raise their hands any time the Prime Minister says anything. They jump to the tune. For the information of Canadians and the members opposite, there has never been a target that the Minister of Finance has hit, whether it was when he was the provincial minister of finance and did the great damage to Ontario, which it still suffers from, or when he has been the federal finance minister, which the whole country suffers from now.

It is important to note in the beginning a couple of key messages and summarize them.

There is no question that this budget will make it harder for Canadian middle-class families to make ends meet. Middle-class families are really starting to suffer and suffer substantially as a result of the activities of the government. Bill C-60 raises taxes on Canadians in order to pay for the Conservatives' wasteful spending. Last night in the media, the Minister of National Defence, who is becoming infamous for his inability to manage his portfolio, saw Canadians spend twice as much on ships as other countries had. There is not time in the rest of the day to spell out all the other areas the Minister of National Defence has spent money wastefully.

The problem is that there is no joy in the Minister of National Defence, backed up by the Minister of Finance, spending wastefully because middle-class Canadians are the ones being asked to suffer and pay for irresponsible fiscal and financial spending by the government.

The budget raises taxes on small business owners by $2.3 billion over the next five years, directly hurting 750,000 Canadians and risking Canadian jobs.

There are other policy cuts. In the area of agriculture when I used to be the critic, I went to an announcement in P.E.I. two weeks ago on a Friday. I listened closely while the Minister of National Revenue made the announcement for the minister, and she said something along the lines that “We're increasing by 50% the shared funding”. It sounds really good, does it not? The Conservatives are increasing the funding. However, what we have to understand is the key words “the shared funding”. That means farmers are picking up half, where the previous government was really paying for it. If we look closely, we will find that the safety net programs, like agristability and agri-invest, have been cut substantially by the federal government. Therefore, what happens the next time when prices fall on grains in Alberta? The safety nets are not going to be there for the farm community. More middle-class families have been asked to suffer for the incompetence of the current government.

Last Sunday, I happened to be at some of the harbours in my own riding, including Stanley Bridge and Malpeque. Fishing season started early Monday morning. What were fishermen doing on Saturday and Sunday afternoon? They were stressed out and nerved up because DFO, through small craft harbours program, had not done the dredging so they could get out of their harbours. Finally, after a lot of pressure, the dredge was working and the fishermen did get out of Malpeque at six o'clock in the morning. In Stanley Bridge the fishermen had to load their traps from elsewhere because, with the cutbacks to Fisheries and Oceans to the small craft harbours program, fishermen were being asked to pay and suffer as a result of the federal government failing to live up to its responsibilities.

As well, this budget would raise taxes on credit unions by $75 million per year, which is an attack on rural Canadians and Canada's rural economy. The credit unions are right across the country. People who invest in them and put their money in those are usually small businesses. Again, the government is imposing further taxes on the credit unions.

I do not have time to go into all the nickel and dime issues where the Conservatives will tax Canadians, but they will put GST and HST on health care services, including medical work that victims of crimes need in order to establish their case in court, and hospital parking lots will have extra tax on them. Those things add up and they are all be imposed on Canadians as a result of the absolute incompetence of this Minister of Finance.

Let us turn for a moment to the attack on workers and seasonal industries. Except for the minister in charge, we all know the damage that has been done to the seasonal industries and seasonal workers through the changes to employment insurance. However, a special thing happened last weekend, and that was the Atlantic premiers issued a press release through the Council of Atlantic Premiers on April 29, in which they came together. They are from three different political parties, four premiers representing four provinces, and they spelled out fairly clearly the damage that the federal government had done to this federation called “Canada”. They talked about the impacts of employment insurance. One point they raised was:

These impacts are most acutely felt in seasonal industries, which make up a significant portion of the Atlantic economy. These changes were introduced without consultation or shared analysis, and therefore without a full understanding of the effect of the changes.

Clearly, the Atlantic premiers are coming together and saying that there is no federal leadership in our country and no consultation. The role of the federal government is to use its spending power, the budget and the budget implementation act, to do things that will build up Canada and set a foundation under our economy and our social programs. All we would get in this budget implementation act from the federal government is more and more damage, building on the poor fiscal management that it already has.

Worse yet, not only is Atlantic Canada being targeted, but middle-class families right across the country are being asked to pay the price for the fiscal incompetence of the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the backbenchers over there who fail to stand and speak out against the Prime Minister and the damage that has been done to the Atlantic economy and to the country.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the hon. member for Wascana a question, and I would now like to put the same question to the member for Malpeque.

The measure to eliminate the tax credit for labour sponsored venture capital funds was not included in Bill C-60, but it was announced in the budget. This measure is very important and very controversial. It has been criticized by Canada's Venture Capital and Private Equity Association, an organization that represents private equity companies in Canada.

What is the third party's position on the elimination of the 15% tax credit, which we think is crucial? The hon. member for Wascana did not seem to think the matter was crucial enough to look at.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, what the elimination of the tax credit shows is the misplaced priorities of the government. It is a government of big business. We see that with China, the Nexen-CNOOC deal, where special privileges may be granted to big companies to come into our country to invest even if they are state-owned enterprises.

We have seen the corporate tax reductions where the multinationals, the big corporations around the world, are getting tax breaks in our country even though they are sitting on $560 billion that they are not using to increase jobs, improve technology and productivity. The venture capital the hon. member is talking about comes basically from workers. They also should have that advantage to invest where they see fit to improve the economy.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Malpeque will have three minutes remaining in the period for questions and comments when the House next returns to debate on the question.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-60, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, two years ago yesterday, many of us in this House were elected for our first term. Given that occasion, as I rise today I thank my constituents in Calgary Centre-North who elected me and gave me the great honour of allowing me to represent them and speak on their behalf here in Ottawa. I thank my constituents very much.

It is on that note that it gives me great pleasure to rise and speak in support of our budget implementation bill, which continues on our government track record of trying to ensure that Canada is a place of economic prosperity, job growth, environmental health and safety, and innovation. It is also a place where as legislators in this House of Commons, we can assure our constituents we are doing everything possible to be wise stewards of their taxpayer dollars and everything possible to ensure the sustainability of the programs we are tasked with legislating long into the future.

Two years ago, I remember travelling throughout my riding. The number one thing I heard from my constituents then, and now—I was actually out door knocking last weekend in a couple of communities in my riding—is the fact that Canadians are still concerned about the economy. I believe that is still the number one issue on the minds of Canadians right now. We need to be cognizant of that when we are approaching debate on the government's budget.

Canadians are still concerned about the global economic situation. They are concerned about ensuring we have markets to which we can trade our products and that we have export markets. They are concerned about ensuring we have job growth.

They are also concerned about making sure our government programs are sustainable, that we are making sure when we are voting to spend their tax dollars in this place that we can do that with authority. We want to be able to tell them we are looking for ways to make programs more effective whenever possible. That is really the goal of economic action plan 2013.

I often rise in the House to speak about environmental issues, but today I will speak about a few initiatives that are very important to the people in my riding. Certainly there is commonality across the country, but there are certain issues addressed in economic action plan 2013 that are important to Albertans.

First, the Canada job grant was one of the cornerstones of economic action plan 2013. Certainly in my home province, we face a skilled worker shortage. I have heard from many businesses in my community and across the province, but there are other components of the economy across the country that speak to this as well. That is why we introduced the Canada job grant. Providing up to $15,000 per person in Alberta would combine federal, provincial, territorial and employer funding to help folks get the skills they need for independent jobs. By doing so, we hope to fill those in-demand jobs in a more effective way.

We also want to make sure that Canadians who want to seek those skills to fill those positions have the tools at hand to do that. That is the role of this program. I am very excited about it. I am sure it will have a very positive impact on our economy across the country, but certainly at home in Alberta.

One of the challenges we have in Calgary is the fact that it is a growing city. I am quite proud to represent a Calgary riding because I feel it is one of the economic engine cities of the country. One of the demands we see in Calgary is for infrastructure. Our government has been very proud to support infrastructure funding across the country. In Calgary, some of our economic action plan funding has been used to build things like the Stoney Trail ring road.

I am very excited about the indexation of the gas tax fund to better support the development of this infrastructure, and I hope my colleagues will support it. That is such an important thing because it will allow cities to build upon the continuation and certainty we have provided by making the gas tax transfer funds permanent. That is a legacy that our government is quite proud of, and it is a wonderful part of economic action plan 2013.

I will talk about a few other things today that are in economic action plan 2013.

As members know, we have recently reformed the temporary foreign worker program to make sure Canadians are given the first crack at available jobs. About a week and a half ago, I held a town hall teleconference in my riding. I think I had almost 10,000 of my constituents on that call at one point. Several of the questions we received related to making sure that program is both effective and fair in the long run. That is really where our reforms have been aimed over the last year. Certainly, this is a step in the right direction.

There are many things that my colleagues should have a look at with regard to how communities in their ridings are supported in economic action plan 2013. I have just mentioned a couple of them here.

I want to spend my remaining time talking about something that is very near and dear to my heart, that being the support for science and technology in economic action plan 2013.

There is one program that I specifically want to highlight and which I hope my colleagues will choose to support, and that is the $165 million in multi-year support we have provided to genomics research through Genome Canada. For those of my colleagues who are not familiar with Genome Canada's work, it is a very unique program. It cultivates and supports some of the best and brightest researchers in their work on this cutting-edge, uniquely Canadian research that is designed to support a wide variety of industrial problems and basic research problems across the country.

I am quite supportive of this funding because Genome Canada has a track record of research excellence in supporting some of the best and brightest researchers in this country. I hope my colleagues will support economic action plan 2013, in part because some of these programs exist and are funded.

Further to that, on the S and T side, I believe we have $325 million of additional support for Sustainable Development Technology Canada, SDTC. This is an organization that is dedicated to bringing clean energy technology, clean technology and sustainable technology to industry so we can continue to address major issues in some of the bigger sectors of our economy, including the energy sector.

A couple of months ago, I had the opportunity to tour Pure Technologies, a company in my riding. It has developed a technology that SDTC has supported. Basically, it is a ball that can go through pipelines and detect microscopic fractures to help promote better monitoring of our pipeline safety. It is these sorts of developments that our government is proud to support, through organizations like Genome Canada and SDTC, but more importantly also through our tri-council granting agencies as well.

I spent several years working with these agencies, and we have provided continued support to them through budget 2013, as well as to the Canada Foundation for Innovation. This is an organization that supports the funding of research infrastructure, so it is either the bricks and mortar needed to support research or the equipment that researchers need. Our continued support there is very indicative that supporting science and technology, and the diversification of the Canadian economy, is something our government is not only cognizant of, but into which we are really putting our money where our mouth is. That is very evident in budget 2013.

Overall, the goal of budget 2013, and what we have seen in here, is that balance between ensuring we have long-term economic growth, which is built on our track record of programs such as a suite of programming for responsible resource development, but also making sure our House is in order in Ottawa. We are trying to make sure that as we grow our economy, we are also moving back to balance.

I was quite pleased to see some of the economic forecasts that this budget has been based around. I know our Minister of Finance has worked quite hard to get to that point.

I certainly will be very proud to support this particular bill because of that ability to move Canada's economy into sustainability well into the future and build on our strong track record of growing Canada's economy.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by saying that I agree with a central point that my hon. friend made, which is that Canadians believe the economy and economic growth is the number one priority. However, where I disagree with her is that somehow the government is a “wise steward of taxpayers' dollars”.

I would particularly ask the member whether or not this budget, with its hundreds of tax hikes, from hospital parking and credit union safety deposit boxes to bicycles and baby strollers, which are costing Canadians perhaps $8 billion over the next five years, demonstrates a good economic decision at this point in our country's history. Is this the right time for those changes?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great joy that I answer my colleague's question and hear of his interest in reducing the tax burden for the average Canadian. I am glad this is something we share.

In fact, it has been through our government's efforts since we took power in 2006 that we have reduced the Canadian tax burden by about $3,000 for an average family of four. That is a lot of money. It has an impact on Canadian society. Yes, this is our track record, and it is something that we are quite proud of.

I find it interesting that he is bringing this up, given that the budget his party put forward actually did not have any costing attached to it. I am not sure how he can talk about wise stewardship of taxpayer dollars when there is no costing associated with the NDP's financial proposals. It is something we should be quite concerned about.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the remarks of the parliamentary secretary, who mentioned “as we grow our economy” several times, but in fact the Canadian economy is virtually stalled. There is a great deal of concern right across the spectrum over how poorly our economy is doing right now.

One of the ways it is being stalled is by the hits on small businesses, which, as we know, are the job creators of Canada. My colleague from Thunder Bay—Superior North mentioned the attack on tourism and the downturn in the tourism industry. Small businesses are hurting under the Conservative government.

I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary which small businesses that the government consulted advised that there should be an extra tax on dividends, which will cost small businesses $2.3 billion over the next five years?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the premise of my colleague's question, in that Canada actually has a strong record of economic growth in the global context. The fact that we have created over 900,000 net new jobs in our economy since the economic downturn was deemed to have slowed down is something that our country should be quite proud of. We should be touting that.

We are attracting workers and investment to this country at greater rates than some of the developed countries are, and this is through our government's focus on ensuring that our products have access to other markets, that we have increased trade relations and that we have a proper regulatory structure that allows for investments in major infrastructure projects.

All of these things are at the core of budget 2013. They build on our government's track record, and yes, absolutely, we are seeing economic growth.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I noted that my colleague mentioned she had been spending some time recently knocking on doors in her riding.

I have been knocking on doors in my riding, which is in the Calgary area as well. I have knocked on doors in the community of Cochrane and I have spent time at trade shows in communities like Airdrie and Didsbury, which are all in the same general area. My constituents are quite happy to be hearing that we have reconfirmed in the budget that we will make sure we balance our federal budget by 2015. I am wondering if she has heard similar things from people in her community and if her constituents are supportive of our commitment as a government to make sure we balance the federal budget by 2015.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my very hard-working colleague raises an excellent point. What his constituents told him shows that this is a principle that is very important to many Canadians. Why? It is because Canadians know in their hearts what it takes to balance a chequebook. They understand that if we spend more now, we have to either spend less in the future or increase revenue.

As I said earlier, through our government's efforts to increase trading opportunities and increase job creation through various programs, we are creating the economic growth or the increased revenue component through the strategic review of various government departments and through looking for operational efficiencies. We are also trying to make sure that government works more effectively. It is that balance that our constituents expect.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will take this opportunity to voice my disappointment and opposition with respect to the various measures set out in Bill C-60, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013.

Once again, I am sorry that the government has decided to move a time allocation motion to limit debate in the House. This denial of democracy is especially appalling since Bill C-60 contains many amendments that will affect Canadians directly.

It is important to point out that this bill amends close to 50 laws, including a number of things that have nothing to do with the budget, strictly speaking.

Rather than splitting it up so that we can study it in-depth in committee, the government wants to impose its views in a mammoth bill for the third time in this Parliament. The Conservatives are rejecting good democratic sense, without any consultation and without in-depth debate.

What we are getting is yet another austerity program that will in no way help Canadians re-enter the workforce and that will keep the country on a precarious path.

Tax increases, tariff hikes and the elimination of tax credits for labour-sponsored funds and co-operatives: the outcome is that Canadians have less money in their pockets, have access to fewer services and are the primary victims of the Conservatives' action.

As the Parliamentary Budget Officer reported this week, budget 2012, the 2012 economic update and budget 2013 alone will lead to the loss of 60,000 jobs by 2017, and a 0.57% drop in the GDP.

This determination to make massive cuts is unacceptable because they will inevitably cause an economic downturn. What the Conservatives are doing is weakening Canadian growth to serve some backwards ideological imperative.

Issues related to immigration and the temporary foreign worker program have a prominent place in this bill. It is therefore essential that we pay special attention to them.

First, the Conservatives were true to form with regard to the temporary foreign worker program. They waited until they were backed into a corner before reacting. They waited until the very last minute to make adjustments to the program. Today, without any consultation, they quickly and with great fanfare announced adjustment measures.

In reality, what the government is announcing with regard to the temporary foreign worker program undoes everything the government has done since it was elected.

The Conservatives were pushing for an increased number of temporary foreign workers. Today, they realize that they went too far. They were allowing companies to pay temporary foreign workers 15% less than Canadians workers. Today, they admit that that was a mistake, even though they completely denied those accusations less than a week ago.

They announced a program to fast-track the processing of applications. Today, they realize that companies are taking advantage of this opportunity to replace Canadian workers.

The fact is that the Conservatives hastily went ahead with these measures without consultation, which is exactly the same criticism we have of Bill C-60 today.

The government's laissez-faire attitude has led to such debacles as the ones involving HD Mining and the Royal Bank of Canada.

We believe that the temporary foreign worker program must return to its core mandate, which is to allow companies to meet specific workforce needs for a temporary period of time when Canadians are not available to do the job, particularly highly skilled occupations.

The program must not be used to replace Canadian workers nor to cut companies' payroll costs, as the Conservatives have allowed.

Last week, Mark Carney, the Governor of the Bank of Canada, reiterated what the NDP has been saying for a long time.

The new user fees and the government's requirement for companies to submit a hiring and training plan for Canadian workers before being able to benefit from the program will penalize small and medium-sized businesses much more than large businesses.

SMEs will have more difficulty complying with these requirements since the costs will have a much greater impact on SMEs overall spending than they will on that of the big Canadian banks, for example.

Similarly, Bill C-60 gives the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism new discretionary powers. This is in addition to the powers he gave himself under Bill C-31 and Bill C-43.

Instead of putting the normal appeal process in place, the minister is once again setting himself up as both judge and jury in various immigration matters. As for other aspects related to immigration, the issue of fees is also cause for concern. It is important to point out that the new fees put forward by the minister for applications for permanent residence, citizenship and the temporary foreign worker program will not be subject to the User Fees Act under Bill C-60.

Accordingly, for these new fees, the minister will not have to consult with anyone, do any impact studies or inform applicants. In the last budget, the Minister of Finance gave Citizenship and Immigration Canada the latitude to increase various fees. Now he is giving that department carte blanche.

An application for permanent residence can cost over $1,500 with all the associated fees, and increasing costs even further will limit people's access to our immigration programs.

In addition to wanting to create a distinction between citizens with just one citizenship and those with dual citizenship, now the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism will also be creating a distinction between wealthy immigrants and those who are less well off. The government's decision to reduce that department's budget for integration services will have a direct and negative impact.

In closing, this House must work on behalf of all Canadians. Imposing major changes of this nature without sufficient debate shows carelessness and contempt for democracy.

The immigration measures announced in response to pressure in the House and in the media, particularly concerning the temporary foreign worker program, reek of improvisation and amateurism, as usual.

Once again, this government is demonstrating that it has no overall plan and it has no idea what it means to be accountable.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, hundreds of people in my riding of Toronto—Danforth have been writing to me about what they want to see in this budget. I have to say that trashing unionized workers was not on anybody's list.

Bill C-60 authorizes the government's Treasury Board to intervene at any stage of collective bargaining between any one of 49 crown corporations and unionized workers in order to impose a negotiating mandate on the corporation. It also permits the Treasury Board to intervene directly with the crown corporation and change the conditions of employment for any non-union employee at any time.

This represents the deepest possible hypocrisy by the Conservative government. I wonder if my colleague agrees that in this House and in the media, government ministers repeatedly tell us that crown corporations operate at arm's length from the government as a way to shield these corporations from accountability, effectively saying, “Don't ask us; ask the corporation.”

For example, repeatedly the government does this with respect to Canada Post when it is closing outlets, while never failing to take the opportunity to defend Canada Post's freedom to do what it wants, including pushing a business model that is designed to squeeze out unionized workers more and more.

Therefore, beyond hypocrisy, this is a combination of big government and Big Brother government. I wonder if my colleague for Saint-Lambert agrees with me or can add anything else.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I obviously agree with him. The government is always telling us that this is an austerity budget and that it is meant to stimulate the economy. That will have a number of implications. My colleague talked about complete and total interference in crown corporations, when these corporations should be independent and should remain that way.

In addition to interfering in crown corporations, this government is choosing to take control over everything. We can see in particular how it is trying to interfere in collective bargaining and everything related to hiring or choosing employees. This government is misguided and continues to be very controlling.

[Bruce Hyer, Independent, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to build on the question asked by the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth and ask the member for Saint-Lambert to say more about this.

It was very worrisome to me when I discovered that in Bill C-60 we would have the government staff sitting on the boards of our crown corporations, vetting and making decisions. This would end an historic arm's-length status of companies like VIA Rail, Canada Post and the CBC—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. Unfortunately, I do not think the translation was working.

The translation is not working. Is it working now?

It seems to be working now.

[Bruce Hyer, Independent, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member, following up on the question from the member for Toronto—Danforth, about government staff sitting in on the boards of crown corporations, vetting and making decisions under Bill C-60. As we know, these omnibus budget bills have little surprises and this is a worrisome surprise. This would end the historic arm's-length relationship of companies like VIA Rail, Canada Post and the CBC.

In light of today being World Press Freedom Day, what does the member think about the government taking control of what is supposed to be our independent broadcaster in Canada?

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. This situation is very serious. We are talking about the CBC. Today is World Press Freedom Day, and we have to send a clear message that freedom of the press must be observed and, obviously, maintained.

We have a democratic system. However, this government is taking over many aspects of our economy. This interference will be nothing but disastrous. As the official opposition, we will continue to oppose these completely unacceptable control tactics.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the ability and the opportunity to debate the budget implementation act.

Like everybody here, I am encouraged by Canada's steady progress toward recovery from the recession. People have heard the statistics already. We are moving forward while many of our trading partners are actually struggling to keep their footing. Our record of job creation is better than any other G7 country and we are further ahead than any of the G7 when it comes to our debt to GDP ratio. Thanks to our government's prudent fiscal management, we still have a Triple-A credit rating.

Because of these strong fundamentals, Canada is seen internationally as a good place to invest, and that can only bode well for our continued prosperity. However, this is simply no time to relax. At the global level, the economic recovery is still fragile and we will need to continue to be prudent and follow the plan that has always served us so well. We will also need to come to grips with the greatest threat to our long-term economic vitality. Simply put, that is the skills shortage.

As Canada's Minister of Labour, I have my own particular perspective on the issue. I travel across the country and I talk to workers and employers about the importance of co-operative labour relations, about health and safety in the workplace and about the benefits of diversity and inclusion in the workplace. These are wide-ranging discussions and they often shift to the topic of skills shortages.

Employers say that they are having a hard time finding qualified workers and this stifling of their ability to grow is a direct result. In some cases, it has actually put their businesses and even their industries at risk.

On the other side, workers are always aware as well of the pressures and they are rightfully concerned. Indeed, I have been stopped on the shop floor by machinists who are very concerned about the fact that they are heading to retirement and there is nobody coming in to replace them.

The workers and the employers I talk to often express their bewilderment that it does not make sense that we have this skills shortage at a time when we have so many Canadians who are still unemployed.

We have heard from the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development that there is a mismatch in our country between the skills that employers are looking for and the skills that are actually available in the workforce. Our government is committed to giving Canadians the skills they need in order to get the jobs that are in demand. That is why skills training is such an important part of this new budget.

In economic action plan 2013, we will give our young people better access to information on where the jobs really are, particularly in the skilled trades area and the STEM fields, science, technology, engineering and mathematics, and what skills are required to get these jobs.

As members know, the Government of Canada invests about $2.7 billion a year in agreements with the provinces and the territories for skills training and for employment training as well. However, these programs need to be better lined up with the skills that the employers require and we want to transform the way that Canadians get training. That is why we will create the Canada job grant. Instead of having the situation where officials or bureaucrats decide what training should be delivered, employers themselves will identify their training needs and then they will apply to the provinces for the funding. This will ensure that Canadians will get the skills that employers seek.

With the current $500 million a year labour market agreements with the provinces and the territories set to expire in 2014, we will negotiate new agreements centred on this job grant. When it is fully implemented, we expect this job grant can help 130,000 Canadians to access the training they need to get a job or to improve their skills for in-demand jobs.

Just as important as in-school training is on-the-job training. We already have grants to encourage people to pursue and complete their apprenticeship training in a red seal trade. In our economic action plan 2013, we introduce new measures to further support apprentices. People who want to enter the skilled trades will benefit from reduced barriers to accreditation and as well from support to complete their apprentice training and their certification.

To that end, we will work with the provinces and the territories to help harmonize requirements for apprentices in the red seal trades. I will give the House an example. We are going to examine the potential use of practical tests as a method of assessment.

We are also going to take a number of steps to recognize the importance of hiring and training apprentices. The government will be introducing measures that will support the use of apprentices through federal construction and maintenance contracts, investments in affordable housing and infrastructure projects receiving federal funding.

Finally, we are increasing our support for training and employment programs that target groups that are under-represented in our workforce. What we know is that people under the age of 25, aboriginal people, newcomers and people with disabilities have a significantly higher rate of unemployment than the general population. Quite frankly, this is a waste of their potential and it is a loss to our economy, because we need all of the talent in Canada at work.

As the minister responsible for employment equity, diversity in the workplace is an issue that is very close to my heart. There are almost 800,000 Canadians with disabilities who are employable, but they have yet to find a job. Almost half of these, 340,000, have a post-secondary education. They could fill many of the jobs that are now vacant.

That is why last year our government created a panel on labour market opportunities for persons with disabilities. It was given a mandate to identify private sector successes and best practices in increasing labour market participation of persons with disabilities. In January 2013, it issued a report entitled “Rethinking Disability in the Private Sector”, and it presented a convincing business case for hiring persons with disabilities. It helped to form the measures that were announced in economic action plan 2013.

The budget announced an investment of $222 million per year for a new generation of labour market agreements for persons with disabilities. These reformed agreements, to be introduced by 2014, will be designed to give persons with disabilities more support in finding employment.

The opportunities fund for people with disabilities assists people with disabilities to prepare for, to obtain, to keep employment or to become self-employed. Our government is extending this program with ongoing funding of $40 million per year. It will also be reformed to provide more demand-driven training solutions for people with disabilities and make it more responsive to labour market needs.

We are extending the enabling accessibility fund with annual funding of $15 million to support capital costs of construction and renovations to improve physical accessibility for people with disabilities.

We also announced additional funding of $7 million for the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, or SSHRC, some of which will support research related to labour market participation of people with disabilities.

In addition, the economic action plan will enable the creation of the Canadian employers disability forum, which will be managed by employers for employers. The forum will continue the good work of the panel by educating employers about the best ways to attract and retain persons with disabilities.

I am looking forward to contributing to the government's efforts to modernize the disability regime and focus on early return to work for federal civil servants.

Our government is also proposing ways to meet the challenge of employment for youth. The Minister of Finance pointed out in his budget that good choices made early on in life could help ensure that young Canadians would get the skills and experience to find work quickly, avoid unnecessary debt and get a better start to their career.

Our government has never wavered from our commitment to strengthen the economy for all Canadians and get more people into the workforce. Our economic action plan 2013 reflects our fidelity to that commitment. The measures it proposes will help us close the skills gap and it will benefit both employers and workers.

As the Canadian Chamber of Commerce said, “The measures announced...are a significant step forward in the federal government’s attack on Canada’s skills challenge”.

With that in mind, I ask the House to support the budget implementation act.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the Minister of Labour is all talk and no action.

The government is responsible for a number of failures. I could talk about the $600 billion accumulated by Canadian corporations.

Let us focus on the government's bragging rights that the member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca desperately tried to have the Parliamentary Budget Officer's analysts validate. The 900,000 jobs created since the end of the recession are for the most part structural in nature, but let us not forget that the government could do more damage to the economy.

If the minister wants to take credit for creating 900,000 jobs, is she prepared to take the blame for the loss of 500,000 jobs during the recession while her government was dithering?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that this government does not dither. It gets on with getting the work done that needs to be done. Quite frankly, the proof is in the results. Yes, we have net new jobs in Canada. Yes, our economy is doing much better than anywhere around the world.

However, as I said in the opening speech, we need to continue to be prudent. We have recognized what the gap is for us. It is a skills gap. We have developed programming to help us close the skills gap.

We are the party, we are the government, that figures out what the issues are and then develops a plan. We execute that plan, and we get excellent results.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, as heritage critic, I received a letter from the Independent Media Arts Alliance. They quoted from the Canada Council for the Arts. The Canada Council is what the Conservatives brag about putting more money into. They obviously feel that it is an effective organization.

What the Canada Council says is this:

...freedom of artistic expression from control or dominance by external forces such as governments and markets...

Contained within the budget is something unprecedented. It is the presence of the Treasury Board in the midst of all these negotiations. The answer we get in return is that they want to be more in control of the process.

This poisons everybody, management and union alike. They are so quick to endorse the idea of arm's length when it is convenient for them, but this really goes against all theories of being arm's length.

Where did it come from? Why is it really going to be the case in the budget implementation bill?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, every minister who has a crown corporation in his or her portfolio is responsible for the crown corporation. Indeed, the government is responsible for crown corporations in total, and as such, it is responsible for their fiscal management.

One of the key aspects of looking at crown corporations is the reality that we have a significant portion of their budgets associated with human resources. It makes very good sense that we want to improve the financial viability of crown corporations, including their compensation levels. We are doing so by introducing the ability of the government to take part in setting the mandate for negotiations on behalf of the crown corporations.

It is very simple. It does not go to anything with respect to day-to-day activities in the arts world and whatever arts endeavours are being undertaken.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we know that our economy is doing very well. We have heard from world leaders, the OECD, and the IMF about how well our economy is doing as a result of the $45-billion economic action plan and the infrastructure stimulus fund this government put in place. We have seen jobs created as a result of new bridges, new roads and new community centres right across the country—in Quebec, Ontario and Alberta.

Mr. Speaker, you and I know, but many Canadians do not know, that the NDP voted against the economic action plan and every single dollar that went into Ontario, Quebec and across the country.

What would have happened had the NDP had its way? What would have happened if we had not had the economic action plan and had not created the 900,000 net new jobs we have as a Conservative government? What would have happened to our economy?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I can tell you what would have happened in my part of the world, in my constituency of Halton. There would certainly be fewer jobs than there are right now, and there would certainly be less of an economy than there is right now.

Many constituencies and many communities across the country benefited greatly from the prudent plans we put in action to ensure that we have long-term growth, economic growth and prosperity and that we continue to create jobs. We did it through infrastructure investment. We did it through job share and so many different programs that helped keep us moving through the recession.

It sets us up for an excellent future.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to follow on the heels of the speech just made by the Minister of Labour, because it gives me the opportunity to point out to anyone listening, to the country in general, that this particular piece of legislation and the recent actions of that Minister of Labour constitute nothing less than a war on labour and the left. It is a war on fair wages and benefits, earned over a century of free collective bargaining and trade union rights. The minister has been systematically undermining the rights of workers to organize, the rights of workers to bargain collectively and the rights of workers sometimes to withhold their services, in fact, as is their right should collective bargaining reach an impasse.

We find it again in the most egregious assault on trade union rights in the post-war era. We find it again in the parameters of this document in which the Conservatives are interfering pre-emptively in the collective bargaining rights of crown corporations. They say that they will dictate the terms and conditions of those working people.

I do not think I need to remind you, Mr. Speaker, that a burgeoning, well-paid middle class is the greatest strength our economy has, and it can be traced directly to the advent and rise of the trade union movement, which bargained for fair wages and working conditions for working people all over North America. It was the United States of America's biggest folly and biggest mistake when it attacked trade unions in that country with its right-to-work legislation, with measures just like we are seeing from their neo-conservative counterparts in Canada. They diminished the rate of unionization in those right-to-work states, and correspondingly, wages and working conditions cascaded and tumbled to where a good job in Georgia or North Carolina these days pays $8, $10 or $12 an hour, with no benefits whatsoever.

If that is the direction the Conservatives want to go, I ask in whose interest it is to drive down the wages and working conditions of Canadians. Canadians do not need to elect a government to do that. There are market forces all over the place that seek to do that.

The Conservatives are interfering with the normal market forces, the natural market forces, that dictate that in a time of skills shortages, working people can command a better wage. That is the time they go to the bargaining table and say that our labour might have been worth only $20 an hour last year, when there was no work, but there is lots of work now. Now is the time when working people should be able to negotiate fair wages.

What are the Conservatives doing in my industry? One example found in Bill C-60 is the temporary foreign worker program. People forget that in the last omnibus budget bill, that minister eliminated the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act. They hardly even noticed that. The construction fair wages act set minimum wages for non-union construction workers at something higher than the provincial minimum wage. She said that they got rid of that because hardly anyone works under it anyway.

Correspondingly, the Conservatives brought in the temporary foreign worker expedited 10-day guarantee. Labour brokers, labour pimps, from around the world are now bringing crews of construction workers to Canada under that program. They are being paid 15% less, and not less than the construction wage but less than the minimum wage in a province. How does any fair employer ever compete? How does any fair contractor ever win another job if its competition is using these labour pimps that have been facilitated by the minister to undermine the whole fair tendering process?

These are the unintended consequences, or maybe intended consequences, of the rash, irresponsible legislation we are seeing in these massive omnibus bills. There is no debate. There is never any time to debate any of these predictable consequences. We would have brought these things to the attention of the minister if these things ever could be debated fairly.

I was thinking earlier today of a poem by Allen Ginsberg called Howl. It begins, “I saw the best minds of my generation [rot]”. I watched the best aspects of our parliamentary democracy systematically undermined, assaulted and destroyed by the government. The Conservatives have this idea, like a lot of neo-conservative fundamentalists, that the end justifies the means, that they can throw away everything that is good and decent about our parliamentary democracy, because somehow God is on their side and they are going to drive this down people's throat, in spite of overwhelming evidence that it is the wrong way to go.

I saw a bumper sticker the last time I was in Washington that said, “At least the war on the middle class is going well”. That is what is happening here.

The Conservatives have this idea that they have to ratchet down the expectations of Canadian workers by ordering people back to work at Canada Post at a rate lower than what was negotiated with their employer, or by pre-empting job action at Air Canada by ordering people back to work before there was even a strike, or now, by stripping the collective bargaining ability from the tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of people who work in crown corporations.

In whose interest is it to drive down the wages of Canadian workers? Are they out of their minds? We can look south of the border at the predictable consequences. They have destroyed their middle class there. They have completely undermined fair wages.

I come from the building industry. I served an apprenticeship as a carpenter. I have indentured literally hundreds of apprentices in my experience as the head of the carpenters' union. We predicted skills shortages 40 or 50 years ago, for heaven's sake, given the predictable demographics of the baby boom. It was no surprise.

A temporary foreign worker program that saturates the market with cheap foreign labour is not a human resources strategy. It is the polar opposite. It is admitting defeat.

Let me give an example of some of the catastrophes in that program. I already brought it to the minister's attention years ago. Gold River Tahsis, on Vancouver Island, had a pulp and paper mill shut down. It was a terrible loss to the community. A company in China bought the pulp and paper mill, but it had to be dismantled and torn down. Eighty unemployed millwrights in the town of Gold River Tahsis could have used one more year's work to dismantle the pulp and paper mill. Instead, the company had to go to a labour broker, a labour pimp we call them, and bring in 80 people from South Asia to do it. We got the documents. We got a copy of the application. It asked if they had tried to find qualified Canadians. The response was “yes”. It asked why they did not hire qualified Canadians. The response was that the cost was too high.

That is what the contractor put in the documents that went to the minister's desk, and the Conservatives signed off and brought in these guys. All these local people in Gold River Tahsis were locked outside the gate looking in while a bunch of temporary foreign workers got the last few weeks of employment in their dying pulp mill. That is an atrocity.

The Winnipeg International Airport is another example. Again, I tried to go to the minister with this complaint. We have a couple of hundred unemployed carpenters in Manitoba. We are building a brand new airport that we are all proud of. Where does the construction crew come from to place all that concrete? They come from Lebanon. Their last job was in Latvia. They are a bunch of Lebanese workers being shopped around by these labour pimps who go around the world with their crews undermining the local conditions. There are hundreds of unemployed carpenters in Manitoba. It is skilled work doing elevated concrete ramps with all kinds of staging and scaffolding involved, and it goes to a bunch of Lebanese workers.

I have nothing against the good people of Lebanon, but they have no right to those Canadian jobs. If we need to open the doors to immigration, there would be no complaint from this side of the House, but those jobs should not be given away to temporary foreign workers.

God knows under what terms and conditions they were being paid. Believe me, the local contractors can never compete with someone who can get 40 people working at 15% less than the minimum wage. How does a fair contractor ever win another job?

The most recent example is the Women's Hospital in Winnipeg. That is going on right now. The labourers and carpenters are picketing that job as we speak, because temporary foreign workers are doing labour work. These are not even carpenters' jobs. They are construction labourers. The Conservatives cannot tell me that there is not some unemployed aboriginal kid in a northern Manitoba reserve, where the unemployment rate is 80% and 90%, who could not be trained and put on that job at $20 an hour to do construction labour.

No one has tried hard enough to place the skills shortages with the labour surpluses. It is a pathetic situation, absolutely pathetic.

Bill C-60 is full of 50-some odd pieces of legislation that we as members of Parliament, representing the people who elected us, will never have a chance to give proper scrutiny and oversight to. We are being denied that right by closure again. How many times have the Conservatives moved closure on a bill? All of them. It is an easy number. I do not need to even know the number.

Every single time they have a piece of legislation, they deny us the right to do due diligence, as is our obligation and duty as elected members of Parliament.

