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.

Second Reading

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

Mr. Speaker, I know the member was not elected in this place at the time Bill C-60, the omnibus budget bill of spring 2013, first brought in changes to disadvantage credit unions by increasing their tax rates and removing the tax credit they used to have. However, I was pleased to hear him speak in favour of the importance of credit unions, particularly to rural Canadians.

I have been disappointed that the changes made under Harper have not been rolled back by the current government. Would the member favour restoring to the credit unions the status they had before the spring omnibus budget bill of 2013, which was then known as Bill C-60?

Motions in Amendment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Okay. Rather than making an amendment to delete, one way of amending is voting against something. So this is an amendment by deletion.

There is a need to delete clause 121 that coordinated with Bill C-60, Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, which received royal assent in the first session of the 41st Parliament.

The coordinating amendment is addressed under government amendment 9 to paragraph 115(e), page 258. I totally understand that.

My understanding is—actually, forget my understanding. Let's ask our witnesses to explain what I'm talking about.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

This motion deletes subclause 115(e) on page 258 of the bill, since those amendments already have royal assent as part of the Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1. The bill and the Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1 both contain the same amendments to the fiscal arrangements act.

Since the Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1 has already passed, the amendments contained in this bill are no longer necessary.

National Capital Act

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-565, An Act to amend the National Capital Act (Gatineau Park) and to make a related amendment to the Department of Canadian Heritage Act.

Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to introduce a new version of my bill concerning Gatineau Park, which I originally introduced in November 2012. I wish to thank the hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé for seconding this new version.

The version I am presenting here today includes the changes to the National Capital Act that resulted from the passing of the government's Bill C-60 a little earlier this year.

Apart from that, this bill is identical to the one I introduced in 2012. It gives Gatineau Park special status in the National Capital Act by establishing the park's boundaries in the act, giving those boundaries parliamentary protection and prohibiting the sale of public lands located within the park.

Once again, I invite all of my colleagues from all parties in this House to support my bill at second reading.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Report Stage

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to rise. I would have asked a question, except I have some issues I can pose to the entire Conservative caucus as opposed to any one individual member.

I want to start off by addressing the comments of the previous speaker about reaching a balanced budget by 2015. That is going to be much easier for the Conservatives because last year, as we understand it, there were $10 billion allocated in the budget they did not spend. There were people who were expecting monies, heritage and other places that was not spent. In other words, the Conservatives broke promises to people, which does not come as a great surprise. Therefore, hallelujah, they are going to announce that we have this money to put toward the deficit, so it is more important to meet this one target than it is to follow through on their commitments to Canadians and Canadian organizations.

I sat on the finance committee for a period of time through the last omnibus bills and all of the what I would call nothing short of craziness happened at committee as a result of the fact that so many things had been piled on top of the other that actually belonged, in our opinion, in other committees. With Bill C-4, the Conservatives are doing it again.

Of the last bills that came before that committee, Bill C-38, was the biggest one with which I was involved. It changed the Navigable Waters Act, the Environmental Assessment Act and all kinds of things that a person outside this place would ask what it had to do with the budget. The fact was it did not. It was just a tactic on the part of the government to jam things together to get it through as fast as it could, to keep it from being at committees where it could receive the proper scrutiny by members and the witnesses who could bring the expertise before the committee to fortify the situation.

Before the prorogation, we were dealing with Bill C-54 about the not criminally responsible. Some of the witnesses who came from the health community said that nobody in the psychiatric community was asked about that bill. All of this is symptomatic of what is happening with the government in the sense of not wanting to hear from anyone, MPs or anyone else.

My view and the view of the New Democratic Party is that committees are there to make bills better. We are there to help the government. The government brings forward a bill and we have a critique of it and recommendations, which are called amendments, never see the light of day because they are voted down at committee or motions are passed at committee to limit the time we have. If we do not meet that time allocation, anything that has not been voted on is deemed to have failed. Therefore, we could have a list of 25 good quality amendments and Conservatives will not even listen to them.

That anti-democratic aspect limits the ability of the sincere efforts of the House to try to improve legislation in a way that is just baffling. How in the world can Conservatives justify shutting out information, even if it is not from us? Information from the public or from experts in any given field relative to the budget or relative to those things that have been piled into the budget, how can they shut that down without giving it any consideration?

It makes us wonder what is behind the agenda. This is not new. As I said, it happened with Bills C-38, C-45, C-60. Other speakers today talked about the fact that all of those bills had some blatant mistakes that successive bills had to correct.

I am troubled again by the fact the Canadian Federation of Municipalities warned the current government and the previous government about a deficit in infrastructure to the tune of somewhere between $175 billion and $200 billion that needed to be taken care of now. Look at the situation with the bridge in Montreal, and we understand how desperate it can get really quickly.

It looks like some interim work has been done to repair the bridge and get the traffic flowing, but stepping back from that, we have almost $200 billion elsewhere in our country that deserves support. I believe the Minister of Finance has said that there is $800 billion of dead capital that businesses are holding onto for a couple of reasons. There is some sensibility to what they are doing because in 2008 they had trouble getting money from the banks. We had the lowest interest rates practically in the history of our country, so why was the government not taking 10-year bonds and partnering with the business community to start addressing some of the infrastructure needs?

In my community of Hamilton, we are near desperate on sewage. I hear of figures somewhere close to $200 billion of a deficit on Hamilton sewage. Basements of houses on certain streets in Hamilton flood every time there is a serious rainfall. They cannot even get insurance anymore. It is very clear for us.

The previous speaker made reference to temporary foreign workers. The figures I have may not be precise but they are certainly close. Two or three years ago we had roughly 240,000 new immigrants to Canada. They have support here. They have a sponsor who is responsible for all of their costs for 10 years, so there is no liability to us for them. However, in that period there were 241,000 temporary workers.

The temporary worker program was initially put in as support for the farmers. There was lots of work Canadians did not want to do and farmers needed help, and that program was originally set up to bring them in. Then all of a sudden, certain aspects of the business community woke up to the fact that they could pay temporary foreign workers less money and they would not have obligations to them. By the way, because they are here on a temporary permit, if they do not do exactly what they want, they get to go home really quickly. People from other countries come here. They are very dependent on money to help their families back home. It is a very insecure situation and they are being abused by the government and employers in Canada. That is shameful. There is no other word for it.

From my perspective, to hear the Conservatives talk about some modest change, I would love to have seen that at the immigration committee, to talk about temporary foreign workers and to look at that program in-depth, to step back from it and make some suggestions to help with that, but that opportunity was not afforded to us.

Going a little further on this, Bill C-4, as previous omnibus bills, piled together amendments to over 70 laws. One of them is the Public Service labour relations employment board act. That is a new addition. Another one is the Mackenzie gas project impacts fund act.

Why do we need a new act for labour relations when we have had labour relations in the country between the public service workers and the government for many decades? Why do the Conservatives suddenly need to change that? If we do need to change it, why is it not done through the appropriate department and the appropriate committee rather than a budget bill? It sounds like somebody is up to something. If I were a worker, with the number of cuts there has been to the public service workers already, I would be a little nervous just about the title of that bill.

Contained in Bill C-4 are very vicious anti-worker and anti-veteran measures. I never thought I would stand in the House of Commons in our country and say our government has anti-veteran policies.

The Conservatives have made changes to health and safety protection for workers. My time is running out and I have not even started my speech, but this is part of the give and take in this place. The last speaker spoke about some things that drew my attention to it, but if I have to close, I am certainly proud to close on defending veterans.

There is a Veterans Review and Appeal Board. We have seen day in and day out in the media of late where the ombudsman has spoken out in defence of veterans saying that they are not getting the health care or the protection they deserve and there are numerous budget cuts to that department. That is shameful. One thing Parliament must stand for is the veterans of our country.

This is an anti-worker, anti-veteran bill and it is absolutely shameful.

Bill C-4—Time Allocation Motion

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

Mr. Speaker, here we are again.

The government is using this procedure for the 58th time. That is unbelievable. This is the 58th time since the last election alone. The government is shattering all the records and the worst records at that. This government is obsessed with shutting down all debate.

Something to notice about this particular one, which I think makes the point as to why the Conservatives are so offline and so contrary to parliamentary rules and procedure, is that the bill they are rushing through under time allocation this time, which they had to rush through in the last stage of debate to get it to committee, was not looked at by the committee for three weeks.

The government hit the panic button in the House of Commons and shut down debate because it is such an urgent bill. We had to get to it right away. It was so vital to the economy, but of course, the finance committee did not look at it for the next 21 days.

A second piece of this time allocation, which is fascinating, is that the Conservatives make so many mistakes when they do this, when they shut down debate in Parliament. Bill C-4, which they are shutting down today, is there to make corrections to a previous bill that they rushed through Parliament, Bill C-60, which was making corrections to a previous bill that they rushed through Parliament, Bill C-48.

This is what the government does time and again. It keeps making these mistakes because it is in such a panic, yet it calls it good government and good order. It is not. It is bad legislation. It is bad process.

When is the government going to learn? This is no way to run a country.

Report Stage

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

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member could speak to the fact that we now have what appears to be a new practice that did not exist under previous administrations, being two omnibus budget bills a year.

That is what happened in 2012, with Bill C-38 and Bill C-45, and that is what is happening this year with Bill C-60 and Bill C-4. It means that every single budget is followed by a omnibus bill, which in the last two years has comprised 800 to 900 pages each time, of multiple separate acts. The Canadian Bar Association made the point on Bill C-4 that this reduces the ability to have proper hearings and scrutiny on each of the component parts of the legislation, and it violates parliamentary practice.

I wonder if my colleague from Winnipeg North would agree.

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it was interesting to listen to the member's speech. It is as though we are living in a parallel universe. The people I have talked to are worried about the fact that funds for social housing are disappearing, that child and family poverty in parts of our country have not gone down, that people are working two and three jobs just to feed their children and that student loan debt is increasing. Municipalities have been calling on the government to invest in infrastructure, whether it is sewer, water or roads.

With respect to the environment, over the last couple of weeks we saw Canada being castigated on the world stage for its grim record on greenhouse gas emission reductions, plus any of the other initiatives we might be taking around prevention and mitigation. Our former leader, the late Jack Layton, used to say that we needed to talk about the fact that it was fine to fix the roof, but it did not do us any good if the foundation was crumbling. I would argue that the foundation in Canada is crumbling under the government's watch.

With regard to Bill C-4, the NDP is opposing it both on process and content. This is just like the three previous omnibus budget bills, C-38, C-45 and C-60.

Bill C-4 would amend 70 pieces of legislation. It contains two entirely new acts, the Mackenzie gas project impacts fund act and the public service labour relations and employment board. In talking about this, I want to refer to the process for one moment. It is our responsibility as parliamentarians to thoroughly review legislation that comes before us, to call witnesses and propose amendments. We are not able to do that in this current democratic deficit climate.

I want to quote a couple of people who have commented on the government process with regard to omnibus bills.

In iPolitics, former finance officials Scott Clark and Peter DeVries stated:

Budget vagueness is a troubling trend. Vagueness and obtuseness have featured in successive budgets, with details provided in the omnibus budget bills. The real budget has now become the budget omnibus bill. This undermines the credibility and transparency of the budget and requires much more diligence in assessing budget proposals.

Andrew Coyne stated:

Not only does this make a mockery of the confidence convention—shielding bills that would otherwise be defeatable within a money bill, which is not—it makes it impossible to know what Parliament really intended by any of it. We've no idea whether MPs supported or opposed any particular bill in the bunch, only that they voted for the legislation that contained them. There is no common thread that runs between them, no overarching principle; they represent not a single act of policy, but a sort of compulsory buffet....But there is something quite alarming about Parliament being obliged to rubber-stamp the government's whole legislative agenda at one go.

I could not agree more with Mr. Coyne.

The challenge here is that time after time we have heard the government get up and say that the NDP has voted against X. What it does not say is that it was an omnibus budget bill that would change several different pieces of acts and regulations. Perhaps there were pieces of the legislation that we agreed with but also pieces we could not agree with. Therefore, we do a balancing act. We take a look at the overall public good, then we determine whether we will vote for or against. Unfortunately, with the way the government acts, we largely end up voting against its omnibus budget bills because we do not see them as being in the public good overall.

I want to highlight some of the changes proposed by this legislation. As I mentioned, it will amend or repeal 70 pieces of legislation in over 300 pages. It strips health and safety officers of their powers and puts nearly all of these powers into the hands of the minister. It significantly weakens the ability of employees to refuse work in unsafe conditions. It moves to eliminate binding arbitration as a method to resolve disputes in the public service. It guts Canada's most venerable scientific research institution, the National Research Council. It reduces the number of permanent members on the Veterans Review and Appeal Board and repeals the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board. It pushes ahead with the Conservatives' ill-advised $350 million tax hike on labour-sponsored ventured capital funds and allows for three directors of the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board to be non-Canadian residents.

Many of the changes that proposed deserved separate legislation so we could have had that kind of thorough review. Instead, we have a bill that was rammed through and presented to three different committees in very limited time frames. Any amendments that were proposed by the official opposition or the opposition parties were rejected out of hand.

That is not good governance. That is what the Conservatives claim they stand for in this country: good governance, accountability, and transparency. None of those three are true.

I just want to touch on the Parliamentary Budget Officer for just one moment, another officer of Parliament who has been under attack by the government. He has been forced to go to court to try to get documents to demonstrate what kinds of savings are being proposed by the government.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer estimated that the overall impact of budget 2012, fiscal update 2012, and budget 2013 would be a loss of 67,000 jobs by 2017 and a 0.57% reduction in GDP. This is a significant decline in economic growth.

That leads me to the smoke and mirrors games played by the Conservatives. An article from November 13, on Global News, indicated that the government had“sat on more than $10 billion in funds Parliament approved and Canadians were told they could expect in 2012-13 through a slew of programs in dozens of departments”.

The federal government held on to more than $10 billion it was expected to spend in 2012-13, with almost half coming from two departments, according to recently published financial documents. These were funds Parliament approved and Canadians were told they could expect...including the Senate Ethics Officer, disability and death compensation at Veterans Affairs, and weather and environmental services for Canadians at Environment Canada.

I want to touch on one particular part of this fund, and that is Transport Canada. I do not know where most members live and whether the municipalities where they live are suffering the kinds of infrastructure deficits many of our communities are suffering from. Many of our communities have aging infrastructure, and this is a deficit that is being passed on to future generations, because we have refused consistently over decades to provide the federal contribution to updating and upgrading the infrastructure.

Interestingly, Transport Canada, with Infrastructure Canada, had the most trouble spending its budget.

In 2012-13, that department was responsible for almost $1.6 billion of Transport's overall $2.5 billion lapse, according to the Public Accounts....

Within Infrastructure Canada, a large chunk of the lapse in 2012-13 came from the Building Canada Fund, an $8.8 billion project announced in 2007. The project was set up to support national, regional, and municipal projects related to public transit, green energy and drinking water, among other priorities.

Last year, the two components of the funds—the “major infrastructure” and “community” components—were together slated to spend more than $2.2 billion. Only $1.1 billion made it out the door.

That is shameful. If that is the way the government is going to move toward balancing the budget, it is balancing the budget on the backs of our communities.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer suggested, in a review of the supplementary estimates, that the government has been unable to spend approximately $10 billion of the budgetary authorities provided by Parliament over each of the past three years. As such,

Parliamentarians may wish to seek clarification regarding why this level of unspent money remains so high, what measures will be undertaken by departments and agencies to ensure that spending directed by Parliament occurs, and whether all of the $5.4 billion sought in these supplementary estimates is actually required.

That is just one example. I just want to close by saying that child poverty is not even being tackled in this budget. I want to point to the grim record in British Columbia, where child and family poverty has simply not been tackled. There is absolutely a federal government role in this, and I would actually encourage members in this House to support my Bill C-233, which proposes a poverty reduction plan. The federal government can take some leadership.

I have just a couple of numbers here. B.C. had a child poverty rate of 18.6%, the worst rate of any province in Canada using the before-tax, low-income cutoffs of Statistics Canada as the measure of poverty.

By any measure, I think each and every one of us in this House would agree that children should come first and that it is time for the government to actually demonstrate leadership by putting in place programs and services that support our families and our communities.

Motions in Amendment

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

Mr. Speaker, let me thank my colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques for seconding all of these changes.

Let us let Canadians know what all these amendments are in aid of. We are now debating Bill C-4, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget, except that we are dealing with another attempt by the Conservatives to pull the wool over the eyes of Canadians. We want to slow the process down so that Canadians are not blindsided again with this omnibus legislation.

This is the fourth omnibus budget bill the government has brought in. Bill C-4 amends over 70 different pieces of legislation in over 300 pages. It follows on the heels of previous omnibus budget Bills C-38, C-45, and C-60. The bill contains entirely new laws: the Mackenzie gas project impacts fund act and the public service labour relations and employment board act. There are brand new acts within the bill.

Like its predecessor omnibus budget bills, this bill contains a wide variety of measures, many of which are not even in the budget and do not have any relationship to the budget. They are changes such as gutting health and safety protections for federal jurisdiction workers; cuts to reductions at the Veterans Review and Appeal Board; repealing the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board; and changes to how we select Supreme Court judges.

These are not budget items, yet they are crammed into an omnibus bill, within a very short timeframe, to evade the scrutiny of Parliament. Canadians will not really have a full appreciation of the changes being made. It negates the opportunity of parliamentarians to hear a full range of witnesses, to engage in thorough examination, discussion, and debate about a bill, and to then propose reasoned amendments for improvements that would help make these laws better.

As we have seen in the past, because of the short timeframe, bills have been rushed through Parliament and passed, and then the government has had to go back and correct them after the fact because of mistakes it had made.

With this bill, as with all the other omnibus bills, Conservatives accepted not one amendment. They would not change even one comma. No one else has any good ideas. They would change nothing. In our discussions at committee, there were several amendments proposed. The NDP proposed 24. Other opposition parties proposed amendments. Not one change was accepted, as in the previous omnibus budget bills.

There was a time limit imposed on our study at committee. We had only two days of witnesses, including an hour with the minister, and there was a deadline of midnight. Everything we had not voted on in the bill was deemed passed, and if it was an amendment, it was deemed rejected. That certainly did not allow us much latitude for making changes or even for trying to slow down the parliamentary process and review.

Canadians are offended by this. We have heard from many Canadians who are getting the message about the lack of democracy in these omnibus budget bills. However, we also heard expert testimony.

The Canadian Bar Association testified at our committee during the two days of study. It said that “eschewing consultation and employing omnibus bills diminish the quality of our laws and the democratic process. We urge you to reconsider these practices”.

We completely agree.

We heard a variety of witnesses oppose the process of omnibus budget bills. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation agreed with us that this is a bad way to bring in legislation.

What it does is attach unpopular measures to popular measures and does not allow the separation of issues so that there can be good and thorough debate. It prevents separate votes on issues by lumping them all together. Obviously, it is less transparent and fundamentally less democratic. We believe that this evasion of parliamentary scrutiny is not worthy of the House.

Let me deal with the notion that this bill is in any way aiding the priorities of Canadians in terms of creating jobs and a stronger economy. In this bill, the Conservatives have failed to put forward significant job creation measures at a time when we are seeing stagnating incomes, stagnating wages, insecurity in the workplace, job insecurity, and all-time high household debt. This is at a time when we have a current account trade deficit of over $60 billion, which is a record for our country.

We believe that what the Conservative government ought to do is deal with the real challenges the economy is facing. Let me quote a couple of sources. The Conservatives may feel that they know better, but let us hear what the International Monetary Fund had to say:

...the IMF no longer views Canada as the growth engine of the G7 economies. While bettering the European members, Canadian growth is projected to play second fiddle to the U.S. in 2012, 2013 and 2014. Growth in “other advanced countries” not in the G7 club, such as the Scandinavian nations and Australia and New Zealand, are also projected to outperform Canada. Going forward, it predicts the Canadian economy will continue to be held back by high household debt levels and a cooling housing market.

That is the International Monetary Fund.

Business columnist David Olive wrote:

We know from the recent American and British experience with austerity chic that you cannot cut your way to prosperity. Indeed, sucking demand, or cash, out of an economy with cutbacks to government spending—including essential services and infrastructure upgrading—merely adds to the jobless lines and cuts household incomes. That, in turn, drives up social-spending costs related to mounting unemployment.

Clearly, the Conservative government is failing on the economy.

Let us hear from Paul Wells, from Maclean's, in his recent article, “Stephen Harper and the knowledge economy: perfect strangers”. He wrote:

...by the broadest measure of expenditure on research and development, Canada has fallen from 16th out of 41 comparable countries [since] the year Stephen Harper became prime minister...

The Conservative government is failing on so many counts to do the job on the economy, yet it has an omnibus budget bill that would cram in over 60 amendments to the Canada Labour Code. Anyone working anywhere in the federal jurisdiction, not just for the federal government but perhaps in the transportation sector, banking, telecommunications, interprovincial trucking, rail, ships, trains, or airlines, would be affected by this.

It would strip the powers of health and safety inspectors. They could inspect a workplace with a phone call. However, it would not be a qualified inspector; it would just be someone the minister appointed, who would not even have to be qualified.

There are so many regressive changes in this bill that attack the basic rights of people in the workplace. It is a colossal step backward. All Canadian workers should be very concerned about this legislation. It is a colossal step backward for Canadians.

New Democrats will not support the Conservatives' attempt to evade scrutiny by Parliament and Canadians. We oppose this budget and its implementation bills, unless it is revised to reflect the real priorities of Canadian families: creating quality, well-paid jobs; ensuring retirement security; fostering opportunities for young people; and making life for families more affordable.

I see that my time is up. I thank the House for the opportunity, and I welcome questions from my parliamentary colleagues.

Third reading

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Mr. Speaker, never have such strong-arm tactics been used to amend national museum legislation. I want to congratulate the members opposite.

The way this government expects Parliament to do its bidding would make anyone's blood boil. Not only are the Conservatives asking us to stand quietly by while they shove a museum down our throats, but they are also asking us to trust them. That takes the cake.

They are getting ready to shut down the existing Canadian Museum of Civilization and, at the same time, they are asking us to believe that the museum will be just as popular, just as accessible and just as non-partisan as it has been for the past 20 years. More than anything though, the Conservatives are asking us to trust their word when they swear that the government will not interfere with the new museum. We know that the government is passionate about certain historic topics, at least when presented in nice, little 30-second television clips.

They are asking Canadians to close their eyes, fall backwards and hope that someone will be there to catch them. There are far more reasons not to believe them than there are to trust them.

We know what the Conservatives' commitments to the independence of crown corporations really mean. We are well aware of examples of their interference elsewhere in government. I am especially thinking of Bill C-60, which is the most obvious example of their taste for excessively proactive management of arm's-length agencies. We know that the government is always elbow-deep into the operations of any organization that needs to operate autonomously and at arm's length.

The Conservatives also ask us to trust them when they tell us they have consulted experts. However, the national associations of archaeologists, anthropologists and historians have publicly expressed their outrage at not being consulted. The Conservatives are asking us to trust them, just as we would like to trust the government to protect our national institutions, such as Library and Archives Canada and Parks Canada, institutions that the Conservatives have deliberately gutted in recent years. They were stripped of their experts and their researchers, individuals who work hard to protect our history. I do not need to remind you that Parks Canada and its historic sites recently lost 80% of their archaeologists thanks to the Conservatives. This kind of behaviour is astounding. Then, they ask us to trust them

Tonight, they will ask us to trust them to create an independent museum, free to choose its content and direction, yet we are being told exactly what that content will be, and how it will be new and improved—not to mention that there are still significant concerns about ongoing interference at the Canadian Museum of Civilization. After all this time, what we hear everywhere is that no one trusts them. That is the issue.

It is clear that the museum or its experts did not come up with this idea and proceed to present it to academics, stakeholders, and then the public. In committee, the minister at the time clearly told us that this all started in his own office. It was his idea. This is what he said in committee. He started thinking about this in May 2011. Then, the minister made an announcement on the spot, at the museum, while the museum employees and experts themselves were kept away by security guards.

It was only after this announcement that they thought of introducing the bill. Now, that is strange. Then they decided to inform the opposition parties, and it was only after all this that they thought of consulting the public. Finally, someone decided to talk to historians, archaeologists, museum curators and experts. Everything was done backwards.

The members opposite said that we had a lot of nerve to oppose the bill before it was introduced in the House. They told us that we were not respecting parliamentary matters. That is pretty pathetic, coming from them. The reality is that when they introduced this bill, their minds were made up. The Canadian Postal Museum was already closed and dismantled, without warning and in secrecy. They had already made plans to dismantle the Grand Hall that depicts Canada's history.

The parliamentary stage of their plan to gut the Canadian Museum of Civilization was simply a nuisance for them, a speed bump on the fast track to a museum created by the Conservatives for their own enjoyment. By rejecting all of our amendments in committee, they have confirmed that impression.

Now let us talk about the consultations. We are not the only ones saying that the government does not want to hear anyone's opinion on this project. In committee, the president of the Canadian Anthropology Society, Lorne Holyoak, said that he felt the museum and the government did not make an effort to adequately consult the professional community of historians, anthropologists and archaeologists.

The head of the Canadian Anthropology Society said this about the museum consultation:

The meetings on the new museum that have been convened to date do not meet the definition of true consultation, a formal discussion between groups of people before a decision is made. The public meetings held last fall were brainstorming or awareness sessions, but not actual consultations.

National associations of historians and archaeologists have said the same thing. They were not consulted either.

The museum's CEO was asked to talk about that in committee, and my colleague from Hochelaga, who is an archaeologist herself, asked whether Canadians and museum experts were consulted about the changes to the mandate. The CEO responded that they did not ask Canadians if they thought the mandate should be changed.

This is from the Canadian heritage committee hearings:

Mr. Chair, we did not ask Canadians if they thought that the mandate should be changed.

That is the president of the museum speaking.

Once again, there is a profound credibility gap between what the government has been promising us and what has actually happened at the museum. It is very difficult for us to put our support, and as we all know, it is impossible for Canadians to put their trust in a process that has not been straightforward. This process has not been an open one, as it could have been. This is a question of credibility for the government and it is a question of trust for us.

It was clear to everyone that the government's mind was made up before the consultations were held. Even the mayor of Gatineau was not consulted. He was invited to the minister's announcement, where he learned about this plan at the same time as everyone else. He seemed rather surprised, I must say. Then, he was asked his opinion on a bill that had already been introduced.

The effect of this complete lack of consultation has been particularly clear for first nations and for the Japanese-Canadian community.

Last June, a group of first nations people decided to visit the Museum of Civilization to see an important artifact that is on display in the existing Canadian history hall on the fifth floor. I actually encourage my colleagues to see this massive, very impressive exhibit. The people came to see the Nishga Girl, a fishing vessel built by Japanese-Canadian boatbuilders unjustly confiscated by the Canadian government during the Second World War and then donated to the Museum of Civilization by one of the hereditary chiefs of the Nisga'a First Nation.

First nations visitors arrived at the museum in June to see the boat that they had donated, and they discovered it was gone. It had been sent off to storage, and the museum was about to get rid of it. That mistake caused a huge amount of anger for first nations and for the Japanese-Canadian community. We brought this up in the House, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister was very delicate, as always, and he called it “storage”.

The Museum of Civilization officials have since apologized personally in Winnipeg to leaders of both communities and have promised to return the boat to the museum's exhibition.

This is what happens when consultation does not take place; this is what happens when politicians try to draw their own museum exhibits; this is what happens when the people at the top think that consultation is not important.

The Conservatives do not appear to be trying to change the Canadian Museum of Civilization because the current museum is lacking in history, or because the first nations are not adequately represented, or because of any of the other oversights that the Conservatives have already brought up in the House and continue to talk about in the media. Instead, it appears to be because the Conservatives are not satisfied with the version of history that is presented: an archeological, cultural and community-based history; a history of survival, commerce and trade; a history of the builders of this continent; a history that they do not think fits in with their identity or policies.

This all boils down to an issue of credibility and trust. We cannot trust this government, which has wasted every opportunity, which has exaggerated history and has distorted it for its own political purposes. It bypassed the experts who could have taught this government a lot about Canadian history and about how to appreciate and promote it.

We cannot trust a government that spent $70 million on television ads about the war of 1812 during the Super Bowl and that continues to cut staff and archeologists from archeological and historical sites.

The member for St. Catharines dared to say last week that we oppose history. In response, I say, on the contrary, we are defending history, while the Conservatives are harming it by suffocating researchers. For all of these reasons, we cannot support Bill C-7.

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in order for politicians to get through their very long days and heavy schedules, they have to take some pleasure in what they are doing. I must admit, however, that I did not enjoy reading Bill C-4 at all.

I therefore took a few minutes before writing these words to escape into my own mind a bit, and my thoughts turned to movies. I really had the feeling as I read through Bill C-4 that I was being shown an old movie—I am trying to refrain from saying a really bad one—in which I had played a role. I began to imagine the titles I could give to it.

If it were a French film, we could call it Rebelote. If it were an American film, we could call it The Empire Strikes Back. I must admit I spent a few moments imagining certain members of the party across the way wearing the emperor's costume or dressed as Darth Vader. I will not name them, but I will leave it up to my colleagues to picture them, given that Halloween is this week.

After these few amusing moments I allowed myself, I came back to more serious things and thought I would perhaps begin my speech with a reference to the words of the anti-slavery Republican President Abraham Lincoln, who defined democracy in the following way:

Democracy is government of the people, by the people, for the people.

That is quite simple, but quite concrete. I will not analyze this wonderful definition in detail, but the more time goes by under the Conservative regime, the more certain I become that our country is straying dangerously far from that democratic ideal.

When day after day I see how the members of this government, the Prime Minister's Office and the Prime Minister himself seem mired in expense scandals, questionable deals made behind Canadians' backs, the silencing of dissident voices and the introduction of measures that are so complex that people feel their basic rights are being breached, I sincerely worry about the very future of our parliamentary system.

For the fourth time in two and a half years, this government is trying to circumvent parliamentary and public oversight. As the saying goes, just the once will not hurt, but four times in two and a half years means it is becoming a habit for this government.

Canadians deserve better than a Conservative omnibus bill that again hurts Canadian families by increasing the cost of living and that creates very few or no jobs when all is said and done. This bill is very big. Its 300-odd pages cover 70 acts, and we have only a few days or a few weeks, to study such a bill. The entire package will very likely be studied by the Standing Committee on Finance, which must really have significant expertise in appointing Supreme Court justices, employment insurance and immigration. The committee members are exceedingly multi-talented.

I often wonder what I am doing in the House, if not fighting for democracy. These bills are so huge that it becomes very difficult to properly analyze and fully understand them. They usually contain an alarming number of wide-ranging measures intended to hide other controversial ones, such as the measures attacking Canada's public service.

For months now, the government's methods and attitude when it comes to employment insurance matters have been symptomatic of the Conservative ministers' inability to implement a policy and measures to move the country forward. These same ministers are being given more and more power with each omnibus bill.

The democratic process that is based on dialogue and collaboration was so violated that the reform turned into a hatchet job. Everywhere I go, Canadians feel attacked, deeply hurt and, worse than anything, poorer. When people feel poorer, it is because they can see it when they manage their weekly budget.

This is why we as NDP members are categorically opposed to this bill. The reasons are many, but I am going to focus on several points that deal specifically with employment insurance.

The NDP has opposed this reform from the outset. After months of consultation in the field, we came to the obvious conclusion that employment insurance reform is an economic failure and it has to be stopped as quickly as possible.

Curiously, in the provinces most affected by the reform, it is the provincial governments that now have to work to assess the disastrous consequences it brings. That is co-operation for you.

It does not make any sense. It is disrespectful for a federal government to refuse to work with its partners in other levels of government, or with practically all the members of this House. Even inside the federal government, voices are being raised to decry the way in which the government is imposing its ideology on such a sensitive issue.

I have given up counting the times when federal officials, who have always worked to serve their fellow Canadians, have shown their distress and their incomprehension at the authoritarian and brutal methods with which they are required to process claimants' files.

Unfortunately, these are not just files that have to be processed with profit-making quotas, probably. These are families that need help. That is the approach that the public service used to have. It is about supporting communities and stimulating the economy.

Bill C-4 follows the same path as the three previous omnibus bills. I am talking about Bills C-38, C-45 and C-60. Now Bill C-4 is amending 70 pieces of legislation and adding two completely new acts. I hope for the next time that this is enough. It also includes such measures as the one to abolish the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board.

To be specific, Bill C-4 abolishes the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board and gives the Minister of Finance the power to manipulate rate-setting. Yet another power gathered unto the bosom of a minister. What does the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board do, or what is it supposed to do? Well, surprise, surprise, the answers in the bill are quite vague. We might say that there are none.

When the Conservatives set up the Employment Insurance Financing Board in 2008, we might have thought that they were headed in the right direction. We heard it said repeatedly in the House that this was probably a step in the right direction. However, one step forward, two steps back—that is what we have become used to with them. We thought that it might be the very tool to prevent successive governments from stealing employment insurance funds to eliminate other deficits. We expected the board to really prevent another misappropriation of that fund such as we saw under the Chrétien and Martin governments.

At that time, tens of billions of dollars in worker and employer premiums were simply stolen by the government. However, when it comes to the Conservatives, appearances can be deceiving and should never be trusted. The board remained a good intention, but in actual fact it is an empty shell, an institution without a soul, without powers and without purpose.

Let us go a bit further. The Employment Insurance Financing Board seems to bother the Conservative government. Why is this organization so bothersome? Why does it want to abolish it?

By eliminating the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board, once again the government is toying dangerously with morality. However, we feel it is essential to guarantee the protection of the premiums paid by employers and workers throughout Canada. It is a matter of social justice and fairness for all. Who among us can be sure that he or she will have a job for life and will never have to turn to employment insurance? The answer is simple—no one can.

Why continually attack those who are looking for work? Why does the government constantly attack those who are having trouble finding long-term, stable, permanent employment?

In conclusion, unemployment is of course a major concern for NDP members. We will introduce reforms to create jobs and curtail employment uncertainty everywhere in Canada as early as 2015, and even earlier.

In 2015, when we replace this tired government that is mired in scandals, we will restore a mechanism to protect the employment insurance fund so that the money that is put into it is used in the way it was intended.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have the same issue over and over again in my constituency office, families who have been seeking reunification, patiently waiting. I am horrified by the change in policy and the moving of the goalposts for so many families that have been doing all the right things, filing all the right papers; they find they have to start all over again.

My question is on the member's last point, on finding omnibus budget bills. In the last number of years the Conservatives have done two omnibus bills per budget. In 2012-2013 we had a spring omnibus budget bill, C-38, and then a fall omnibus budget bill, C-45, then Bill C-60 and now Bill C-4. Each of these monstrous bills has included many aspects that had nothing at all to do with the budget, but were mere expedients for pushing things through the House that much faster.

I wonder if the hon. member knows what the official opposition would do? Could we have House rules to restrict when omnibus bills are legitimate? How would the official opposition deal with this problem?

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

Mr. Keddy just said what had been left unsaid so far, namely, that this is a motion to expedite the process in the House.

The committee's motion should not make it possible to expedite debate. We are here to study motions and amendments thoroughly and to debate bills. That's what we do.

Independent members cannot sit on the committee on a regular basis. In all other discussions, no independent member has the same right to speak that we, as regular members, do.

In that respect, the debate we could have in the House of Commons should focus on the ability of these members, who do not enjoy the same status we do, to assert their right to represent their constituents. That is the crux of the matter, here. For example, Green Party members, independent members and Bloc québécois members do not have the right to sit as regular members of a committee. As per its procedure, the House of Commons entitles them to represent their constituents in the House of Commons when a bill is being study at report stage, as we can here. That gives legitimacy to their right to represent their constituents.

Now, think about the fact that amendments are proposed one at a time. Mr. Van Kesteren can move an amendment, as I can, on behalf of the people of the riding of Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques. We can do it now because we are regular committee members. But just think about what it would be like if 50 other members of the Conservative Party and 30 other members of the NDP wanted to propose their amendments themselves? Would we let them sit alongside us, the regular members? We wouldn't. And yet that is what's being asked for independent members. In doing so, we would really establish different procedures for different categories of members, and that's not acceptable in our parliamentary system.

I repeat the fact that this method had never been used until this past spring, when we were studying Bill C-60. Since it had never been used, it can only be regarded—and Mr. Keddy was quite candid—as a strategy by the government to expedite the process in the House of Commons.

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

I see. I'm not saying the decision was strictly tied to them. There were, in fact, time limits, but the effect of the limitation imposed on them was to give them much less of an opportunity than they had at report stage to debate the amendment they, themselves, had put forward. At report stage, the amendment is studied in the House of Commons, and not in a simple committee.

The two issues are indeed related. Allowing independent members to propose amendments by giving them little time to speak to the amendments prevents the members from proposing the amendments later, something they were entitled to do in the House of Commons before Bill C-60 was passed.

That is why I am urging the government to withdraw its motion or to defeat it. The fact that 1 committee out of 24 has already adopted the motion should have no bearing on our decision.

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

In response to that, I would say, first, the fact that the procedure has already been adopted by 1 of 24 committees is not, in and of itself, significant. Second, as far as I know, during Parliament's entire history, the procedure had never been used prior to the passing of Bill C-60. There is no parliamentary tradition, then, that says independent members or members of an unrecognized caucus can be forced to submit their amendments to the House. As Mr. Saxton mentioned, this prevents them from moving the amendments and even debating them in the House at report stage.

The two are related. Without this motion, independent members, who do not have a standing right to participate in committees, could propose amendments at report stage. What this motion does, however, is prevent them from doing so because they're being given the opportunity to discuss them at a very superficial level in committee.

With respect to Bill C-60—and correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Chair—independent members who were allowed to propose amendments had 30 seconds to do so.

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

Thank you kindly, Mr. Chair.

I'll be fairly brief.

I want to pick up on the circumstances that prompted my colleague Mr. Saxton to put forward this motion. It was done in a hurry, without even enough copies for the entire committee. I would remind you that a total of 12 members have the great privilege of sitting on this standing committee. Along with our responsibilities as members of Parliament come certain rights. In particular, we must be given all the resources necessary to perform our duties. Furthermore, every member must have the ability to contribute to the committee equally. And above all, we must fully represent the interests of our constituents and Canadians, in general.

Luckily, Mr. Chair, you gave us a short break, which gave us time to get our thoughts straight and make up our minds on the motion. It gave us the chance to deal with the matter of the eight missing copies. From the outset, however, this situation was unacceptable and should never again be allowed to happen in committee.

I won't add to the arguments already made by my colleague Ms. Nash, in light of the major, nay fundamental, amendments proposed, amendments that clearly fall outside this committee's jurisdiction. That's the reality.

Nevertheless, I would just like to point out that earlier this year, when we were studying Bill C-60, this past spring, we were similarly asked about including independent members. At that time, independent members were prohibited from participating in the study and discussions on the bill, unless a member of the opposition gave up his or her seat. The approach was truly a disrespectful one and was obviously rejected.

Let me say, Mr. Chair, that it's perfectly acceptable to rethink a committee's format or seat distribution. That's the sort of very healthy debate that could take place elsewhere, in other situations, especially outside the valuable time allocated to our work.

Indeed, we can ask ourselves whether it is inherently necessary or fair to have party representation in committees mirror that of the House of Commons. There are places in the world where the majority party or coalition doesn't necessarily enjoy the same majority in other structures, other parliamentary institutions or other settings in which parliamentarians carry out their work.

But, given the circumstances and the way things have been done, it is, unfortunately, impossible to explore that possibility now. There is absolutely no way we can support this, if only because of the circumstances. What's more, the actual proposal will clearly infringe upon the rights of some members in the House. It's totally unacceptable, because, beyond political affiliation, the 308 members in the House are equal.

That's all, Mr. Chair. Thank you for letting me speak.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just to remind all of us, the motion we are dealing with would have the effect of denying the right of or the opportunity for independent members of the House of Commons—that is, members whose parties have fewer than a dozen seats in the House—to introduce amendments at the report stage of a bill and thus give all members of Parliament the opportunity to speak to, debate, and vote on those amendments, all with the goal of improving our legislative process.

I want to repeat again that we strongly oppose this motion. We believe that the Conservatives are taking a democratic shortcut here that is not necessary and impacts on the rights of members who are elected to this House. It would mean a significant change in the way the House operates, a change in a process that has been a long-standing one, and it would have definite impacts on the rights of members of Parliament.

I want to cite O'Brien and Bosc, which makes it clear that. “It is the House, and the House alone, that appoints the members and associate members of its committees, as well as the Members who will represent it on joint committees. The Speaker has ruled that this is a fundamental right of the House. The committees themselves have no powers at all in this regard.” That's on page 1,019.

Furthermore, in another passage, it is stated, “The Standing Orders specifically exclude a non-member from voting, moving motions or being counted for purposes of a quorum.” That's on page 1,018. In other words, the committee has no powers to make this sort of procedural change on its own. These powers lie within the House and its Speaker.

The Conservatives claim there would be no infringement on the rights of independent members, but these members would be required to submit motions and then would be excluded from voting on these motions.

In addition, during last spring's committee study of Bill C-60, committee members were given a choice in regard to including independent members. Independent members were prohibited from participating in the debate and study on the content of the bill unless an opposition member was willing to give them their seat on the committee. This scenario was bound to infringe on some members' rights, for it can surely be argued that independent members cannot be required to submit amendments to the committee when they are not permitted to participate in the committee study, while requiring opposition committee members to give up their seats and participation in order to accommodate independents certainly tramples on their rights as committee members.

When it came to moving motions, independents were allowed to move their motions for amendment and speak very briefly to them, but were excluded from voting on them. In the normal course of the committee stage, each party submits motions for amendment and then the parties' representatives on the committee vote on them. The proposed changes certainly put independent members at a democratic disadvantage.

In short, our experience with this process was not positive, and we believe it infringed on members' rights. It's particularly undemocratic that the Conservatives would bring this motion forward in committees, which have no power to make this sort of procedural change and where the very members in question in the motion are excluded both from debate and from voting. I do notice that a letter by three independent members has been circulated to us as members on the committee. It was addressed to the chair of the committee, and it attempts to insert their voice into this process because they have no voice in and no standing on this committee.

For these reasons we do not believe that this is an appropriate motion for this committee. We think it infringes on members' rights. It's not healthy for our democratic process.

Again, Mr. Chair, we'll be opposing it.

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-4 is a sad new piece of legislative art from the Conservatives. What a masterpiece.

Much like the three omnibus bills before it—Bill C-38, Bill C-45 and Bill C-60—this fourth bill includes some 70 legislative measures—why not—most of which have very little to do with the budget. The bill even creates two brand-new laws: the Mackenzie Gas Project Impacts Act and the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board Act.

With this bill, the Conservatives are trying once again to force major changes through Parliament, without letting us do our job.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer has already pointed out numerous times that members of Parliament do not have access to the information they need to fulfill their critical role and improve our laws. He had to threaten to take the government to court for the Conservatives to finally bother to reveal their budget cut plan. However, here we are again with another omnibus bill.

The Minister of Finance tabled budget 2013 in Parliament on March 21. The budget cuts thousands of public service jobs and makes cuts to program spending. The budget proposes a host of unwarranted economic austerity measures that do not help Canadians.

Bill C-4 to implement certain provisions of the budget undermines the health and safety protections in place for workers. It is a direct attack on public servants and labour unions. It causes irreparable damage to our research system and puts employment insurance firmly under the minister's control.

I am particularly concerned for the Canadian public and especially for the constituents in my riding of Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine and Dorval.

This bill removes from our health and safety officers the authority granted to them under the Canada Labour Code. It significantly weakens the ability of employees to refuse to work in dangerous conditions. It grants virtually all health and safety powers to the minister. This concentration of power in the hands of a minister is very dangerous, especially when we are dealing with a Conservative minister.

When the Conservatives attack the Canada Labour Code, they are attacking something that Canadians worked hard to build over the years to make their working conditions healthier and safer. This is the opposite of progress. This is a step backwards, just like everything else the Conservatives do. They should instead be seeking ways to protect Canadians from having to work in situations that expose them to unacceptable risks. They should protect workers.

I had the opportunity to study occupational health and safety in my university program. I took a course that required students to conduct workplace risk assessments. Therefore, I can say that centralizing everything is exactly the opposite of what companies do to identify risks in order to provide appropriate solutions concerning occupational health and safety.

For all these reasons, the NDP will certainly oppose this proposal, which affects the fundamental rights of workers in terms of occupational health and safety.

Bill C-4 would also make changes that would allow the minister to determine which services are essential in the public service, in such a way that he could well undermine collective bargaining rights.

We know that the Conservatives do not like unions. This is another attack. This is a direct violation of the social dialogue in the public service. By destabilizing the relationship between the negotiating parties, the government is giving itself the means to gag workers in the public service. It is restricting their right to challenge the deterioration of working conditions due to the unjustified cuts imposed by the Conservatives themselves. By slashing jobs, they are creating the conditions for conflict. They now want to ignore the consequences by preventing workers from expressing their frustration and their complaints.

However, some services seem to be less essential than others, particularly when objective scientific results contradict the Conservatives' vision and plans. They fired hundreds of scientists without considering the medium- or long-term consequences of their decision.

Now, Bill C-4 is taking aim at National Research Council Canada and dealing a final blow to our public research system. Well done.

As a final step in their attempt to systematically bleed the labour market dry on the pretense of flexibility, the Conservatives are using Bill C-4 to eliminate the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board and give the Minister of Finance the power to manipulate rates.

Do the Conservatives want to turn their backs on federal responsibility in this area by dumping it onto the provinces or directly onto the public?

Bill C-4 also extends the $1,000 hiring tax credit for small business. I acknowledge that that is a step in the right direction, but it is nowhere near enough. The NDP is looking further ahead and proposing a $2,000 hiring tax credit that would not come out of the employment insurance fund and would help businesses hire and train young workers.

I want to keep talking about small businesses. The Conservatives are going ahead with their $350 million tax hike on labour-sponsored venture capital funds. However, it is well known that venture capital is essential for creating and developing businesses. Just listen to our entrepreneurs. Alain-Jacques Simard, CEO of TeraXion, a Quebec company that specializes in fibre optics, said that the Fonds de solidarité FTQ acted as a catalyst and that since its January 2010 investment, his company's sales have doubled. That is important to remember.

The Conservatives like to remind everybody that they were elected to lower taxes, but not for unions, apparently. That is very strange. Attacking a financing system does not make sense unless it is part of an agenda to do whatever it takes to undermine the economic influence of Canadian workers and unions.

Still on the subject of small businesses, Bill C-4 increases the lifetime capital gains exemption and indexes it. The NDP supports increasing the lifetime capital gains exemption because that will help small business owners. The NDP knows that small businesses create a lot of jobs. However, they create those jobs only in a climate of better economic and regulatory conditions. That is why the NDP would like to see tax incentives to help these businesses hire Canadians.

We can only have a productive debate on these proposals if the Conservatives allow it. The omnibus bill will not make that possible and suggests that the Conservatives are, sadly, not willing to debate. The Conservatives are showing their true colours by attacking workers, public servants, employment insurance and unions. They are not working for Canadian families.

Household debt has reached record levels and is now at 166% of household income. This means that people are spending five months' income every three months, putting them two more months in the hole every five months. The Conservatives have no plan to address the alarming youth unemployment rate.

Bill C-4 is out of touch with what is important to Canadian families. It is a dangerous step backward. This policy is designed to destroy gains made by the middle class. It will force workers and families to pay for services that they have already paid for through their taxes.

This bill, like all of its omnibus predecessors, is a policy instrument designed to systematically destroy the social relationships that Canadians have worked hard to build over the past few decades. It is an intolerable attack on the rights of Canadian workers and Canadian families. The NDP will not stand for it.

The NDP will not support the Conservatives' latest attempt to circumvent parliamentary democracy. We should have the opportunity to debate the many subjects covered in Bill C-4 separately and refer them for study by the relevant committee. The NDP is also opposed to budget 2013 and its implementation bills, including Bill C-4, because they disregard the true priorities of Canadian families: creating good, well-paid jobs, ensuring retirement security, creating job opportunities for youth and creating more affordable living conditions for families.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Thank you, Mr. Ravignat.