I am sick of it. I have watched it deteriorate, and in my 15 years as a member of Parliament, I have never seen it as bad as it is today. These guys are a disgrace.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, some things do not change. The hon. member across the row believes that calling people names and being very flowery in his words is actually going to matter, but what really does matter is actions. They speak a lot more than words. I think it is important to set—

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

They are one step up from Simon Legree. They are slave drivers. They are human traffickers.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order. The hon. Minister of Labour has the floor.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will say one thing, and I hope that the women on the other side of the House will listen and consider this clearly.

I think it is inappropriate to utilize language associated with the sex trade in this House of Parliament to describe people who are doing different jobs around the country. I think it is nothing more than grandstanding, and I think it is nothing more than trying to grab a sound bite.

I am offended by it personally. He should know better, and the women sitting behind him should know better than to put up with that kind of nonsense as well.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, another question comes to mind.

First of all it was robocalls and the fixed election. If the Conservatives won their razor-thin majority by cheating, they do not actually have a mandate to govern at all, never mind what they are doing now by abusing and undermining every institution of democracy that we hold dear.

Then it was election financing fraud. Now it is using MPs' mailing privileges to carpet bomb ridings like mine. Ten members of Parliament from Manitoba used their MP mailing privileges to carpet bomb my riding with all this stuff.

The question that comes to mind and the question I put to you, Mr. Speaker, is this: where did they get the lists? How did they know that my neighbour's mother only lived at my neighbour's house for four months before she passed away? How did they send a personally addressed letter to that person's mother?

How about the case in which they filed their income tax from their son's address? How did they know that their income tax was mailed from that address?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order. I am not sure if that line of commentary is particularly related to the question that is before the House.

Questions and comments. I see there is lots of interest, so I would ask members to keep their interventions brief.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Labour was speaking, I noticed that she referred to training dollars for first nations.

I know the member for Winnipeg Centre has a lot of knowledge around employment and the skills required for first nations. We know that in this country many first nations youth are simply not employed.

I wonder if the member could comment on the lack of action in this particular budget implementation bill in providing meaningful skills and training to first nations.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Nanaimo—Cowichan for that very relevant question. I appreciate the work she has done on the file as our representative on the aboriginal affairs file.

The unemployment rate among aboriginal youth in my province and in many places across the country can be as high as 50% or 60%, four or five times higher than the already high unemployment rate for youth. There are communities in northern Manitoba where the unemployment rate is 85% to 90%. There is a vast pool of youth between 16 and 25 who, with an opportunity, could make a meaningful entrance into the workforce.

When I was head of the carpenters union, we did make an outreach effort specifically to go up and do some training in northern Manitoba because we had hydro dams going there. Believe me, a lot of the apprentices we signed in the aboriginal apprenticeship initiative found really satisfying careers in the construction industry. It is not a bad segue into the industrialized workforce, the construction and building trades.

It is hard work, and they are no strangers to hard work, growing up in the north. It is the high school kids from downtown Winnipeg who have a tough time getting into the construction industry, because it is hard work. These guys think it is easy money. For those who spent their life splitting wood and hauling fish nets in the wintertime, construction is easy money.

We are missing the boat by not matching the skills shortages that everybody knows about in the construction industry and the human resources surplus that is under our nose. Surely it is cheaper to train a kid from Pukatawagan than it is to fly them in from Lebanon or Southeast Asia or wherever these other temporary foreign workers are coming from. For God's sake, it is completely counterintuitive.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a great privilege today to speak on a good economic action plan. However, I do not think anybody in this House, including those from our side, would say that it is perfect. There are not such perfect things at this point, but in view of what we are dealing with, it is a good plan, it is a decent plan, and it takes us ahead. When we compare it to what the others would offer, it is probably a great plan.

I want to start by talking about the fiscal side. That said, I think we all realize right away that the fiscal side involves the human side, and there is an integral kind of connection, a coherent kind of approach to it in our budget this year. Therefore, I will talk about the fiscal side and the compassionate Conservative side by way of some of the social side as well.

First of all, I want to note, as other members in this place already have, that this budget, in a very considerable way, wants to connect Canadians with available jobs. It is pretty important that we do that. Instead of giving a handout, as some people say, we give a hand up, which increases human dignity and builds people. It is a pretty important thing to be doing just from a human perspective.

We are also, as someone has said and is often repeated in this place, teaching a person to fish and not just giving them a fish by way of the Canada skills grant, which would provide some $15,000 or more per person, which would be combined with some provincial monies and the employer funding as well.

I met today here on Parliament Hill with a representative from the chemical association, who was commending this particular feature. For that industry, it is pretty important to be able to increase and bring people from apprenticeships to journeymen, and he sees the Canada skills grant as a very important way of doing that. Also, in relation to strengthening the apprentice system, he remarked as well that growing out of the Canada skills grant, it will do that. It will make it easier to get the needed experience for journeyman status.

In terms of expanding the pie, that is a pretty necessary thing. If we are just looking at the status quo and thinking we do not need any more journeymen because we are not figuring to advance and progress and expand beyond our borders, then of course some would say that there would be some fights over journeymen and the journeymen coming on. However, we are looking beyond. We realize that to hold our own we need to do that. We need to have strength in the apprenticeship system.

We are supporting job opportunities as well as providing tools for persons with disabilities, who often are not looked at as part of the labour force when we are wanting to bring people on stream to have the opportunities that others do.

As well, for our youth, getting that first job is a pretty important thing. In my province of Saskatchewan, there is a burgeoning birth rate among the aboriginal people, and many of these young people deserve jobs, as does any other Canadian. They will be the future workforce in the province of Saskatchewan in a big way, particularly in the resource sector up in the north, where there are high-paying jobs close to their home communities and close to these first nations settlements. That will be a great thing in that they can stay even closer to family and have good-paying jobs to support themselves, their families and others as well.

Also, there is the matter of helping recent immigrants find a job when we allow them into our country and bring them here. Most of us are immigrants in some fashion, I might say. We need to provide more than just a promise of a dream and a better tomorrow and a bright future by putting some actual steps to it and supporting them in job opportunities so we can fill the labour shortages and have the economy carry on because of that.

Those are some of the initial things that strike me as really important in our budget in connecting Canadians with available jobs in parts of the country.

For example, in Saskatchewan, my own home province, there is a great deal of prosperity and success these days, but there is a labour shortage. For those reasons, this budget strikes to my heart because of the need in my own backyard, my own riding of Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, where we have seen a 15% growth over the last few years since census indications and change of boundaries and so on. Because of that, we need to ensure that we are filling those needs, and the labour market needs to respond to that.

Also, I think that the long-term infrastructure plan is wise. There are things the private sector should and can be doing, but in terms of critical infrastructure, there is a vital role that government can play. Therefore, we have a new long-term infrastructure plan with over $70 billion over 10 years for a new building Canada plan.

Some of these figures have been cited before: $32.2 billion over 10 years for a community improvement fund; $14 billion for a new building Canada fund; $1.25 billion for the renewal of the P3 Canada; and $6 billion under current infrastructure programs for provinces, territories and municipalities in 2014-15 and beyond.

There is the matter of investing in world-class research and innovation. Taking it directly into the workplace, as well, is quite crucial. We are doing that by way of advanced research, supporting business innovation and enhancing Canada's venture capital system.

I am going to talk in a few moments about the support for families and communities in our budget. I also want to talk about helping small businesses succeed, the heart and engine of the economy, and medium and larger-sized businesses as well, and some of the things we have done there.

We are providing tax relief for manufacturers, helping small businesses expand, with $225 million to extend and expand the temporary hiring credit for small businesses for one year; increasing the lifetime capital gains exemption to $110 million over five years, by increasing the lifetime capital gains exemption to $800,000 for small business owners, farmers and fishers, and indexing that new limit to inflation going forward; and supporting mining exploration. Canada has a great deal of natural resources, so we need to key in and capitalize on that.

I want to read part of an email sent to me by one of my good constituents, a lady in Blaine Lake, Saskatchewan. She makes a good argument against socialism in the story and how we need to continually fight that back for the good of all Canadians. She stated:

A previous Prime Minister of Canada, Mr. John Diefenbaker, once said the poor cannot be helped by pulling down the rich. The middle class and the rich people have the businesses—

She is a business lady herself:

—that need people to keep them viable, thus providing them with a living to support their families and communities. These middle class and rich people often encourage employees to begin their own businesses thus ensuring the cycle will continue. I personally have seen that happen in my lifetime.

When governments decide to enter the realm of business it takes tax dollars to keep the businesses going. We have been down this road before during the time of Pierre Elliott Trudeau and it was a disaster.

She lived through that era. This was from a good constituent in Blaine Lake.

She also sent me an article titled, “Is this man a genius?”. It is about the follies and problems of socialism. Members have probably heard this. The article states:

IS THIS MAN A GENIUS?

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

The professor then said, “OK, we will have an experiment in this class on [socialism]'s plan”.. All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A.... (substituting grades for dollars--something closer to home and more readily understood by all).

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.

The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.

As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.

To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.... These are possibly the 5 best sentences you'll ever read and all applicable to this experiment:

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

God forbid that we would ever come to that. The NDP proposal seems to be pretty much along that line.

I will have to address some of the other things in the following questions, which I am looking forward to at this juncture.

[Jonathan Tremblay, NDP, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that proves that, for the Conservatives, it is all about the ideology and not the content.

I will talk about the content of the budget, because that is what we are supposed to be talking about today. The Conservatives are good at messaging, but not at taking action. That is what we are seeing once again in this budget.

I will give an example that pertains to tax evasion. We often hear the Conservative members say that we must fight tax evasion and bring the money home.

There are cuts at the CRA, but it is being asked to do more. How are we going to fight tax evasion with fewer resources?

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about a few measures in the budget that would, in fact, help families avoid taxes and seniors avoid taxes. I think there are some very good things along that line.

In supporting families, we have enhanced the adoption expense tax credit to better recognize those unique costs, so that there would be some avoidance of tax that way. There are measures for expanding tax relief for home care services to include personal care services for those who, due to age, infirmity or disability, require assistance at home; enhancing the funeral and burial program for Canadian veterans; supporting palliative care services; and combatting family violence. These are some of the good initiatives in the budget that would help people to pay less tax, and that is always a good thing for Canadians.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I must say that the member's speech was rather pitiful.

I disagree with him and would suggest that he read the delightful letter written by American multi-billionaire Warren Buffet that was published in The New York Times at the beginning of the year. That letter would show the member how the world really works. It is nothing like the caricature he presented in his speech.

I want to talk about what is really happening. At the beginning of the year, I went to a reception at the Port of Québec and met a local businessman. He told me that the business community needs recognition from government.

It is incredible that after seven years of Conservative government, the business community still feels neglected and ignored by this government.

By the way, I would like to say that things are going well in and around Quebec City. Unemployment sits at about 5%. It is a very vibrant region, much like the prairie provinces.

Billions of dollars are sitting idle in Canadian companies because of this government, which has made some terrible decisions. That is the equivalent of about $25,000 per family that is not circulating, not creating jobs and not increasing the competitiveness of Canadian companies here and abroad. Could he comment on that?

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we have done some great things for businesses. I talk to businesses all the time. They commend us for the kinds of things that we have done with respect to them, helping them succeed and grow our global economy. Within the budget documents, which I think they have received in French and English, we talk in terms of the budget initiative of providing tax relief to manufacturers, some $1.4 billion in tax relief, through a two-year extension of the temporary accelerated capital cost allowance for new machinery and equipment. Small businesses are pretty impressed with the fact of helping small business expand by way of extending and expanding the temporary hiring credit for businesses for up to one year, and increasing the lifetime capital gains exemption.

That is a huge thing that is supported by the business community, as well. When we have that kind of thing where, for manufacturers, for business, for small business, and so on, there is an opportunity to expand, it actually means jobs, and the NDP needs to understand that, jobs that then would give people the opportunity to support their families. A job builds a person. It would actually build an individual because they would have the dignity of a job. That is what we have tried to do as a keynote throughout the budget.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before I recognize the hon. member for Chatham-Kent—Essex on resuming debate, I will just let him know we only have about two minutes left before the interruption.

However, he can get under way, at least, and he will of course have the remaining time when the House gets back to business on this question.

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

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak to the budget implementation, creating jobs, growth and long-term prosperity for Canadians.

I have just a couple of minutes to introduce my speech and I will do that by giving a little history lesson, talking about what happened in the past, where we are today, why the bill is so significant and why this has been a process rather than just another budget.

In 2009 we experienced the global meltdown we all remember so vividly. Some would call it a recession, but in some places in the world it is called a depression. It was definitely the worst thing that happened to our economics in this country and around the world since the Great Depression. In 2009 our government introduced Canada's economic action plan in response to the near-global collapse that took place. This plan sought to stabilize Canadian markets and restore financial security and stability.

I do not have time to go through my whole history lesson, but the International Monetary Fund urged that all countries in a position to do so inject fiscal stimulus of 2% of gross domestic product to reduce the effects of a damaging recession. Of course, this meant deficit spending over a period of time until the markets returned to normal. Canada was part of that.

We have made some important and right decisions in the past. Since 2006, for instance, the average family of four pays $3,400 less in taxes than it did previously. Today we see that, and it is a result of decisions taken in 2006.

My time is up. I will pick up where I have left off on Monday.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Chatham-Kent—Essex will have eight minutes remaining for his remarks when the House next returns to the question.

It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from May 3 consideration of the motion that Bill C-60, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, in my last introductory speech on Friday, I laid out the history of prior budgets to stress the importance of having a good fiscal position. As a result, it is possible today to speak of a budget that is the right budget for this time.

I spoke about the action our government took early on. It lowered taxes, for instance, so that today's average family of four pays $3,400 less in taxes. Our federal corporation tax has been reduced from 21% in 2006 to 16% and will go to 15% to make businesses more competitive and allow them to invest in their businesses. That will give them an edge in global competition.

We also paid down our debt by $34 billion between 2006 and 2008, while still increasing transfer payments to the provinces. We gave our municipalities much needed revenue by way of gas-tax sharing and made it permanent to ensure predictability. We began tackling red tape and other irritants that have hindered businesses in the past and helped create a healthy economic climate so that Canada could position itself against global competition.

I could go on explaining why these measures have helped make Canada the envy of our G8 trading partners. It was because of these pre-emptive measures that this government was able to provide the necessary stimulus by way of the economic action plan, announced in budget 2009, when the world faced a financial meltdown resulting in a shocking recession, which some even called a depression, that still afflicts much of the world today.

The stimulus money from this economic action plan has helped thousands of communities right across Canada update or replace aging infrastructure. For example, in my riding of Chatham-Kent—Essex, this money has been used to repair roads and bridges, since this area has one of the highest concentrations of bridges in our country. We have reached a crisis point, with many bridges in need of repair and a municipality stretched to its full extent. There is water treatment in Leamington, community projects, and the list goes on.

Bill C-60 would build on all these past budgets. This budget would include a new building Canada plan with over $53 billion in new and existing funds. The gas tax fund would be indexed. There would be $14 billion allocated for major economic infrastructure projects that have national, regional and local significance. This is good news, again, for Chatham-Kent—Essex.

In addition to all this, the federal government would invest over $10 billion in bridges, meteorological services, national parks, VIA Rail, small craft harbours, ports, military bases and other federal infrastructure assets. Again, this is good news for Chatham-Kent—Essex.

The Windsor–Detroit crossing is critical to the economic well-being of my riding. Every day, for instance, trucks ship produce from our greenhouses in the Leamington area. Eighty per cent of what is produced in Leamington and the surrounding area, which is incidentally the largest collection of greenhouses in North America, is shipped to the U.S.

Anyone who has been on the Ambassador Bridge knows why it is so important to replace this aging bridge. Work has begun on the approach, and the project is well under way. This was made possible by budget 2009. I was pleased to be able to help open the Huron Church parkway project, and last fall I was also present when our Prime Minister signed the important agreement with Governor Snyder from Michigan to make the twin-span bridge a reality. All that was left was a presidential sign-off, and that was completed when President Obama signed off on this project just last month. This project will provide thousands of jobs in the next few years and until 2020, when the bridge is to be completed.

Included in budget 2013 would be additional moneys to keep this process going, making sure that there would be funds for permits, necessary licences, et cetera. They would be just part of our ongoing commitment to this important project.

Another part of our federal infrastructure asset fund that would affect Chatham-Kent—Essex would be the small harbour component. Few people know that the riding of Chatham-Kent—Essex has the largest freshwater fishing port in the world.

Wheatley Harbour is an important part of our community. Freshwater fishermen rely on the harbour, as does a shipbuilder named Hike Metal, which has built some very impressive ships throughout the years. The commitment by this government to freshwater harbours will enable me to go back to this community and continue to plan toward the success and improvement of Wheatley Harbour.

Like many places in Canada, my riding of Chatham-Kent—Essex was severely affected by the economic downturn in 2008-2009. As was the case in many other areas, the measures enacted by our government helped to get people back to work, but we are not finished yet. Budget 2013 will help Canadians connect with jobs through such measures as the Canada job grant. This will connect skills training directly to employers.

Budget 2013 will also help create opportunities for apprentices by working with the provinces to reduce barriers through using practical tests as a means of accreditation. A new generation of labour market agreements for persons with disabilities is also going to be introduced, along with new programs for first nations youth. All this will be supported by programs connecting Canadians with available jobs.

These are a few of the exciting benefits of budget 2013 and a description of how they will affect my riding of Chatham-Kent—Essex. The budget also contains measures to strengthen major manufacturing industries across Canada and investment in research and innovation, and it will support leading-edge research and infrastructure.

I wish I had more time to speak about how the budget will help promote entrepreneurs, as this is an area near and dear to my heart. If we look at any package in a grocery store, at name brands of automobiles, at electronic equipment, et cetera, we see one thing emerge: the name of a individual or a group of individuals who had an idea and went to work, and after falling down and getting up and trying again, they brought this idea to market. This required an entrepreneur, capital and a market.

I am proud that this government recognizes and will encourage entrepreneurs, including youth, to create a healthy economic climate the some assistance to help spawn the next Research In Motion or Westport.

Of course, none of this would be possible without our government's continued commitment to free trade, and we are aggressively pursuing it. We are very close to signing an agreement with the European Union that would give us access to 500 million people. Our government, our manufacturers, our farmers and business people who rely on free trade will be able to compete.

Our government understands the need to help stimulate the economy, but just as importantly, we understand the need to get back to a balanced budget. Our commitment continues: jobs, growth and long-term prosperity. This budget delivers on all of those.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the speech given by my eminent colleague.

I think it gave an excellent summary of the debate we are having here today. This is really a third omnibus bill. Of course, we agree with a few of the measures presented in this bill, but they are mixed in with many a bitter pill that will be difficult to swallow. This is becoming a real problem.

For example, I wonder if the member could explain how it is that a government that raised the retirement age from 65 to 67, telling people they will simply have to plan better, could at the same time take away one of the most important measures available to small investors, a tool that allowed them to put money aside for a decent retirement.

Of course, I am referring to the removal of special tax treatment for workers' funds.

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

Mr. Speaker, as laid out in my speech, having a continuum is important. We have demonstrated that since 2006. This government has a plan for economic growth or stimulus, and part of that was to recognize that Canadians were living longer, which is a good thing; however, as a result, our demographics are such that fewer people are coming into the workplace. That caused a problem. As a result, we are getting people ready. With that in mind, we warned them about the necessity of changing our age of retirement from 65 to 67. We did that over a measured time to give Canadians an opportunity to do that.

As for the measures that the member spoke about in relation to small business, the best thing we can do for small businesses is to give them strength so that they have a good, solid business. I am a small businessman; I know that our nest egg is that business itself. We want to make sure that small businesses remain strong, and the measures we have enacted and put into place will ensure that will happen for a long time to come.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech with great interest. I would acknowledge that, yes, there are some positives in the budget, but I do need to ask a question considering his emphasis on small business, his background in small business and his claim that this budget is about making small businesses stronger.

Could he please explain how taking $2.3 billion out of the pockets of small business owners over five years through changes to the dividend tax credit is actually going to make those businesses stronger?

Clearly, the facts would suggest that there is $2.3 billion less that those owners can utilize to invest in technology and growth for their enterprises.

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

Mr. Speaker, again I would emphasize that the best thing we can do for small businesses is lower their taxes. We have done that. We have repeated that process.

The other thing that is so important, as we often forget, is that as important as lowering taxes is, we need markets for our businesses. This government is actively engaged in opening new markets. We have a great standing relationship with the United States and Mexico. We have expanded that and we are looking at other countries in the western hemisphere, but now the most exciting thing that has happened since the North American Free Trade Agreement will be the European free trade agreement. We are very close to doing that. Just think of the possibilities that our businesses and small businesses will have when they are able to reap the benefits of a trade deal that has expanded to a huge market like that.

That is where the answer lies for success for our small businesses.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity contribute to the debate on Bill C-60, which is a budget implementation bill, and to provide my comments.

It is difficult, really, in the time available to do justice to a bill like this, because once again we have a bill that has a huge variety of measures. Some of them are new policy measures and some of them are not even in the budget speech. To actually do justice is very difficult.

What I would like to do is think about how this bill contributes to a sustainable future for our country and the opportunities and freedoms that we enjoy today. How does this bill help our children and their children in the future to enjoy those same kinds of opportunities and freedoms?

I want to start by saying that one of the things that is important for the health and well-being of society over time is transparency and honesty in government policy and government measures. One of the reasons the Liberals will not be supporting this bill is the tax increases, but beyond that, it is because of the lack of transparency in terms of these tax increases.

We call them “stealth tax increases” because the government continues to deny that it is increasing taxes, while it is absolutely clear that with this budget implementation bill the government is actually increasing net taxes over the coming five years.

In fact, in each and every year, the net impact on middle-class Canadians would be higher taxes. By the end of five years, $3.3 billion more would be coming out of Canadians' pockets through this net increase in taxes. We cannot support a budget that would do that.

I want to focus initially on the impact on small business. Like the speaker before me, I am from a small business background. In fact, I spent 25 years building a business into another category, as a mid-sized business. I know the challenges of small business, especially in securing capital for their growth and in securing investment to upgrade and update their equipment.

What small businesses do is utilize the retained earnings of that business itself, and in many cases they utilize the paycheques or savings of the business owners. That is why this dividend tax credit was so important to small business owners: they could use those funds to help grow their businesses when the market was not available as it is to public corporations.

That is why it is so mystifying to me that a government that claims to be pro-business and that claims it wants to make a healthier economy is side-swiping the very people—small business owners and their employees—who are so critical to achieving that goal.

This change to the dividend tax credit for small business is only one of many ways in which small businesses are paying for some of the Conservative government's mismanagement of budgets and unaccountable spending.

It is also surprising to me that large corporations have enjoyed an approximately 7% reduction in their corporate taxes under the current government, yet the small business rate has only dropped one percentage point in that time. In the meantime, $600 million a year, each and every year for the past three years and going forward, is loaded onto businesses for an EI payroll tax increase.

Small businesses account for 42% of private sector GDP. That is an enormous part of our economy, yet we are undermining those enterprises' ability to invest and grow their businesses.

Between 2001 and 2005, Canada's small and medium-sized enterprises created 467,708 jobs. That is almost half a million jobs.

What is the comparable figure under the current Conservative government? Between 2006 and 2010, under the Conservatives, the overall net number of jobs created by small and medium enterprises was negative 10,831. We are seeing a government that is failing the small and medium business community.

Here is a snapshot. In 2005, Liberals helped small businesses create almost 40,000 net jobs. In 2011, small businesses created 21,000 net jobs.

It is the government that has been failing small businesses, and this particular bill, Bill C-60, this budget, is a huge extra hit on small businesses. Certainly, that is not something we can possibly support.

Let us take a look at some of the other impacts of this bill on sustainability.

However, before I do that, I do want to acknowledge that there are elements of the bill that I think are positive and that I support, and certainly the Liberals support.

With respect to social sustainability, we support enhanced allocations for our veterans by putting an end to the deduction of disability payments, and we are indexing the gas tax fund by 2% a year.

Indexing the gas tax would certainly be helpful in my community of Vancouver and my riding of Vancouver Quadra.

As for economic sustainability, I support the measures to fight tax evasion, because no one likes cheaters. It is important to have measures in place to stop people from cheating.

Furthermore, the tax credits for mineral exploration will be very important to my province, British Columbia. As for the environment, the bill includes a $20 million investment in the Nature Conservancy of Canada.

That $20 million to Nature Conservancy of Canada is one small amount of funds. It is so woefully small.

In terms of sustainability, that is $20 million to one organization, when the government has cut hundreds of millions from Environment Canada, Parks Canada and climate change. The Experimental Lakes Area is just one example of so many program cuts. This is a government that, unfortunately, is untruly claiming that it is at a certain level of reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, whereas it is on track to actually having higher levels of greenhouse gas emissions than in 2005, while the Conservatives' target is 17% below.

I think everyone should take notice of what the Keeling curve is telling us today. Now, the Keeling curve is the world's longest unbroken record of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. This record, which is from a facility operated at the Mauna Loa Observatory near the top of a volcano on the Big Island of Hawaii, shows that carbon dioxide has been increasing steadily from values around 317 parts per million, when Dr. Charles D. Keeling began measurements in 1958, to nearly 400 parts per million today. That means that we are coming close to the level that this world saw in the Pleistocene era, at a time when the Arctic was 10° hotter than it is today and the rest of Canada was 6° to 8°.

We have an emergency with respect to climate warming, and the government is not only ignoring that, not only not funding anything to deal with that, but is in fact pretending it is accomplishing advances that it simply is not.

In conclusion, some of the important elements of social, democratic and environmental sustainability, as well as business sustainability, that I would like to see are not in the bill. In fact, the key measure that jumps out from the bill is a woeful attack on small businesses through a massive increase in their costs. That is money taken out of their pockets that they need to expand and update their enterprises.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech and, frankly, it was a speech about what the Liberals did not get done under their agenda.

First, when she talks about climate change, we know that after they signed the Kyoto accord, the Liberals allowed emissions to increase by 33%. Our government is getting it done. We have lowered emissions. We have a plan and we are working toward it.

For most of my adult life, I have created my own job. I am a small business owner, so I know what it means to create jobs for other people. I look at what the budget is doing. It is strengthening the competitiveness of the manufacturing sector, providing tax relief for new manufacturing machinery and equipment and investing in world-class research and innovation.

When she talks about putting problems in place for small businesses, my question for my colleague is this. Why is it that the Liberals stole $52 million out of the EI fund, which put a tax on small businesses?

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my response to the parliamentary secretary opposite is to ask why the government continued to put those funds into general revenue if it felt so strongly about it. It did exactly the same thing.

I would like to point out to the parliamentary secretary that in her department there has been a massive 39% cut to CIDA by 2014-15. Therefore, in terms of democratic sustainability, our very organization for development assistance overseas, which ties into Canada's reputation as a member of the international community—or used to—has had a 39% cut. Also, now that organization has essentially been swallowed into the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade to simply be another arm of the government's attempts to improve trade. We are not seeing the results yet and we have a massive trade deficit, so whatever the government is doing on the trade file is not working.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that the Liberals had 13 years to get the job done at a time when they had a big surplus but still did not get the job done.

Let us look at the Conservative side now. The Conservatives like to crow about their record on job creation, but there are still almost 1.4 million Canadians out of work. There are still 240,000 more young people unemployed today than before the recession, and the only job creation measure in Bill C-60 is for more cabinet members.

I bring this up because the two members on the Conservative side who just spoke said that they are small business people, and my colleague talked about the fact that she is a small business person. I will talk about the small business people on Manitoulin Island and the fact that the Conservative government did not do the job of making sure that the ports were in order, and now that whole economy is about to fall apart. We are talking about anywhere between $25 million and $35 million that the government is willing to see go down the pipe.

Maybe my colleague could speak to the fact that small businesses are about to fold if the Chi-Cheemaun ferry does not continue. Does she think this will increase jobs and the government's stand on the economy, or does she think this will be detrimental and there will be a higher rate of unemployed people and people on welfare?

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree completely with my hon. colleague that the Conservative government has been a failure in terms of job creation. There are still hundreds of thousands fewer jobs than there were when the Conservatives came into office. Youth unemployment is far worse than it was five years ago. In my constituency of Vancouver Quadra, where we have the world-class University of British Columbia, that hits young people coming out of university who cannot find a first job.

Another aspect of the problems with job creation is the tourism industry. The Conservative government has made cuts to the tourism marketing arm. There has been a 41% plunge over the last decade that has led to Canada slipping from 7th to 18th in international arrivals over the last 10 years. There are many fronts on which the government is failing and is, in fact, exacerbating the problem. It is making it harder for young people to get jobs.

[Wladyslaw Lizon, Conservative, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy and proud to stand today as the elected member for the riding of Mississauga East—Cooksville and speak to Bill C-60, which is designed to implement the measures in the jobs, growth and long-term prosperity act, 2013.

Economic action plan 2013 is focused toward Canadians. Speaking to my constituents, I consistently hear time and time again that their top priorities for our government are jobs and economic growth. I truly believe the same holds true for all Canadians.

Our government has earned international praise and recognition for its economic results. Canada has the strongest record for job creation among the G7 countries, with more than 950,000 new jobs created since the depth of the global recession. Our government is delivering what we promised Canadians, careful and competent stewardship to improve our employment rates and strengthen our economy to benefit all Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

As strong as our economy is, there are many external factors that we cannot control and that may pose a threat to the global economy. We are not immune. It may affect us as well.

I would like to talk about some important measures that are included in economic action plan 2013 that focus strongly toward increasing and aiding employment possibilities by building support toward Canadians jobs and growth.

Building from 2006, the 2013 economic action plan has introduced many important initiatives to help boost job growth, create jobs and build toward an even greater Canadian economy. Our government is committed to helping job growth, but we are also trying to make sure Canadians are able to connect with the available jobs by ensuring they have the correct skills and expertise to obtain high quality and well paying jobs by means of initiatives such as the Canada job grant, which is expected to help about 130,000 Canadians access the training they need to fill available jobs.

The government will create opportunities for apprentices by investing financial resources, introduce measures that would support the use of apprentices in projects receiving federal funding and reduce barriers to apprenticeship accreditation.

While recognizing the contributions persons with disabilities make to our economy, economic action plan 2013 announces the government's intention to bring forward a new era of labour market agreements for persons with disabilities by 2014.

The government will invest $222 million per year, and Canadians will find their government providing extensive agreements that will positively meet the needs of Canadian businesses and meet the employment needs throughout the nation, therefore contributing positively to the economy while providing greater opportunities for persons with disabilities. For both sides, it is a simple win-win situation.

The government will also continue supporting the opportunities fund for persons with disabilities and provide additional funding of $40 million a year for the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

Canadians with disabilities have great skills, and we are fully committed to improving their employment possibilities.

Economic action plan 2013 aims to reform and employ tact by modifying Canada's temporary workers program. The purpose of the program is to allow employers to temporarily utilize foreign workers in sectors where there are labour shortages. New reforms assist the Canadian job market and in turn the Canadian economy by ensuring citizens of this country are given priority for available jobs and employment opportunities. Significantly, the proposed reforms would ensure the program is being operated appropriately and in the way in which it was intended.

Amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act provide stricter regulations, as they sanction authorities to revoke permits issued by Citizenship and Immigration Canada. The amendments also allow authorities to suspend and revoke labour market opinions provided by Human Resources and Skills Development Canada if an employer is found to be exploiting a program.

Moreover, the Government of Canada will introduce user fees for employers applying to hire temporary foreign workers through the labour market opinion process. Existing regulatory authority under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act will introduce a user fee for potential employers wishing to request a labour market opinion. The government's aim is to ensure employers are accountable to authorities, and in addition, ensuring employers are accountable to the Canadian economy and our taxpayers.

I am very proud to serve on the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. Canada has a very strong sense of respect and love for the men and women who make up a significant aspect of our society, men and women who served our country, the veterans. In keeping with this notion, the war veterans allowance program is available to provide assistance to the veterans of low income, and survivors of the Second World War and the Korean War. Also, it is very important to mention that the proposed changes will find that the determination of eligibility and calculation of benefits no longer take the disability pension into account during the calculation of eligibility and benefits provided under the war veterans allowance.

Economic action plan 2013 also proposes to simplify and enhance the funeral and burial program that is delivered by the Last Post Fund corporation on behalf of Veterans Affairs Canada. It will amount to about $65 million over two years and will double the reimbursement rate, from $3,600 to $7,376.

Our government is working hard to maintain low taxes for Canadian families and individuals. Since 2006, the government has successfully provided significant tax relief. The average family of four in Canada now receives $3,200 in extra tax savings as a result of this hard work. Our government's long-term agenda sheds light on many positive aspects that will help provide relief to Canadian families as well as individuals. Here are some examples.

First, the government has fulfilled its commitment to reduce the GST by 2%, seeing it fall from 7% to 6% to 5% in order to benefit all Canadians. Second, we have successfully introduced the tax-free savings account, a flexible, registered and general purpose means of savings which is available to allow Canadians all across the nation to earn tax-free investment income in order to meet their lifetime savings needs.

Our government recognizes the difficulties that Canadians face, while trying to achieve peace of mind by ensuring their loved ones are taken care of. Therefore, the registered disability savings plan is another great initiative presented by the government to help secure a better future for those with severe disabilities. This tax-assisted savings account allows individuals as well as families to save for the long-term financial security of those with a severe disability. Since it became available in 2008, over 65,000 Canadians have chosen to open a RDSP either for themselves or for those in their care.

With Bill C-60, we are taking further steps forward for the constituency I represent, for the constituencies each of us represent, and for all Canadians. Therefore, I urge all parties and all members to support the bill.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that my colleague spoke about creating opportunities and creating jobs. He talked about the positive economic impact on both sides and that it would be a win-win situation.

I would like to bring back the issue of the Chi-Cheemaun ferry on Manitoulin Island. We have a government that is wasting millions of tax dollars doing partisan advertising while the future of small businesses on Manitoulin Island are hanging by a thread. Does the member believe that the government's refusal to put in $300,000 for the fenders and the dredging of the port in Manitoulin Island will have a positive or a negative impact on the economy and on jobs?

I can tell him that people are quite concerned. The students and full-time and part-time employees are extremely concerned that they are about to lose their jobs for the summer.

Can he talk about that?

[Wladyslaw Lizon, Conservative, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what the member is referring to is a very important issue, but it is also a very difficult issue. It is an issue of low water levels in the Great Lakes.

The hon. member probably knows that a study was just completed. There are some solutions that are available, and our government together with the local and provincial governments are willing to work together to address the problem of low water levels in the Great Lakes. It does not only affect Manitoulin Island; it affects all the people on the Great Lakes.

It is a difficult issue. The hon. member mentioned that dredging is available in some instances and not others, but we should all work together to help the businesses—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Westmount—Ville-Marie.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague speaks a lot about reducing taxes in certain areas, and everybody is in favour of reducing taxes, particularly when the economy is in a good state and we are in a surplus.

However, when we reduce taxes in a deficit situation, there is a downside to doing that. We are currently aiming for over $150 billion of added debt in 2015 due to this government.

I would like to hear what the member or the government have in mind in terms of taking care of this massive debt, for which interest payments are going to continue to increase over time.

[Wladyslaw Lizon, Conservative, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the member expresses that view.

We have a very competitive market and we are working very hard to bring businesses to Canada, not to export them out. Therefore, one of the measures to attract businesses is to lower taxes.

I do not believe, and our government does not believe, that increasing taxes actually increases revenue. Increased taxes might actually result in decreased revenue for the country and for the government.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we heard from the NDP and we heard from the Liberal member.

The NDP member, of course, tried to fire off blame instead of saying how she is rolling up her sleeves and working with the residents there. The CFDC is using a whole plethora of federal agencies that are designed to work with the member of Parliament to excite the community and get the community ready to work. She failed to state that the Government of Ontario has indicated a willingness to make the necessary repairs to the ferry, which is a provincial jurisdiction.

To the hon. Liberal member, perhaps he would comment on what the government did before the last recession, paying down our debt and positioning the government so it could weather the economic storm.

[Wladyslaw Lizon, Conservative, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the member very well knows because he was in the House, the government took very quick action to address the issue of the economic downturn and invested heavily in our economy and our businesses. We have achieved results because we saw that this was the right way to approach the issue. We have had positive results for all Canadians and for the Canadian economy.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before I recognize the hon. member for Elgin—Middlesex—London, I see that as more members join in today's debate there is a great deal of interest and comments. We can get more members participating if members and respondents keep their interventions to just under the one-minute mark. I will be watching for that closely.

We are now resuming debate. The hon. member for Elgin—Middlesex—London.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am here to speak about, and in favour of, Bill C-60, the economic action plan 2013 act, no. 1.

I would first like to discuss Elgin—Middlesex—London and southern Ontario. I will be sharing how this budget relates to and assists the people of Elgin—Middlesex—London.

The area of southern Ontario in which I live is very unique, very beautiful and a very hard-working part of this country. It includes 80 miles of Canada's south coast, the shore of Lake Erie, only 50 miles across to where Cleveland sits, and miles and miles of great farmland. The 401 Highway, the most travelled transportation route through southern Ontario, cuts through the riding of Elgin—Middlesex—London. Large manufacturers cluster along this highway, as goods come and go, into the United States and from the United States. In our area, almost everything we make, almost everything we service, almost everything we assemble, is either sold to a United States customer or shipped there for further processing.

It has certainly meant that since the United States has slowed, its economy sputtering, our area has also felt the decline, not the demise but a decline. The decline in manufacturing in our area has led to even more innovation, more entrepreneurship, more vision and more desire to succeed.