I understand your point, but I think I would still benefit from the clerk's advice as to his opinion. It doesn't preclude us from seeking others' advice or taking guidance from the two references that have been cited, from the current O'Brien and Bosc, and also from the Speaker's ruling from June 2013 when the NDP House leader raised similar objections in the House because of the occurrences at the finance committee on Bill C-60. Many of the same points you're raising were brought to the attention of the Speaker at the time, and he ruled on them. I have the ruling here if you're interested in seeing it.

The clerk is aware of those three aspects, and perhaps he could comment briefly on his view as to whether it's appropriately before this committee.

Go ahead, Chad.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The first problem that this motion raises is how it was presented. Mr. Calandra presented it by saying that he wanted to give more authority to independent members of the House. How he presented it is all fine, but in concrete terms, the motion before us does not give the independent members of Parliament more power. It does exactly the opposite by taking a very important power away from them, namely, the ability to suggest amendments at the report stage in the House of Commons. That means that they would not have the right to explain their amendments to the House of Commons. More significantly, they will not be able to vote when their own amendments are brought to a vote, because they obviously do not have the authority to vote in committee.

When an independent member of Parliament sends a letter to indicate that he or she wants to suggest an amendment, the MP can provide explanations. However, the MP will not even be able to vote when his or her own amendments are brought to a vote. We obviously don't know details about every position of the independent MPs. But we will be required to vote on amendments that they themselves suggested, that will reflect their thinking and that will show their desire to represent their constituents, while they themselves will not be able to.

The second problem with this motion is that it fundamentally changes how the House of Commons operates. As my colleague, Mr. Angus, mentioned a few times, the legality of this motion is seriously questionable. This committee cannot change the parliamentary process, which is based on the Westminster system. It does not have this power, and I highly doubt that this respects the procedures and Standing Orders of the House of Commons.

The government claims that this motion gives the independent members more power by allowing them to submit a letter to explain their amendments but it's the opposite: it is taking power away from them.

What this government is doing today is particularly contradictory. When the big omnibus Bill C-60 was tabled, independent MPs wanted to attend the committee meeting and be heard. We know that the government loves omnibus bills and that it has very little respect for democracy. The government prohibited independent parliamentarians to sit on the committee and attend the meeting. Instead, the government told the official opposition and other opposition members that if they wanted an independent member to be present, they had to give up one of their own seats.

In the past, the government never wanted to give the independent members any power or give them the right to sit on this committee. Today it claims it wants to give them more power. In concrete terms, that is exactly the opposite of what is going to happen. The independent members will no longer have the power to suggest amendments at the report stage, a fundamental power that has always been granted them in our parliamentary system, which is based on the Westminster system. What the government is actually presenting here makes no sense.

I would like to again quote from page 1019 of O'Brien and Bosc:

... It is the House, and the House alone, that appoints the members and associate members of its committees, as well as the Members who will represent it on joint committees. The Speaker has ruled that this is a fundamental right of the House. The committees themselves have no powers at all in this regard.

I repeat: we have no power here to decide how the House of Commons operates. Another committee, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, might be able to, but this is the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. Why are we debating an issue that would change how the House of Commons operates? It's really out of line, Madam Chair.

I would like to point out something else, since our motion to oppose meeting in camera was just defeated. The clause-by-clause study of bills is usually done in camera. Therefore, the independent members are now going to submit letters and they might get a quick minute to explain their amendments, but they will not even be seen by the public. The constituents of these MPs will not know what the MPs have presented. This aspect is very important. It explains why we are so opposed to this motion. The independent members already have very little power in the House of Commons, and we want to reduce it even further.

This is the only place they can give an opinion on a bill or show their constituents that they have stood up to defend an important issue for them. We are suggesting they submit a letter and then appear for a quick minute to talk about the reasoning behind their amendments, but that will be done in camera. Basically, the MPs' constituents will not know whether they oppose it. These members will not even be able to speak about the fact that they submitted amendments. I find that fundamentally problematic. They will no longer be able to rise in the House to say that they are submitting amendments and show that they are standing up for their constituents. They already have so little opportunity to do so, not counting voting when their own amendments are brought to a vote.

I would also like to point out, as my colleagues have already, that our Westminster-based system includes rules and procedures that are not always clear. They often depend on our interpretation of them. It is largely the responsibility of the Speaker of the House and the committee chairs to ensure that the standing orders are interpreted correctly.

Having said that, there are precedents. I quoted O'Brien and Bosc in that respect. In this case, we would be changing a fundamental principle of the tradition and operation of our Parliament, which operates based on the Westminster system. As my colleague mentioned, will that create a precedent? Once other countries see that Canada's House of Commons committees have taken away the ability of independent MPs to submit amendments during report stage in the House of Commons, will they say that they can as well? There would be a precedent. I think all members of this committee should be extremely concerned about the idea of creating a precedent as significant as this.

I don't want to impute motives, but I sincerely wonder whether this motion is a way of punishing former Conservative MPs who left because they were being very controlled by the Prime Minister. I sincerely wonder. If that is the case, I think it is really sad. That is not an appropriate way of doing things. It does not reflect a willingness to co-operate, to consider how things are done or to respect the members and former colleagues of the Conservative Party.

Madam Chair, I have already given the example of Bill C-60, which prevented independent MPs from participating. However, we often see that this government is changing how things are done, for example, presenting closure motions to limit debate or going in camera. The government regularly shows a lack of respect for democratic processes.

This is another example that shows us that these Conservative members have no respect for democracy or parliamentary procedure and regulations, which are fundamental for the functioning of the House of Commons and the way we do things.

We should be seriously concerned seeing such a motion. It will change how we do things and the House of Commons procedures. Basically, it will take away a very important right from independent members.

Furthermore, the independent members of Parliament are not here today and do not have the right to speak. We are discussing their rights, their future and how they will represent their constituents, without even having them present. I highly doubt that the Conservative members who moved this motion consulted them. I highly doubt that any independent members of Parliament were consulted about the content of the motion and said they were in favour of it. Can we stop deciding how other members of Parliament are going to represent their constituents? We are in the process of taking away that essential power.

So I invite my Conservative colleagues to consult the independent members of Parliament to see what they think of the motion. Since they aren't here, they can't vote against the motion or say that it will take away a fundamental right and influence how they represent the Canadians who elected them. I doubt they support how things are being done in this committee and how this motion was presented. We are claiming that we are giving them more power, but that is not true. We are in the process of taking away a fundamental right, and in its place, letting them submit a simple letter and speak for one minute to explain why they are suggesting amendments, which will probably take place in camera in any case. As a result, no one will know that these independent members spoke about an important matter.

Mr. Chair, I issued an invitation to the members of the Conservative Party. I invite them to consult their former colleagues and the other independent members of the House of Commons to see what they think about it. We cannot make a decision about their future and how they are going to represent their constituents.

Moreover, I emphatically demand that we get a legal opinion on this, because I highly doubt that this motion is in order. As members of this committee, we cannot decide how the House of Commons will operate nor can we fundamentally change the Westminster tradition here, in the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. That is not our role. That would exceed our mandate. I highly doubt that it is in order. So I ask you to seek a legal opinion.

I again invite the Conservative members of the committee to go and ask their former colleagues and the other independent members of Parliament what they think about the motion. I guarantee you that they will take issue and will not see it as a way of giving them more power. It is exactly the opposite. They will see it as taking away a fundamental right, the right to express their opinion at the report stage of a bill, to submit amendments to the House of Commons publicly, and to debate and vote when their own amendments are brought to a vote.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

It is the House, and the House alone, that appoints the members and associate members of its committees, as well as the Members who will represent it on joint committees. The Speaker has ruled that this is a fundamental right of the House. The committees themselves have no powers at all in this regard.

Further, going back one page to page 1018—actually I think “further” sounds odd if we're going backwards—it says:

The Standing Orders specifically exclude a non-member from voting, moving motions or being counted for purposes of a quorum.

In other words, the committee has no power to make this sort of procedural change on its own. The powers lie within the House and its Speaker, because the independent members have no standing at committee. So a move to take away the rights that they have in the House at committee is a breach of their fundamental rights as members of this House.

Mr. Chair, the Conservatives claim there would be no infringement on their rights as independent members, but that's clearly not the case, because once they submit motions, they would be excluded from voting on those motions. Within the House itself now when an independent member brings forward an amendment at report stage, they have the right to vote on their own amendment, but that right is not given to them within the committee process.

In addition, Mr. Chair, during last spring's committee study of Bill C-60, the committee members were given a choice with regard to including independent members, but the independent members were prohibited from participating in the debate and study on the content of the bill unless an opposition member was willing to give them their seat. What we are seeing again is that even if the committee were attempting to include the independent members, it would certainly infringe on rights that existed, the rights of the members who were sitting at the table.

Surely it can be argued that independent members cannot be required to submit amendments to the committee when they are not permitted to participate in the study, or that opposition committee members should be required to give up their seats in participation in order to accommodate independents. That would certainly trample on their rights as well as those of committee members.

Mr. Chair, as the official opposition, we've attempted to work with this government numerous times, despite the fact that in the House they continually abrogate our rights to represent the people we were elected to represent. They continually shut down debate on form. They continually use in camera and abuse it to get their way, but when we see the attempt to breach the fundamental rights of a member in the House and to use a back door like this, well, Mr. Chair, it's just not acceptable.

I have to say that politically I have very little in common with the independent members. I'm a proud member of the New Democratic Party. I'm proud to be in the caucus. I don't share the particular viewpoints of the independent members who are sitting on the back benches. Nonetheless, they were democratically elected by people in this country and they have as much right to be in the House as I do. I might not agree with them, just as I don't agree with many of my Conservative colleagues on very much, except maybe that it is still morning, if they're willing to concede that to me.

But Mr. Chair, I certainly am willing to defend the right of any member of this House, because if we do not stand up for the privileges of the members, then we are betraying the long history of the Westminster tradition. I think this is what my colleagues in the Conservatives need to understand. They have all the nasty little apparatchiks in the Prime Minister's Office who believe that politics is some kind of perennial war game. It's about who wins. Believing that the rules don't matter is what's gotten our Prime Minister into the deep, deep, deep trouble he's in right now.

I was astounded. Probably the clearest thing we've ever heard from our Prime Minister, we heard second-hand through Mike Duffy, and that was that the base don't understand rules and they're not interested in them. Well, the rule is the rule of law, Mr. Chair, which is why perhaps they did think they could break the law, because to them, the base doesn't understand rules; they don't understand procedures. Well, procedures are how we ensure democratic accountability.

When it comes to moving motions, independents in the House have the right to move motions for amendments and to speak to them. That's their right, Mr. Chair, but in committee, if they are offered this, that right will be taken away from them.

What will also be taken away from them is their ability to.... Well, the right that they will not have is the right to vote on their own amendments. How can they bring forward an amendment and have to be a second-class parliamentarian, such that you would have to come in and hope someone would take your case for you? Then—and my honourable colleague from the Liberal Party talked this morning about how partisan this committee is—you're having to be at the mercy of the political parties sitting around the table. That's not right for an independent.

As I said, I certainly don't have much in common politically with any of the independents, and I don't feel that it's my job to have to press their case on an amendment to a bill at report stage. I might not agree with any of their amendments, or I might agree with some of them, but I do believe they have a right to bring forward those amendments, and they have a right to vote on those amendments. Otherwise, what is being offered are no rights at all.

Mr. Chair, our experience with this process so far is very concerning, because we're talking about the infringement of rights. I think it is particularly undemocratic of the Conservatives to bring this motion to committee, which has no power to actually make this procedural change and where the members, in question and motion, are excluded from both debate and voting.

Mr. Chair, I would ask you again, so that this is not a kangaroo court and that our rights as members are not infringed upon by having to participate in another bully court of the Conservative PMO.... I believe that our fundamental rights as members are being infringed upon by being asked to take away the rights of members in the House of Commons. I do not believe that this is proper. I believe it's an abuse of this standing committee, particularly when this is the committee that is entrusted with the issues of ethics and accountability.

For us to be using this committee, of all committees, to take away that right of an independent member, I believe, is absolutely unconscionable, Mr. Chair. I'm asking you to get a legal opinion for us from the clerk's office, because you could rule this out of order, but we again will see that the members on the other side will just overrule you. This is how they.... They're not interested in the long-standing traditions. They will get what they want because they're being told from the boys upstairs how to act.

What happens, Mr. Chair, if these committees establish a precedent? It's not just for the Canadian parliamentary system that it's at stake. We're talking about the Westminster tradition. These are rules that come into effect and then are judged, just as in a court of law, in other jurisdictions. The other parliamentary traditions will ask, “What did they do in Canada?” They will say that in Canada it was considered okay for a committee to be used to take away the rights of members in the House.

For the concern over the issue of precedent, Mr. Chair, this is simply not acceptable, so I'm asking you before we vote on this.... I'm certainly not willing to vote on this until we have a legal opinion, because I'm not willing to sit here and have my rights as a member undermined by this kind of bogus representation.

I'd like to know, Mr. Chair, if it's possible for us to get this opinion. I certainly will be seeking it myself, and I will be encouraging my independent colleagues, who are not here and who have no right to speak here, in that they have a right to have that legal opinion heard before any kind of vote like this proceeds.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again, I must rise today to object to this terrible and completely undemocratic habit of the Conservative government. This is the fourth omnibus bill it has introduced. Another mammoth is wandering the halls of the House of Commons. The bill is over 300 pages long. Even the President of the Treasury Board admits that you would have to talk to half the people in cabinet to understand everything that is in this bill.

In such an unwieldy document, it is easy to make mistakes without realizing it, for example, increasing the tax rate of credit unions from 15% to 28%. This forced the Minister of Finance to quietly correct his bad policy in the bill that is before us today.

The NDP is disappointed that the Conservatives refuse to learn from their mistakes and insist on presenting Canadians with a fourth omnibus bill.

The government is voluntarily preventing Parliament from engaging in a point-by-point debate of these reforms that are harmful to Canadians. As we saw with the Duffygate scandal, here is another 300 pages of proof that the Conservatives prefer camouflage to transparency.

I cannot talk about this bill without mentioning the changes that will affect Canadians' right to a healthy and safe working environment. This bill removes the powers granted to health and safety officers by the Canada Labour Code and gives those powers to the minister. It significantly weakens employees' ability to refuse to work in hazardous conditions and places nearly all powers related to health and safety in the hands of the minister. It seems to me that the three changes I just mentioned do not respect workers' rights.

The NDP firmly believes that no worker should ever be forced to work in hazardous conditions.

Another aspect of this bill that concerns me is the attacks on the public service. This is another case of interference. The minister can now arbitrarily designate which services are essential without basing that decision on an objective analysis. These powers could be used to completely take away the right of some workers to collective bargaining. That is unacceptable and it violates the fundamental rights of workers.

This reminds me of a story that was published in Le Devoir last week. A public servant who works for employment insurance's integrity services was formally dismissed for revealing to Le Devoir that quotas were being imposed on EI investigators. Today, this courageous woman voiced her concerns about the way whistleblowers are treated. She said:

I acted in the public interest and I am paying a very high price because of it. It is a dreadful experience to go through and to live with, especially because no one wants to hire a whistleblower. It has ruined my career, and my life.

I sincerely hope that this woman will be able to find a decent job, because she acted in the public interest and that is very commendable.

The government is doing everything in its power to hide the truth from taxpayers, and it is exercising a disturbing amount of control. How can we have confidence in a government that is contradicting itself day after day and preventing parliamentarians from doing a good job by hiding all vital information and introducing such colossal bills?

Bill C-4 contains a wide range of complex measures, many of which are not related to the budget and deserve further consideration.

Because the government pushed through omnibus Bill C-60 last year, a number of errors slipped by unnoticed, including the tax hike for credit unions. As I mentioned earlier, the result of this mistake was that credit unions were facing a tax hike of 28% rather than 15%. Bill C-4 will fix this error.

The NDP is opposed to the tax hike for credit unions and is disappointed that the Conservatives have not learned from their mistakes and are imposing an omnibus bill once again.

I am also very disappointed with the part of the bill that eliminates the tax credit for labour-sponsored venture capital funds.

Labour-sponsored funds are an important economic development tool for small and medium-sized businesses. I want to point out that last Friday was Small Business Day. Abolishing the tax credit for this fund does not help our country's small businesses.

In the past 10 years alone, 2,239 businesses in Quebec and Canada have benefited from this tax credit, and 80% of them have fewer than 100 employees. It is estimated that the Fonds de solidarité FTQ has helped create or maintain 171,000 jobs in Quebec. So much for all the government's talk of job creation. Moreover, I do not see a single measure in this budget that will create real jobs in our communities.

Over the weekend I had the pleasure of visiting a business in my riding. The first-ever saffron farm in North America just opened in Saint-Élie-de-Caxton. I was truly impressed by this business. This is the kind of business that we need to encourage and support through tax credits for young workers, research and development and risk management programs that work. These are the things we have suggested.

I would also like to talk about the cuts being made to scientific research institutes. In Bill C-4, the Conservatives are going after the National Research Council of Canada, cutting nearly half of the jobs there and giving more powers to the president they chose. I find that extremely disheartening. In my role as deputy agriculture critic I often hear about the needs in agricultural research. I know that there are similar needs in other areas. Stakeholders have told me that independent research allows agricultural businesses to grow and set themselves apart from the competition on international markets. Innovation is a priority in the agricultural industry, and it is sad that the Conservatives are not interested in this important issue.

I see nothing in this bill that can help the people in my riding. In the spring, my office was inundated with email and mail criticizing the employment insurance reform. Now the Conservatives are dissolving the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board. The board ensured independent management of EI financing. Now the Minister of Finance has the power to manipulate the rates.

The government wants to bring Canada back to a time where the successive Liberal and Conservative governments could dip into the EI fund. Employment insurance comes from money contributed by workers and is to be used by workers. We cannot trust the Conservatives to manage EI financing. They have shown us time and again that they are not responsible. I am very concerned about this measure.

We are opposed to Bill C-4 both for its content and this process. The Conservatives forced Canadians to wait an extra month for Parliament to resume in order to come up with a new political agenda. Congratulations. Now the Conservatives are forcing us to work at lightning speed to approve their bill. The government wants to quietly slip all manner of things through, which inevitably includes unpleasant surprises.

In the meantime, the economy is stagnating, families keep getting further in debt and their priorities are being ignored. We will oppose budget 2013 and its implementation bills, unless they are redrafted to take into account the real priorities of Canadian families: the creation of good jobs, the assurance of a decent retirement, the creation of job opportunities for young people and a more affordable life for families. That is what people want. It takes more than just saying a few words here and there, like in the Speech from the Throne, to look good. People need action and commitment.

Canadians will have a real government in 2015.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, for the fourth time in this Parliament, the Conservative government is introducing a massive bill to implement certain provisions of its last budget.

Bill C-4 is an example of why we have been criticizing this government since it came to power; it is an example of the government's lack of respect for parliamentary processes, as it imposes unrelated measures in a single piece of legislation and limits the work of members of Parliament. It is the epitome of a tired old government that has no vision for Canadians, a government whose pathological partisanship is affecting our parliamentary institutions and the interests of Canadians.

This bill amends close to 70 laws and includes a number of provisions that have nothing to do with the budget, strictly speaking. Bill C-4 contains dozens of measures that could have been introduced in separate bills. In one bill, the government is amending taxation, employment insurance rules, economic immigration parameters, arbitration in the public sector, the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, and so on.

Instead of making room for real parliamentary debate, the government has crammed dozens of measures into one single piece of legislation. Instead of allowing members of Parliament to do their jobs, the government has chosen to impose an anti-democratic approach and a dogmatic vision of politics.

Not only does Bill C-4 violate the whole parliamentary process, but the Conservatives also waited until the very last minute to present the content of the bill. The bill was finally introduced 48 hours ago. We have had 48 hours to review almost 300 pages and to assess the impact of dozens of measures. This is preventing us from doing the job we were elected to do.

The Prime Minister shut down Parliament for five weeks, which is simply outrageous and unacceptable for a democratic country like Canada. Clearly, the negative consequences of this approach cannot be denied. This single vote on a huge number of measures is certainly going to limit debate, and it will increase the potential for errors. As a result, the content will be less representative.

Furthermore, a clear example of the potential danger is the mistake that caused credit unions to face a tax hike of 28% rather than 15%. An in-depth study of the measure in committee and the testimony of many witnesses would have made it possible to avoid that blunder. If parliamentary committees have one meeting only to consider such wide-ranging measures, of course, members of Parliament do not have all the tools they need for a proper review.

In the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, we had only 40 minutes to study measures in Bill C-60 that had major consequences. We had 40 minutes to study a piece of legislation that easily would have required more committee meetings. That is the anti-democratic approach the Conservatives are taking with Bill C-4.

As if the general structure of Bill C-4 was not enough of a violation of democracy, the government moved a time allocation motion yesterday to further limit debate. If that is not mocking democracy, I do not know what it is. The situation is all the more worrisome and deplorable considering that some parts of Bill C-4 have serious and troubling implications.

First of all, the budget implementation bill eliminates the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board, thereby allowing the Minister of Finance to manipulate the rates for the employment insurance fund. Clearly, the Conservative promises to make the management of employment insurance parameters more independent and transparent are now no more than a distant memory. Once again, the government is going back on its commitments and, in some cases, its own actions.

The Conservatives criticized the Liberals—and so did we for that matter—for helping themselves to and squandering the surplus in the employment insurance fund. In total, $57 billion was taken by those governments. In the past, the Conservatives rose up against that, but now, with Bill C-4, they are changing their tune once again.

With Bill C-4, the Conservatives are once more setting up the same mechanisms that allowed finance ministers, both Conservative and Liberal, to dip into the premiums paid by workers.

With access to benefits constantly decreasing, Canadians find this decision unacceptable. After all, the money involved belongs to the workers and the Conservatives are acting as if it were theirs.

We in the NDP maintain that the employment insurance fund must be managed independently and transparently. The Minister of Finance has decided otherwise by granting himself discretionary powers that will tarnish the very management of the fund.

In addition, Bill C-4 will amend the Public Service Labour Relations Act by redefining the process by which disputes are resolved in the government.

Not only is the government reserving the right to define essential services, but it is also imposing a process of binding arbitration in disputes where less than 80% of the members of a bargaining unit are performing essential services.

As a result, the Conservatives are reserving the right to define the rules on resolving disputes in the public service of Canada and to impose working conditions on its employees through arbitration.

Clearly, the government wants to give itself some elbow room so that it can attack the unions that stand up for the rights of workers.

Amendments of this kind require discussions in depth, with other voices to be heard on the matter, not just Conservative voices. To roll out measures of this kind without real debate is to lay oneself open to regrettable errors.

That applies to the amendments to employment insurance and the dispute resolution processes in the public service. It also applies to the omnibus bill in its entirety.

In closing, never has a government shown so much contempt for our parliamentary institutions and for Canadians. Here we are with a single bill with 300 pages of measures amending about 70 acts. It is impossible for members of Parliament to do their jobs properly. Then we get a time allocation motion that restricts debate even more.

Clearly, our democracy is suffering. All the work by members of the House of Commons is also being placed in jeopardy.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member has drawn our attention to changes in Bill C-4 that were necessitated by the rush in passing the previous budget implementation bill, the changes that were unintended that caused further tax damage to credit unions.

I am also aware of changes in this new bill, Bill C-4, that will be required because of mistakes made in treating income for fishermen by failing to properly deal with the income for fishermen versus highest weeks, versus their total take for the season.

It seems to me that we can make a very good case as members of the opposition that the Conservative Party mania for refusing amendments and for pushing bills through quickly is forcing Parliament over and over again to go back and pass new legislation months later to fix mistakes. Bill C-45 fixed mistakes that were in Bill C-38. Now Bill C-4 is fixing mistakes that were in Bill C-60.

Could my hon. friend give me any of her thoughts on the problems of holding up the House through passing bills too quickly?

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-4, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures. It was interesting to hear the Conservative House leader talk about the planned deficit reduction and how the Conservatives were ahead by $7 billion. A good question that would be welcomed at some point for the government to answer is exactly how much of that deficit reduction was as a result of money that did not flow to approved programs and services. We have certainly heard from communities that money they expected to see or proposals they had submitted had not been funded, despite the government announcements. Therefore, it would be good for the House to know that.

This bill is the second act to implement budget 2013. It is another budget implementation bill that is about 300 pages. This legislation amends or repeals 70 pieces of legislation. Some of what it tackles is: it strips health and safety officers of their powers and puts nearly all of these powers in the hands of the minister; it significantly weakens the ability of employees to refuse to work in unsafe conditions; it moves to eliminate binding arbitration as a method to resolve disputes in the public service; and it guts Canada's most venerable scientific research institution, the National Research Council.

I want to thank our House leader, the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, for raising the fact that once again the government has limited debate. This is the fourth attempt by the Conservatives to evade scrutiny by parliamentarians and the public. In the past we had Bill C-38, Bill C-45 and Bill C-60. Canadians deserve an opportunity to hear a detailed, thorough, in-depth study of such wide-ranging pieces of legislation, yet we have the limiting of the ability of the House to scrutinize the legislation. Why should we care about that?

In the past we saw the government bring forward legislation that had errors in it. Because of the complexity of the legislation and the length of time we had to review it, the government had to bring forward subsequent legislation to correct that.

This legislation is fixing something that happened due to a technical mistake in Bill C-60, which would have doubled the taxation level of credit unions and caisse populaires. In September, tax experts discovered that the changes made in Bill C-60 would result in Quebec taxpayers being overburdened on dividends compared to taxpayers in other provinces.

Because I only have 10 minutes, I will focus on three particular aspects of the legislation.

First, the legislation would reduce the number of permanent members on the Veterans Review and Appeal Board.

Second, it would fix the mistakes with respect to the tax hike on credit unions.

Third, it would push ahead the Conservative plan on the $350 million tax hike on labour sponsored venture capital funds.

With respect to veterans, Bill C-4 would reduce the number of permanent members on the Veterans Review and Appeal Board from 28 to 25. What is disappointing is that it was an opportunity for the Conservatives to bring forward separate legislation that looked to improve the Conservative record on veterans affairs. We know the NDP has not always been happy with the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, but simply changing numbers will not improve the situation.

In my riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan, the veterans office has closed and veterans are now forced to go further afield in order to get the services they require.

Just so Canadians understand a bit about the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, of the 76,446 Canadian Forces' clients of Veterans Affairs Canada, 1,400 are totally and permanently disabled and 406 of them will not receive a pension or allowance from the Canadian Forces.

The plan proposed by the ombudsman is based on an actuarial analysis to accurately determine for the first time how current benefits neglect certain veterans and will continue to neglect them unless changes are made quickly. Veterans Ombudsman Guy Parent has said that more than 400 of the most severely disabled veterans in Canada are not eligible for the Canadian Forces pension plan, while hundreds of other permanently disabled veterans could suffer the same fate and risk spending their retirement years at a lower standard of living than they had before the age of 65 due to sufficient income.

Certainly in my riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan we hear regularly from veterans and their families about their difficulties in accessing services, that they cannot get access to some services that they expected and that the money that is available simply does not respect and honour the service to our country that many veterans made.

I have spoken in the House previously about my father being a long-serving member of the Canadian Armed Forces and I am proud to say that I grew up on army bases from coast to coast.

I have a letter from a former member of the RCMP that talks about the assault on health care benefits for members of the armed forces and the RCMP. I will read a brief note from that because I think this is part of what the Veterans Appeal Board hears about the discrepancy and the difficulties in funding and whether a member is entitled to funding. The member said:

I have written...expressing my concern and profound disappointment with the fact that the government has arbitrarily decided to claw back so many necessary treatments after we risked our health and indeed our lives...I was assured that my health and the welfare of my family would be looked after. That sacred trust has been unabashedly broken.

While that in and of itself is repugnant, my greater fear is that once the members begin to see that their efforts in ensuring the safety of Canadians may actually result in huge costs to them, they will necessarily become more hesitant to engage in actions that risk their health and well being. This policy is short-sighted, unfair and contrary to Canadian values.

When we ask members of the armed forces or members of the RCMP to risk life and limb, we need to respect that when they come back to Canada or when they retire from the forces, they are treated in a fair and respectful manner. It would be incumbent upon the government to actually work with veterans and their families to ensure the services provided are adequate.

The second piece I will touch on is fixing the mistake on the credit unions' tax hike.

The bill introduces changes to fix a legislative error the Conservatives made by rushing the last omnibus budget bill through. Their mistake hiked taxes on credit unions to 28%, instead of the intended 15%.

I will read from the Credit Union Central of Manitoba remarks to a House of Commons standing committee on Bill C-60. The reason I quote from that previous presentation is because it highlights the importance of credit unions in our communities. In my riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan we have a couple of different credit unions and they are very important in all of our communities, but in particular, in some of our smaller communities. The Credit Union Central of Manitoba said:

Many credit union branches are in communities that other financial institutions vacated because they were not deemed profitable enough. Our business model, paired with fair tax policy like the additional deduction, has made it both possible and attractive for credit unions to grow in places where our competitors have retreated.

It goes on to say that the removal in Bill C-60 of the additional deductions of credit unions would simply compound the impact of regulatory demands by requiring credit unions to pay a higher portion of their net income in federal tax and further reduce their ability to build capital, invest in new technology and stay competitive.

This was a brief that was presented when Bill C-60 was in the House for a reading and because we had limited time to debate that, there was not enough attention paid to that and other presentations on the impact of Bill C-60, so now we are amending that mistake.

It concludes its presentation by saying:

I would argue that this tax deduction has proven to be good public policy. If it were to remain in place it would continue to be good public policy because it will help credit unions provide effective competition in the financial services sector and assist with the federal government's stated desire to increase competition in this sector. It would also represent good public policy by helping maintain strong financial services in as many communities as possible and contribute to the sustainability of the many communities in rural Canada where credit unions are the only financial institution.

On the venture capital program, this has been a very successful program in British Columbia. There was an evaluation of the venture capital program and it indicated that not only did it contribute to job creation, but it also contributed to the fact that it helped grow companies which then went on to expand and become more successful companies.

Removing the supports for that program is unfortunate, particularly when the government continues to talk about the importance of job creation and supporting small business. Therefore, we would like to see the government reverse its decision on that.

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

I was talking about our experience under Bill C-60, and our experience with this kind of motion.

If the members who were on the committee at that time remember, it was a process where parts of the bill were sent out to other committees. Some other members examined the bill in those committees. Then it came back to this committee. We dealt with any amendments, and this is where all the votes took place.

Independent members had the opportunity to make a very brief comment. I think they had a maximum of maybe two minutes allotted to be able to present any amendments they had, but they didn't even have the right to vote on their own amendments. That, to me, seems fundamentally wrong. Surely one of the fundamental rights of a member of Parliament who is sent to Ottawa is the right to vote, and their vote represents their constituency. This motion would take away the right of independent members to vote, to be able to have an impact on the decision of their own motions. I think that is a problem. I don't think that's satisfactory.

I'm a little concerned that this kind of motion was kind of sprung on us here at the committee. It would be a fundamental change to the rules of the way this House operates.

Here we are debating this. It would impact the rights of those independent members of Parliament. What's their crime? Their only crime is that they don't belong to a political party that has enough seats in the House to have official party status. They are still elected by their constituents. They still represent their communities. Every single member of Parliament, whether they are in an officially recognized party or not, has exactly the same rights as others when it comes to that vote and representing their communities.

What I see this motion doing is it's taking away their right to vote. I don't think that makes any sense. I'm concerned that this is something the government is proposing, apparently, in all or in most committees. It would fundamentally change the way we work here. It seems to me to miss the nature of the problem. To me, the nature of the problem is that the government—

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

Sure.

Thank you for that question. I think it's an important one. My point on this is that what sparked this reaction were the deliberations under Bill C-60, Bill C-45, and...what was the first one? Bill C-30, was it?

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

It's my recollection that this issue came to light when we were dealing with Bill C-60. As members of this committee who were members of the last committee will recall, Bill C-60 was one of these large omnibus budget implementation acts that included not only finance measures but a whole range of other measures that were all bound up in one bill. As with the latest BIA, it was a catch-all of many different changes and concerns, all bound up in one very large bill. As with the current BIA, it was pushed through. We had time allocations; we had severe time restrictions on our ability to study that bill. It makes it extremely difficult for members of the committee and other members in the House to be able to study and have input into changes that quite frankly should not just be the purview of the finance committee. We see changes to the navigable waters act, changes to the Indian Act, changes that will affect the RCMP, national security, and a whole range of issues in this latest bill. We even have some Supreme Court appointments thrown into the latest BIA.

This makes it extremely difficult for members to grapple with these bills. I think that is the fundamental problem we're facing. This method of throwing all of the government's agenda into one bill and then restricting the amount of debate and the amount of time members have to learn what's in the bill, to be able to discuss and debate it, is at the root of this issue.

I question whether this particular issue of independent members has been a concern in the House going back a number of years. It first came to this committee—again, if my recollection is correct—with the omnibus BIA, Bill C-60. To me, the fundamental problem is not the role of independent members; it is the nature of these omnibus budget bills. I think that's what we should be taking a look at.

With our past experience, it's been extremely difficult for members of this committee, let alone other members in the House, to even know the contents of these bills and be able to give adequate input and suggestions and to have discussion on this kind of bill. We've said this many times: it's not a good way of developing legislation.

What we do notice is that mistakes get made, and the government has to go back and correct those mistakes in subsequent BIAs, which they are doing in this one—correcting some past mistakes. One of the mistakes affected my community directly. It pertained to credit unions. We have a number of credit unions in the riding of Parkdale—High Park. I know some of you from out west have many, many credit unions in your communities. They were beside themselves that their taxes would be double what the banks were paying because of a mistake that was made in the last BIA. Now that it's been discovered and highlighted, the government is trying to correct that in this BIA.

The haste with which laws are being passed and the number of laws that are being thrown into one overarching bill are, in essence, what is causing the problem. I can say very concretely that for credit unions, for example, that had year-end reporting in the period between the adoption of Bill C-60 and the correction of this measure, there has been considerable stress and anxiety, because they have to budget and plan for that doubling of their tax. Even if the government intended to increase their taxes to match those of the banks, which we disagreed with, inadvertently, in its haste, it doubled the amount of tax they would pay to even more than what the banks are paying.

We think if there is a problem and we want to correct that problem, we should be looking at the very nature of these omnibus budget bills. There are a great many changes that have nothing to do with budgets or finance that are thrown into these bills.

I can tell you that when the finance committee ends up dealing with massive changes to the navigable waters act, which has nothing to do with finance, there's a serious problem with the way we are crafting legislation in this country. It doesn't make for good legislation. It doesn't make for good democratic process.

I believe at heart that what my colleague opposite, Mr. Saxton, wants to do with his motion is to improve the democratic process. I think he's addressing the wrong problem in order to do that. The fundamental problem is these omnibus budget bills.

Canadians as a whole are very uncomfortable with how legislation is being made. The measures that are being adopted lead to mistakes and do not lead to the best outcome.

I've said this before, but I will take the opportunity to say it again. If the government wants to make changes, say, to the navigable waters act or to the Indian Act or to the National Research Council, or on other environmental measures, it has a majority. The normal practice would be to introduce bills that pertain to each subject; they would go to the appropriate parliamentary committee, the members of which would have the expertise and the experience and would have worked in those specific fields, and they would have the opportunity to examine, discuss, debate, amend, and adopt bills in those areas.

Frankly, the practice of bringing omnibus bills to this committee and then parcelling some parts out to other committees for them to review with very little time—sometimes they get one meeting—and then bringing those sections of the bill back to finance, where ultimately we vote on them, has not been a great practice. What happens is that those who know about the subject—whether it be the environment or the National Research Council or labour legislation—the MPs who actually know about those areas and who may have questions and who hear witnesses and debate those issue, are not ultimately the ones who get to vote at committee on those bills. I think that's a real problem.

Fundamentally, it's the issue of omnibus budget bills that has created this problem.

Now, in our experience here at the finance committee, the Conservatives proposed something very similar to this motion to deal with Bill C-60, and we did oppose it at the time. We didn't think it was the right way to go because it would deny a long-standing practice for independent members who don't sit on the committee to take their amendments to the House.

Perhaps the intention of the government was to try to reach out and offer them the opportunity to participate in committees that they don't sit on. I'll assume that it was a positive intent the government had, but what we found at the last budget implementation act we dealt with was that when these independent members tried to bring amendments to the committee, they had extremely little time to be able to present their amendments. It was—

Motion No. 2

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for recognizing me to speak to Motion No. 2 moved by the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

The implications of this motion, both for the parliamentary process and for the conditions surrounding the members' work, are quite significant and therefore require meaningful debate in this chamber.

True to form, the Conservatives again introduced an omnibus measure that thoroughly confuses the debate and changes the discussion on the most controversial parts.

As it did with the mammoth bills, the government is using questionable tactics to try to push its agenda and bury the contentious measures within a whole raft of technical items.

The motion by the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons deals with so many items that it becomes difficult to focus the discussion.

It addresses legislative proceedings, the parliamentary calendar, the Board of Internal Economy, committees and the hearings conducted by those committees.

It goes from themes such as expenditure management to topics like missing and murdered aboriginal girls and women.

Accordingly, in one single vote, we are to take a position on the motion's numerous components, which do not really have anything in common other than being the direct result of the Conservatives' tactics.

This makes no sense, but more than that, it is a denial of democracy, as well as yet another example of the Conservatives' flagrant lack of respect for parliamentary institutions.

In short, the Conservatives are continuing to demonstrate their contempt for Canada's parliamentary institutions.

Fortunately, last week, the House Leader of the Official Opposition rose on a point of order, and rightly so. I commend the Speaker for his fairness in agreeing to separate the vote on the motion.

In addition to considering the fact that this is an omnibus motion, we need to look at the content. The first part is undoubtedly the most questionable.

In part (a) of the motion, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons is proposing that a bill introduced within 30 sitting days of this motion being passed will be deemed in the current session to have been considered and approved at all stages completed at the time of prorogation of the previous session.

Of course, it must be identical in form to the version introduced in the previous session. Consequently, the government could reinstate legislation at the stage it was at before the House was prorogued.

However, before I delve further into the content of part (a), I think it is important to understand the context of this aspect of the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons's motion.

First, it is important to remember that the government had parliamentarians sit until midnight at the end of the last session and then hastily adjourned the proceedings on June 19.

After forcing members to work overtime, the Conservatives then robbed parliamentarians of precious hours of debate, which makes no sense. It would be like a company forcing its employees to work overtime to then lay them off before the end of a contract.

Second, it is important to point out that the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons said this on May 22:

...we are seeking to allow debate to continue until midnight every night so we can get more done, have more debate, have more democracy...

That is an interesting paradox, because despite what his House leader says, on September 13, the Prime Minister asked the Governor General to prorogue proceedings until October 16, 2013.

That was the fourth prorogation since 2006. Coming from a government that claims to want more democracy, this leaves something to be desired .

By doing so, the government is responsible for many negative effects, the impact of which is already being felt and will continue to be felt.

First of all, five weeks of parliamentary work were lost because of the Prime Minister's partisan recklessness.

We lost five weeks during which we could have moved committee work forward; five weeks during which we could have debated various pieces of legislation; five weeks during which opposition members could have asked nearly 1,000 questions in the House of Commons.

This decision also blocked the process surrounding the legislative error in Bill C-60 regarding tax hikes on credit unions. This measure will have a direct impact on institutions like Desjardins, whose taxes will double.

At the same time, the savings accounts and debt levels of Canadians who use those services will be affected. The additional delays caused by prorogation will only add to the uncertainty surrounding this error in Bill C-60.

Similarly, prorogation also created some stumbling blocks in the passing of legislation to stop discrimination against transgendered people, as well as the creation of a special committee to address the issue of missing and murdered aboriginal women. These groups within our population really deserve our full support, along with quick and effective action.

While the government is putting its own partisan interests first, victims will just have to wait. Behind the Prime Minister's decision are the real victims who need us.

Finally, environmental studies on habitat conservation, the Great Lakes, the groundwater near the oil sands and the impact of climate change on northern fish populations were all dropped because Parliament was shut down. That is what we have to remember. Can the environment really wait until it fits the Prime Minister's agenda? I sincerely doubt it.

Clearly, the decision to prorogue Parliament—the main goal of which was to merely serve the partisan interests of this government—had very serious consequences.

Did we need to lose five weeks of parliamentary activity to do that? No. Did we need to miss out on all the work that could have been accomplished? No. Did we need to disrupt the legislative processes that were under way only to come back to most of them in the end? No. This whole situation is ridiculous.

Today, what the House leader is trying to do by moving an omnibus motion is to clean up the mess that his political party made. The Conservatives want to solve a problem that they caused. Let us face it. It does not make much sense.

Rather than acting in the interests of Canadians from the outset, the government has gotten caught up in trying to fix the mess it made with its own actions. Rather than taking action and holding debates in September, the Conservatives simply decided to shut Parliament down.

This series of positions and actions taken by the government demonstrates the Conservatives' ambivalence toward managing parliamentary procedure, something which—let us not forget—they have been doing in an authoritarian, questionable and anti-democratic way. Their management style is the hallmark of an old party that has lost all interest in parliamentary affairs.

On the one hand, they are setting an overloaded schedule and forcing members to hastily debate bills, as they did last spring. On the other hand, they are limiting the time for debate by moving countless time allocation motions and even rising early.

Recently, they completely bypassed the parliamentary process by proroguing the previous session. Now, a few weeks later, they are trying to bring it back by introducing a measure to that effect in an omnibus motion. This is déjà vu.

The government's piecemeal management style has consequences and brings Canada's democratic institutions and the Conservative Party as a whole into disrepute.

Getting back to the motion, we believe that we should pick up where we left off with some pieces of legislation. However, did the legislative process really have to be delayed by five weeks? Definitely not. What we are most critical of is not the proposed measure but its operationalization and, above all, the reasons why we are having this debate.

Regardless of the reasons why the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons introduced Motion No. 2, we have the right to question which specific bills will be fully brought back in their previous versions. We could also ask about the number of pieces of legislation that will be introduced again and then the pertinence of a new throne speech if the government has the same agenda.

Yesterday, there were absolutely no new ideas or any sign of a plan that would bring people together and provide a formal direction. The throne speech's lack of substance makes me seriously wonder about the real reason for the prorogation. All this time and the potential for action were lost simply for partisan reasons. Why prevent parliamentarians from doing their job by closing Parliament if the Prime Minister has nothing new to offer? Why limit the work done by the opposition if the Conservative Party claims to be championing accountability?

It is up to the government to respond.

In theory, a throne speech must set somewhat of a new course and bring something new to the legislative landscape. Restoring the bulk of the bills from the last session would demonstrate that this is a public relations exercise intended to muzzle the opposition and cover up the Conservative scandals.

In short, with respect to section (a) of Motion No. 2, it is obvious that the leader is trying to hide the Prime Minister's lack of vision regarding the prorogation of Parliament. The government wanted to clear the legislative agenda and then fully restore it. This validates the criticism that prorogation and the throne speech were just a smokescreen used to draw attention away from the scandals in which the Conservatives are mired.

That said, there are some parts of the government House leader's omnibus motion that our party agrees with, for example, the proposal to hold public hearings regarding replacing the Board of Internal Economy with an independent body. More specifically, it suggests that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be responsible for holding the hearings, and the Auditor General, the Clerk and the Chief Financial Officer of the House of Commons would participate. This in-depth study could result in some proposed changes to the Parliament of Canada Act, the Financial Administration Act, the Auditor General Act and any other acts as deemed necessary.

Historically, the NDP has always favoured more transparent and effective management of taxpayers' dollars, whether we are talking about government programs management or spending oversight parameters.

We believe in accountability. We believe in transparency. We are therefore open to the idea of closely examining the issue of MPs' spending and particularly the issue of an independent body overseeing this spending. We think this study deserves special attention and that the witnesses invited could be in a position to make relevant, proactive suggestions.

However, we must remember that such changes require co-operation among the different political parties as well as everyone involved. If we can work together, we can be sure to get the best possible reform that adequately reflects reality. We must absolutely come to a consensus on creating an independent structure that would oversee and control MPs' spending.

Yet another measure in this omnibus motion is the creation of a special committee to conduct hearings on the critical matter of missing and murdered indigenous women and girls in Canada, and to propose solutions to address the root causes of violence against indigenous women.

I am especially interested in this matter and I met many of these women during a demonstration on Parliament Hill last year, so I firmly believe that we have already waited far too long to act. These women and girls are waiting and they want government authorities to intervene quickly and investigate these too easily forgotten cases. They want the government to do something to stop these attacks on human dignity. That is what the NDP has been calling for for years, and that is what the government has refused to do.

Obviously, those five lost weeks will just make the process even slower than it already was and exacerbate tensions on the ground. It is pretty easy for the government to blame the official opposition, but the government created the situation itself. Had the Conservatives not made a partisan choice to prorogue Parliament, we would already be working on this issue. Unfortunately for these aboriginal women and girls, who did not choose to become victims of this scourge and government inaction, we have not been able to work on it yet.

In conclusion, the motion moved by the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons is nothing but a cover for the real reason the Prime Minister prorogued Parliament. We have identified countless paradoxes that indicate this government is worn out, drowning in scandal and unable to give Canadians a real vision for their society. Rather than work in Canadians' interest, the Conservatives chose to engage in pathological partisanship, and that is something the NDP has always opposed.

The motion moved by the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons does address some important concerns, but unfortunately for the people we represent, it makes about as much sense as a pyromaniac firefighter.

Crown Corporations

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to rise today to present a petition signed by nearly 800 people who are complaining about the interference in collective bargaining that would arise from Bill C-60. The petitioners are seeking to preserve the autonomy of these crown corporations.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, this time last week, I said that I hoped to have a substantial list of accomplishments to report to the House. Indeed, I do.

In just the last five days, thanks to a lot of members of Parliament who have been here sitting late at night, working until past midnight, we have accomplished a lot. Bill C-60, the economic action plan 2013 act, no. 1, the important job-creating bill, which was the cornerstone of our government's spring agenda, passed at third reading. Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act, passed at third reading. Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act, passed at third reading. Bill C-62, the Yale First Nation final agreement act, was reported back from committee and was passed at report stage and passed at third reading. Bill C-49, the Canadian museum of history act, was reported back from committee. Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act, was reported back from committee this morning with amendments from all three parties. Bill S-14, the fighting foreign corruption act, has been passed at committee, and I understand that the House should get a report soon. Bill S-15, the expansion and conservation of Canada’s national parks act, passed at second reading. Bill S-17, the tax conventions implementation act, 2013, passed at second reading. Bill S-10, the prohibiting cluster munitions act, passed at second reading. Bill S-6, the first nations elections act, has been debated at second reading. Bill C-61, the offshore health and safety act, has been debated at second reading. Bill S-16, the tackling contraband tobacco act, has been debated at second reading. Finally, Bill C-65, the respect for communities act, was also debated at second reading.

On the private members' business front, one bill passed at third reading and another at second reading. Of course, that reflects the unprecedented success of private members advancing their ideas and proposals through Parliament under this government, something that is a record under this Parliament. This includes 21 bills put forward by members of the Conservative caucus that have been passed by the House. Twelve of those have already received royal assent or are awaiting the next ceremony. Never before have we seen so many members of Parliament successfully advance so many causes of great importance to them. Never in Canadian history have individual MPs had so much input into changing Canada's laws through their own private members' bills in any session of Parliament as has happened under this government.

Hard-working members of Parliament are reporting the results of their spring labours in our committee rooms. Since last week, we have got substantive reports from the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, the Standing Committee on Health, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, and the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.

We are now into the home stretch of the spring sitting. Since I would like to give priority to any bills which come back from committee, I expect that the business for the coming days may need to be juggled as we endeavour to do that.