Let me share some of the great ideas that have happened. First of all, we have seen the gathering of Canadian businesses. As I shared, most of our economy in that area of southern Ontario used to have a real north-south edge to it. The economy was southern Ontario to the United States, and the United States to southern Ontario. Since the decline in the United States, we have had to go looking for other customers. We found them right here in Canada. Western Canada is flourishing, for those members across the way who have not noticed.

Recently, and thanks to the member for Edmonton—Leduc—I wish he was here so I could thank him in person—we had a large group of Canadian oil producers from the west come to southern Ontario, into small communities in southern Ontario like St. Thomas, put together by the economic development officers in southern Ontario and the oil producers from the west.

They came looking for stuff; gaskets, gauges, pipe, steel. Just about everything we make in southern Ontario that used to be made for the auto industry fits perfectly in the oil industry too. They brought their order books, and they came to southern Ontario. We matched Canadian company with Canadian company, and we are moving forward with this process and continue to do so. It is entrepreneurism at its best.

We have other auto-related companies in southern Ontario that are currently converting or have converted through the recession to products that are not always auto-related. Some are now making solar panels or brackets for solar panels. Some are making blades for windmills or parts for the wind energy industry. This is the innovation of the manufacturing community of southern Ontario.

What else do we do? We have food. We are great farmers. We have a fantastic growing area in southern Ontario. What else have we done from an innovative point of view? We have started to process the stuff we grow, right there at home. It is phenomenal. We have great producers of corn and dairy and whatever else we can grow in Canada.

Dr. Oetker is building a very large frozen pizza factory right there in the south part of London in the riding of Elgin—Middlesex—London. It is under construction right now, but will be opening soon. The company will buy wheat for flour cheese made out of dairy from our farmers and produce for toppings on those pizzas, all grown right there in southern Ontario. That is the productivity of the farmers and the food distribution piece.

We continue to look at food distribution. Most of the food grown in southern Ontario gets shipped to Toronto where it is sent to the food terminal, bought by people in southern Ontario and brought back. That does not make sense to most people, so why not put a food terminal right there in southern Ontario? That is what we are working on.

I think I spoke about this House. It is very unique. Right there, enclosed in farmland in southern Middlesex County is a tilapia farm. Aquaculture right there in southern Ontario, not on the lake but inland. A great entrepreneur realized there was millions of dollars of tilapia being sold in the Toronto market from the United States, and said that we could do that in Canada, right there in southern Ontario.

What else have we asked for?

We have heard speeches in the House this morning about tourism in southern Ontario and how it is thriving and newer than it used to be. We knew we lived in a beautiful place, and now we are telling other people about it. We are okay if tourists come to visit and take up some of our space. The 80 miles of Lake Erie shoreline, ports and beaches are fantastic.

If one goes to the beach at Port Burwell along Lake Erie, one will now find a 300-foot submarine. The HMCS Ojibwa has been landed and will open on the long weekend in May for tourists. I have been through it, so anyone can fit. This is the type of entrepreneurship that is happening in tourism in southern Ontario.

Here is another piece we are doing that was never thought of before. Rural Canada has always had the issue of its youth, after high school, having to go somewhere else for post-secondary education. They always went someplace bigger—not always better, just someplace bigger. However, we now have a branch of Algoma University right here in St. Thomas, Ontario, teaching undergraduate studies in what used to be a historic old schoolhouse. Also, Fanshawe College, a community college branch in St. Thomas, is there to teach skilled trades in the new skills program. It teaches people the skilled trades that will be needed to move Canada forward. We will keep our youth at home. Not only will our youth stay at home to go to school; others will come. We are attracting dollars into our community by people coming here for post-secondary education.

We cannot talk about entrepreneurs without talking about those in southern Ontario. Sure, it has had its troubles in manufacturing, but to many who would see a problem, thousands have seen opportunities from an entrepreneurial point of view; they have seen this as a time to move forward and open a small business.

With John and his people at the Elgin Business Resource Centre and their business incubator program, the community futures program and the mentorship programs they are developing, we are returning jobs to southern Ontario. It may be two, three, five, ten or twenty jobs at a time, but they are returning to southern Ontario. The great economic development teams of Elgin County, Middlesex County and the City of St. Thomas are all doing the same thing and attracting small and medium-sized businesses.

How does the budget help all this?

Each of the things I have mentioned has a piece in the budget that has helped move these things forward. I am sure I will not have a chance to cover them all unless the Speaker forgets what the clock looks like, but I will talk about some.

How about creating the Canada jobs grant for training skills for the needs of youth and employers?

As both a small business person, and my business is small, and volunteer president of the Youth Employment Counselling Centre for some 10 years before politics, I have recognized the need to ensure that youth are available and trained for the jobs of today and tomorrow. It seems like a no-brainer, but including employers in that mix of the Canada jobs grant program means that employers will be sharing their needs, and not just today's needs but tomorrow's needs too, so that the training programs for youth will be there and will be the right ones to create the jobs.

For years, we have talked about apprenticeships as an area of concern, certainly in southern Ontario's manufacturing belt, and the skilled trades workers. I remember having a conversation with a principal of a community college some 15 years ago. I asked him how many millwrights would be trained this year. He said that there would be 41. I said, “Wow, that's fantastic. How did you come up with that number? Did you talk to the local manufacturing association? Did you talk to the schools to see how many people were graduating?” He said, “No, that's how many seats there are in the classroom.”

That is how we used to determine how many skilled tradespeople we used to train. How about getting out and talking to employers about their needs? How about getting out and talking to the schools and finding the youth who want to move into those careers? We can merge the two and make it so that employers have enough people to hire.

Also, there are opportunities for those with disabilities. My friend, the member for Brant, has a great private member's motion coming up that will help move forward opportunities for people with disabilities.

I wish I had a great deal more time to talk about other things such as options and what we are doing for infrastructure. I am sure during questions I will be able to talk about some of those.

[Paulina Ayala, NDP, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as MPs, we have to do a good job and we have to take our work very seriously

The government presented a notice of motion to the Standing Committee on Finance requiring it to complete, in just five meetings, its study of Bill C-60, which contains 18 sections and 233 clauses. If we take these clauses and divide them by five, that is 40 clauses per meeting.

Does my colleague believe that five meetings of the Standing Committee on Finance is enough to properly study the bill?

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in my time here I continue to be told the opposite. When I am at home for weekend events, I share with people what work happens in the House. Someone asked, “Are you still discussing the budget? How many days does it take? Does everyone not agree it is a great idea?“ The answer is yes, there is always a need for debate in this House and that is what we are doing today. We debated last week and we will do it this week. As far as debate goes, I say fill your boots, get the stuff you want to talk about out and let us talk about it, but let us not go on forever trying to just talk out the clock rather than talk out ideas.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I can assure the hon. member my boots are full.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot to talk about in regard to the budget. Many, including myself and the leader of the Liberal Party, have said this is really an assault on our middle class. Hundreds of millions of dollars in tax increases are what we have witnessed by the government and we need to emphasize that. Millions and millions of dollars of tax increases. That is what the Conservative government has done over the years, attack the middle class.

My question is very specific and it relates to ads for the economic action plan which makes Canadians irate. How much money does it cost to have one of those ads televised during NHL playoff games?

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Winnipeg North. I apologize for not quoting him in my speech; I believe I quoted him in my last speech. First of all, I love the opportunity to speak about the Leafs and I will take every opportunity to say that I am happy to have them back. I remember the last time they won the Stanley Cup, the game was in black and white, if I remember right, and I was my father's remote.

We have cut taxes for business in this country time after time. As a small business person and an entrepreneur, I am thankful that there is a government like this that is willing to take care of cutting taxes for small business and for business in Canada.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member to expand on his entrepreneurial comments and the fact that he headed up an organization and what he has seen over the years. He described what is happening in southern Ontario. When we look at what the budget is providing in trying to match the skill sets to the jobs available, could he expand on what entrepreneurial small and medium-sized businesses' needs are?

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to. Spending many years as the president of a youth employment counselling centre and the moving of youth between school and employment and skills training was very near and dear to my heart. We have continued to move forward from an apprenticeship point of view to the skilled trades piece for 20 years. As far back as I can remember, being in business as an entrepreneur, I mentored some of those youth as they moved into small businesses of their own. When somebody would go out and get a skilled trade as a plumber, but was not trained on the business side, I used to do the mentoring for those types of businesses.

It is important to fill that gap, to make sure that what the employer needs is available when he or she needs it, so skills training is out there and we are spending the right dollars to make sure that happens and skilled trades are there for students and the unemployed as they need a new skill, if they are looking for something to move to. The training must be there and matched to provinces, businesses, employers and employees; they all have to work together to make this work right. If we do not talk to each other, we will not do it properly.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I compliment all hon. members in keeping their interventions right on time. We had time for three questions and comments in that round.

The hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to seek unanimous consent to move the following motion: That notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, clauses 174 to 199, related to the proposed department of foreign affairs, trade and development act be removed from Bill C-60, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures, and do compose Bill C-62; that Bill C-62 be deemed read a first time and be printed; that the order for the second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development; that Bill C-60 retain the status on the order paper that it had prior to the adoption of this order; that Bill C-60 be reprinted as amended; and that the law clerk and the parliamentary counsel be authorized to make any technical changes or corrections as may be necessary to give effect to this motion.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Does the hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Yes.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

There is no unanimous consent.

The hon. member for Trois-Rivières has the floor.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this debate on Bill C-60 is another sad day for our ailing Canadian democracy. The only reason I can rise today is that I am very fortunate. I am fortunate not because I have the pleasure of being a member of Parliament, which is already a great privilege, but because even though a 32nd gag order is depriving the House's 308 members of their right to speak, I am one of the lucky few who has a chance to rise and to state, loud and clear, his many reasons for voting against this bill.

Although the bill includes some good elements, the Conservatives' now-notorious habit of using omnibus bills forces us to vote either yes or no. For example, voting “yes” would mean that I support the adoption tax credit, something this side of the House totally agrees with. But it would also mean that I agree with all the tax increases laid out in the budget. This creates a real dilemma. When faced with such a catch-22, we can only give one answer: “no”.

Canadian voters expected much more when they voted for a Parliament as diverse as the one we have now. They expected all of their members of Parliament to be heard, and they expected ideas to collide.

Unfortunately, today is yet another dark day because, although our government has a majority, it feels the need to hide all of its plans, which likely do not reflect what most Canadians want.

It is ridiculous that the committee had only five days to study Bill C-60, which will amend or create no fewer than 50 pieces of legislation. I will leave it at that, since I do not want to be disrespectful. I will let those watching decide for themselves how inappropriate this tactic is.

The Conservatives' Bill C-60 is unfortunately not a surprise to the official opposition, and it should not be a surprise to Canadians. Bill C-60 is part of a growing trend that spells dark days ahead for Canadians. We are seeing an increasing number of omnibus bills, the committee had little or not enough time to discuss the bill and the government is not consistent or transparent in how it manages public affairs.

We are still not used to all that, and I hope that we never will be. However, these tactics are unfortunately becoming all too common.

As I said earlier, Bill C-60 includes some positive measures. For example, it allows for two tax credits that we support: the tax credit for adoption-related expenses, which I mentioned earlier, and the charitable donations tax credit. However, there are a lot of concerns about the fairness of the provisions that aim to increase charitable donations. The NDP raised these concerns at the Standing Committee on Finance.

Charitable organizations are increasingly relying on donations from individuals to fund their activities, as a result of the countless cuts made by the Conservative government.

Despite what the Conservatives claim, this budget does not stimulate the Canadian economy. Budget 2013 will eliminate thousands of jobs and cut program spending.

More and more studies by well-known economists show that strict fiscal restraint and austerity budgets are counter-productive.

I will just quote one of them. Carol Goar of the Toronto Star said that^, ever since the Minister of Finance began chopping programs and expenditures, the economy has drooped, the job market has sagged, consumers have pulled back and the corporate sector has hunkered down, sitting on its earnings. She also said that the same formula has delivered worse results in Europe.

According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer's estimates, the 2012 budget, the 2012 budget update and the 2013 budget will lead to the loss of at least 67,000 jobs by 2017 and a 0.57% drop in the GDP.

That will seriously slow down the country's economic growth, but will we still see growth?

The Conservatives' measures put the brakes on growth and job creation. There is nothing in this budget that would create jobs; there is nothing that would make living more affordable; nothing to strengthen the services on which families depend. Not only are the Conservatives failing to create jobs, but they are still attacking working Canadians. This bill gives the Treasury Board far-reaching powers to intervene in the collective bargaining process and dictate the working conditions in crown corporations.

I want to emphasize this point, in view of the portfolio and responsibilities my leader, the hon. member for Outremont, has given me. As the deputy critic for transportation, infrastructure and communities, I regularly rise in the House to ask the government questions about Via Rail or Canada Post, for example. Invariably, the minister or minister of state who is responsible for transport replies candidly that these crown corporations are independent corporations and that the government does not intend to interfere in their management.

The reality, however, is quite different, and we have seen this in the many pieces of special legislation that have been imposed on workers in various sectors. Bill C-60 goes even farther in this "non-interference". It would bring in changes that would allow the government to direct a crown corporation to have its negotiating mandate approved by the Treasury Board for the purpose of the crown corporation entering into a collective agreement with a bargaining agent.

I am asking the simple question: is this intervention or not? I must admit that I am starting to get a bit confused. Do we believe the words of the Minister of Transport or the will of the President of the Treasury Board? It is hard to answer this question. Still, if I must choose between a speech and a law, I know what I need to know.

Under the provisions of Bill C-60, if the government directs a crown corporation to have its negotiating mandate approved by the Treasury Board, then the Treasury Board can impose whatever it wants in terms of the crown corporation's employees' working conditions. However, let us not forget that these are independent corporations.

No crown corporation receiving such a government order will be able to reach a collective agreement without Treasury Board approval. Can we see an intervention there? Bill C-60 also authorizes the Treasury Board to establish the terms and conditions of employment of non-unionized employees, on a government order.

The amendments proposed in Bill C-60 clearly constitute an attack on the right to free collective bargaining in Canada. They violate the basic principle of the operational independence of crown corporations, since they give the government the right to intervene if a crown corporation is not managing its labour relations to the government's satisfaction. Is this still not interference? I think the answer is clear.

I will therefore conclude by saying that all members of my party and I oppose this bill, because of its content and for procedural reasons. Bill C-60 is proposing a very wide range of complex measures that should be analyzed and examined carefully. Bringing in such a huge bill on such a tight schedule makes it impossible for members to study the proposed measures and their likely effects in a satisfactory manner, and that undermines the fundamental role of Parliament.

Moreover, Bill C-60 does not reflect the real concerns of Canadians. Instead of passing meaningful legislation to create jobs, the Conservatives are imposing austerity measures that will stifle economic growth, raise the cost of living, and negatively affect employment.

Thus, we are opposed to the 2013 budget and its implementation bills, unless they can be rewritten to take the real priorities of Canadian families into account.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the member to comment on the issue of priorities. The government has committed to significant advertising of the economic action plan, well into the millions of dollars, yet, on the other hand, there are many needs within communities, particularly with regard to people who are unemployed and trying to find work.

My question to the member is in relation to the importance of government being more proactive at providing the training necessary for more people to gain employment. At the same time, we are seeing a great deal of government waste through the millions being spent on advertising. Does the member want to comment on that?

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague for his question.

The first question had to do with the huge amounts of money being spent on advertising. The word “advertising” itself could spark a debate of its own: is it advertising or propaganda? It is worth asking. What is a budget, after all? That is another very relevant question.

Mr. Speaker, you and I can probably think of more things we would like to do than we have funds to pay for. Drawing up a budget means making choices. And for a government, making choices means choosing what will help all Canadians improve their quality of life.

The proposed budget falls far short of that goal. The government is presenting an austerity budget whose only goal is to work toward balancing the budget, but I am still not convinced that it will work. One thing is sure: this bill will not boost the economy the way Canadians expect it to.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his excellent speech.

Canadians are deeper in debt than they have ever been, and municipalities are having a hard time making necessary upgrades, whether they involve substandard private septic systems or the pyrrhotite used in building houses. These are serious problems, and Canadians are currently saddled with debt.

Does my colleague feel it would be appropriate to include in the budget initiatives aimed at regulating septic systems installation and addressing pyrrhotite problems? Could my colleague comment on that?

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, obviously, that would be good.

I have serious doubts about the government's empathy for pyrrhotite victims, whom I see regularly in my riding. The infrastructure measures are no different. Municipalities across Canada have strongly criticized the significant amount of catching up that needs to be done just to update existing infrastructure. I am not even talking about creating new infrastructure, just updating our existing infrastructure.

With a sleight of hand worthy of Merlin the magician, the latest budget proposed by the Minister of Finance would have us believe that the government will be investing more in infrastructure when really, it is suddenly going to be cutting billions more from the infrastructure budget.

That leverage could have really helped what is at best a struggling economy. The Conservatives wasted yet another opportunity.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member has said, not only are the Conservatives cutting millions from infrastructure and other programs, but they are also sneaking in fee increases and tax increases.

One of the ones included in Bill C-60 has to do with immigration, including visitors visas, work permits, study permits and visa and permit extensions. It would mean that under the budget the government would be able to increase fees without tabling a proposal in Parliament and without being transparent about how much revenue the fees would bring in.

Could the member comment on the impact that would have on the many people who sometimes find it very difficult to pay those fees anyway, and who would now be facing possible increases?

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for such a relevant question.

In the past few weeks, I have listened to some epic conversations and debates about the word “tax”. Whether they call it a tax or a fee, the result is the same: it comes out of taxpayers' pockets. The fact that the budget contains such a big tax grab is certainly a reason to vote against Bill C-60.

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

Mr. Speaker, as the member of Parliament for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, it gives me great pleasure to speak in favour of budget 2013. I am pleased to congratulate the hon. Minister of Finance for the outstanding job he is doing on behalf of our government and all Canadians. Canada is recognized internationally for the sound economic and fiscal policies of our Conservative government. The appreciation of the world of the sound economic policy practices of Canada is a vote of confidence in our Minister of Finance. Average Canadians—those who work hard, obey the law and pay taxes—understand leadership on the economy.

There are many benefits to the passing of budget 2013 for the people in the great riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke. I intend to focus on the aspects of this important statement of federal government economic policy that are of interest to my constituents.

A number of my parliamentary colleagues are proud of the many immediate beneficial measures in the budget, such the benefits to municipalities, seniors, veterans and students. I am focused on the future and why the sound economic policy in the budget is so important to the future prosperity of the Ottawa Valley and our nation.

Innovation valley north is what the upper Ottawa Valley will become through the adoption of the measures in the budget. Innovation valley north represents jobs of the future and the long-term economic future of the upper Ottawa Valley, eastern Ontario and Canada. Innovation valley north in the Ottawa Valley is the combined impacts of the defence, nuclear and aerospace industries as well as the historic Ottawa Valley lumber producers coming together to respond to the various initiatives announced in budget 2013. Their synergy has the potential to create new employment and sustain existing jobs as our local economy positions itself to take advantage of such budget measures as the almost $1 billion in the strategic aerospace and defence initiative, SADI, to enhance the competitiveness of Canada's economically important aerospace and defence industries, which include businesses such as Allen-Vanguard, formerly MedEng, which produced the bomb suit in the movie The Hurt Locker.

By encouraging new innovation in Canada's aerospace sector and by creating the aerospace technology demonstration program, which would be $110 million over five years beginning in 2014-15 and $55 million every year thereafter, we would support large-scale technology projects with commercial potential for companies like Magellan, Haley Industries in Haley Station and Arnprior Aerospace just down the road.

Critical to innovation valley north is the hub, the ideas generator, which turns ideas into employers. In the upper Ottawa Valley we are very fortunate to have two hubs that form the nucleus of innovation valley north.

The first hub is Chalk River Laboratories of Atomic Energy of Canada. Budget 2013 would invest $144 million to the continued operation of AECL's Chalk River Laboratories to ensure that Canada has a reliable supply of isotopes. This investment in the future of AECL represents a vote of confidence to AECL and its 2700 local employees to complement the previous announcement made by our government to continue the process of modernization at Chalk River Laboratories by moving to a government-owned, contractor-operated governance model.

A government-owned, contractor-operated GOCO model of governance following the United States and British practice provides for a proven, cost-effective, high-accountability approach to management and operation of a national laboratory. A GOCO partnership shares the risk between government and the private sector. It allows each partner to perform duties for which it is uniquely suited. The government establishes mission areas and sets performance targets and the private sector implements the missions, using best business practices that ensure simultaneous excellence: excellence in technology solutions, delivered by the best scientists, engineers and managers; excellent operations, protecting employees, the public and the environment; and excellent community involvement, contributing to our all-important economic needs.

A comprehensive program of technology transfer and commercialization implemented by the Chalk River national nuclear laboratory would sustain, attract and create companies and employment in the upper Ottawa Valley as a technology, research and development hub. Innovation valley north in the upper Ottawa Valley is a partnership, taking advantage of the AECL platform of knowledge and assisted by many initiatives announced in budget 2013.

This is all about putting in place the conditions for Canada's knowledge industry to thrive.

During the decade of darkness under our old government, AECL was directionless and starved for funding, just as our military was. Throughout the late 1990s, AECL's future was so uncertain that it could not even complete a budget. We cannot build a future on false promises; as a consequence, the 1990s was a lost decade of opportunity for Canada's nuclear industry.

The field of nuclear science and technology has potential for innovation and clean energy technologies, both directly related to nuclear energy and in strategic areas of technology development and overlap, such as hydrogen technologies. The next generation of nuclear reactors, generation IV technologies with reduced capital costs, will enhance nuclear safety, minimize generation of nuclear waste and further reduce the risk of weapons proliferation through the use of natural uranium.

Budget 2013 would provide $325 million to support the development and demonstration of new clean technologies in Ontario and across Canada, and that would create savings for Canadian businesses and support job creation for Canadians. One of the byproducts of a generation IV power reactor is hydrogen, which can be used as a clean fuel for vehicles or be stored until needed for other uses. When hydrogen is used as a fuel in an internal combustion engine modified to use it, water is what comes out the tailpipe.

The Canadian nuclear industry has a critical role to play in climate change and the economy in keeping the price of electricity affordable and in protecting the air we breathe.

The second hub in the Upper Ottawa Valley that has the best potential is Canadian Forces Base Petawawa.

Our government committed to providing the women and men in uniform with the best equipment to do the many tasks we ask them to do on our behalf. It only makes sense for defence procurement to support economic activities and opportunities for all Canadians. As the training ground of warriors, Canadian Forces Base Petawawa has greatly benefited from the implementation of the Conservative government's Canada first strategy, as have the people of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke. Our Canada first strategy reversed the decade of darkness, the hollowing out of our military by the old government that the voters of Canada wisely replaced in 2006.

Our government, like all Canadians, has the utmost respect for the women and men who put their lives on the line for freedom. For their service to Canada, we must ensure that when they pass on, they receive the dignified funeral and burial they so rightly deserve. To that end, I am pleased to confirm for the soldiers and their families at CFB Petawawa and all veterans in my riding that economic action plan 2013 would improve the existing funeral and burial program by simplifying it for veterans' families and by more than doubling the current reimbursement rate from $3,500 to over $7,300.

The upper Ottawa Valley has benefited from the standing up of the new Canadian Special Operations Regiment, CSOR, at CFB Petawawa. This new regiment reverses the bad defence policy decision of the old government to make scapegoats of the historic Canadian Airborne Regiment. With the acquisition of new strategic airlift and the purchase of new heavy transport Chinook helicopters that will be stationed at CFB Petawawa, our local civilian economy is already benefiting from local procurement and supply contracts.

Innovation valley north is here, brimming with potential, and I, as its member of Parliament, am ready to help.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite must know that she has no credibility when it comes to the economy. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report, budget 2013 will actually eliminate thousands of jobs, reduce direct program spending and slow the growth of the gross domestic product.

What is more, the Conservative government has invoked closure in the House of Commons in order to prematurely end debate on this budget implementation bill. It should be noted that we have just learned that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance recently presented a notice of motion to the Standing Committee on Finance in order to reduce the number of meetings allocated to complete the study of Bill C-60.

Why does the member opposite believe that five days are enough to study this bill that amends more than 50 Canadian laws?

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

Mr. Speaker, what our government is cutting are taxes. Time after time, we have reduced taxes, from the GST and so on. Now the average family has an extra $3,200 to spend or save for things they need.

All we hear from the opposition are policies to stifle job growth. For example, it brings up the issue of our trying to help Canadian businesses by increasing the tariffs on countries that are now first-rate competition for Canada. It would instead have us lower tariffs for these countries, which would cause more of our employees to lose their jobs. I am sure the NDP would not want to decrease the tariffs for our dairy farmers either.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague what she is telling people in her riding about the fact that by 2015, after seven or possibly eight deficits in a row, there will be over $150 billion of debt added to the national debt. What does she tell her constituents with respect to the national debt?

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

Mr. Speaker, our party brought to Parliament the concept of balanced budgets and paying down the debt. It was a consequence of having paid down the debt to the extent we did that when the global economic downturn occurred in 2008 we were better positioned than most.

The Conservative Government of Canada will take no lessons from people who drove the debt to the limit.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am an avid reader of the World Economic Forum's competitiveness report that comes out every year. In this year's report it had Canada ranked at 82 for the category of “business costs of terrorism”. From what I have seen from the government, it seems to have misplaced or does not really know how it spent $3.1 billion in the realm of security defence. Does the member know where the money went?

How can her government be credible on the budget when it does not even know where the money goes? Where did the $3.1 billion go?

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

The estimates report where everything is spent.

Overall, let us talk about results. In Canada, unlike other countries, such as the United States and the U.K., our security forces have done their job. We have not been hit by terrorism. We find them before they injure Canadians. There was the Toronto 18 and the VIA Rail episode. We are doing what it takes to protect people and to prevent these things from happening.

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today we are debating Bill C-60, Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1. However, this piece of legislation does not address Canadians' real concerns.

Ever since the Conservatives’ 2013 budget was unveiled, my constituents have been calling me to say that they feel isolated and neglected by this government’s economic measures.

I have to say that I feel quite privileged to be able to speak to this bill, given that the Conservatives have imposed time allocation for the thirty-second time, which is surely a record for Canada. At least I have the opportunity to voice my opinion on the subject.

Unfortunately, we have become accustomed to Conservative bills that lack depth. Instead of actually being concerned about ensuring our economic recovery, creating stable jobs and tackling the growing debt levels of Canadian households, the Conservatives are proposing austerity measures that will kill jobs. These measures will mean a higher cost of living for Canadian families and will stifle economic growth.

For instance, there is nothing in Bill C-60 to deal with household debt in Canada, which is currently estimated at a record level of 167% of disposal income. That is a staggering number.

The Conservatives’ economic agenda does not address the needs of Canadians. Canadians need measures that are geared toward creating quality jobs. The NDP will be voting against budget 2013 and the budget implementation bill, unless they are reworked to take into account the real priorities of Canadian families.

While I do agree with some of the measures contained in this budget, I have to say that, since I have been a member of this House, the Conservatives have refused to split budget bills into components that we can vote on separately, and thus let Canadians know, through a transparent process, which measures we support and which ones we do not.

I would like to single out several measures in this budget that I think are worthwhile in order to let people know exactly which ones I consider to be important. I will then tell you which budgetary provisions I think completely miss the mark.

Budget 2013 provides for two tax credits that I endorse: one for adoption-related expenses and one for first-time claimants of the charitable donations tax credit. I believe that these are positive measures. Furthermore, the budget streamlines the process for approving tax relief for Canadian Forces members and police officers, which I strongly support. It extends the temporary accelerated capital cost allowance for the manufacturing sector. It includes measures to facilitate the collection of unpaid taxes and taxes sitting in tax havens and to streamline Tax Court of Canada procedures. It provides for changes to the GST and HST that are generally positive. Lastly, it calls for reducing the general preferential tariff, the GPT, on sporting equipment and baby clothing. These are sound measures, and I am not afraid to say so.

However, the Conservatives will not split up the budget and instead are forcing us to vote on a mammoth bill, as was the case in 2012 and 2011, which prevents me, as an MP, from voicing my true opinion of the budget to my constituents. I find it very troubling that I am unable to do so. However I do know that the Conservatives will seize the opportunity to say that we are voting against these measures when we ask any questions. Incredible.

I would now like to turn my attention to some of the important issues raised by Bill C-60 which is chock-full of various measures.

This budget contains tax increases for Canadians. It calls for changes to the bargaining mandate of the Treasury Board and 49 crown corporations. It proposes changes to the temporary foreign worker program, as well as changes related to citizenship and immigration. It announces the merger of the Canadian International Development Agency with Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada. It highlights the Conservative government’s ongoing failure to address the challenges facing aboriginal peoples and the lack of viable, concrete job-creation measures for Canadian youth, the segment of the population hardest hit by the economic downturn.

Bill C-60 as tabled amends 49 laws and includes new legislation along with complex provisions containing myriad details and programs that will affect Canadians, the very people who elected us to establish a more just society and bring about wealth and prosperity for all Canadians.

For the sake of the public, we have a duty to weigh the major issues that this bill targets, but it will be very difficult to accomplish this in such a short period of time. The fact of the matter is that the Conservatives are giving us a mere four days to debate this mammoth bill.

On top of everything else, we have just learned that the Minister of Finance has asked the Standing Committee on Finance to set aside only five days to study the bill.

The committee that is supposed to conduct an in-depth review of the bill will have a mere five days to tackle this job. That is outrageous.

The NDP opposes Bill C-60, not only because of the measures it contains, but also because the process lacks transparency and is unethical from a parliamentary standpoint. Bill C-60 contains a broad range of measures that warrant careful consideration, but instead, the Conservatives have tabled another omnibus bill, much like bills C-38 and C-45 that were brought in last year. Tabling such a wide-ranging bill and imposing such a tight deadline for review undermines the very nature of Parliament, as members do not have the opportunity to learn everything they need to know about the bill and its ramifications.

Unfortunately, it has become commonplace to say that such actions weaken the nature of Parliament. Yesterday, while I was knocking on doors in my riding, I talked for 20 or 25 minutes to a man in Dorval, whose name is John and who is 50 or 60 years old. He told me that he had always voted to do his duty as a citizen but that he had become cynical in the past two years. He told me that he was dismayed and that he no longer believed in the parliamentary process because of our government. I was astounded and did not know what to say to him. I am not cynical, but I had a hard time finding good arguments, because I, too, think that what is happening in Canada is not reasonable and not healthy.

Moreover, the Parliamentary Budget Officer has pointed out several times that members of Parliament do not have access to the information they need to exercise their role of oversight. For the third time, the Conservatives are undermining the democratic process inherent in Parliament and trying to escape the watchful eyes of parliamentarians and the public.

I would like to point out another important concern. The former Parliamentary Budget Officer clearly indicated that the cuts announced in the 2013 budget are not necessary in order to re-establish a structural surplus. In his opinion, the 2013 budget will eliminate thousands of jobs, reduce direct program spending and slow the growth of Canada's GDP.

There is evidence. According to estimates by the new Parliamentary Budget Officer, the 2012 budget, the 2012 budget update and the 2013 budget will lead to the loss of 67,000 jobs by 2017 and a 0.57% drop in the GDP. Based on these facts, the Conservatives' 2013 budget will raise the unemployment rate in Canada. It is unfortunate, because when unemployment rates are high, the economy runs slowly. I wonder what logic the government is using when it talks about the economy.

The Conservatives love to boast about their job creation record. Yet, 1.4 million Canadians are without work and 240,000 more young people are unemployed than before the recession. Despite that, the Conservatives' Bill C-60 offers no job creation measures.

As the official opposition's youth caucus president, I am particularly concerned with Canada's youth and young workers. As a result, the rest of my speech—which is not much longer—will focus on the younger generation that is ignored by the Conservative government.

In today's labour market, there is a desperate lack of jobs for young Canadians aged 15 to 24. A study by TD Economics revealed that a young person who is currently unemployed or under-employed will be financially scarred for 18 years. This young person, who wants to work and often has an extensive education, not only has a problem finding work, but will be affected in the future with reduced earning potential. Right now, this young person has no job and cannot invest in the economy. As I said, it will take this young person 18 years to overcome the economic deficit that is being created today. This is not the way to make the economy work.

For these young people in their 20s, this means putting off purchasing their own property, having children later, needing more time to pay off their debt and earning lower salaries. That is what the Conservative government is offering our young people at this time.

Combining the underemployment crisis and unemployment among young people with the tax hikes announced in budget 2013, with Bill C-60, the Conservative government is in fact reducing my generation's purchasing power.

Although the Conservatives promised not to raise taxes, their budget includes new tax hikes for Canadians on almost everything, from hospital parking to credit unions, safety deposit boxes and labour sponsored investment funds, not to mention bicycles and strollers. These tax hikes will cost Canadians $7.8 billion over the next five years.

Why did the Conservatives promise not to raise taxes if they knew for a fact they were going to raise them by several billion dollars? Budget 2013 is based on an ideology that is harmful to Canadians. Although economists agree that austerity measures undermine growth, the Conservatives are determined to impose these backward-thinking measures in order to achieve their political agenda of cutting the deficit by 2015.

I see my time is up. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to finish and giving me a chance to speak to this bill. I will now take questions. However, I would like to emphasize that, although there are some good measures here, it is unfortunate that we have to vote on everything at once.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech, in which she talked a great deal about young Canadians. I think she said young people want to work and she is looking for jobs for young Canadians.

I wonder if she has read page 180 of the budget—jobs, growth and long-term prosperity economic action plan 2013—where it talks about a new bridge for the St. Lawrence, which would provide long-lasting economic benefits to municipalities on each side of the river and, more broadly, to the region as a whole, through a commitment of up to $124.9 million from the government.

I wonder if she could tell us what she has said to young Canadians who would have the opportunity to work on this job if she would support this budget. We are looking to create jobs, and we hope the member will step up for young Canadians in her riding and say there are jobs coming with the building of this bridge.

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is what I was getting at in the last sentence of my speech. I think it is unfortunate that we are forced to vote on an omnibus bill and that the Conservatives refuse to split this bill, which does have some good measures.

I do have something to say about young people. Canada has 240,00 unemployed young people who are unable to find jobs, despite job creation measures. That is unacceptable. These young people are looking for jobs, but there are none to be found. It is not just the fact they are unemployed that is disgraceful, it is also the fact that these young people end up under-employed. I know; this is my generation. I have plenty of friends from university who are in their late twenties. They have a bachelor's degree, master's degree or Ph.D and are getting jobs that pay $12 or $15 an hour.

I have asked questions to the minister and parliamentary secretary several times now and they never have anything specific to offer. No, I will not vote in favour of the budget, because I find—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about good-quality jobs. Air Canada was supposed to be maintaining overhaul bases. Those were good-quality jobs that paid a relatively good wage. Literally hundreds, if not thousands, of jobs were lost in Winnipeg, Montreal and Mississauga, and the government chose to do absolutely nothing to protect those jobs, even though it was in the legislation.

My question is with regard to people in the middle class who are losing jobs. To what degree does the member believe the government is doing enough to address the middle-class people, 35 to 55, who are finding themselves unemployed because of lack of action by the government?

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his question.

I know that his riding was greatly affected by the closure of Aveos. Employees in my riding, in Montreal, also lost their jobs. I want to reiterate to those workers that I think it is sad that this situation still has not been resolved.

To answer my colleague's questions specifically, no, I do not think the Conservative government is doing enough to help the middle class, and the Aveos situation is a perfect example. We had good jobs here in Canada and now we do not. There is nothing concrete in the budget for jobs for the middle class. The government keeps talking about job creation. When we ask questions, the stock answer is “jobs, growth and prosperity”, and nothing more tangible than that. The government never spells out exactly what it is going to do to create jobs and it ships out the good jobs. I do not think that these are good measures for Canada's middle class.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, not only are the Conservatives not doing anything concrete for jobs, but they are doing very concrete things in terms of tax hikes. In fact, there are hundreds of tax hikes on hospital parking, credit unions and safety deposit boxes, and the list goes on and on. I wonder if the member could comment on that.

I know the feedback I get is that people are always pretty outraged at the incredible cost of parking at hospitals. We are kind of a captive audience since there is nothing we can do, yet the bill would permit increased taxes for people who have to go to hospitals and pay for parking. I wonder if the member could comment on that.

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, as I mentioned, the tax increases affect hospital parking, bicycles, strollers and sports equipment.

There have been a lot of questions about that, especially when it comes to hospitals. If I put myself in the shoes of a person visiting her husband, brother, sister or children in the hospital who has to pay more for parking, I think that is very sad.

The hospital in my home town charges for parking. People are already using street parking around the hospital in order to save the $5 charge. In many cases, $5 really eats into their budget and now the government would have them pay even more. I think that is ridiculous and outrageous.

I do not see how the Conservatives can say they are lowering taxes when they use hospital parking lots to increase taxes. It is outrageous.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification)]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in the House to speak to Bill C-60, the budget implementation act, 2013.

I am proud of our government's fiscal record and how well we have come through the worst recession in a generation. Canada continues to be number one among all G7 countries in economic performance and job growth and, under the leadership of our Prime Minister, will continue to focus on what is important to Canadians: creating jobs and economic growth, while keeping taxes low, balancing budgets and balancing the budget by 2015.

The economic action plan for 2013 was well received in my riding of Blackstrap. Saskatoon is one of the fastest growing cities in Canada, and this legislation would provide much needed infrastructure support to the city and surrounding rural areas.

Bill C-60, the budget implementation act, proposes to legislate key elements of economic action plan 2013, including indexing the gas tax fund to offer stable, predictable funding for municipal infrastructure. Canada's gas tax fund provides long-term funding for Canadian municipalities that can help build and revitalize their public infrastructure and their assets. Communities choose projects locally and prioritize them according to their needs. The gas tax fund is making a difference in communities, in my riding of Blackstrap and throughout the province of Saskatchewan.

Today, more than 3,600 municipalities have benefited from the financial support of economic growth and provide a high quality of life for families in every city and community across the country. Our government's record on infrastructure investments in economic action plan 2013 exceeds the amount of investment required to cover the cost of federal infrastructure for the next decade.

In fact, our Conservative government has introduced the largest long-term federal commitment to Canadian infrastructure in our nation's history, $70 billion over the next 10 years. In the next two years, we are investing close to $10 billion in infrastructure. That is more than the previous Liberal governments spent during their entire 13 long years in power.

Since 2006, we have invested more than $40 billion, supporting more than 43,000 infrastructure projects from coast to coast to coast. As a result of our investments, we have brought down the average age of Canada's core public infrastructure from a peak of 17 years in 2001 to an estimated 14.4 years in 2011. We can see what a significant contribution that is to our public infrastructure. It is now lower than the historical average age over the last 50 years.

Bill C-60 would also see the introduction of a new first-time donor's super credit for the first-time claimants of the charitable donations tax credit, to encourage all young Canadians to donate to charity. Canadians recognize that the charitable sector plays a vital role in our society and provides valuable services to Canadians, including the most vulnerable.

Canadians also provide generous support to the sector in recognition of its important work. Recent data from Statistics Canada shows that more than 5.7 million Canadians donated almost $8.5 billion to registered charities in 2011. Canada's incentives for charitable donations have been described as the most generous in the world. Registered charities are exempt from tax on their income and may issue official donation receipts for gifts received, which donors may use to reduce their taxes by claiming the charitable donation tax credit.

In 2012, federal tax assistance for charitable donations exceeded $2.9 billion. The standing committee on finance reported that there is a need to foster and to promote a culture of giving and that tax incentives can play a role, both in increasing the number of new donors and encouraging existing donors to give more.

Our government has responded to the committee's report by proposing the new temporary first-time donor's super credit, designed to encourage new donors to give to charity.

The first-time donor super credit supplements the charitable donations tax credit by providing an additional 25% tax credit for a first-time donor on up to $1,000 in monetary donations. An individual would be considered a first-time donor if neither the individual nor the individual's spouse or common-law partner have claimed the CDTC or the FTDSC in any taxation year after 2007. The FTDSC may be claimed only once and may be claimed in any of the 2013 to 2017 taxation years.

I see, Mr. Speaker, that you would like me to sit down.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The Minister of State for Western Economic Diversification will have four and a half minutes remaining for her remarks when the House next resumes debate on this question.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-60, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-60 on the budget implementation act.

I would like to focus my speech on the issues, concerns and priorities raised by my constituents during my annual pre-budget consultations. As a member of Parliament, I take seriously my job to represent my constituents' voices in Ottawa. In March of this year, I hosted four town hall meetings: one in Port Moody, one in Coquitlam, one in New Westminster, and a final one by telephone. I also meet with all three mayors and councils in my riding, as I believe it is important to also listen to their priorities and concerns. I also sent out a survey to every household in the riding, asking constituents for their input on spending priorities and economic concerns. In total, I engaged thousands of constituents on what they would like to see in this year's budget.

My constituents' number one priority is health care. I believe Canadians are proud of our health care system, which is the envy of countries around the world. However, we also recognize the importance of ensuring health care remains universally accessible and properly funded. I hear far too many stories from people who have to wait months on end to see a specialist or to receive a vital surgery. The government's hands-off approach to health care is unacceptable. Instead of working with the provinces and territories to address the challenges facing our health care system, the current government unilaterally imposed a funding scheme that actually sees federal health care transfers decrease in the long term.

The high cost of prescriptions is another issue of serious concern, particularly for seniors who must also balance the realities of shrinking pensions and the shortage of affordable housing options. The current government's track record on support for Canada's seniors is dismal. The Conservatives' scheme to raise the age of retirement for the old age security from 65 to 67 years of age is disgraceful.

I also heard from a number of constituents who are frustrated with trying to find quality, affordable child care. Canada's New Democrats understand that a comprehensive national solution is required. That is why we are proposing, with the provinces and the territories, to establish and fund a Canada-wide child care and early learning program.

Another troubling issue we are seeing across our country is youth unemployment rates, which remain stubbornly high, at 13.5% for those under 25, compared to 7% for those over 25. Let us not forget that many students coming out of post-secondary education are saddled with record-high levels of student debt. Where are the jobs of tomorrow? Where are the quality jobs that enable people to support a family or pay down student debt or save for a down payment or save for retirement? Quality full-time jobs are disappearing at an alarming rate, and we are not seeing this issue get the attention it deserves in this budget.

I will take a moment to credit some of the great small businesses operating in my riding, like Resonance Technology, an innovative company on the cutting edge of new technologies. Companies like this are at the forefront of our economy, driving growth and creating jobs. We need more of this. Unfortunately, the reality is that income levels for average Canadians have stagnated while the cost of living continues to increase. From food prices and housing costs to MSP premiums and bridge tolls, British Columbians have been feeling the pinch. However, their tax burden will soon be a bit lighter, thanks to the people's successful efforts to overturn the harmonized sales tax, which was unfairly imposed on B.C. by its provincial government in collaboration with the current federal Conservative government.

I would like to focus on the claim by the Conservatives that this budget would increase funding for infrastructure. In fact, when the numbers are adjusted for inflation, over the next four years federal infrastructure funding will be $4.7 billion lower than it was last year. City officials are asking for a long-term funding arrangement so they can plan for the needs of our growing regions.

Improved transit infrastructure is one of the greatest needs in the Lower Mainland. Residents in Coquitlam and Port Moody have waited well over a decade for the Evergreen Line, which was nicknamed the “nevergreen line”, after years of delays made many people question whether it would ever be built.

The case of the Evergreen Line demonstrates that our governments are not up to the task of working together to meet the transit needs of our growing communities. At every town hall meeting I held, people expressed concern over the government's agenda to degrade environmental protections.

Let us talk about its record. Through last year's massive omnibus budget bills, Bills C-38 and C-45, the Conservative government gutted environmental protections from every act it could think of: the Fisheries Act, the Navigable Waters Protection Act, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, and many others. Canadians rallied to save the Experimental Lakes Area, which conducted world-class freshwater research. Unfortunately, the government chose to ignore these calls. A number of my constituents were particularly disturbed by the government's Orwellian attitude towards scientists, environmentalists and public servants. In March, the official opposition introduced a motion in Parliament calling on the government to defend basic scientific freedoms and evidence-based policy. I am sad to say that even the Prime Minister voted against that motion.

The government has been in power for seven years now and its arrogance is beginning to show no bounds. Its unilateral move to shut down the Kitsilano Coast Guard station flew in the face of expert opinion as well as the will of the public and municipal and provincial governments. Despite serious safety concerns raised over shutting down the only Coast Guard station in Vancouver, which is home to the busiest port in Canada, the government rammed through this closure. Consolidation of marine communication traffic services will put B.C.'s coast at greater risk. The government has also cut oil spill response centres. Given the number and scale of proposed resource development projects, this is the worst time to be cutting enforcement monitoring and emergency response.

This budget has announced $108 million in cuts to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. While the government claims that this will be found through efficiencies like travel and printing, we know this will have a serious impact on DFO front-line services, including its ability to carry out its mandate to protect wild fish. Last year's cuts left DFO with only five offices in B.C., and the smallest staff level since 1983.

It has been almost seven months since Cohen's recommendations were released and we have yet to hear a single word from the government on how it will respond. Following the $26 million Cohen report, the government should be responding to the 75 recommendations rather than turning its back on B.C. salmon and fish habitat.

All of the concerns I have highlighted speak to the serious feeling of neglect that has been brewing on the west coast. The Conservative government has been ignoring the priorities of British Columbians for far too long.

I would like to conclude my remarks on the budget by focusing on a theme that was frequently raised at pre-budget consultations. There is a feeling of restlessness and discontent among the electorate with the state of our democracy. I heard much criticism on the way the government has centralized power, limited debate and tried to marginalize the role of Parliament, not to mention the muzzling of scientists and quality information. Taxpayers are frustrated with being on the hook for the unelected, unaccountable and under-investigated Senate.

Principles anchored within the Senate's mission, such as the protection of minorities and balancing the executive and legislative branches of government, are important principles, but they must be addressed through accountable and democratic means. Abolishing the Senate is part of the NDP's broader and progressive vision for democratic reform. This means reforming our electoral system to ensure that Parliament reflects the political preferences of Canadians. New Democrats have long advocated for a system of proportional representation. A reformed electoral Senate would go a long way toward better representing Canadians in Parliament. It could reverse dismally low voter turnout rates and improve representation of women and minorities.

Canadians are hungry for change. Canadians are looking for leaders who are not afraid to tackle the issues facing our communities and our regions. This was an underwhelming budget. I believe Canadians want to see their federal government build healthy, sustainable communities.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opening remarks from the member in regard to health care.

I believe in our health care system, and I value the important role it plays for all of us. Former Prime Minister Paul Martin had the health care accord. That health care accord is going to expire in 2014. That agreement ultimately led to record dollars to finance health care from coast to coast to coast, and it is absolutely critical in terms of ensuring things such as national standards and protecting what Canadians value so much.

As the member points out, it is the number one issue in his area. I would say the same thing in terms of Winnipeg North. We want and believe in our national health care system.

Does the member believe that the Government of Canada is doing a disservice by not working with the different provinces to come up with a new health care accord so we can have ongoing longevity in regard to stable funding and commitments by the federal government toward health care in Canada?

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly do feel, and I pointed it out in my speech, that the government's hands-off approach to health care is unacceptable. Not working proactively with the provinces and the territories to come up with a solution to tackle one of the greatest challenges that our country faces is simply unacceptable.

I mentioned that health care was a top priority from those responding in my town hall meetings. It was almost 50% that focused on health care as their concern. We absolutely need to find innovative ways, whether it is through technology or other ways, to deliver health care in the country more efficiently. At the same time, we need to retain the fact, and this was reinforced in my town hall meetings, that people want to see universally accessible and properly funded health care. That is a critical component.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is a critical bill that we are speaking about. This is about what we should be spending our money on or whether we should be wasting our money on it.

I look at what is happening on Manitoulin Island. I would just like to read something from Arlene Kennedy, who talks about the fact that the tourism revenue generated during the sailing season is the main source of income to many on both the Bruce Peninsula and Manitoulin Island:

An inability to hold to the ferry schedule for the season will deter potential passengers from purchasing tickets. The elimination of this service will ruin small businesses, eliminate jobs and create an economic disaster for the entire Manitoulin and Georgian Bay Circle Route Region.

Arlene is from Tobermory.

We are looking at a waste of taxpayers' dollars with respect to ads. I would like the member to speak about the money that is being put into the ads, compared to a little investment that would actually keep the economy going in northern Ontario and protect jobs.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's comments.

That is the kind of input that I heard, the kind of input that this member heard from Arlene. I heard it from many constituents who were very concerned about the priorities of the government and of this budget.

I mentioned health care. The member raises the issue of priorities, putting money into ads, and the government bragging about what it is doing in Canada's economic action plan.

Here is a specific case where infrastructure funding could have been used a long time ago as opposed to waiting to review the situation. We heard from the parliamentary secretary earlier today that the situation of this bridge is now being reviewed. The government should have done that a long time ago. It should be addressing the situation now so we do not miss the tourism season, which is going to happen if we do not get that funding to replace the bridge and get that tourism happening.

[Parm Gill, Conservative, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am thrilled to rise in the House and speak in support of the economic action plan 2013 act, no. 1.

Since July 2009, our government's policies have helped the Canadian economy create over 900,000 net new jobs and lead the G7 in economic recovery.

Prior to the introduction of this budget, I had the opportunity to meet with many of my constituents in order to hear their concerns on the economy and to get their input. Through these meetings, I can report that the citizens of Brampton—Springdale strongly support the important actions our government has taken to lead Canada.

My constituents understand that our country is changing and want our government to look ahead into the future and plan for generations to come. They want their children to grow up in a country where job opportunities are plenty. It is for this reason that our government has tabled a strong and stable budget that every Canadian family can benefit from.

Like all Canadians, the wonderful people of Brampton—Springdale understand that the job of steering Canada through a troubled global economic downturn is not yet finished. There is still work that has to be done. Our government has done an outstanding job when it comes to keeping our country on the right track. In order for our country to stay on the right path, we must implement the measures introduced in the budget. This is not the time for us to rest on our hands. Our government and the citizens of Brampton—Springdale understand it very well.

During my consultations with my constituents and small business owners, there were four very clear priorities: creating jobs, support for small businesses, improving infrastructure and overall respect for the taxpayers.

Last year, small businesses across the country praised the hiring credit for small businesses. By extending the hiring credit for an additional year, an estimated 560,000 employers would be eligible to take advantage of this program. The true success of the hiring credit can be measured by the number of companies that took advantage of the assistance already provided.

Each job created represents an individual receiving a new employment opportunity. It is one more person who is given a chance to return to the workforce. These are real people with families who depend on them. I am proud to stand in the House and support a budget that is going to make their lives easier.

Over 80% of the businesses in my riding are designated as small or medium-sized businesses with fewer than 50 employees. Many of these are small and family-run businesses. The budget would increase a lifetime capital gains exemption to $800,000 from $750,000 and index it going forward. It would now be easier for owners to transfer their family businesses to the next generation when the time comes, encouraging the entrepreneurial spirit that makes Canada great.

However, this is not the only way that we would be helping Canadians find the jobs they need to support their families. In economic action plan 2013, our government also introduced the Canada job grant. This grant would assist Canadians by providing the training and skills they need to take on a new or better job.

There are a number of manufacturers that call Brampton—Springdale home, like Blue Giant Equipment, Magnum Integrated and Gray Tools. Our government recognizes the important role the manufacturing sector plays in our economy.

Since 2006, we have worked hard to help the manufacturing sector by lowering taxes, cutting red tape, and making Canada the first tariff-free zone for manufacturing in the G20.

With our economic action plan 2013, we would continue our support for manufacturers that keep jobs in Canada, by extending the temporary accelerated capital cost allowance for new investment in machinery and equipment. Extending this tax relief for an additional two years would provide businesses in Ontario with approximately $562 million in tax relief and would allow these firms a greater opportunity to expand operations and create new jobs.

The budget would also invest $18 million into the Canadian Youth Business Foundation to help young entrepreneurs start and grow new businesses, with an additional $5 million for post-secondary scholarships and bursaries for first nations and Inuit students. By investing in the best and brightest of our youth, we would be supporting the next generation of Canadian leaders in all fields and helping to ensure the long-term prosperity of our country.

The City of Brampton has benefited tremendously from the gas tax fund for municipalities. The budget would index the gas tax fund payments to provide municipalities with reliable funding to support job-creating infrastructure projects across Canada. With this funding, municipalities would be able to build roads, improve public transit and build new recreational facilities for their residents to enjoy; residents would be able to commute to and from work much more quickly as communities expand their transit and infrastructure network to meet ever-increasing demands; businesses would save on lost productivity due to traffic congestion in our cities; and Canadians would be able to spend more of their time with their families, rather than stuck in traffic.

This is an issue of great concern to many of my constituents in Brampton—Springdale. I know that they support our government in making this a top priority.

Finally, our government would achieve these aims while ensuring Canadian taxpayers are treated with respect. The budget would improve the fairness of the tax system, align employee compensation at crown corporations, and introduce a new temporary first-time donor super credit for first-time claimants of the charitable donation tax credit.

Economic action plan 2013 would take important steps to demonstrate to hard-working Canadian families that our government remains committed to the priorities of jobs, growth and long-term prosperity.

As the member of Parliament for Brampton—Springdale, I am proud to support the next phase of Canada's economic action plan. It would directly benefit the families, children, seniors, new Canadians and businesses in my community. However, on a larger scale, this budget would help all Canadians and the plan set before us would provide a promising future for our country.

I look forward to continue working alongside every one of my constituents as a member of the government focused on creating jobs, relieving financial stress and providing the assistance that every hard-working Canadian truly deserves.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the member who just spoke that we just learned that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance presented a notice of motion to the Standing Committee on Finance in order to limit the study of Bill C-60 to five meetings and in order to ensure that the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill is completed by May 28, which is eight sitting days after a time allocation motion forces the bill to be passed at second reading.

Does the member opposite think it would be a good idea to divide this omnibus bill so that all members can really study it in detail along with the effects of this government's measures, which will harm our economy and kill jobs?

[Parm Gill, Conservative, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that this budget was introduced well over a month ago. Since then all members of the House have had tremendous opportunity to debate the bill and that will continue. I understand, as my hon. colleague pointed out, a number of different committees will be studying the bill moving forward. There has been plenty of opportunity for all members of the House to debate the bill and there will be plenty more opportunity.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think we would find a consensus among most Canadians that this particular budget would collect literally hundreds of millions of new tax dollars from the middle class in particular. The government has failed to address the need for balanced budgets. It has taken huge multi-billion dollar surpluses from the Paul Martin government and turned them into multi-billion dollar deficits. The trade surplus under Paul Martin has been turned into a trade deficit. The fundamentals are starting to dramatically change and that is having a negative impact on the middle class in Canada.

Could the member tell me why the government is failing to deliver for middle-class Canadians?

[Parm Gill, Conservative, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to my hon. colleague the number of initiatives this government has taken since coming into power in terms of reducing the tax burden. I understand there have been about 150 different tax reductions. An average family of four currently saves in the neighbourhood of $3,200 a year.

I would also like to point out that the Liberals want to raise taxes. They are on record as asking for an increase of the GST from 5% to 6% to 7%. It was the Conservative government that reduced the GST and other tax initiatives that we have taken to help Canadian families. We will continue to do that.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification)]

Mr. Speaker, would the member like to expand on Canada's incentives for charitable donations and what that means for charities across Canada?

Canada is seen around the world as a leader when it comes to charitable donations. Could the member also expand on that?

[Parm Gill, Conservative, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are very generous people who are known for their generosity right around the world. This government clearly recognizes that. That is one of the reasons why this government put a provision in our budget that encourages new Canadians and Canadians who have not donated in the past to donate. It would give them additional tax breaks and encourages first-time individuals who will be making donations. Charities are doing wonderful work across this country and other parts of the world and they will truly benefit from this.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of representing a wonderful riding, the riding of Etobicoke North, the community where I was born and raised. We are proudly one of the most multicultural ridings in the country, but sadly, we also have our challenges.

Recent statistics show that almost 20% of our residents are not yet citizens. Our families face family reunification challenges and language and job barriers. Almost 25% of our families are headed by single parents who work two and three jobs just to put food on the table. Almost 20% of our riding is engaged in manufacturing, the second highest percentage for the entire country. In stark contrast, only 5% are involved in management, the 301st ranking of 308 ridings in Canada.

I am sharing this because we need real investment in our families and in our community, particularly during tough economic times. What we do not need are broken promises such as the Conservatives promising that they would not cut the rate of increase to transfers for health care, education and pensions.

The previous cuts to old age security, a move that would cost our seniors tens of thousands of dollars in support, are still causing outrage in my community. Single moms ask how the Prime Minister could do this, when he promised not to touch pensions. They have children and have to work. How will they pay for their children's education? They have no money to put away for retirement. What will happen to them?

Humber College students are saying that once they graduate they will have no job, and that is not fair. They ask why they are being treated differently by their country. Grandparents continue to come in wanting to know why their grandchildren are being targeted by the Government of Canada.

Today we are debating Bill C-60, the first Conservative omnibus bill following its 2013 budget, which impacts at least 18 different government portfolios. While there are some items in the bill that people could generally support—for example, better allowances for veterans and more incentives for charitable giving—these are mixed with many negative measures that will hurt the people of Etobicoke North. I simply cannot support these negative measures.

It is important to remind those watching at home that when the Conservatives came to power in 2006, they inherited from their Liberal predecessors 10 straight years of balanced budgets, an annual surplus that was running at the rate of $13 billion every year, lower debt, lower taxes, a sound Canadian pension plan and 3.5 million net new jobs. The last time a Conservative government actually balanced a budget for Canada was 101 years ago in 1912.

Bill C-60 creates the illusion of action regarding jobs and training. The government proposes to claw back the $2.5 billion per year in labour market money that it now sends to the provinces and renegotiate it with provincial governments. This amounts to recycling existing money. There is nothing new, no additional federal investment.

My community needs jobs, and each day at least one young person calls our office looking for work and we help find jobs, week after week. The youth unemployment rate remains a staggering 14.2%, nearly twice the rate for other Canadians. Today, 404,000 young people lack a job and another 171,000 have simply given up and dropped out of the labour market.

Another reason I cannot support the bill is that it increases taxes—for example, new Conservative taxes on safety deposit boxes totalling $40 million a year; new Conservative taxes on credit unions amounting to $75 million a year; and the list goes on. However, what I really object to is the new Conservative increase of tariff taxes, taxes on imports, which will take about $333 million every year from Canadians.

The people of Etobicoke North do not want the cost of baby carriages to go up 3%; bicycles to go up 4.5%; blankets to go up 5%; ovens, cooking stoves and ranges, 3%; plastic school supplies, 3.5%; pillows, 6%; and vacuum cleaners, 5%. I have heard from Canadians battling cancer, who must fight their disease every day, that their cosmetic wigs will go up by an astonishing 15.5%. It is absolutely shameful.

When all these measures are fully implemented, as well as some other taxes that are buried in the legislation, the burden will add up to more than $2 billion per year in new Conservative taxes on Canadians.

I did make a specific request to the Minister of Finance for budget 2013, as families in Etobicoke North asked, and respected the minister's request that ideas be cost neutral or non-spending steps. My appeal was for a joint meeting of federal, provincial and territorial ministers of health and agriculture to develop a plan of action to work with stakeholders across the country to improve student nutrition, because children in my riding and across the country go to school hungry, and hungry children cannot learn.

Forty per cent of elementary students and 62% of secondary school students do not eat a nutritious breakfast. Poor nutrition status leads to poor health outcomes for children, and Canadian children from all income brackets are vulnerable to inadequate nutrition, especially the one in five Canadian children who live below the poverty line.

In addition to making the human argument, to do the right thing and to honour the promises Canada has made to our children, I even made the economic argument for student nutrition. The Boston Consulting Group reports that, on average, each high school graduate contributes an extra $75,000 to the economy. They earn higher salaries than dropouts, pay increased taxes, have lower health care costs and are less dependent on social assistance. If providing food at school increases graduation rates by only 3%, a pan-Canadian school meals program in high schools at a cost of $1.25 a day could result in an annual net payback of more than $500 million annually.

The potential economic stimulus for Canadian agriculture is also considerable. Realistically, 70% of the pan-Canadian nutrition program could have domestic content, with an annual return to Canadian producers of $1.5 billion.

Not only do our children want healthy food now, but they also want a healthy environment to grow up in and raise their children and grandchildren. While no cuts to the environment are specifically mentioned in budget 2013, Canadians should remember that cutting is actually a three-year program with a $13 million reduction this year, growing to $31 million, then $58 million and ultimately representing a 5% cut for Environment Canada.

Budget 2013 offers mere scraps for the environment and in no way makes up for the war on the environment and science that the government has been waging and continues to wage: for example, $4 million for marine-based ecosystem conservation, when the government has promised to protect 10% of marine areas and yet has protected only 1%; $10 million for the conservation of fisheries and a salmon conservation stamp after eviscerating the Fisheries Act; and a new tax credit for clean energy worth a tiny $1 million for a global $1 trillion industry.

Perhaps most concerning of all is the lack of action on climate change, when the government is under increased study for its environmental and climate change record, particularly by our largest trading partner, the United States, and the fact that record low Great Lakes levels, which many experts attribute to a changing climate, are mentioned but not acted upon in the budget. For a government that is desperate to greenwash its record, budget 2013 and Bill C-60 clearly show that the environment is only an afterthought for the Conservatives, although Liberals support the funding for the Nature Conservancy of Canada.

In closing, I do not support this bill because it will make life harder for the people of Etobicoke North to make ends meet and does nothing to help youth find work. My hard-working constituents should not have to pay for the government's wasteful spending.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Minister of State (Transport)]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member and I would characterize much of her speech as wrong and out of context. However, one area that the member did not speak on, and that is very important, is the area of infrastructure. Our government has committed in this budget a plan of $70 billion over 10 years. It includes indexation of the gas tax fund. It includes the GST rebate. It includes moneys for P3 projects, for innovative ways to do new projects.

This is an unprecedented amount of money, combined with the $15,000 job grant for people to acquire the skills they need. Why is the member silent on the infrastructure when FCM and every municipality has praised our government for its infrastructure program?

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the information is not incorrect; it is very well researched. I notice he did not bring up child hunger. He did not bring up the environment. I did recognize there are positive steps, but by and large it is a negative budget and I simply cannot support it.

I will talk a bit about youth jobs. The youth employment rate is now more than five points worse than it was before the recession. Last year, Canada had some of the worst summer job numbers since Statistics Canada began measuring this in the 1970s. Despite these challenges, the only measure for youth in Bill C-60 is to encourage greater charitable donations. They cannot donate because they cannot find work.

In stark contrast to the government's inaction, Liberals would introduce a real job strategy for youth to give young Canadians the job experience they need to succeed, including a youth hiring credit for small business, significant new investment in the Canada summer jobs program and re-opening the youth job centres the Conservatives closed.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her speech. She outlined a number of issues, some of which may have been more on the budget side than on the budget implementation bill. However, that is probably one of the problems with this budget implementation bill. It does not really apply changes to the government's behaviour in a good fashion.

Right across the world, the fastest growing energy form is solar energy, interestingly enough, with investments that are expected to hit $300 billion in the next year or so. Yet within the budget there is an absolute lack of understanding about the nature of the green energy movement that is going on right across the world. The Conservatives' head-in-the-sand approach to renewable energy is really going to leave Canada in the lurch over the next number of years. Certainly, it will not make their case with our oil and gas trading partners that they are actually working to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

What does my colleague think of the government's approach to renewable energy?

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned that in budget 2013 the government offers a $1 million credit for a $1 trillion industry. Canada should be having a green economy strategy, so we lead in the new economy. We should have a national sustainable energy strategy. We need a comprehensive climate change plan.

Unfortunately, the environment and sustainable development are not government priorities. Recent rankings of environmental performance clearly demonstrate this fact. For example, the 2008 climate change performance index ranked Canada 56th out of 57 countries in terms of tackling emissions. In 2009 and again in 2013, the Conference Board of Canada ranked Canada 15th out of 17 wealthy industrialized nations on environmental performance.

Our world-renowned heritage was then further imperiled by the government's economic action plan 2012 and its draconian omnibus budget bills, Bill C-38 and C-45, which destroyed 50 years of environmental safeguards.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this bill today, to describe the measures that address our country's most urgent needs. The 2013 economic action plan focuses on our goals—jobs, growth and long-term prosperity for Canada. We have six major priorities and I will go over them briefly since I do not have much time.

First, we are going to connect Canadians with available jobs, and we will do that through the Canada job grant. We want to prioritize helping Canadians acquire the skills they need to obtain the jobs that are available now. Demographic trends mean that many good jobs will soon be vacant as people retire from the workforce, and we want our young people and those embarking on a second career to have all the skills required for those jobs.

We believe that involving businesses in the process and in funding the process is a key factor and a winning strategy. We look forward to working closely with all the provinces. In addition, we want to support the apprenticeship system and help people acquire the experience they need to obtain their journeyperson certificate. We also will offer more than 5,000 young people in transition an opportunity to turn their academic training into practical experience. Finally, we want to offer employment opportunities to persons with disabilities, young people, Aboriginals and recent immigrants. In order to do this, we are creating the tools that will help them find jobs.

Our second priority is the new building Canada plan, with more than $53 billion available over 10 years. That includes $32.2 billion over 10 years for the community improvement fund to build roads, public transit, recreational facilities and other community infrastructure across Canada. This plan will enable municipalities to plan for and achieve their priorities. There will also be $14 billion for the new building Canada fund to support major national or regional economic projects. In addition, $1.5 billion will be used to renew the P3 Canada fund. Finally, $6 billion will be allocated to the provinces, territories and municipalities under the new infrastructure program for 2014-15 and following years.

In our view, this predictable long-term funding represents the largest and longest-lasting federal investment in employment-creating infrastructure in Canada's history. We will also invest in world-class research and innovation in order to support cutting-edge research, encourage innovation in business, and improve Canada's venture capital system, which in turn will foster talent and ideas among entrepreneurs, promote an entrepreneurial culture in Canada and support young entrepreneurs.

We will continue to support families and communities. In order to support families, we will increase tax relief for families who adopt a child and those who require home care, we will eliminate tariffs on baby clothing and sports equipment in order to reduce their cost to consumers, and we will develop a new code to better protect consumers of financial products.

As for community investments, we will invest nearly $1.9 billion over five years to create more affordable housing and to combat homelessness. We will also introduce a new, temporary, first-time donor tax credit to encourage charitable donations.

We are also thinking of helping our businesses grow and prosper in the global economy. We will provide $1.4 billion in tax relief for manufacturers through a two-year extension of the temporary accelerated capital cost allowance for new investment in machinery and equipment in the manufacturing and processing sector.

We will also contribute to small business expansion by granting $225 million to enhance and extend the temporary hiring credit for small business for one year.

We are thinking of our future generations and are very proud of the plan to return to budget balance. Canada is on track to return to balanced budgets by 2015-16. Our economic action plan 2013 announces more public spending savings totalling $2 billion by 2015-16.

We will do this through many logical improvements, including cutting needless spending and waste, reducing travelling expenses through technology, pursuing measures to limit public service compensation and closing tax loopholes that benefit a few taxpayers.

We will continue supporting seniors, as we have done since 2006, because we know and acknowledge that Canadian seniors have helped build our great country. That is why economic action plan 2013 contains new measures to improve the quality of life of our Canadian seniors. We will expand tax relief for home care to include personal care provided to individuals who, due to age, infirmity or disability, require such assistance at home.

We will also provide assistance for the construction and renovation of accessible community facilities by investing $15 million a year in the enabling accessibility fund.

Agriculture is very close to my heart, given my family roots. Our budget will also provide support for our Canadian farmers. The family farm is one of the pillars of our country. For generations, our farmers have fed Canadians and the rest of the world and generated jobs and job opportunities across the country. That is why economic action plan 2013 contains a number of measures to support Canadian farmers and agricultural innovation.

For example, we will increase the lifetime capital gains exemption from $750,000 to $800,000. That will not only help Canadian farmers plan for their retirement, but it will also help transfer the family farm to the next generation of Canadian farmers. We will also help part-time farmers by doubling the deduction limit currently permitted under the restricted farm loss rules from $8,750 to $17,500.

Lastly, we will invest $165 million in Genome Canada, whose research work is helping to design new technologies for the agricultural sector—such as the bovine genome—which offer considerable advantages for the cattle and dairy industry.

I would like to remind hon. members that these measures are in addition to the support our government has been proud to give Canadian farmers and the agricultural sector since 2006.

The budget contains even more. It is available online, on the Internet, and it is a budgetary reference work. I am very proud because, now at the end of this laborious cross-Canada consultation process, we have a goal and a common vision: a working plan. We conducted pre-budget consultations, and we answered the call of businesses that want a skilled, qualified and engaged Canadian and Quebec labour force.

Together we are paying our fair share of taxes, and we are proud of this budget, which will not take money away from families unfairly because we are not increasing taxes. Our budget meets needs in a quick and tangible way, without further undermining our children or our country. Our budget is responsible and offers hope for the thousands of Canadians who just want to be active in the workforce.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague said that his government is trying to cut back on waste. What about the Conservative ads for the economic action plan?

I wonder if my colleague could remind the House how much money was invested in those ads. How many jobs have been created since those ads were launched? Instead of wasting that money, would it not have been better spent on investments in aboriginal education?

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question.

I would like to tell her that the money invested in keeping Canadians informed about the various federal government's initiatives that benefit all Canadians is critically important. Canadians have a right to know what the Government of Canada is doing for them in terms of initiatives, tax cuts and services, which are very important to all Canadians.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, credit unions from coast to coast to coast have provided an absolutely essential service to millions of Canadians over the years.

In this budget document, the government is taking a hit on our credit unions. It could have a very profound negative impact. These credit unions provide all sorts of services in our communities. They provide support to our middle class. They are there to provide competition for the big banks. They often open in communities where banks do not exist.

My question is why has the Conservative government gone against small credit unions, in the need to be able to support them from the government's point of view?

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question.

I would remind him that Canada has the lowest tax rate for small and medium-sized businesses in the G7, which gives Canada as a whole an undeniable competitive advantage on all international markets.

Furthermore, credit unions can benefit from the low tax rate that our government is offering to all Canadian businesses.

[Bruce Hyer, Independent, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member why they are still, in the budget and for a long time, subsidizing oil companies to the tune of $1.3 billion a year and increasing taxes on credit unions, as we have just heard?

The really big question is: when are they going to put a price on carbon, which is so clearly and desperately needed if we are to save the planet from the greed of oil companies and oil consumers?

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would remind my hon. colleague that Canada's energy sector is extremely important to our economy.

Government support for this sector helps ensure long-term prosperity and safeguards thousands of jobs for all Canadians. Without this support, if we were to follow my dear colleague's logic, Canada would have serious economic problems.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation]

Mr. Speaker, our whole objective in the budget is to continue the progress that we have made in creating jobs, growth and long-term prosperity for our country.

We heard from the opposition earlier. The member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine talked about not having jobs in her area, and the member for Etobicoke North talked about youth unemployment in the country. We have looked at this and we have said that it is absolutely critical that we get these young people into jobs.

I am the very proud mother-in-law of a young man who has just finished his doctorate in electrical engineering and is looking to get into the job market now. I know that these infrastructure projects that we are investing in are going to create jobs for engineers and for construction companies, and trickle-down effects for the service companies.

I wonder if my colleague could talk about how these opportunities are going to impact his riding?

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for her excellent question.

I know that she does wonderful work in her riding. She is very passionate about the future of our youth, as am I. I have five children at home who are entering the workforce.

The Government of Canada cares about the future of Canadians. Our country offers tremendous opportunities for young people who want to work. We are creating more than 5,000 internships so that they can transition from studying to a work experience that will allow them to gain skills for their future and for the future of our country.

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, drawing up a budget means making choices. In their 2013 budget, the Conservatives have chosen austerity. This government justifies its decision on the grounds that it wants to wipe out the deficit. All of us here in this House are in favour of wiping out the deficit. Nobody can argue with that, but it is all in the way you do it.

The Conservatives are proposing lean years for everyone in the hope that these cuts will return us to a balanced budget. We believe we must invest in our economy in order to wipe out the deficit. Our economy needs a little help. It needs investment to create jobs and growth. It definitely does not need utterly austere policies like those proposed by this government.

The IMF, the Parliamentary Budget Officer and many renowned economists have warned the government about the harmful effects of its strategy. The Parliamentary Budget Officer says the 2013 budget will eliminate thousands of jobs, cut direct program spending and slow GDP growth. That is not very encouraging, especially for a government that claims to champion employment and the economy.

With Bill C-60, the government is giving us version 3.0 of its omnibus bills. Like Bills C-38 and C-45, Bill C-60 amends nearly 50 acts and contains hundreds of unrelated legislative amendments.

As a parliamentarian, but especially as a citizen, I am shocked to see that this government has not adopted a more co-operative and democratic approach. Its bill is full of inconsistencies and counterproductive measures. However, the government is determined to force it down Canadians' throats without us really having the time to study it or propose improvements.

A very specific example of a counterproductive measure that will harm the economy of my region, the Outaouais, is the elimination of the 15% tax credit for shareholders of labour-sponsored funds. Labour-sponsored funds are essential to the development of Outaouais businesses. On May 2, the Gatineau chamber of commerce organized a press conference to announce its request that the government reverse its decision. The FTQ's Fonds de solidarité alone has invested $125 million in 80 businesses in the region. Those investments have made it possible to create or maintain 6,700 jobs in the Outaouais alone.

The hardest thing to understand in the Conservatives' attitude is that the government will achieve no savings by eliminating the tax credit.

A study conducted by SECOR in 2010 clearly shows that the economic impact of the jobs created and maintained through the investments of these labour-sponsored funds enable the government to recover the tax credits in an average period of three years.

So I ask myself the question and I put it to the government: what is the justification for this attack on labour-sponsored funds? These funds create and maintain employment in addition to playing a positive role in our economy.

Eliminating the tax credit will also have a direct impact on small investors. It has benefited some 23,000 people in the Outaouais alone.

By investing $5,000 in a labour-sponsored fund, a taxpayer can currently save up to $750 in federal income tax. Because of this government, 23,000 small investors in the Outaouais will lose a profitable savings vehicle for their retirement and for the economy. This government must open its eyes and reverse its decision.

I have looked through Bill C-60 at length and have found virtually nothing about the measures this government intends to take to combat poverty. In a developed country such as Canada, we would be wrong to believe that poverty is a marginal phenomenon. Poverty exists. It is very real. We see it on the ground, in our ridings. Many of us could describe numerous unfortunate examples of poverty.

Every month, 800,000 Canadians turn to food banks. A growing number of these 800,000 food bank users are working people. Despite earning an income, they cannot always afford to put food on the table. More and more workers are living in poverty, and this government’s policies are obviously to blame to some extent for this situation. This is unacceptable. Fighting poverty must be one of the government’s priorities.