I will continue to make constructive proposals to my colleagues for the orderly management of House business. For example, last night, I was able to bring forward a reasonable proposal for today's business, a proposal that had the backing of four of the five political parties that elected MPs. Unfortunately, one party objected, despite the very generous provision made for it with respect to the number of speakers it specifically told us it wanted to have. Nonetheless, I would like to thank those who did work constructively toward it.

I would point out that the night before, I made a similar offer, again, based on our efforts to accommodate the needs of all the parties.

Today we will complete second reading of Bill S-16, the tackling contraband tobacco act. Then we will start second reading of Bill C-57, the safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act.

Tomorrow morning we will start report stage of Bill C-49, the Canadian museum of history act. Following question period, we will return to the second reading debate on Bill S-6, the first nations elections act.

On Monday, before question period, we will start report stage and hopefully third reading of Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act. After question period Monday, we will return to Bill C-49, followed by Bill C-65, the respect for communities act.

On Tuesday, we will also continue any unfinished business from Friday and Monday. We could also start report stage, and ideally, third reading of Bill S-14, the fighting foreign corruption act that day.

Wednesday, after tidying up what is left over from Tuesday, we will take up any additional bills that might be reported from committee. I understand that we could get reports from the hard-working finance and environment committees on Bill S-17 and Bill S-15 respectively.

Thereafter, the House could finish the four outstanding second-reading debates on the order paper: Bill C-57; Bill C-61; Bill S-12, the incorporation by reference in regulations act; and Bill S-13, the port state measures agreement implementation act.

I am looking forward to several more productive days as we get things done for Canadians here in Ottawa.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is nice to have that level of civility. I congratulate my friend across the way.

Before asking the usual Thursday question and before the government House leader across the way starts to talk about how he has been able to abuse Parliament over the past week, I would like to make a small observation for all those listening.

Of all the bills I am sure he is about to mention that are important, not a single bill passed through this legislative process in anything resembling a normal fashion. Bills S-8, S-15, S-17, S-2, S-6, S-10, S-16, C-56 and C-60, every single bill we have debated in the past week, operated under time allocation. I might parenthetically add that seven of them came from the Senate. It seems like a strange place for the government to get its agenda: a bunch of unelected, under-investigation senators, but so be it. It is the government's choice.

We tried to work with the government to find ways to allow the House to debate bills and to do so expediently. A good example is the Sable Island as a national park bill. For example, we offered up about five or six speakers who wanted to address the merits of the bill, which would have allowed the passage of that bill after they had spoken. The reaction from the leader from the other side was to move time allocation, which in fact ended up taking up more time in the House than the offer the NDP had made would have taken.

The Conservatives' strategy is sometimes bizarre. In fact, it is hard to figure out whether it is a strategy or not. I would like the Conservative member to enlighten me on this, even though the Conservatives' responses have no merit.

We have spent more than 14 hours debating and voting on time allocation motions in the past two weeks alone. I find it ironic that the government allots only five hours of debate to the content of the bill under time allocation, when the vast majority of our time is spent debating and voting on the time allocation motions and not on the bills. That is the Conservatives' way of doing business.

When will the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons learn that a hammer is not the only tool available for getting the work done?

Could the leader of the government tell us what his plans are for this week and the week following?

Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 2013

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill S-17, which is a lengthy statute to deal with certain double taxation conventions between Canada and Namibia, Serbia, Poland, Hong Kong, Luxembourg and Switzerland. This is second reading debate. I want to say at the outset that the official opposition supports the bill.

I would like to divide my comments into four parts: first, the process that led us here; second, the issue of time allocation; third, just what double taxations are designed to achieve; and fourth, comments about international tax avoidance and tax evasion and why the bill is such a baby step in that direction.

Bill S-17 is 103 pages long. The bill started in the Senate, and lest anyone say this represents a great illustration of the utility of the other place, the government itself has acknowledged that this is routine legislation, and I note that since 1976, there is a convention that bills of this sort, dealing with tax convention legislation, originate in the Senate. In fact, there have been 30 different pieces of tax convention legislation in front of Parliament since 1976.

The bill is designed to bring into effect certain bilateral income tax conventions with the countries I mentioned. It is not a bill that represents significant, staggering, revolutionary change. On the contrary, I think the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance accurately characterized the bill as a routine housekeeping type of statute. That was confirmed by the member for Pickering—Scarborough East who said in this place on second reading, “I am delighted and pleased to rise...to kick off the debate on a rather technical and routine piece of legislation”, to which I say that is entirely accurate.

Let me set the stage by saying the New Democratic Party supports harmonization and greater clarity for taxation laws and likes to bring into force these kinds of tax treaties, which as I will describe, are based upon a model tax treaty convention that the OECD generated many years ago and renewed quite recently.

The parliamentary secretary, while in the other place, referred to this as somehow a major step forward in the fight against international tax evasion. For reasons I will describe, that is entirely not accurate.

Let me speak to the second point I wanted to raise, which is the issue of time allocation. The government today, in a rather embarrassing stunt, decided that 43 times it would use what is in effect a closure motion, time allocation, to deny the House the opportunity to scrutinize a bill. It is embarrassing for democracy and shameful. When asked to justify it during the debate on time allocation, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance asked why we do not just pass it, since we support it. He said something about how this is a very important bill dealing with tax havens.

The bill is important. It is routine. However, it takes baby steps to deal with the crisis in tax havens and international tax avoidance, a matter I would like to speak about later in my remarks.

I presume the government is anxious to tell its base that the New Democratic Party, the official opposition, is somehow made up of unreasonable people who refuse to co-operate, and that is why it has to allocate time to debate the matter. We support the bill, and I guess I am just too new here to understand why it needs time allocation when we support this measure. He also said that there had been 100 days of debate on this measure. Surely that is not accurate. Surely he means that maybe it has been before the Senate for 100 days. If that is what he means, I wish to say that the official opposition has no members in that place and I hope it never does.

What is this legislation about? Canadians might not be familiar with double taxation conventions of this sort, so let me say a few things about the nature of this important legislation.

There are perhaps 90 tax conventions Canada has entered into since the 1920s. They have been a routine feature of international law since then. What are they for? The taxation treaties are designed to avoid imposing double taxation in both what is called the source country and the country of the taxpayer's residence. This is distinct from what the government is trumpeting as a great success, which is what are called TIEAs, tax information exchange agreements.

The Conservative government just did one in March, to great fanfare, with Panama. That was said to be a great step forward in the fight against tax evasion and international tax havens. I have news for the government. Panama is a notorious tax haven made up of many banks with lots of drug money, and Canada thinks that by entering into a tax information exchange agreement with that country, it is a great step forward.

One has to know what to ask for under these tax information exchange agreements. That is the basis of some of the provisions of the bill before us, which we are debating today. Many speakers before the finance committee said that they were essentially useless.

Yes, there are some good reasons for these tax conventions, such as the need to promote investment in various countries where the non-resident invests or works, and in fairness, to prevent Canadians and others from paying tax on the same income in two different countries. The concept is very simple. The concept is to avoid paying taxes twice and to set certain standards as to how income from those things will be treated. Dividends are treated differently than interest. Royalties are treated differently than capital gains.

The OECD, of which Canada has long been a member, has entered into a tax convention treaty that sets down these types of standards with fairly, by now, routine amounts of tax for different kinds of income. That is precisely what this double taxation treaty has done. That, as I said, is by now commonplace.

A country like Canada enters into these solemn conventions, and it is very hard, and should be very hard, to get out of them. One can enter into a protocol that has to be negotiated if it is to be modified. Indeed, there are a couple of protocols in this bill dealing with changes to the longstanding arrangements with Switzerland and Luxembourg. Frankly, the protocols can be changed, but there is still a solemnity. It takes some time. People intend at the international level to enter these for long periods of time, and they should be, and are, difficult to change.

The treatment of different kinds of income I have already described, and the OECD has made that very clear. The details I can confirm in this statute are entirely consistent with what other tax conventions of this kind have done for these different kinds of income. However, there are many other ways and progressive things going on in the world that the bill has nothing to do with. Let me give an example.

There was a recent agreement between the United Kingdom and Switzerland such that British nationals who have money in a Swiss account are subject to the Swiss government determining if they are British nationals, and if so, remitting to the U.K. tax authorities 30% in taxes of the amount in that Swiss account. It is much like a withholding tax. The British person could agree to self-identify and say, yes, he or she is a British citizen, and pay a lower amount of 5% or 10%. Thus, it is an incentive to self-identify if someone has money in a tax haven. Why does Canada not do something like our allies are doing? Nothing like this exists in this fairly routine statute.

What is the bill not about? The parliamentary secretary has told us that it is about international tax evasion and tax havens. I do not think so. It is not about international tax avoidance.

Next week, the G8 is meeting in Northern Ireland. The leader of the United Kingdom, Prime Minister David Cameron, has made it one of his three key priorities to address this crisis in tax havens. It is estimated that we are talking about between $10 trillion and $30 trillion in tax havens abroad.

It is estimated that the Canadian treasury is losing perhaps $7.8 billion every year to tax havens. Canadians need to understand that this is not arcane tax law. It is money that could be in our treasury to pay for goods and services for Canadians. Other Canadians are not paying their fair share, therefore requiring us to do more.

People are outraged by these abuses. Fortunately, the press has done a great job in recent months to show the enormity of this problem. The figures are staggering, the cost is enormous and people are demanding action. I salute the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom for his leadership. I regret that the Canadian government is very much the caboose on that train.

New Democrats will continue to push the Conservatives to take real action on tax havens. We did a supplemental report to the finance committee's study on tax havens and brought out a dozen or so recommendations for meaningful change, not radical change, which, of course, the government resisted. They were the kinds of changes our allies are bringing forward to address this crisis.

While we support the routine negotiating and updating of tax treaties such as this, we will continue to push harder against Conservative policies that have failed to protect the integrity of our tax system and that are furthering the erosion of our tax base.

Let us talk about the priorities of the government in going after tax havens. As I said, the parliamentary secretary would have us believe that there is real action going on in Canada and that we are really serious about this. That may be so, except for the fact that the statistics speak for themselves.

I quote an order paper question, Q-1174, of February 14 of this year, because there has been a lot of misinformation about whether there are cuts at Canada Revenue Agency. The minister reported that after the budget, which we dealt with today, Bill C-60, 2,568 full-time equivalents will be lost to the Canada Revenue Agency. They trumpet two areas: the international audit program and the aggressive tax planning program of the Canada Revenue Agency. In the last four or five years, the government confirmed, in the order paper question I just mentioned, there have been cuts in those as well.

Therefore, the notion that somehow we are serious about tax cheats, that we are out there with both feet and doing our thing like our allies is demonstrably not so. If they could characterize this as an investment, perhaps they could understand the enormous amount of money that could be made if they got serious, just as our allies have. I will provide examples of that in a moment.

Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel Prize winning economist, wrote in The Guardian on May 27, 2013:

Our multinationals have learned how to exploit globalisation in every sense of the term—including exploiting the tax loopholes that allow them to evade their global social responsibilities.

He talks about transfer payments, whereby, as he says firms "make up" the prices of goods of services that they charge each affiliated entity and so forth to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. We have seen that. We have seen that the Cirque du Soleil uses a subsidiary in Luxembourg, a low-tax jurisdiction, to not pay its fair share of taxes in Canada. The Irving family is notorious for this. Of course, there is Apple, Starbucks and Google, and the list goes on. People are outraged.

Canadian firms are just as involved in the creative use of tax havens to avoid paying their fair share. It is the kind of thing that finally seems to be getting attention, albeit not from the Conservative government.

What can be done? What have the French done? They have published a black list of tax havens with bank-secrecy laws. They are simply saying that their French development agency will not operate in the 17 countries that are on the list. Is there any such list in Canada? I do not think so.

They have signed the multilateral Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters and have agreed to share information, on request, from other countries—and here is the punchline—with the optional provision for automatic tax information exchange. What does that mean? Luxembourg, Singapore and Austria, all sensitive, traditional bank-secrecy jurisdictions, are among the 50-some countries that have agreed to automatically exchange tax information to help foreign nations clamp down on tax debtors and allow countries to conduct wide-ranging, multi-party tax investigations.

The Globe and Mail reported yesterday, as did the Financial Post today, that Canada is opposing the automatic tax information exchange agreements. To use my analogy again, if there is a train, we barely make the caboose on that train.

Let me talk about what the OECD Secretary-General, Ángel Gurría of Mexico, has recently said about the kind of things this convention deals with:

The [international tax] rules which we have built since the 1920s were meant to avoid double taxation....The problem is we've moved from double taxation to double non-taxation.

I will continue the quote:

Now we don't tax anybody because we've built a set of codes and regulations and law...and culture...where we facilitate the fact that co-operations, through transfer pricing practises, put their profits in low-tax jurisdictions and therefore do not pay what would be considered to be their fair share.

He also said that taxing IT companies such as Google and Amazon had become especially difficult, as they are apparently based in the “ether”.

You can move anywhere and it doesn't matter where you originate the information or where you register the company, basically the consistency is that they [the companies] want to pay less tax.

This is hurting developing countries a great deal as well, as their wealth is taken to tax havens, and Canada has not been aggressive on that score either.

I said I would talk about what other countries are doing. I have given some examples.

The Swiss government and the Americans have been involved in serious negotiations involving their bank secrecy and enablers that come to that country to get Americans to not pay their fair taxes. In 2009, UBS, the largest Swiss bank, agreed to enter into a deferred prosecution agreement with the United States. The bank eventually turned over 4,450 client names. It paid a $780-million fine after admitting criminal wrongdoing and selling tax evasion services to wealthy Americans.

Do we think Canadians are not part of that? We know that they are. Do we think the Canadian government is putting in the energy to deal with this crisis it should? Of course it is not.

That is why the NDP's supplementary report to the finance committee lists a number of things we think need to be done. The government refuses to measure this problem, as our allies have done. The measurement of the tax gap and the like they scoff at as being irrelevant.

I wish it could finally follow the practice of the French, the Australians and the British in doing the right thing, but it does not seem to want to. It cut services. CRA does not have the warm bodies to do the job that is required, and we are supposed to believe that this is different.

We support the bill. We think it is a bill that is in line with modern tax practice in avoiding double taxation. It makes sense at one level. However, when it is sold as something it is not, we have to stand and tell the government that the emperor has no clothes.

It is a great housekeeping bill. I am glad we have a deal with Serbia. I am glad we have a deal with Namibia. I am glad we have a deal with countries that are our allies. However, why can we not see the need to really get serious about tax evasion?

I note that the government has been given information recently, that it had the information from the international consortium that was doing the tax evasion studies and that it had the opportunity to move forward, and it did not. It said in this House that it will take all measures to do so. It did not.

I am hoping, when our government is in the G8, that it shows a tiny bit of leadership on this issue and gets on board with Mr. Cameron, gets on board with the Americans, gets on board, indeed, with all of the G8 and says, “Canada is here to play as well. We're not simply going to take a back seat or ride in the back of the train, in the caboose, on such an important issue”.

The House resumed from June 7 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 third time and passed, and of the amendment.

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 third time and passed, and of the amendment.

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Markham—Unionville for sharing his time with me. I also wish to inform the member for Louis-Hébert that the two subjects I plan to discuss have to do with credit unions and crown corporations. I will begin with credit unions.

The matter of credit unions is rather troubling, in the sense that we have a very adequate system. Credit unions have been able to offer services in communities where sometimes the banks do not go because the profit margins are not sufficient for the banks in small towns throughout this country. Yet, they are going to be suffering a rather dramatic setback because of the implementation of Bill C-60. When I asked why the government had chosen to do this, the Minister of Finance and others suggested that it is because the credit unions are now sufficiently large enough to compete and that the banks have to be protected. Though they did not quite say this, it was almost insinuated in their responses.

I need to provide some information about the relative comparison of the banks versus credit unions. The top five banks in this country, in 2012 numbers, have dramatically different sized assets than credit unions. The Royal Bank, in 2012, had $455 billion of assets under management; TD had $429 billion; Scotiabank had $347 billion; CIBC had $327 billion; and BMO had $278 billion. The largest credit union, Vancity, had $17 billion. I keep going back to the smallest one, which is First West, also in B.C., which had $5.9 billion. The other three are Coast Capital, at $12.6 billion; Servus, in Alberta, at $12.2 billion; and, finally, Meridian, in Ontario, at $8.8 billion. These numbers have been provided to all parliamentarians. If they have not, I would be quite prepared to share them. This has come from the Credit Union Central of Canada and these are publicly available numbers.

The largest credit union, Vancity, is 16 times smaller than the fifth largest bank, BMO. To say that we have to change the rules to allow for competition is ludicrous. The corporate structure of the two institutions is totally different. Because of the co-operative structure of credit unions, they cannot issue share capital. Basically, they have to accumulate capital through retained earnings; whereas the banks can issue share capital, as they do on a fairly regular basis. Forty years ago governments accepted that to enable the credit unions to function properly and build up capital, they would be treated as small businesses, and the tax rate of small businesses would apply to them.

I found it rather ironic during question period that one of my colleagues asked the Minister of Health a question about a bill that was introduced yesterday and the need for voices of communities to be heard. The government introduced this change in taxation of credit unions without any consultation whatsoever. Last summer there were five days of hearings that were held by a specially constituted committee of the House. They were unanimously agreed to, as per a motion that I put forward. The committee heard from the government, credit unions and the banks, and nobody at any time suggested that should be done or hinted that it might be happening. So much for consultation. Only when it suits the government, it seems, will it consult.

To do what the government has done, not consulting and then proposing that it is to allow for a level playing field, is absolutely not accurate. The consequence of this is that $200 million, which is basically the increased taxation that will be applied to credit unions over the next five years, will be that much less for small businesses in these communities and community economic development. This totally goes against the grain of what the government is trying to say in its budget. It says it welcomes competition, especially in the banking and financial sectors, and by introducing this measure it has actually reduced the competition and the ability of small institutions, the largest being 16 times smaller than the smallest of the big five, to compete.

Liberals do not understand what has driven the government to do this and whether it might be the banks saying that they do not need competition whatsoever. If that is the case, Canadian consumers, especially rural Canadians, will actually be negatively affected by this measure. That is certainly why I intend to vote against this measure, and I suspect most people on this side will vote against it as well.

The second issue has to do with crown corporations and section 17 of Bill C-60. Basically, the government is granting itself the power to interfere in crown corporations. It is absolutely incredible that this government wants to do such a thing. I think this shows utter contempt for the usual governance practices.

All crown corporations have an executive and a board of directors and that is usually appointed by the government. Perhaps one or two members may already be in place before the government makes it appointments, but that is how the government delegates it authority to manage crown corporations.

I would like to read some parts of the bill currently before the House, a bill that amends the Financial Administration Act. The first excerpt concerns the amendment cited in subsection 89.8(2):

If the Governor in Council directs a crown corporation to have its negotiating mandate approved, the Treasury Board may impose any requirement on the crown corporation with respect to that negotiating mandate.

The bill then goes even further on another matter. It gives the government the right to attend the negotiations. We are talking about collective bargaining and therefore unionized workers. However, there is also subsection 89.9(1), which states:

The Governor in Council [cabinet] may, by order, direct a Crown corporation to obtain the Treasury Board’s approval before the Crown corporation fixes the terms and conditions of employment of its non-unionized employees who are not appointed by the Governor in Council.

Thus, the government decided that it wanted to give itself the authority to bypass the boards of directors that it appoints, and to directly interfere in and infiltrate crown corporations. To start out with, that is already too much. It is totally inappropriate for any crown corporation.

More than anything else, what really crosses the line in a democratic society is the fact that the government wants to give itself the right to interfere in CBC/Radio-Canada. The Canadian public should really wake up, because we are dealing here with a measure that undermines the democratic capacity of a society.

I will also read section 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Section 2 sets out fundamental freedoms, which include:

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

This government wants to give itself the right to interfere in CBC/Radio-Canada, which is a public news and broadcasting corporation. I hope that this bill and this division will be challenged in court, if the bill is passed, as we expect it will be. It has a majority in both chambers.

If the bill passes, we will have taken more than just a small step down a slippery slope. We will be undermining our democracy and our freedom of the press, and allowing the government to give itself the right to interfere in a crown corporation that has the responsibility to communicate with Canadians. This is unprecedented, and I hope that this will never happen again.

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 third time and passed, and of the amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I know Canadians are riveted with what is happening in Ottawa with all the scandals around the federal government. Nevertheless, in spite of Conservative scandals, there is important business that is continuing in Parliament.

I rise today to speak, once again, on Bill C-60, which is yet another Conservative omnibus budget bill. It was only weeks ago that the Conservatives brought Bill C-60 to the floor of the House and very quickly constrained debate with time allocation. They pushed it through the finance committee, allowing a total of only four meetings to discuss and study this bill. Here we are with a record number of debate limits due to time allocation by the secretive Conservative government. We are back with this omnibus budget bill and, again, it will receive only two and a half hours of debate.

While this is not the biggest budget bill ever, it is 115 pages and changes almost 50 pieces of legislation. This will have wide-ranging impacts on government departments, crown corporations, international trade, and foreign investment. It will affect the prices of basic household goods for Canadians. All the while, the Conservatives themselves are very secretive. Even the Parliamentary Budget Officer cannot find out what the government is cutting, and these cuts to programs and services and austerity measures continue.

This omnibus bill would make changes to the temporary foreign workers program and the Investment Canada Act. It merges the Department of Foreign Affairs with the Canadian International Development Agency. It also introduces significant tax hikes on credit unions, small businesses and tariff hikes on thousands of products. The Conservatives are raising the prices on more than 1,200 consumer goods, from over 70 countries, by increasing tariffs $333 million.

Bill C-60 also undermines the collective bargaining process at crown agencies, such as the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, VIA Rail, Canada Post, and many more crown corporations. It also raises serious concerns about the independence of institutions, including the CBC, where we prize journalistic independence and integrity, and also the Bank of Canada.

Canadians across the country have been writing to MPs to share their concerns about this omni-budget 3.0. If they are to be considered, these are changes that merit more debate, more time, and certainly due process. In year three of Conservative omni-budgets, Canadians should not accept this skirting of the democratic process and democratic oversight as the new normal.

Allow me to quote what National Post columnist Andrew Coyne said about omnibus budget bills. He stated:

Not only does this make a mockery of the confidence convention, shielding bills that would otherwise be defeatable within a money bill, which is not: It makes it impossible to know what Parliament really intended by any of it. We’ve no idea whether MPs supported or opposed any particular bill in the bunch, only that they voted for the [omnibus] legislation that contained them. There is no common thread that runs between them, no overarching principle; they represent not a single act of policy, but a sort of compulsory buffet.

...there is something quite alarming about Parliament being obliged to rubber-stamp the government’s whole legislative agenda at one go.

It was last year that Mr. Coyne wrote that opinion, and of course the government continues with its omnibus legislation, blind and determined as ever.

The Conservatives do not trust Canadians, and Bill C-60, like the omnibus bills of years past, is evidence of their disdain for parliamentary process, the democratic process, and ultimately for Canadians. If they had been listening to Canadians, the Conservatives would be hearing the kinds of things I have been hearing from my constituents. Thousands of Canadians are writing to parliamentarians, telling us that sections related to the CBC alone are reason to stop this omnibus bill.

Respected members of the Canadian media are telling Parliament that this omnibus bill needs to be intercepted. Canadian Journalists for Free Expression, the Fédération professionnelle des journalistes du Québec, the Canadian Media Guild, the Syndicat des communications de Radio-Canada and ACTRA are urging all of the Conservatives to use common sense.

The Canadian Association of Journalists has said that the provisions of Bill C-60 show the Conservatives' total lack of confidence in the ability of the CBC's board of directors and president to properly manage public broadcasting.

This bill is also the worst case of government interference in the CBC and its mandate as an independent broadcaster funded by taxpayers.

My office certainly has received countless letters, emails and phone calls from constituents concerned about how Bill C-60 will impact the CBC. Of course, Conservatives would have to talk to Canadians if they wanted to know this. Clearly, they are not.

Bill C-60 also phases out the credit union tax deduction that has helped foster diversity in our financial system in Canada. There is a great deal of concern from credit unions from coast to coast about the long-term effects of these changes. Fostering diversity in the banking and financial sector is a necessary element of a modern economy.

At the finance committee, we heard from credit union representatives about the concerns that this measure has raised in communities across the country. I would like to quote a couple of them.

Mr. David Phillips, president and CEO of Credit Union Central of Canada, told us:

The provision as it is now is pro-competitive. So when you take the provision away, when you increase the tax rate, what you're really doing is supporting greater concentration in the Canadian financial services industry. It's really a tax on the growth of credit unions.

Mr. David Phillips is saying that as it stands now it fosters competition. What the Conservatives are doing will eliminate competition, or greatly reduce competition. That was what Mr. Phillips said to the finance committee last month.

Mr. Garth Manness, CEO of Credit Union Central of Manitoba, notes that:

Now credit unions alone face the possibility of having to pay more of their net income in federal tax. Just as the banks did before, it is no exaggeration to say that some may begin to question the future viability of credit unions in many communities in rural Canada.

In some cases, they are the only financial institution.

Not only could people be left without access to a nearby financial institution, valuable and stable jobs at the credit union could be lost.

Again, that is from Mr. Manness when he appeared at the finance committee last month.

As the member of Parliament for Parkdale—High Park, I know these measures will have a direct impact on my community. In my riding, the Ukrainian credit unions invest nearly $1 million annually in community programming, projects and educational initiatives that could simply disappear as a result of these tax changes. It makes no sense.

I recently met with representatives from the Council Of Ukrainian Credit Unions Of Canada which have a combined membership of over 63,000 people across Canada. The representatives I met with in Parkdale—High Park were shocked at the unexpected tax code changes for credit unions in Bill C-60. There was no consultation.

I share the concerns of my constituents, and many Canadians, that these new risk-reducing financial tools available to communities across the country threaten the overall diversity of the financial sector in Canada.

Bill C-60 is not what Canadians want. If the Conservatives were listening to Canadians, they would know that. If the Conservatives were listening to Canadians, they would be considering the advice of the very experts who appeared before the finance committee as witnesses on this bill.

For instance, labour relations expert George Smith told the finance committee that the changes in Bill C-60 fundamentally contradict the Canada Labour Code.

Now, Smith is not a union representative. For four decades, Smith was chief management negotiator for many businesses and crown corporations, such as Air Canada, Canadian Pacific Railway, and CBC. He was part of the privatization of Air Canada, the revitalization of the Canadian railway industry, including CN as a crown corporation, and the modernization of CBC's collective agreement.

George Smith, formerly in management at CBC, Air Canada and CPR, and now adjunct professor at Queen's University, stated:

Collective bargaining is messy. Sometimes it causes inconvenience. Labour disputes, I would argue, are short-term pain for long-term gain. But the product of a freely negotiated collective agreement is an agreement that both sides agree to and both sides then commit to implement. That gives management the certainty, and it gives the employees and the unions certainty in the business environment. It doesn't mean that those negotiations aren't difficult. But mandated change, in my experience, wherever it comes from, doesn't work.

Mr. Smith appeared at the finance committee last month. It is clear that his comments fell on deaf ears on the part of the government.

If the government were listening, it would hear the concerns of Chris Aylward, national executive vice-president for the Public Service Alliance of Canada, on the changes that would allow Treasury Board interference in labour relations at crown corporations. He said:

These changes are problematic because it essentially gives Treasury Board unfettered authority to interfere in [collective] bargaining with Crown corporations, removing effective control from the parties most directly affected. This is not a recipe for healthy labour relations.

These are the experts who are telling us this, and the government refuses to listen.

The message from Canadians on process for this bill and on the content is clear. It is, “stop this omnibus budget bill”. However, the Conservatives will not take their fingers out of their ears long enough to hear what Canadians are saying.

The changes proposed to Bill C-60 regarding Treasury Board interference with crown corporations do not stop at the CBC. There is also concern that they could impact the independence of the Bank of Canada.

I recently tabled a motion at the finance committee to study the impact of this bill on the Bank of Canada, but, of course, like every other motion that the NDP or other parties put forward, and every other single amendment, the Conservatives rejected it, voted against it, and refused to listen.

In a recent article in The Globe and Mail, Kevin Carmichael described the potential scenario that could arise following the Bill C-60 measures:

Say the governor wanted to hire a talented banker who worked at an investment bank that had become the focus of public vitriol for its role in the global financial crisis. Would cabinet interfere with the appointment if there were a public outcry? Or to prevent one?

Carmichael goes on to say:

It is impossible to rule out the possibility. Yet such a scenario hardly is far-fetched. Bank of Canada Governor Mark Carney hired Tim Hodgson, the former head of Goldman Sachs's Canadian operations, as a special advisor in 2010. Would Mr. Carney have thought twice if he knew his internal appointments risked political censure? Again, there's reason to wonder. And suddenly, we're on a slippery slope: a simple “accountability” measure risks hurting the central bank's reputation as an independent actor.

Again, this is from an expert financial journalist at The Globe and Mail. The Conservatives are willing to risk the independence of the central bank if it means giving more power to the Prime Minister's Office.

Bill C-60 would also make the temporary foreign workers program correct some measures. However, they would be a band-aid solution and would not get to the heart of the government's mismanagement of the temporary foreign workers program. While the Conservatives like to crow about their record on job creation, there are still almost 1.4 million Canadians out of work. At the same time, the number of temporary foreign workers have tripled over the last decade. There are now hundreds of thousands of temporary foreign workers working here in Canada.

Experts and community groups across the country are speaking out against the band-aid solutions offered in Bill C-60. Gil McGowan, president of Alberta Federation of Labour, where many of these workers work, said:

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.

Miles Corak, professor of economics, has said:

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 do the Conservatives have against free markets?

David Gray, a labour economist and professor at the University of Ottawa, said:

The temporary foreign worker program has become a convenient “out” for employers unwilling to pay higher wages. It should just address only acute labour shortages.

The Canadian Council of Refugees said:

[T]he CCR regrets the [temporary foreign workers] announcement did not address the rights abuses suffered by migrant workers, who are vulnerable to exploitation because of their precarious status.

Again, this testimony was all ignored. Canadians told us about serious concerns about Bill C-60, and we in the New Democratic Party stand with Canadians in saying that we do not support this omnibus bill. We will be voting against it.

Despite what Conservatives claim, this budget will actually hold back the Canadian economy, instead of accelerating it. It is eliminating thousands of jobs, cutting direct program spending and weakening GDP growth. It does nothing to address unemployment, record levels of household debt or rising inequality.

Putting people to work is clearly the best way to reduce our deficit, but instead, this budget is recklessly pursuing an austerity agenda that has made major cuts to services on which Canadian families rely. Now is the time, instead, to invest in the next generation that will lead the country. It is the time to meet the challenges facing Canadians head-on, but this budget shirks these responsibilities.

There is no need to risk journalistic freedom at the CBC. There is no need to trample on collective bargaining rights and processes that have served us well for decades. New Democrats know that investing in communities, pursuing sustainable economic development and supporting small and medium-size businesses is critical in creating high-paying jobs and in building a vibrant economy for generations to come.

Canadians are counting on us to listen, to understand the concerns of communities across the country and to put the public interest first.

In that regard, I want to propose a reasoned amendment, and I will read the reasoned amendment now. I move:

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

this House decline to give third reading to Bill C-60, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures, because it:

(a) weakens Canadians' confidence in the work of Parliament, decreases transparency and erodes democratic process by amending 49 different pieces of legislation, many of which are not related to budgetary measures;

(b) raises taxes on Canadians by introducing tax hikes on credit unions and small businesses;

(c) gives the Treasury Board sweeping powers to interfere in collective bargaining and impose employment conditions on non-union employees;

(d) amends the Investment Canada Act to triple review thresholds and dramatically reduces the number of foreign takeovers subject to review;

(e) proposes an inadequate band-aid fix for the flawed approach to labour market opinions in the temporary foreign worker program;

(f) proposes to increase fees for visitor visas for friends and family coming to visit Canada; and

(g) fails to provide substantive measures to create good Canadian jobs and stimulate meaningful long-term growth and recovery.

I will add that this reasoned amendment is being seconded by the member of Parliament for Saint-Lambert.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to address the House this morning to present the reasons I support Canada's economic action plan 2013, Bill C-60. This plan, introduced by the best finance minister in the world, is thoughtful and reasonable, and most of all, it will help Canada with its economic recovery.

The global economy is still weak, and the economies of several European nations are very precarious. The economy of the United States, our biggest trading partner, is shaky. Canada's per capita GDP has been higher than that of the U.S. since 2011. That is unprecedented.

According to the highly reputable World Bank, Canada's per capita GDP was $50,343 in 2011, compared to $48,112 in the U.S. The performance in our country is 5% higher than our southern neighbour's. The World Bank also stated that Canada's per capita GDP growth outstripped that of our neighbours to the south.

Since 2010, our per capita GDP grew by 8.9%, compared to 3.2% for our most important economic partner. According to Statistics Canada’s report “Canada at a Glance 2013”, our country’s per capita GDP is higher than that of Germany, France and the United Kingdom. However, the government does not boast about these achievements. I am probably the first intervener to share these statistics with the House.

Canada is essentially an exporting country, so our economic recovery continues to depend on foreign markets. Nevertheless, since the depth of the recession, in July 2009, one million net new jobs have been created, the strongest economic growth of all the G7 countries. Ninety per cent of these one million net new jobs are full time, and 80% are in the private sector.

Independent organizations such as the International Monetary Fund and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development predict that Canada will have the strongest growth of all the G7 nations in the coming years. Canada’s economic action plan 2013 has been so successful that the opposition has not had any questions for the best Minister of Finance in the world for several weeks. This plan proposes no tax increases. Small and medium-sized businesses have therefore been able to breathe easier since 2006.

In 2006, a typical small business with a taxable income of $500,000 paid, on average, nearly $84,000 in taxes. That amount has since dropped by $28,600, to $55,000. That is how we help businesses create jobs and drive innovation. While the opposition parties want to increase taxes on all fronts, the government has understood that low taxes are the best way to spur economic renewal. That is certainly why we were the last country to go into the recession and were the first to get out of it.

Thanks to our record of tax relief, a typical family will save more than $3,200 in 2013. One million lower-income Canadians will no longer pay taxes. We are on track to a balanced budget in 2015. That is great news. Thanks to measures to reduce spending and additional revenue, lower travel costs because of technology, the pursuit of measures to limit public service compensation and the elimination of tax loopholes benefiting a few taxpayers, we are even projecting a surplus of around $800 million in 2015-16.

That is a cautious projection. I should also point out that the net debt-to-GDP ratio is the lowest, by far, of all the G7 countries.

Moreover, before the economic crisis hit our country, the government paid down $37 billion of our debt, bringing it to the lowest level in 25 years, and we will balance the budget without doing so on the backs of the provinces, as the third party did in the 1990s.

In 2013-14, the federal government will transfer $9 billion more to Ontario than did the previous government. This funding will give Ontario a second wind, allowing it to pay for increasingly costly health care. By investing in transfers to the provinces, we will avoid the psychodrama that unfolded in Ontario with the closures of 44 hospitals in the 1990s.

At that time we almost lost the only francophone hospital west of Quebec, the Montfort Hospital.

There is an old saying that you can tell a good workman by his tools. Canada’s economic action plan 2013 is there to give Canadians the right tools so they can stand out internationally. It is statistically proven that a number of skilled occupational groups are having a hard time recruiting workers.

We see that 6% of scientific jobs are unfilled. The figure for skilled jobs is 5.2%, and the national average is around 3.9%. If the companies that are having trouble recruiting staff were able to find what they are looking for, the unemployment rate would certainly reach record lows. That is why the government, under Bill C-60, aims to match Canadians with the jobs that are available.

By involving the federal and provincial governments, and with the participation of the private sector, we will be able to invest $15,000 per person to help job seekers gain the skills they need to fill the jobs that are in demand. I want to emphasize the word “invest”, since this is indeed an investment that will pay off in the medium and long term.

We will also continue to invest in our youth, the future of our great country. Canada’s economic action plan 2013 will promote education in high-demand fields such as science, technology, engineering, mathematics and the skilled trades.

We want to support high school students at risk of dropping out with tutoring and mentoring. Giving these students a role model is one of the best things we can do so they can walk out of school with diplomas.

Because we need to prepare for the future, the government also proposes to support young entrepreneurs by awarding $18 million to the Canada Youth Business Foundation. Young entrepreneurs would benefit from useful advice through mentoring, learning resources and start-up financing.

The Canada jobs grant is not the only initiative that would make a big difference for the families of Ottawa—Orléans and elsewhere in the country. Before my first election to this House 2,693 days ago, I pledged to assist families who adopt children. Adopting a child is one of the noblest gestures someone can make in our society. It gives an often needy child a chance to find a home and role models, thereby giving the child a much brighter future.

Bill C-60 will help families who want to change a child’s life through adoption. To help adoptive parents with the costs they face early in the process, certain adoption-related expenses that are incurred before a child’s adoption file is opened will be eligible for the adoption expense tax credit.

Under this tax credit, Canadians could claim adoption-related expenses from the moment they registered with a provincial ministry responsible for adoptions or a government-certified organization or from the moment an adoption request was referred to a Canadian court. The tax credit would apply to all adoptions completed after 2012.

It is my fondest wish that this measure will help more young children find a home.

Families would also be supported through various other initiatives, including our expanding tax relief for home care services, simplifying funeral and burial program for veterans, improving palliative care and combatting family violence.

I am not just talking about what this government has done since 2006, such as the universal child care credit, the family caregiver tax credit and the creation of the registered disability savings plan.

On the subject of job creation, we should highlight the Minister of State for Science and Technology and his tremendous work with the National Research Council of Canada, which will celebrate its centennial in 2016.

This agency, the National Research Council, employs 4,000 people in 50 locations across the country, one of which is at the doorstep of Ottawa—Orléans. The NRC is one of the pillars of Canada's innovation system. Unfortunately, over the past few decades, many innovations have languished on dusty shelves and have not been brought to market. Therefore, the NRC, an agency I value a great deal and have been supporting for several decades, would become more closely aligned with industry.

Global competition is intensifying and getting more complex, and Canada must carve out a place for itself. We have an enviable standard of living, but it comes with no guarantees.

We need to take action: we must encourage business to invest even more in research and technology development so that our country can enjoy sustained economic growth.

In co-operation with Canadian industries, which are major job creators themselves, the NRC will address Canada’s technological gaps so that we can remain an economic leader.

As part of this new approach, the NRC would support Canadian industries in large-scale research initiatives. As stated in Canada's economic action plan 2013, the NRC would receive $121 million to support this new role, and under the economic action plan, the government would also invest in world-class research and innovation by supporting advanced research and business innovation and by enhancing Canada's venture capital system.

As many in this House know, the spirit of volunteering and community support burns brightest in the constituency of Ottawa—Orléans.

There are some 300 organizations in Ottawa–Orléans that run mainly on one of the country’s most precious resources: volunteers.

Some of these agencies support seniors, like the Club 60 Rendez-vous des aînés francophones d’Ottawa and the Roy G. Hobbs Seniors Centre. The Orleans branch of the Royal Canadian Legion is virtually at the centre of veterans' social life in east Ottawa. The list goes on.

These agencies must raise funds to support their activities. In addition to the work of their dedicated volunteers, they need donations to survive.

It is important to encourage philanthropy. That is what economic action plan 2013 is doing with its first-time donor super credit. This is a sensible way of encouraging new donors to make charitable contributions. The super credit complements the charitable donations tax credit by adding a 25% tax credit for a first-time donation of more than $1,000.

It is also innovative that couples can share the super credit.

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.

The city of Ottawa and the district of Ottawa-Orleans have benefited greatly from this economic stimulus program. We need only consider the construction of a light rail line in Ottawa. It will be 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.

Economic action plan 2013 is proposing $53 billion over ten years. The city of Ottawa has been dealing with waste water pouring into the Ottawa River for several years. Although sewers are obviously a municipal responsibility, the federal government has a role to play, since the waste water from the city of Ottawa is going into an interprovincial river between the provinces of Quebec and Ontario.

Alas, water runs downhill. That is why the government has invested close to $33 million to help the city carry out the first two phases of the Ottawa River action plan. There is still work to be done. The third phase has not yet received funding. I sincerely hope that support can be provided through the revamped building Canada fund.

These measures will help the great residents of Ottawa–Orléans regain full use of Petrie Island, treasure of this community. When I was a child, we could swim in the Ottawa River. That is not a good idea anymore, and we have to do something about it.

Building Canada is not the only infrastructure program under economic action plan 2013. The government has introduced a community improvement fund, which will invest $32.2 billion over 10 years through the gas tax fund and GST rebates to municipalities. The government also plans to renew the P3 Canada fund, which would invest $1.25 billion over five years to support projects through public-private partnerships.

As the House knows, I am a passionate advocate of our two official languages. Canada's linguistic duality is one of its greatest assets.

That is why I have given my full support to Bill C-419, which was tabled by the hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent. I congratulate her on this bill.

Canada’s economic action plan 2013 introduces the most far-reaching and generous initiative in our history to promote our two official languages. The new roadmap 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 short, Canada's economic action plan 2013 meets the high standards that we have come to expect of our Minister of Finance. It is a plan that calls us to action through sensible and targeted measures.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for your kind attention, and I assure you I will entertain my colleagues’ questions with the same respect.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to address the House this morning to present the reasons I support Canada's economic action plan 2013, Bill C-60. This plan, introduced by the best finance minister in the world, is thoughtful and reasonable, and most of all, it will help Canada with its economic recovery.

The global economy is still weak, and the economies of several European nations are very precarious. The economy of the United States, our biggest trading partner--

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Eglinton—Lawrence, 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 third time and passed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do want to start by reviewing what our House has accomplished over the preceding five days since I last answered the Thursday question.

Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act, was passed at third reading. Bill C-52, the fair rail freight service act, was passed at third reading. Bill C-63 and Bill C-64, the appropriations laws, passed at all stages last night as part of the last supply day of the spring cycle.

Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act, has been debated some more at third reading. Bill C-60, the economic action plan 2013 act, no. 1, was passed at report stage. Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act, was passed at report stage, was debated at third reading, and debate will continue.

Bill S-14, the fighting foreign corruption act, was passed at second reading. Bill C-56, combating counterfeit products act, was debated at second reading. Bill S-15, the expansion and conservation of Canada’s national parks act, was debated at second reading. Bill S-17, the tax conventions implementation act, 2013, was debated at second reading.

On Bill C-62, the Yale First Nation final agreement act, we adopted a ways and means motion, introduced the bill, passed it at second reading and it has since passed at committee. I anticipate we will be getting a report from the committee shortly.

Bill S-16, the tackling contraband tobacco act, was given first reading yesterday after arriving from the Senate. Bill C-65, the respect for communities act, was introduced this morning.

Substantive reports from four standing committees were adopted by the House.

On the private members' business front, the House witnessed three bills getting third reading, one being passed at report stage, two being reported back from committee and one was just passed at second reading and sent to a committee.

Last night was the replenishment of private members' business, with 15 hon. members bringing forward their ideas, which I am sure we will vigorously debate.

The House will continue to deliver results for Canadians over the next week. Today, we will finish the third reading debate on Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act. Then we will turn our collective attention to Bill S-15, the expansion and conservation of Canada’s national parks act, at second reading, followed by Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act, at third reading.

Tomorrow we will have the third reading debate on Bill C-60, the economic action plan 2013 act, no. 1. The final vote on this very important job creation and economic growth bill will be on Monday after question period.

Before we rise for the weekend, we hope to start second reading debate on Bill C-61, the offshore health and safety act.

On Monday, we will complete the debates on Bill S-15, the expansion and conservation of Canada’s national parks act, and Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act.

Today and next week, I would like to see us tackle the bills left on the order paper, with priority going to any bills coming back from committee.

As for the sequencing of the debates, I am certainly open to hearing the constructive proposals of my opposition counterparts on passing Bill S-6, the First Nations Elections Act, at second reading; Bill S-10, the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, at second reading; Bill S-12, the Incorporation by Reference in Regulations Act, at second reading; Bill S-13, the Port State Measures Agreement Implementation Act, at second reading; Bill S-16, at second reading; Bill S-17, at second reading; Bill C-57, the Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act, at second reading; Bill C-61, at second reading; and Bill C-65, at second reading.

Mr. Speaker, I am looking forward to having another list of accomplishments to share with you, and all honourable members, this time next Thursday.

Suffice it to say, we are being productive, hard-working and orderly in delivering on the commitments we have made to Canadians.

There having been discussions among the parties that it will receive unanimous consent, I would like to propose a motion. I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices of this House, the member for Peace River be now permitted to table the Report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development in relation to Bill C-62, An Act to give effect to the Yale First Nation Final Agreement and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

Standing Committee on Finance--Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I am now prepared to rule on a point of order raised on May 29, by the hon. House Leader of the Official Opposition regarding the process followed by the Standing Committee on Finance with respect to its consideration of Bill C-60, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures.

I would like to thank the hon. House Leader of the Official Opposition for having raised this issue, and the hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and the members for Winnipeg North, Richmond—Arthabaska and Saanich—Gulf Islands for their interventions.

In raising this point of order, the opposition House leader claimed that the order adopted by the Standing Committee on Finance on May 7, respecting its consideration of Bill C-60, went beyond the committee's authority as conferred by the House. Specifically, he explained that the committee order invited certain other standing committees to study different parts of the bill and, along with independent members, to submit amendments to the Standing Committee on Finance.

He explained further that the committee order also provided that such amendments would be deemed moved so that the committee could consider and vote on them. This, he argued, was an instance of a committee exceeding its prescribed authority, since the House had determined that the bill was sent to the finance committee only and since House rules dictate that committee membership is determined solely by the House and cannot include members of non-recognized parties. In addition, he noted that it contravened the rule that only committee members can move motions and that even they must, in fact, be present at the committee to do so.

The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons contended that it was an established practice that one standing committee could invite other standing committees to consider the subject matter of relevant sections of a bill it is studying with a view to submitting amendments. Furthermore, he suggested that the inclusion of independent members in the committee’s proceedings was part of an evolutionary process, one that was in no way discriminatory since the deadline for submitting amendments was the same for all concerned: independent members, other committees and even members of the committee itself. He explained that, in effect, this process was simply an effort by the committee to respond directly to the suggestion that I had made in a ruling on December 12, 2012, on a similar matter.

For her part, the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands questioned whether the committee process was in procedural conformity with my ruling, as well as whether, as a result of the committee order, her rights as a member had somehow been restricted, even put aside. The hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska made similar arguments, highlighting what he perceived to have been an erosion of his rights with regard to the submission of amendments at report stage.

In the case before us, in many respects, is a logical evolution of procedural events that have unfolded in the last year, and indeed of events of over 10 years ago. In fact, to place the matter in its proper context, it is necessary to refer to the March 21, 2001, statement by Speaker Milliken, found at page 1991 of the Debates, which set us on a path to where we are today with respect to the committee and report stages of the legislative process. That statement clearly established the guidelines that the chair now uses to discharge its responsibility with respect to the selection of amendments at report stage. Indeed, the very process of selection was born out of a need to return report stage to its original purpose, that is, the consideration of only those amendments that could not have been moved in committee.

Speaker Milliken was clear in his intent when he urged:

...all members and all parties to avail themselves fully of the opportunity to propose amendments during committee stage so that the report stage can return to the purpose for which it was created, namely for the House to consider the committee report and the work the committee has done...

These guiding principles are embodied in the interpretive notes attached to Standing Orders 76(5) and 76.1(5), which have allowed committees to a large extent to remain the central focus for the detailed study of bills, thereby ensuring that report stage not become a repetition of committee stage.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, explains, at pages 783 and 784:

As a general principle, the Speaker seeks to forestall debate on the floor of the House which is simply a repetition of the debate in committee…Furthermore, the Speaker will normally only select motions in amendment that could not have been presented in committee. A motion previously defeated in committee will only be selected if the Speaker judges it to be of such significance to Members as to warrant further consideration at report stage.

However, the strength of these guidelines has been tested in the recent past as the House faced voluminous report stage proceedings, first in June 2012 with Bill C-38, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures, and then in November 2012 with C-45, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures.

These two cases brought into sharp relief the difficulties faced by independent members with respect to committee proceedings on bills, specifically in reference to the provisions of Standing Order 119, which do not permit a member who is not a member of the committee to move any motion, nor to vote, nor to be part of any quorum. These circumstances cause some members to call into question the ability of the House's rules and practices to safeguard the intended purpose of report stage.

They also gave rise to a ruling on December 12, 2012, in which I addressed the issue of the participation of independent members in the process of amending bills, particularly in committee. In that ruling, I suggested that, until committees found a way to enable independent members to have their amendments considered at the committee stage, the Chair would continue to allow them to do so at report stage. I stated at that time, at page 13224 of the House of Commons Debates:

The Standing Orders currently in place offer committees wide latitude to deal with bills in an inclusive and thorough manner that would balance the rights of all members.

and

…there is no doubt that any number of procedural arrangements could be developed that would ensure that the amendments that independent members wish to propose to legislation could be put in committee.

To answer this fully would be to ask the Chair to reach into and adjudicate upon committee matters, a practice the House has long resisted, given that committees are masters of their own proceedings, as we are apt to say.

In my ruling of November 29, 2012, on a similar case, consistent with these long-standing practices of the House, I informed members that in the absence of a report from the committee, the Chair would not delve further into committee matters. In doing so, I quoted Speaker Milliken, who on November 27, 2002, stated:

As Speaker, I appreciate the responsibility that I have to defend the rights of all members and especially those of members who represent minority views in the House. At the same time, it is a long tradition in this place that committees are masters of their own proceedings. Ordinarily the House is only seized of a committee matter when the committee reports to the House outlining the situation that must be addressed.

He then added:

That being said, it is true as well that committees are permitted a greater latitude in the conduct of their proceedings than might be allowed in the House. It may not always be clear in a particular set of circumstances how best to proceed and so the ultimate decision is left to the committee itself.

At the same time, the Chair is also cognizant of its responsibility for the selection of report stage motions and the fact that what happened in the finance committee in this instance has had a direct bearing on my selection decisions in the case of the report stage of Bill C-60 and on independent members. Accordingly, the Chair feels compelled to address some of the issues raised, particularly as they relate to their impact on independent members.

As I understand it, the principal concern raised about the committee process was the committee's decision to deem moved any amendments submitted by independent members and certain other committees during the committee's clause-by-clause consideration. The main concern expressed by the opposition House leader with this manner of proceeding is that in his view it exceeded the committee's mandate. He argued that to deem motions to be moved is a clear violation of Standing Order 119, which stipulates that only permanent members of a standing committee can move motions. The opposition House leader stated that as a result, the process adopted by the finance committee was fundamentally flawed.

It should come as no surprise to members that the House and its committees frequently resort to procedural motions to facilitate the flow of business. Procedure in committee is particularly fluid and varied, and many committees routinely use a wide array of processes to organize their work. Deeming things to have taken place is part of that body of precedent.

In the House, this is often achieved by deciding to forgo the usual procedural steps and to assume that certain procedural transactions have taken place even if they have not. For example, it happens from time to time that the House will see fit to adopt a bill at all stages, deeming that each stage has been agreed to. No movers' names are attached to the motions for second reading, concurrence at report stage or third reading.

Similarly, practically on a weekly basis, recorded divisions are deemed demanded and deferred. Again, no members' names are attached to the motions that make this possible. In fact, the House has even been known to tinker with the time-space continuum by deeming it to be a certain time, even when it is not, and by making, say, a Tuesday to be a Monday, as was done a few weeks ago on May 21. Again, no names of members are attached to the motions that make this possible.

Our House and committee annals are rife with examples of this kind. These commonly used procedural instruments are even provided for in some of our Standing Orders. What may be causing difficulty in this case is that while the practice of “deeming” is most often achieved through unanimous consent, it can also occur by majority decision, but of course at greater cost in House or committee time.

In the case before us, it appears that this is the approach that was used by the finance committee. A motion setting out the process to be followed was proposed, debated and ultimately agreed to. As far as the Chair can see, in the absence of a report from the committee to the contrary, Standing Order 119 was not flouted in the process. Instead, it appears rather that a procedural instrument was devised to provide for the manner in which the committee would conduct its business.

Turning to the issue of the rights of independent members, the Chair can only observe that the decision of the finance committee permitted them to do something they could not do before: namely, to have their amendments considered in the committee and, indeed, to be granted, pursuant to Standing Order 119, an opportunity to speak in committee. This is something that was not open to them before. In that sense, they succeeded in obtaining a form of participation in committee proceedings, as imperfect as it may have been in their eyes.

As Speaker, I can only speculate on whether other committees will emulate or, dare I say, perhaps even expand on the spirit of inclusion witnessed in the Standing Committee on Finance.

In summary then, while I am entirely sympathetic to the procedural consequence of this development for independent members at report stage, I must remind the House again of my obligation to ensure that report stage not become a repeat of the committee stage.

As a guardian of the rights and privileges of all members, it is also my duty in this case to ensure that the rules, practices and expectations of the House are upheld and, in so doing, ensure that members are afforded an opportunity to participate in the legislative process. To protect the integrity of report stage, the Chair would have to know that there was no mechanism at all, not just an unsatisfactory one, for a member to move motions in committee.

It is true that the rules of the House may result in varying degrees of participation for members, depending on the proceeding and depending on the status of that member for that proceeding. For instance, members of committees enjoy opportunities that non-committee members do not, and even committee members have varying opportunities to participate.

What the Chair must protect is members' rights to have some mechanism to put forward their ideas.

It is for these reasons that the Chair did not select any motions at report stage that could have been considered, or were considered, in committee.

Accordingly, for all these reasons, I cannot conclude that the rights of independent members have been diminished as a result of the proceedings in the Standing Committee on Finance, particularly when scores of members who were not members of the finance committee, and thus not in a position to propose amendments there, are likewise subjected to the very same report stage restrictions.

In addition, noting that this is a departure from the Chair's long-established practice of not commenting on committee proceedings, again in the absence of a report to the contrary on which to base its interventions, the Chair concludes that Bill C-60 is properly before the House and that it cannot find that a procedurally improper proceeding has taken place in the Standing Committee on Finance.

I would like to thank all hon. members for their attention on this matter.

Crown Corporations

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition in this House from over 2,600 people who oppose Bill C-60, particularly with respect to the Treasury Board's ability to interfere in the collective agreement negotiations of crown corporations. These people are extremely worried, even outraged, about this precedent. Crown corporations must be independent and able to negotiate their collective agreements on their own and at arms' length. This is known as freedom of negotiation and that is why I am presenting this petition today.

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

Do you think it would be desirable specifically to exempt the Bank of Canada from this provision on labour relations and the control of the government over labour relations at crown corporations, as provided for in Bill C-60?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, Governor. Welcome to the finance committee, and congratulations on your appointment.

I'd like to question you on a couple of different topics. You have spoken a lot in your remarks this morning about confidence, confidence in our financial sector, confidence in our economy, confidence in the bank. I know you will agree with me that the Bank of Canada should be completely independent in its execution of monetary policy.

In the finance committee we've been dealing with the government's omnibus legislation, Bill C-60, which would give the government veto power over hiring decisions. It would involve the government in labour relations at crown corporations, including the Bank of Canada.

My question is, do you think this could in any way compromise the independence of the bank and, therefore, compromise the confidence that Canadians have in the Bank of Canada and its complete independence from the government?

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

We already know that Bill C-60 will give powers to cabinet to set terms of employment for all staff at the museum—

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

You say that the government doesn't interfere, and that agencies are very independent, but we know that Bill C-60 will give powers to cabinet—

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Pursuant to an order made on Wednesday, May 22, 2013, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions on the motions at report stage of Bill C-60.

Call in the members.

The question is on Motion No. 1.

The House resumed from June 3 consideration of Bill C-60, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures, as reported (without amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Report Stage

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for having the opportunity to speak in the last few minutes to Bill C-60.

I ask my colleagues to look at the economic impact of high debt and deficits on economies in the eurozone and U.S. and they will see that this issue really matters.

Canada's net debt to GDP ratio is 36%, the lowest level among G7 countries, with Germany being the second lowest at 58% and the G7 average 80%. Spending on federal government operations is projected to remain below 2010 levels for the next five years.

Budget 2013 would reduce government spending by an additional $1.7 billion by examining departmental spending, reducing travel costs with the use of technology such as video conferencing, shifting to electronic publishing and making print publications the exception and closing tax loopholes to ensure everyone pays their fair share.

We are doing this while at the same time making new and prudent investments in things like skills training, the new $15,000 Canada job grant, to help more Canadians find high quality, well-paying jobs, the new iteration of the building Canada fund with infrastructure investments of $70 billion and assisting the manufacturing sector with accelerated capital cost allowance.

Another important point that I did not hear this evening was increasing social and economic inclusion of persons with disabilities with a new $222 million investment on top of the existing $40 million.

There is a lot in Bill C-60 that I could speak about but my time is limited tonight. I encourage all members in the House to vote for this measure to ensure that all Canadians benefit from it as quickly as possible.

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat funny to be speaking to Bill C-60 at this time of night, in the climate of crisis we are seeing here in Ottawa these days. The current context is no accident. It was brought on by the irresponsible actions of the Conservative government. Greed and partisanship have taken over the Senate because the Conservatives let their supporters get away with too much. This comes at a time when they are asking Canadians to tighten their belts. Oh the irony.

Yet again, we are having to vote hastily on an omnibus bill that amends 49 laws at once. We have learned that 67,000 Canadians will lose their jobs because of this budget, which will also result in a 0.57% decrease in GDP. The fact that the Parliamentary Budget Officer stated that this budget would set the Canadian economy back does not seem to interest the Conservatives. Neither are they interested in impartial information indicating that austerity measures were not necessary for a balanced budget.

The Conservatives are like children who cannot wait for Christmas. They want immediate results because they know that is the only thing they can hope to give to Canadians in preparation for the next election.

This short-term vision does not hide the harsh reality that is catching up with the country and driving down productivity. The Conservatives' amateur approach knows no bounds. If members compare the Minister of Finance's expectations for 2012 with what actually happened, they will understand what I mean. He missed the mark by 35% when it came to economic growth. Is that one of the results of the “science-based approach” the Conservatives are always bragging about?

Given that they question climate change and cut scientists' jobs to keep the truth hidden, it is certainly not surprising that they make up stories about the economy as well. In 2012, Canada's trade deficit hit $67 billion, a real record. Economists predict that the country's performance in 2013 will be even worse.

Obsessed with getting re-elected, the Conservative government is not hesitating to raise taxes in as many areas as possible. It is hard to imagine that a government could be crooked enough to impose additional taxes on bicycles and hospital parking. Only a small group of mean-spirited people could think up such schemes to rob Canadians of $8 billion.

The Conservatives' image is becoming increasingly sullied, but fortunately, more and more Canadians are realizing it. The image of strict managers that they like to brag about is becoming so preposterous that it is hard not to laugh at it.

Indeed, people understand that they need to be wary of a government that tells its citizens to tighten their belts, while it appoints three new ministers with car allowances. Funniest of all is the fact that these three ministers will have to manage departments with significantly reduced budgets.

Bill C-60 will also allow the Treasury Board to intervene in the collective bargaining negotiations of crown corporations, at any stage in the process. This provision completely contravenes the independence of crown corporations and will certainly cause difficulties for all sectors, which will translate into fewer services for Canadians. It will be even worse for non-unionized employees. Indeed, the Treasury Board will be able to change their working conditions at any time.

How about a little pay cut right before Christmas for Mr. Johnson? How about cancelling the vacation time that Ms. Tremblay had approved months ago?

Such measures will affect all Canadians. We have already seen the Conservative government intervene in favour of management during many collective bargaining processes in the past.

This time, we have reached a whole new level, and workers risk losing their hard earned gains in a number of sectors.

The Stalinist control over crown corporations simply confirms that the Conservatives are more controlling than they care to admit, because by doing so, they would show that they think that what belongs to the state belongs to them as the government. However, for decades, the thinking in Canada has been that crown corporations ultimately belong to the public and must operate completely independently to avoid interference and exploitation by unsavoury governments.

It is also ironic to watch diehard Conservatives vote for provisions that increase their governmental power and, at the same time, relax the rules for foreign entities to acquire Canadian companies. We saw that with the purchase of Nexen by a Chinese state-owned corporation. It is now possible for a foreign country to buy a small piece of Canada, to have its own people work there and to be totally above Canadian laws. We will see more and more cases like Nexen, where a more intelligent country's government might slip in a clause preventing Canadians from taking their company to court even though it is operating on Canadian soil. When it comes to the Conservatives, impunity is guaranteed for senators and foreigners, but not for the public.

The banks were already making enough profit by charging people interest that is not subject to any tax. Now the Conservatives have given the banks an advantage over credit unions. The credit unions will have to pay a new tax, and this will also speed up the financial concentration that plagues this country.

These types of measures reveal who the Conservatives are really working for. Canadians' debt level has reached 167%. Prices are increasing on everything, and job security has never been so fragile as 1,400,000 people are out of work. In this climate, people do not dare spend as much as before because they believe that they will not be able to afford to spend one day.

Unfortunately, it would seem that only senators and ministers have job security in this country.

Fortunately for everyone, MPs have to be elected, and when the time comes to vote I hope that the members opposite will start to fear for their jobs because they could be harshly judged by Canadians.

At this juncture, the legal dispute involving the former parliamentary budget officer has still not been resolved. This dispute arose because of the 2012 budget. Passing a new budget implementation bill in this context casts a dark shadow on the financial security of the country under the rule of the Conservatives.

My own doubts were transformed into certainty long ago. The Conservatives are leading us right toward a cliff. I take comfort in knowing that the people will judge them, but I am sorry that they will never have to be accountable for the terrible things they have done to this country because of their narrow, unsatisfactory economic ideology. This government's choices are absolutely irresponsible and will cost us all dearly for years to come.

If it is any consolation, Bill C-60 does include a few measures that the NDP called for, such as tax credits for adoption and first-time donors. Those are positives, but there are too few of them and they are too small to make up for all of the terrible measures in this bill.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Multiculturalism]

Mr. Speaker, what a pleasure it is to be speaking so close to the hour of midnight. I think this is probably one of the few times I have had this opportunity to speak this late at night. Let it not be said that members of Parliament do not work hard in this country. I have visited many parliaments around the world, and this is one of the finest examples of Canadian democracy at work.

Let me be the first to say the words “omnibus bill” have been bantered around. I take exception to that. I do not think omnibus bill is a bad descriptor of what we are trying to do here. However, in my consultations with the business community in my riding of Willowdale, the omnibus bill really is not what is said. We call this a comprehensive bill, a bill that looks at every single aspect of Canadian human resources, of capital resources, of intellectual resources, our natural resources and how we tie all that together to make this country work.

I will go through some small concerns I have with our bill. I appreciate the opportunity to talk today to Bill C-60. Economic action plan 2013 is a positive plan that is focused on creating jobs, promoting growth and supporting long-term prosperity.

As Canadians know, our global economic reputation is strong. Canada has earned the trust of global investors for its responsible fiscal, economic and financial sector management. Canada is alone among the G7 countries to receive the highest possible credit rating from all the major credit rating agencies, which contributes to low borrowing costs.

As a recent Toronto Sun editorial noted:

Since the Tories took over, no other G-7 country has surpassed Canada in per capita job growth. Canada has added 1.5 million net jobs since 2006. ...Canada is in good shape compared to all the other industrialized countries of the West.

The economic action plan 2013 would strengthen this record with actions in all areas that drive economic progress and prosperity by 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.

While it is gratifying to highlight Canada's economic strengths, we recognize that Canada still faces a challenging global economic environment. Today's legislation would help to address these concerns.

First, for instance, communities would benefit from Bill C-60 through investments that address accessibility and affordability of housing. Our government has made a firm commitment to ensuring low-income families have access to quality affordable housing. Two major Government of Canada housing initiatives are set to expire in 2014: the investment in affordable housing and the homelessness partnering strategy. Since 2008, these programs have provided significant financial support to provinces, territories and communities to increase accessibility and affordability of housing for low-income Canadians.

To ensure we continue to meet these needs, our government would renew its commitment to the investment in affordable housing and the homelessness partnering strategy with a nearly $2 billion investment. This new investment has been welcomed by many across Canada for both the amount of the investment and its length.

Indeed, here is what Habitat for Humanity Canada had to say:

The...government's renewed investment in affordable housing comes as great news for low-income families looking to buy a safe, decent and affordable Habitat home.

Toronto City Councillor Ana Bailao of ward 18, Davenport, who is the chair of the city council's affordable housing committee, commented, “We are very pleased to see (the programs) renewed, and for a five-year term, which is the longest we have ever seen”.

In addition, economic action plan 2013 proposes to support the construction of new housing units in Nunavut, which faces unique challenges in providing affordable housing due to its climate, geography and dispersed population.

Helping individuals and families obtain affordable housing and avoid homelessness creates broader economic benefits for all Canadians.

On another subject we will be protecting our environment, which brings me to my next point. Protecting the health and well-being of Canadians by promoting a clean and sustainable environment is a key priority for our government. Canada's unique natural heritage contributes to a high quality of life for Canadians today and in the future. That is why the legislation before us would provide $20 million for the Nature Conservancy of Canada to continue to conserve ecologically sensitive land.

Support for the Nature Conservancy of Canada would allow the organization to protect Canada's most important natural areas and the species they sustain by continuing to conserve ecologically sensitive land under the natural areas conservation program.

Additional funds for conservation would be leveraged by requiring each federal dollar to be matched by two dollars in new funding from other sources, creating even greater value from taxpayer dollars. It is measures like these that will significantly enhance Canada's long-term economic sustainability by supporting a healthy environment.

Before I conclude, let me touch on two more key initiatives that represent investments in our communities.

First, economic action plan 2013 would introduce a temporary first-time donor's super credit designed to encourage new donors to give to charities. The FDSC would increase the value of the federal charitable donations tax credit by 25 percentage points if neither the taxpayer nor his or her spouse has claimed the credit since 2007. The FDSC will apply on up to $1,000 in cash donations claimed in respect of any one taxation year from 2013 to 2017.

This new credit 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. By helping to rejuvenate and expand the charitable sector's donor base, it would have an immediate impact on supporting that sector.

Second, to address the needs of Canadians with a print disability, such as an impairment of sight, today's act proposes funding of $3 million in 2013-14 for the Canadian National Institute for the Blind in support of a national digital hub. Incidentally, the Canadian National Institute for the Blind is in a riding just south of my riding.

The national office of the Canadian National Institute for the Blind is located in Toronto, but the services of the organization, including the digital hub, benefit Canadians across the country. The CNIB's national digital hub would provide improved access to library materials for Canadians who are blind or partially sighted, supporting their ongoing educational development and their quality of life. This would allow the institute to increase the number of new titles available to the print-disabled and would increase the number of end-users benefiting from the national digital hub.

Finally, I would be remiss if I closed without quickly reviewing other important initiatives in Bill C-60. They include providing funding of $3 million over three years to the Pallium Foundation of Canada to support the delivery of training in palliative care to front-line health care providers; expanding tax relief for home care services; and improving the integrity of the tax system by, for example, streamlining the process for the CRA to obtain information concerning unnamed persons from third parties, such as banks.

As I noted this evening, economic action plan 2013 contains a host of benefits for every part of the country. Through this comprehensive and ambitious plan, we will maintain and strengthen our advantages by continuing to pursue those strategies that made us so resilient in the first place: being responsible, being disciplined and being determined.

This act marks an import milestone and the next step in creating a brighter future for our country. I urge members opposite and all members of this House to get behind this legislation and get it passed so that it can do just that and put Canada in a position to meet the challenges of the 21st century.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my community needs jobs. Each day at least one young person calls our office looking for work, and we help young people 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.

Bill C-60 creates an illusion of action regarding jobs and training. The government proposes to claw back $2.5 billion per year in labour market money, which it now sends to the provinces, and renegotiate it with provincial governments. This amounts to recycling of existing money.

I am wondering if the member sees anything new, any additional funding, when it comes to job creation.

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my turn to speak to Bill C-60. I would like to begin by saying that the people of Louis-Saint-Laurent are clearly not well served by the Conservatives' latest attempt to perform what the party seems to think are miracles.

Our riding is economically diverse, and I can say with certainty that none of us are happy with Bill C-60. I believe that is a significant indicator. I would like to thank all of the people in my riding who took the time to express their thoughts on this bill.

Here we are once again dealing with an omnibus bill, as heavy as an Incan inscription and just as impenetrable. The message behind Bill C-60 comes at an opportune moment in Canadian political history. The Conservatives are bound and determined to pass omnibus bills because they come to power only once every 35 years and have to focus on forcing these massive bills through. Clearly, that is their only hope.

The Reform Party can be proud of the fact that it managed to make itself a part of actual history. It became more than just a regional party. Good job, guys. Bill C-60 is the third omnibus bill that the Conservative government has thrust into the court of public opinion. At this point in time, I think there is one question we should be asking ourselves. Why did the government not bundle all of these measures into its first budget, Bill C-38? The Conservatives would have won the dubious honour of having created the biggest bill ever introduced. They could have given us a super-omnibus bill to solve all of Canada's problems in one fell swoop.

No matter what the Conservatives say, this budget will stall Canada's economy, not revive it. Budget 2013 will eliminate thousands of jobs, cut direct program spending and slow GDP growth considerably.

The government is putting positive spin on its measures so that it can spread devastation. This trademark Conservative lack of nuance, its black-or-white mentality, has plagued us for eight years. The Conservatives use the word “growth” to hide basic corporate interests.

The only thing that will grow with Bill C-60 is the Conservatives' ego, as well as the size of the attendant ethics scandals.

Although some of my colleagues have mentioned it, it bears repeating that the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer stated that these cuts are completely unnecessary to restore the structural budget surplus.

I am not in the habit of accusing the Conservative government of indulge in demagoguery in my speeches, but this time, as I said before, the ruling party has been overtaken by its own folly. Given that wages are stagnating, jobs are unstable and average households and individuals are heavily in debt, why is this cutthroat dollars and cents approach overriding everything?

Canada is not just a collection of economic indicators to be manipulated. It is first and foremost the sum of its people. When it comes to the economy, the Conservative message is clear: economic survival or economic weakness. To them, all Canadians owe their living to the economy.

Depriving people of the means to achieve economic success is a misguided approach. People are the basis of the economy, not the reverse. Economic indicators that now seem so meaningful and crucial will not be voting in 2015. It is the very people the government has abandoned who will undo legislation like Bill C-60.

Since we are on the topic, Bill C-60 obviously meddles in a wide range of separate and unrelated issues, each time with the government's pervasive iron fist.

For example, and this did not go unnoticed by the public, a number of crown corporations will have their ability to bargain collectively eroded, practically stripped away. From now on, during negotiations, our crown corporations will have to deal with unavoidable advice from the President of the Treasury Board, who will sit at the head of the table, as proud as Bashar al-Assad. There will be no getting away from this oh-so-valuable government input. Is that supposedly august presence really necessary?

No, but while we are at it, we might as well follow through with that logic. We should create a department to oversee union negotiations. After all, Canada's future depends on it. Talk about ridiculous.

The Conservatives are keeping up their attacks on Canadian workers, believing they will win over an undetermined social class to which no one belongs. It is like the Arabian Nights, but without the magic, because the magic has run out.

In the last budget, the Minister of Finance, gleaming like Prosecco, used a very effective diversion tactic. When he was announcing the convoluted content of Bill C-38, he announced that he would eliminate the penny. That was the price they had to pay for getting Canadians to accept the enormity of the bill. Just like that, it all came down to getting rid of the penny. The Conservatives took on a modern look for a very low price.

This year they are coming back with a budget bill every bit as big and callous, but without the handy distraction the penny provided. However, the metaphor lives on: Bill C-60 will not grow the economy by a single penny.

Bill C-60 is just a litany of punitive measures against workers and crown corporations and a series of tariff adjustments that, at the end of the day, will have no major impact on people's budgets in this country.

The figures quoted by the Parliamentary Budget Officer amaze me. In total, budgets 2012 and 2013 will slash 67,000 jobs, which in turn will trigger a 0.57% drop in the GDP, as one might expect. If we compare those figures with the rhetoric the Conservative government has been spewing ad nauseam about creating hundreds of thousands of jobs since the recession, we see that this is total madness.

My impression is that the 900,000 jobs that the government has created—because I believe that is the new number members are using these days—are in China, not here. That is wonderful for China, but when the manufacturing sector in Ontario completely disappears, like the Etruscans, what then? Does Bill C-60 try to remedy this situation? The question remains, but I believe that the bill speaks for itself, and it is quite sad.

As we have already said, the NDP strongly opposes the idea of omnibus bills like this one, legislative measures that, frankly, are offensive because of their size and how underhanded they are. The government wants to quickly pass legislation on very complex issues that are not even connected to one another, for the sole purpose of being able to boast about having done it. It is irresponsible and childish.

The NDP would never do that to Canadian voters. However, I am afraid the precedent has been firmly set and the Liberals will be thrilled to take their turn if they ever regain a shred of power.

As we have heard over and over, the Conservative government wants to sneak things through right under our noses by ordering the drafting of these kinds of omnibus bills. However, it will not work. We sit down and dissect them for hours on end. We find all their flaws, large and small. The Conservatives cannot fool us. Everyone knows what they are trying to do. Perhaps the government thinks that it has managed to completely mislead voters with its cryptic manoeuvres. Perhaps it thinks that it will have its cake and eat it too, and then sell it back again at a profit. However, that is not what is going on. The official opposition sees right through the government's game, and the people are fully aware that the Conservatives are trying to trick them.

In Brazil, the word “omnibus” means “public transit”. In this case, that is quite appropriate, because I have a feeling that in 2015, many members across the floor will have to use public transit to get to work. However, the members opposite need not worry, since I am sure they will be able to find something among the 900,000 jobs they supposedly created. I find it appalling that this government has so little regard for workers, people who can never take advantage of the measures in the budget.

The government does not seem to understand that there is an emerging middle class in this country. Even thought these people make up the majority of Canadians, the government continues to ignore their interests, while claiming to defend them. That is deplorable.

Bill C-60 shows little respect for the average Canadian and the provinces fare no better, as was to be expected. The bill hits too close to home.

Without any excuse or explanation, the Conservatives are attacking a program that all of Quebec is extremely fond of. The Fonds de solidarité FTQ is a national resource for all Quebeckers, and it cannot be attacked with impunity.

Our province has developed its economy in a competitive, imaginative and sustainable way through the use of the FTQ fund. By attacking this fund, the Conservative government is attacking Quebec itself. I would really like the five Quebec Conservative MPs to have the courage to rise and defend this deplorable decision while they still have the opportunity to represent Quebeckers in the House of Commons. I know my people, and this is the final nail in the coffin for Quebeckers' dalliance with the Conservative Party.

I cannot refrain from using an accusatory tone in my speech because I am speaking on behalf of my generation, young people between the ages of 18 and 35, who are not fooled by the monumental fast one that the government is pulling on our society for mercenary interests. It is my duty to speak for those who do not have the opportunity to sit in the House. The young people of this society, who the Conservative government tries so hard to control, has such drive that all the C-38s, C-45s and C-60s are so ridiculous as to be offensive.

Young Canadians must not be underestimated. The government would not believe what our young people are capable of. Look at what Turkish youth are doing right now. What will the Prime Minister do if the tenor of the Quebec protests convinces the rest of the country? Is he, too, waiting for his Taksim square?

[The member spoke in another language.]

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in favour of Bill C-60, the budget implementation bill and economic action plan 2013.

The opposition needs to get behind it, support it and get with it. The focus, of course, and it should be the focus, is what matters to most Canadians, and that is jobs, economic growth, and Canada's long-term prosperity.

In order for this to occur, and we hear this time and again from witnesses who appeared before our committee, we need infrastructure. Businesses need to function and expand. We need a tax system that would encourage business to grow and expand and invest. We also need the human resources, the people businesses need to provide a reasonable standard of service that we have grown to expect, to grow and expand their businesses, which in turn would provide for more jobs.

With respect to infrastructure, the economic action plan would provide the largest federal investment in job-creating infrastructure projects in Canadian history.

Since 2006, our government has made unprecedented investments in over 43,000 projects to build roads, bridges and other important infrastructure facilities.

In my riding, we have seen major water system upgrades in communities that wish to grow, but in order to do so, they need to upgrade their infrastructure.

In one case, they could not get approval for a subdivision until that infrastructure was agreed to.

It was water system upgrades in communities like Maryfield, Grenfell, Whitewood, Carlyle, Pangman and Stoughton and new sewer upgrades in places like Kipling and Moosomin.

In my consistency, we see new businesses in many small communities. We see the building of hotels, Subways, A&Ws and Tim Hortons to serve the boom taking place in the oil and gas industry. We also have potash mines, coal mining and a vibrant agricultural industry. We have also invested in recreational and public facilities.

All of this works together like a jigsaw puzzle to provide for economic growth and long-term prosperity.

Economic action plan 2013 would build on our investments and would announce a new building Canada plan, the largest investment in job-creating infrastructure in Canadian history.

The new building Canada plan would have three main components. The community improvement fund of $32.2 billion would consist of an indexed gas tax fund and the increased GST rebate for municipalities to build roads, recreational facilities and other community infrastructure across Canada. It would also have the effect of improving the quality of life of Canadian families.

Second, the new building Canada fund of $14 billion in support of major economic infrastructure projects would have a national and regional significance or scope. There would be a renewed P3 Canada fund to the extent of $1.25 billion.

Overall, the new building Canada plan would include $70 billion in federal infrastructure funding over 10 years.

Here is what the Federation of Canadian Municipalities had to say with respect to the budget 2013:

[It] 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....

It went on to say:

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.

Let me move to the third point, which is providing the human resources businesses need.

How do we meet the requirements of business, contractors and entrepreneurs who need both skilled and unskilled persons to maintain, grow and expand their business? Really, it requires a partnership of many stakeholders working together. In many cases, there needs to be more done to get students through high school, particularly in our first nation communities, to ensure that students have the literacy and numeracy competencies that are basic requirements to obtain jobs.

A greater emphasis is required to make known the skills and trades shortages in our schools and to encourage students to consider the trades as an option. Many of the jobs available are, indeed, very well-paying jobs.

Our government has invested billions of dollars in skills upgrading and training, particularly through federal-provincial labour market agreements, the older worker program, the employment insurance program and programs and support for under-represented groups.

The economic action plan introduced the Canada job grant, which provides up to $15,000 per person with combined federal, provincial, territorial and employer funding to help people get the skills they need for in-demand jobs.

Licia Corbella, of the Calgary Herald, on March 23 stated in her article that Christopher Smillie, senior government relations adviser for the Canadian Building Trades of the AFLCIO, had this to say: “Nothing is ever perfect but since when has a federal budget had so much in it about skilled trades”.

She adds:

Smillie says reports indicate that unless decisive action is taken now, Canada will face a shortage of 300,000 skilled tradespeople by 2017. Try building the Keystone XL pipeline then without all those labourers like carpenters, electricians, pipefitters, plumbers, welders and others....Smillie says this makes sense and will avoid job funding from winding up in a province’s general revenue fund or towards training more dental hygienists when what is needed is more welders and plumbers. It means that people will be trained for specific jobs which is a good thing. By attaching the money to an employer it means the worker will be trained for a job that actually exists. It’s about time this kind of common-sense approach was implemented...

Building on all these initiatives, we have made improvements for apprentices and employers in the apprenticeship program. Economic action plan 2013 supports the use of apprentices in federal construction and maintenance contracts. Our government will also ensure that funds transferred to provinces and territories through investment in the affordable housing program support the use of apprentices. As part of the new building Canada plan for infrastructure, the government will encourage provinces, territories and municipalities to support the use of apprentices in infrastructure projects receiving federal funding.

The Association of Canadian Community Colleges had this to say in its March 21, news release:

Federal commitments in Budget 2013 will encourage a reduction in barriers to Canada’s economic success, while maximizing the talents and advanced skills of Canadians. Virtually every opportunity that we suggested for addressing the skills shortage has been embraced...

Another source of human resources is through immigration. The use of the provincial nominee program in Saskatchewan provides an opportunity to attract the skilled people the province needs that will help it to continue to grow.

Going forward, our Minister of Immigration has indicated a new and innovative expression of interest to the immigration management system, which will allow for Canadian employers in provinces and territories to select skilled immigrants from a pool of applicants that best meets Canada's economic need.

However, all of this still does not meet all the needs we have. We need to look at ways and means to provide those through the temporary foreign workers program.

I have a letter that was written to me by a small business in southeastern Saskatchewan. It says:

We are a small community in the South East corner of the province with a population of approximately 960 people. We have been experiencing an oil boom in this region for the last 5 years and during this time I have witnessed dramatic reduction in the amount of applications for jobs posted within our organization. The jobs I mentioned are not always level entry positions but range from cashiers to supervisors and onto management positions.

Basically, what he is saying is that when all of the partners involved have done everything that they can do in places where there is a booming economy, in places where the unemployment rate is very low, we must still rely on the temporary foreign workers program. We must remember that.

Bill C-60 deals with the abuses of the program. Most can accept the fact that we need to deal with the abuses, including a small fee that would be charged for labour market opinions and permits. I think most businesses are prepared to pay that fee providing they get the service that one would expect.

The budget implementation bill addresses what we need for our economy to continue to grow, for us to continue to prosper and for jobs to continue to be created.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-60, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures, as reported (without amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the way the government is distributing funds across the country is affecting the capacity of provinces that do not have access to natural resources at this particular time. It is affecting the provinces' capacity to adequately deliver those resources. That is the point I was making. That is the point I continue to make.

Second, the question on Bill C-60 is whether that particular program the member mentioned is the same as the youth jobs program or the training programs the government has failed to begin negotiating with the provinces or the private sector, even to this day, to make them a reality rather than simply an advertisement or a talking point.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak for a few moments on Bill C-60.

I want to focus on how I think Bill C-60 is another piece of legislation, another action, on behalf of a government that has forgotten its commitment to equal citizenship.

I am sure all members are aware that section 36(1) of our Constitution commits Parliament and provincial legislatures to promote equal opportunities and further economic development to reduce disparities in opportunities. Section 36(2) goes on to commit to the principle of making equalization payments to ensure that provincial governments have sufficient revenues to provide reasonably comparable levels of public service at reasonably comparable levels of taxation.

All governments of the day supported those guarantees of equal citizenship when they were adopted back in 1982. There was even agreement on strengthening the language as part of the Charlottetown accord. Unfortunately, during the mid-1990s, the government of the day put debt and deficit ahead of commitment to sufficient revenues for the provinces, but at least it spread the pain more or less equally.

The current government, and Bill C-60 is a reflection of this, was elected back in 2007 on a commitment to fix the fiscal imbalance between the federal government and the provinces. However, since then, it has backed away from this commitment, and in a way that inflicts greater pain on the less wealthy provinces.

The first step came in 2008 when, without any warning, the Minister of Finance imposed a ceiling on equalization, essentially scrapping a formula that was the product of several years of consultation. Frankly, it was a betrayal of the equalization-receiving provinces, which had agreed to a new per capita funding formula for health and social transfers. They believed that the new enriched equalization program of 2007 would help them deal with their differing needs and fiscal capacities and enable them to meet their commitments to providing “reasonably comparable levels of public services at reasonably comparable levels of taxation”.

The next attack on equal citizenship took place three years later, when the Minister of Finance, again without consultation, as we have seen with Bill C-60, delivered a take-it-or-leave-it health deal. This move snuffed out any hope the provinces had for negotiating a new health accord, one that would better address the challenges of providing comparable services across the country. Instead of the open-ended 6% annual increases promised during the 2011 election campaign, the deal imposed by the Conservative government provides that some provinces will be getting less than a 1% increase in the next fiscal year, 2014-15, and in 2017, if the Conservative government is still around, the 6%, which is not actually 6%, will drop to 3%. This will be further devastating for citizens of less wealthy provinces, especially those provinces with older populations.

When we throw into that the decision on the retirement age and the plan to dismantle the Health Council of Canada and its mandate for national health standards, it is clear where the Conservative government is going.

The Conservatives not only ignore section 36 of the Constitution; they will undo the 30 years of social progress that has preceded it. It is progress that was the legacy of leaders like Tommy Douglas, John Diefenbaker and Lester Pearson.

Having promised to fix the fiscal imbalance, the government has instead made it considerably worse. Since 2007, transfers to the wealthier provinces have gone up at a faster rate than to the less wealthy. This is despite the fact that commitments made under section 36 of reasonably comparable services at reasonably comparable rates of taxation have clearly not been met.

On the services side, one only needs to look at the shocking disparity in prescription drug coverage in this country. It was described not long ago by Global and Mail columnist André Picard, who wrote that, when it comes to prescription drug coverage, “there is a basic unfairness that exists in the wide provincial variations...[that] offends the principles of medicare and Canadian values”.

That wide variation he writes about can include an individual who is receiving treatment, paying up to $20,000 a year for a certain drug in some provinces while the drug is free in others.

On the taxation side, there is also a wide variation in provincial taxation that defies the definition of “reasonably comparable”. At the two extremes are Alberta and Quebec. In one province, provincial taxes claim about 9% of personal income. In Quebec, it is over 22%. Some of that wide variation, of course, is the result of policy choices, but much of it has to do with the wide disparities in fiscal capacity.

The Constitution identifies, as I said earlier, two complementary approaches to dealing with such fiscal disparities. One is economic development. The government's approach to economic development is to say that if you have oil or gas, stand aside and let the private sector develop it. In the Atlantic provinces, for example, $30 million would be cut from the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency in this budget. Otherwise, they are out of luck. The second approach is equalization. The government put a ceiling on equalization. Together with the new health deal, this has left many provinces in a bind. They are looking at no-growth federal transfers and rising costs in meeting their commitments, especially in health care.

Equalization has been described as the glue that holds the Canadian federation together. The Minister of Finance decreed back in 2008 that the Canadian government could no longer afford to apply as much of this required glue. His claim was that the cost was unsustainable. However, in the fiscal year just passed, equalization was less than 1% of the country's GDP, about .86%, which is well below the historical average and lower even than in the mid-1990s, when the books were in much worse shape than they are today. Back then, when our debt-to-GDP ratio was twice what it is now, the national government was investing nearly 1.1% of GDP in equalization.

Therefore, I would argue that we can afford to increase equalization, and we must increase it if Parliament is to meet its constitutional commitments. In saying that, I am aware that equalization clearly benefits citizens in receiving provinces like mine by providing a better quality of service at lower rates of taxation than would otherwise be the case. However, equalization also benefits citizens in non-receiving provinces, not just those citizens who are altruistically inclined but those who hew to the bottom line.

Let me cite a couple of examples from Alberta economists. My first authority is Melville McMillan, professor emeritus of economics at the University of Alberta. In a recent report for Ontario's Mowat Centre, he argued that equalization enhances economic efficiency by discouraging interprovincial migration undertaken to access better services or to face lower taxes. I have seen in my own province that parents of children with autism have joined parents from other less wealthy provinces in moving to Alberta to take advantage of a wider range of services there for their children.

This, along with the disparity in drug coverage already mentioned, is an example of how we have failed to achieve the comparable level of services mandated by the Constitution.

As McMillan pointed out, differences and financial capacity can distort labour in capital markets and reduce national output, but well-designed equalization programs offer a means to correct or offset that.

For a more down to earth assessment, this is what Calgary economist and author Todd Hirsch had to say in The Globe and Mail:

Albertans...need to recognize the tremendous benefits we enjoy from Canada’s open labour market. If someone summed up every year of education that every interprovincial migrant ever brought with them to Alberta, and estimated a dollar value of those years of education, it would amount to tens of billions of dollars.... Alberta’s gain in educated workers has been other provinces’ loss, and a lot of that education was paid for with equalization transfers.

My point is pretty simple. The government fails to recognize the fact that we are a federation, that we are a country where provinces are developing at different levels.

Every Canadian, according to the constitution, deserves to receive a similar level of services at a similar level of taxation. Bill C-60 does not achieve that. It is going in the wrong direction. The sooner the government wakes up, the better this country will be.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak tonight on behalf of my constituents as we wrap up debate on Bill C-60, our government's legislative implementation of Canada's economic action plan.

I would like to thank the Minister of Finance for his great work managing Canada's economy. Canada has held the strongest record of growth and job creation among the G7 countries during the recovery from the global economic recession. As I have done before, I would like to thank the Minister of Finance for consulting with Canadians and giving us the opportunity to submit our constituents' recommendations directly to his office. This budget is for Canadians by Canadians. The Minister of Finance has built an extraordinary foundation for economic growth. He has done this by focusing on the needs and priorities of Canadians, including keeping taxes low, and by identifying and eliminating government waste.

Our economic action plan is focused on five pillars: The first is connecting Canadians with available jobs, the second is helping manufacturers and businesses succeed in the global economy, the third is creating a new public infrastructure plan, the fourth is investing in world-class research and innovation, and the fifth is supporting families and communities.

In my previous remarks on Canada's economic action plan, I talked about the issues that matter to the people I represent: job creation, business taxes, infrastructure, and how the federal government is assisting families and communities. It is the remaining pillar of our economic action plan that I would like to touch on today: our government's commitment to invest in world-class research and innovation.

The global economy is changing. In order for Canadian businesses to remain competitive and create jobs, we believe the government has an important role to play when it comes to research and innovation to ensure that Canada is on the leading edge of science and technology. Since 2006, we have provided more than $9 billion in new resources to support science, technology and the growth of innovative firms. Beginning this fiscal year, we will build on this foundation with new investments to support advanced research and pursue a new approach to supporting business innovation and enhancing Canada's venture capital system. In supporting advanced research, the Government of Canada partners with industry and academia to fund research projects that are critical to maintaining our competitive edge in a global economy.

Let us take a look at what is on the line. According to the OECD science and technology indicators, Canada ranks first among the G7 countries in higher education and development spending as a percentage of GDP. We are world leaders in this area. In its September 2012 report, “The State of Science and Technology in Canada”, the Council of Canadian Academies noted that Canada is internationally renowned for excellence in a wide range of disciplines including clinical medicine, information and communication technologies, physics and astronomy, and psychology and cognitive sciences. We owe it to Canadian researchers to continue to invest in their work and institutions.

I will talk specifically about our post-secondary institutions and how we are looking to assist them in their research goals. I am a member of the Conservative post-secondary education caucus, which is shared by the member for Winnipeg South. Our focus is on consulting with Canadian colleges and universities to ensure they have a line of communication with their government and to ensure that our young generation of post-secondary students are able to thrive in academic environments and become Canada's leaders of tomorrow. We are very pleased with this budget's commitments to post-secondary research, which would strengthen research partnerships between post-secondary institutions and industry, reinforce Canadian research capacity in genomics and support leading-edge research infrastructure.

In terms of strengthening research partnerships between post-secondary institutions and industry, our economic action plan has budgeted $37 million annually to support research partnerships with industry through the granting councils. To break this down, $15 million would fund the Canadian Institutes of Health Research strategy for patient-oriented research, which would not only contribute to Canadian innovation, but would ultimately benefit health care delivery and, most importantly, patients.

Seven million dollars per year would be allocated to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. This funding would, in part, support research related to the labour market participation of persons with disabilities.

The remaining $15 million per year is budgeted for the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, including $12 million to enhance the college and community innovation program. This program helps firms to become more innovative and productive by supporting collaboration between colleges and industry. It has been an incredibly successful program, and has resulted in cutting-edge products that overcome barriers and solve everyday problems.

In my riding, Red Deer College continue to produce world-class graduates in a variety of disciplines and contributes applied research in our community. The office of applied research and innovation links the expertise of Red Deer College with partners in central Alberta from both the public and private sectors. Red Deer College operates the centre for innovation and manufacturing and facilitates the execution of a number of research and demonstration projects. The college is active in several areas of research, including several projects in community health innovation in collaboration with the local health authority and health care providers.

It is no coincidence that the government's plans line up with what is really happening in academia. We are committed to helping Canadian post-secondary institutions with their priorities. They are the experts and the researchers who see the light and know what research is needed, and which projects are cutting edge. We have consulted with them and we are committed to investing in their work.

When I see the research and innovation areas that our economic action plan will contribute to, I am confident the Red Deer College will benefit from our investments.

Our government also recognizes that federally sponsored research undertaken at post-secondary institutions entails indirect costs, and so we provide support for these through the indirect cost program. In the coming year, the government will examine the indirect cost program, in consultation with the post-secondary sector, including the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, to ensure that the program is meeting its objectives of reinforcing excellence in post-secondary research. We are looking forward to these discussions with the post-secondary sector.

We recognize that in order to yield the world's best research, Canadian researchers need leading-edge infrastructure. They need a place to carry out their research, experiments and inventions. To assist post-secondary institutions with their infrastructure needs, economic action plan 2013 prioritizes funding for the Canadian Foundation for Innovation. The CFI is a not-for-profit corporation that supports modernization of research infrastructure at Canadian universities, colleges, research hospitals and other not-for-profit research institutions.

It plays a vital role in attracting and retaining the world's top researchers and training the next generation of researchers and highly skilled workers. To date, the government has provided close to $5.5 billion to the Canadian Foundation for Innovation to sustain its core investment activities. Building on this commitment, economic action plan 2013 is announcing that a further $225 million would be allocated to enrich the leading-edge new innovations fund competition, sustain the CFI's operations, support cyber-infrastructure and respond to evolving priorities approved by the Minister of Industry. It is important to note that this funding will be sourced from accrued interest income from funding that CFI had previously received from the government. This is further proof of our commitment to efficient use of taxpayers dollars. It is a win-win for Canadian taxpayers and researchers.

As a former teacher, I have been involved in academia as a student as well as a mentor for ambitious young Canadians who have gone into research fields in a variety of disciplines. I am very aware of the importance of public investment in our colleges and universities. To maintain a successful economy, one that creates jobs and opportunities for all Canadians, a focus on post-secondary education and its infrastructure is vital. This is where our leaders of tomorrow are learning today.

The investments that this budget makes in post-secondary research and innovation will benefit our economy for generations to come. The spinoff effects of research and innovation on our economy are incalculable.

I make a last-minute plea to the opposition to appreciate the benefits that these investments will result in, and support this budget. Whether encouraging job creation, promoting economic growth or ensuring Canada's long-term prosperity, our focus is on what matters to Canadians. My constituents have told me that the priorities of this budget are the priorities that matter to them as taxpayers: creating jobs, keeping taxes low, investing in public infrastructure and world-class research and innovation, and supporting Canadian families. That is what this budget would do and I am proud to stand in support of it on behalf of the hard-working taxpayers of Red Deer.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Ottawa South for his speech.

I get the impression that the Liberals will vote against Bill C-60. Although we are talking about the Liberals here, it can sometimes be surprising to see a change in direction.

My question is very simple. The Liberals have been strongly opposing Bill C-60 all evening, so I would like to know how many amendments they presented at report stage.

If my calculations are correct, I think you could count them on the fingers of an armless man. I do not understand how they can be so staunchly against Bill C-60, when they did not try to improve it.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am really pleased this evening to be here to be debate Bill C-60, the government's omnibus budget bill. It is another omnibus bill, unfortunately, and it is too bad we do not have the committee time allocated to deal with so many hundreds of different measures that I think are deserving of greater scrutiny, but that is just the way it has been for the last several years with this particular regime.

Budgets are about making choices. They are about collecting hard-earned tax dollars, and they are about spending those tax dollars by informing that spending with the priorities of a particular government.

It is unfair for any party to say that it does not support at least some measures in a particular budget. Let me say from the beginning that there are measures in Bill C-60 that we do support, measures such as improving the war veterans allowance; expanding the adoption expense tax credit; combatting tax evasion; extending the accelerated CCA, the capital cost allowance, on manufacturing equipment; and many others. It is not a question of indicting the entire budget. However, taking the budget as a whole, this party, the Liberal Party of Canada, cannot possibly support this budget.