In conclusion, I would like to comment briefly on this government’s repeated attacks on public servants. Last year, it announced that it was eliminating 19,200 jobs, while solemnly swearing that services would not be affected. We subsequently learned that in reality, 29,000 public servants would be losing their jobs and that services to the public would be directly affected.

The Conservatives enjoy depicting public servants as privileged, lazy individuals. That is part of their strategy. They want to pit private sector workers against public servants. We would all do well to close ranks in the face of this government’s attacks on workers in general.

The fact of the matter is that the average pension of a public servant upon retirement is $24,000 a year, or $18,500 for women and $28,000 for men. It is time to stop implying that public servants are rolling in money. Those who are doing very well are the Conservatives’ friends, those who are on the receiving end of favours and generous subsidies while they generate profits totalling millions and sometimes even billions of dollars.

I am thinking here, among other things, of oil companies that are still subsidized to tune of $1.3 billion a year and that often use our soil, our air and our water as a free dumping ground. Natural resource development is a major source of revenue, but development must be done properly. Right now, major polluters are enjoying a free lunch. Things could be done differently, but this government is failing when it comes to fighting for the middle class and for the environment.

As I said in my opening remarks, drawing up a budget means making choices. In budget 2013, the government clearly chose to turn its back on the middle class and on SMEs. Canadians will remember this when the time comes to elect a new government.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation]

Mr. Speaker, the best way to counter poverty is to create an economy that is full of jobs and growth and prosperity. Then we would have the ability to help those people in our economy who are most in need.

My hon. colleague said that we do not have anything in the budget that would assist people who are in need. I would like to direct her to page 228 in the budget, where we talk about investing in communities. First, we talk about our homelessness partnering strategy, where we would be contributing $119 million per year, over five years, working with our provinces and territories.

Then, on page 230, we talk about investments in affordable housing where we are proposing $253 million per year, over five years, to 2018-19.

Would my colleague speak to why it is she would vote against these kinds of investments for the people who live in her riding?

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when I look at the economy in my region, where many public servants live, I also see that there is a great deal of poverty. I find it unacceptable that this government plans to raise taxes in the coming years on things families need every day to work and to provide for their children's day-to-day well-being.

As for sustainable social development, I would say to the minister and my colleague that I have worked in the affordable housing sector and I was a member of a number of boards of directors in my riding. I saw first-hand the deterioration and lack of affordable housing in regions across the country. Do not tell me that the government's proposals will help this cause.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, an unemployed individual can appreciate why the jobs issue is so critical. Over the last period of time there has been a great deal of concern with regard to how the government dropped the ball with respect to the temporary foreign worker program. If this program is utilized properly it can save industries, it can provide a great quality of life to Canadians and those people who call Canada their home. The Conservative government has now had in the neighbourhood of 338,000 jobs through the foreign worker program.

Does my colleague feel that the government needs to improve the temporary foreign worker program process in order to come up with a more realistic number in terms of the number of jobs that are being taken by individuals from abroad? Even during Liberal peak times, I believe we hit 160,000. There is no doubt that the current system needs to be fixed.

What is the NDP's position on the issue?

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have debated this matter in recent weeks.

Foreign workers were allowed to come to Canada to work in various jobs that needed to be filled.

However, the government dropped the ball because Canadians could have filled those jobs.

This government opened the door without thinking about our economy or the fact that Canadians could have filled those jobs.

I acknowledge that we need foreign workers and that they must come to Canada. However, at the same time, we must provide them with decent housing, working conditions and benefits so that they can return home when they need to. That is not what happens with these types of jobs.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to speak on budget 2013 and the budget implementation act. As I prepared for this speech, I reviewed from budget 2006 onward with an eye to looking at how our government is focused on the economy, jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity. One thing I was very happy to see was that even in the early days of our government, in 2006, we have always had an eye towards providing stability and environmental stewardship.

The Prime Minister has always recognized that environmental protection goes hand in hand with our economic future as a country. Whether it is through strategic investments in clean energy infrastructure, strong partnerships with our provincial and municipal partners, NGOs, industry and even landowners, or whether it is actually doing the tough work of regulatory reform, our government has always had an eye toward making sure we have the balance between our economic prosperity and increasing our environmental stewardship and habitat conservation. Whether it is looking for results in increasing air and water quality or reducing greenhouse gases, this government has consistently set targets and moved toward actual results in hitting those targets.

As a young boy growing up in rural northern Alberta with a grandfather who was both a trapper and farmer, I was always very close to the land. I was always in an environment where I understood the importance of environmental stewardship and good conservation, being a good Conservative. I contrast that upbringing with my niece Vienna, who was born and raised in Ottawa. I see how she would have a different opinion of what environmental stewardship and the problems of our country look like today, when she tunes in to CTV News or any of the news stations, as she likes to do, and sees evil oil and gas companies destroying thousands of hectares of land, and mining companies putting big holes in the ground, making it look like some kind of sci-fi moon landscape from the 1970s.

I understand how this negative connotation that people constantly receive from the media can lead this generation to perceive that these are the problems of environmental stewardship today. In fact, in the last 50 years, when it comes to issues such as wetlands conservation, air quality, water quality or greenhouse gas emissions, the largest problem in our country has been urban sprawl. More and more urban areas have taken up more and more wetlands and have increased the output of effluents.

I can remember, as a young man, going to the University of Calgary, and when I left the north end, between Calgary and Balzac and then Calgary and Airdrie, there were actual green spaces. Now there are houses from one end to the other, just like Toronto to Hamilton. It has become concrete. This is one of the biggest issues that we have to deal with. This is one of the issues we have to make sure we pass on to Vienna's generation, that it is a problem we have to engage in.

I am proud to be part of a government that has made strategic investments in partnerships, not just with municipalities but organizations like Nature Conservancy Canada. An additional $20 million was put into budget 2013 to help them leverage it three to one so we could protect more habitat and species at risk. Since budget 2007, we know this has been a successful program. We have invested $225 million and preserved over 875,000 acres of land over all 10 provinces in our country, and conserved habitat for up to 148 species at risk.

The fact is that we can still have growth and economic prosperity at the same time as increasing our environmental sustainability. That is a message we have to pass on. We can actually continue to grow our environmental conservation habits, not just be happy with some kind of net zero through innovative partnerships like we have already demonstrated.

One of the other things we have to do in these partnerships is win the hearts and minds of Canadians. We have to show Canadians like those in my niece's generation that habitat, wildlife and the environment are things worth saving, and to do that, we have to give them a value. We have to be able to attribute a value to that, and it is very hard to attribute a value to something that one has never really encountered.

We have Thousand Islands National Park, a beautiful park, about two hours away from Ottawa, but for my niece to pack up her family and go there takes a couple of hours. To go to Jasper National Park from Edmonton, it is two and a half hours. It limits the number of encounters they are going to have with nature and natural habitats.

That is why it is so important that our government's initiatives and investments in parks such as Rouge national urban park, where we are investing $143 million over 10 years, including in this budget as well, to bring nature closer to Canadians and to that generation that has grown up in urban sprawl. This is critically important when we talk about winning hearts and minds so that they can understand the importance of habitat and species at risk.

I am proud to be part of a government that has created over 149,000 square kilometres of national parks, including parks such as Sable Island. This government has always had an eye toward making sure that we invest in the future, and not just in job training and job growth but also in environmental stewardship.

One of the other aspects that is very important, perhaps one of the most important, is working with industry and taking a real approach. If we want to continue to extract and develop our natural resources and sell them around the world, we have to have a regulatory approach that is perceived to be one of the best in the world, not just talked about as being one of the best in the world.

That is where the Prime Minister's leadership in regulatory reform is so important. Whether it is in the transportation sector, the coal-fired electricity sector, or the oil and gas sector, we have worked with these sectors one by one. It is not just to do a redistribution of wealth, which is what a carbon tax is, taking from one to give to the other, but the rich never really have to make a sacrifice. We are talking about changing the way sectors operate so that they actually become better environmental stewards and bring reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and improved air quality.

This kind of work is far harder and politically far more difficult, but it brings the benefits of real results for Canadians and for the next generation, at the same time respecting our jurisdictions and understanding that the coal-fired electricity issues in Ontario or Quebec are not the same as the issues in Alberta. We have to have some flexibility, yet have targets that we are moving forward to meet.

At the same time, as we see in budget 2013, we are investing $325 million in Sustainable Development Technology Canada to help develop clean technology and help industry to continue to move forward. I come from an oil-rich part of the country where we have in situ oil sands that are nothing like what most Canadians would perceive when they think of the oil sands in Fort McMurray. These are oil sands with a very small footprint. These are oil sands for which our government has just put water monitoring in place in the Athabasca River so that we can make sure we are open and transparent and can actually demonstrate the positive results coming out of the work we have done on this sector.

I would be remiss if I did not mention the importance of working with landowners and the importance of respecting property rights when we are doing all of these things. It is important that we incentivize landowners so they are not worried about running into a species at risk on their land, yet see the natural habitat area as a value to their land. That can only happen through strong partnerships with our municipalities, as we are experiencing in Vermilion River.

To close, I would like to say it is our responsibility to look the next generation in the eye and say that we have been good stewards of both the environment and the economy. Environmental protection goes hand in hand with our economic future.

God bless Canada.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Before I go to questions and comments, it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis, The Environment; the hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, Aboriginal Affairs; and the hon. member for Québec, Telecommunications.

Questions and comments.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in February, I actually visited Westlock—St. Paul, the member's riding. I visited a power plant there in Dapp. It was a biomass plant. I asked the people there if the member had ever visited, and they told me, “No.” This is a plant that takes wood waste from Edmonton and turns it into electricity. The electricity that comes from this process is distributed to all the farmers around. It is a great community project that powers 600 houses with electricity from the grid.

When I got there, people asked me a few questions. The first one was, “When is there going to be a national energy strategy that includes renewables?” I would ask the same question to the member across.

The other thing is, I would point out that there is only $1 million for SDTC this year to promote projects, like things that are happening in Dapp with its biomass plant. Will the government commit to funding SDTC more at the front end rather than the back end in 2018?

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very familiar with the project the member is talking about. In fact I grew up in that area.

The local councillor, Mr. Bert Seatter, has been a strong advocate of this project. If the member wishes, I would be happy to share information on the company that he talked about.

It is very important, as I said, when we start talking about these issues that we look at it as a balanced approach, that we look at economic development and growth of our economy in balance with the environment.

I am glad the member brought it up. My home province of Alberta is one of the leading provinces when it comes to wind and solar technology, which invests more money in renewable fuels than many of the provinces twice its size in this country. I am proud to be from a part of the country that does not just talk about environmental stewardship but actually takes a step forward and starts practising it.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the member is being very selective when he talks about practising it.

Let me talk about a petition that I have introduced on numerous occasions, and that the Liberal Party has been advocating for, that is in regard to the Experimental Lakes project.

I quote from the petition:

Since 1968, ELA has been a global leader in conducting whole-ecosystem experiments, which have been critical in shaping environmental policy and understanding human impacts on lakes and fishes...

This research is done at the Experimental Lakes Area. It provides important, critical, scientific knowledge. The government was content with seeing it completely wiped out, closed. If it was not for the Government of Ontario, there would not be an ELA, even though the benefits are immense from an environmental perspective.

How does the member justify the government's behaviour on that specific project, the ELA? Why did the government not support it?

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as always, I am happy to see my friend from Winnipeg North standing up. Unfortunately the Jets are not in the playoffs this year, so he has a little more time to spend here than he would otherwise. As he likes to trade quotes, and he is always prepared, I would like to read him a quote, as well.

From Mr. John Lounds, president of the Nature Conservancy of Canada, in committee last week:

You will no doubt hear many witnesses tell you where government hasn't got it right. We'd like to tell you about something where the government has got it right in our view, which is the natural areas conservation program. In 2007 the Government of Canada made a bold investment of $225 million in this unique public-private partnership led by the Nature Conservancy of Canada.

I am proud of the fact that we are part of a government that has helped establish important habitat conservation for over 875,000 acres of land across 10 provinces of this country, including saving habitat for 148 species at risk. I think that is a record of success.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by asking a question.

Today in the House, the member for Westlock—St. Paul talked about renewable hydrocarbons. The Minister of Natural Resources has also talked about the same thing recently.

Frankly, I would like to know what this creature is, given that hydrocarbons come from dinosaurs that lived millions of years ago. It seems to me that this is not a renewable energy source, unless the Conservatives are telling me that there may be dinosaurs somewhere in the Caribbean islands. I am trying to understand what this is.

They may be talking about the corn and ethanol business. Recently, we saw that when ethanol derived from corn was on the market, it created an extreme crisis for the corn market, to the point that a lot of people in the world could no longer buy basic products such as corn because it was being converted into renewable energy.

I quite simply do not understand why the Conservatives are trying to make us believe this renewable hydrocarbons story. I am having a hard time seeing where this thing exists. I would certainly like to hear more about it though, because frankly, I sometimes think it is coming out of the mouths of dinosaurs.

Bill C-60 contains very few things that will benefit people in my riding. I will even go out on a limb and say that it could hurt them.

We will talk about a few measures that are in the budget, and other measures that are not. What worries me most is what is not in the budget.

I would first like to talk about the investment that needs to be made at Fisheries and Oceans. The budget says that, over the next five years, Fisheries and Oceans will be cut by another $100 million. That department has already endured cuts, very recently, of over $70 million a year. Now, the Conservatives are talking about more cuts. We do not know how big those cuts will be. The Conservatives have simply announced cuts. They have not said what is going to be cut. That is the real problem with the bill we have before us. It is supposed to be C-60, Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1. Yet, it is not a budget, or at least it is hard to believe that it is.

When I was a businessman, a budget had columns. It was a sheet with figures on it, with the money spent the previous year and the money spent during the current year. You saw how spending increased or decreased. To the Conservatives, budgets are no longer budgets; now, they are action plans. Frankly, they are works of fiction. They are books that tell a story, but do not in any way achieve the objective of managing a country in a sound and sustainable way.

I will come back to Fisheries and Oceans Canada, which is going to lose $100 million over the next five years. Nowhere in the budget, or the Conservatives’ economic action plan 2013, do I see where they are going to cut. We know the impact of the cuts, though. So much has been cut from maintenance at Fisheries and Oceans Canada that our docks are in a pitiful state. The Percé dock is closed today. The lobster industry depends on that dock. My riding also depends heavily on the tourism industry, which in turn depends heavily on the dock. We are talking about 400,000 tourists a year who visit the dock.

Last year, Bill C-38 made changes to employment insurance. In today’s budget, nothing has been changed, even though every region of Canada where there is seasonal work and people make a living from seasonal industries has called for a moratorium or a return to the starting point, and for real consultations to be held. That has not been done. The result is the bill we have before us, which makes no changes to employment insurance.

As a result, people in my region have lost weeks of employment insurance benefits and they will therefore find it harder and harder to have an income to get through the seasons and make it through the whole year.

The minister says that the reason why the government made changes to employment insurance was to help people get jobs. At the same time, however, the Conservatives have cut so much from dock maintenance in my riding that they have put people out of work. In 2013, we risk losing the tourist season in the Gaspé region, because they have cut so much from the budgets that people depend on, without consultation and without doing the groundwork.

They are making so many cuts that people are losing their jobs. There will be no tourists to support merchants who depend on the tourist industry and so there is a risk that we will lose an entire year of tourism, simply because Fisheries and Oceans Canada has not been able to do its job. The department has been unable to do its job because the cuts have been so deep that it has had a great deal of difficulty meeting its obligations.

In today’s budget, Fisheries and Oceans Canada is being cut by $100 million. What is going to be cut? I have a hard time seeing where the remaining cuts at Fisheries and Oceans Canada could be made. I congratulate the department for demonstrating creativity by inventing cuts that could be made in future, without specifying what is left to cut. It seems to me that there are no cuts left to be made at Fisheries and Oceans Canada, apart from the minister’s salary maybe.

We absolutely have to think long-term. There is no long-term vision in Canada. The Conservatives are trying to cut all government spending, and they think that that is going to create the conditions upon which an economic recovery could be based. We saw this situation in the 1980s, in the Reagan era. It is called trickle-down economics. If the government cuts taxes and is less and less involved in the economy, the invisible hand of the market will take over and solve all of our problems. In my opinion, in 2008, when the serious crisis in the banking system happened, the invisible hand of the market simply did not work.

Frankly, credit does not go to the Conservatives for the regulations that were in place at the time and that helped us to get through that serious worldwide economic crisis and be in the condition we are in now.

The Conservatives boast about the fact that Canada has one of the best economies in the world. It is difficult to boast when we compare ourselves to Greece, for example, which is in free fall. Saying we are not in free fall is not all it takes to determine that everything is fine. That is not the case.

Certain conditions must prevail in order for Canada’s economy to grow. The budget now before us will not create these conditions. Furthermore, Canada has 240,000 more young people out of work than during the previous recession in 2008.

There needs to be an action plan in place to help these 240,000 unemployed youths find jobs. Instead, we have cuts to Service Canada’s summer jobs programs that encourage young people to return to the regions to work, settle down and create vibrant communities. Cuts are being made to the summer jobs program and a new internship program is being created. However, an internship is not a job. A job is paid, permanent employment. An internship usually involves unpaid work.

The government has just spent a considerable amount of money creating unpaid job opportunities without having in place an action plan to help young people find gainful employment.

Getting back to my riding, cuts to Fisheries and Oceans Canada programs means the future of the region’s children and economy are impacted. The Gaspé is not the only region affected. All of Eastern Canada will be facing problems as a result of the cutbacks recently announced. Today’s budget does nothing to alter the course this government has embarked on, one that is bad for the economy and for the regions in particular.

The government is simply unwilling to consult with people. It is unwilling to ask Canadians how they feel about Canada’s growth and what they think our priorities should be. With their parliamentary majority, the Conservatives seem to think they can do whatever they like.

Destroying laws that protect the environment is tantamount to mortgaging the future. Ultimately people will end up paying a great deal more to repair the damage wrought by the Conservatives.

This budget will cost us dearly. Therefore, I urge members to vote against it.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated my colleague's speech. I would like to know what he thinks the government should have included in the budget to increase job creation in his riding. What would he do to better promote job creation?

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. Investment is a given. The government has powerful tools at its disposal to help industry and the economy. Regarding seasonal work in the regions, it is essential to think long term if we want to ensure sustainable regional economies. The government must invest. The only organization capable of supporting jobs in the regions is the federal government. It then follows that the government has a very important role to play in support of seasonal industries.

Let us not forget that Canada is a northern country where seasonal industries are prevalent. When the government withdraws from these industries, not only does it create long-term problems, it also empties out the regions. The people leaving have to find somewhere else to go. When they arrive in the big city, they struggle. They do not have the means to start a life in the big city as long as the federal government does not have a long-term strategy.

Regional support is being slashed while, at the same time, these people are not getting the tools they need to settle elsewhere. What is more, the cuts being made are such that well-established regional industries get even less support than before.

[Paulina Ayala, NDP, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the opposition plays a fundamental role in the parliamentary system. According to a paper I read from the Library of Parliament:

Parliament, after all, is fundamentally about debate…and the transacting of the people's business in public.…A vigorous opposition in Parliament can be the chief bulwark against the temptation [for a majority government that wishes to do everything without debate].

In Bill C-60, the Conservatives are attempting for a second time to escape parliamentary and public scrutiny. Does my colleague agree with me that our democracy is suffering?

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are going through a period in which the government appears to be circumventing the idea of building consensus in the country. It disregards the parliamentary tools at its disposal to assist it in building consensus. On the contrary, it constantly seeks to oppose. The government does not want to discuss. Once again, there is very little debate about a bill as important as Bill C-60, which will amend 59 laws. Previously, there was very little debate on Bills C-38 and C-45, which amended more than 70 laws.

The same thing happened to a number of bills introduced during the 41st Parliament, or ever since the Conservatives have held a majority. They do not want to take the time to listen to the public's concerns and needs. They disregard them. This is a highly ideological government, which does not listen to the people and has difficulty justifying itself.

We cannot continue this way. We absolutely need a government that listens, that responds to needs, that has a long-term vision and that can promote sustainable economic growth. The goal was not to introduce bills full of ad hoc measures, to turn back time in order to eliminate protections previously put in place or to deregulate industries to the point where the invisible hand of the market reigns supreme.

We have seen the consequences of this kind of thinking, which was at the root of the economic crisis of 2008. We do not want to see that happen again. We want something sustainable. We have no lessons to learn from the present government.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to be able to stand here today and speak to Canada's economic action plan 2013.

I think in the House we can all agree that there are a multitude of elements involved when a person, business or family works towards a common set of goals of success and prosperity. Of course, the individual has a lot to do with the outcomes in terms of the choices we make, our determination and how hard we are willing to work toward the objective.

Admittedly, we share responsibility. The government and all members here share responsibility in helping our citizens achieve those goals. We can provide either stepping stones or barriers. I am very proud to say that our government is providing the stepping stones by putting Canadians and the economy first. It is certainly evident in our latest budget, economic action plan 2013.

Undeniably, a firm base for any healthy economy is a thriving manufacturing and small business environment coupled with job-creating initiatives. Economic action plan 2013 includes our government's plan to make the largest federal investment in job-creating infrastructure in Canadian history, totalling $70 billion over a decade. This investment would help build and repair roads, bridges, subways, rail and more, certainly in communities in Prince Edward—Hastings and across this wonderful country.

There would be a new tax break for new manufacturing machinery and equipment with the accelerated capital cost write-off, which would provide the manufacturing and processing businesses in Ontario alone approximately $560 million in tax relief to grow their companies and create jobs.

Our government has extended and expanded the hiring credit for small businesses for another year, which would see many small businesses in Ontario and across Canada save another $225 million in 2013. I can tell the House that as a small businessman myself with 38 years of experience, in my riding of Prince Edward—Hastings, small businesses are one of the key components of the local economic engine. I can assure the House that this particular initiative would go a long way to helping those businesses grow, prosper and ultimately create more jobs.

We are increasing the lifetime capital gains exemption to $800,000 from $750,000 and indexing it going forward. We are indexing it the same way we indexed the gas tax. This would provide small businesses in Ontario approximately an additional $39 million in tax relief to grow their companies and create more jobs.

I live right next to Trenton Air Base, one of the most significant air transport capitals, not only in Canada, but in the world. We are investing almost $1 billion in the strategic aerospace and defence initiative to enhance the competitiveness of Canada's economically important aerospace and defence industry. We have created the aerospace technology demonstration programs, which would support large-scale technology projects with commercial potential in Ontario and across Canada. We have CAE in Montreal, now with simulators around the world.

The northern regions of my riding had a very active forestry industry, which certainly suffered some severe challenges when the economic downturn hit and the housing boom in the States went off. Therefore, I am pleased that we would be providing $92 million to help the forestry sector in Ontario and across Canada to continue to innovate new products and to expand into new markets.

We would provide $920 million to renew the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario. Since its creation in 2009, FedDev has supported over 340 projects and has played an important role in building a stronger economy in southern Ontario. FedDev has been instrumental in the success of so many projects in Prince Edward—Hastings and across the regions of southern Ontario.

I am very pleased as well to support the eastern Ontario development program, which would be renewed as well. It would continue to promote job creation and business development in all the rural areas of eastern Ontario. As part of the renewal of FedDev, I am very pleased that $200 million would be invested in a new advanced manufacturing fund to help Ontario's manufacturing industry innovate and become much more competitive.

Another ingredient required to maintain economic health is ensuring Canadians get the skills training and the employment-seeking assistance they need. I am fortunate. I have Loyalist College, the brand new skills development centre, which will play a pivotal role in developing skills in my area. Job-seekers know that if they have the right skills and education, they are well on their way to finding a good job. I am proud to say that our government firmly recognizes that, too.

As such, we are providing up to $15,000 per person, in Ontario, with combined federal-provincial-territorial and employer funding to help them get the skills they need for in-demand jobs. That is right; we are helping them to develop the skills for a job that is waiting for them. We know how important education is, especially, in high-demand fields. We will be encouraging students to undertake education in these high-demand fields, including the skilled trades, science, technology, engineering and mathematics.

Our government is also investing $70 million to support an additional 5,000 paid internships for recent post-secondary graduates in Ontario and across Canada. These young people are our future. We are helping them along and providing the initiative for them to get a job.

My riding of Prince Edward—Hastings includes a first nations reserve, Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte—Tyendinaga Mohawk Territory, a very proud and successful local aboriginal group.

I am proud that we are helping first nations students with post-secondary education, by providing $10 million to grant scholarships and bursaries to help them attend a post-secondary education. We realize the importance of engaging first nations youth. They are going to play a tremendous role in our country.

Finally, another very important key to having a robust economy is to limit government's interference in Canadians' wallets.

Winston Churchill once said:

For a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.

It just does not happen.

Our government gets that, unlike the opposition, unfortunately, the tax-and-spend Liberals and the “speNDP”. There is just no end of spending. The solution is very simple with them. Just spend more, spend more, spend more. Unfortunately, we have to find a balance, and we have done that.

Right from the get-go, our government has been dedicated to freeing up Canadians' paycheques by lowering taxes. In economic action plan 2013, our government eliminated tariffs on important items for families, including baby clothing, sports equipment, skates, hockey sticks, golf clubs, and more.

In fact, our Conservative government has cut taxes over 150 times and is saving the average family over $3,000 a year. That can buy a lot of groceries or clothes for the kids, or even allow families that vacation that they have waited for and that they have deserved for so long.

Our government does not put obstacles in the way of Canadians, obstacles like red tape or increased taxes. Our red tape commission said every time we bring in a regulation, we have to get rid of one. That is common sense.

So, yes, we are providing stepping stones to help Canadians achieve the happy and successful lives they want to have.

I am thankful for the opportunity today to talk on economic action plan 2013. I am proud of the initiatives in it. I have had many extensive pre-budget consultations across our riding, with so many different groups. I know our government worked closely with recommendations from the stakeholders, the businesses, the community leaders, the experts in so many fields, to achieve the best use of taxpayer dollars. We have created a budget that will strengthen our economy and solidify our economic recovery.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I note that my colleague opposite would like to suggest that the Conservatives are somehow being generous to first nations when, in fact, there is an alarming 30% funding gap that exists between first nations on reserve and other Canadians whose educations are provided for by the provinces.

So, number one, nothing has been done about that.

Number two, with respect to public funding of post-secondary education, my understanding is the waiting list is so long that people cannot even get on it because there is just not enough funding. My understanding is there are something like 10,000 students waiting on a waiting list in order to get into post-secondary education. Ten million dollars would barely touch that, if at all.

How will the government actually work to create a level playing field between first nations and other members of Canadian society?

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question takes me back. I sat on government operations and public accounts when I first came here nine years ago. The situation with regard to first nations aboriginal education was absolutely horrendous. For five to six years after, we spent more and more money and we did not improve the result.

We then formulated a working group to go forward. We said we had to get more bang from the buck, we have to create more jobs and we have to train our first nations people. We have a strategy now in place, and of course it has been agreed upon by the first nations people themselves, who are part of the solution on the advisory council. The dollar is going forward. The member is incorrect. We are spending more on first nations education than we ever have in the history of this country.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my hon. friend for his speech, but I could not help but notice that he, like other Conservatives, speaks all the time about the taxes that the government cut, but not a peep on the taxes that the government increased.

The 2013 budget document itself says that the tax increases are bigger than the tax cuts, so there is a net tax increase imposed on Canadians. In budget 2012, what do we see? Tax increases bigger than tax cuts, a net tax increase. This is getting a bit repetitive, but it is the same thing in budget 2011 and the same thing in budget 2010. In all of the last four years, the Conservatives have raised taxes by more than they have cut taxes, thereby imposing net tax hikes on Canadians.

My question is, how can this member possibly say that his is the party of lower taxes, when indeed, over the last four years in each and every year, the Conservatives have increased the net tax load facing Canadians?

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is, that just is not true. The hon. member should look at the amount of taxation that has been cut across this country. I know him well. I respect him as a person. Regrettably, every now and then his orientation gets him in little challenging moments.

When we look at the overall tax reduction, the transfers that have been increased to provinces, the increased programs that have been put out there, the bottom line is, yes, we have more money coming in, but what if we did not have a growing economy?

The economy has been growing very well. Naturally, it generates more tax. It generates more income tax when people do well, when they make more money and businesses prosper. To suggest there is no reason for taxes to have a receivable that is a gain would mean we would simply have an economy that is going the other way.

Under the Conservative government we have an economy that grows, hence more taxes coming in. That is a simple equation the hon. member could understand.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today I join my NDP colleagues in opposing Bill C-60, the Conservatives' latest budget implementation bill.

As has unfortunately become a trend in the House, we once again have an omnibus bill that is smaller than previous ones in terms of pages, but is just as devastating.

Bill C-60 amends nearly 50 Canadian laws and even creates a new one: the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act.

Bill C-60 also proposes a number of complex measures that require extensive study in committee or in the House, particularly with respect to the temporary foreign worker program, but the Conservatives are trying to rush them through after abuse was revealed as a result of their poor management of the program and the excessive flexibility.

It is completely unacceptable that the Conservatives are trying to hide their poor decisions from the Canadian public and prevent members from examining the bill, hence avoiding the oversight that all MPs should be providing, whether they are on the government or opposition side. These parliamentarians were sent here by their constituents to represent them and be their voice in the House. They should be able to carefully examine the budget implementation bill without having the Conservative government impose time restrictions as soon as it can.

Although previous omnibus bills were heavily criticized and thousands of Canadians voiced their disapproval, including many from my riding of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, the Conservatives keep persisting. They are doing everything possible to avoid an extensive study in committee, because they know very well that a close study of their bill would highlight the budget's many flaws and their gross incompetence at managing public finances.

As we already know, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance has already suggested limiting the time allotted for studying this bill in committee. The practice in the House, that is, limiting the time allowed for debate, is being reflected in committee. In committee, we find the Conservatives have the same attitude and the same bad faith, as they are still limiting parliamentarians’ opportunities to do their work and represent their constituents properly.

The Conservatives are trying to make Canadians believe that they are the only ones equipped to manage Canada’s economy properly, but if we take a look at their record to date, obviously this makes no sense, and Canadians across the country are well aware of it.

It is not just NDP members or members of the other opposition parties that are making these kinds of comments. Last weekend when I was walking around in my riding, the subject that was brought up most frequently by the constituents I met was the $3.1 billion that mysteriously disappeared under this government’s watch. Frankly, that has shocked and horrified people.

That is why we should be able to take a closer look at the bills this government is introducing, whether they have a direct impact on the economy or not. The Conservatives put on a great show, but if you scratch the surface a little, their façade falls apart quite quickly. The Conservatives do not have the abilities they are bragging about.

Instead of bringing in a budget with concrete measures to create jobs and stimulate the economy, the government is doing exactly the opposite. In fact, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the Conservative government’s 2013 budget is more likely to eliminate thousands of jobs, reduce direct program spending and significantly diminish growth in Canada’s gross domestic product.

Canada's economic recovery is already happening more slowly than anticipated. The Minister of Finance even had to revise his predictions, before being quickly chastised by the Prime Minister, who is only thinking about the 2015 election, as though he had blinders on. On reading this budget, it is obvious that the Conservatives are only thinking about the 2015 election and that they forget that the cuts they make now will have a drastic impact on Canadians.

I do not even need to go back to my riding to hear this. I just have to walk around Parliament Hill. Since all parliamentarians use taxis, if you just take a few minutes to talk with the drivers, you quickly realize that the cuts that the Conservatives have been making ever since they came into power are having a major impact.

Taxi drivers already have fewer hours and fewer clients. Their income is lower, as is their chance of contributing to the economy. The same thing is happening in the restaurant business and in all the other small businesses in the national capital region. The situation in Ottawa will be matched in other cities throughout Canada. All those lost jobs mean lower incomes for families, who will have fewer and fewer opportunities to contribute to the economy.

The equation is very simple. This government is already finding it difficult to reduce its spending. Consequently, it will be cutting the delivery of essential services to Canadians. Despite it all, the Conservatives are unable to replenish their coffers because they are giving huge tax credits and all kinds of gifts to their friends in big oil companies, the gas industry and the big banks. Then they end up with deficits. We know that this government has record deficits. This charade that the Conservatives put on every day is absolutely pointless. Canadians are becoming increasingly aware of what they are doing.

For the past few weeks, people have been talking about how the 2013 budget will increase Canadians’ tax burden by raising taxes on just about everything that exists, such as safety deposit boxes, baby strollers, bicycles, wigs for people who have cancer, parking at hospitals, and I could go on. The list is so long that I would squander my entire speech listing all the tax hikes in this budget.

I hear such nonsense from the other side of the House. The Conservatives talk about the carbon tax of $20 billion or $21 billion, sometimes $19 billion—we do not really know anymore. Someone in the Prime Minister’s Office must get his numbers mixed up sometimes. We do not have a carbon tax in our platform, but the government is accusing us of wanting to impose it. The measures in this budget are mind-boggling; the government failed to meet the public's expectations. I am almost speechless at its talent for hiding the truth from Canadians by controlling debate in the House, by limiting the time available for study of a bill in committee and by hiding tax measures that would be unacceptable to most Canadians in the countless pages of the budget.

I am frankly overwhelmed by the hypocrisy shown by this government, especially when I read the budget. The NDP cannot but vote against most of the measures put forward. But we must show some good faith: there are a few good things in the budget. Some money has been and will potentially be set aside for the repair of federal infrastructure, such as wharves. I am thinking that the Percé wharf may benefit, as may the wharf in Portneuf, in my riding, which is the longest deep-water wharf in Canada and one that is badly in need of repair. These funds may help my community, if, of course, political issues do not block access to funds that are critically important, both to my region and that of my colleague from Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine.

Despite these positive steps, most of the measures in the budget oblige us to vote against it. The Conservatives have the upper hand, saying that the NDP votes against all the measures that the Conservatives put forward, but when they wrap them in such an appalling package, we as the opposition have no choice but to speak up to defend the real priorities of Canadians and do the job for which we were sent to this House.

Let us take a look at all the measures taken by the Conservative government: withdrawing from the Kyoto protocol; crippling our environmental legislation; eliminating protection for thousands of lakes and rivers throughout Canada, several hundred, perhaps even several thousand, of which are in my own riding; increasing the retirement age to 67; and reforming employment insurance. I was talking about a case in my riding where experienced employees were threatened by Service Canada with losing their benefits if they did not give up their current seasonal jobs and take full-time jobs somewhere else. They are trying to hollow out the seasonal industries and shut down entire sectors of our economy.

When these kinds of decisions are made so dogmatically and by keeping people in the dark, it is obvious that Canadians will be better served by the NDP in 2015.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague across the way. She serves on the committee that I chair, where she is a new addition, and we appreciate her being there, although I am troubled by some of the comments she gave in her speech. She used words like “appalling” when she talked about the strategic plan this government has. She used some pretty tough language.

Canada has the best job creation in the G7. The International Monetary Fund and the OECD are projecting that Canada will have the strongest growth of all the industrialized countries over the next number of years. For the eighth straight year, the World Economic Forum has said that Canada's banking system is the most sound and on the firmest foundation around the world. We see many countries where financial institutions in the banking sector are faltering, and it is driving the whole economy into a turmoil with uncertainty.

Canada has a AAA rating. Why do you use words such as “appalling” and “no strategy”? This shows that the strategy we have is working.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Before I go to the member, I just remind all hon. members to direct their comments and questions to the Chair, rather than to their colleagues.

The hon. member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and his kind comments about the good work I do on the committee. I thank him for welcoming me when I arrived.

To get back to the question, the jobs created by the government—the ones that have really been created, since jobs are also being lost—are precarious and are often part-time jobs. They are not of the same quality of the jobs that existed before, and that is very unfortunate. Obviously, the Conservatives do not really have much of a strategy.

I was just talking about a case in my riding relating to employment insurance. That case is a perfect example of what I am describing. Some sectors of the economy are being undermined to try to replace some Canadians who had a job where their expertise was being put to use. That was very beneficial to the company they were working for.

Today, Service Canada is threatening that these people will lose their benefits if they do not change industries. These are the situations I am describing. It all goes to show that the Conservatives basically do not have a strategy.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the current government spends more on political spin than any other government in the history of Canada. It is truly amazing.

The previous questioner asked about Canada's greatest banking industry. We have the greatest banking here in Canada, compared to anywhere else in the world, because of former prime minister Jean Chrétien. The government takes credit for wanting to balance a budget. It is projecting to be able to do that after the next federal election. It was Paul Martin who had the last balanced budget. When it talks about taxes, the current government has had net tax increases for the last four consecutive years.

What I will concede to the Conservatives is their ability to spin. They spend endless tax dollars on spin. Does the member believe that the current government is abusive when it comes to tax dollars and putting political spin on things that are just not true?

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

In fact, the NDP has been criticizing the Conservatives for a long time for spending millions of dollars on party propaganda. Quite frankly, these advertisements are not providing the public with any new information, apart from the fact that they tell us a little more about the Conservatives' ideology.

The purpose of these advertisements is supposed to be to provide information to the public; however, in practical terms, that is not what the Conservative advertising does. The Conservative ads are pure and simple propaganda. The Conservatives are spending millions of dollars in public money on this advertising when there are crying needs elsewhere, such as in infrastructure. I am thinking of water systems, for example.

In the last budget, the government did not present a single practical measure with regard to the strategy to implement and manage municipal waste water systems. In my riding, 1,400 residents need water lines built. They are unable to cover the cost of this work, and there is nothing in the budget for that.