I want to take this narrative, if I could, to a little higher level so that Canadians can understand some of the basic principles behind what the government is doing.

The bottom line in this budget, and I will come back to it in a second, is that taxes on the middle class are going up, and they are going up quite dramatically. It is a bit of a sleight of hand, but I hope to illustrate in a few moments how this is being done and why it is being done.

Let us step back. This is the biggest-borrowing, biggest-spending government in Canadian history. No government has borrowed more money and no government has spent more money, ever, in Canadian history.

It has gone from a $13 billion surplus to massive deficits. There has been an increase of $156 billion in the national debt, which as of today stands at $610,583,990,221.28. That is our national debt as of today. It is up by over $156 billion.

That is surprising, one would say, because it comes from a Conservative right-wing government, one would say, but let us hold on for a second, because this is actually quite a familiar pattern.

It started with Mr. Reagan in the United States. It continued through Mr. Bush. It continued through Premier Mike Harris and a small number of other right-wing Conservative governments in Canadian history, and it is now here.

Here is how it goes. First, the Conservatives get elected. They inherit a very healthy surplus.

That is number one.

The second thing they do, in order to curry favour and buy votes, is compromise their revenue-raising capabilities.

Then they go to the market and borrow heavily.

When they borrow heavily, they drive up their national debt quite significantly and then, of course, they create massive deficits.

Then, what do they do when they are faced with massive deficits and a very arbitrary timeline called the 2015 general election?

What they do is they begin to weaken our cherished Canadian public services. That is what they do, and they do it with a new twist. The new twist with the current government is that in order to pay for it, they stick it to the middle class. People in the middle class have to pay more taxes. Small and medium-sized businesses are paying more taxes, and they are also paying for it in cuts in services.

Let me illustrate what I mean when it comes to raising taxes.

Bill C-60 would raise taxes on Canadians this way. Small business owners, the backbone of the Canadian economy, would receive a $2.3 billion tax increase over the next five years. Who would that hurt? It would hurt 750,000 Canadians and it would risk Canadian jobs.

As well, the bill would raise taxes on credit unions by $75 million a year, which is an attack on rural Canadians and our rural economy.

It would also nickel-and-dime Canadians. It would add HST or GST to certain health care services, such as medical work that victims of crime need in order to establish their case in court. It would even raises taxes on safety deposit boxes. It would increase far more taxes than it would decrease. That is an objective fact.

Why is the government doing this? It is because the federal Minister of Finance learned at the feet of one of the masters. That master was a man named Mike Harris, in Ontario, whose principal adviser was Mike “Mud” Murphy from the state of New Jersey. That state went through the same kind of reckless experimentation that Ontario went through, and the minister has brought those lessons to bear here, except that it is more surreptitious, more underhanded, more stealth-like.

Here are examples of how the government is weakening our cherished Canadian public services.

We live in a federation of 10 provinces and three territories, and in the last six years there has not been a single meeting of first ministers on Canada's cherished national public health care system. That is unconscionable and indefensible.

What the government does is go into a back room and take a number. It might as well throw a dart at the wall. It takes a number to say it will increase health care funding by this much. That is it. There is no dialogue, no discussion, no priorities. Whatever happened to the government's wait time promises? We are still waiting. That has all evaporated.

There is no plan post-2014 for health care and no interest in a national approach to health. As a result, our cherished public health care system is weakening.

With respect to immigration, planned cuts would create longer waiting times. Family reunification would now be massively delayed. It is often characterized by members of the government as wasteful and expensive for the Canadian people when there is not a shred of evidence to suggest that is the case.

With respect to public safety, the Auditor General told the government that the cuts to front-line border offices would seriously compromise Canadian security at the border when it comes to inspections, drug enforcement, weapons caches and beyond. Less enforcement means more problems.

With respect to crime, there would be mandatory minimum sentences. We have been told that this would solve our victim problem. Really? Every single study ever conducted on crime tells us that a dollar spent up front saves us a $40 fee at the back end and minimizes the risk to potential victims in Canada.

It goes on. With respect to the environment and science, which we spoke about earlier, the budget would cut 700 positions at Environment Canada and 600 positions in agricultural research stations this week alone.

Search and rescue centres have closed in St. John's and Kitsilano, compromising public safety.

Let us take Canada's role in the world for one minute. After 60 years of Canada's brand being so strong at helping Africa, we are abandoning Africa. No matter what the government says, we are abandoning Africa at a time when all the economists are telling us that Africa is growing at 6% to 10% a year. Just when the economic opportunities have arrived, Canada is pulling out.

We are abandoning multilateral traditions such as the UN Security Council. The Minister of Foreign Affairs has said he wants to compel the Russians to do something about Syria, but then announced a week later that we would not even try to get a UN Security Council seat. That makes no sense. Multilateralism is in our DNA, and we have pulled out of it. Mulroney understood it with anti-apartheid. Chrétien understood it with anti-land mines. Martin understood it with the G20. Multilateralism has helped Canada punch above its weight.

The Prime Minister will not even speak to the UN General Assembly, while President Obama does it every year.

I will close with this: perhaps the most disturbing aspect for Canadians is a new propaganda campaign. Maybe it is because the Prime Minister did not win his personal lawsuit against Canada when he wanted the National Citizens Coalition to force all restrictions on advertising during political campaigns to be removed. Maybe that is why he is spending $600 million on government advertising, something that no member of that caucus can possibly defend.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish it did not have to be a short question because it is a big topic. Does the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster have any idea why a government that claims to be interested in doing a national security review of foreign investments coming into Canada has refused, first in 2009 with the amendments to the Investment Canada Act and now with Bill C-60, to reject a clear definition of national security such as one would find when dealing with national security issues under CSIS?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start off by saying that I have only 10 minutes. Given the many criticisms we have levied at the Conservatives for their incompetence on fiscal and budgetary matters and their inability to run a modern economy, I do not think 10 minutes will be enough. However, I know that my colleagues in the NDP caucus will be speaking to this as well, and we will be speaking as long as we can, because there are a variety of issues that need to be raised.

I would like to start by putting on the floor a fact the Minister of Finance is well aware of. The fiscal period returns filed with the Department of Finance, which is surely not a hotbed of social democrats, have been saying for 20 years running that the best governments for balancing budgets and paying down debt are NDP governments. The Minister of Finance knows this. He would never stand up and praise the NDP. However, he knows full well that the NDP is best at balancing budgets.

NDP governments are simply better than Conservative governments. I will not even talk about Liberal governments, because they are in last place. The reality is that we run a better health care system, pay more attention to the environment, do more for working families, and most importantly, are actually better at balancing budgets than the Conservatives are. That is why I think in 2015 we will see the first federal NDP federal government in Canadian history.

Talking about balancing budgets is one thing, but let us talk about the economic record of the government. We have had some Conservatives today stand up. They love to say that they have created hundreds of thousands of low-cost jobs for temporary foreign workers. That is the only thing they can point to as far progress and any sort of success for the Conservative government.

We think that is wrong-headed. The economic direction of the country should actually be to look at building high-paying jobs for Canadians. It is a different approach. However, when we look at the Conservatives' record, they have lost half a million well-paying, family-sustaining jobs in the manufacturing sector. Then they deposit a budget, which we are discussing tonight, Bill C-60, which, according to a legitimate, independent, impartial judge, the parliamentary budget officer, would cost Canadians 67,000 jobs.

The Conservatives are laughing at that. They are saying, “So what?” Ordinary working families actually care that the Conservatives have been so inept as to lose 67,000 jobs through their budgetary incompetence.

When we talk about the loss of high-paying, family-sustaining jobs in the manufacturing sector, something the Conservatives do not seem to understand, they reply that they are creating well-paying jobs in the Canadian Senate.

I think it is fair to say that on this side of the House, we do not even think the Senate should continue to exist. Like most Canadians, we believe that the Senate should be abolished and that the $100 million we put into it to bloat the expense claims of Conservative senators could better serve by providing support for working families in this country. That is what an NDP government would do, of course.

On other budgetary priorities of the Conservative government, we have had some very eloquent speeches tonight from the member for Manicouagan and the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, who talked about the crisis we are seeing in northern housing. Yet Conservatives want to put money into the F-35s, even though the initial budgetary proposal of $9 billion bloated to $20 billion then $30 billion and now $40 billion-plus. No one knows on this side of the House how much this will eventually cost Canadians. There is not a single Conservative who is able to give us a precise number.

However, it is not just that. It is the Conservatives' other record.

The Conservatives have inflated the advertising budget in just one ministry by 7,000%. There is a 7,000% increase in advertising for Natural Resources Canada. It is as if they are opening their wallets, which actually belong to the Canadian taxpayers, and throwing money on the floor. It does not seem to matter when they are running ads. As the member for Ottawa Centre said so eloquently, it is for programs that do not even exist. They are just running and throwing money left, right and centre.

The Prime Minister flew at a cost of over $1 million to have his limousine over in India. We have seen Conservative cabinet ministers going from four-star hotels, because that was not good enough for them, into five-star hotels. It is simply unacceptable.

Conservative fiscal management is an oxymoron. What we have is Conservatives simply betraying their voters. This is what I hear most often. It is Conservative voters, people who voted Conservative in the last election, who tell me that they did not vote for this. They did not vote for the corruption, scandals and fiscal mismanagement. They did not vote to lose jobs. They did not vote for a threefold increase in temporary foreign workers when job training programs in Canada are going unfunded. They did not vote for all of that.

A time of reckoning is coming soon. Canadians are very upset at how the government has betrayed the commitments they ran on.

I want to say one more thing about the whole approach on the economy. We think it is just wrong-headed. We see what the Conservative government is doing putting all of its emphasis on exporting raw resources—raw bitumen, raw minerals and raw logs. When the Conservatives send raw materials out of the country, they are actually exporting Canadian jobs. They should not be proud of that. They should be ashamed of exporting Canadian jobs.

What we say is that we need the value-added here. In my riding of Burnaby—New Westminster, after the softwood sellout was signed by the Conservatives, 2,000 full-time family-sustaining jobs were lost. Three plants went down. Canfor, Interfor and Western Forest Products went within weeks of the signature on that softwood sellout. Those jobs can only be re-established if we have a government that is determined to bring value-added manufacturing back to Canada.

Look at the green energy sector. There is a revolution happening worldwide. We are talking about $2 trillion in investments over the next decade and five million jobs worldwide in clean energy and renewable energy sources, but the Conservatives are saying, no. What they are going to do is continue to subsidize the very profitable oil and gas sectors by over $1 billion a year.

On this side of the House, we think that is wrong. On this side of the House, we actually think that we are seeing these countries, as the member for Burnaby—Douglas mentioned, investing in innovation, research and development and green jobs, and that is the future path Canada should be taking.

More and more Canadians believe in that vision as well. We are seeing more and more Canadians looking forward to 2015 when they can get this wrong-headed approach out and actually look with hope and inspiration to future prosperity in this country.

There is one last thing I wanted to mention. I come from a riding where the vast majority of my constituents are new Canadians. They have seen how mean-spirited Conservatives are when it comes to gutting the family reunification program and increasing costs for visitor visas. The families I represent, who want to come for funerals, weddings or the birth of a new child in the family, are stopped by Conservative incompetence in the immigration file. In fact, we have never had a time when it was tougher for families to get together just to visit.

However, we see in Bill C-60 that the Conservatives actually want a blank cheque from new Canadians for visitor visas for their families in their countries of origin when they come from India, China or the Philippines. When they come to Canada, the Conservatives are slapping them in the face and saying that now they are going to pay more. Not only are the Conservatives going to reject their applications; they are going to pay more for visitor visas and for student visas. When their family members want to come and visit them in Canada, they are going to have to pay more. As we know, in most cases, they are rejected.

That shows the height of disrespect for new Canadians in this country. On this side of the House, in the NDP caucus, we believe that new Canadians are first-class Canadians too. They deserve to have their family members come and visit them for these important family occasions and not be attacked by these mean-spirited Conservative taxes they impose for visitor visas, student visas and the like.

We believe that new Canadians should be treated with respect. What a concept.

For that and many other reasons, we are going to be voting against this mean-spirited budget, against the financial incompetence of the government and against the attacks that it is putting against Canadian families.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my remarks, I believe that Bill C-60 manages to hit all the high points when it comes to growing Canada's economy and creating jobs and long-term prosperity. In looking at some of the measures included in this implementation bill and in budget 2013, I will highlight two or three about investing in world-class research and innovation.

We would support the commercialization of research by small and medium-sized enterprises by investing $20 million to help small and medium-sized enterprises in Saskatchewan and across Canada access research and business development services at local universities and colleges. We would also strengthen research partnerships in the marketplace by investing $37 million in Saskatchewan and across Canada to support collaboration between post-secondary institutions and industry to bring new technologies, products and services to the marketplace to help spur job creation. Finally, we would promote clean energy projects, providing $325 million to support the development and demonstration of new clean technologies across Canada that create savings for Canadian businesses and support job creation for Canadians.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to be able to speak today on Bill C-60, economic action plan 2013 act.

I would like to begin by thanking the Minister of Finance and the Minister of State for Finance for their hard work on behalf of all Canadians.

I have been engaging my constituents in Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar on what course of action our government needs to take to promote long-term prosperity for all Canadians. Their message is consistent and clear. Canadians are reasonable people; they expect a pragmatic government that is a cautious steward of our economy, a careful caretaker of our natural resources and one that focuses on job creation to ensure that every Canadian can have a job and succeed. They want low taxes and quality services.

As a parent and a grandparent, I want Canada to be the best place to live, work, raise a family and retire. I want every Canadian to be able to take advantage of all our great country has to offer.

Budget 2013 is good news for Saskatchewan and for Canada. The budget would invest in the success of Canadians. It would invest in our infrastructure and it would invest in our strong and resilient communities. It is a plan for a successful and prosperous future. The budget focuses on the priorities of Canadian families, Canada's young people, Canadian students, Canada's job creators and Canada's job seekers.

I would like to highlight how the budget would help Saskatchewan's families, our businesses and our communities. Allow me to state the obvious. Our most valuable asset as a country is our people. As a government, we have a responsibility to make sure every person has the opportunity to reach his or her full potential. Right now in Canada, there is a clear mismatch between the jobs available and the skills held by job seekers in Canada.

The Canadian Chamber of Commerce has identified the current skills shortage as the number one obstacle to success for its members. There are too many jobs that go unfilled in Canada because employers cannot find workers with the right skills. If unaddressed, this labour mismatch has the potential to disrupt our economy and our prosperity. In fact, Saskatchewan's economy has been on such a positive expansionary phase that we are now facing labour shortages in many sectors.

I would like to talk about four areas of focus in the budget that would help Saskatchewan get the skilled workers it needs and allow us to fulfill the very potential that our first settlers saw when they came to the Prairies.

The centrepiece of economic action plan 2013 is the Canada job grant. The job grant would transform the way Canadians receive training by providing up to $15,000 per person to help ensure Canadians are able to access the training they need to get jobs in high-demand fields. The Canada job grant would take skills training choices out of the hands of government and put them where they belong, in the hands of employers with unfilled jobs and Canadians who want to work.

Second, economic action plan 2013 would follow through on budget 2012's commitment to increase women's participation in non-traditional occupations. Women now represent close to half of Canada's workforce, yet as a group they continue to be under-represented in areas of science, mathematics, engineering and technology, the very same fields in which we are experiencing labour shortages.

Our government, and especially my colleague, the Minister for the Status of Women, has taken a keen interest in this matter as it makes strong economic and business sense to have both men and women equally active in the workforce. It goes without saying that countries with strong labour force participation from both men and women typically have stronger and more durable economies. I am pleased that our government is delivering on our commitment to increase opportunities for women's participation in non-traditional occupations and keep our economy strong.

Third, Canada's young aboriginal population has tremendous potential for long-term success and prosperity, but remains under-represented in both the labour market and in post-secondary institutions. Since 2006, our government has made innovative investments to address these challenges, including efforts to strengthen on-reserve elementary and secondary education and skills training programming for aboriginal people.

Building on these actions, economic action plan 2013 would introduce a number of practical steps. The skills and partnership fund would provide project-specific funding to aboriginal organizations in an effort to improve labour market outcomes for aboriginal people.

The first nations job fund, totalling $109 million over five years, would fund the provision of personalized job training on reserves. Budget 2013 would also invest $10 million over two years for post-secondary scholarships and bursaries for more than 2,000 first nations and Inuit students annually. This would be delivered by Indspire, Canada's largest indigenous-led charity, which has a stellar track record of success.

Fourth, this government, under the tireless leadership of the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, has made significant progress implementing long-overdue reforms to Canada's immigration system, with the focus on attracting talented newcomers with the skills and experience our economy requires. Earlier this year, our government opened up a new skilled trades immigration stream that will facilitate the entry of immigrants who have the skills needed to immediately find a job and begin contributing to our economy.

What I have outlined are just some of the many new steps our government is taking to address the labour mismatch that exists in Canada.

Our government knows that low taxes and a skilled workforce keep our economy growing, but as an exporter nation, we need to continue to work to open up new markets for Canadian companies to sell their goods. For the first time in our history, we are aggressively diversifying our markets and making it easier for business to trade with emerging markets.

Since coming into office, we have signed nine free trade agreements with countries like Colombia, Panama, Korea and Jordan, and we are currently working on free trade agreements with the European Union, Japan and China, just to name a few.

This pro-trade agenda is working for Saskatchewan. Earlier this year Statistics Canada announced that Saskatchewan had become Canada's fourth largest exporter of goods. Saskatchewan exports grew by over 10% last year, to reach $32.6 billion, and have more than tripled over the past decade. My home province's exports were also quite diversified. One-third of exports were agricultural products, one-third were energy products and the remaining were manufacturing and services.

This government is also putting in place the infrastructure Canada needs. For years, provincial and municipal governments, who are responsible for the majority of infrastructure in Canada, have been asking the federal government for a long-term plan to address these needs. This budget would invest over $70 billion in new infrastructure funding over 10 years in support of local and economic infrastructure projects.

This is the longest and largest federal infrastructure plan in Canadian history and is something I know every municipality in my riding, from Saskatoon to Sunningdale, would benefit from.

However, this budget is not just about the present. It is also about the future. Budget 2013 would keep Canada on track to return to balanced budgets in 2015. In fact, the deficit has been cut in half over the past two years, and Canada has the lowest debt to GDP ratio in the G7.

We have done so well maintaining and building on critical services. We are also keeping taxes low for Canadians and for Canadian businesses. Canada's federal corporate tax right now sits at 15%, down from 21%, and the federal sales tax now sits at 5%, down from 7% when our government took office.

An average family now pays $3,100 less in taxes than when we took office in 2006, and Canadians now have the lowest tax burden in more than 50 years. That is something that everyone in the riding of Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar appreciates.

Our government's plan is working, not only for Saskatchewan but for all of Canada. Our government's goal is to make Canada the best place in the world to live, raise a family, work or start a business.

Bill C-60 would keep Canada on track for long-term prosperity, and I would encourage all members of this House to support it.

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when I last spoke in the House I made some observations about a recurring theme in the government's initiatives and announcements, and that is that the government is distancing itself from social intervention, more specifically from providing services in the country.

My last intervention focused on charities. I tried to substantiate my comments by introducing our audience to the notion of distancing, the government's desire to withdraw, a desire that has been obvious every day since it came to power. I could see that there were some controversial topics that Canadians viewed somewhat unfavourably. This government is often an easy target, both within Canada and internationally. That is the case when it comes to human rights—which I will come back to later—and access to clean drinking water. Recently in committee, we were examining Bill S-8, an initiative that once again transfers the burden of sanitation and access to clean drinking water onto first nation band councils. As everyone knows, this a fundamental right that is enshrined in the Constitution and one that is internationally recognized. Access to clean drinking water is crucial; it is a basic human right. The government is trying to step back from its obligations, to distance itself, and is transferring this burden to other bodies such as band councils, which do not necessarily have sufficient financial resources to deal with these issues.

Bill C-60 contains the same kind of blind transfer of responsibility. Some subjects are rather contentious, rather controversial. That is why the government is trying to get out of its obligations, or at least distance itself from the negative spotlight associated with certain subjects.

I will now substantiate my remarks by giving some concrete examples.

Throughout this mandate, many members in this House have joined with the auditor in exposing the obvious, chronic underfunding of education in first nation communities. The public's interest in the debate and the media coverage of the shortcomings affecting academic opportunities for a growing segment of the population helped fuel the Idle No More movement.

With respect to education, I read earlier on the CBC website that people are beginning to ask some questions about education for first nations and the general population. They are examining their own situation and their reality, a reality that is reflected in the debates in the House and in the implementation of the measures introduced in the House and sometimes in the Senate. Personally, I think too many measures are coming from the Senate.

That education works to free the people. That is why, in 2013, government agencies are instead focusing on training that meets the needs of companies involved in extracting natural resources. I am seeing that in my own riding. Those of us on the front lines can see that training programs, especially in remote areas, are designed to meet the needs expressed by a significant segment of industry. There is an attempt to push students towards programs that meet the needs of extractive companies, to the detriment of general education that encourages analytical and critical thinking regarding many of our country's contentious issues. That is basically what I wanted to say.

Now I would like to take a look at some of Canada's social statistics. It seems there is a 30% gap between the funding provided to students attending schools on reserve and other Canadians who attend provincial schools. That reflects the fact that natural resources are mainly, but not exclusively, being extracted in remote areas. My riding, where natural resources of all kinds are being extracted, is a clear example of that.

That is why this government does not necessarily have any interest in giving Indians access to post-secondary education. They will find themselves in situations that are similar to the ones they are facing now.

I am calling all of that into question and exposing it. The public has taken up this cause, and because of the advent and the growth of social media as we know them today, it does not take long for the information to get to remote communities. The Internet has become more widely available in recent years, and people have access to that information, even in remote communities. That is why the government tries so hard to restrict first nations' access to education.

Access was facilitated when I began studying law. There were programs that made it possible for aboriginal students to be admitted to law programs. There were pre-law programs, which were eliminated over time. Barring any proof to the contrary, those programs are no longer available today. Of course, it all depended on what government was in place at the time. There was a clear desire to include and extend that freedom to a segment of the population.

I was from a remote community, and that was a life-saver, if I may say so. I managed to get away from my community and its deleterious elements. Leaving did me a world of good. Now the government is trying to keep people in their communities. That explains the 30% disparity. It is the government's way of keeping Indians on reserve. There are times when the circumstances make life on reserve destructive, poisonous even. That seems to be their plan. That is my own perspective for your consideration, Mr. Speaker.

Considering the vast gulf dividing Canada's aboriginal and non-aboriginal groups in terms of academic opportunity, it is conceivable that the government is trying to delegate the implementation and funding of education programs for aboriginal clients across the country. That is why I have my doubts about the measure in Bill C-60 to transfer $5 million to a charitable organization responsible for distributing post-secondary education scholarships to students registered under the Indian Act and to Inuit students.

I am not the only one who is skeptical about this type of announcement. Some observers, both here in Canada and abroad, have their doubts. In fact, in this case, the Conservatives are blindly delegating the implementation of public policy. Instead of focusing on the real disparity in funding for the training and education of first nations youth—young people who are disadvantaged and who must face adversity on a daily basis—the Conservatives are delegating everything to an organization. The organization may be well run, but it is a non-profit organization, a para-public or charitable organization, that is not necessarily accountable. The Canadian government must set the parameters for implementing measures that foster access to higher education for first nations because, in the end, it is bound by its fiduciary obligation to them.

The delegation of this task leaves me perplexed and skeptical to say the least. In fact, we know that $5 million is not a huge amount in any event, especially when we consider the number of young people who will have access to or who are old enough to have access to quality education, higher education. This leaves me perplexed.

I submit this respectfully.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to be here tonight to speak on Bill C-60.

Throughout the past several weeks I have been able to travel throughout my riding of Kootenay—Columbia and discuss economic action plan 2013. Municipal and regional governments have endorsed this budget because it identifies their needs, which are to ensure that ongoing funding is provided for infrastructure that is very important to every community from coast to coast to coast.

The community improvement fund would provide funding in the amount of $32.2 billion over the next 10 years through the new building Canada plan and, most importantly, it would give greater flexibility to a broad range of infrastructure priorities, which would include highways, local and regional airports, short line rail, short sea shipping, disaster mitigation, broadband and connectivity, brownfield redevelopment, culture, tourism, sport and recreation. Coupled with the new building Canada fund and P3 Canada, this funding would represent the largest and longest federal investment in job creation infrastructure in Canadian history.

Having been the mayor of Sparwood, British Columbia, for six years, I appreciate the input that the federal government can provide, but I also understand that the municipalities must do their part to ensure their communities remain vibrant.

I listened with interest this weekend to some of the comments from FCM, where some mayors said that money was not enough. Some called for national strategies. Politicians from all levels of government are great at studying things, but it is at the municipal level where the rubber hits the road. Therefore, I would suggest that communities across Canada have shovel-ready projects in which they will have full participation and quit speculating on what we can do for them.

Kootenay—Columbia is a rural riding that has some of the highest tourism visits in all of Canada due to the splendour of the Rocky Mountains, national parks, skiing and golf opportunities. I am proud of all the amenities that provide for a great visitor experience, but with that there is a great strain on affordable housing. With $1.9 billion over five years to create affordable housing, this is great news for towns like Fernie, Kimberley, Golden, Invermere and Revelstoke. Those who work in the service industry have historically been at the lower end of the pay scale and depend on housing that is reasonably priced. Through this funding, our government will assist the communities that need to sustain housing that is affordable.

The Canada job grant would provide $15,000 or more per person in combined federal, provincial and employer funding. It is something that would benefit any person who is considering a career in the trades. This must be a combined effort by everyone affected by this shortage. A number of companies in the riding of Kootenay—Columbia, including Teck Resources, Canfor and Louisiana-Pacific, welcome this news. Companies from across Canada are in dire need of skilled workers due to an aging workforce and an increased natural resource extraction sector. Our government is doing our part to help in this regard. The provinces recognize their role and, most importantly, industry members knows that they must come to the table. Otherwise, it will deter their ability to grow.

One of the biggest challenges that companies have is the shortage in tradespeople. A significant number of people are pulled away from one company to another via signing bonuses and other financial incentives. The only way for this to stop is by training as many people as we can to ensure companies can keep up with the demand.

In budget 2013, our Conservative government said that we would fix the temporary foreign worker program. Just over one month after release of that budget, our government introduced legislative, regulatory and administrative changes that would, effective immediately, require employers to pay temporary foreign workers at the prevailing wage by removing the existing wage flexibility, temporarily suspend the accelerated labour market opinion process, and increase the government's authority to suspend and revoke work permits and labour market opinions if the program were being misused.

It would add questions to employer LMO applications to ensure that the temporary foreign worker program is not used to facilitate the outsourcing of Canadian jobs. It would ensure employers who rely upon temporary foreign workers have a firm plan in place to transition to a Canadian worker. It would introduce fees from employers for the processing of labour market opinions and increase the fees for work permits so that taxpayers are no longer subsidizing the costs. It would restrict English and French as the only languages that could be identified as a job requirement.

The results of these changes would strengthen and improve the foreign worker program, support our economic recovery and growth, and ensure that employers make greater efforts to hire Canadians before hiring temporary foreign workers. These reforms would ensure that the temporary foreign worker program, which is an important program to deal with acute skills shortages on a temporary basis, is used only as a last resort.

I am very pleased to see that $9 million is proposed for the first nations land management regime to provide additional first nations with the opportunity to enact their own laws for development, conservation, use and possession of reserve lands. This would add 33 first nations to the regime, including the 8 announced earlier this year. Two of those first nations are in my riding of Kootenay—Columbia. The St. Mary's Band and the Akisqnuk Band were recent uptakes to FNLM. Both of these bands are very progressive and are moving forward with great initiatives.

Further, enhanced health services within first nations are also a top priority.

Just this past weekend, I attended the grand opening of the Three Voices of Healing treatment centre at the Shuswap First Nation. This centre offers 12 beds for 41-day alcohol and drug addiction adult residential treatment programs and 30 beds for 91-day aftercare treatment programs. This aftercare program is the first of its kind in the country and is funded from grants received from various organizations and foundations.

Three Voices of Healing Society has been in operation since 1997. In September 2012, it was able to purchase this new facility in order to offer the new aftercare program. The need for aftercare has been identified through regional and national needs assessments and research in alignment with the objectives of the program renewal initiative of the national native alcohol and drug abuse program.

The aftercare program would address a critical gap in service within the B.C. first nations' continuum of care for addictions. It must be noted that within minutes, and I literally mean minutes, of mass emailing and faxing of the announcement of this new programming to all the bands and the front-line workers in British Columbia and Alberta, the phones lit up continuously and have not slowed down. I have seen first-hand the importance of these facilities. What is so impressive with this aftercare program is the ability for clients to find a skill that they can take with them after treatment.

Our government provides $100 million annually for aboriginal mental health programs and services.

I am honoured to work with the Ktunaxa and Shuswap First Nations in the Kootenay—Columbia, which are both progressive and visionary for their future.

I have given a few examples of how economic action plan 2013 would benefit, not only my riding of Kootenay—Columbia, but all Canadians from coast to coast to coast. I look forward to working with my constituents to ensure that we continue to live in the greatest place on Earth.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to speak in the House to discuss and debate the issues of the day. I enjoying listening to the opinions of the members opposite, even though I do not always agree with them.

Every time I rise, I get a sense of déjà vu. Here we are, for the umpteenth time, debating an omnibus bill filled with measures that are in no way related to the government's fiscal policy. As with the other bills, our debate is subject to time allocation that was imposed by the government, of course.

The government likes to brag about its accomplishments and achievements, but it does not like to talk too much about its record-setting use of time allocation. Yes, these former Reformers who swept in from the west promising clean, open government and respect for the taxpayer have instead become what they professed to hate the most.

The scandals of the past month have proved this, complete with senators entitled to their entitlements, $90,000 worth of hush money and the Prime Minister doing his best to avoid answering the real questions.

Limiting debate and trying to run away from transparency is disturbing enough when it is done by trustworthy, competent managers, but it is much worse when it is done by a government that has proved itself to be as ethically lacking as this government has.

Once we wade through this massive document, we can see why the Conservatives would try to keep people from knowing what is in the budget. The bill contains many measures that concern many Canadians and have no place in a budget bill. A government that was confident in its ideas would simply introduce these measures as its own stand-alone pieces of legislation, instead of hiding them away in an omnibus bill.

Given that they have a majority in both chambers, we would think the Conservatives would have the confidence already, but a bill like the budget puts even that into question.

What are the Conservatives hiding in these bills?

Let us start with taxes. This budget contains hundreds of tax hikes on everything and anything, including hospital parking, bicycles, baby strollers, credit unions, safety deposit boxes and labour-sponsored investment funds. These increases will cost Canadians almost $8 billion over the next five years. That is a lot of money for Canadians who are having trouble making ends meet. What is even worse is that the Conservatives are trying to hide these tax hikes in a huge bill.

Like many Quebeckers, I am a member of my local credit union. Credit unions provide important services and are active in our communities. Thus, I am personally affected by the changes that the Conservatives are proposing in this budget, which will increase taxes on these organizations and hinder their ability to compete with major banks.

The Conservatives and the Liberals have done enough to help major banks over the years. Every day in the business section of the newspapers, we read that banks are doing well and do not need the Conservatives to prevent credit unions from competing with them.

What else would Bill C-60 do? The bill would introduce changes that would allow the government to require a crown corporation to have its negotiating mandate approved by Treasury Board when entering a collective agreement with a union.

The Treasury Board could impose any requirement on a crown corporation respecting the terms and conditions of employment on its employees. No crown corporation that is subject to such a government order would be allowed to enter into a collective agreement without Treasury Board's approval, and the bill would also give power to the Treasury Board, on orders from the government, to fix the terms and conditions of employment for non-unionized employees.

The bill is a direct attack on the right to free collective bargaining, while also infringing on the independent arm's-length operation of these crown corporations.

Crown corporations have this independence for good reason, and the Conservatives know this, but in this case they have decided to simply ignore those reasons. This is a dangerous precedent that should concern Canadians of all walks of life.

In this bill, we also see that the government is continuing to take steps to create a securities commission without the consent of the provinces. Although the provinces of Quebec, Alberta, Manitoba and New Brunswick have all said that they do not want the commission, the government plans to continue to fund an office whose sole objective is to try to make this happen.

NDP members urged the government to co-operate and to work more closely with the provinces on all types of issues. However, the Conservatives have systematically ignored their suggestion. Instead, they continue to use the “take it or leave it” approach, which has only led to failure in the past. The government must work with the provinces instead of burying such measures in an omnibus budget bill.

Speaking of lack of consultations, let us talk about how the bill would affect aboriginal peoples. We in the NDP have been calling on the Conservatives to make aboriginal issues a priority in this budget. Unfortunately, the budget fails to address the major challenges facing aboriginal peoples in Canada or help move Canadians toward a new relationship with aboriginal peoples.

We have a couple of stark examples of how the budget fails. The budget would provide, for instance, Indspire with $5 million in funding post-secondary scholarships and bursaries. On the surface, that sounds nice, but when we read the fine print of this initiative we see where the other shoe drops. In the budget it states that this money would be for students who are registered as Indians under the Indian Act and for Inuit students.

Indspire offers all aboriginal students funding, yet the government has deliberately left Metis and non-status students out in the cold. This was one of the few places were Metis and non-status students could get some federal government support for their post-secondary education, but the government would take that away.

To its credit, Indspire has stated that it will continue to offer funding to Metis and non-status students out of the money it raises itself, but the fact remains that the Conservative government would put Metis and non-status students at a further disadvantage than they already face.

In this budget, the Conservatives have also allocated funds to build 250 housing units in Nunavut over the next two years. That is a good thing for the people of Nunavut, and I have nothing against that, but there is a problem with this part of the budget.

According to Statistics Canada, overpopulation plagues my Nunavik constituents more than any other group of Canadians. Right now, they need 1,000 housing units. In 2012, over 90 cases of tuberculosis were reported in the region, and the epidemic has not let up. We know that tuberculosis develops in overcrowded dwellings.

Unfortunately, this budget does nothing to help the people of Nunavik. Worse still, when the president of the Makivik Corporation asked for a meeting with the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development to discuss the situation, his request was denied. The minister's chief of staff sent him a two-line note saying that the minister was very busy and would not be able to meet with him, as though the problem could wait.

Although the people of Nunavut are getting a little of the help they need, I want to emphasize that the people of Nunavik cannot even get a meeting with the minister, let alone any money to address this very serious crisis. This is unacceptable, and it is yet another example of how the government is shying away from the need to create a new relationship with Canada's aboriginals.

I could go on at length about this budget's shortcomings, but I know that my time is almost up. I will therefore conclude by saying that Canadians need to hear that their government is practising good governance. We are part of the G8, and we are a strong democracy that expects a lot from its elected representatives. When the Conservative government passes bad bills, like this omnibus bill, by using time allocation, it insults this country's democratic principles.

It is clear from the people's reactions to scandals associated with this government that these expectations have not gone away. People will not let their government try to hide all of this. These insults to democracy have prompted my colleagues and me to reject this bill because of its contents and the process used to pass it.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is the youngest member in this House, and I am youngest member from British Columbia. This tariff regime we are talking about has not been changed since 1974, and that is 4 years before I was born and probably 14 years before the hon. member was born.

I think it is time we recognized that those economies the tariffs were designed to help, economies like China and India, have grown up a lot since 1974, as have we. For developing nations, this was a form of foreign aid.

We no longer need to provide those extra breaks to those countries. They are standing quite well on their own two feet. We should be looking to advantage Canadian manufacturers, Canadian businesses, and that is exactly what we would be doing with Bill C-60.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to rise today on Bill C-60, economic action plan 2013 act, no.1.

As we know, Canada's economic action plan is working. Just this past Friday, Statistics Canada announced that the Canadian economy grew by 2.5% in the first quarter of 2013. This represents the strongest quarterly growth in nearly two years. Additionally, Statistics Canada positively revised its economic growth in the fourth quarter of 2012 up from 0.6% to 0.9%. This is the seventh straight quarter of positive growth in Canada, which is another sign that our economy is on the right track. Additionally, of the over 900,000-plus net new jobs created in Canada since the depth of the global recession, over 90% are full-time, and nearly 75% are in the private sector, which represents the best job-growth record in the entire G7.

Bill C-60 includes a number of measures that were in the economic action plan. They include reforms to the temporary foreign worker program that would ensure that Canadians are always given the first crack at available jobs. It would introduce a new temporary first-time donor super credit for first-time claimants of the charitable donations tax credit. We have reaffirmed our government's plan to proceed with the sale of Ridley Terminals in British Columbia. We would formally establish the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development to better align Canada's foreign diplomacy, trade and development efforts. We would improve benefits for Canadian veterans through changes to the war veterans allowance, which would result in over 3,100 veterans being eligible for this allowance for the first time. In addition, an estimated 5,350 veterans and survivors would benefit from the change. We would support high-quality value-added jobs in important sectors of the Canadian economy, such as manufacturing, by providing tax relief for new investments in manufacturing equipment. We would provide better support for job-creating infrastructure in municipalities across Canada by indexing the gas tax fund and would keep taxes low for hard-working Canadian families and job-creating businesses.

I want to expand on a few items I just mentioned as well as some additional items in Bill C-60.

The adoption expense tax credit is a great measure included in Bill C-60. It would better recognize the costs associated with the adoption process.

I am the father of an eight-year-old son, and it is a privilege for my wife and I to raise him. There are many others in this country who have chosen to expand their families through adoption. I think of my own family and friends who have done that. I think of the member for Essex, who has been a national leader on the importance of adoption and the recognition of the expenses families incur when they choose to make that addition. No value can be placed on what a new child brings to each family, but we want to make sure that we recognize the costs earlier in the process. This would be a great measure that would apply to adoptions finalized after 2012.

The first-time donor super credit is something we would bring in to encourage young Canadians, primarily, and those who have not given before to a non-profit organization, to do so.

I think of some of the great local charities in my riding of Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, such as the Meadow Rose Society, which provides care for single moms in low-income families who do not have the necessities, such as formula and diapers, to provide for their young babies. Some of us may take these for granted, but they represent a significant cost. The Meadow Rose Society is there to help those moms in Chilliwack. This is an example of an organization that people who have not given before may want to use that first-time super credit for. They would get a little extra bang for their buck when they made that donation.

Another opportunity in Chilliwack is the Ruth and Naomi Foundation, which helps the homeless and the at-risk homeless in Chilliwack by providing them with a place to sleep and a warm meal. It is supported by local churches and organizations across the spectrum in Chilliwack. It is another great charity that would benefit from this super credit.

I wanted talk about something else near and dear to the people of Chilliwack. A number of veterans have chosen to make their homes in my community, in large part because CFB Chilliwack was a place people used to come through for their basic training. Unfortunately, CFB Chilliwack was closed during the decade of darkness in the 90s under the Liberal government. However, a number of veterans have returned at the end of their military careers to make Chilliwack home. That is why I was pleased to see that Bill C-60 would include tax relief for Canadian Armed Forces members and police officers deployed on international missions. It would streamline the process for approving tax relief for those members who are deployed on international moderate-risk missions.

There are a number of veterans in my own family. Both my grandfathers served, one in the air force and one in the navy. I have a cousin who returned last year from a tour in Afghanistan, so this is an issue that hits close to home for me. That is why I was pleased that we would be improving veterans' benefits for low-income veterans of both the Second World War and the Korean War as well as their survivors.

We would provide assistance to additional veterans and their survivors. Under the current program, a veteran's total calculated income includes a disability pension provided by Veterans Affairs Canada. That pension is automatically deducted from the amount of benefits available to veterans and survivors under the war veterans allowance. Under the proposed amendments, to better assist those veterans who have served their country, the government would no longer take the disability pension into account when determining eligibility and calculating benefits under the war veterans allowance program.

Improving services for veterans is part of the pattern of our government. In the main budget, we doubled the amount available to the Last Post Fund. We have streamlined the veterans independence program to provide benefits directly to recipients of that program. Also, we have recently invested and promoted the helmets to hard hats program. That is just one more measure we have included in this recent budget.

I was at Hope Secondary School in Hope, B. C. this weekend and spoke to the graduating class there. It is a diverse community. There were a number of first nations graduates at Hope Secondary School. That is why I was pleased to see in the bill that we would provide $5 million to Indspire for post-secondary scholarships and bursaries for first nations and Inuit students. That is something that would be welcome news to the over 30 first nations in my riding and the over 10,000 individuals in my riding who are first nations.

I was speaking with Chief Robert Hope of the Yale First Nation at that graduation. He had two members from his first nation graduating there. I could see the pride he had on seeing those folks walk across the stage to get their diplomas.

Our economic action plan is working. We have had record numbers of jobs since the depths of the recession. We have cut taxes over 150 times, resulting in savings of over $3,000 for the average Canadian family of four. We continue to have the best banking sector in the world. We continue to lead the industrial world in economic growth.

Our economic action plan is working, and that is why I would ask all members of the House to support Bill C-60 so that we can continue to promote an economic plan that is working for Canadians.

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to rise tonight in support of Bill C-60, the budget implementation act.

It is important to begin with a level set, and that is that our government thrives on three foundational principles: job creation, economic growth and prosperity for all Canadians. That has been reinforced over the past couple of years, with 900,000 net new jobs established since the recession. Since taking office, our government has lowered taxes 150 times and reduced taxes for families by an average of $3,200 per Canadian family. Those are significant numbers because they speak to Canadians keeping more of their hard-earned money in their own pockets to save and spend as they choose, not as government dictates.

In economic action plan 2013, we are introducing tax relief for new manufacturing machinery and equipment, extending the temporary accelerated capital cost allowance for new investment in machinery and equipment in the manufacturing and processing sectors for an additional two years, to include investment in eligible equipment in 2014 and 2015. This will result in $562 million in tax relief to create jobs and grow companies. As a former business person in small and medium-sized businesses, I understand what it takes to establish savings in businesses to allow them to reinvest in equipment, plant and people. This measure is all about that.

I would like to quote the Ontario Liberal minister of finance, Charles Sousa, who stated, “I welcome the opportunity accelerate the capitalization and depreciation of some of their capital spend. That is going to provide further incentive for those investments. What is going to be positive is that we'll have more investment and, of course, for Ontario, we're the largest manufacturing sector in Canada. This is welcome news”.

In my riding of Don Valley West, in the heart of Ontario, that is an important factor and it is interesting to hear that from the provincial finance minister as validation of that measure.

Through economic action plan 2013, we are also closing tax loopholes, which would reinforce the integrity of our tax system. This is an important measure because it would help in our focus to balancing the budget and keeping taxes low for Canadians. We have heard lots of debate on this issue over the past day or so. Closing tax loopholes, while inconvenient to some, is important in helping to achieve our overall goals.

Supporting small Canadian business is something that economic action plan 2013 takes very seriously. We have proposed a number of key measures to support business, including extending and expanding the temporary hiring credit for small business for one year. Approximately 560,000 small businesses will benefit from this measure, allowing them to reinvest approximately $225 million in 2013.

We are increasing the lifetime capital gains exemption to $800,000, from $750,000, in 2014 and indexing it going forward. The lifetime capital gains exemption increases the rewards of investing in small businesses and making it easier for owners to transfer their family businesses to the next generation of Canadians.

In Canada, in excess of 90% of businesses are small or medium sized. Often, they are family owned and operated and succession is an important part of what they thrive on. Families like to see their businesses maintained by their families so their families can prosper and the next generations can also grow and develop under that culture. This initiative, the lifetime capital gains exemption, would help to ensure that value is maintained.

Under our government's low-tax plan for Canada, typical small businesses with taxable incomes of $500,000 have seen their tax bills drop by over 34%, or $28,600, since we were elected in 2006. There are lower corporate income taxes. In fact, in Canada today under the finance minister, we have the lowest corporate income taxes in the OECD. That is a further incentive and opportunity for businesses to thrive and prosper.

Again, I would like to read from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the CFIB, which states, “There is a surprising number of measures for small and medium-sized companies in this particular budget. They have expanded the lifetime capital gains exemption to $800,000. That is very good news. That will help a lot of entrepreneurs. The accelerated CCA will help not just large companies but small, especially in the manufacturing sector, and we think the Canada job grant actually has some real potential”.

The CFIB is a voice for small business in our country. I know, as a business person, we had a lot of respect for it in our business. I often spoke to it to find out the pulse of small business and how it felt about the economy and its businesses.

I spent a lot of time talking with small businesses as a member of the industry committee. I welcome our government's efforts to promote small Canadian business. Our government values the contribution of small businesses to the success of the Canadian economy. We will continue to support and encourage growth in this important sector.

Another area we have talked about today and have heard quite a bit about is the Canada job grant. I held a business round table in my riding of Don Valley West just this past Friday. I had a number of very successful business people come to that breakfast to talk about what they felt was a wonderful opportunity in the Canada job grant in to help to train and develop new workers and to help existing workers improve their skill sets.

The Canada job grant itself is a partnership between the federal and provincial governments and the particular business. It is important to have that partnership in place where businesses will partner with government to ensure they have a stake in getting that employee retrained.

At its full implementation, we will see 130,000 Canadian workers who need to find work to improve their skills access to that training each year. We have heard a lot of points of interest today on the Canada job grant being advertised. However, the reality is that this government, under our Prime Minister and our Minister of Finance, is delivering incentives to cause businesses to help develop their people to make them longer term, better employees by helping them increase their skill sets.

A number of consultations will be held across the country to discuss the development of the Canada job grant. I mentioned mine last week where my constituents were blown away by the program and stressed the importance of the Canada job grant being advertised, particularly so it would reach high school students. It is interesting that we are talking about whether the advertising is premature or not. People in my riding are saying that we have to get the word out to high school and university students so as soon as they graduate, they know there is an opportunity for them and companies are willing to invest in their development.

The new building Canada plan makes investments into Canada's public infrastructure to create jobs, economic growth and provide a high quality life for families in every city and community across the country. The new building Canada plan has three foundational principles.

First is the community improvement fund, which is a $32 billion infrastructure investment focused on municipalities. This will build roads, public transit, recreational facilities and other pieces of community infrastructure across Canada that will improve the quality of life of Canadian families.

Second, the new building Canada fund will contribute $14 billion in support of major economic infrastructure, projects that have national and regional significance.

Third is the renewed P3 Canada fund, which is $1.25 billion to continue finding innovative ways to build infrastructure projects faster and provide better value for Canadian taxpayers through public-private partnerships.

These are just a few of the opportunities in budget 2013, the economic action plan. I encourage the opposition to get on side. Let us get this voted through as soon as possible so these initiatives can be put into place for the benefit of all Canadians.

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked a lot about family. However, we know that Bill C-60 contains nothing to reduce household debt, which is estimated at 167% of disposable income.

I would like to know how someone can plan for a decent retirement by working an hour away from home at what might be 70% of their salary.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's speech. We are talking about the economy here today as we go through Bill C-60. It is interesting to listen to members on the other side try to paint a rosy picture about what is happening with Canada, but I will point to two key indicators that are worth paying attention to that are not being addressed by the government.

The first is productivity, which has virtually collapsed under the government. Now we are 28th out of 35 comparator countries and it is getting worse under the government. Second, is the R and D investment. The latest Science, Technology and Innovation Council report said we have dropped from 16th when the government took power in 2006 to now 23rd in terms of R and D investment.

I am wondering when the government is going to admit that its plan is not working and Canada has fallen behind.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the House of Commons to support economic action plan 2013.

This is our government's eighth budget since 2006. Over this period of time, our country has met with some unmatched economic challenges, many of which are beyond our borders. Throughout the life of this government, we have never wandered from our commitment to strengthen the economy for all Canadians and the determination to see our plan through.

Economic action plan 2013 marks the next phase in keeping that commitment to Canadians to create jobs, increase long-term prosperity while keeping taxes low for families and businesses, and balance the budget by 2015.

Economic action plan 2013 sets out a plan that I know constituents in my riding of Simcoe—Grey will benefit from this year and for years to come. Let me highlight some of the key components.

The economy and job creation remain job one for our Conservative government. That is why our major focus of economic action plan 2013 is connecting Canadians with available jobs and providing them the skills they need to fill those jobs.

To accomplish this, we have a three-point plan on skills training. First, it introduces the new Canada jobs grant that would provide up to $15,000 or more per person, including a maximum federal contribution of $5,000, to be matched by provinces, territories and employers. The grant would directly connect skills training with employers and available jobs in the current market.

Second, the plan would create opportunities for apprentices by working with provinces and territories to harmonize requirements for apprentices, and examine the use of practical, hands-on tests as a method of assessment in targeting skilled trades.

Finally, it will provide support to the groups that are under-represented on the labour market, such as persons with disabilities, young people, aboriginal peoples and newcomers, to help them find good jobs.

Our government recognizes the ongoing uncertainty in the global economy. Economic action plan 2013 announced an extension of the temporary accelerated capital cost allowance for new investments in machinery and equipment in the manufacturing and processing sector for an additional two years. This would enable manufacturing and processing companies to plan and invest over the coming years to help create jobs in a sector that was particularly hard hit by the global recession. The 50% straight-line depreciation rate would be extended for two years to include investments in eligible manufacturing and processing machinery and equipment in 2014 and 2015. By allowing a faster writeoff of eligible investments, this measure would provide concrete support to businesses in the manufacturing and processing sector to help them retool, with new machinery and equipment so that they can remain competitive in the current global environment.

What does that mean for manufacturers in Simcoe—Grey, my riding? For companies like Reinhart Foods in Stayner, it would mean significant deductions that would allow them to remain competitive. This government would enable them to continue their manufacturing and processing, and plan and invest over the coming years to help create jobs in my riding.

While job growth remains a key pillar of economic action plan 2013, our government believes that family is the foundation on which Canada rests. We have taken action to support Canadian families year after year.

The Conservative government delivered the children's fitness tax credit to help families with the cost of enrolling their children in activities and sports, as well as the children's arts tax credit. The tax-free savings account is a versatile option for parents and families, whether they are saving for a house or a vacation.

We have cut taxes over 150 times, including cutting personal income taxes and the GST, resulting in the average Canadian family of four saving over $3,200 a year.

In addition to this, we would also be enhancing the adoption expense tax credit. This government recognizes that strong and stable families are critical to Canada's long-term prosperity. Families provide children with support, community and a sense of well-being, and yet an estimated 30,000 children a year are currently in the care of child welfare agencies in Canada, waiting to be adopted.

The adoption expense tax credit recognizes costs unique to adopting a child. To provide better tax recognition of the costs incurred by those adoptive parents, economic action plan 2013 proposes to allow additional adoption-related expenses, such as fees for provincially required home studies or mandatory adoption courses, to be eligible for the credit.

Families in Simcoe—Grey who wish to adopt, many of whom I know, can now feel a little bit of that weight of adopting a child lifted off their shoulders so that they can commit to doing this. I commend the government for supporting this effort.

In order to encourage charitable giving by new donors, our government introduced the first-time donor's super credit. This tax credit would provide an additional 25% 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 had claimed the charitable donations tax credit or the first-time donor's super credit in a taxation year since 2007. The super credit could be shared between spouses and common-law partners.

What does this mean for charities in my riding? A first-time donor who gives $500 to charity would now receive $285 as a tax credit, versus $160 before. The super credit would provide an additional incentive to people who donate for the first time to benefit charities like the YMCA in Collingwood, Habitat for Humanity in Wasaga Beach, the Hospice Georgian Triangle or Matthews House in Alliston.

Getting first-time donors on board is often the most costly and challenging part of an equation on getting charitable donations. If we engage young donors and new donors, we can create a culture of giving and that can only benefit all of our communities.

Our government is also streamlining the process for providing tax relief for Canadian Armed Forces members and police officers deployed on international moderate-risk missions. This process would allow the Minister of Finance, upon the recommendation of the Minister of National Defence, or the Minister of Public Safety to designate a mission for purposes of the Income Tax Act. This would replace a lengthy process that delays timely implementation of tax relief for these families.

In my riding of Simcoe—Grey, it is extremely meaningful. For CFB Borden in Simcoe—Grey, where we have stationed thousands of men and women who support and are a part of the Canadian Armed Forces, many of whom spend time away from home on international missions, they would be able to save a little bit more and make things a little bit easier on their families left at home in Canada.

I strongly believe that all of the initiatives I mentioned will help Canada by creating a better standard of living for Canadians today and a more prosperous nation that will continue to be a world leader in the future.

I strongly believe that all the initiatives I have highlighted today would greatly benefit all the people of Canada by creating a higher standard of living for Canadians today and a more prosperous nation that will continue to be a world leader today and tomorrow.

This government's aim is to deliver the very best to Canadians. I ask all members to support the swift passage of Bill C-60 and to facilitate the implementation of Canada's economic action plan 2013. It would benefit my constituents in Simcoe—Grey and Canadians across the country.

[Corneliu Chisu, Conservative, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as members heard in my presentation, the temporary foreign worker permit legislation needs to be improved and we are doing just that in Bill C-60. I cannot say whether we need a certain number, a smaller number or a larger number of temporary foreign workers. We know the temporary foreign worker permit legislation must be fixed so that it is used as it is meant to be used.

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

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

Earlier, we said that will be voting against Bill C-60. We will vote against it because it is an omnibus bill. We also opposed Paul Martin's omnibus bill in the 1990s.

However, I do have a question. I would like to know when the Conservatives will stop haphazardly slashing the budgets of the economic development agencies for Canada's regions.

[Corneliu Chisu, Conservative, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak in the House tonight on behalf of my constituents of Pickering—Scarborough East to Bill C-60, the jobs, growth and long-term prosperity act.

As a professional engineer, I highly support the bill, as it would truly provide a concrete foundation addressing real Canadian issues and would build Canada's future economic strength for many years to come, in order to maintain our country as one of the best places in the world to live, raise a family, work and start a business.

My expertise in the engineering profession and service in the army engineers has allowed me to explore this bill from various aspects. Bill C-60 focuses on the well-being of Canadians, and as a member I can assure the House that it includes a variety of measures to implement certain provisions contained in Canada's economic action plan 2013.

My constituents in Pickering—Scarborough East are supportive of Bill C-60 as it addresses some of the key issues that they have been facing.

As we all know, youth have been financially neglected in our system for a long time by previous governments. Canadian youth are struggling to find jobs within their area of study. Our Conservative government has a plan for young Canadians seeking employment in the job market. Our Conservative government understands the needs of today's youth population and has proposed to provide $18 million in funding in multi-year support for the Canadian Youth Business Foundation to enable the foundation to continue supporting young entrepreneurs between the ages of 18 and 34. This would not only be an opportunity for young people to grow in their career-oriented horizons but would also help to boost our Canadian economy, leading young Canadians toward innovation.

Just to give an example, the Canadian Youth Business Foundation has worked with 5,600 new entrepreneurs, helping to create 22,100 new jobs across Canada. This plan is working and will work for Canadian youth; they are the leaders of tomorrow. The New Democrats indeed have some ideas, but they are not delivering accordingly to the needs of our Canadian youth.

Furthermore, Canada's temporary foreign worker program needs reform in order to ensure clearly and without doubt that Canadians are given first chance for available jobs. This is an issue that my constituents in the riding of Pickering—Scarborough East are concerned about, and Bill C-60 is addressing it. This program provides employers with access to foreign workers on a temporary basis to assist sectors and areas that experience labour shortages. Reform should ensure that this program is used in the way it was intended and not otherwise.

In this connection, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act also needs to be amended. It needs to provide authority to revoke work permits issued by Citizenship and Immigration Canada and to suspend and revoke labour market opinions provided by Human Resources and Skills Development Canada if an employer is found to be misusing the program.

In addition, under economic action plan 2013, the Government of Canada announced that it will be introducing user fees for employers applying to hire temporary foreign workers through the labour market opinion process. The government would use existing regulatory authority and would establish authority for a privilege fee in respect of work permits. This would ensure that taxpayers no longer subsidize the cost of processing these applications.

Many constituents in my riding are supporting this amendment, which is designed to avoid abuses of well-intended legislation.

Many newcomers reside in my riding of Pickering—Scarborough East. For these newcomers, becoming a Canadian citizen is a significant milestone, creating stronger bonds to the economic, cultural and social fabric of Canada. I am pleased to see that economic action plan 2013 is aiding in ensuring a flexible and robust citizenship program. I have volunteered and lectured at many citizenship classes in my riding and surrounding ridings, and I am aware of the waiting times and the program's increasing costs.

The citizenship application fee has not been adjusted for almost 20 years. The current $200 fee only covers 20% of the actual cost to process a citizenship application, which means that our Canadian taxpayers are subsidizing 80% of the actual processing costs. The Citizenship Act would be amended to provided the expanded authority for the Governor in Council to make regulations respecting fees for services provided in the administration of the Citizenship Act and for the waiver of such fees.

The enactments would also provide that the User Fees Act would not apply to fees for services delivered in the administration of the Citizenship Act. This would indeed serve both newcomers and taxpayers, and fix mistakes made by past governments.

Canadians want clean, reliable and safe energy. That is why our Conservative government has proposed, through Bill C-60, amendments to the Nuclear Safety and Control Act.

In my riding of Pickering—Scarborough East, we rely on the Pickering nuclear generating station for safe and clean power. The aforementioned reform would allow the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission to continue to protect the health, safety and security of Canadians and would provide reassurance of Canada's international commitment to the peaceful use of nuclear technology for power production.

The problem right now is that with the current fee structure, payments are collected from licence holders to support regulatory activities that may take place in a subsequent fiscal year. If this is the case, the dues received but not used can result in a lapse at the end of a fiscal year. The legislative amendment would provide the commission with the authority to carry forward unspent revenues collected through licence fees from one fiscal year to the next.

As an engineer, it is easy for me to see that this reform would allow all of my constituents to be assured that their health, safety and security would be protected at all times and that there would be no financial difficulties for the commission in order to do its job to its full ability.

Canadians want concrete actions and ideas on how to keep the economy on track and create jobs and prosperity for their families, not empty statements or promises. That is why our Conservative government introduced economic action plan 2013 to amend parts of the Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act, 2011.

The amendments would allow for a series of increases, starting in 2014-15, to the sum that may be paid under this statute for the purposes of the gas tax fund. Currently that sum sits at $2 billion a year, and it is proposed that the amount be raised by $100 million when an underlying calculation, the initial sum of $2 billion increased annually by 2%, reaches the next $100 million threshold.

Canada's gas tax fund provides predictable, long-term funding for Canadian municipalities to help them build and revitalize public infrastructure that achieves positive environmental results. More specifically, the fund supports municipal infrastructure projects that contribute to cleaner air or water or to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and fall into the following categories: drinking water, waste water infrastructure, public transit, community energy systems, solid waste management and local roads.

Our Conservative government has put forth logical reforms in Bill C-60 that will make Canada continue to be a beacon of enlightenment, freedom and prosperity the world over.

I rise today to ask all members of this House to join me in voting in favour of this measure so that Canadians can continue to prosper.

The measures I have highlighted today are significant examples of this government's commitment to a strong economy and responsible management in the name of all Canadians. The commitment represents our longer-term view of how we can become more efficient and more prudent with taxpayers' hard-earned money. The steps we take today will indeed give us the tools and strength to withstand challenges that we may face in the near future.

This is why I say that our Conservative government's focus has been planning according to what Canadians are asking us to do, and implementing Canada's economic action plan 2013 through Bill C-60 will achieve exactly that. To me, it is obvious that Canadians from St. John's to Yellowknife to Vancouver Island, including those in Pickering—Scarborough East, will benefit from the policies this bill lays out.

This is a reminder of what we are here to do first and foremost, which is to represent our constituents. Therefore, let us pass Bill C-60 for prosperity. Let us pass this bill not because it helps us sitting in this chamber today, but because Canadians need it. Canada needs this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on behalf my riding, Sherbrooke, to speak to Bill C-60. The budget was brought down in March. The budget implementation bill, which is 100 or so pages long this time, followed.

We might say this is a small budget implementation bill compared to the last two, which were 400 pages each. However, if we look at the history of budget implementation bills, we realize that a 100-page bill is still quite voluminous. This approach does not allow parliamentarians to do their job properly and analyze the bill in detail.

In the Conservative government's last two budget implementation bills, there were hundreds and hundreds of pages of measures that were not necessarily related to the budget. Are the Conservatives afraid of public opinion? Is that why they rush to pass measures in a document that is so voluminous that it is hard, even for experts, to see all the details in it? That is my theory, but I think most of my opposition colleagues see it that way as well.

I am somewhat sad to speak to this bill for a number of reasons, including the fact that this budget contains a lot of bad news. It would take a long time to rhyme it all off, but I will mention a few items that affect my riding in my speech.

As the member for Sherbrooke, I am obviously here to talk about the impact that this bill could have on my riding and on the beautiful city of Sherbrooke, the capital of the Eastern Townships. Sherbrooke is a fairly large city that has a population of 160,000 and many needs. I am honoured to serve the city in this House.

I would also like to mention the correspondence that I received from the people in my riding on various subjects. I will talk about those subjects today, since they garnered the most attention from the people of Sherbrooke, even though it may have been for the wrong reasons.

In a question I asked my colleague earlier, I talked about the Treasury Board's political interference in crown corporations' negotiations. In the last budget implementation bill, we learned that the President of the Treasury Board was going to give himself the right to interfere in the business of our crown corporations, for example the CBC. This crown corporation is a fairly well known entity in the field of journalism, and it must be as independent as possible. It is vital that the CBC, more than any other crown corporation, be independent.

The government would interfere primarily in negotiations with CBC employees, which include journalists. According to many people and even witnesses who came to comment on the budget, this is a direct attack on the CBC, as well as on other crown corporations, such as Canada Post and VIA Rail, and the list goes on.

This measure will make it possible for the Treasury Board to give guidelines to administrators of crown corporations and tell them how they should manage and pay their employees or how they should manage their day-to-day operations. Earlier, I mentioned negotiations with employees of this crown corporation, and then there is the announced $115 million in cuts to the CBC, which is another Conservative attack on our crown corporation. Unfortunately, that is $115 million less that the crown corporation has to do its job.

There is another topic that has been the subject of a lot of talk in my riding, and that is the elimination of the tax advantage that was offered by labour-sponsored funds, such as the Fonds de solidarité FTQ and the CSN—the most well-known funds in Quebec.

According to the figures, the government will save $350 million by eliminating this tax advantage. It will save $350 million, including $312 million in Quebec alone. It is no coincidence that we have been hearing from the media and other sources that this is a direct attack on Quebeckers. In Sherbrooke, there is an FTQ office just a few metres away from my office.

Labour-sponsored funds, such as the Fonds de solidarité FTQ, allow the workers who participate in the fund to invest in small and medium-sized businesses. These workers are encouraged to do so because they receive a 15% tax advantage from the federal government. This tax advantage does not exist for other savings plans, such as ordinary RRSPs, which are done through banks. Investors would choose to go through a labour-sponsored fund to make use of the tax advantage. The government now wants to make some gradual cuts. Labour-sponsored funds will no longer be able to offer that advantage. They will unfortunately have to fight even harder with the banks to compete for investors.

The direct investments made in the regions of Quebec through these funds enabled small and medium-sized businesses to start up and helped other businesses to keep jobs. This is really a shame. Many people have reacted to this, and that is why I want to condemn it. I hope that the government will pay close attention to this issue. As I said, there will be negative repercussions, particularly for Quebec, because it is the province with the most labour-sponsored funds.

Another issue that my office has received a lot of correspondence about is the merger of the Canadian International Development Agency, or CIDA, with the Department of Foreign Affairs. People in Sherbrooke are very concerned about this. Like me, they wonder how Canada's economic and trade interests, which fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of Foreign Affairs, can be reconciled with CIDA's humanitarian aid mandate. I hope that CIDA will continue to deliver that aid despite cuts to its budget. How can the two be reconciled? How can the government believe that everything will be fine, that there will be no problem when it merges the two? Many people in Sherbrooke are deeply concerned about this.

Another issue we have been getting a lot of feedback about since the budget was tabled is the higher tariffs on some commercial goods. Countries that want to export their goods to Canada will have to pay higher tariffs that will apply to hundreds of thousands of consumer goods.

As the member for Sherbrooke, it is clear to me that higher tariffs are in fact a new tax, a hidden tax. There is no need to study economics for years to realize that if the cost of exporting goods to Canada goes up, companies will raise the retail prices of the goods they export to Canada. In the end, Canadians will pay more.

Canadians, including the people of Sherbrooke, will have to pay an estimated $8 billion more because of the Conservatives' tariff increase. That is in addition to higher costs for hospital parking and the attack on credit unions, such as Desjardins, which is a pillar of the community in Sherbrooke. There is one on nearly every corner. That is yet another thing the Conservatives have taken aim at.

I will be happy to answer my colleagues' questions.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I take exception to the degrading tone of the member's intervention. He has brought debate down a level with some of his characterizations about whether they are Conservative initiatives or the rationale behind them.

We put forward a budget in good faith, with lots of consultation, particularly on the infrastructure aspects, with municipalities of all sizes. Bill C-60, which the member opposite, unfortunately, will vote against, would implement the indexation of the gas tax fund. That would be immediate and it sets out the formula going forward for how it would be indexed and increased. Whether it is a small municipality or a large-tier municipality, they are all going to get an instant injection of infrastructure funds that they can put into their priorities right away. I am very sad the New Democrats will oppose that.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Essex for that mixed bag of Conservative talking points on Bill C-60.

My question is on the part of his speech that had to do with infrastructure. If possible, I would like the response not to start with “There has never been a government that has done more for infrastructure”, because, really, if the measure the Conservatives are putting forward does not fix the problem, then we are hardly any further ahead.

The program was originally supposed to be for seven years and now the government is extending it to 10 years without doing the math and increasing the amount of money allocated to the program so that the objectives are at least maintained. What is more, most of the money will be spent at the end of the program instead of at the beginning.

Does the hon. member not see that this is basically a cut disguised as a new program?

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today not only in support of economic action plan 2013 but of Bill C-60, our budget implementation bill.

We come to a discussion about the economic action plan in this bill at a time when our economy is creating job growth in quarter one in 2013 at a very robust 2.5%. There is an adjustment to quarter-four growth last year. We have now had seven consecutive quarters of growth. In total, we have well over 900,000 net new jobs, 90% of them full-time, with 75% to 80% of them in the private sector. All of that is just since July 2009, which was the depth of the recession.

The IMF and OECD have predicted that Canada will experience some of the strongest growth in the G7 projecting out quite a way. We have the lowest overall tax rate on new businesses in the G7. That is a serious competitive advantage for the country. We also have the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7, by a country mile, as we would say in Essex, or two, in this case. We are headed to pre-recession levels in due course. We have a deficit that has just come in lower than forecast and a sterling AAA credit rating with all of the major credit rating agencies.

Of course, we recognize that when we look to Europe and south of the border, or from where I live, north of the border, to the United States, there is more to do. There are still very real threats in the global economic landscape. That is why we need economic action plan 2013 and why we need to get on with the business of implementing the economic action plan here with Bill C-60.

It is important to put economic action plan 2013 in the context that it builds on previous work we have been undertaking. For those of us in the auto sector, which is where my roots are, we had a national auto strategy in 2008, including the creation of the auto innovation fund. Now we have the renewal of the auto innovation fund after major investments to create jobs.

The growing forward 2 program builds on growing forward 1, which was to strengthen the farm gate. Growing forward 2 is targeted at the food processing industry to get the sector into the export markets and to expand it and create jobs.

We had the original build Canada plan in 2007, which was $33 billion. Later we had the gas tax fund, which we made permanent just a couple of years ago. The new infrastructure plan in economic action plan 2013 would be long term. Included in Bill C-60 is the fact that we would begin to index the gas tax fund. We lay that program out in the bill.

With respect to a new border crossing between Windsor and Detroit, which is a vital economic lifeline, if we look back at past budgets, we lay aside the funding for the Herb Gray Parkway, which is currently under construction. Those funds allowed us to go ahead and acquire the land on the Canadian side for customs and the toll plaza. In this budget, funds are set aside that will help us begin some land acquisition over there, now that there is a presidential permit on the U.S. side.

We are also building on our elimination of red tape and are streamlining the regulatory regime to spur economic growth. I could go on and on, but I want to focus on a few measures that I think are extremely important. If we look first of all at the Canada job grant, we are tackling the skills mismatch, which is a critical problem we face in the labour market.

Even in Windsor-Essex, where we have had chronically high unemployment for a number of years, we have a machine tool, die and mould sector, for example, in which we have hundreds of jobs that have been open and unfilled. Many of them have been unfilled for as many as six months or more. Why is that? It is because those who may be unemployed in that area, and who may even have good skills, do not necessarily have the appropriate skills.

We know this from experience in Ontario. We can look at the second careers program, which retrained a lot of unemployed workers through the recession and out of it. People were training to be chefs and truck drivers. These are not unimportant jobs, but they are not hitting the labour market as it exists. The great benefit and the beauty of the idea of the Canada job grant is that it would put the employer, who has an actual opening and a plan for short-term training, at the centre of the equation to meaningfully train someone in a specific job to fill that opening. That is a major step forward.

I also like the fact that we are embarking on a major long-term infrastructure plan. That is extremely important for municipalities. As I said earlier, the gas tax fund has been made permanent. In this economic action plan, we did not stop there. We are going to be indexing that fund at 2%, and then in increments of $100 million.

If members talked to any municipality, including rural municipalities like ours, they would find that this is vital. Municipalities can borrow against it if they want to build a project now, because it is permanent and they know what the transfers will be. They can pool it and wait, if the municipalities choose to do that. They can apply these funds to their own priorities with respect to their local infrastructure.

The government is expanding the categories for the municipalities so that they can do more with that particular funding Maybe the municipalities have already invested heavily in upgrading their waste water infrastructure, as they have in Amherstburg, and it may be time to move on to something different. Those funds can be used in those ways.

I am surprised that the opposition is not supporting that. Bill C-60 lays out a schedule for indexing and a formula for how that is going to occur. It will be a significant blow to municipalities to find out that not everyone in the House is going to be casting a vote in favour of that.

The economic action plan is also really important because there are a lot of tools for the economy in Ontario, particularly southern Ontario, where I come from. We are still concerned about the economy in Ontario. The provincial government is pursuing high-tax policies that have driven up the cost of electricity, which used to underwrite the strong manufacturing sector in Ontario. Our businesses are grappling with that as they try to function in a global economy.

I am encouraging our provincial counterparts not only to get on board with the Canada job grant, in terms of better retraining, but to follow the example we have been setting with consecutive budgets, including this one, by lowering taxes.

In Bill C-60, we extend the accelerated capital cost allowance for an additional two years. That is critical. It is allowing our auto sector and our food processors in Ontario, which happen to be the largest manufacturing sectors in Ontario, to retool and invest in the equipment they need to not only increase their productivity but to lower their costs over the long term.

We are renewing the auto innovation fund, as I briefly mentioned earlier. It is a critical fund as we look to secure the automotive footprint in North America. I have to say that for a government that participated on behalf of taxpayers in restructuring Chrysler and General Motors, the auto industry is coming back with pent-up demand. They have a business case that works. A fund like this will allow them to tap in and help with creating jobs for innovative products that are rolling off the assembly line.

We have extended FedDev Ontario an additional five years to help diversify the economy. That is a significant step forward. The creation of an advanced manufacturing fund is going to really help in that regard as well.

The promised overhaul of the National Research Council to commercialize research and development is important to the sector but in a way that is going to allow small and medium-sized businesses that may not be able to develop the in-house R and D capability to access all of this great public infrastructure we have built through successive investments in our science and technology fund. To be able to do that to create jobs is a very good thing.

The one item I want to close with is one that is personally important me. It is the expansion of the adoption expenses tax credit. Many will know, since my Motion 386 of a couple of years ago and the study on federal support for adoptive parents and children, that this has been an area of passion for me. It would look at families who choose the path of adoption. There would be a recognition in our budget that there are 30,000 children waiting to be adopted in Canada.

This is a measure that would allow some of those costs to be underwritten or subsidized to get more of these children into the loving permanence they need. I encourage the opposition to get behind measures like this and get behind the economy and support Bill C-60.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-60 at report stage, the government bill that would implement the legislative aspects of the government's budgetary plan.

What I have been hearing from the constituents in Wellington—Halton Hills, the riding I represent, is that their number one priority remains economic growth and job creation.

I have talked to hundreds of constituents over the last six months or so on my drives back to the riding, and called them and asked them what their priorities are, over the last half year. Consistently, they have said that they want to see the government remain focused on economic issues, that they are still concerned about job creation and economic growth. I am happy to say that this budget would deliver on those concerns.

I think it is useful to take a step back from the immediate events that have taken place in the last year and take a bit of a broader perspective on the budget.

Since September 2008, the world has changed. It is clear that the global recession that hit us is still with us in many respects. Even though the contraction of economic growth is not there globally, many of the aftereffects of that recession that took place in the aftermath of September 2008, in the summer of 2009, are still with us today. Canada has weathered those aftereffects better than most other advanced economies in the world. I think it is useful to take a look at what happened over the last five or six years, to put things into perspective.

In 2009, the IMF said it would be the first time since the 1930s that the global economy would actually contract. South of the border, in the United States, we saw a housing market that underwent a severe correction, affecting many homeowners.

In Europe, we saw the crisis that is still unfolding, a eurozone crisis of skyrocketing unemployment. In fact, I think the most recent figures for the eurozone show eurozone unemployment reaching a new high of about 12%. We have unemployment in Spain hitting 25%. Youth unemployment is almost double that level. We had a sovereign debt crisis about a year ago in Greece that almost led to a solvency problem. We have had ongoing austerity measures, deep austerity measures, that have taken place in the rest of the eurozone.

Yet, we in Canada have managed to escape the worst of some of those aftereffects. I think it is because the government, in late 2008 and early 2009, realized that we had to do things differently. We came forward with an economic action plan. This budget would build upon those economic action plans of the last five or six years.

I think the proof is in the evidence. The proof is in the empirical data. The fact is that since the recession, the global recession and the recession here in Canada, ended in the summer of 2009, more than 950,000 net new jobs have been created. Contrary to many people's misperceptions, most of those jobs have been full time, 90% of them, and most of those full-time jobs have been good, highly skilled and highly paid jobs.

Do not take it just from me. Take it from the IMF and the OECD, which have said that this year Canada will lead the G7 in economic growth. In fact, the World Economic Forum has rated Canada's banks as the soundest in the world for the last four or five years.

Clearly, our plan has been working. It is has been working, in part, because of the government's actions through its budgets of the last four years or so, five years. It has worked, in part, because of actions taken by Canadians and the Canadian private sector.

I think it would also be useful to take a step back and take a look at this budget as one would review a set of financial statements. There has been a lot of talk about our deficits, about our debt to GDP ratios, about the government's taxation policy.

However, if we break down the budget, the government's budget, the government's financial position is a set of three financial statements. Look at the cash flow, look at the balance sheet and look at the profit and loss statement. I think there again we can say that Canada is in an excellent position.

In terms of our cash flow, clearly, we have no problems in servicing the national debt we have. In fact, I just checked on the quotes today. The Canada 10-year bond is trading at just above 2% yield. That yield is at almost a record low level. Never in the last 40 or 50 years have we seen the Canada 10-year bond trade at such a low yield.

Why is that? It is because investors want to buy Canada bonds. They have faith and confidence in the financial plan of the government, and there is high demand for these bonds, which indicates a great deal of investor confidence and investor faith in the government's financial plan.

The fact that all the major rating agencies have once again reaffirmed the Canada bond AAA rating is also proof that, from a cash flow perspective, we have nothing to worry about.

From a balance sheet perspective, our debt to GDP ratio is currently about 33%. If we look back at the history of our debt to GDP ratio, it has not been this low since the mid-1960s. In the period from the mid-1960s to the mid-1980s our debt to GDP was at or below 33%, and we would have to go back much further, back to the first 20 years of the 20th century to see Canada's debt to GDP ratio at that level.

If we take our debt interest to GDP ratio, there again it has not been this low since the early part of the 20th century, so from a balance sheet perspective, we are also in great shape.

If we look at the government's budgetary plan as a profit and loss statement, this year's deficit is projected to be $19 billion. That represents 1.2% of our GDP, the lowest in the G7. There again, it is an excellent figure.

As we have committed many times, we will eliminate this deficit by 2015-16. In fact, in the fiscal year 2015-16, we project a slight budgetary surplus, and we have done this despite the fact that over the last six years since coming to power, the government has significantly reduced personal and corporate income taxation in this country, and we have committed to balancing this budget without raising corporate or personal income taxes.

From a cash flow perspective, from a balance sheet perspective, from a profit and loss perspective, the government's budgetary plan is working and it is prudent.

I would also like to highlight specific measures in the budget. We have the Canada jobs grant, which would be built on the expiry of the labour market agreements that have been negotiated with the provinces and are to expire next year, in 2014.

Clearly, when we look at the macro unemployment picture in this country, we see we have regions of significantly higher unemployment and regions of significantly lower unemployment—in fact, one would argue, naturally zero unemployment in some parts of the country—and we need to better match labour market demand with unemployed Canadians who are looking for work. The Canada jobs grant is precisely the plan that would help us match employers with Canadians who want to work.

Another significant aspect of this budget that I want to highlight is the record-setting investments that the government would make over the next 10 years in infrastructure. In fact, total federal outlays for infrastructure, beginning in 2014-15, would be $70 billion over that 10-year period. That is a record amount of infrastructure money that this government would commit to, which would flow to municipalities and provinces, to help build the infrastructure requirements of tomorrow.

Finally, I want to highlight the fact that we are also very focused on job creation and economic growth, especially for Canada's small to medium-sized businesses. That is why we would extend the hiring credit for small businesses. That is why we would create a fund of $60 million over the next five years to help incubator and accelerator organizations, and that is why also we would create an advanced manufacturing fund to help manufacturers in southern Ontario who have borne the brunt of the recession.

In sum, this is a good budget, a budget I support. I encourage other members in the House to acknowledge some of the good aspects of the budget. I do not expect them to support it, being in opposition, but I do think that some of the good work the government has done over the last number of years that would be carried on in this current budget needs to be acknowledged. It has put Canada in an enviable position in the G7 and in the OECD, and I encourage members on both sides of the aisle to acknowledge that good work and commend the government for it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to debate Bill C-60, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures.

Once again, the Conservatives did not allow a single amendment to their bill in committee. Now we are at report stage in the House, and the bill is deeply flawed. Nevertheless, it will be passed as is if the Liberal Party's amendments at report stage are rejected. Even though the Conservatives are not listening, I would like to use my time to explain how this bill will affect Quebec's economy.

All Quebeckers—except for the Conservative MPs, who are loath to lift a finger for Quebec—are scandalized by the elimination of the tax credit for labour-sponsored funds. Driven by their ideology, the Conservatives have decided to gradually eliminate the tax credit for contributions to labour-sponsored funds because they want to hurt unions. The credit will drop from 15% to 10% on March 1, 2015, then from 10% to 5% on March 1, 2016, and it will be eliminated altogether on March 1, 2017.

The Conservatives used a June 2012 study by the OECD to justify this attack on unions. The study recommended eliminating the tax credit for labour-sponsored funds because they offered lower returns than private funds. The study, however, was based on analyses from the early 2000s, and it is a poor reflection of Quebec's reality, which is much different from the rest of Canada's.

Quebeckers are dismayed at this change. The Conservatives might be surprised to hear that it is not the unions crying foul at the government's decision; it is chambers of commerce across the province. They are all united in sounding the alarm. A brief look at the statistics shows why.

This tax credit affects Quebec directly because take-up in our province is 85%. These very popular funds are a huge help to small and medium-sized businesses. They are a staple of Quebec's economy and retirement savings. According to the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Montreal, labour-sponsored funds have helped create or maintain over 35,000 jobs.

Venture capital is plentiful in Quebec. According to the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Montreal, if we look at the province's venture capital-to-GDP ratio, Quebec ranks third among OECD member countries and is well above the Canadian average. Having access to venture capital is vital to the start-up of many companies. Given that there is generally less entrepreneurship in Quebec than in the rest of Canada, we have to understand that putting another obstacle in the way of starting up businesses could be devastating to Quebec's economy.

Labour-sponsored funds generally make long-term investments in businesses. This allows entrepreneurs to start up a company and keep it going until it turns a profit, which can take a number of years. These funds generally also invest in smaller-scale projects than private funds, which makes it possible to help businesses that would not otherwise obtain any funding.

We know that these funds complement private funds rather than compete against them. Together, they allow Quebec to have a competitive economy and, above all, to be one of the most creative places in the world.

I have to speak out against the elimination of the tax credit for labour-sponsored funds and also the phasing-out of funding for Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions.

Last year, the government said that cuts to the organization's operating budget would result in reductions in administrative costs, but not transfers. However, transfers to businesses will be at their lowest level since the law was enacted to establish the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec in 2005.

For example, in 2005, $286 million was paid out in transfers. In 2010-11, $424 million was paid out. The Conservatives plan to pay out only $212 million in 2013-14.

Taking inflation into account, we quickly realize that the Conservatives are also looking to gradually eliminate the agency. As I previously asked here in the House, will the Conservatives stand up and tell us clearly what they intend to do with Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions? Are they planning on abolishing it, as they are doing with the tax credit for labour-sponsored funds? Many Quebec businesses need this government assistance. What is the Conservative plan? Why do most of their cuts directly target Quebec?

Another serious problem with this bill is that it calls into question the autonomy of crown corporations, including CBC/Radio-Canada, Canada Post and VIA Rail. Everyone knows that the Conservatives like to control everything and they never hesitate to extend the scope of this control. Many Canadians are justifiably concerned about this government's lack of transparency.

In my case, since this bill was introduced I have received five times more correspondence on this issue than on any others.

The government now wants to interfere in the collective bargaining process. It is talking about reducing the compensation of crown corporation employees, including their pensions.

I do not understand why Conservatives have such a rigid ideology. With this budget, they are taking advantage of their majority position to impose their vision on Canadians. This budget is openly hostile to workers, including employees of crown corporations.

Another major concern about this bill is that it does not do enough to stimulate the economy, particularly with regard to youth unemployment. We all know that young people have been hit hard by the economic crisis. Today, their unemployment rate is 5% higher than before the economic crisis. It is very disconcerting. As we speak, young people have just finished or are finishing up their semester. They racked up debt all year long in order to pay for tuition, housing, food and other things. However, they will have a hard time finding a summer job. For them, the summer is the only time when they can put a bit of money in their pockets.

If they do not get a job this summer, some young people will have to drop out of school temporarily or permanently only to, quite often, end up working for minimum wage. Many will not be able to resume their studies because they will not have the money to pay for another year of school. Those who pursue their studies anyway will have to tighten their belts, which will have an adverse economic impact. They will consume less this summer, which will decrease revenues for a number of businesses.

I am asking my Conservative colleagues: where are the measures for boosting youth employment? Where is the government's vision for young people? There is nothing for them in this budget, just bad news for their future.

I could go on and on about many other aspects of the budget that concern me. I raised a number of points at second reading. I raised more today, and I will raise even more at third reading.

Although there are some points I agree with, there are many I do not agree with. I am particularly concerned about the tax hikes, but I will not have time to talk about that issue.

In general, this bill and the government's economic action plan are tainted with a narrow ideology that does not support workers' rights. This ideology would have them control everything, even when the Supreme Court tells the government it cannot do something, as was the case with the securities commission.

This budget is not designed to stimulate the economy. Instead, it is designed to transform Canada into the Conservatives' vision for Canada. This is not a budget for Canadians. It is a budget for the Conservatives.

We will vote for Canadians and we will vote against this budget.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on the point the member made in reference to the process in committees.

In bringing in time allocation, the government likes to say that it has allocated the bill out to six committees to have thorough debate and discussion. I sit on the citizenship and immigration committee. When the bill came before our committee, the Liberal Party was given a full 10 minutes to deal with the changes that were being implemented in this budget. A full 10 minutes, which means 5 minutes of questioning with 5 minutes of answers. It did not quite work out to 5 and 5, but the point is it is only 10 minutes.

The question I have for the member is in regard to the manner in which the government is pushing through Bill C-60. It is very anti-democratic, as it continues to rely on time allocation and prevents individuals from being able to speak out and giving their concerns and ideas. The member made reference to amendments, which the government does not respond to, whether by allowing for proper time or considering positive changes that are being suggested.

Does the member want to provide comment on that?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-60. I know you have been in the House a number of times when I had a chance to talk about the border and you will hear more about that. The previous member did mention what was taking place with the Windsor-Detroit corridor, with a new public border crossing being created.

There have been some positive steps that have taken place, which have been supported by all parties in the House for the most part. However, some decisions need to be made for the future. Unfortunately, the Conservative government is exposing the new border crossing to some potential issues.

We all know that there has been a challenge with Matty Moroun, who is the owner of the Ambassador Bridge. He has private American ownership. Basically, there are around 25 international bridges and tunnels between Canada and the United States and only two are held in the private sector, the Ambassador Bridge and the AbitibiBowater Bridge in Fort Francis and International Falls.

Why is this important for the Windsor-Detroit corridor?

For those who do not know, in the riding that I represent there are four crossings that span around two miles which represent approximately 40% of the daily trade to the Untied States. However, with 34 states having Canada as their number one trading partner, this key system of infrastructure has yet to be addressed with the border authority. A border authority would help with the efficiency of our trade. It would allow goods and services to travel more freely and in a better organized fashion.

From the far west, we have the Hazmat Truck Ferry. There is the Ambassador bridge, which takes just over 30% of the daily trade. There is the Detroit-Windsor rail tunnel, which is an aging piece of infrastructure, but hopefully a new one will be coming. However, I am not sure we will have support for that right now from the government. We are waiting to see the decision on that and if the application process will still go forward. Last, we have the Windsor-Detroit tunnel which has mostly vehicles that go through it and some trucks make use of it as well.

The reason I mention this is because the Conservative government is embarking on a public-private partnership for the border. However, the government is not going with the agreement that is normally uses for infrastructure improvements on other bridges and crossings, which is needed to exercise leveraged borrowing through public bonds, such as they do in the U.S. This is one of the ways in which the Americans have gone about their process for twinning infrastructure pieces in the past and look to that for future developments. The Peace Bridge and the Blue Water Bridge are two examples of that. Those areas also have a border authority.

However, we have yet to see the details of the management of our new border crossing, but the public-private partnership the Conservatives are proposing could be fraught with issues, which I have raised. We will have to use a carrot-stick approach and see whether someone from the private sector will bid on it.

It will be a very ambitious project because the bridge will have to span across the Detroit River, yet it has to have enough carriage space underneath to allow transport freighters go through. This is one of the busiest waterways in the world for freighters and private boats. It is very important that the proposal does not touch the Detroit water, that it is a different type of bridge from one that has footings in the water, otherwise the IJC is triggered and it will take much longer.

The reason I bring all that up is, again, the public-private partnership, which is a challenge with regard to our process because it is not vetted. We have gone through this before for our border crossing and I am really concerned that we will need major incentives which would raise the tolls, and the tolls are an additional tax on citizens. There is no doubt about that.

There is a difference between a public and private partnership. Recently, the city of Windsor successfully sued for its portion of the tunnel. We were in a relationship there, but the operator and owner of the tunnel kept it past the 50-year date line that they were supposed to and kept the proceeds as well. When I was on city council, the mayor, Mike Hurst, successfully sued. We found a document showing that the owner had to return the tunnel to the public. However, we found the state of the tunnel in such disrepair that we had to put millions of dollars into it right away just for it to be safe. The private sector had a different model, which was basically to sponge every nickel out of the thing. The result was it did not put the maintenance money into it.

Now successfully operating under the city of Windsor, it provides a revenue stream to the city for infrastructure and other projects and it has been fixed up and repaired.

Interestingly, the private sector on the other side of the border, which owns the lease agreements from the city of Detroit, actually charges more money for crossing than what we charge on the Canadian side. Again, it is going to squeeze everything it can. In fact, it does not even have parity in terms of money, despite the dollar being close to parity with the United States over a number of years. That is one of the issues I want to touch on a bit later.

I will leave it at that for the border, but we are a far way from being done and the public–private partnership that we have is a big exposure because the finances are not allocated right at this time.

As New Democrats, we have been raising questions about the process that has taken place for this budget bill and what has happened. It is important that I lay out a bit about why we believe the process is so broken and it is one of the reasons the Conservatives are going back to fix things that they tried to fix in the last budget bills.

A number of years ago, it was the Paul Martin administration under the Liberals that started to add components of legislation in the budget bill. “Omnibus bills” is what they are specifically known as and they have a number of different things that are travelling with the bill that would normally have an independent process. That is important because this is similar to what the Americans call “riders”, where they attach all kinds of unusual things as they cut deals to try to get the budget passed, so all kinds of pet projects and things will go through.

The issues we are dealing with in this budget bill are very serious. We have the Immigration Act, the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Act, the Investment Canada Act, to say a few, that in the budget bill as opposed to having a full vetting at committees.

The committee systems are important. At a committee we have a number of different individuals who will be invited to come forward, provide their testimony and then from there we get experts and we really hash it out. Sometimes there is actually support for legislation and for changes or we find mistakes in bills that were put forth accidentally. Not all legislation is drafted in a pristine manner and will pass the test of metal, so it requires amendments. Amendments will be made, voted on and then returned here to this chamber. That is the normal process and usually it takes a bit longer, but at the same time it makes for better legislation. Unfortunately, all these different things have been put in front of us.

The committees that the budget bill has gone to have been the finance committee, the industry committee, the citizenship and immigration committee, the human resources and skills development committee, the veterans affairs committee and the foreign affairs and international development committee. Through that process, despite looking at spending billions of dollars, there were 33 amendments by the New Democrats, 8 by the Liberals and zero from the Conservatives. Therefore, what we see is a budget bill that will go through with very little debate and expert review.

I would just make one other point with regard to the finances in the budget. The budget continues on a reckless path of cutting revenues without increasing the access to supports that we need to pay for some of them. This is what I am referring to with regard to corporate tax cuts that continue. We are borrowing money and we will be paying interest on those corporate tax cuts because we do not have a surplus right now. Therefore, we are taking resources out of our system and paying a premium for them at a time when we should not be doing that.

That is how the HST was brought in. I commissioned an independent paper that looked at the HST when we had to borrow $6 billion to do so and if we got back to a surplus and paid it off in 10 years, as an independent paper estimated, we would spend around $8 billion to bring it in. Therefore, when we are going to pay a premium for something, we had better get something of value out of it and I do not think we are.

This budget continues subsidies for the oil and gas industry. It supports tax reductions for banks, insurance companies and others that certainly are making a profit right now.

We need to make better decisions.

[José Nunez-Melo, NDP, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I must admit that when I was asked to prepare a speech on Bill C-60, I was quite interested because many of the proposed measures in the budget concern the municipality of Laval. Laval needs infrastructure and certain changes. I felt this was a good opportunity.

However, this morning, just before oral question period, the government once again cavalierly imposed time allocation on this bill. This reminded me of a session of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development that I attended. Some witnesses were clearly saying that the government was not on the right track when it came to its proposals for aid to developing countries, including wanting to merge Foreign Affairs and International Development with CIDA.

We have been opposed from the beginning to the Conservative caucus's recent way of doing things during debates and discussions. Even in committee, we can see this intransigent attitude, as the Conservatives reject outright every proposal and amendment put forward by the opposition or interested groups, such as witnesses. The door is not open. This government does not listen.

The Conservatives talk about the action plan all day long, as though it is the be-all and end-all when it comes to Canada's economic growth over the next few years. I want to point out that this action plan was designed a few years ago, when our economy was in a different situation. The timing is off with this adjustment.

The government is still using old studies and projections as the basis for omnibus bills like this one, which include all kinds of things. Five committees had to study this bill. I will list them all, since that is unbelievable. Perhaps members can tell me how these committees are connected. The only logical connection I see would be between the Standing Committee on Finance and the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology.

The bill includes measures that affect the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration; the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities; the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs; and the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development.

The NDP alone proposed 33 amendments. They were all rejected outright, with no explanation. The government claims to listen, but it does not. It already has a set plan for what will happen. As I already mentioned this morning, just before question period, the government moved a time allocation motion. I know that times are tough right now and that there are problems everywhere. When the action plan was designed two or three years ago, it was a good thing.

However, employers are using the temporary foreign worker program, although there is no job stability for Canadian families, who are deeply in debt. This is not about job creation, but job stability. People are losing their jobs.

The Conservatives say they have created thousands of jobs, but they can create only public service jobs. The private sector has created these jobs.

They really cannot reconcile two things: they say they want to eliminate the deficit, but they are taking the wrong approach. To them, the right approach is to reduce spending. They have hobbled plenty of organizations that should receive lasting support to maintain economic growth.

One thing that struck me is that this bill gives broad powers to the Treasury Board. After being elected in May 2011, I began to sit in June 2011, like most members. From the outset, I was really surprised to see that my new role as a member promised to be very tough indeed. There was a lot to learn. Indeed, what I was faced with right off the bat was blatant and shocking, because I had to sit until midnight when we held a filibuster during that period in June 2011.

It was about protecting the rights of workers to organize and negotiate a collective agreement with their employer without government intervention. This is dangerous. The Conservatives ignored these rights. They said that was what they wanted to do and they did it. They say that Canadians gave them a majority mandate after the 2011 election, but I think this mandate has been misinterpreted.

I am sure most Conservative members promised their constituents that they would duly represent them and defend their interests here in the House of Commons. However, what is happening instead is that in practice, policy and cabinet are governed by and firmly in line with the predetermined policies of the Conservative elite.

Bill C-60 sends the message that the Conservatives intend to keep Canadians in the dark and change a whole lot of bills without holding consultations. The consultations they do hold are pointless because they do not seem to listen to what people say. The people on the other side are not giving us logical answers. They latch onto an idea from the very beginning and will not let go.

We have reached an impasse, and they are running roughshod over democracy. Opposition members are all constantly seeking answers and solutions to problems that those in government more or less ignore. The only thing they care about is their ideology.

This is the result.

I am very disappointed, and I stand by our caucus's original position.

We will strongly oppose this bill because it makes no sense at all.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned the palliative care. What he will not do, because I know he is a humble man, is take credit for a lot of the work he has done in respect of seeing investments like that in palliative care.

I want to commend my colleague for his discussion today on Bill C-60. Our government proposes to index the gas tax fund and that measure is included in Bill C-60. That measure is important for our communities and for our infrastructure.

Could the member comment on that? While I am at it, I am stunned to hear that the opposition will not support a measure like this for long-term predictable infrastructure funding for our communities, direct to them so they can do what they need to do.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in favour of economic action plan 2013 and our government's budget implementation bill.

Even in the face of this global downturn, under the leadership of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, Canada has led the world. Our net debt to GDP ratio is the lowest in the world. All the major credit agencies have affirmed Canada's AAA credit rating, and we have enjoyed the strongest job creation record in the G7. Canada has created more than 950,000 net new jobs since 2009, and 90% of those were full time and 80% in the private sector.

Through our government's leadership and discipline, our fiscal program played a strong role in ensuring that Canada's economy stayed on the rails, moving forward. In fact, to quote an editorial from my local paper, the Waterloo Region Record:

Canada is doing better and should continue to do better than most other advanced industrial nations, thanks, in part, to the fiscal prudence....

—of the finance minister's budget.

Canada will continue to lead the world because the Canadian government has made the tough, responsible choices. It has made the choice to engage Canadians in a massive temporary stimulus program that kept our economy afloat and built world-class research and commercialization facilities and much-needed community assets and infrastructure: roads, bridges, water treatment facilities and community centres. It has made the choice to maintain our commitment to lowering taxes on individuals and businesses that ensures Canada is an excellent place to call home, to work, to build a business and to raise a family.