Rather than spending millions of dollars on propaganda advertising, why not invest it to give municipalities the resources they need to actually meet the needs of their residents?

[Merv Tweed, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to put some comments on the record in regard to today's topic. It is important that we all recognize that this is about the future of Canada, the future of young people in our communities, and the opportunity to create the growth and long-term prosperity we all seek for our communities, provinces and country.

It is not easy. Tough decisions have to be made. People have to spend a lot of time making decisions that they know are going to hurt at times, but when looking at the bigger picture, people realize that some of the decisions being made today are being made with the future in mind and the opportunities that it will present.

We have constantly delivered the message to Canadians that we need to continue to work with the economy and look at the economics of our country and how it operates. We have been successful. The world recognizes Canada as one of the strongest economies in the world and suggests that our banking system is strong, committed and firm. Those key elements being in place makes the objective of moving forward and strengthening our communities a challenge but also a way forward so we can get things done.

We continually remain focused on those issues. We want to balance the budget during this Parliament, and the Minister of Finance has taken great steps toward accomplishing that. We also want to create a new opportunity for innovative skills training, the largest and longest federal infrastructure plan in our history, and new investments to support manufacturing and innovation in Canada.

A budget, along with its implementation and looking forward to the future, is like building a house. If there is not a strong foundation, everything built above the foundation will never be stable until the foundation is right. I believe this budget moves us forward on that path. We will create a strong foundation. We have done it in the past. Our jobs record and long predictable funding for infrastructure are indications that the plan is working.

I want to talk about a few issues. I know there is a lot of good news in this package, but there are certain things that are dear to my heart and I suggest are important to the people who I represent in Brandon—Souris.

One of the new programs we brought forward is the Canada job grant. It matches the needs of employers with the training of Canadians and, in turn, creates opportunities for the job seekers and employers to match up. I have had experience in this. In the past, when I sent staff for courses, there was no guarantee they would come back once they were finished. Now I have a stake in it. I am not only the employer, but I am going to put some money forward and help train people to get the skills required for the businesses that need it. It is not going to be decided by what area of a school or community college we can put the funding in just to fill spaces. That is no longer going to happen.

Employers are going to embrace this. They will have huge input into the training that is made available, but they will also have some management control over graduating students, in the sense that the students will have the opportunity to go back to work for them. It is a big step and, as I said, we need participation. It could provide up to $15,000 per person, or even more, and it would ensure that Canadians are acquiring the skills employers are seeking.

The Canadian government would provide up to $5,000, an amount matched by the province and/or territory, and another $5,000 matched by the employer. It would put all funding bodies on the same level, with the same idea of matching skills to the needs.

I had the great pleasure of serving as a municipal councillor many years ago. The gas tax initiative would provide more than $32 billion to municipalities for projects such as roads, public transit, recreational facilities and other community infrastructure.

My experience has been that this has been one of the best programs that has been made available to municipalities for infrastructure. Whether they are big, small or in between, they can still benefit and make plans to move forward when they know the funding is committed. It is stable and it would increase every year. That is what municipalities have asked for. That is what the Federation of Canadian Municipalities has requested for years. We have done it. It is something of which we can be very proud. They would be indexed at 2% a year, starting in 2014-15, with increases to be applied in $100 million increments. This would allow many communities to move forward with the infrastructure projects they need.

In my area, we have a real boom in the oil industry taking place right now, and the infrastructure is in need of updating, although it is adequate, and new infrastructure needs to be provided as we are seeing communities bursting at the seams with families, students in our schools and people in our health care facilities. Everything is being utilized to the maximum, and we must move forward. This would allow those communities to do that.

I also want to mention the building Canada fund, in which we participated in the last round of funding. There is $14 billion allocated to support major economic projects of national, regional and local significance. We all know the need is there, listening to the speeches today and in the past, particularly in communities. There is a need for fresh water, better infrastructure, sewage and lagoon sites and better infrastructure for our highways, roads and bridges.

It is important that we recognize the significance of national projects. Sometimes we get a little sour that someone in some part of Canada is getting a large amount of money for an infrastructure project and we say “What about me?” However, when we see the benefit that one investment makes to enhance the national scope, we all become more aware of how beneficial it is and how communities are taking advantage of it.

There is also the renewed P3 Canada fund that would provide $1.25 billion to continue to support innovative ways to build infrastructure. I have been part of a provincial government that went into a P3 with a company. We built a bridge. There was a lot of controversy and discussion around it when we went forward with it, but at the end of the day, it has been functioning now for I believe more than 15 years. I have not heard anything other than positive feedback about the fact that it has been done.

We do want to build a stronger economy. We do want to promote job growth. In my discussions with many of the people in the manufacturing industry, one of the comments they make to me is how much they appreciate the temporary accelerated capital cost allowance. They can actually go out and buy something today and have the writeoff value in that year or the second year. I can remember, in a private business, we bought equipment and it took us 25 years to write it off. We all know that in 25 years it is obsolete, but it cannot be moved off the books in a timely fashion. The investment is there and Canadians are taking advantage of it.

I know my time is very limited, but I am very proud to support the budget. It is something Canadians have asked of our government. They want us to be responsible, but they also want us to be forward looking. I think we have accomplished that. We have created a balance where we are going to continue to create new jobs. More than 900,000 new jobs have been created since the downturn, and the majority of them have been full-time jobs, not part-time, not government jobs, but in the private sector. That is how we move our country forward. I will be pleased to support the budget when it comes forward for the vote in the future.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conference Board of Canada came out with a report just recently, the 2013 Mid-Sized Cities Outlook. It looked particularly at the city of Brandon and said that since 2008 the economy of Brandon has shrunk by 1.6%. It is hardly a thing to brag about, if the economy of Brandon is hurting right now.

The report says that half of Canada's mid-size cities have not recouped the jobs they lost during the recession. These are places like Medicine Hat, Miramichi and Brandon. What is the government going to do to create real jobs and to make the economy grow? It obviously has not been doing it.

[Merv Tweed, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from my colleague, but I think it is important to recognize that the Government of Manitoba for the last several years has been an NDP government. It has run deficits and debts every year. In fact, this year it imposed another 1% tax on the people of Manitoba because of reckless spending and careless spending. I welcome the opportunity to debate that anywhere in the world. Brandon has a less than 1% unemployment rate. We do not need a lesson from the NDP to tell us how to spend it. The NDP in Manitoba has taken $600 million out of Manitoba taxpayers' pockets in the last two budgets, and I say shame on it.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with many of the member's comments in regard to the NDP in Saskatchewan. Being a resident of Manitoba, I am sure members would appreciate why I would say that, being very concerned about the future of my province.

A number of years back, the government was handed a wonderful position in the sense that it was given a huge budget surplus. Since receiving that surplus, the government has turned that multi-billion-dollar surplus into a multi-billion dollar deficit. In this budget, the government now talks about getting rid of the deficit after the next federal election.

I wonder if the member could tell Canadians why they should believe that the government can do anything in terms of getting rid of a deficit, when the opposite has been the case in every year since Conservatives formed government.

[Merv Tweed, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I do gladly admit that it is a real challenge living in southwestern Manitoba on the border of Saskatchewan. Investors come to our part of the country and they drive 15 minutes and they are into Saskatchewan, into a whole new tax regime, a whole new opportunity where their investment is secured. The ability to draw those people is so much easier because they can be offered such a benefit in their tax regime.

I have been a part of this government and I am very proud of the fact that we have reduced taxes. We have given people more opportunity to spend their money. I met with a young family yesterday with a new child. They commented that it may not seem like a lot, but $100 a month means something to them to put away for their child's future. That was brought forward by our government, and we will continue to do what is right for Canadians, families and all of Canada.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Minister of State (Transport)]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Brandon—Souris for his very enthusiastic speech. The member has done a tremendous number of good and great things for Manitoba, both at the municipal and provincial levels and now at the federal level. I wonder if he could elaborate on the infrastructure plan and how it ties in with the job grants initiative in the budget and what that would mean for a community such as Brandon or the rural areas of his riding.

[Merv Tweed, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that question, because I often tell people that Brandon is the major part of my community, but I represent 40-plus smaller communities that make up the fabric of my community. The municipalities are now collectively saying they know they cannot do this themselves, but they have guaranteed income. They would like to develop a plan for a road, a bridge or some sort of infrastructure that benefits the region. That is what has happened. People are now thinking beyond their own community and thinking of the bigger picture. Similar to what I said about the national projects, we do not always see the direct benefit, but we do see the benefit to all of Canada. Brandon and Brandon—Souris have benefited greatly from the government's programs.

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

Mr. Speaker, with its recent budget, the Conservative Party is continuing its frontal attack on Quebec. Apparently, the Conservatives did not appreciate Quebeckers' refusal to vote for them, and so they decided to abandon one part of Canada's population and send the money somewhere where they would have a chance of winning some ridings. Quebeckers have heard a lot of bad news and, unfortunately, the measures in this bill are only the tip of the iceberg.

Let us begin with the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec. Last year in the House, the Conservatives assured us that the expected cuts would affect only the department's operating budget, and not transfer payments. That is not the case. Not only did the Conservatives cut the department's operating budget, but worse yet, they savagely reduced transfer payments to their lowest level since the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec Act came into force on October 5, 2005.

I looked it up in the public accounts which, unlike the Conservatives, are incapable of playing with the words and numbers. I am going to list the transfer payments, which are distinct from the agency's operating costs. In the 2005 public accounts, $286 million was paid out in transfers. In 2006, it was $293 million. In 2006-07, $316 million went in transfer payments. In 2007-08, it was $286 million. In 2008-09, it was $243 million. Here we see the numbers going down. In 2009-2010, transfers went up to $342 million. In 2010-11, it was $424 million. Then, in 2011-12, after the Conservative majority government was elected with only 10% support in Quebec, it was only $253 million. Finally, in 2012-13, the prediction is $252 million, an amount that will drop to $212 million in 2013-14.

I would remind the House that a 2013 dollar is worth less than a 2005 dollar, because of inflation. The Conservatives promised last year that they would decrease only the administrative expenses, and not the transfers. Yet, at $212 million, we have reached a very low point. Can the Conservatives tell us clearly what they intend to do with the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec? Are they abolishing it by stealth? Many businesses in Quebec need this government assistance. What is the Conservatives' plan? Do they want to abandon Quebec? Why have other regional agencies seen their budgets increase? Why is funding being increased in one place and decreased in another?

I do not suppose that the Prime Minister's office has written up answers for these questions, and so I do not even expect a response from Conservative members.

Economic action plan 2013 will reduce the labour-sponsored venture capital corporations tax credit, also known as the federal tax credit for labour funds, from 15% to 10% in 2015. The tax credit will decrease from 10% to 5% in 2016, and will be completely phased out in 2017. We all know that the Conservatives’ narrow ideology dictates their policies. However, in this case, the Conservatives are directly attacking unions and they are attacking Quebec, whether they mean to or not. This tax credit is most popular in Quebec; 85% of those using it are Quebeckers. Even though labour funds do not provide the highest returns in the market, they are so popular in Quebec that many people who would not otherwise invest are investing in these funds. Many small businesses do not provide any retirement plan, and for their employees, labour funds are the only investment they make.

Quebeckers contribute less than other Canadians to RRSPs. We finally have a program that works, and all of a sudden it ends. How typically Conservative.

Generally speaking, this budget increases taxes more than it reduces them. It is certainly a good idea for the government to try to balance the budget, especially since the Conservatives have done nothing but increase the debt since they came to power.

However, the government must not try to balance the budget by gouging Canadians. For instance, taxes on small business owners will increase by $2.3 billion over five years.

We are just emerging from the economic crisis, and our economy is still quite fragile. This is what we are hearing on a daily basis from the Conservatives across the way. With measures of this kind, we are likely to drive many companies out of business, increase the number of unemployed Canadians and weaken Canada’s economy.

At the same time, the penny-pinching Conservatives are sending public servants to harass the unemployed. They are raising taxes on credit unions by $75 million annually, an increase that will cause serious problems for economies in rural regions. They are attacking another one of Quebec’s traditions.

To put it frankly, none of this makes any sense after such a major economic crisis, but we understand why this government improvises more often than not.

The crisis was particularly hard on young people, whose unemployment rate is now five points higher than it was before 2008. Young people, who have just finished their term or will soon be completing their school year, will not have any work this summer. Those young people will not save any money for the next academic year, which will push many into debt.

That will also have a negative impact on the economy as a whole since these young people will consume less this summer, which means less revenue for many businesses. Nevertheless, this budget contains no measures to promote youth employment.

We support some measures, but the budget on the whole does not meet Canadians' needs. What is more, the government has once again introduced an omnibus bill in order to pass measures that have nothing to do with the budget.

The Conservatives' ideological obsession is apparent throughout Bill C-60. Despite its right-wing ideology, this government has increased waste since 2006 and passed the cost on to Canadians.

We can also see from this budget that the Conservatives have completely abandoned Quebec. The elimination of the labour-sponsored fund tax credit, which is very popular in Quebec, and the significant cuts in funding for Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions show that the Conservatives have given up on Quebec for the next election.

A good government should not favour one region over another. Instead it should unify the country by acting in the interests of all Canadians, which is what the Liberal Party of Canada will do when it forms the government in 2015.

We will repair the damage done by the Conservatives and will act for all Canadians.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech by the member opposite.

He talked a lot about statistics and Canada Economic Development. I would like to ask him a question about the statistics since he seems to really like them.

How many chiefs of staff, senior advisors and communications directors from the former Liberal government got jobs at the Economic Development Agency of Canada around 2005, especially in the month of December?

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

Mr. Speaker, I have not counted the number of people who have a job there. However, I know that there cannot be too many former Liberals there because the Conservatives are sure to get rid of them, whether they were involved in politics or not.

I did not talk about administrative costs. They reduced some of these costs, but that is fine by me.

The problem lies with the direct transfers to Quebeckers, the money that helps them. In 2011, these transfers totalled $424 million. It is estimated that these transfers will be $211 million in 2014. To my calculations, that represents a 50% reduction for Quebec's regional economic development budget.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the member is aware, but yet another 350 jobs were lost in his colleague's riding of Etobicoke North when Caterpillar decided to close the once famous and world-renowned Lovat tunnel manufacturer, which was an American company that took over a Canadian world leader. However, this Liberal colleague has voted against our motion to stop FIPA, and the Liberal leader supports the takeover of Nexen.

How does the member feel about the changes to the Investment Canada Act that would drastically reduce the number of takeovers that would be examined by the Minister of Industry, given that we have just lost another 350 jobs as a result of an American takeover?

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

Mr. Speaker, again we are seeing the shortsightedness of the NDP. That is why, at the end of my speech, I said that the Liberals were going to come back into power, because we are able to balance the right and the left.

We do not look at 350 jobs. We are looking at the 350,000 manufacturing jobs that have been lost since the Conservative government took over, with the help of the NDP. That is the problem. It is not the 350 jobs. Hopefully, by signing free trade agreements, we have been able to bring in extra employment for Canadian workers. However, the current government, with its politics, has not been able to create extra opportunities so that people can find proper jobs.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, for the last number of years, we have witnessed the Conservative government, year after year, have a net increase in taxes collected. This is not a regime that cuts taxes. It is a regime that applies a tax wherever it gets the opportunity to apply it. It prefers to do it through the back door. One of the greatest back-door tax increases being applied this year by the Conservative government is through tariffs.

I wonder if my colleague could share with viewers and members of the Conservative Party, in this year of hiking taxes, how much money the government is going to be collecting in taxes this year from the tariffs alone.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are still trying to add up how much the tax increases will be, because there are so many that are hidden. However, I will answer the question directly. Based on our calculations on just the tariffs, there will be a tax increase of $300 million this year for Canadian taxpayers.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour to speak to the economic action plan 2013 and what it would do as a continuation of our previous budgets to help stimulate and continue to grow this great Canada in which we live.

The budget is a commitment we have made to create jobs and balance the budget. We will continue to do that. We have seen previous initiatives of the economic action plan come into play and keep our country expanding as we move forward.

Since 2006, we have created nearly 1.5 million net new jobs. From July 2009 alone, 90% of the jobs created were full time, and 80% were in private industry. That is the objective. That is what we want, full time jobs in private business, because private business hires people and stimulates the economy.

For the first time in more than three decades, Canada's unemployment rate is lower than that of our neighbour, the United States. That does not happen without a considerable amount of thought and strategy, not only by our Prime Minister but by our cabinet and also the Minister of Finance who, by the way, has been nominated as the best finance minister in the world, I believe rightly. We have to recognize that things do not just happen; they come because we plan and put a vision forward.

In the past, we introduced universal child care because we are interested in families. Those families with children under six get $1,200 a year, and they get to make the decisions about how to raise their families.

We have given a family caregiver tax credit and a volunteer firefighter tax credit. I live in a rural municipality. My riding is a large rural one with very many small towns, 50 or 60, and they all have volunteer fire departments. The volunteer firefighter tax credit of $3,000 was a huge issue for them, just to recognize some of the work they do not only in their departments but in their communities for all of us.

We decreased the GST from 7% to 6% to 5%. I remember the debate at that time. Whether an individual buys a chocolate bar or a shirt, it is only a few cents or a dollar. In my riding, for every 1%, it left $18 million in the pockets of my constituents. We dropped that 2%. That was $36 million that was left in the pockets of our families in Lambton—Kent—Middlesex.

That meant people had that money at their disposal and at their discretion, whether it was to buy for the needs of a family, pay down a mortgage or help replace a car. Those are a lot of dollars that came into effect and were of benefit to each and every family in my riding of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex.

In this last budget we introduced the Canada job grant. This is quite a unique and a very forward-thinking proposition, which brings in partnerships. I have always believed that, if we are to succeed, very seldom do we do it on our own. We do it by embracing those around us with like minds on the way we can move forward. The Canada job grant would provide up to $15,000 per person to help Canadians get the skills they need.

When I talk about a partnership, it is up to $5,000 each from the federal government, the provincial government and the employer. This would give ownership of that employer in helping to get students back in the business and come out of a job with some experience. That seems to be one of the biggest issues right now. Everybody wants to have experience, but when students get out of college or university without experience, it becomes difficult to land a job.

In Lambton—Kent—Middlesex we do not have large corporations. Our businesses are small. Two or three are medium sized, but basically, we are a small business riding. We have small businesses and agriculture.

We extended the hiring credit for small businesses with $225,000 invested. It assists small businesses by giving them a hiring credit so that they can hire someone, likely a student. It also gives students an opportunity to gain more experience. They can see if it is actually the job they want to do. That has been important to the businesses in my riding.

We would also further tax relief for manufacturers through the two-year extension of the temporary accelerated capital cost allowance for new machinery and equipment. Technology and innovation are changing so quickly that businesses need some sort of accelerated capital writeoff. My colleague spoke earlier about having antiquated equipment after 20 years. It takes that long to write it off. Equipment does not last that long. We needed to make sure that if we were going to have a healthy industry in manufacturing, and if we wanted to continue to help it grow, we wanted to help that along by providing an accelerated capital cost allowance.

Something that is important in my riding, which has small businesses and agriculture, as I mentioned, is the capital gains exemption. It was established at $750,000 and has been sitting there since we changed it. Do not hold me to the date, but I am going to say that in 2008 we moved it up from $500,000 to $750,000. We saw it as a benefit to those who are generating the economy in our country and in our ridings to increase the capital gains exemption to $800,000. However, we are not locking it in at that. We are actually indexing it over the years so that it will meet the new limits through inflation.

We continue to stand behind farmers, families and communities. We introduced the first-time donor's super credit. Some may be asking what that means. As I mentioned, I come from an area of small towns. They rely so much on volunteers. They rely so much on charitable organizations to carry out the functions within their communities that governments cannot. What I have found in rural areas is that, proportionately, they dig deep into their pockets. They dig deep to help those in need, whether it is for a disease or a health issue or for a financial issue. For those making charitable donations, we have extended that super credit to give them an accelerated writeoff on their first-time donation.

The Federation of Canadian Municipalities said that they needed to make sure that they had sustainable funding for infrastructure. We have been very strong in moving forward on that. We would index the gas tax funds. That amount of money will now continue to grow. It is a significant part of what the municipalities in my riding use for infrastructure funding. It forms part of the $53 billion in long-term support for infrastructure. It is roads and bridges, water and sewers. They are the things homeowners and businesses need. If we are going to produce the products to get to market, we have to make sure that we have the roads, the bridges and the infrastructure to get them to those markets.

Additionally, we have to realize that what is important for the strength of our businesses and our individuals are low taxes. It does not matter where one goes, low taxes make it. We have the lowest tax structure we have had in 50 years.

This is part of the big plan of the economic action plan that has been started. It will continue to take us through as we grow Canada and our economy. It is indeed my pleasure to say that I will be supporting this budget.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is also a budget that would have hundreds of tax hikes on everything from hospital parking to credit unions and safety deposit boxes. These hikes would cost Canadians nearly $8 billion over five years. I want to ask the member about the hospital parking. I am sure he knows that there is a huge constituency out there of people who are hopping mad about how they get caught by hospital parking. It is very high. Now to know that there would be a tax on top of that from the current federal government would really add insult to injury.

How can the member, after giving that speech, defend that kind of proposition where people would get taxed even on hospital parking?

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the HST is actually already there; it is just now it would be collected. The other part of it is that when we reduced the GST from 7% to 6% to 5%, everybody in this House, except for this side, wanted to oppose that. We have reduced the taxes in this country some 1,900 times. An average family of four would pay $3,200 less per year in taxes than it did when we formed government in 2006.

Therefore, it is pretty clear and really quite obvious. One of the things we talk about is jobs and prosperity, about families and leaving more money in their pockets to buy the things they need, and they make those priorities. It is important that we keep those taxes low so that our families and our businesses can sustain themselves and grow.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member, my colleague, spoke about keeping taxes low. Does he realize that in budget 2010 the Conservative government increased taxes by $729 million, in budget 2011 the Conservatives raised taxes by $2.2 billion, in budget 2012 they raised taxes by $3.5 billion, and in budget 2013 they would raise taxes by $3.3 billion? The cumulative tax increase is about $10 billion, and that does not include the $600 million-plus per year with increases in EI premiums.

Does the member realize that his Conservative government colleagues are tax-aholics, and are they willing to admit they have a problem? The first step in a 12-step program is that they have to first admit they have a problem, that they are tax-aholics over there.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wish I had 10 minutes to answer that question, quite honestly. The members have to know where his numbers may or may not come from. We have the lowest taxes in this country in 50 years. As I mentioned earlier, we have a savings of $3,200 for a family of four.

His comment on EI premiums is interesting. When that member and his party formed the government, they had the EI premiums so high that there was a huge surplus of $57 billion in the EI fund, made up of employers' and employees' money. That previous government saw fit to take that out of that fund, and they wonder how it was so easy to balance the budget. They cannot balance a budget by using other people's money that they have put in for a specific purpose. Not only that, but they gutted the Canadian Forces and cut the transfers to the provinces, for example, in Ontario 25% to health care. We continue to increase our premiums to the health care system in Ontario, 6% across the country. We will not cut costs for our Canadian citizens.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be speaking to Bill C-60 today. I listened to my colleagues across the way and was intrigued to hear them say that they lowered taxes, when really the bill will increase taxes and cost Canadians as much as $8 billion.

The Conservatives lowered taxes, but it will cost $8 billion. Not bad. It reminds me of the scandal surrounding the $3.1 billion. The Conservatives do not know where that money is. Here we are talking about $8 billion. They did not increase taxes, but it is costing $8 billion. As my NDP colleague said, the Conservatives are taxing hospital parking, as if people do not feel bad enough to see someone they care about in the hospital. Often, these people are not well-off, but are people in need. Yet, they will still have to pay a tax on parking when they want to go visit their loved ones.

The Conservatives say that they have not raised taxes. However, they have raised taxes on credit unions, safety deposit boxes and the Fonds de solidarité FTQ, one of the best investment funds in Canada. The number of jobs that have been saved because of this labour-sponsored investment fund is simply incredible. The jobs it saved still exist because the employers, the employees and the union all entered into agreements.

Companies that were about to go bankrupt worked together and this program has proven its effectiveness. No other organization has gotten the same kinds of returns. I am boasting about the FTQ fund because the same type of fund was attempted in New Brunswick, but since there are fewer people in that province—just 750,000 versus 7 million in Quebec—the fund was not the same. However, it worked in Quebec. Seeing that the program worked, the government decided to pull out for one simple reason: it is anti-union. The government treats us as though it is our boss.

I find it funny that the same is not said about chambers of commerce. Chambers of commerce are essentially employer unions. I have not heard the Conservatives say anything bad about chambers of commerce or employer unions. The Conservatives have no problem listening to them. When a business association appears in committee, the Conservatives are all ears. However, the government does not hesitate to bash workers.

I will now talk about the Conservatives on the other side of the House. Imagine this. The budget gave them the opportunity to cancel their changes to EI. They said that they lowered EI premiums. Indeed, they cut premiums. However, they then prevented workers from accessing EI. How smart. The Liberals increased it by nearly 3%. They then stole $57 billion from the EI fund. The only difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals is that the Liberals stole $57 billion from the EI fund and the Conservatives legalized that theft. They passed a bill and then it was done. The theft was legalized. That is the only difference between the two.

We live in a country that has provinces and elected premiers. Workers fall under provincial jurisdiction. The provinces are responsible for workers, their training, and so on. The federal Conservative government says that employment insurance falls under its jurisdiction and that it will decide what happens in the provinces. It is going to take that away from the provinces. During the EI reform in 1996, they decided to create part II of the employment insurance legislation. Part II was supposed to establish training and they were supposed to provide funding to the provinces. Earlier I heard my Conservative colleague across the floor say that they changed all that, because the training being given was bad and useless, because it was just sending people to college. This means that they have no respect for the provinces.

The premiers of the Atlantic provinces met last week. They concluded that this makes no sense at all. Accordingly, they are calling on the federal government to declare a moratorium on the EI changes and to do an impact study.

That would be a sign of respect. Four Atlantic provinces are calling for this, and so is Quebec. These are all Atlantic provinces, in a way. Five provinces of Canada are telling their federal Prime Minister that he is making a mistake and that he is destroying their regional economy.

Who is the Prime Minister to say that that is not how it works, because he held consultations? Who did he consult? New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and Labrador and Quebec are all saying that they were not consulted. It appears that Alberta was the only province that was consulted. Did the Conservatives only consult big oil?

Apart from big oil companies, who has $5,000 to set aside for each employee? Certainly not companies in my region. Small businesses do not have this $5,000. A new start-up that wants to hire 20 people does not have it. If the government wanted to do the right thing and connect workers, I have a recommendation, and it would not cost very much.

In Alberta, foreign workers are hired ahead of Canadians. Training could have been offered to our Canadians.

I would like to talk about a job ad that I have here. It was posted by and for the Government of Canada. It is a job for a scaffolder in Alberta. These are the requirements: education, certificates, licences, courses or memberships: not required; five or more years' experience; language of work: English; other languages: Polish, Portuguese, Punjabi and Spanish. French is not spoken. I have the ad in my hands. There is other information. It is not so bad: English is not required because it is not a basic skill needed to work in the isolated camps located two hours north of Fort McMurray.

I have a suggestion for the government if it wants to find workers. Becoming a scaffolder takes 11 weeks of training. People in my riding would like to work there and they are Canadians. Why not allocate the money needed to provide the 11 weeks of training?

If the government is asking for five years' experience in this job ad, and no education or certification, it is because foreign workers have this experience but not the education or certification. Requiring five years' experience excludes Canadians. We no longer have scaffolders with five years' experience. They all have jobs. The government has excluded workers who could have been trained and put to work.

The Conservatives could have done much better with this budget. This government boasts about being the workers' friend. So what has it done for them? In the Atlantic provinces and Quebec, it is ruining seasonal employment. There are no more seasonal jobs.

The government is jeopardizing seasonal jobs in our regions, whether they are in the tourism or fishing industry. That is what the government is doing and it is unfortunate. The budget before us certainly is not intended for Canadians.

The government is increasing taxes. What is more, this is an omnibus bill. The government has put everything in it. We will debate it for five days, and that is it.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture]

Mr. Speaker, following up on my colleague's last comment about seasonal workers, I would like to know why it is that the member would be opposed to a seasonal worker taking an alternate job within the local region that is a good match for his or her skill set.

These are the parameters of the EI changes. The EI changes are not sweeping changes with no restrictions. The seasonal worker has to have a good skill set match with a job that is available or is being offered, and it has to be within a reasonable distance of where the person lives.

If there is a job offering in the local community, for example, why would the member be opposed to that seasonal worker taking that job when unemployed or at those times when the person is not employed during seasonal work?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his question.

Do the Conservatives know anything about business? Go talk to a company that has trained an employee and paid for that training. If that worker goes elsewhere, the company will lose him. That is what you do not understand about seasonal work.

We see nothing wrong with people working. Do you think we live on another planet? We want people to work. Create jobs instead of having them not work. Have employees work in secondary and tertiary processing plants. Invest in the regions so that people can work in secondary and tertiary processing plants. Create real jobs instead of forcing people to go look for work when there is still work to be done in the plants. That is what is happening.

You are scaring 60-year-old women by saying that they will lose their employment insurance if they do not apply for three jobs that do not exist. That is the problem. You do not want to understand. Even New Brunswick's premier told the government. It is not working. Your—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order please.

I would remind the member to direct his comments through the Chair.

The hon. member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is very passionate. I have been here quite some time watching him be passionate about it.

This is more of a comment than a question. It is about the narrative being spun here, which we have witnessed time and again. On one hand, the Conservatives say that they will help the unemployed worker. On the other hand, literally a few sentences later, the Conservatives will say how dare someone work 45 days a year, despite the circumstances, despite the fact that EI was set up in seasonal areas to help maintain these seasonal industries and to help maintain these communities. They ask: “How dare you work 45 days? However, we will help you”.

This is not about help to them. It is about punishment. It is about being repeat offenders. That is the premise—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

I will keep talking until I get to the point, to the truth. That is exactly how they are framing it. You cannot—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order. We only have five minutes for questions and comments. I would appreciate it if members could keep their interventions brief.

The hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst.

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

Mr. Speaker, all I will say to the member is that I have been asking the government the same thing.

Four premiers from four provinces in an area of the country with a lot of seasonal jobs are joining forces. They asked the government to come look at their region. The government flat out refused.

Instead, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development turned around and said that claimants should have a high school diploma to collect EI, that people back home have not changed and would rather receive EI so they can go hunting or fishing. That is an insult to workers. It is one insult after the next. People are tired of that.

We need to respect workers. People in the east are just as respectable as people from western, central Canada or Quebec. Are we all not Canadians? All we want is respect, once and for all, and not to be insulted anymore. That is what we want. Every day the government insults Canadians. It is disgusting.

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

Mr. Speaker, the cuts and the changes to employment insurance would actually hurt jobs in the tourism sector for sure, as well as probably the fisheries, and since our hon. colleagues on the other side of the House do not understand the life in seasonal communities such as those in Atlantic Canada or in British Columbia in the tourism sector, let me ask all of us here to consider the House of Commons operations.

Do my hon. colleagues here know that the restaurant staff get laid off when we go back to our ridings for Christmas, and are later hired back? They will not be able to find a job. What employer wants to hire someone for two weeks or three weeks, knowing that staff who have been working in the parliamentary dining room for multiple years are expected back to work as soon as we come back?

The system was designed around—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please.

We are really running out of time.

The hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst.

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

Mr. Speaker, maybe I will have a little surprise for the member here.

I like her question. Maybe she does not know that in the employment insurance rules, they are not allowed to say they work in the parliamentary restaurant. A woman is not allowed to say she is pregnant, because that would damage her chances to get a job. They are not allowed to say they are driving a school bus, because that would stop them from having a job. They have to lie to the employer. That is in the employment insurance rules—and the Conservatives say they are there to protect the employees, the workers?

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

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

Just go and look at the rules. I will show it to the member who just said “Oh, oh!”. It is in the rules.

The House resumed from May 6 consideration of the motion that Bill C-60, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, let us speak of kings and queens and crowns.

At the culmination of the Glorious Revolution in 1689, the British Parliament allowed William III and Mary II to ascend to the throne, but there was a catch: they would need to accept the convention of the right and the Bill of Rights, which established Parliament as the ruling power of Britain. It would become the mother of all parliaments, including our own.

While an imperfect document, some of the principles of the Bill of Rights live on to this day. One of them would later be described as no taxation without representation or, in the words of the Bill of Rights itself, that “levying money for or to the use of the Crown...without grant of Parliament...is illegal”. Simply put, the Crown can only spend the people's money with their consent, and only Parliament can grant that consent.

Three hundred and twenty-four years later, the principle is the same. Government cannot spend what Parliament has not approved, which brings us to the Crown, or crown corporations.

Under present rules, they may enter into a room with a union leader, negotiate an agreement and send the bill to taxpayers, who do not have a say but must pay. The people's servants in Parliament do not vote on it, nor does the elected government sign off, so in this respect it is as though we have returned to the mid-17th century, when the Crown levied money without grant of Parliament.

What has resulted? Let us consider Canada Post. Its losses and liabilities are the burden of its owners. They are taxpayers. Seventy-one per cent of the company's costs are labour wages and benefits. To find out why, let us look at the latest collective agreement, a 500-page monstrosity. For example, if there is no work for a Canada Post employee to do within a 40-kilometre radius of where he or she is located, the union agreement prevents that person from transferring to another place where his or her skills are needed. The worker must stay at home and remain without work even while on salary. In other words, when there is nothing to do, taxpayers pay for nothing to be done.

The union requires taxpayers to fund almost 500 corporate post offices, even though they are three times as expensive as retail outlets that provide the same service and are open for longer hours. After bankable sick days, pre-retirement leave, seven weeks of vacation and more, the amount of time the carriers spend delivering mail is only a portion of the time for which they are paid to do so.

None of this done, by the way, in the workers' interests; their jobs, after all, are only secure when the company is successful. What is more, ambitious, talented employees are forbidden from any kind of bonus, performance or otherwise, by their union. God forbid that excellence be rewarded.

The financial results speak for themselves. Last month's Conference Board report on Canada Post indicated “annual operating deficits of close to $1 billion by 2020”.

On top of that, the company will have billions more in accumulated pension liabilities. Who will pay for that? It will be taxpayers, of course. They never authorized it and they cannot hold to account the unelected officials who did. Politicians can claim innocence, for it was an arm's-length body that did it. Sure, the arms had enough length to reach into the pockets of taxpayers, but never mind; these crown corporations are independent. Actually, they are dependent on the same taxpayers they are independent from. In fact, we are told their very independence depends on their right to be dependent on the people they are independent from. Simply put, they are independently dependent.

I suppose it depends on one's point of view. In the view of opposition parties, today's crown corporations are similar to the crown on King James II's head. He was the last king of England prior to the Bill of Rights. He could tax as he wished and spend as he liked. He too was independently dependent.

However, every crown has its king. Union leaders have coronated themselves the monarchs of Canada's state-owned corporations. They have legislated monopolies on the workforce. Do as they say, or they will shut the place down with a strike. They collect mandatory union dues from workers, even those who choose not to be members—talk about taxation without representation. Employees who do want to work and build a merit-driven company are out of luck. They are banned from representing themselves in negotiations or from signing their own employment agreements. These vast union powers would make James II blush with envy.

While the budget will not solve all of these problems, division 17 of part 3 of the bill amends the Financial Administration Act to empower the democratically elected government to reject labour agreements that abuse taxpayers. In other words, we are restoring the principle of no taxation without representation.

We here in this chamber are that representation. The colour of this chamber is green, because in the early day of the House of commoners, the commoners came from the fields, and it was their toil in those fields that paid the levies the Crown expended.

It is the duty, therefore, of the government to have the approval of Parliament for all that it spends. This bill does precisely that. In this sense, it restores Parliament as defender of the public purse and makes the Crown servant and not master.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the Conservative member's shameful speech.

It is appropriate that he should speak about King James II, since, if hon. members listen carefully to what he is saying, they will realize that the Conservative member wants to take us back to the Middle Ages, a time when workers were overburdened by their employers, employers disbanded labour organizations, and workers had to work 14 hours a day in poor working conditions and did not have any rights. We get the impression from his anti-union attacks that the hon. member wants to take us back to 19th century England, as though that era is a model on which we should base the Canada of today.

The government is telling us that it has nothing to do with the closure of post offices because Canada Post is an independent corporation. However, as the hon. member for Gatineau pointed out today, if these corporations are independent, then why does the government want to stick its nose into their collective agreement negotiations and the rights of their workers? Why is the government acting in the best interest of employers rather than workers?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in actual fact, it is members of the NDP who want to take our country back to the Middle Ages. They are the ones who want to take away the rights that Canadians and all members of parliamentary democracies fought for so that the people would have the right to decide how their money is spent. The New Democrats are the ones who want to take this power away from Parliament and the people that parliamentarians represent here.

It is they who want to take us back to the Middle Ages by removing the basic principle of no taxation without representation. It is they who want to take away workers' rights by denying them the ability to know how their union dues are spent or to make their own individual decisions.

We on this side of the House respect the principles of parliamentary supremacy, and we respect the taxpayers who pay the bills. Therein lies the difference.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there are many examples of the Conservative majority government's lack of respect for democracy and parliamentary process. Canadians believe that there is a hidden Conservative-Reform agenda. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and Canada Post are national institutions Canadians believe in. There are government members with hidden agendas who want to attack our Canadian national institutions.