It is worth remembering that the average family of four is paying $3,200 less, thanks to our tax cuts. Our choice to remain on track for balancing the budget in fiscal 2015-16 is a statement of confidence, confidence in our businesses and workers that, as global markets recover, our entrepreneurs and highly skilled workforce will seize that opportunity, confidence that the prudence we practice today will earn our prosperity for years to come.

Canadians can be confident, confident in themselves, confident in this budget and confident in this government.

I want to focus, though, on the elements of budget 2013 that are most important to my home area of Waterloo Region. For those hon. members unfamiliar with the Waterloo Region, our community has a history of reinventing our economy to adapt with changing times. Our ability to reinvent ourselves has always hinged on our uniquely strong sense of community.

When there is an opportunity to be pursued, business, academia, government, labour and the community sector all work together to make it happen. The people of Waterloo Region do not look for handouts, but they welcome collaboration and support.

That is why I stand today in this House and state categorically that this budget presents great news for my riding of Kitchener—Conestoga and for all of Waterloo Region. Our region is one of the hardest hit by the shortage of skilled workers, from engineers to welders, which our government continues to address. Our government is committed to providing leadership in correcting this. We will support the use of apprentices in federally funded projects and long-term infrastructure programs. We will work in collaboration with the provinces and territories to standardize requirements for apprentices in the skilled trades.

We are expanding opportunities for new entrants to the job market to get the skills they need, and we are increasing supports for Canadians with disabilities. Also, we committed to the Canada job grant, which would provide funds to help Canadians get the skills they need for the in-demand jobs. One hundred and thirty thousand Canadians would be able to take advantage of this program each year, and the direct involvement of employers would ensure the training offered aligns with the skills Canadians need.

The Canadian Chamber of Commerce called Canada's economic action plan 2013, “a significant step forward in the federal government's attack on Canada's skills challenge”.

However, it was not only business organizations offering praise. The Association of Canadian Community Colleges, the Canadian Building Trades and Engineers Canada all spoke highly of our approach to building the talent Canada needs, where it needs it.

Dr. John Tibbits, president of Conestoga College, noted that:

This budget clearly recognizes the important role that applied learning plays as a catalyst for job opportunity and innovation that will reinvigorate Canada's economy and put us on the path to a brighter future.

Even the Canadian Labour Congress called our plans around apprenticeships

“...a good first step in creating opportunities.”

It is not just a shortage of talent that is holding us back. Our high-tech industry faces a severe lack of venture capital.

High-potential companies in my riding, like Miovision Technologies and Clearpath Robotics, have shared the difficulties small companies face in finding the investment needed to take them to that next level. We live in a global economy and there is a very healthy entrepreneurial culture south of the border, and entrepreneurs there are very willing to purchase promising small enterprises. Too often they require that the companies' core team move to the U.S. to be closer to their funders, and the result is lost growth.

We need this amazing talent. We need these entrepreneurs to stay right here in Canada. As a government, we need these companies to stay here at home in Canada because we want the jobs they create to be created here, at home in Canada.

Iain Klugman, CEO of Communitech, Waterloo Region's technology association, noted the significance of budget 2013 stating that the two key barriers to growth for tech companies are access to talent and access to capital. Budget 2013 takes aim at helping companies overcome both of these barriers. The additional resources for NRC-IRAP and the Business Development Bank of Canada would increase the availability of much needed capital for Canada's tech companies.

Communitech was also pleased to see our government support entrepreneurship by supporting business incubators, and I would like to share a bit about the impact a business incubator can have on economic growth.

Communitech offers a business incubator program to high tech start-ups. The Communitech Hub opened in 2009 as part of a five-year digital strategy. Both were supported by this government. We see the benefits when large, established companies donate to support services for start-ups. We see the impact that peer-to-peer training and mentorship can deliver to young companies. We see the synergies that result when aspiring entrepreneurs are able to access bleeding edge technologies like the 3D virtual environment.

How do we see all of these very positive changes? Let us measure the impact against its five-year plan, just three years into that plan: 800 new digital media and mobile technology companies, eight times the forecast; 1,600 new jobs in start-up companies, 80% of the five-year goal; $350 million in equity investments, more than triple the five-year goal.

As a result of this holistic approach to business development offered by the Hub, 83% of start-ups in the Communitech network are still in business after five years. That is almost double the industry average. These are the keys to a prosperous community.

Speaking of prosperous communities, I must mention how pleased the communities that make up Kitchener—Conestoga were with this budget's commitment to renewing our infrastructure, a $53 billion program in predictable infrastructure funding. This 10-year program would be the largest and longest federal commitment to infrastructure in Canadian history.

Its components include a $14 billion renewal of the building Canada fund to support major economic infrastructure projects; a five-year plan to continue building infrastructure projects through innovative public-private partnerships, P3s; and more than $32 billion in enhanced gas tax fund payments to provide predictable, application-free funding to municipalities.

This long-term, predictable funding is something our municipal partners have been requesting for years.

Also, while keeping on track for a return to surplus, we would invest new money to help move vulnerable Canadians off the streets, out of shelters and into stable housing, and invest directly in affordable housing.

For my home region of Waterloo, it is estimated that the gas tax fund improvements alone would channel an additional $126 million to our local municipalities.

Grant Whittington, the chief administrative officer of Wilmot Township, sent me a note shortly after the budget, stating that he felt “the budget was well done and provided long-term financial support for municipal support for municipal infrastructure”. He concluded by noting that “The indexing of the Gas Tax Funding Program is very appreciated”.

Kitchener city councillor Berry Vrbanovic, also the past president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, agreed, stating that “The Federal Government has delivered to municipalities with this budget”.

The FCM was even more effusive with its praise:

We applaud the government for choosing to continue moving our communities forward even as it meets its immediate fiscal challenges....

...it will spur growth and job creation while laying the foundation for a more competitive economy.

From engineers to educational institutions, from big business to small business to organized labour, from our communities and our newspapers, we are hearing the same thing, that the budget is good news for Canada.

I look forward to seeing Bill C-60, the economic action plan, passed and implemented quickly. Our communities need the funds to renew their infrastructure. Our unemployed need the training opportunities. Our businesses need the talent.

I ask all hon. members to support Bill C-60, which would make it easier for families to adopt a child and provide a healthy, nurturing environment; easier for charities to attract new donors, as proposed by my friend, the hon. member for Kitchener—Waterloo; easier for businesses to grow and innovate to create new jobs and better-paying jobs; easier to support the development and expansion of palliative care services for those who so desperately need them.

I am proud of this budget. I am proud of how Canadians have persevered through this time of economic adversity. I am confident in Canadians. The government shares that confidence. This budget and this bill reflect that confidence. I ask all hon. members to join me in supporting Bill C-60.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-60. I wish that I had more than 10 minutes, because there is so much to say about this bill.

We were not given nearly enough time at the Standing Committee on Finance. I would therefore like to take this opportunity to waste a few seconds of my precious time to express my opposition to the government's 39th gag order and the fact that the Standing Committee on Finance's study of this bill was a sham.

The committee was responsible for studying Bill C-60. As everyone no doubt remembers, we suggested splitting up the bill in the interest of serving Canadians well. We wanted each committee to have an opportunity to consider relevant parts of the bill, to study them fully, seriously and in depth, instead of looking at the mishmash of measures in this omnibus bill over what amounted to barely two and a half meetings. The committee did its clause-by-clause reading, then wrapped it all up in the blink of an eye with almost total disregard for the witnesses and the integrity of the committee process. It is truly appalling.

I would like to get right to the point and focus on changes to the Investment Canada Act. I have chosen to discuss this aspect as a reminder that, in my riding of Beauport—Limoilou, White Birch Paper's Stadacona mill met with what I would call a tragic fate. I have brought this subject up several times already.

In 2003, when an American investor—more specifically, an unscrupulous investor from New York—bought the Quebec City mill, it employed 1,600 people. At this time, after a nasty lockout and numerous measures to defraud pensioners and workers, only a little over 200 people remained employed at that mill. The mill is operating at well below half of its capacity.

I would like to go into a bit of the history of what happened before the 2011 election. When the lockout was imposed, over 600 employees were working there. Given their working conditions, the work was spread over three shifts and was done around the clock. The order book was full.

This Quebec City industrial gem was altered completely. It was virtually abandoned and left with an uncertain future. It is hard to imagine that this mill could be revived anytime soon, especially since the transaction whereby White Birch Paper was sold to Black Diamond Capital is linked to one of the shareholders, namely, the son of the former owner. That kind of absolutely unbelievable manoeuvring revealed the flaws in the Investment Canada Act.

I mentioned the unfortunate complicity on the part of my Liberal colleagues who agreed, under absolutely false pretenses, to drastically raise the review thresholds for foreign investments. That threshold will now be $1 billion. For the minister involved, this will be something quite extraordinary in the course of a year, something that will be worth mentioning, given the number of transactions of that size that we are likely to see.

Meanwhile, any number of highway robbers, thieves and fraudsters can freely and openly engage in unfair competition with honest investors and real entrepreneurs who care about developing businesses, taking on missions, diving into a great business adventure and taking positive initiatives, as well as providing opportunities for workers and our young people. It is truly appalling.

Unfortunately, we know that Bill C-60 will pass, barring some unforeseen incident. We can always hope. In the event that a number of government members are regrettably absent, we will gladly vote down their bill.

I would like to talk about the Investment Canada Act and, more specifically, about expanding the criteria. The Minister of Industry will have very few reasons to review transactions in Canada, and that represents a threat to the Canadian economy.

I was on the Standing Committee on International Trade for one year. I have no problem welcoming foreign investors with open arms. However, we cannot be naive. We need to take at least a few precautions when a so-called investor tries to acquire a Canadian business. It is no different from when a business owner or our financial institutions—our banks—make enquiries about consumers who make significant transactions. That is not unusual; it makes sense.

It is common for a credit check to be conducted when someone is buying a house or car or signing a lease.

How can the government be so lenient when it comes to entire sectors of our economy? Millions of Canadians suffer, directly or indirectly. They suffer directly because the company cuts operations and business is threatened. They suffer indirectly because when working conditions worsen and businesses become filled with cheap labour, they take on other forms, creating unfair competition for business owners who play by the rules and actively participate in Canada's development. A huge number of people are affected.

The erosion of our industrial fabric, our economic fabric and our social fabric is a liability and a disturbing legacy to leave for future generations, particularly since the government is moving forward at top speed. It is absolutely incredible.

Unfortunately, another part of this pseudo-investment is the decision to terminate the pension fund for current and retired employees of the Stadacona mill of White Birch Paper. There will be new developments on that front in the coming days. I continue to watch it all very closely.

Providing our workers and retirees with much less attractive retirement benefits will also undermine the sustainability of our economy to a certain extent. The reality is that having a large number of retirees is also a stabilizing factor in turbulent economic times. We have seen that in the Quebec City area.

I could have talked about the elimination of the tax credit for labour-sponsored funds, which is not in Bill C-60, but is another bad measure. I could also have talked about the creation of private pension funds that, unfortunately, will make workers shoulder the entire responsibility by making employer contributions optional. This will also make it much more difficult to save for retirement.

I am pleased to have spoken out against the type of measures adopted. There is no need to worry that all we are going to do is complain. We are laying the groundwork for our future and for taking power and correcting this situation.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to debate Bill C-60, the budget implementation act. In answer to the previous question, the parliamentary secretary should know that the debt has increased. Again, we are seeing a further addition to that total debt through this budget.

It is interesting that when the Minister of Finance gave his budget speech, he committed to balancing the books by 2015. Well is that not wonderful? The only problem with what the minister said was he has never hit one single target he has ever set, when he was minister of finance with the province of Ontario or when he was Minister of Finance with the federal government.

In fact, the government came to power when there was an annual surplus. Conservatives squandered that away. Now, so the parliamentary secretary understand because he is part of the cabinet, we have a government that is the biggest spending government in Canadian history. It has cut more services and programs than any other government in Canadian history. It is still in deficit spending.

My colleague, the member for Kings—Hants, in his remarks pointed out that there were a number of areas in the bill that we could support, but there were a number of areas that we could not. I have said in this place before that one of the problems is that for some of those technical areas we cannot really get into a discussion and debate on because they are all tied up in the omnibus bill. This one is not as bad as previous ones in covering so many topics, but it still is bad and takes away the ability to really debate in-depth and hold proper hearings on specific sections that are affected by Bill C-60.

My colleague from Kings—Hants indicated that there were two key reasons that we would continue to oppose the bill. One is the legislation threatens the independence of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. In the section in Bill C-60 that talks about crown corporations, Treasury Board collective bargaining, it would allow the cabinet to require that a crown corporation have its negotiating mandate approved by the Treasury Board before beginning negotiations.

It would also allow cabinet to require that a Treasury Board employee attend and act as an observer during that collective bargaining process. In other words, the real ability of a crown corporation to operate in its own right would be taken away by Treasury Board. That is just pure wrong.

We know the dislike that the Prime Minister, the cabinet and government has against the CBC. They are basically going to have the mandate to order the crown corporation, which is supposed to be independent of government, on how it should negotiate. This really undermines that independence in a very serious way.

The second area my colleague from Kings—Hants mentioned, which I agree with, and as our leader has said many times in this place, was the budget continued to raise taxes on middle-class Canadians to pay for the Conservatives' wasteful spending. That is so evident.

It is interesting that when the Minister of Finance got up and read his budget speech and talked a bit about the budget, he outlined the tax relief on hockey equipment, et cetera. What he failed to talk about were all the areas where there would be really, in effect, tax increases or cost recovery fee increases and other measures that would place a financial burden on middle-class Canadians. It is middle-class Canadians who make our country tick. What we see in the budget are a number of tax measures that are really making it much more difficult for Canadian middle-class families to make ends meet.

It is not just the tax measures. The government members get up and say that by our not wanting to increase the tariffs on China, we are putting a damper on creating jobs in Canada. That is not true at all. The fact of the matter is that none of the low-end bicycles are produced in Canada. The higher end, the $5,000 and $6,000 bicycles, are, in fact, produced here. It goes to show how narrow the focus of the government is. It tries to paint everything with the same brush. As a result, ordinary Canadians are facing increased costs and certainly a lot fewer services.

The budget also raises taxes on small business owners by some $2.3 billion over the next five years, directly hurting about three-quarters of a million Canadians and risking Canadian jobs. That is what the budget actually does. Employment insurance premiums will go up. There is a huge cost to Canadians.

In Bill C-60 there was an opportunity for the government to show some vision for the future. Where that vision really needs to be shown is in the whole area of youth employment. That is an absolute missing factor in this particular budget. Canada's labour market for young Canadians has yet to recover from the recession. Unemployment for young people is around 24%. Young people need the opportunity to have a job to help pay for their education but also to give them skills in the employment field and in the business market. Youth employment has been completely ignored by the government. It had an opportunity to do something about Canada's future, but it is failing dismally.

In fact, as has been said in the House a few times, there have been ads during the Stanley Cup playoffs hockey series about Canada's action plan. The government spends on Canada's action plan ads and talks about the student program, but there are a lot of disclaimers at the end of the commercial. It talks about it, but consultations with the provinces on that program have not even started. It is not up and running, and here is the government spending on ads, when the cost for one of those ads, under the current assistance for student work, is equivalent to 32 student summer jobs, in terms of the federal government share. Every time Canadians look at those ads, they must think that there is money that could have been spent more appropriately creating student summer jobs. That is what really needs to be done, and the government failed dismally in that area.

The government will talk about the incentive for greater charitable donations for young people. However, unless it is a family of wealth, and that is not the middle class, that is not going to make any difference either.

To close, this budget is terrible for Prince Edward Island. In my province, the cuts to the Canadian Tourism Commission mean stopping its advertising in the United States market. That means fewer tours coming to Prince Edward Island to help our economy.

There would be cuts to agriculture. That would hurt us in Prince Edward Island. There would be cuts to the fishery, which would hurt us as well.

This is a dismal budget, and the government should just admit it.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to join in the debate on Bill C-60, the budget implementation act.

I would think that anybody who speaks to me about CPAC, the House of Commons and watches the proceedings outside of question period are usually pretty dialed in to the issues facing the nation. They have a great interest in the issues of the nation and there could not be one any more important than the budget implementation act.

My good friend and colleague has been here for the last 13 years so he should be able to answer this question on the budget.

The budget did not have a lot of numbers in it and my good friend's speech was not really overwhelmed with a lot of numbers either. However, could the member tell us, and the people watching at home would really like to know, what the country's accrued debt now stands at? How much debt is our country currently carrying? Just the number would be fine.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to this so-called budget bill. This Conservative omnibus bill goes far beyond any legitimate budget implementation. It contains an entirely new department of foreign affairs act and would amend nearly 50 pieces of legislation. This is the Conservatives third attempt to avoid public scrutiny and proper parliamentary consideration of their proposals.

By tabling such an unwieldy and wide-ranging bill, with such a short timeframe for deliberations, the government is not only trying to deny both Parliament and the public the chance to study the implications of these sweeping changes but is undermining democracy.

It is interesting to note that the Conservatives claim that this legislation would lead to growth in the Canadian economy. In fact, the Parliamentary Budget Officer estimates that this last year's trifecta of budget bills and fiscal upgrades would lead to a loss of 67,000 jobs. The PBO predicts that the unemployment rate will remain stagnant at over 7%.

In my own city of London, the unemployment rate sits at more than 9%, with little hope of improvement in the near future. Families are suffering. Small and medium businesses are suffering. The community is facing real hardship, and the Conservative government is without any meaningful remedies. We hear a great deal of high talk from the Conservatives, and we certainly see their expensive action plan commercials, but we have not seen any creative or innovative ideas when it comes to economic stimulus and relief for communities such as mine.

Bill C-60 contains nothing to make these economic conditions more manageable for families. There are no job creation measures, yet there are tax hikes on everything from hospital parking to credit unions. Those tax hikes for individuals will cost Canadians over $8 billion. Additionally, the Conservatives are raising tariffs on over 1,200 goods by $333 million but are doing nothing to ease record levels of household debt.

The Caledon Institute, in its budget analysis, notes that good jobs have disappeared in Canada. We know that. I am going to quote from the institute report:

The decline of manufacturing has meant the loss in the past 10 years of more than 700,000 better-paying jobs that typically came with decent benefits and pensions. Its demise has contributed to the hollowing out of the middle class not only in Canada but throughout the developed world.

The only government response to problems in the manufacturing sector has been austerity, cuts to programs and belt tightening. Sadly, these austerity measures have not worked. Around the world, austerity has only led to deeper recession, and here in Canada, the unnecessary focus on the deficit has resulted in a sluggish economy.

An article in The Economist said that the government's plan, which relies on spending restraint and unusually high revenue growth, is seen by many as wishful thinking.

Carol Goar, writing in the Toronto Star, said:

Since he [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. The same formula has delivered worse results in Europe.

The federal government has the opportunity to avoid the disastrous consequences of austerity to jump-start the economy and make a long-term investment in our social, economic and environmental future. Instead, the Conservative budget plan offers a host of proposals that will only weaken families, workers, the environment and seniors.

Seniors are often vulnerable to even the best of economic climates. This legislation would do nothing to address the retirement security of those who face a loss of their savings.

In a previous budget bill, the government made changes to old age security and GIS and raised the age of eligibility for OAS and GIS from 65 to 67. The receipt of GIS and OAS has a critical impact on poor seniors in this country. By raising the age of eligibility, the government is callously denying those who are struggling at hard, physically demanding jobs and those trying to manage on provincial support programs any hope of a dignified retirement at age 65.

In this budget, Conservatives offer only a vague and unexplained reference to low-cost and secure pension options. Instead of raising the GIS to ensure every senior is lifted out of poverty, or opening up the CPP/QPP to allow seniors to increase their savings, the Conservative budget would implement the kinds of policies that are of no real value to the retirees of this country. The Conservatives' pooled registered pension plan does little to help with pension savings for the vast majority of Canadians.

Although numerous organizations, from the United Nations to Statistics Canada, have released reports emphasizing the need to address affordable housing and poverty issues for seniors, this budget makes no mention of either of those. In point of fact, the Conservative government has absolutely no interest in the lack of affordable housing in Canada, and even less interest in the fact that more than 250,000 seniors live in poverty.

By contrast, the budget bill before us has several measures to improve the government's ability to catch CPP/QPP overpayments and ensure the government is able to recover that money. While the recovery of inappropriate payments is a good thing, we need look no further than the controversy surrounding certain senators. I am concerned that, on the other hand, the government is failing to ensure that Canadians have access to money owed to them. The Social Security Tribunal set up by the government is not only rife with partisan appointments, but many fear the reduced number of tribunal members will make it painfully slow in its decision making, leaving poor people waiting and waiting.

The Conservatives seem to have the attitude that the taxpayers are out to cheat the government, and that must end. I believe that the government should be serving the taxpayer and that our priority should be to ensure that Canadians are receiving the benefits and services they require and have earned. It is a good thing to ensure that overpayments are recovered, but not without ensuring that those who are slipping through the cracks are caught and helped as well.

I would also like to highlight here the pension income splitting that the Conservatives introduced in a previous budget. The Caledon Institute of Social Policy stated:

The Budget also pats itself on the back for the pension income splitting provision, a very expensive ($920 million) and regressive tax break introduced in 2007 that favours wealthy senior couples. A senior couple with a modest private pension of $20,000 a year will realize a grand total of $310 in federal income tax savings as a result of income splitting. For a couple with $30,000 in pension income, the savings increase to $802. However, a well-to-do couple with $100,000 in pension income will see a tax reduction of $7,280 — more than nine times that of a couple with $30,000 in pension income, and more than 23 times that of a couple with $20,000 in private pension income.

And what of single seniors? There are many single women and men who are unable to benefit at all. I would also like to highlight that seniors are still living in poverty in this country. Those particularly affected are single senior women who tend to have significantly less pension savings. We can and should do more for those living out their senior years making the tough choices between housing, food and medication. It is shameful that this budget would do nothing to address the poverty faced by seniors in Canada.

In fact, the priorities of the Conservative government seem out of touch with the priorities of many Canadians. The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives provides a good example of how exactly to remedy the lack of good public policy. It calls on the Conservatives to address poverty in a meaningful way by prioritizing improvements in the incomes of all low-income and middle-income households, better public pensions, higher minimum wages, the widespread adoption of living wage policies; and improving support for the ill, the unemployed, the young and the old.

This is a travesty of a budget. That is the best I can say of it. It borders on neglect for those who need support the most.

As members can see, there is a good deal more to this budget bill than just budget making. It would go far beyond anything that is legitimate, and I have to question it. I have to say that it is deceptive, it lacks transparency and I hope in 2015 Canadians will hold the Conservative government to account.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed my pleasure today to speak to elements of Bill C-60, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures.

I want to talk about some of the things that are so important in this budget, which would really make a difference, especially to my province.

The Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act piece of Bill C-60 is extremely important to Manitoba. As members know, 40¢ on the dollar has come from the federal government basically to keep Manitoba going.

This new legislation would amend part I, part I.1 and part V.1 of the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act. These changes are required to implement the renewal of the equalization and territorial formula financing programs as the minister announced in December of last year at the finance ministers meeting.

New Brunswick and Manitoba would be protected because of this legislation against a year-over-year decline in their total major transfers. It would eliminate provisions that would be no longer required for the administration of the equalization and TFF programs and would clarify the provisions setting out the escalators in TFF and the Canada health transfer. This is extremely important to Manitoba.

In terms of part I, this legislation would extend the authority to make equalization payments to provinces to March 31, 2019, fulfilling the commitment to renew the program for an additional five-year period.

In addition, the legislation sets out payments to New Brunswick and Manitoba that would ensure their total major transfers in 2013-14 would be no lower than what they were in the previous fiscal year. A change would also be made to clarify the alignment of the timing of calculations and the associated payments. The remaining changes would eliminate elements of the legislation no longer required for the administration of the program, including those related to amounts determined for previous fiscal years that expired provisions related to the 2005 offshore arrangements with Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador.

This might seem insignificant to provinces that do not have these challenges. However, for Manitoba, this is very helpful to our province. When I look at Bill C-60, it is indeed an economic action plan that would build our Canada, create more jobs and pay attention to the needs of businesses across Manitoba and our nation.

I want to talk a bit about the Canadian Youth Business Foundation.

This measure in Bill C-60 proposes to provide funding of $18 million in multi-year support for the Canadian Youth Business Foundation to enable the foundation to continue its support for young entrepreneurs between the ages of 18 and 34. These young entrepreneurs do not need a hand out, they need a hand up, and with the Canadian Youth Business Foundation, that would happen.

The Canadian Youth Business Foundation is a national not-for-profit organization that works with young entrepreneurs to help them become the business leaders of tomorrow. They get 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, which is very exciting to our economy and the young business people who have their hopes and dreams of building their own futures here in our great nation.

There are many other things that have happened to help youth, and I want to talk about Indspire, which is a measure that also centres on youth.

Bill C-60 would provide $5 million in 2013-14 to Indspire to provide post-secondary scholarships and bursaries for students who are registered as Indians under the Indian Act and for Inuit students. A further $5 million for 2014-15 would be provided through the estimates.

Indspire has a proven record of success. It has provided scholarships to over 2,200 aboriginal students annually and has raised significant support from a range of corporate donors to help support student success. With this new investment, Indspire would be able to provide scholarships to thousands more registered first nations and Inuit youth, helping them reach their potential and strengthening aboriginal communities across the country.

What makes Bill C-60, the economic action plan 2013 act, so important is that it goes right to the essence of what Canadians are all about. It talks about needs, as I outlined at the beginning of my speech on Manitoba and the transfer payments. It outlines the need to build youth, not only young entrepreneurs but youth who would be helped in their education with these scholarships.

The economic action plan also looks at another vulnerable community in our country, and that is older people. We will have more senior citizens in two years than we have young people. There needs to be real attention paid to front-line health care providers.

I want to talk about the Pallium Foundation of Canada. This is another very good initiative. This measure proposes to provide $3 million in multi-year support to the Pallium Foundation of Canada to support training in palliative care for front-line health care providers.

With an aging demographic, when our seniors, who have built this country, come to end-of-life situations, they need to be honoured and cared for. Often they like to be cared for in their homes. The government has committed to helping ensure that Canadians receive the compassionate care they need.

The Pallium Foundation of Canada works to improve the quality of palliative care and end-of-life care for Canadians by creating educational resources for primary care professionals. These primary care professionals are the ones who take care of these very vulnerable populations.

Economic action plan 2013 proposes funding of $3 million over three years to the Pallium Foundation of Canada to support training in palliative care for front-line health care providers. This investment builds on the funding provided in budget 2011 that is being used to support the initiative called the way forward: moving towards community-integrated palliative care in Canada, which aims to help develop new community-integrated palliative care models across this country.

Having said that, we know that a lot of people are not trained in end-of-life issues. Having this front-line training for these very important front-line health care workers is of paramount importance to the well-being of the elderly person and others who are coming to end-of-life situations and are receiving palliative care. It is also important to their families to put in those supports to help them see their way through this very difficult time.

When we look at all these measures, we are cognizant of the fact that to be able to provide health care and all these things we need, we need research.

I am just starting, and I find that I only have a minute left. I have so many good things to talk about in this particular economic action plan.

I want to finish off with the importance of research. Genome Canada has been given a very big boost since our government came to power. It has provided $165 million for multi-year support for genomics research through Genome Canada. This research has been very important for health care.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question.

We have seen an anti-labour agenda from the Conservative government. It has done it through the back door with private members' bills. Bill C-377 is a really good example of a bill that tried to impose the kinds of reporting requirements on the trade union movement to which other organizations were not subject.

Bill C-60 is another attempt to take a run at crown corporations and the collective bargaining process that is in place. This, again, plays into the government's agenda and people need to be concerned about what is going on.

Our country is a stronger place because of fair and free collective bargaining and we do not want processes that interfere with that.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in my riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan, there are a number of credit unions. It is an area that has been hard hit at times with changes in the resource industry. For example, in a small town called Youbou, the mill closed down a number of years ago and in Lake Cowichan, a neighbouring small town, found itself at a point where the big banks were closing down their branches.

With regard to the deductions for credit unions, it allowed them to occupy a space where big banks would love to see some of the credit unions close down so they could occupy a monopolistic space in some of the smaller towns. Therefore, it is absolutely essentially that the support we provide for credit unions stays in place so they can continue to provide the community service.

I know credit unions in Nanaimo—Cowichan are a vital part of the community. They are the ones supporting local activities, local businesses and opening the doors for businesses that might not be able to get loans and support from the larger financial institutions. It is really disappointing to see this in Bill C-60. It is an important way for many of the communities to survive financially.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, New Democrats oppose Bill C-60 both with regard to the process and with regard to the content. This is another example. The bill is 115 pages and will make amendments to 49 different pieces of legislation. Of course, a bill of that scope and magnitude deserves thorough examination by members of Parliament.

Because of the time allocation imposed on the bill at both second reading and report stage and because of a very unsatisfactory process when the bill was before committees, the House has not had an opportunity to study the bill in the kind of depth it should be studied.

Part of the concern is that this budget implementation bill would do a number of things. First of all, it would raise taxes on Canadians by introducing tax hikes on credit unions and small businesses in addition to hiking tariffs on thousands of products that were announced in the budget.

It would give Treasury Board sweeping powers to interfere in free collective bargaining and impose employment conditions on non-union employees at crown corporations. It would amalgamate the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and the Canadian International Development Agency with no reference to the ODA Accountability Act regarding the purpose of aid.

It would amend the Investment Canada Act to dramatically reduce the number of takeovers subject to review and introduce new rules regarding foreign state-owned enterprises. It proposes an inadequate Band-Aid fix for the flawed approach to labour market opinion in the temporary foreign worker program and proposes to increase fees for visitor visas for friends and family coming to visit Canadians. It would push ahead with work on a national securities regulator instead of working consensually with the provinces, and it would remove the residency requirement for committees of directors for financial institutions such as banks and life insurance companies.

People in my riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan pay close attention to pieces of legislation before the House, and I have had a number of concerns raised. One of them that I mentioned was the amalgamation in the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

This is an example of an email sent to me by a constituent. This person said:

I am a constituent in your riding and a concerned citizen who cares about efforts to end global poverty and promote human dignity.

For the past 45 years, the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) has supported the work of Canadian organizations involved in international development. Thanks to this collaboration, they have made a tremendous contribution in supporting the efforts of poor communities gain access to education and healthcare, ensuring food security, and promoting human dignity.

We have seen the results of this good work and I want Canada to remain as engaged as I am.

I am asking you to ensure that CIDA's mandate of poverty reduction and promoting human rights remains central, and that sufficient resources will be allocated to fulfill that mandate.

I also want to ensure that the many Canadian organizations, which have an excellent track record in responding to the needs of the poor, will remain key partners of the Government in its actions to end global poverty.

That is just one example of the kinds of concerns that have been raised by my constituents with regard to proposed changes in the bill. That particular amalgamation of CIDA with foreign affairs is an important matter that should have an independent review and not just be rammed through in an omnibus piece of legislation.

Another one, on which I received literally over 1,000 emails, is the CBC. On Vancouver Island, CBC is a much-loved institution. For years, islanders fought for a CBC presence on Vancouver Island. Finally, a number of years ago, we ended up with CBC Victoria. In a recent survey, CBC Victoria was one of the most-listened-to radio stations in the morning. That speaks to the way people see the CBC on Vancouver Island and in my riding.

The bill threatens to make some changes. In this connection I want to refer to a letter of May 23 that was sent to the Prime Minister. It was signed by dozens of people, including academics and so on. They said:

Dear Prime Minister:

We express deep concern about a proposal on pages 108/109 in Bill C-60 that would undermine the arms-length relationship between the CBC, our national public broadcaster, and the federal government.

The Broadcasting Act states that the CBC “shall, in the pursuit of its objects and in the exercise of its powers, enjoy freedom of expression and journalistic, creative and programming independence”.

As you know, this statement places the CBC on a par with its counterparts in other free and democratic countries. It is what makes the CBC a public broadcaster - as opposed to a state broadcaster. Independence from governmental interference is the key distinction between the two - throughout the world.

Bill C-60 proposes to amend the Financial Administration Act to permit the government to set the mandate for and audit CBC's collective bargaining as well as give the government a veto over CBC's collective agreements. This means that the government would become the effective employer of CBC's personnel, including its journalists, producers and story editors.

Such powers would intrude into CBC's independence well beyond it employee's compensation. Conditions of work are an integral part of CBC's collective agreements with its various employee groups. Such conditions currently provide assurance of the integrity of CBC as an independent national public broadcaster, as required under the Broadcasting Act.

For example, conditions of work in the CBC's collective agreements ensure that:

Journalists cannot be pulled off assignments without good reason.

Journalists do not have to fear retribution, including loss of employment, as a result of reporting the news.

CBC is required to protect the authority of producers over the content, form and budget of a program.

Producers cannot be removed from a program without justification, and they have the right to refuse to produce a program if they do not agree with its content or form.

Were Bill C-60 to pass without amendment, any government could change such provisions in its own interest--at great cost to Canadian democracy.

The federal government already has more than ample influence over CBC through appointment of its CEO and board of directors, and the allocation of its federal grant.

We therefore urge in the strongest terms that Bill C-60 be amended to remove all references to the CBC.

As I mentioned, that is the full text of the letter that was sent to the Prime Minister on May 23.

The New Democrats did attempt to amend Bill C-60 by putting forward a motion that would have seen the references to CBC carved out of the bill, introduced as a separate bill in the House of Commons and then we would be able to have a full debate on it. Unfortunately, the Conservatives did not agreed to those amendments.

As I mentioned, I have received over 1,000 emails on this matter. These are a couple of examples.

One person wrote:

The CBC must be independent from the government. That is why I object to the government taking control of the lion's share of the CBC's budget. The Prime Minister should not have direct control of the salaries and working conditions of CBC journalists and creative staff. I do not want any politician exercising such control over our national public broadcaster. I urge you to abandon this plan.

Another person wrote:

I am writing to object to the proposal to undermine the CBC's editorial independence contained in Budget Implementation Bill C-60. No public broadcaster anywhere in the free world faces the degree of political interference that is proposed for the CBC in Bill C-60. This Bill would give the government the opportunity to turn the CBC into a political propaganda machine rather than a public broadcaster. For the sake of our country and our democracy I urge you to work to have provisions concerning the CBC removed from Bill C-60.

That is just a small sample of the emails that came in.

I also want to touch on another aspect with regard to Bill C-60 and the importance of maintaining that journalistic independence. In a column I wrote recently, I was referencing an organization called Reporters without Borders. It is responsible for issuing the press freedom index.

It indicated that Canada had fallen from 10th to 20th place. This report states that Canada is now behind Costa Rica, Namibia and Lichtenstein. The RWB has blamed the Conservative government's action and incessant attacks on the journalistic principles of anonymous sources for the slip in the ranking.

This is evidence of the kinds of concerns that have been raised by my constituents and thousands of people across Canada.

We have also seen another attack in another bill that is a private member's member before the House, Bill C-461, an act to amend the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act (disclosure of information), and would put some further restrictions on CBC's abilities to operate independently.

Sadly, with the budget implementation bill, we have seen an effort to shut down parliamentary debate. The efforts to curb CBC's journalistic independence is just another example of the lack of transparency and accountability that the government continues to demonstrate through its various pieces of legislation that it has rammed through the House.

I encourage all members to vote against Bill C-60 and ask the government to bring back a bill and a process that allows us to fully debate such legislation that would have such far-ranging effects.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was going to say that I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-60, but actually I am disappointed to have to rise to speak to Bill C-60 because of the process that has been used to get the bill before the House and to ram it through.

New Democrats object—

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-60, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures, as reported (without amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Report Stage

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for that very thorough speech. One point she touched upon in her speech was the issue of the CBC, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. In my riding, Nanaimo—Cowichan, on Vancouver Island, the CBC is much loved. I have received hundreds of emails expressing concern about what Bill C-60 proposes to do with regard to the CBC. In fact, a number of people have raised concerns about having far too much government control over the CBC in terms of its collective bargaining and in terms of perhaps interfering in journalistic freedom.

The NDP proposed an amendment to the bill that would have seen us hive off the aspect dealing with the CBC as a separate piece of legislation, which would then have enabled us to debate it fully and study it fully at committee.

I wonder if the member would comment specifically about the government's intent to limit debate and to limit scrutiny of these key pieces of legislation that would be impacted by Bill C-60.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be speaking to Bill C-60 today. I know that many of my colleagues would have liked to have the time to speak today because the bill is quite complex. It is important that our voices be heard here in the House so that we can discuss the bill and have a healthy debate.

I want to begin my speech with a personal comment that I think is appropriate here. With this budget, the government is forcing Canadians to tighten their belts. It is asking workers, parents, youth, the unemployed, seasonal workers, seniors, middle-class families and so on to get with the program and accept a budget that is clearly not in their interest and will require an even greater effort on their part to make ends meet. I find that appalling.

There are a number of scandals, not just one, currently plaguing the government. While Canadians work to pay their taxes, senators are spending wildly and claiming ineligible expenses. Unelected senators have no respect for Canadians. While senators are banking an extremely generous salary, taxpayers are paying for their antics. As if that were not enough, the government has lost track of $3.1 billion. Honestly, how it is possible to lose $3.1 billion? I simply cannot get over it. It is incomprehensible.

A number of my constituents telephoned me personally, in a panic, when that hit the news. They are asking me to do something, to take action. My opposition colleagues and I are doing everything we can to get some clarification, and we want answers. Canadians deserve answers.

The government should be ashamed of this budget. We are obviously going to vote against it. The budget should contain measures that make life more affordable and create jobs for Canadians. Instead, the government is raising taxes on a number of consumer items, such as hospital parking, safety deposit boxes, labour-sponsored investment funds, bicycles and baby strollers. These tax hikes will cost Canadians nearly $8 billion. That is far too much. People have had enough.

One important point caught my attention: the elimination of the tax credit for labour-sponsored funds. This decision will affect the middle class and its ability to save for retirement. It will deprive Quebec SMEs of significant support for their development. Instead of creating jobs and supporting local initiatives, the Conservatives are going after the unemployed, families, seasonal workers and especially our regions.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer analyzed the economic situation and the government's bills. She found that budget 2012, the 2012 update and budget 2013 will result in the loss of 60,000 jobs by 2017 and will cause a 0.58% decline in the GDP. Needless to say, this will have an impact on our country's economic growth.

I would like to talk about transparency and control of the CBC. The Conservatives are trying, for the third time since the beginning of their mandate, to circumvent parliamentary and public oversight by trying to sneak this budget through. This week, they went even further by imposing a gag order to shut down debate. This is the 39th or 40th gag order we have seen in the House. Parliament should be a place where elected officials can show respect for their constituents and have a good discussion, a good debate. What are the Conservatives afraid of? Transparency is definitely not part of the government's values.

Another change this bill makes would enable the government to compel a crown corporation to have its negotiating mandate approved by the Treasury Board so that it can reach a collective agreement with a union, particularly in the case of the CBC. Canadians do not want to see the government exercise that kind of control over our national public broadcaster. Freedom of speech is a fundamental right, and the CBC must be able to retain its independence.

On this topic, my colleague, the NDP heritage critic and member for Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, had this to say:

The federal government already appoints CBC’s directors and determines its annual budget. That’s already a lot of control over a public broadcaster that must remain independent in its role as watchdog of democracy...Bill C-60 is another attempt by the Conservatives to interfere in CBC’s affairs and we cannot let it pass.

The government is flying in the face of common sense and ignoring protests by moving forward with these misguided measures. Cuts to environmental research are another weakness of the budget. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, AAFC, is one of the departments that is most affected by the budget cuts. Close to 700 workers just recently found out that they will lose their jobs and that a number of research centres will close.

At the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, several witnesses told me that research and development are key to the future of agriculture in Canada. When the government eliminates funding for public research, it lets the private sector—often big, multinational companies—do its own research. That is alarming.

AAFC will eliminate 350 jobs: 144 commerce officers, 79 scientists, 76 information technology officers, 29 engineers, 14 biologists, 5 research directors and 3 procurement officers.

This also makes me think of the decision that will affect the Montreal Biosphere, the only environmental museum in North America. This is another one of the Conservative government's attacks on science education. When most of the staff was laid off, this institution lost scientific and environmental expertise. Through this decision, the Conservatives are failing to live up to a 25-year agreement between the Government of Canada and the City of Montreal.

Making a budget is all about making choices. I, personally, decided to keep the same car I had before the election and pay off my student loans. I make responsible choices. Presenting a budget is a choice. It is not easy. I understand that it is complicated. However, in this budget implementation bill, the Conservatives are failing families, workers, the environment, job creation and science. At the end of the day, Canadians are the ones who are going to have to pay the price.

I hope the government will realize how inconsistent it is being. It is asking people to tighten their belts at a time when it is involved in scandals, such as the ones in the Senate. Making cuts in areas as important as science and the environment does not make sense, especially when we know that this government lost track of $3.1 billion. Instead of putting research into the hands of industry, the government should be investing in research and making more of an effort to find the missing $3.1 billion.

Nevertheless, I am sure that the NDP will be able to turn things around. Canadians need to feel like they can trust the people they vote for. They need to be able to identify with the people that they vote for and that is where we come in. We are voting against this bill.

I am ready for questions and comments.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-60 is an important tool to get our budget implemented to address, among many things, a skills mismatch in our country and getting people into open jobs. I know that is a big problem out west, particularly, as it is in Essex County, in the machine, tool, die and mould sector, which has plenty of openings.

I wonder if the member could comment on the importance of the new Canada job grant as a tool for overcoming or bridging that skills mismatch to get people who are either unemployed or underemployed into those meaningful positions in order to keep the economy moving.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out a bit of irony. Opposition members frequently say there is too much in the bill and that there should be discussions at the environment committee and with natural resources. I would say to the member that those are appropriate discussions for committees designed to deal with that. We have made some important improvements in the environmental legislation in previous budgets in order to provide balance.

Today, we are talking about Bill C-60, the budget implementation act, and very important measures, whether it is the Nature Conservancy of Canada, which is incredibly well received, the Pacific salmon stamps, the money that is going to go directly to the organization to support the conservation of habitat. We are here to speak to Bill C-60, but I certainly believe we are having dialogues at many different levels on the important issue of energy.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly my pleasure and honour to stand and speak in favour of today's pro-economic and job-growth legislation, Bill C-60, economic action plan 2013 act, No. 1 at report stage. Certainly, like the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance last week, I also would like to thank the finance committee members and the great chair, the member for Edmonton—Leduc, for their comprehensive and timely study of the bill. I also would like to extend a very special thanks to every witness who appeared in front of the committee to speak to the significance of the bill and Canada's economy.

In my time today I would like to focus on a number of specific measures contained in the legislation that received some attention during our committee study. First, members will no doubt be familiar with the important adjustments to the Canadian tariff systems that were announced as part of economic action plan 2013. In spite of what the member for Kings—Hants indicated, I would really like to talk clearly about what this is intended to do.

This was in essence a foreign aid program and it was created in the 1970s by western countries to give companies from poor third world markets preferential access to our domestic market. Most western countries that maintained the GPT program or equivalent had modified their list of countries to reflect the fact that formerly developing countries had grown their economies in the 40 years since this program was first introduced. But unlike the EU, the United States and Japan, Canada has not reviewed the list of countries until now. This means that list is sorely outdated.

As a consequence, Canada is giving special breaks in the form of lower tariffs to foreign companies from emerging economic powerhouses like China, South Korea, India and Brazil, companies that compete directly with Canadian businesses and their workers for global market share. Nearly 80% of these special breaks are now going to China even though China now has an economy that is over four times the size of Canada's. Specifically, China's economy is valued at $7.3 billion compared to Canada's, which is $1.7 billion.

Without our changes, Chinese companies will continue to benefit from a one-way trade deal, receiving special breaks and offering nothing in return. This program acts as a disincentive for those growing economies to enter into free trade agreements with Canada, agreements that would increase export opportunities for Canadian businesses, would create more and better jobs for Canadians and would further reduce tariffs for Canadian consumers.

The Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters explained the changes best when it said:

It's 39 years since we updated it. It was meant to help developing countries....we were giving them preferential tariffs while their per capita GDP is higher than Canada’s....The solution is what the government is doing: try to negotiate free trade agreements with countries around the world so that we not only drop our tariffs, but they drop their tariffs as well.

That is exactly what we are trying to accomplish.

This leads me to another important feature of today's legislation that responds to recent concerns of the U.S.-Canada price gap. Economic action plan 2013 proposes to eliminate all tariffs on baby clothing and select sports and athletic equipment, including everything from ice skates, hockey equipment, skis, snowboards, golf clubs and other products that promote physical fitness and healthy living.

Targeted measures contained in Bill C-60 represent $79 million in annual tariff relief for Canadian families. I should note though, this tariff relief comes with the expectation that wholesalers, distributors and retailers will pass these savings on to consumers. Working with the Retail Council of Canada and consumer groups, our government will be monitoring the impact of these tariff reductions on Canada's retail prices.

In fact, the Retail Council of Canada has spoken out in support of this important first step in reducing outdated tariffs, which put Canadian consumers at a disadvantage, stating:

—we are very pleased to see this first step toward leveling the playing field for Canadian retailers....it is a good start and a demonstration of the government's recognition of one of the key reasons for price differences in Canada.

Even better, listen to what Dean Lapierre, president of the Windsor Minor Hockey Association, had to say:

This will definitely help because the cost of equipment is the main thing people cite when deciding to register.... It could cost $600 to $700 to equip one player, double that if the kid’s a goalie. And a lot of families have two or more kids who want to play, so this is great.

I want to be clear that this initiative would allow our government and all Canadians to assess whether further tariff elimination could help to narrow the price gap for consumers in Canada. Of course, this is going to guide our future decisions.

Before concluding, I want to take a moment to highlight one particular item contained in today's legislation related to public sector compensation, specifically the amendments to the Financial Administration Act that would enable the governor in council to direct a crown corporation to have its negotiating mandate, including wages and benefits, approved by Treasury Board. While this may seem highly technical to many Canadians watching at home, it really is very important for taxpayers across the country.

As with our action in last year's budget to reform public service pensions, along with those of MPs and senators, to make them more sustainable and bring them in line with private sector pensions, the overriding objective is to protect the taxpayer's dollar. While we acknowledge that all crown corporations are independent in their operations, their financial decisions impact the government's bottom line.

As responsible economic managers, our government must ensure that we have the right tools to protect taxpayers at the bargaining table, if necessary. This is neither new nor revolutionary. It is a common sense action on behalf of taxpayers. It is important to note on this particular measure that Quebec has had a very similar provision in place for over three decades. I hope that all members of the House will understand that both the government and crown corporations have a fundamental responsibility to spend taxpayers' dollars wisely and to help ensure that Canada's fiscal position remains sustainable over the long term.

In the words of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation:

—[the] executives who manage government-owned companies have enjoyed, until now, special status: they are paid like business people, with none of the risk.... But the taxpayer is always there, at the end of the day, to stroke another cheque, cover the losses, and make everything better....

Simply put, provisions in Bill C-60,... grant [the government]...the power to tell negotiators at these companies how much they can offer unions in wages, benefits.... to insert some spine into government negotiating teams--should improve the odds for taxpayers.

Again, I would like to note that the legislation before us today is an important step in creating jobs and economic growth, while keeping taxes low and balancing the budget by 2015. I certainly urge all members to vote in favour of this jobs, growth and long-term prosperity budget bill and support this very important measure.

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

Mr. Speaker, before being so rudely interrupted by the weekend, I was saying that the Conservatives' latest budget would raise taxes by a whopping $3.3 billion over four years, and a number of these tax measures are included in this budget implementation act.

Bill C-60 would attack Canada's rural economy, with tax increases on credit unions. It would take more money out of small communities that are already struggling, and it would make it harder for small businesses in rural and small-town Canada to get the credit they need to grow and create jobs.