Why does the Conservative government attack our fine Canadian institutions?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our agenda has been out in the open since we have been in government, since 2006, and the Canadian people keep electing us with increasing mandates. I note that, correspondingly, the party in the corner has been consistently reduced by the Canadian people as our and their agendas have become known by the population.

As for the issue of arm's-length independence, we on this side of the House believe that the Crown, or in this case the crowns, can only spend moneys that are approved by the people's representatives here in Parliament. The other side believes that union bosses should be able to decide how tax dollars are spent, without the approval of Parliament. My point in referring to the original Bill of Rights was to underline the fact that the approach the opposition is proposing is a violation of a sacred tenet of parliamentary democracy, one we have respected and one this budget restores.

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative member began his speech with talk of kings, queens and crowns. My speech will focus on mere mortals—ordinary Newfoundlanders and Labradoreans and Canadians—the people the Conservatives have forgotten.

I had a public meeting in my riding of St. John's South—Mount Pearl just this past Sunday. At the start of the meeting, a 65-year-old woman approached me. She pulled me aside to speak privately about a problem. She is a single woman who rents an apartment, and the company that owns the apartment just raised her rent by $45 every two weeks. That is $90 a month. That is $1,080 a year. The problem is that she is retired and has a small pension, a fixed income, and she has no idea how to pay for the increase in her rent.

What is in the bill, the economic action plan 2013 act, this economic inaction plan 2013 act, for that senior in my riding? There is nothing. There is no help whatsoever.

The lady asked me not to forget her. She asked me to do something about housing and to do something for seniors, for people on fixed incomes and for low-income earners. They are having a harder and harder time getting by. I am doing that right now. I will do it at every opportunity and every chance I get to speak about the Conservative economic inaction plan, 2013.

What is in this budget for low-income earners to help keep a roof over their heads? Nothing. The Conservatives voted down a recent New Democratic bill for a national housing strategy to fix Canada's housing crisis. What does the government do? What does their budget do? The Conservatives went a step further than just voting down the NDP plan for a housing strategy. Starting next year, they will cut homelessness funding by $15 million a year. This budget does nothing for that senior in my riding, and seniors are suffering.

There was a story in the news back home in the last few days about an 82-year-old man from the Cornerbrook area of western Newfoundland. He was charged with theft for stealing food from a grocery store. The police say that this type of incident is rare, but a seniors' advocate says that this is only the beginning. The advocate I mentioned said in the news story that “more seniors will start to resort to petty crime, as many cannot afford to eat by the Canada Food Guide”.

Eat by Canada's Food Guide? They cannot afford to pay rent. They cannot afford to turn on the heat in their own homes. That is what this country has come to. That is what the Conservatives have done to our country.

What does this budget do for Newfoundland and Labrador? Of all the things in this budget, what resonates most back home? What have people been talking about? They are talking about how the price of hospital parking is going to increase, about how the poor and the sick, the most vulnerable in our society, will have to feed even more money they do not have into parking meters.

The Conservatives can cut taxes to big business. They can give industry breaks, but who pays? It is the sick and the poor. That is who pays under the Conservative government.

What is in this budget for Labrador specifically? It is the status quo, more of the same: dirt roads, poor Internet service. Who knows what goes on behind the scenes? When Peter Penashue was our representative in the federal cabinet, he pitted The Big Land against the island. Penashue actually boasted about his divisive politics, which is the worst kind of politics.

Penashue admitted to holding up infrastructure projects on the island in an attempt to move forward projects in Labrador. This is the type of politicking that goes on behind the scenes with the Conservatives, but they are also in our faces with it. This is the third omnibus bill. It includes 49 pieces of legislation from increased user fees for hospital parking to cuts to health care and damaging cuts to credit unions.

Most Canadians will not realize the ramifications of this budget because it is so big with 49 pieces of legislation and because there is so little time to debate it. It denies MPs the ability to thoroughly study the bill and its implications. New Democrats would like to send so much of this omnibus bill to various House of Commons committees so we can bring in experts and analyze the true implications. However, the Conservatives deny us that opportunity and that right because they do not want the scrutiny. They do not want Canadians to know what is happening to Canada.

The Conservatives are trying to tell Canadians that there is nothing to see in this bill. In a way that is true. There is nothing for job creation, to make life more affordable or to strengthen the services that families rely on. There is little in this budget for youth. Youth unemployment stands at more than 14%. Although the Conservatives have just announced another 5,000 paid internships in this budget, that is a drop in the bucket compared to the need. We do not hear the Conservatives speaking about the $14,000 a year those internships will pay. That is not enough for students to pay their student loans or participate in the economy. It is not enough to live on.

There is not a word in the budget about student debt. The average student debt in this country stands at $28,000 per student. How can students participate in the economy the Conservatives like to trumpet as their success, when they begin their working lives with no work and a $28,000 anchor around their necks?

Let us move on to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I worked for almost twenty years as a journalist, twelve years as a daily newspaper reporter, five years as an editor-in-chief, a columnist, and another two years as an open-line radio host. Most of those years were with private media outlets. I personally know the kinds of pressures that can be exerted on newspapers or news outlets to run or not to run a story. There are incredible pressures from advertisers, government and industry. That is why the CBC is so important. I see it as the jewel in Canada's democratic crown.

The Globe and Mail says that the Conservative government:

is taking a harder line on collective bargaining, giving itself sweeping new powers to steer independent Crown corporations in their negotiations with employees over wages and benefits. The main targets are the CBC, Canada Post and VIA Rail....Further, the bill gives the government the power to have a Treasury Board official sit in on collective bargaining negotiations at Crown corporations.

The union representing employees at the CBC warns that the new powers are a “ridiculous“ infringement on the independence of the CBC.

I agree with that statement.

I will quote from Marc-Philippe Laurin, who is the CBC branch president of the Canadian Media Guild, the union that represents most employees. He stated:

I don’t know how anybody looking at that cannot see this as turning the public broadcaster into a state broadcaster.

Can members imagine the CBC being turned into a state broadcaster, a mouthpiece for the Conservative Party? Can members imagine a crown corporation changing the terms and conditions of employment for a non-union worker at any time?

Can members imagine a day in Canada when workers and pensions are under constant attack? Can members imagine a day in Canada when post-secondary graduates are crippled by debt, and government does not care? Can members imagine a day in Canada when a government would ignore a housing crisis? Can members imagine a day when an 82-year-old man is forced to steal food for his supper? That day has arrived under the Conservative government with this new Conservative inaction plan.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think that the member has actually read the budget bill. That is the only conclusion I can come to.

He talked about affordable housing. This budget would make huge investments in affordable housing, including, frankly, a requirement for new affordable housing projects in which apprentices would be given an opportunity to work on that housing. This would mean that, in his own riding, the young people would be given an opportunity to learn the skills they need while they build affordable housing.

We have been proud to partner with Newfoundland and Labrador on a number of enormous projects. We have been proud to support seniors in the member's riding. However, what does the member stand and champion today? He champions more money for the CBC, while he points out that people in his own riding could use more support from the government.

Does this member understand that the resources of government are finite? If he does as he proposes and provides more to CBC while he taxes individuals and businesses more, he will be able to help the people of his riding less.

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I can tell the member what I do understand. I understand need. I understand when seniors and people on fixed incomes approach me and say that there is a housing crisis, the price of their rent is going up and they cannot afford it.

What this party on this side of the House proposed as a bill just a few months ago was a national housing strategy. That housing strategy would have brought together the three levels of government, federal, provincial and municipal, to come up with a strategy o tackle the housing crisis. How much would that bill have cost taxpayers? The answer is nothing. It would have come up with a plan to combat the housing crisis, but cost nothing.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for the concern he is expressing, particularly for the seniors in Newfoundland.

The member for Nepean—Carleton spoke here a few minutes ago about respect: his respect in this place and his respect for Canadians. However, I was troubled because that is the same member who voted repeatedly to shut down debate in this House, and shut down people's opportunity to learn about the various bills and legislation, more times than any other government in the history of our country or of this Parliament.

The member for Nepean—Carleton also talked about defending the public purse. I know my friend from Newfoundland has the same kind of concern about the public purse. I wonder if he has heard any indication at all as to where the missing $3.1 billion from the public purse has gone.

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I do not have a clue where that $3 billion has gone, but I think taxpayers have the same question. We all have the same question. However, the problem is that there is no answer.

The hon. member mentioned the speech from the member for Nepean—Carleton across the way. I have to say, when that member began his speech, and I mentioned this off the top of my speech, he spoke about kings and queens and crowns. I was sitting here listening, and thinking that it was a prime example of how the Conservative government is so out of touch with ordinary Canadians, with ordinary Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and with people on the east and west coasts. It is absolutely out of touch.

The hon. member just mentioned shutting down debate. What we are actually debating here is the third omnibus bill. Again, an omnibus bill is massive. This particular bill has 49 pieces of legislation.

Why would the Conservative government take 49 pieces of legislation and cram them into one omnibus bill? It is because it does not want debate. The Conservatives do not really want to investigate or take a good look and they do not want Canadians to see what is really in this omnibus bill.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in my time today I would like to spotlight the really positive measures in economic action plan 2013.

Today's bill would ensure that Canada keeps a strong position relative to so many other countries in the world and avoids the mistakes of so many others around the world as well. It would do that by promoting jobs and growth, and supporting families and communities across the country, all while respecting taxpayer dollars. There are literally so many great and positive measures in the bill that I want to quickly run down the list for Canadians at home.

To build a strong economy and promote job growth, here are just a few of the great things in the bill: We are extending tax relief for new investments in machinery and equipment by Canadian manufacturers. We are indexing gas tax fund payments to better support job-creating infrastructure in municipalities across Canada. We are extending for one year the mineral exploration tax credit.

Our government is providing $165 million in multi-year support for genomics research through Genome Canada. To help young entrepreneurs grow their firms, our Conservative government is providing $18 million to the Canadian Youth Business Foundation. This government is also providing $5 million to Indspire for post-secondary scholarships and bursaries for first nations and Inuit students.

And there is so much more good news in the budget for Canadians.

To support families and communities we are also doing so many great things, and I want to explain how that transpires. Our Conservative government is promoting adoption by enhancing the adoption expense tax credit to better recognize the costs of adopting a child. We are introducing a new first-time donor super credit for first-time claimants of the charitable donations tax credit to encourage all young Canadians to donate to charity. To better meet the health care needs of Canadians, our government is expanding tax relief for home care services.

We are removing tariffs on imports of baby clothing and certain sports equipment. This will help families all across the nation. Our government is providing $30 million in the 2013-14 budget to support the construction of new housing in Nunavut. We are investing $20 million in the Nature Conservancy of Canada to continue to conserve ecologically sensitive land. We are providing $3 million to the Pallium Foundation of Canada to support training and palliative care for front-line health care providers. As members know, we have an aging demographic in our country and this is extremely important.

Our government is committing $3 million to the Canadian National Institute for the Blind to expand library services for the blind and partially sighted. I just met with some members from that community and they are so grateful for this $3 million because it will enhance their quality of life. We are supporting veterans and their families by no longer deducting veterans' disability benefits when calculating other select benefits.

And we are doing so much more.

I honestly have to ask NDP and Liberal members opposite: how can they possibly vote against these great items? How can they possibly vote against all these positive measures for Canadians? How can they oppose helping the blind get library services? How can they oppose supporting palliative care? How can they oppose helping out our veterans? Along with their constituents at home, I am waiting for the answer.

Unlike the opposition, our government understands that Canadian businesses big and small are faced with new economic challenges originating beyond our borders. That is why Canada's economic action plan would lower taxes, slash unnecessary red tape and improve conditions for new and growing businesses. The economic action plan 2013 act proposes the next wave of initiatives to preserve these gains and create high paying, value-added jobs for Canadians.

On the advice of the Canadian manufacturing industry, we are providing $1.4 billion of tax relief to the manufacturing sector through a two-year extension of the temporary accelerated capital cost allowance for new investment in machinery and equipment. This tax relief would encourage manufacturers and processors to continue to invest in machinery and equipment, making their operations more productive and globally competitive.

While the NDP would have us give tax breaks to Chinese companies, extending the temporary capital cost allowance for machinery and equipment would help keep our jobs where they belong, right here in Canada. We know it works.

Listen to the Chemistry Industry Association of Canada, which told us:

Measures like the ACCA for new manufacturing machinery and equipment can make the difference between a company investing in Canada, or taking its business--and the stable, high-paying jobs that go along with it--elsewhere.

While manufacturing and exporting are at the heart of our economic action plan, improving our infrastructure is also crucial to delivering Canadian goods and services to markets as efficiently and cost-effectively as possible. Bill C-60 also proposes to index gas tax fund payments to better support job-creating infrastructure in municipalities across Canada. This is a very important component of our new 10-year building Canada plan, unveiled in budget 2013, which would fund infrastructure like roads and bridges from coast to coast to coast.

The feedback from our municipal partners has been overwhelmingly positive. Just listen to the words of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, which told us that indexing the gas tax fund payments:

...recognizes that all types of municipal infrastructure can contribute to public safety, better quality of life and economic growth.

...An indexed Fund is essential so that infrastructure funding grows over time to meet inflation and the rising costs of construction.

Bill C-60 also proposes to reform the temporary foreign worker program to ensure that the cost of the labour market opinion process would no longer be absorbed by taxpayers, and to better ensure that Canadians would be given the first chance at available jobs. We plan to support job creators, such as junior mineral exploration companies, by extending for one year the 15% mineral exploration tax credit for flow-through share investors. We would also clarify the rules for how we would treat proposed investments in Canada by foreign state-owned enterprises and would allow for the extension of timelines for national security reviews by modernizing the Investment Canada Act.

While we remain squarely focused on jobs and growth, our government recognizes that Canadians are our country's greatest resource. As outlined earlier, we would be doing some very positive things for Canadian families in today's legislation. To help Canadians selflessly welcoming a child into their family, as I said earlier, we would adopt the adoption expense tax credit. To better help the health care needs of Canadians, we would expand tax relief for home care services. The Canadian Home Care Association said that this is:

...an important step in supporting the needs of our aging population and enabling individuals to live independently in their homes.

Through our new measures, designed to ensure everyone pays their fair share, Bill C-60 would help to keep taxes low for everyone, providing Canadian families with greater opportunities than ever before. Not only is our plan prudent; it is an effective response to global economic changes, which still persist. By staying the course, our Conservative government will continue to promote economic growth, job creation and long-term prosperity for all Canadians.

I urge all my colleagues on all sides of the House to vote in favour of Bill C-60. I outlined today all the wonderful things that are in the budget and that hit home very closely to Canadian families, to the aging population and to the municipalities, who so welcome the indexing of the gas tax. It is so important, so we can build the infrastructure within our country.

Today, I met with the electrical workers, and they are praising what we are doing in terms of the foreign workers, saying that jobs belong in Canada, and Canadians need those jobs.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the member for Kildonan—St. Paul, referenced some of the money in the budget that would go to the CNIB. We welcome that. Unfortunately, there is little else in the budget for persons with disabilities. In fact, 50% of people with disabilities in our country are unemployed. That climbs to 80% when it is developmental disabilities. There is nothing to change that. There is no action by the government on ratifying the UN convention on persons with disabilities. It owes; it is 14 months late in giving a report card to the UN. There is still no indication of where that is.

On the gas tax, the member suggested that somehow this would be a big boon to municipalities. In fact, not one nickel of increase to the gas tax would flow until 2016 at the earliest, which is at least three years hence. Regarding the money that the Conservatives say is in the budget, there will be three more budgets before there would be any more money flowing in the gas tax indexing that they are crowing about.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we hear daily from members across the way that the budget is no good, that nothing good is happening here in Canada. In actual fact we have seen, over every community, so many jobs created. We have heard people, like the those in the Association of Manitoba Municipalities in my province, say it makes a big difference because then municipalities know for 10 years that the funding would be coming and it would allow them to do the proper planning for the huge capital projects.

I hear members opposite saying these are not good moves. Obviously we are one of the countries across the globe that other countries look up to, because we have a stable economy, Canadians are working and we have focused on one major thing. Well, we have focused on a lot of things, but the major thing is to keep our economy stable. The major thing is to keep people working and to promote economic growth. This country is in a really good position. Families are working and living well because of the economic expertise of our Prime Minister. I thank him for that.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, we know there is a cabinet shuffle coming up, and if there is one thing the Prime Minister likes it is someone who can give a good message even when it is really a bad one. When we listen to the member for Kildonan—St. Paul, her remarks almost make this draconian budget, which is an attack on the middle class, look good. The Prime Minister certainly should consider her as a replacement.

The fact of the matter is that this budget would increase taxes on middle-class Canadians by close to $2 billion every year. The Conservatives take $550 million more every year from the profits of small business owners. She talked about that, but did not mention that figure. There is the recurring payroll tax hike of another $600 million each year. She talked about some of the tariff cuts, which would reduce hockey equipment, yes, but she did not mention the tariff increases that would increase the costs for many Canadians, while not doing anything about enhancing the manufacturing base within Canada.

In her remarks, she does not mention the hidden measures that are an attack on the middle class in our country. It is easy to see why we will oppose the budget because—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Order, please. I ask all members to keep their questions and responses short.

The hon. member for Kildonan—St. Paul has only 45 seconds.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, this is passing strange to hear, when I just explained how well economically placed our country is and how associations across the country are praising the government for the strong, stable economic environment it has placed in our country.

The main thing is that we should work together as parliamentarians. The budget obviously speaks to families in our communities. It speaks to our aging demographic. It speaks to people who need jobs. As members of Parliament in the House, partisan remarks should be left by the wayside, and we should all be working very closely to ensure that our country remains economically stable for all Canadians.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-60, a bill that is focused on what matters most to Canadians: jobs, growth and long-term prosperity.

Canada has experienced one of the best economic performances among the G7 countries, both during the global recession and throughout the recovery. Due to our strong economic policies, our global reputation is highly respected and admired by countries around the world. It has earned us, for the fifth year in a row, the reputation of the soundest banking system in the world from the World Economic Forum.

Bill C-60 would only enhance this strong record with decisive action in all areas that drive economic progress and prosperity. This includes connecting Canadians with available jobs, helping manufacturers and businesses succeed in the global economy, creating a new building Canada plan, investing in world-class research and innovation, and supporting families and communities.

Our government understands that, while we have a strong economic reputation, we need to remember that Canada is not immune to the instability of the global economy. We need strong leadership, and that is exactly what our government would provide with Bill C-60, as I will outline in my remaining time.

In my riding of Oxford, manufacturing is the source of employment for many residents and is one of the key engines of the Canadian economy. Since 2006, our government has supported the manufacturing industry by lowering business taxes to 15%, which allows manufacturers to keep more of their money to invest and hire more employees; investing $110 million to double support to manufacturers and other entrepreneurs through the industrial research assistance program; eliminating the job-killing corporate tax; and much more.

With Bill C-60, we would provide even more support for new investments in machinery and equipment for the manufacturing and processing sector. This would be done by extending the accelerated capital cost allowance for two years, which would increase the support for manufacturers by almost $1.4 billion. I know this support would benefit manufacturers in Oxford and across Canada.

Our government believes in keeping taxes low for all Canadians. Since 2006, we have cut taxes more than 150 times, reducing the overall tax burden to its lowest level in 50 years. That translates into a total savings of $3,200 for a typical Canadian family of four.

We would build on these already astounding savings with even more tax relief for Canadians. In Bill C-60, we would eliminate consumer tariffs on babies' clothing, sporting goods and exercise equipment. In total, this would provide $76 million in tariff relief for Canadians.

We would also introduce a temporary first-time donor's tax credit to encourage more Canadians, and those who had not donated recently, to give to charity. This would not only help a plethora of charities but also provide $25 million in annual tax relief. The savings just keep getting better and better under our government.

Youth are the future, and that is why our government believes in providing young Canadians with the information and opportunities they need to make smart education and employment decisions. Our investments in youth since 2006 have included expanding the eligibility for Canada student loans through a reduction in the expected parental contribution; investing more than $300 million per year through the youth employment strategy to help young Canadians get the skills and work experience they need to transition into the workplace; and reducing the in-study interest rate for part-time students to zero, saving them approximately $5.6 million per year.

In Bill C-60, we would support Canadian youth even more by providing funding of $18 million in multi-year support for the Canadian Youth Business Foundation. This foundation is a national not-for-profit organization that works with young entrepreneurs between the ages of 18 and 34 by helping them become the business leaders of tomorrow through mentorship, expert advice, learning resources and start-up financing. Over the past 10 years, the foundation has worked with 5,600 new entrepreneurs, helping to create 22,100 new jobs across Canadian communities.

Canadian farmers are the backbone of our country and represent an important industry in my riding of Oxford. For generations, our farmers have fed Canadians and the world while providing jobs and opportunities across Canada.

Our government has supported Canadian farmers with strong investments and programs since 2006. We have provided over $7 billion to farmers through a new suite of business risk management programs, including AgriStability, AgriInsurance, AgriInvest and AgriRecovery; over $2.3 billion toward Growing Forward 2, which invests in innovation, competitiveness and market development for Canada's agriculture sector; $370 million to the hog industry; support for debt restructuring to help sustain the industry and much more. In Bill C-60, we would be supporting farmers across Canada.

We would provide $165 million in multi-year support for genomics research through Genome Canada. This funding would enable Genome Canada to launch new large-scale research competitions over the next three years, would support continued participation by Canadian genomics researchers in national and international partnership initiatives, and would maintain Genome Canada's operations and the operations of the regional genome centres and science and technology innovation centres until the end of 2016-17.

We owe a lot of gratitude to our Canadian veterans who fought with bravery and courage for the freedom we enjoy today. We will always be indebted to them for the great sacrifices they made. Our government stands up for veterans, and that is why in Bill C-60 we are improving the war veterans allowance program. This program provides assistance to low-income veterans of the Second World War and the Korean War, as well as their survivors. Under the current program, a veteran's total calculated income includes a disability pension provided by Veterans Affairs Canada. This pension is automatically deducted from the amount of benefits available to veterans and survivors under the war veterans allowance. Amendments in Bill C-60 will no longer allow the government to take the disability pension into account when determining eligibility and in calculating benefits provided under the war veterans allowance. Under this government, veterans will be taken care of and will never be forgotten.

An investment in Canada's public infrastructure creates jobs and economic growth and provides a high quality of life for families in every city and community across the country. Canada's economic prosperity is supported by a network of highways and roads, waste water infrastructure, transit systems and recreation and cultural facilities. This network reaches into every community and touches every Canadian. In recognition of the importance of efficient prosperity and quality of life, our government has made significant investments since 2006 to build roads, bridges, subways, rail and much more.

In Bill C-60, we are continuing this support through the community improvement fund. This fund includes $21.8 billion over 10 years through the gas tax fund payments. Currently at $2 billion per year, we are proposing that these payments be indexed at 2% per year starting in 2014-15, with increases applied in $100-million increments. The list of existing eligible investment categories would be expanded to include highways, local and regional airports, short-line rail, short-sea shipping, disaster mitigation, broadband and connectivity, brownfield redevelopment, culture, tourism, sports and recreation. The fund would also include $10.4 billion over 10 years under the incremental GST rebate for municipalities to provide communities with additional resources for the maintenance and operation of existing public infrastructure and facilities.

Canada's gas tax fund would provide predictable and long-term funding for Canadian municipalities to help them build and revitalize their public infrastructure assets.

I am proud of the investments our government is making with Bill C-60. I and the residents of Oxford look forward to the speedy passage of Bill C-60, and I encourage all parliamentarians to seize this opportunity of unity in Parliament and give Canadians what they deserve, and in many cases, what they desperately need.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments. However, he has not dealt with one of the biggest issues facing us, and that is the lack of democratic action on this bill. We are not permitted to discuss it in the House of Commons beyond the end of today, and we have been told that there will be only five days of debate in committee. With five days for 50 bills at two hours a day, that is about 10 minutes for each bill to be studied in committee.

I am wondering if the member would comment on the democratic deficit we seem to have encouraged, at this Conservative government's urging, by limiting debate on things he claims are very important, such as the increase in the gas tax. As I pointed out earlier, it will not take effect until there have been three more budgets, and those three more budgets will probably not be studied in any great detail, because the government is so fond of limiting debate.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what my colleague forgets is that this is going to a number of committees, and there will be debate at those committees, so it is not being limited.

The member went on about the municipalities and the money. I would remind him of what the Federation of Canadian Municipalities said about budget 2013:

Today's budget delivers significant gains for Canada's cities and communities. We applaud the government for choosing to continue moving our communities forward even as it meets its immediate fiscal challenges.... By maintaining and extending unprecedented investments in our cities' infrastructure, it will spur growth and job creation....

I do not know why the other side would not get behind this budget and get it passed in a hurry.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I could not help but comment on all the smoke-and-mirrors talk about what the future is going to be. I would hope that things were just as rosy as the picture the government is painting, but the reality tells us that it is not the way previous commitments and suggestions have been.

On infrastructure, as far as what cities require, they had no way to say anything else, because if they had said anything else, FCM and the cities would have been muzzled, the same way our scientists, researchers and many anti-poverty groups have been muzzled. As far as what FCM said in response, what else would Conservatives expect them to say?

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I guess doing publications and papers and so on is muzzling. I would say to my hon. colleague across the floor that this is a good budget. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities knows the difference between this government and the former government.

Workers in this country know the difference. They know about the $48-billion EI surplus taken out of their funds. Municipalities in Ontario and across the country remember the $25 billion the Liberals took out of social transfers.

This is a good government. The municipalities in the Federation of Canadian Municipalities recognize this.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Oxford knows very well the importance of the auto industry, with Toyota in his riding and with the supporting parts sector growing as well. I wonder if the member would comment on both the renewal of the auto innovation fund and the advanced manufacturing fund. What could that mean across southern Ontario and for the Canadian economy?

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we not only have a Toyota plant in my riding, we have a General Motors CAMI plant in my riding.

Both of those funds are essential to the Canadian auto industry as we move forward. We compete around the world, but we also compete with our American neighbours. Keeping the Canadian auto industry strong is important to ridings, not just for the auto plants but for all the supplier industries across Ontario that supply these plants. Our government recognizes the importance of manufacturing, and certainly, my riding is a beneficiary of those things.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if we would just let loose a bit, we could really have quite an interesting debate on the budget in this House. We could really talk back and forth with one another about what we think should be in there versus all the fantasy comments being made.

It is a very convincing argument, if somebody on the other side is actually listening to it and believing it. Again, that is what governments do. I have been there. We stand up and promote our budgets and say that they are the best thing since sliced bread. We all do it. However, our job on this side at the moment is to ensure that we show its flaws.

I am happy to be standing here and speaking. This will be the 10th budget I have been asked to evaluate and vote on since I was elected to the House, so I have been around long enough to have seen them from all sides. In that time, I have seen both good and bad fiscal plans. Again, I have to say that I think budget 2013 is probably the most disappointing because of the federal fiscal strategy we are being asked to consider. It is not a strategy I think Canadians would really want us to support.

Let us have a bit of history. In 2006, the Conservative government came to power by making outlandish guarantees, and the Canadian public, or 39% of it anyway, bought those outlandish guarantees. In fact, the Conservatives promised to leave any notion of Conservative fiscal tendencies buried in a sea of red ink. At the time, the Prime Minister made the absurd commitment that he would somehow reduce taxes while also making radical spending increases, and we all know that this does not work. Of course, what did the Prime Minister do? He increased spending, a move that erased the $14-billion surplus the Conservatives inherited from the Liberals when they came into power. What did they do with that? They immediately turned around and invested it. Some people would say that they used that $14 billion of taxpayer money to buy the votes for the next election. Whatever happened, they got $14 billion and spent it very quickly. I can only imagine that Brian Mulroney would have loved to have had something like $14 billion to spend on all the things he wanted to try to achieve with a majority government.

Unfortunately, once the Prime Minister had recklessly spent the cupboard bare, he started increasing income taxes, payroll taxes. Then the Conservatives found new and creative ways to levy hefty fees and tariffs on everyday essentials, such as cancer wigs, household appliances, home heating oil and even blankets. Then, of course, what came? It was a severe rollback of vital income supports and social systems that low-income Canadians rely on each day for survival. The current government slashed support for seniors; attacked middle-class families; and advanced policies that all but slam the door on anyone who is sick, elderly, underemployed or generally working class.

However, this is not the first time Canada's finances have been run into the ground at the hands of the so-called Conservative Party. The last time a Conservative government actually balanced a federal budget in Canada was 101 years ago, in 1912. I know that the Conservatives would like to rewrite history, but they cannot erase everything. That is clearly in the history books. The last time any Conservative government ever balanced a budget was 101 years ago. When we hear all this wonderful pie-in-the-sky stuff, we have to keep that in mind. That Prime Minister was Robert Borden. He too inherited a surplus from a good Liberal predecessor, Sir Wilfrid Laurier. Just as the current government did, Borden managed to maintain it for only one year before dropping into deficit. It sounds as if our current Prime Minister is following the Borden example through excessive spending and reckless budgeting.

Between 2006 and 2008, the Conservatives put Canada back into the red, well before, not after, there was any recession. Well before, we were already in debt. Despite their rolling promises of restraint and prudence, they have not balanced the books since.

Now in budget 2013, the Conservatives promise that they will eliminate the deficit by 2015. Of course, they have made that promise before, and they just cannot seem to hit their targets. So far, the Conservatives have missed every target, but they expect us to believe that on the eve of the next federal election, somehow they are going to have fixed up the mess and will have balanced the budget.

I think a closer look at the financial plan would provide every reason for all of us as parliamentarians, and all of us as taxpayers, to be very suspicious of the pie-in-the-sky numbers that the Conservatives are talking about.

It has been said by my colleague from Wascana that the Conservative playbook contains seven simple tricks.

They inflate revenues by basing their fiscal planning on optimistic projections of economic growth. They ignore the reality, as they have before, that their numbers have never been correct. Time and time again their forecasts have been proven to be wrong, as both the IMF and the Bank of Canada have done once again in the past month.

They also create the illusion of financial flexibility. Conservatives have lowballed the reserves that should be in place to serve as fiscal shock absorbers against future economic setbacks. They have no contingency plan other than spending on the national credit card.

When a government department does not use all of its budget, the excess money lapses back to the treasury. The Conservatives are counting on very large lapses over the next several years. In other words, they are making big announcements, hoping that everything will go the way they want it to go.

While cracking down on those who do not pay their taxes is an absolute necessity, and for that we give them two points of credit, the Conservatives claim of a balanced budget depends heavily upon quickly collecting billions in unpaid taxes. That seems highly improbable, given that they are also chopping millions of dollars from the same agency that is supposed to be going after the cheaters.

For big programs like infrastructure, the government claims to be increasing investments. We talked about that a bit earlier. However, any increases are actually years away, and our cities and FCM know that. It is a trick called “back-end loading”. In reality, the build Canada infrastructure budget has been slashed, not increased by $1.5 billion, in each of the next two years.

Despite false claims to the contrary, the government is increasing taxes in dozens of nefarious ways, on everything from hospital parking fees to blankets. The two biggest types of Conservative tax hikes are higher tariffs on imported goods and higher employment insurance payroll taxes. Again, this would hurt our small businesses in Canada that we need to be promoting.

Then there is the one that they are forever planning: using all these tricks to concoct the false illusion of a balanced budget by 2015. The Conservatives will claim to have met their fiscal objective just before an election, and before proof to the contrary can become available we will be back into another election.

We all know that people struggle with their day-to-day expenses, from diapers to Kleenex, to formula and healthy food. The cost of raising a family is growing in Canada. We all know seniors who rely upon that monthly OAS/GIS cheque to keep their lights on and food on the table. This is in our rich Canada. We all know of someone who is desperately looking for work so they can keep their family in their home. These are the people who budget 2013 has forgotten: working-class Canadians who do not fit into the Conservative plan.

The Conservatives are trying to trick Canadians into thinking they have the experience necessary to champion the economy, but in reality they are little more than professional grifters with a billion-dollar publicly funded advertising budget that is constantly telling us how well we are doing with the economic action plan that is paid for by them. It might be time for the Prime Minister to admit that while there are solutions, he is not thinking of them.

The budget includes a bail-in regime that would allow banks to generate capital by dipping into the savings of their account holders. The budget increases taxes and tariffs on middle-income Canadians and businesses, and the budget abdicates federal responsibility for a range of important scientific, social and economic programs.

I think budget 2013 betrays the trust of Canadians and shows just how devoid of compassion and trust they are.

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

Mr. Speaker, I feel obliged after listening to this hon. member's speech to clarify a few inaccuracies.

First, at the tail end of her speech she talked about the bail-in clause that is in the budget. I would like anyone who is listening to this to totally disregard that statement. Obviously there is a misunderstanding. I would be happy to explain to the hon. member that there is no way on earth that the banks can touch the assets of Canadian depositors. I would think she knows that. There is $100,000 that is guaranteed by the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation. I would like to reassure Canadians that does not happen. The bail-in we are talking about would use our own contingency capital.

However, I would like to ask the hon. member if she feels she has a better understanding of economics than the top 15 economists who have continually agreed with our budget projections?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to attempt to clarify what my hon. colleague means by the bail-in regime so that Canadians do not get concerned and pull out all of their money. There is a $100,000 guarantee in protection and all of that, but I do think it is important because it is in the budget. He should make sure it is very clear to Canadians exactly what he means on that point so we do not have Canadians panicking.

I have to say that my hon. colleague, for whom I have the utmost respect, truly believes everything he writes and says, and his ideology fits right into it. The issue is that we have had many economists say how wonderful every one of those budgets has been, and every one of them has failed to meet the point. The Conservatives have never met their budget. They project and project.

We can always find people who believe in our pie-in-the-sky dreams and hope it will go that way, but the reality is that the Conservatives have never met any of their targets yet.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague's assessment of the Conservatives' economic incompetence. The last time they eliminated the deficit was 100 years ago.

However, I do no think that the Liberals can brag about eliminating the deficit by raiding the employment insurance fund or reducing transfers and placing a heavier burden on the provinces.

In a federation, the provinces and their situation are part of achieving a zero deficit. I feel—as does the future NDP government, I hazard to say—that if the government transfers the entire debt load to the provinces, it has not achieved its goal.

I would like to give my colleague the opportunity to set the record straight. The Conservatives have failed, but if we look at the impact the Liberals' so-called zero deficit had on the real world, they have no right to boast.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when the Liberals were elected in 1993, we had an over $42 billion deficit left to us by the Conservative government. We were at a point where we were being chastised by third world countries about what had happened to Canada. There was no choice but to take very hard, swift action to try to get Canada back into the zone where it was supposed to be.

Paul Martin and Jean Chrétien had the courage to make the kinds of cuts that had to be made to bring everything into line, and for two or three years everybody had to suffer a little bit. However, where were we 13 years later? We ended up with a $14 billion surplus, investments going into health care, a 10-year health accord, Kyoto, the Kelowna agreement, all kinds of things moving our country forward in the way it was supposed to.

That was a tough decision to make, but the Liberals clearly had the foresight and the courage to do that. I really question the kind of budgeting there would have been if we would have had the NDP in charge at that time.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, sometimes when I hear my Liberal colleagues give a speech in the House about their record from 20 years ago, it almost reminds me of some of the dinners we have attended for former sport athletes who are well passed their prime, talking about the good old days. However, the good old days are a long way away.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Some want them back.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

I do not think so.

When we focus on what we have gone through in the global economic downturn and we look at how we have come though it, there is a lot to be proud of in what this government has been able to do. Now the rest of the world is looking at Canada as the example of how to make it through and continue to provide a balance between keeping an eye on the bottom line while being able to make strategic investments to help grow our economy.

Since July 2009, we have seen the Canadian economy add over 900,000 jobs. Our employment levels are nearly back to where they were in pre-recession levels. The typical Canadian household now pays more than $3,000 less in tax each year, and seniors pay more than $2,000 less each year. We have reduced the GST to 7% and harmonized the 7% and 5%. It has made a big difference, especially in the province of Ontario, which I represent. We on this side have a lot to be proud of.

The opposition members have continued to criticize what we have done. However, time and time again we have proven them wrong. We continue to deliver for Canadians and the Canadian economy.

One point I would like to highlight with respect to Bill C-60, our budget implementation bill, is the gas tax fund. This has been an important mechanism for municipalities, and in my area, the counties, to continue to deliver on key infrastructure projects. We know that in 2009 our government doubled that from $1 billion to $2 billion, which was a huge investment commitment to our communities. Whether those projects are water, sewer, roads or bridges, it has provided the municipalities with long-term stable funding. It is ironic that at a time when Ontario is clawing back what it provides to rural municipalities, our government, in spite of a deficit and tough economic times, has continued to deliver that funding to our municipalities. With this BIA, we are expanding and indexing that. More importantly, we are expanding the number of areas that can be covered and where we are making investments for municipalities, such as economic development, shipping, whether through water, rail or airports, and broadband, to allow them to continue to develop and grow.

That is a key and important factor for economic development in the municipalities and counties in rural southwestern Ontario. Also, it is important to be able to apply some of that to economic development and tourism in the riding of Huron—Bruce, which from north to south along Lake Huron on the west side is known as Ontario's west coast. It is important that our municipalities can continue to deliver services to American tourists as well as those from the cities, so they can enjoy what we have and, more importantly, drive on safe roads and have safe reliable water and sewer services.

I will provide some information just to give members an idea of the scope and scale dollar-wise that we are able to deliver on.

When our government came into office in 2006, Bruce County received just a little over $600,000 in funding; Huron Country received $582,000; and Central Huron, the municipality within which I live, received $76,000.

In the 2011-12 budget year, the annual investment made by our government into Bruce County had more than tripled, to nearly $2 million from $600,000 just a few years ago. For Huron County it was $1.8 million, and for Central Huron it was $234,000.

The opposition likes to do a lot of talking and criticizing, but the fact is that those are real dollars going into our communities that are helping to make our roads better, our sewers operate at a higher efficiency and our drinking water clean. As we move forward, it would provide great opportunities for the topics I have mentioned in the past. These are all positives.

FCM is strongly behind us, as is the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, AMO. As well, if we look at the average age of our infrastructure, it is coming down from 17 years on average to 14 years. That is delivering.

I have not mentioned the massive commitments we made through the downturn, through RInC and accelerations through the building Canada fund, which helped to get projects on the go. In my riding where there is a huge number of contractors and so forth, it kept them at work and allowed them to make new investments in their machinery and keep people on. I think that really helped deliver, and it is something we can all be proud of, at least on this side of the House.

Another area we need to focus on, which some of my colleagues have touched on, is the commitment to the last post fund. For people watching at home and members in opposition who are listening, I should mention that our government, in the face of recession and economic downturn, maintained our funding to veterans. We did not cut and run, we did not duck, but we maintained our investment and funding to our veterans. Members can go back just a few short years to see the investments we made with the new veterans charter. We completely enhanced it.

I can hear the member for Malpeque pecking away, and usually when the truth and the facts start coming out, his blood pressure starts to go up. He was there 20 years ago when the Liberals went in and slashed benefits to veterans, especially our allied vets, the whole gamut. However I will try to stay focused on the last post fund at this time.

We would double the amount we commit to veterans in need from $3,600 to more than $7,200 a year. This is important because those men and women served us well in World War II and in Korea; they put their lives on the line. When they came back from battle, some had ailments or impairments, which they likely lived with for their entire lives. However, through the hard knocks of life sometimes, maybe the finances did not come out as they would have hoped, which is why we are here for them today, so they can receive a funeral that represents their commitment and sacrifice to the country.

It is a shame, specifically when looking at this, that the opposition would not support this bill just on that alone. It would show the support, that this can be a non-partisan event and that we can all vote together on this BIA to show veterans from one coast to the other that we are all in it together with them on this.

The last post fund runs this program in a highly efficient manner. Every dollar it receives goes toward the program and there is virtually nothing in it for administration. The fund does a great job, and I am very proud that we would be able to deliver and in a way that respects its work.

I previously worked in the manufacturing sector, and I wanted to touch upon the fact that our accelerated capital cost allowance would be renewed for two years at 50% from the previous 30%. Basically, this would allow businesses to make investments right off their machinery in three years instead of nine years, which is hugely important, especially in Ontario because of its manufacturing and industrial base.

I could do a 30-minute speech on all the investments we have made in manufacturing in Ontario and, Mr. Speaker, being from Windsor, you would certainly know of some of those investments that have benefited your region. However, I am sure members of the opposition have a question or two, maybe even the member for Malpeque, and I welcome them.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Mr. Speaker, is my colleague opposite aware that, on numerous occasions, we have asked to split this legislation to ensure, for example, that provisions affecting the Department of Canadian Heritage would be addressed separately? Does he not believe that it is better to have a public broadcaster as opposed to a state-controlled broadcaster?

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me read a quote the member may be interested in. I know his province also has manufacturing. This is from Jayson Myers, the President and CEO of Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters. It goes on quite a way, but it talks to the last point that I made about the accelerated capital cost. He says, “It creates an incentive because manufacturers will lose these tax savings if they do not continue to invest”. It all—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Point of order. The member for Huron—Bruce will have to take his chair for a moment.

The hon. member for Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher on a point of order.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to make sure that the interpretation was working because he obviously did not understand a word of my question.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

That is not a point of order. Returning to the member for Huron—Bruce.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, he can flap his gums all he wants over on the other side, but what we are talking about here is what would deliver for Canadians. It would deliver for people in my riding. If he were to get on board, it might even help people in his riding.

We are talking about helping manufacturers. We are talking about getting people back to work. What is he talking about? We have put a billion dollars into the CBC. How much more do you want?

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

I would again direct all members to direct their questions and comments to the Chair, not to each other.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Charlottetown.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Huron—Bruce for his comments. I serve with the member on the veterans committee. He is indeed one of the hard-working members of the committee and someone who I think really does have the interests of veterans at heart. This is why some of his remarks with respect to the government's record on veterans are somewhat troubling. When he trumpets the fact that the government says it has maintained funding for veterans, he forgets that there have been more than 800 job cuts. He forgets that there has been a download of services to Service Canada at the very same time that it is making cuts; cuts of 46% in my province. He forgets about the comments that were made by the Auditor General, highly critical of the case management services provided by Veterans Affairs. I would add that my province is the only one that has no case managers. They were all taken out in the last budget.

However, I want to focus on the last post fund. He trumpets the last post fund. My question for the hon. member is this. There have been improvements made in the budget for the last post fund, but two-thirds of all claims are rejected. Of those two-thirds that were rejected prior to these changes, how many of those two-thirds of veterans who were rejected would now receive help under the fund?

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member asked about four or five questions, but one I would like to answer. He did make a point about the efficiencies that have been found within the department. It is not 1972 anymore. It is 2013. We can do things differently. We can do things more efficiently. As taxpayers, we expect that.

I choose to look at the fact that it is 2013 today. We can operate business differently. Up until a few years ago it was almost as if the highest technology Veterans Affairs had from the Liberal legacy was a typewriter. Therefore, we have made the investments. We have gone on our initiative to transform Veterans Affairs. I am proud of that. We are operating in a way that delivers funds to veterans, and they do not get spent on administration.

[Jean-François Fortin, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the Bloc Québécois members to voice our views on the Conservatives' recent budget.

Although the federal government claimed it would negotiate pragmatic agreements with the Government of Quebec in good faith, instead it is directly attacking Quebec's unique approach with measures announced in budget 2013 and Bill C-60, the budget implementation bill.

I would like to ask the government what happened to negotiating in good faith. Where were the negotiations on the labour program that will deprive Quebec of millions of dollars? Where were the negotiations on abolishing the tax credit for labour-sponsored funds? Where were the negotiations on higher taxes for the Caisses populaires Desjardins, which will wipe out a portion of Quebec members' dividends? Where were the negotiations following the unanimous vote by the National Assembly to retain Quebec's jurisdiction over securities? Where were the negotiations after the National Assembly's unanimous vote to keep Quebec's approach to homelessness? Where were the negotiations following the unanimous vote by the National Assembly against changes to worker training? Where were negotiations following the unanimous vote by the National Assembly against changes to employment insurance? Where were negotiations when the federal government imposed, once again, the “Ottawa knows best” doctrine to the detriment of Quebec's organizations and Quebec's approach? Where were the negotiations with Quebec when the federal government decided to finance the Lower Churchill project? Where were the negotiations with Quebec following the recognition of the Quebec nation?

There are many eloquent examples of conflicts.

Let us talk about employment insurance. As hon. members will recall, previous budgets have chipped away at the very foundation of our social safety net: government services and the old age security program.

Budget implementation Bills C-38 and C-45 were also a direct attack on seasonal workers and the regional economy of some areas of Quebec.

To justify its employment insurance reform, which harshly penalizes the economy in regions like the Lower St. Lawrence and the Gaspé, the government claims that it is trying to connect unemployed workers to available jobs, but really, it is tearing up its labour market agreement with Quebec, which helps unemployed workers find jobs.

In the last couple of budgets, the federal government has been trying to centralize Canada's economic development at the expense of Quebec's land use strategies, the well-being of the people in the regions and regional economic development. The federal government is trying to gradually strip us of our dignity and our pride in our distinct identity.

With last year's budget, it was clear that the Prime Minister was continuing to build his version of Canada based on his values and interests. He proved that there was no room for Quebec to develop within that model. This year's budget is simply more of the same.

Budget 2013 is a direct attack on the way Quebec does things. As for labour market issues, Ottawa will take away millions of dollars from Quebec that helped the unemployed find jobs.

In its place, the federal government is pushing a program that will force employers and the Quebec government to provide more money if they want the federal government to contribute. In order to hand out cheques with the maple leaf on them, the federal government is ready to axe initiatives that are working well.

Ottawa also wants to bring in a new formula whereby the federal government, the provinces and employers would put in up to $5,000 each to train workers. Although worker training falls under provincial jurisdiction, the federal government is stubbornly forging ahead, to the detriment of our financial services industry. The Quebec Minister of Finance has also criticized this.

Now I would like to talk about labour-sponsored funds. The elimination of the labour-sponsored funds tax credit is another direct attack on Quebec and its workers.

In addition to impoverishing people who are trying to save for their retirement, the federal government is also going to deprive Quebec SMEs of a key economic lever. Labour-sponsored funds are an integral part of Quebec's economic organization, as demonstrated by the fact that $312 million of the $355 million Ottawa plans to take away from workers will be from Quebec.

The Chantier de l'économie sociale has strongly criticized the abolition of the federal tax credit for labour-sponsored venture capital corporations, such as the Fonds de solidarité FTQ and Fondaction CSN. Quebeckers, including unionized workers, use these funds as savings vehicles and commit to helping develop Quebec businesses, such as social economy businesses.

Bill C-60 again includes provisions on securities, as mentioned in the latest budget. The federal government is extending the mandate of the Canadian Securities Transition Office and still insists on creating a Canada-wide securities commission, despite clear decisions from the Quebec Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.

In response to the federal government's budget, the Government of Quebec said, “Allowing the federal government to insinuate itself in securities regulation, which is within Québec’s exclusive jurisdiction, is out of the question.”

We have long known that Canada's Minister of Finance dreams of getting his hands on Quebec securities. Even after he was turned down by the Quebec National Assembly and the Supreme Court of Canada, the minister has not concealed his intentions to interfere in Quebec's key financial sector.

I would like to talk about homelessness and how the government does not respect Quebec's way of doing things. In its latest budget, the federal government said it supports the housing first approach, which could threaten community-based, universal homelessness initiatives that currently respond to very real needs in Quebec.

According to the Réseau Solidarité itinérance du Québec, all of the support services for some 50,000 people who are homeless or at risk of being homeless are in jeopardy as a result of the federal government's new policy. The federal government's actions on homelessness are worrisome. In addition to reducing funding, Ottawa wants to impose its housing first approach, which will force Quebec to sacrifice its expertise and the programs tailored to its needs. The National Assembly unanimously denounced Ottawa's attitude and asked that the homelessness strategy be redesigned according to the existing model and in compliance with Quebec's policies.

The Bloc Québécois thinks that the federal government's approach is unacceptable. It could severely hamper the work that people have done over the years on this issue. It would disregard the expertise that has been developed over time to reach the people in need most effectively. This is a direct attack on Quebec's way of doing things.

I would now like to talk about health transfers and social programs. Budget 2013 is one step closer to a $36 billion reduction in federal health transfers. It will have devastating consequences on Quebec's finances because it imposes new agreements for equalization, health transfers and social programs and withdraws money transferred to Quebec for worker training. This is essentially a slap in the face for Quebec. To achieve a zero deficit, the Conservatives, like the Liberals before them, are lobbing the deficit into Quebec's court. Budget 2013 ushers in fiscal imbalance once again.

For all these reasons, and many others, the Bloc Québécois will not support the next federal budget, a budget that is unfair to Quebec, takes aim at Quebec and takes away some of its fundamental powers.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we in the NDP have considerable concerns about the budget implementation act. In particular, I would like to bring up the issue of the direct control that the government is now going to have over crown agencies that it often describes as third party or at arm's length to the government. It seems as though the arms are getting shorter with each passing month here in Ottawa.

I wonder if my colleague would speak to the concern that many of us have around the fact that the government has now, in a sense, placed itself in control over the agreements that the CBC and other agencies may make with their unionized and non-unionized employees.

[Jean-François Fortin, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

Basically, the government is trying to interfere in various ways in the internal policies of crown corporations. This is not the first time the government has done that; it has done so in the past. That is clear once again today, and in other recent events. Among other things, the government wants to be involved in the CBC.

As members may recall, the CBC's new code of ethics, imposed by the federal government less than a year ago, may also be dangerous, since it infringes on journalistic freedom and integrity.

The government now wants to interfere in collective agreements, which is completely unacceptable. Crown corporations must remain at arm's length from the government to remain independent.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague across the way for his speech. Although we know that he does not support the government's budget, which is no surprise since he is part of the Bloc Québécois, there are measures in the budget that are good.

I would like to ask him about one of the points in the budget and how important it is to his municipality. Every time I go to the gas station and fill up my car or my truck, there is about a 10-cent excise tax. That 10 cents that the governments collect gets transferred back through the provinces to the municipalities.

The fuel tax rebate is a major thing for our municipalities, as we heard from the member for Huron—Bruce. It has tripled over the last number of years. Municipalities now know that they are going to be receiving that much.

What it also does is allow the municipalities to borrow, knowing that the money is coming. The budget would also implement a measure that would not only guarantee that it is going to happen but that it would be indexed, so that as inflation goes, municipalities know that the indexed amount will be there to help.

Could the member tell me how important that is to the municipalities in his constituency?

[Jean-François Fortin, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his excellent question.

He is right. The government's infrastructure program is very helpful to municipalities. As a mayor in my former life, I was able to benefit from the program and passed that on to my municipality.

This program helps municipalities complete infrastructure work within a reasonable time frame. However, the problem is that the numbers announced in the last Conservative government budget were shared with municipalities in 2010. Now it has become a permanent program, but the new money that we would have liked to see added to the program is not there.

Unfortunately, there is no money for 2013. There is just $203 million on top of the $53 billion for 2014. There is only $203 million for 2015. In fact, municipalities will have access to all of the money only after the 2015 election.

The government is being proactive, but the majority of the money will be available for use only after 2015.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House again and to speak in support not only of the budget but also of Bill C-60, which is the budget implementation bill. It lays out the measures the Conservative government will bring forward in the economic action plan for 2013 and onward.

One of the reasons why I am pleased to stand and speak to the budget bill is the amount of work that we did in the riding of Crowfoot. Prior to the budget being given, we had meetings throughout the riding at Strathmore Town Hall and other town halls where constituents came together to say what they believed was important to have in the budget. I am going to talk a little more about how some of those ideas have been moved here and how our Minister of Finance and our government are implementing some of those ideas that come from back home and from many different constituencies across this country.

I believe, first of all, that this is a very positive blueprint, a very positive strategy as to how we believe the Canadian economy must be advanced and built. We would be strengthening the economy in a number of ways through this budget implementation bill.

First of all, we would be helping manufacturers to buy new equipment through tax relief. We would be helping small business create more jobs with the hiring credit. We would be helping our municipalities rebuild roads and bridges with record new support in infrastructure, and there is much more.

This budget builds on the work our Conservative government has been doing since forming government in 2006. We are working to create an economy that will build jobs. It is not that our government is going to create jobs; we are going to create an environment in which small and medium-sized businesses can create jobs and make certain that those families that now have jobs will be able to keep more of their money in their pockets.

Canada has been quite successful. We have over 900,000 net new jobs since the depths of this recession took place. More than 90% of those 900,000 jobs that have been created are full-time jobs, contrary to what many of the opposition members say when they say that these are the wrong kinds of jobs, part-time jobs, just not the right kinds of jobs. Some 80% of the jobs are in the private sector. This is not job creation through continuing to expand the size of government. The majority, 80%, are in the private sector.

Canada has a very good record as far as job creation goes. In fact, we have the best record of the seven most industrialized countries in the world, the G7. The International Monetary Fund and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development project that Canada's growth will be among the strongest in the G7 for a number of years going forward.

For the fifth straight year, the World Economic Forum has ranked Canada's banking system as the soundest in the world. Canada has the lowest overall tax rate on new business investment in the G7. Canada is one of the few countries that still has the Triple A credit rating. Our combined national debt to gross domestic product ratio remains the lowest in the G7 by far. Why? It is because there is a plan and a strategy. The strategy in the past five years has been working, and the strategy moving forward is building on that and will continue to work, although the opposition feels somewhat concerned because the statistics that are coming out are exactly what Canadians, including my constituents, want to hear.

The opposition members call for more spending—spend, spend, spend—and they have the tax increases to pay for their spending. I am not going to talk much about the $20 billion or $21 billion carbon tax they are discussing, but they have an idea on how government can be expanded, how government can get bigger, and they would love to see that happen.

One of the reasons I am pleased with this budget is that government expansion is not going to happen under this watch. Opposition members would expand government and add to the national debt. What happens to countries that take that route? What happens to countries that choose to go down that road?

Canadians do not have to just sit back and surmise what may happen. We can take a look at what did happen in Europe. Governments burdened their citizens with unmanageable annual budgetary deficits, massive accumulated debt, huge and paralyzing government bureaucracies. What about unemployment in some of those countries? Unemployment in the eurozone tops 12%. In some of the countries, it is much higher than 12%.

Our Conservative government understands that Canadians want us to continue to emphasize the importance of maintaining Canada's strong fiscal position, especially during current difficult global economic times. To be quite frank, that is one of the major reasons we were elected. One of the reasons we were elected to a majority government is they understood this Prime Minister is the Prime Minister Canadians want to see, especially at a time when the global economy is in turmoil. Canadians want that type of leadership. Canadians know that our Prime Minister and Minister of Finance have built a stellar reputation for Canada in the international marketplace. Canadians want a stable government, one that is capable of making decisions, sometimes swiftly, and implementing them.

For many years I have heard from my constituents in all corners of the riding of Crowfoot that I represent about the importance of balancing our books. My constituents want our federal government to operate without having to borrow money to pay for a deficit every year. My constituents are farmers, ranchers and small business operators. The gas and oil sector is major in my riding of Crowfoot, but we also have a tourism industry in Drumheller and the Canadian badlands that is somewhat seasonal.

All of the families in my riding, from smaller towns, villages and cities, are all very careful in how they operate, and they want to balance their budgets around their kitchen table. That is the type of discussion they have. How are we going to be able to pass this farm on to the next generation? How can we operate within a balanced budget?

Our government is on track to balance the budget. One of the things that made me very pleased in the last budget speech was when our Minister of Finance rose and said, “...before I proceed, I need to make one thing very clear. It is simply this. Our government is committed to balancing the budget in 2015.” When he stood and said that, a burden was lifted off my shoulders, because that was the message that my constituents wanted to hear.

On page 12 of the budget there is a chart that says in 2012-13 there is a projected deficit of just over $25 billion; in 2013-14 we will have a deficit of $18.7 billion; in 2014-15 we will have a deficit of over $6 billion; and by 2015 we will be at a surplus of almost $1 billion. In the two years after the budgetary surplus, it is projected to grow by $4 billion and then $5 billion.

How are we projecting? We see the official opposition coming forward with these budgets with nothing costed, nothing planned out and nothing on paper. We have a very concise strategy that has worked in the past, is working now and will continue to work in the future.

From 2006-08, our government paid down approximately $37 billion in debt. When the global recession hit, we made a deliberate decision to run temporary deficits to protect the Canadian economy, and that plan worked.

We have helped create over 900,000 net new jobs, and we are on track to come back to balanced budgets. At the same time, we are doing things. The deficit reduction action plan is recognizing that we want to quickly come to balanced budgets.

We have an ongoing effort to control government spending. We work continuously to eliminate wasteful and inefficient spending. In total, our government implemented measures that will reduce the deficit by over $15 billion per year in 2014, 2015 and beyond.

Economic action plan 2013 announced saving measures that will total $2 billion by 2015-16, such as examining departmental spending to make sure we are operating efficiently, reducing travel costs, modernizing the production and distribution of government publications, and standardizing government information technology to reduce costs. We are closing tax loopholes. We are improving compliance programs to reduce tax evasion.

These are some of the things that this book of 300-plus pages lays out for Canadians to hear and see. Again, it is a pleasure to speak to this budget, and we look forward to all support on this budget.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with fascination once again to the revisionist history that comes from the Conservative benches on what caused the global crisis. The Conservatives would purport that it was social programs in Europe that crushed the world economy when in fact it was the deregulation of the banking sector and irresponsible speculation in Ireland, Iceland and Goldman Sachs in the United States. That is the record. The fact that there was not clear regulation in place was what caused it. I find it disturbing that my colleague was attempting to claim that it was social programs in Europe that destroyed it. I see the continual attack on social programs in this country, which the current government is carrying out.

My hon. colleague talks about the fact that the Conservatives are good fiscal managers. We just had the Auditor General's report in which he said that the current government has no ability to account for $3.1 billion in spending. When Jean Chrétien said he lost $1 million and it was no big deal, the Reform backbenchers went crazy on it. They were jumping up and down in their seats. Now they cannot account for $3.1 billion. There is no trust in this government among the Canadian public.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think do not I see a quorum.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. It would appear that there is quorum in the House.

The hon. member for Crowfoot, with a response.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see everyone rushing in to catch the tail end of this speech. I appreciate that.

I was just going back through my notes again. If I left the hon. member with the impression that I am saying that Europe and the social programs were the cause for this recession, that is not what I said. I said that it was the issues in Europe and certainly in the United States, the housing markets and the banking industry. In fact, I went on and spoke about the sound banking that we have in this country, and that goes back years to other governments as well that laid out certain regulations for our banking industry. I certainly do not want to leave the member with the impression that I in any way said that it was social programs in Europe. I did not say that in my speech.

However, I would like to speak on the other point that this member brought forward. The Auditor General was very clear. He went back 10 years on the books, looked and asked if this $3 billion was from this file or that file. The Auditor General was clear that there was no money missing. It was out of the terrorism file, and going back to the former Liberal government of 2001 when all of a sudden we were thrown into quick responses on the terrorism file. Some things maybe were taken out of other departments. However, the Auditor General said that no money is missing.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, last week the government quietly tabled a report, and it was interesting where it stated that the government reduced the number of employees from 278,092 to 262,902 from March 31 to December 31 of last year. Of the more than 15,000 jobs that were eliminated, 8,000 were full-time indeterminate positions, a reduction of about 3%. The remaining roughly 7,000 positions that were eliminated were for students and casual, or term, employees, the report indicated. The document, an annual report by the Prime Minister on the public service, shows students and casual employees, often women and younger members of the workforce, took the biggest hit.

My question for the member is in regard to providing services to Canadians; that on the one hand, the government puts a high priority on this sort of targeting, and then on the other hand, the Prime Minister feels it is necessary to increase the number of politicians in the House of Commons—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please.

The hon. member for Crowfoot.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am quite pleased to see that the public service is being reduced in some way. As much as we can do will be done through attrition. That is, it will be done through retirements. Some of the student layoffs and some of those things that the member makes reference to, although I have not seen the report, very well could be in temporary types of jobs as the employees are between college and another initiative.

However, this budget would bring forward a Canadian job grant that would be remarkable for students. It would allow them to retain a skill where governments and businesses help with the funding. Students today are excited about this because the studies that they will be taking will prepare them for the market and for jobs. That is what they want above anything else.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to rise to speak against the budget before us, both on content and on process.

Here we go again. We have a massive budget bill, over 100 pages, impacting innumerable statutes and bills that need to be debated in this House.

My colleagues seem to find this funny. It is not about being able to read. I can assure them I have learned to read at a fairly fast pace and comprehend. It is about Canadians' rights to have the budget debated in this House for transparency and for discussion. It is about giving duly elected members of Parliament an opportunity to do their jobs as elected officials by providing debate and discussion, and asking questions. That is what is being denied once again in this House.

On content, the budget does very little, if anything, to grow jobs for Canadians. It does even less to protect the jobs that exist for Canadians. It does very little to address the major challenges facing everyday Canadian families as they struggle to make ends meet.

The Conservatives are trying to say that they can just rush through the bill, maybe because they really believe there is not much in the bill and they have a lot to hide. Maybe they are too scared to have Canadians look at the bill and know that there are no job creation measures, that there is nothing to make life more affordable and nothing to strengthen the services families rely on. Once again, the government is trying to avoid public scrutiny of the measures it is trying to ram through this House at breakneck speed.

I also want to take the opportunity today to talk a little about an area that really impacts on immigration, citizenship and multiculturalism.

First, the bill continues a pattern with which the government has made us all too familiar. It just keeps concentrating more and more power in the hands of the ministers so they do not have to come back into this House in a parliamentary democracy to have what they are trying to do examined in any way.

The government has made a complete mess of the temporary foreign worker program. We have seen it over and over again in the media, whether it is HD Mining in B.C.; the backlog of the live-in caregiver program, which the minister himself addressed and is facing major problems and needs major overhaul; or the temporary foreign worker program that is currently under scrutiny because of the outsourcing of jobs at RBC. Despite all of that media attention on it, what actions has the government really taken?

Canadians were doing jobs that workers were brought in to do, but Canadians were then asked, “By the way, before you leave, can you train these new workers?” Once again, Canadians are being denied Canadian jobs.

Over the last two weeks, several individuals have contacted my office to tell the same story. They were brought to Canada as skilled workers, only to lose their jobs once they acquired permanent residency, or were let go just before they qualified to apply for permanent residency, and therefore a new batch of temporary foreign workers could be brought in.

Over the last number of weeks we have heard again and again about staggering abuses. The accelerated labour market opinions, only ever meant for highly skilled workers, were used and abused in a way that once again shocked Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Intra-company transfers were an abuse of the system in a massive way. Where are the investigations for all of these and where are the fixes?

The government, by the way, has had an opportunity—no, several opportunities over several years—to fix the temporary foreign worker program. There was, again, an opportunity with this bill, but rather than actually fixing a program that is wrought with flaws, a program that desperately needs an entire overhaul to function and be administered properly, the Conservatives slap band-aids on the holes, but only once they are exposed.

Faulty LMOs are being doled out. It is not a problem for the government. It simply gives the minister the power to suspend or revoke work permits that have already been handed out, but only if they are caught and there is public oversight. Once again, this is being done at the same time that the government is cutting funding to CIC and, therefore, limiting the kind of oversight that can be done over these files, over the granting of LMOs and the granting of the permits that go along with them.

Rather than addressing the full scope of the problems with this program, the Conservatives' band-aid in this case is another ministerial override when work permits and labour market opinions that have already been approved by them—and this is post-approval, by the way—become political hot potatoes. It is all political expediency and a public relations exercise. This bill's improvements would not get to the heart of the mismanagement of the temporary foreign worker program under the Conservative government.

Next, this bill introduces privilege fees to be set out in regulations for employers that apply for work permits. The minister has announced that this fee would be in addition to the new fees announced in budget 2013 for servicing TFW applications. The intention of the new fee, apparently, is to act as a disincentive for unnecessary use of the program. Of course, given the government's record to date, there is no assurance that these fees would not be passed on to the temporary foreign workers themselves and there is no measure anywhere cited to ensure that they would not be.

The government is now trying to fix problems it created. The last time it tried to fix problems, it allowed employers to pay up to 15% less and, guess what, there was a massive denial of that in the House. Then, outside at a press conference, the minister said that program was gone. The ALMO, which was hastily implemented and then not administered, with very little oversight and abuse, was allowed to happen and has been suspended temporarily—and I would say it was allowed to happen because the ALMOs that were granted went way beyond the parameters that were set out for this particular program.

Once again, I want to say that we in the NDP are not opposed to a temporary foreign worker program that addresses the legitimate needs of skills shortages and acute labour shortages where no Canadians are available to do the work. That is what we stand for and yet, instead of protecting Canadian jobs and addressing the abuses that are happening, the government is once again looking for band-aid solutions.

Forgive my skepticism, but we learned only yesterday that the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development completely disregarded a briefing note that told her of almost 3,000 inappropriate uses of the TFW program almost a year ago. Yet a few weeks ago ministers and parliamentary secretaries all feigned surprise and said they moved quickly as soon as they found out there was a problem. In the world I live in, over a year or year and a half of waiting does not indicate that they took action quickly.

This bill would also deny due process to refugees, and I want to mention that. There are all kinds of fees that the minister would no longer have to come to the House to put into place. New Democrats have major concerns about the lack of transparency of the usage of those fees.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague, who knows this file on the temporary foreign workers so well.

We have this myth with the Conservatives about the market: we will just let the market decide; it is basic economics, the law of supply and demand. That is until it does not quite work for their friends in the big industry. For example, if there is a labour shortage, wages rise and there is competition.

However, what we have seen with the temporary foreign worker program is that the Conservatives have allowed 500,000 temporary foreign workers to be brought in to actually drive down wages and make it more difficult to have a competitive labour market.

It is clearly unfair to Canadians, but it is also clearly unfair to the people who are being brought over and treated as disposable labour. They come over here, they are supposed to do the work and then they are shipped back. Canada is left in a deficit position both in terms of local people who are not being employed and in terms of immigrant families who could actually become part of Canada and buy houses and participate; they are being left out.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague why she thinks it is that the government has allowed this program to actually undermine social development in our country.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind everyone in the House, especially my colleagues across the way, that Canada has a very proud history of having immigration policies that are all about nation building. This particular program, the temporary foreign worker program, actually undermines our position in the world and makes Canadians very uncomfortable, because of the way it is being administered and because of the abuses that are being allowed.

If we have a legitimate need for ongoing workers, whether it is in Tim Hortons, in the meat-cutting plant in Alberta or on the east coast in the fisheries area, it is not temporary work. It is ongoing work, and if there are no Canadians available, that is where the immigration system needs to kick in.

However, the government has made a boondoggle out of this program. It is being used and abused to favour its corporate friends to increase their profits.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on the temporary foreign worker program. It is a program that, in the past, has served our country exceptionally well. There are industries that have survived only because of having access to foreign workers.

It is important for us to recognize that, over the last couple of decades, we have seen great benefits to our nation as a direct result of the temporary foreign worker program.

Having said that, we do recognize that in the last couple of years, the government has really turned a blind eye to it. It has allowed the temporary foreign worker program to now exceed 330,000 foreign workers coming to Canada. Even during Canada's economic peak, we had roughly 160,000 foreign workers. There is an obvious imbalance.

My question to the member is what she, or the New Democratic Party, believes is the optimum number of temporary foreign workers that Canada should be looking at. That is if she can put it down in terms of numbers.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is not about a number. This is about a time when no Canadians are available for work, whether they are Canadian citizens or whether they have just arrived in Canada as permanent residents.

With all due respect, I would like to mention that it was under the Liberal government that the numbers started to increase in the temporary foreign worker program. Some of these lax grantings of LMOs started during that period and that has now accelerated.

I think that to ask for an arbitrary number is not to understand the fundamental reason why the program is in place and why it needs to exist. It only exists when we have genuine labour shortages, where Canadians are not available to do the work.

There is no number; it should just be in response to those vacancies.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be participating in the debate today on the budget implementation bill.

The success of a nation is due to the manner in which society values its workers, its innovators and the way it allows everyone the opportunity to succeed and improve their lives through hard work and ingenuity. This is supported in a recent book, Why Nations Fail, by Daron Acemoglu from MIT and James Robinson of Harvard University.

Why Nations Fail provides a historical study of civilizations that have succeeded and failed and determines that civilizations have fallen or thrived based on, above all else, their political institutions. Governments thrived when they provided the rule of law, secure property rights and a strong independent judiciary. Good government prevents any elite from extracting the wealth out of a country for themselves and spreads opportunity around.

Geography, culture and resources, all gifts that Canada has in abundance, take a back seat to good government that is responsive and accountable to its citizens in this manner. When money can travel over wireless networks in a split second and investors from anywhere in the world can invest anywhere else in the world within a matter of minutes, people will invest in a nation that will secure their investments and grow them with minimal risk. The people of those nations benefit with jobs and opportunities, as Canadians do.

Canada's economic action plan for 2013 is part of an economic process. It is in its seventh year. It began in 2006, from our Minister of Finance and Prime Minister. It prioritizes stability, prudent fiscal management and careful stewardship of our economy, something that most of Europe and the U.S. are struggling toward.

How is Canada doing? Most Canadians know these facts. Canada has had the most stable and sound financial system in the world for five years straight. Canada is the number one place in the world to do business. Canada has the highest possible credit rating from the three major rating agencies. We are in the best fiscal position of any of the G7 countries. We have the lowest government net debt to GDP ratio in the G7. During the recent recession Canada did not have to bail out a single bank. By 2015 we will have a balanced budget without putting our hands in the pockets of taxpayers and business owners for new taxes.

However, what some members of the House do not understand is that none of this happened by accident. This was achieved by good management and tough decisions. Let me give a few examples.

Back in 2006, when the U.S. government allowed risky mortgages that covered the entire value of the house, plus in some cases even the furniture, our government tightened up the mortgage rules, asking for higher credit ratings and stopping the 40-year terms the banks were pitching. This helped save Canada from a U.S.-style housing crisis. Despite our deficit, created to fight the 2008 recession, and the difficult task of limiting spending now to balance our national budget, just last year the NDP and Liberals wanted to send billions of our tax dollars to Europe to bail out governments that have not made the tough decisions we are making. We said, “No way”.

We would never consider the NDP plan to grab $60 billion out of the pockets of business owners, shareholders and workers, although personal debt is at an all-time high. Given the chance, that plan would include a death tax on the wealthy, promoted by the NDP academic branch at the Broadbent Institute. Of course, the definition of wealthy would be anyone who had perhaps $50,000 a year after they die, which is about the cost of a parking space at a condo in downtown Toronto.

Democracy is sharing power. Sound economics and strong institutions support that sharing and ensure the security of all Canadians, not just the wealthy. That is why those who are not wealthy are often the first to support Conservative budgets. In bad times the wealthy do all right, but those who are not wealthy are at the risk of losing everything. They have the most to lose when governments overspend for decades and go bankrupt. They are the ones who line up at the EI office. A good budget must balance the interests of all citizens, while not confiscating the earnings of entrepreneurs.

Where democracies get into financial trouble is when the public sector grows out of control and confiscates more than the private sector can afford to pay. Bill C-60 would implement a budget process that would reduce the size and cost of government, to be affordable. The budget would reduce full-time equivalents by attrition and eliminating positions and would reduce spending by another $600 million a year. The budget would be balanced by 2015.

On the other side of the floor, there are a lot of members who believe in their heart of hearts that governments exist to decide who gets what. They want to be the ones who write the rules for everyone else to divvy up the pie. They actually think that governing is like contract bargaining. What they do not understand is where wealth comes from. That is our focus. We cut it down, dig it up, manufacture it, reap it from the soil, add value through trade, and we must do it all better through innovation. The budget would help entrepreneurs and businesses that take risks and innovate to create wealth and new jobs for others.

There is something else they do not get. This is a free country, and when taxes get too high people and businesses leave.

I have seen this happen when the NDP, under the leadership of the then member for Toronto Centre—Rosedale, was in power as the NDP premier. The taxes in Ontario became the highest in North America: businesses left in droves; unemployment skyrocketed; government revenues crashed; and government debt more than doubled, from $38 billion to almost $100 billion. Ontario was essentially bankrupt.

As Dr. Phil says: “How's that working for them in Europe today?” Well, how about Greece with 27% unemployment, or Cyprus where bank deposits are being confiscated, or Portugal where the unemployment rate has reached 17%? It is no surprise that these countries are not prospering.

In Canada, we offer a vast land of opportunity which supports and rewards hard work while protecting people's human and property rights. This government values that above all else.

Budgets must be realistic and express tough decisions made for the long-term success of our country. This budget is building a foundation and structure for a secure future for our children and grandchildren. It closes tax loopholes for tax fairness and improves the integrity of the tax system. It supports innovation and research, and it is a commitment to Canadians that their economy is on the right track. Its success is founded on two major platforms: the first is paying down the debt on time and without excuses; and the second is strategic investment in growth and innovation.

The year 2013 began with a welcome announcement in my riding of Oakville when our Prime Minister visited Canada's largest Ford plant, the Oakville assembly plant, on January 6. The Prime Minister was there to announce an investment of $250 million in the automotive innovation fund to 1,000 CAW folks who build these high-quality low-emission cars. The fund is for auto industry firms undertaking large-scale research and development projects that are focused on innovative, greener and more fuel efficient vehicles. The fund is working.

The money invested in Ford's Windsor engine plant originally created 450 full-time jobs, but since then it has grown to 600 full-time jobs. What is more impressive is that there are 3,000 people working at the Oakville assembly plant who now work full-time as a result of investments made by this government in 2006.

Other projects supported by the AIF include Toyota Motor Manufacturing Canada's project green light, which includes the production of the RAV4 electric vehicle at Toyota's plant in Woodstock; Magna International's development of clean vehicle technologies, including energy-efficient components and innovative powertrain parts for next-generation vehicles; and construction of a new Toyota blended assembly line that will permit the simultaneous production of both the current Lexus model and the hybrid model.

Perhaps our single biggest problem at this point in our history is addressed in this budget. With hundreds of thousands of Canadians hitting retirement age in the next few years and the emergence of the knowledge economy, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce says that without action we could have over 500,000 unskilled workers who will not be able to find work by 2016. Without action in this budget, there could be over one million skilled job vacancies by 2016. The former president of Seneca College, Rick Miner, summarizes the problem in the title of his report, “People without Jobs, Jobs without People”.

The most significant contribution of this budget is perhaps the creation of the Canada job grant, which could provide $15,000 or more per person, with matching funds to match people with jobs. This fund will help up to 130,000 Canadians with access to training for the jobs that are available. This will be at community colleges, career colleges and trade union training centres.

This budget and our previous budget have demonstrated that Prime Minister Harper and our Minister of Finance are building our nation to heights we have never seen before—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

I will remind the member not to refer to any members of the chamber, including the Prime Minister, by their given name.