This is what David Phillips, president and CEO of Credit Union Central of Canada had to say:

The income tax increase on credit unions...is growth limiting. It deprives credit unions of income that might otherwise be used to support the growth of the credit union by building its capital base. The credit union will...have less capacity to make loans to small business, fund community economic development, and meet member needs.

It disregards the federal government's desire to support small business in local communities...

...it's really a tax on growth.

It is a tax on growth in rural and small-town Canada.

Garth Manness, the CEO of Credit Union Central of Manitoba, said:

...it is no exaggeration to say that some...may begin to question the future viability of credit unions in many communities in rural Canada. Not only could people be left without access to a nearby financial institution, [but] valuable and stable jobs at the credit unions could be lost.

Many of Canada's smaller rural communities face persistently higher unemployment rates and a rapidly aging population as younger workers move to cities for stable jobs. It is illogical for the Conservatives to go ahead with this tax hike on credit unions and diminish an already-limited source of investment in these rural and small-town communities.

On top of hurting small businesses that rely on credit unions, Bill C-60 would attack 750,000 Canadian small-business owners with a new tax hike on dividends. This legislation would even raise taxes on safety depot boxes. Perhaps what is most offensive is that Bill C-60 would actually punish victims of crime by adding GST or HST to health care services they need to establish their case in court.

The Canadian Psychological Association remains concerned that Bill C-60 would add GST and HST to mental health services, including psychological assessments. This is what Karen Cohen, the CEO of the Canadian Psychological Association, said when she appeared before the finance committee: “If passed without clarification or amendment, Canadians will now have to pay taxes on certain psychological services that were once exempt”. She provided a number of examples of Canadian patients who would now have to pay GST on mental health services, and went on to say:

It's important to note that this isn't a pocketbook issue for psychologists. It's not the psychologists who have to pay this tax. It's going to be hard-working Canadians who have a health need that is not met by Canada's publicly funded health care system.

A psychological assessment can cost thousands of dollars in out-of-pocket fees. The amount of money at stake for Canadian patients is not trivial.

While it may be true that the Conservatives' latest omnibus budget bill is less omni-busive than either Bill C-38 or Bill C-45, it is still deeply flawed, and we see the government now moving closure to ram this through the House of Commons without respect for Parliament and without proper scrutiny. This bill would threaten the independence of the CBC; it would raise taxes on hard-working Canadian families.

We proposed at committee some constructive amendments to address the very legitimate objections raised by Canadians during the committee's studies, but the Conservatives would not listen to reason. They have been deaf to the concerns of Canadians on this, and I expect Canadians will return the favour to the Conservatives in the next federal election.

The House resumed from May 31 consideration of Bill C-60, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures, as reported (without amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Bill C-60--Time Allocation Motion

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the minister for his answers. However, as I sit on the finance committee, it is hypocritical of the other parties to come here and present things that really are not factual. In committee, we heard from a number of witnesses, and the majority supported the measures in Bill C-60.

I also want to reply to some of the comments made by the NDP on how many pieces of legislation are in the bill. This is typical, and I would ask the minister to comment on how typical it is. The minister commented on the Liberals having a longer bill in 2001.

It is hypocritical when the NDP government in Manitoba recently, on May 31, was criticized for its omnibus budget bill, which actually introduces a controversial new subsidy for political parties. As members know, we are eliminating political subsidies. We think it is important that donations come to parties from taxpayers. However, the NDP government in Manitoba is going to provide new political aid through taxpayer funds in its omnibus budget bill. It is also going to reduce penalties for cabinet ministers in that omnibus bill. I do not agree with that. Let us hear from the minister about how typical it is to effect change with a number of legislations. What we will not do is hide things, as we see in Manitoba, in our omnibus bills.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me explain the normal stages of a bill as it makes its way through the House and the committees. First, the bill, the subject matter of which is often rather complicated, passes at second reading and is studied intensively during four or five meetings in committee. Then, it comes back to the House to be debated. All that for just one bill.

However, in the case of the budget implementation bill, Bill C-60, which amends, adds or eliminates about 50 laws, only two and a half meetings of the Standing Committee on Finance, of which I am a member, were devoted to the provisions of Bill C-60.

I would remind hon. members that this bill includes two rather complex parts on taxation and a third part on various amendments to a number of statutes. Indeed, 18 different parts might have needed 18 separate bills.

We were given just one day of debate at second reading and two and a half meetings at the Standing Committee on Finance. Some very superficial meetings were held at other committees, but there was never any real study in committee. The committee on investment held just one meeting with officials and that is all. We did not even get to propose amendments in the Standing Committee on Finance.

How can the President of the Treasury Board claim that we have had ample time to debate Bill C-60, when we really only took an extremely superficial look at it?

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

Mr. Speaker, every time there is time allocation on bills, the government breaks all records for that. The time for debate is shortened and that means limited time for members of Parliament, such as myself. I appreciate the hon. President of the Treasury Board said that there were opportunities. I tried to get to all the various committee hearings on Bill C-60, because it is such important legislation. As I am not a member of those committees, I am not allowed to ask questions.

However, the way in which witnesses are being treated in this current administration is an aberration compared to previous parliamentary procedures where in legislative committees witnesses would actually have sufficient time to put forward a 20-minute presentation and take lots of questions. We now have whole panels on many different topics. One panel can cover different topics. It gets five minutes and very little time for actual discussion and certainly no real deliberation, because everything is prescribed by partisan discipline.

In this context, right now on Bill C-60, I will have no opportunity to speak whatsoever. As you know, Mr. Speaker, and I am not protesting this point, none of my amendments or deletions or suggestions for Bill C-60 were chosen. I do not think there will be any speaking opportunity, yet I represent not just my party but my constituents, who have significant concerns.

We heard the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan speak about the changes to crown corporations, the changes to taxation of credit unions and the failure to define national security, one of the few opportunities we have had to put a definition of national security in the Investment Canada Act. None of these points will I be able to give more than the cursory 30 seconds here and there. Because with time allocation, I will have no speaking opportunity.

I would like to ask the hon. President of the Treasury Board if he would speak to his government whip and ask that I be given one of the speaking slots for Conservative members.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have heard from a number of witnesses, including Friends of Canadian Broadcasting, at committee. Also members of the finance committee received a letter from Hubert Lacroix, the president of CBC, who took what was almost an unprecedented step of writing to member and essentially threatening a court case if Bill C-60 passed without amendment. He said, “this legislation threatens the independence of the CBC and Radio Canada”. He said:

We believe that the proposed amendments to the Financial Administration Act...may conflict with key parts of the Broadcasting Act, our Corporation's governing legislation, and as a result, would reduce the independence that is critical to our operation.

He also said, “may give rise to conflicts with the Broadcasting Act and the Charter” and could ultimately lead to significant challenges in legal challenges with the corporation. He simply said that we could avoid all of this with an amendment that would protect the independence of the CBC.

Why is the government so hell-bent on driving this legislation through with closure? Why is the government not considering constructive amendments to avoid this kind of conflict with the CBC and this threat to the independence of public broadcasting?

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

Mr. Speaker, today we have a record in this Parliament: 39 times this government has brought time allocation in to end debate, stifle debate, on parliamentary discussion of parliamentary bills.

Its previous own record stood at 31, which in itself is outrageous, but it has brought in time allocation now on 23 different bills since the election, for a total of 39 times.

The bill on which it is now bringing in time allocation is the budget implementation act, another omnibus budget bill, Bill C-60. In this bill, there are changes that would affect dozens of laws. Different parliamentary committees that should have had the opportunity to debate and question and pass some of this bill as separate individual bills have not had that chance.

This bill would affect the collective bargaining process in our crown corporations, would undermine the journalistic independence of the CBC and could undermine the independence of the Bank of Canada. We called for more study on this measure; the government shut that down.

This is a bill that would tinker with the temporary foreign workers program and the Investment Canada Act, which should themselves have separate debates, and it would raise taxes for Canadians across this country.

My question for the hon. minister is this: what is he and his government so afraid of that they have had to bring in time allocation 39 times?

[Tony Clement, Conservative, President of the Treasury Board and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario]

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 one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at report stage of the Bill and one sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at third reading stage of the said Bill; and

That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at report stage and on the day allotted to the consideration at third 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 stage of the Bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.

Bill C-60—Notice of time allocation motion

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

Mr. Speaker, I must advise the House an agreement has not been reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) concerning the proceedings at report stage and third 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 proceedings at the said stage.

Canada Post

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in November 2011, the Supreme Court ruled that Canada Post had to honour pay equity and compensate more than 6,000 employees. A year and a half later, the matter is still not settled. When I raised the question, I was told that Canada Post is an independent corporation that manages its own human resources. However, in 2011, the Conservatives did not hesitate to intervene, and if Bill C-60 is passed, they will not stop intervening.

Why do they interfere in Canada Post's affairs when it suits them, but they do not intervene to ensure compliance with a ruling by the highest court in the land?

Speaker's Ruling

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-60, the Conservatives' latest omnibus budget implementation act, as well as amendments that are now before the House.

The Liberals continue to oppose Bill C-60 for two key reasons: this legislation threatens the independence of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and it continues to raise taxes on middle-class Canadians in order to pay for the Conservatives’ wasteful spending.

At committee, the Liberals put forward several constructive amendments to help address these concerns. Unfortunately, the Conservatives refused to listen and give decent consideration to these amendments. They refused to entertain any amendments whatsoever, despite the growing evidence that Bill C-60 is in fact deeply flawed.

To give an example of just how flawed the legislation is, Mr. Hubert Lacroix, the president of CBC/Radio-Canada, took the almost unprecedented step of writing to the members of the finance committee and essentially threatening a court case if Bill C-60 passes without amendment. He said that the legislation threatens the independence of the CBC and Radio-Canada. This is what he told us in his letter:

We believe that the proposed amendments to the Financial Administration Act….may conflict with key parts of the Broadcasting Act, our corporation’s governing legislation, and as a result, would reduce the independence that is critical to our operation.

He further stated:

“[The bill]…may give rise to conflicts with the Broadcasting Act and the Charter and compromise the Corporation’s independence.

This could potentially embroil the government, our corporation, and its unions in litigation, a result that could be avoided with an amendment that protects that independence.

We have also heard from tens of thousands of Canadians who have signed petitions and written to their MPs in order to protest the way in which Bill C-60 threatens the independence of the CBC and Radio-Canada.

Unlike the government, Canadians understand that the CBC/Radio-Canada was originally set up as an independent crown corporation in order to shield it from political interference. While the government appoints the board of directors and determines the overall budget of the CBC and Radio-Canada, this cultural crown corporation has always had the independence to determine who should work there and how much they should get paid. This legislation effectively removes that independence.

Canadians have been clear. They do not want politicians to punish reporters or journalists from the CBC and Radio-Canada for asking any of us uncomfortable questions. In an effort to be constructive, Liberals tried to provide the Conservatives with options in order to address these concerns. We proposed a constructive amendment that would have excluded the CBC and Radio-Canada from the measures of Bill C-60.

We also proposed an amendment that would have simply yet clearly protected the independence of CBC and Radio-Canada from the measures in this bill so that the government could avoid a potential legal showdown, but the Conservatives would not listen to reason and consider these amendments. They seem to have become completely deaf to the concerns of Canadians.

George Smith, a professor at Queen's University, who has also served as a chief management negotiator for the CBC and Radio-Canada, also appeared before the finance committee and was clear that the changes in Bill C-60 are not just bad for labour, they are bad for business. This is what Professor Smith predicts will happen under this legislation:

Relationships between labour and management, which are fragile at best during stressful negotiations, will be strained to the point of breaking with the negative consequence of ensuring labour disputes. There will be costs to the economy. In sum, an already complex process will be complicated to the point where in my considered professional opinion it will become totally dysfunctional.

In addition to threatening the stability of CBC/Radio-Canada, one of Canada's most cherished cultural institutions, as well as endangering labour relations, this legislation actually raises taxes on Canadians. In fact, in each of the last four budgets, the Conservatives have raised taxes on hard-working, middle-class Canadian families. Their latest budget raised taxes by a whopping $3.3 billion over the next four years and a number of these tax measures are included in Bill C-60. Bill C-60 actually attacks Canada's rural and small-town economy with a tax increase on credit unions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House once again to speak to an important piece of pro-economic and job growth legislation. Of course, I am talking about Bill C-60, the economic action plan 2013 act, which is BIA 1, at report stage.

Before I begin my remarks I want to take a moment to personally thank all of my colleagues on the finance committee for their outstanding work in their careful, detailed and timely consideration of the bill, and I mean all of the members from all of the parties, including independent members who came to committee.

Also, I would like to thank all the witnesses who took their time to come before the committee to share their thoughts and opinions about the bill and its importance to the Canadian economy.

I would also be remiss if I did not recognize the member for Edmonton—Leduc, our cherished chair of the finance committee, someone for whom all sides of the House have tremendous respect. They acknowledge his great work, I am sure.

I also want to remind all members and all Canadians that our government went to great lengths to ensure that Bill C-60 and its great measures received the appropriate consideration by the House, especially at committee stage.

That is why five additional committees—industry, veterans affairs, human resources, citizenship and immigration and foreign affairs—undertook comprehensive examinations of select portions of today's legislation. I was quite surprised to hear the NDP critic talk about it not being reviewed by other committees because, in fact, it was.

As all Canadians know, our government's main priority is the economy. Whether encouraging job creation, promoting economic growth or ensuring Canada's long-term prosperity, we focus first on what matters to Canadians.

However, in recent years, Canada has faced a challenging global economic landscape that has resulted in persistent threats from outside its borders, including from the United States and Europe, two of Canada's most important trade partners.

To add to this uncertainty, Canada is dealing with increasingly intense competition from emerging economies, such as China and India. In a constantly changing global market, we must continue focusing on the economy and building on Canada's strong economic plan.

Since the end of the global recession in July 2009, the Canadian economy has created more than 900,000 net new jobs. This is the very best job growth record in the entire G7. Even better, over 90% of those jobs have been full time and nearly three-quarters have been in the private sector.

On top of our very strong record of job growth, Canadians can also point with tremendous pride to other strong economic fundamentals, which include the soundest banking system for over five years, according to the World Economic Forum. We have the lowest net debt to GDP ratio in the G7, and we are the only G7 country to have more than fully recovered business investment lost during the recession. This is great news for Canadians.

What is more, Canada is forecasted to have among the strongest economic growth in the G7 for years ahead, according to both the IMF and the OECD. It is little wonder that all the major credit rating agencies, Moody's, Fitch and Standard and Poor's, have recently reaffirmed Canada's rock solid AAA credit rating.

However, we all understand that Canada cannot afford to be complacent. We cannot rest on our laurels. While our position relative to other countries is strong, now we must take the bull by the horns and build on this strength to secure long-term prosperity for our children and their children and their children.

As the Vancouver Board of Trade pointed out recently, and I quote:

Given the state of the global economy — where we are seeing recessions, drops in national and sub-national credit ratings, and out-of-control deficits —we are truly fortunate in Canada to be contemplating balanced budgets, receiving AAA credit ratings, and growing our GDP.

That is why I am so proud of economic action plan 2013. It is forward looking and would build on our solid record with measured, prudent steps that would help position Canada for long-term success, both today and well into tomorrow. It is a really positive plan for Canadians.

Many elements of this plan will be implemented with this legislation. For example, in order to build a stronger Canadian economy and help promote job growth, Bill C-60 will enable the government to extend tax relief for new investments in machinery and equipment by Canadian manufacturers; index gas tax fund payments to better support job-creating infrastructure projects in municipalities across Canada; extend the mineral exploration tax credit; provide $165 million in multi-year support for genomics research; provide $18 million to the Canadian Youth Business Foundation to help young entrepreneurs grow and develop their firms and their future; provide $5 million to Indspire for post-secondary scholarships and bursaries for first nations and Inuit students; and finally, undertake many other important initiatives on the economic front.

In addition, today's legislation would help families and our communities by promoting adoption through enhancing the adoption expense tax credit; by introducing a new first-time donor super credit to encourage Canadians to donate to charity; by expanding tax relief for home care services; by providing $30 million to support the construction of housing in Nunavut; by investing $20 million in the Nature Conservancy of Canada to continue to conserve ecologically sensitive land; by providing $3 million to support training in palliative care for front-line health care providers; and by committing $3 million to the Canadian National Institute for the Blind to expand library services for the blind and partially sighted. Also, so much more is in this bill.

I would like to note one last time that this legislation is an important step in creating jobs and economic growth, all while keeping taxes low and balancing the budget in 2015. I urge all members to vote in favour of this bill and support jobs, growth and long-term prosperity for all Canadians.

I would caution Canadians who are listening today that they will hear two sides to this very important bill, but I want them to take an opportunity to actually look at the bill. It is available online through the Department of Finance website. The facts speak for themselves. This would be another tremendous leap forward for Canadians and for this country so that we preserve all of those jobs, create more of them and create an environment where business can flourish. Our children would benefit and the grandchildren they have would benefit for years to come.

I just wish the opposition members would reconsider their position to vote against this bill and maybe have some heart today, look into their souls, do what is right for Canadians, do what is right for taxpayers, stop blocking those all-important measures that would help Canadians and vote for this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have always said in the House—and the parliamentary secretary can check the speeches I have given since 2004—that every bill has pros and cons that must be weighed before voting for it.

In this case, we are not debating the budget, but the budget implementation bill, Bill C-60. What I am telling the parliamentary secretary and all members of the House is that amendments should be adopted in order to improve the bill.

With respect to securities, I understand that the member is supporting her Minister of Finance and that she has found some phrases that suit her purposes in the Supreme Court ruling. However, I have an article here that says that the Supreme Court of Canada does not at all agree with the Conservative Minister of Finance.

According to the Supreme Court, “the government...is violating the principle of the division of powers of the Canadian Constitution by attempting to create a national securities commission.”

What more do I have to say?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak to our amendments to Bill C-60.

I figured the members would be interested in talking more about this during questions and comments, so I had to hurry. Still, I will use my time to talk about why the Bloc Québécois's amendments to Bill C-60 are so important.

Once again, the government has tabled a budget implementation bill that makes many changes that are not strictly financial. Unfortunately, under the Conservative government, we have gotten used to seeing measures like these in mammoth bills. Several different committees have had to look at measures that originated with the Standing Committee on Finance and end up going back there.

It is very difficult for both MPs and Canadians to follow exactly what is going on. I think that was the government's plan when it decided to bury so many other measures in the budget implementation bill.

Today, I would like to focus on how some of our amendments relate to the Canada health transfer for Quebec. Other provinces have also expressed disapproval regarding the federal government's cuts to health transfers. The Conservatives say that they have not cut anything. They say that the budget remains the same, that it is stable. However, we are not seeing the 6% increase that was supposed to happen.

Instead of growing by 6% per year, the Canada health transfer will increase in step with economic growth, though it will never rise by less than 3%. Over time, the federal government will reduce funding for health care to a fraction of the 50% it was originally. By 2024, it will probably shrink to 18.6%.

Why do we want to get rid of that clause? We want the health transfer to continue increasing by 6%. We all know that health costs are skyrocketing in Quebec and the other provinces. The Government of Quebec reacted strongly to this decision.

When the federal government announced its plan, Quebec's finance minister reacted. A message on the Government of Quebec's website reads as follows:

While the federal budget confirms technical changes to the equalization program, Mr. Marceau pointed out that Quebec had asked that the caps that were imposed on the program in 2009 be removed. “Because of these caps, Quebec has suffered significant financial losses totalling $7.6 billion since 2009-10. Combined with budget shortfalls resulting from the federal government's unilateral decisions in 2011 regarding health care, Quebec will lose out on $8.6 billion between 2014-15 and 2024-25. Together, these unilateral changes are having a very serious negative impact on Quebec's public finances. The Government of Quebec is calling on the federal government to reverse these unfair decisions,” Minister Marceau stated.

This shows what a serious impact these decisions are having. That is why I am confident that at least the members in the House from Quebec will support our call to delete this amendment on health transfers.

Of course there are other issues related to crown corporations, credit unions and securities, and I would be remiss if I did not address them. Once again, we proposed amendments to make this budget implementation bill more equitable.

In the case of credit unions, this measure was introduced in 1972 in order to allow Canadian credit unions to build capital faster. From our perspective, of course, we are particularly concerned about the Caisses Desjardins.

Most credit unions are subject to a federal corporate tax rate of about 11%, and the additional deduction for credit unions means they can enjoy a lower tax rate, since they are not otherwise eligible for the small business deduction, up to a maximum cumulative amount, which is directly related to the total amounts the credit unions owe their members.

This budget announces plans to phase out this additional deduction for credit unions over a five-year period. It will be completely eliminated by 2017.

On top of the impact on the caisses populaires members, some fear that certain branches will close if this deduction is cancelled.

The Bloc Québécois is proposing to maintain the current deduction formula. I would remind hon. members that budget 2013 is a frontal attack on several aspects of Quebec society. Eliminating the tax credit for labour-sponsored funds that help vulnerable Quebec businesses, such as Fonds de solidarité FTQ and Fondaction CSN, is just another one of the obstacles the Conservative government is putting in the way of small businesses and investors in Quebec.

Clause 15, which deals with this measure affecting credit unions and caisses populaires, should also be eliminated.

As hon. members know, the Bloc Québécois has made securities their issue for a very long time, for ages, or certainly since the current Minister of Finance got it in his head—in a pigheaded way, in fact—to create a Canada-wide securities commission. He wants to impose it on Quebec and the provinces.

Quebec is not the only province that is against this decision. However, this issue got a lot of ink, in Quebec in particular, and it will get even more. The Supreme Court recently made a ruling whereby the provinces, Quebec, have all the latitude they want to take care of their securities commissions themselves.

I have in hand a press release from the Government of Quebec, which slammed this decision when the Conservative Minister of Finance brought down his budget. Mr. Marceau says he does not understand why the federal government is insisting on setting up a Canada-wide securities commission when the rulings handed down by the Quebec Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court are clear. Minister Marceau also said he is surprised that the federal government extended the mandate of the Canadian securities transition office. This is what Minister Marceau said:

Allowing the federal government to insinuate itself in securities regulation, which is within Québec’s exclusive jurisdiction, is out of the question.

It is rather surprising. Well, it is and it is not, since the government's stubbornness is not surprising. However, when the Supreme Court has given a ruling, it is time to give up. The Supreme Court made that decision for a reason, and that reason is just as clear as what is set out in the Constitution: that the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces must be respected.

Yet, the Minister of Finance and his friends on Bay Street, probably, are telling themselves that they are in control, that they have the power and that they are going to shove this much-touted Canada-wide securities commission down the throats of Quebec and the other provinces no matter what the cost.

Take, for example, what is happening around the world. The government often brags that it prevented an economic disaster, but not all countries were so lucky. One of the reasons we were is because of our securities system, which ensures that Quebec and the provinces can have their own control system if they want. The system is working well.

The OECD has said as much about Canada's securities system. Other countries also work this way, so I do not understand why the minister would continue down the path he is taking when everyone, except perhaps his friends on Bay Street and a few provincial governments, are saying that he can have a Canadian commission if he wants but that each province, and Quebec in particular, should continue to have their own control over the securities system.

I have to wrap up, but I would be remiss if I did not mention the federal government's decision to interfere in Crown corporations' collective bargaining negotiations. This is a great cause for concern. We have already seen what happened with Canada Post and what is now happening with CBC/Radio-Canada. The government wants to interfere in negotiations. Obviously, CBC/Radio-Canada's concern is maintaining control over its newsroom. This is all also related to Bill C-377, which started making the headlines again yesterday.

In this context, the House must adopt the Bloc Québécois’s amendments to delete those provisions and ensure that the implementing legislation deals with tax measures and leaves out all the other measures that should be introduced in separate bills.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise yet again to speak on Bill C-60, another Conservative omnibus bill that crams changes to more than 50 pieces of legislation into it, and which ought to have been split up and studied at various different committees.

This bill will have wide-ranging impacts, affecting everything from the price of an iPod to credit unions to foreign aid to journalistic freedom of the CBC. This omnibus budget bill makes changes to the temporary foreign worker program, to the Investment Canada Act, and it merges the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade with CIDA, the Canadian International Development Agency.

This bill also raises taxes on Canadians by introducing tax hikes on credit unions, increasing the taxes on small businesses, and increasing the taxes on thousands of products that Canadians use every day.

It took generations to establish institutions like the CBC and the central bank, and some of these institutions are the envy of the world. However, this bill would undermine the collective bargaining process at many of our Crown corporations, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, Via Rail, Canada Post, the CBC and the Bank of Canada.

These institutions have always been ambitious, but theirs was a vision grounded in hope and optimism. Canadians have always known that as a country we are stronger together.

Our leaders once had the wisdom to accept the independence of the Bank of Canada and the integrity of the CBC. They saw this independence as an asset to our country, not a threat to the power of government.

However, the Conservatives do not trust Canadians. Bill C-60, like omnibus bills before it, are evidence of this contempt. Many of the changes in Bill C-60 are cynical measures that will give more power to the Conservative government's inner circle while taking away the voice of Parliament from independent bodies, and ultimately from Canadians.

The Conservatives are making rash and ideological choices to push omnibus 3.0 through Parliament without talking to Canadians. If they had, they would have heard the kinds of things that I have been hearing from my constituents.

Parkdale—High Park, the electoral district I represent, is home to many Ukrainian credit unions. I recently met with representatives from the Council Of Ukrainian Credit Unions Of Canada, which has a combined membership of over 60,000 people across the country. The representatives I met with were shocked that they were not consulted in advance about these changes. These tax code changes were absolutely unexpected, and there was no comprehensive review of the sector before these changes were introduced in the budget.

The changes have surprised people and created worry and uncertainty for credit unions and the many Canadians who rely on their services. In my riding, the Ukrainian credit unions invest nearly $1 million annually in community programming, projects and educational initiatives, which will simply disappear as a result of these changes.

There is also a great deal of concern from credit unions from coast to coast about the long-term impact of these changes. We appreciate diversity in the financial sector and the banking sectors of Canada. They are part of modern economy, but I share the concerns of my constituents, and many Canadians, that these changes put that diversity at risk. However, the Conservatives would have had to talk to Canadians to know this.

My office has also been flooded with letters and emails and phone calls from constituents concerned about how Bill C-60 will impact the CBC, our national broadcaster. Thousands of Canadians are writing to tell Parliament that sections relating to the CBC alone are reason to stop this omnibus bill, to make changes to it. Last week I received a letter saying:

I do not want any politician exercising this kind of control over our national public broadcaster.

It is not a state broadcaster.

Another letter put it succinctly, saying, “What can I do; Where do I protest..”.

Canadians have made it crystal clear. They do not support these measures, so why are the Conservatives not listening?

Respected members of the Canadian media are telling Parliament that this omnibus bill needs to be intercepted. Canadian Journalists for Free Expression, the Fédération professionnelle des journalistes du Québec, the Canadian Media Guild, the Syndicat des communications de Radio-Canada and ACTRA are urging all of the Conservatives to use common sense.

On issue after issue it is clear that Bill C-60 is not what Canadians want, and if the Conservatives were listening they would know that. If they had talked to Canadians, they would be hearing the advice of experts like George Smith, who has decades of experience in Canadian business. Smith was once the chief management negotiator for Air Canada, Canadian Pacific Railway and the CBC. At the finance committee Smith stated:

These proposed amendments to the Financial Administration Act, buried in Bill C-60, contradict both the spirit and intent of the Canada Labour Code...and create a role for government in crown corporation collective bargaining which is not contemplated in the Canada Labour Code.

Another issue of serious concern is the impact that this omnibus bill would have on the independence of the Bank of Canada. Last week, I tabled a motion at the finance committee to study the impact of this bill on the Bank of Canada, but the Conservatives voted against it, as they vote against every proposed amendment. However, in a recent article in the The Globe and Mail, Kevin Carmichael, one of Canada's most respected financial reporters, discussed my motion and affirmed that measures in this bill could gravely impact the independence of the bank. Again, the Conservatives are willing to sacrifice the independence of our central bank and the national interest, if it means giving more power to the Prime Minister's Office.

Another measure in omnibus bill 3.0 makes changes to the temporary foreign worker program. These measures are a band-aid solution that does not get to the heart of the government's mismanagement of the temporary foreign worker program. Experts and community groups across the country are speaking out against this band-aid solution.

When is it enough? Canadians are saying, once again, that they do not support this omnibus budget bill. Canadians have serious concerns with the measures in Bill C-60, and until those concerns are addressed, we cannot support this bill and we will not support this bill.

There are serious issues facing our country, but budget 2013 does not rise to meet these challenges. It does nothing to address unemployment, record levels of household debt or rising inequality. Instead, the Conservative government is more concerned with rearranging power to give more power to its inner circle and less voice to Canadians.

Let us not forget what this budget is not doing. It is not getting Canadians back to work. It will not stimulate growth. Instead, this budget is squarely focused on a job-killing austerity agenda that has made major cuts to the services that Canadians rely on. Putting people to work is clearly the best way to reduce our deficit.

There is no need to play big brother with the Bank of Canada. There is no need to trample on credit unions that so many communities rely on. There is no need to spend millions on an advertising budget that Canadians do not agree with.

Instead, New Democrats know that investing in education and infrastructure, making life more affordable for Canadians, supporting small and medium-sized businesses and creating high-quality, high-paying jobs is the best way to get our economy back on track.

Canadians are counting on us. They are counting on New Democrats, and I dare say all of this Parliament, to show leadership and bring forward the ideas and proposals that will work in the public interest, not the private interest of a few insiders. We need to put Canadians first. This budget does not do that.

I see that my time is up. I look forward to the questions and comments from my colleagues.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

There are 80 motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-60.

Motions Nos. 5, 21 to 23, 25, 28, 44, 46, 76 and 77 will not be selected by the Chair, as they were submitted to the committee, deemed proposed and subsequently defeated by the committee. Furthermore, Motions Nos. 4, 45 and 75 will not be selected by the Chair, since they could have been submitted to the committee for its consideration.

I would like to reassure hon. members that as stated in my opening remarks, I will address the rationale for the selection of these motions and the other arguments raised in the points of order when I return to the House with a comprehensive ruling.

All remaining motions have been examined and the Chair is satisfied that they meet the guidelines expressed in the note to Standing Order 76.1(5) regarding the selection of motions in amendment at report stage.

Motions numbered 1 to 3, 6 to 20, 24, 26, 27, 29 to 43, 47 to 74 and 78 to 80 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

I shall now propose motions numbered 1 to 3, 6 to 20, 24, 26, 27, 29 to 43, 47 to 74 and 78 to 80 to the House.

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Before delivering a ruling regarding the report stage of Bill C-60, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures, the Chair would like to thank those hon. members who have raised points of order regarding the process followed during the committee's consideration of the bill at clause-by-clause and in particular, on the impact this might have on the role of independent members in the selection of motions at report stage.

In view of the numerous arguments that have been raised on these questions over the past few days, the Chair believes that a comprehensive ruling on this matter is required. I will return with a detailed ruling on the matter, to be delivered at a later date.

Meanwhile, however, let me simply state that I cannot conclude that the committee has exceeded the limits of its mandate in adopting the process that it has followed and that accordingly, consideration of the bill may proceed. Therefore, my ruling this morning will be limited to the selection, grouping and voting pattern with regard to the motion that appears on today's notice paper.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-60, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Safer Witnesses Act

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

Mr. Speaker, people have been beating up a bit on the member for Ottawa South for suggesting we were wasting time and money debating. Nothing is ever a complete waste. There is always some benefit in having debate, even though we all agree that Bill C-51 should pass and we all support the protection of witnesses.

I want to clarify for the member for Brampton West that my own reasons for raising this earlier tonight had nothing to do with wanting to go home, but rather with wanting to have a chance to debate the bills about which we do not agree, such as the omnibus budget bill, Bill C-60, for which we have never had an adequate opportunity to even touch on its various sections. I thought I might clarify that for him.

I completely support this bill. I appreciate that the Conservative majority has brought it forward and I look forward to voting for it and stopping the debates that continue until midnight in this place on matters of which I have no understanding why they are still subject to debate.

Standing Committee on Finance

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in part to add to my submissions of yesterday and in part to respond to the submissions of the hon. House Leader of the Official Opposition and others today.

As I said yesterday, there is a key understanding around here that our committees are the masters of their own proceedings. This is articulated in our procedural literature, such as page 1,047 of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition. One portion says:

The concept refers to the freedom committees normally have to organize their work as they see fit and the option they have of defining, on their own, certain rules of procedure that facilitate their proceedings.

On the next page, we see that:

....committees may adopt procedural rules to govern their proceedings, but only to the extent the House does not prescribe anything specific.

As I said, the notion that committees are masters of their own process is true and is often referred to you, Mr. Speaker, when people attempt to appeal decisions that occur in committee to this chamber, which you quite rightly point out is something for those committees.

The hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley claimed yesterday that a process whereby a motion is deemed moved was some new invention. It is not. In point of fact, this same mechanism was adopted by the status of women committee on April 23 in relation to Bill S-2, family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act. There were no report stage amendments when we took up that bill on Monday.

Motions deemed moved are also contemplated in our Standing Orders. There we are not talking about committees, where we have more relaxed rules but rather in the more stringent environment of rules in this chamber. Taking a look at our rule book, I see that Standing Orders 7(1.1) and 8(2) provide that the appointments of the Speaker's three fellow chair occupants are all made on motions which are deemed to have been moved.

I have been here every night at midnight or later when the government orders finish. At the start of every night's late show, the Chair reads out the formula:

Pursuant to Standing Order 38 a motion to adjourn the House is deemed to have been moved and seconded.

I could list off a number of other Standing Orders where motions are deemed to have been moved, but I think I have made my point. There is nothing novel or new about it. It is an accepted practice of this House and it is done often.

Going back to committee procedures more specifically, let me quote an excerpt from O'Brien and Bosc, which was not tendered yesterday. Page 1,018 says:

Committees often adopt sessional orders that govern the granting of the right to speak in cases where witnesses are to be questioned. Consequently, it is rare that a non-member is able to participate in such proceedings. Non-members are occasionally given the right to speak, however, following a decision by a majority of the members present or by unanimous consent.

It was exactly such a majority vote to enable participation by the independent members of Parliament that the committee took on May 7.

Turning to Beauschene's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, sixth edition, citation 760(3) reads:

The Speaker has ruled on many occasions that it is not competent for the Speaker to exercise procedural control over the committees. Committees are and must remain masters of their own procedure.

I referenced that earlier.

Citation 762 meanwhile provides that:

Proceedings in the committees are more relaxed in nature than those in the House as the requirements which must be observed in the Chamber are not so strictly enforced when Members sit as committees.

At page 1030 of O'Brien and Bosc, there is a review of cases where committees have allowed even non-parliamentarians to participate in committee deliberations. Citation 771 of Beauschene's covers the same ground.

As I said yesterday, the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley sought to relitigate the issue addressed by your November 29, 2012 ruling, at pages 12,609 and 12,610 of Debates.

As the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands reminded us this morning, Speakers' rulings are not actually subject to appeal.

In that ruling, Mr. Speaker, you said the finance committee's invitation to other committees to submit suggested amendments to Bill C-45, an invitation which was renewed to some committees for Bill C-60 extended to independent members of Parliament the following:

....it is true that committee practice is of considerable flexibility and fluidity. This is acknowledged by the opposition House leader....

That is the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

....himself who spoke of the need for committees to respect clear and distinct limits but declared to that, “when work is assigned to it by the House, it is largely up to the committee to decide how and when to tackle it”.

Your ruling continues:

It should be noted that in the present case, even though other committees were invited to suggest amendments, it is the finance committee itself that chose to do so. It also decided how to deal with any suggested amendments and it retained the ability to decide whether or not to adopt any such amendments.

Of course these words carry weight as rulings from the Chair and not, as the hon. NDP House leader described them yesterday, “some convenient article”. Nothing changed between Bill C-45 and Bill C-60, except for the finance committee's generous invitation, which was broadened to include members of Parliament who do not sit on the standing committee of the House .

Yesterday the House leader for the official opposition quoted page 775 of O'Brien and Bosc, which pertains to rulings on inadmissible amendments made by committees, that is to say, for example, amendments which go beyond the scope of a bill.

Mr. Speaker Milliken's ruling of February 27, 2007, which was quoted yesterday, was on that point. What is important to note is that the subject amendments would also have been inadmissible at report stage because they went beyond the principle adopted at second reading.

I now want to turn to two comments made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North yesterday. In his remarks, he stated, “We have to be very careful when we look at changing rules”.

We are not changing the rules here. The finance committee looked at creative ways within our existing rules, and did so on your invitation, I might add, of maximizing the input of all corners of this House in its work on the government's important budget legislation. The committee should be commended for responding to that invitation. He also stated that the Liberal Party opposed this matter.

Yesterday, I quoted the Liberal finance critic's comments at Tuesday's committee meeting on clause-by-clause. A further look at the evidence of the May 7 meeting, where the invitation was adopted by the finance committee, would show, at page 20, that the hon. member for Kings—Hants had proposed an amendment to delete paragraphs (d) to (g) of the motion. The invitation to the independent MPs is not found in those paragraphs that he proposed to delete. It is found in paragraph (c). Therefore, his amendment would have actually preserved the invitation to the independents. That is what I was speaking of as my understanding of the position of the Liberal Party.

I quite reasonably concluded that the Liberal finance critic's words and actions at the committee spoke as the substantive position of the third party at that committee and here in the House.

Having now augmented my case that the proceedings in the finance committee are in order, I want to turn to the consequences of those proceedings.

The hon. members for Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour and Saanich—Gulf Islands forwarded three amendments and 11 amendments respectively to the finance committee for its consideration. As we heard this morning, interventions in support of their amendments were allowed during the finance committee's clause-by-clause study in the total amount of time roughly proportionate to the number of amendments they each put forward.

It is important that we all understand that they were not just invited to submit amendments. It is important to note, in the context of the arguments that were made by them in the House, that they were also afforded an opportunity to participate at the committee. They were not to participate as full members of the committee, but to speak, to explain the nature of the amendments and to make their case. That is an extraordinary step forward. It is an advance. It shows that they were given more than just an opportunity, as was suggested, to submit amendments that someone else then proposed. They had an opportunity to explain their positions on why those amendments were of merit. This is indeed meaningful participation. It allows them to explain their position on the merits and to participate in the process to get their point of view heard.

Yesterday, I quoted from your December 12, 2012 ruling on report stage practices. I underscored your observation that there was “wide latitude” for committees. I should add that you did not say that the House had wide latitude to amend the Standing Orders. The committee's wide latitude already exists.

As I said yesterday, the generous process struck by the finance committee, I would submit, is four-square within your ruling and would serve as a model for that “satisfactory mechanism” that your ruling cited and your constructive challenge to the creativity found among the members of the House that your ruling invited.

Under this satisfactory mechanism, Mr. Speaker, it is critical to point out that the independents are not disadvantaged in relation to any other member. This is a critically important point to understand. Their right to give notice of report stage motions remains unfettered. What it does, sir, is allow you an opportunity to apply a consistent standard across the board in your selection of report stage motions, whether they are proposed by a Conservative, New Democrat, Liberal, Bloc, Green or an independent.

By virtue of the opportunity to participate and present amendments at committee, to have them heard, they are now, as independent members of this House, put on an equal footing with every other member of this House. They can propose report stage amendments. You, of course, select them in accordance with the rules, but it is achieving that equality of participation and fairness in which no individual member of this House is either advantaged or disadvantaged in accordance with our rules.

The selection criteria are set out in the note attached to Standing Order 76.(5), which provides that, “The Speaker will normally only select motions that were not or could not be presented in committee”.

That was never intended as a loophole to give to certain members of this House an extra right. However, we, through circumstances in your previous ruling, saw what one of the intended consequences of that was, and hence, you provided the invitation that it could be remedied by an effort at the committee to allow independent members to submit amendments to make their views heard at the committee stage. That is what the finance committee did.

The finance committee's mechanism, which I submit is consistent with your earlier ruling, is more than consistent, and it responds to your invitation. It enables the amendments of the independent members to be presented in committee, as that note contemplates.

Moreover, I would draw your attention to a further passage from the note: “A motion, previously defeated in committee, will only be selected if the Speaker judges it to be of such exceptional significance...”.

Accordingly, I would respectfully submit that should tomorrow's notice paper contain report stage amendments appearing in the name of a member who does not sit in a recognized party's caucus, aside from those that propose to delete clauses, it should not be selected for consideration at report stage.

In closing, I would observe that today's notice paper has four notices from the leader of the Green Party of motions to delete certain clauses of Bill C-60. In her submission to you this morning she said, and I quote from the blues, “As a matter of practical reality, the only way to have a speaking opportunity...is to have amendments tabled at report stage.”

Perhaps the answer here lies in the last sentence of Standing Order 76.1(5). “If an amendment has been selected that has been submitted by more than one Member, the Speaker, after consultation, shall designate which Member shall propose it.”

Although other members got identical notices in sooner, perhaps the balanced approach here is to call one of those motions in her name so that she can give a speech and participate in report stage, as she seeks to. Such a creative approach could well complement the finance committee's mechanism to allow independents a chance to get their views expressed in the House without creating yet more voting marathons. The exercise of this discretion could well eliminate the farcical scenes outside the offices of journals Branch last year in which New Democrats and Liberals treated us to camp-out expeditions to get their notices in first.

I would also point out that the Bloc has several deletion motions on notice as well. The same rule would apply, although I understand that some of those deletion motions stand only in their name, which would also satisfy the opportunity of ensuring they did get the ability to speak here at report stage that they seek. This, of course, would answer the concern or objection that is raised there.

In summary, Mr. Speaker, I think what you see here is a good-faith effort by the folks on the finance committee to respond to an invitation you provided, to improve the process and to enhance the rights of the independent members of this House. What we are proposing to you here is a further remedy that is wholly within your power and your ability right now to address what other additional deficiencies they fear they may encounter at report stage barring their ability to participate. This would ensure their ability to participate without any of those other adverse consequences that we have seen in the past.

I think it is a good model of the way in which, when we head into uncharted waters, you can, through your rulings, and through constructive dialogue with the committees of this House and the members of this House, evolve the rules in a fashion that works in the way you want it to, and that is to protect, in this case, the rights of the independent members of Parliament.

I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that if you were to submit, and accept the arguments of the House Leader of the Official Opposition, exactly the opposite would occur. You would be rejecting a process that was designed in good faith to provide those independent members an opportunity to participate in committee, and saying to reject the very invitation that you made and the suggestions you made for improvement.

Should you find favour with that perspective, you will not see an advance for the defence of the rights of independent members of Parliament here; you will in fact see them constrained and straitjacketed, no longer able to participate in the committee. For there will, of course, be no reason for the committee to exercise such an approach to invite their participation because under the rules of this House, they do not sit as members of the committees; that is a long-standing practice of this House.

I could ascribe motive and say that we know that the New Democrats do not want to see the Green Party or the Bloc Québécois members, who represent their rivals electorally regionally, have this additional profile and ability to participate. Perhaps that is their motive, I do not know.

However, all I know is that what we have here is a good faith effort by a committee. To respond to your invitation, Mr. Speaker, a set of constructive solutions will advance the dialogue, help us solve these problems and make this House a more functional place that will not be held in disrepute by the public, but rather will be seen to be focused on working, debating the important issues of the day, getting the work done and allowing the votes and decisions to be taken here that people send us to make.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to come back to the point of order raised yesterday by the House Leader of the Official Opposition, because it pertained to our presence in committee.

We are not asking for more privileges than the others. We are just asking for the few rights that we do have to be respected. There are 308 MPs in the House, who were all legitimately and democratically elected. The rules of Parliament are supposed to allow all of us, from the Prime Minister right down through the ranks, to do our work as legislators for the benefit of our constituents, whether we are members of recognized parties or not.

Mr. Speaker, we are pleased to see that you want to uphold the principles behind your December 12, 2012, ruling, which reminded members that, in accordance with page 307 of the second edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice.

It is the responsibility of the Speaker to act as the guardian of the rights and privileges of Members and of the House as an institution.

You then went on to say that:

Accordingly, unless and until new satisfactory ways of considering the motions of all members to amend bills in committee are found, the Chair intends to continue to protect the rights of independent members to propose amendments at report stage.

That is exactly what we expect of you, Mr. Speaker. A new satisfactory way of considering our amendments in committee can only be interpreted as an opportunity not only to table amendments or simply send them by fax, but also to put them forward ourselves in committee, debate them and vote on them, exactly as we do now at report stage. I am sure you will agree that we cannot rely on the goodwill of committee members, our political opponents, to put forward our amendments. Even if they wanted to, it would be impossible for them to debate and explain what amendments proposed by independent members or members of the Bloc Québécois or the Green Party are all about and the reasons behind them.

However, your decision opens the door to testing certain procedural measures in order to allow members of non-recognized parties and independent members to propose amendments to bills in committee. You also said:

..its report stage selection process would adapt to the new reality.

We understood what that meant, and we were not the only ones. The government interpreted it in its own way, as did the opposition parties. We are willing to participate in committee work with the understanding that we are not permanent members of the committees and that a time limit will be imposed on us based on our respective weight in the House. However, we want to have the same right we have at report stage in the House: the right to propose, debate and put to a vote our own amendments. Simply faxing or emailing our amendments to a committee may be an efficient method of having our amendments studied in committee, but I respectfully submit that it would strip us of the fundamental right to represent our constituents, a right that is enjoyed by all other members of the House. Report stage is when we are currently given the opportunity to exercise that right.

I sincerely believe that the scope of your ruling of December 12, 2012, was not intended to deny us our rights and make us second-class members. I believe that your ruling was designed to invite committees to use Standing Order 119, which allows them to give MPs who are not permanent members the right to speak. It was in response to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, who, on November 28, 2012, asked you to muzzle members of non-recognized parties and independent MPs. That member referred to the changes imposed by Speaker Milliken to minimize the use of motions of a repetitive, frivolous or vexatious nature or of a nature that would serve merely to prolong unnecessarily proceedings. None of the motions moved by the Bloc since the May 2011 election have met that description. We also feel that there is a need to clamp down on abuse, but that this should not be done at the expense of our rights and privileges, as the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons sadly proposed. O'Brien and Bosc fully explains those rights and privileges:

In recommending that report stage be restored, the 1968 Special Committee on Procedure believed that stage to be essential in order to provide all Members of the House, and not merely members of the committee, with an opportunity to express their views on bills under consideration and to propose amendments, where appropriate. For all that, the intent of the Committee was not for this stage to become a repetition of committee stage.

We were recently able to test out this new direction you gave, Mr. Speaker, in response to the comments by the government House leader. Following the vote at second reading stage of Bill C-60, we were invited to propose amendments in committee. According to the committee motion, these amendments were deemed proposed during clause-by-clause study. Technically, we were not allowed to propose our amendments since we are not members of the committee.

Following an email exchange and meetings with the chair of the Standing Committee on Finance, we were able to briefly present our amendments because we did not have many, we were told. The official opposition made sure to remind us that we were not members of the committee under the rules and procedures of the House.

My colleague, the hon. member for Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, was not allowed to ask the officials present any questions, and the leader of the Green Party was unable to respond to comments on the amendments. Our participation was reduced to an absolute minimum.

In your ruling on December 12, 2012, you said:

The Standing Orders currently in place offer committees wide latitude to deal with bills in an inclusive and thorough manner that would balance the rights of all members. In fact, it is neither inconceivable nor unprecedented for committees to allow members, regardless of party status, permanently or temporarily, to be part of their proceedings, thereby opening the possibility for the restoration of report stage to its original purpose. For inspiration on the possibilities, members need only to remember that there are several precedents where independent members were made members of standing committees. Short of that, there is no doubt that any number of procedural arrangements could be developed that would ensure that the amendments that independent members wish to propose to legislation could be put in committee.

I think that the opportunity to be part of a committee would help us find that balance you are looking for and we are looking for.

At report stage, we can table and propose, debate and vote on amendments, thanks to the notes to Standing Orders 76(5) and 76.1(5) to which you refer in your decision of December 12, 2012, on the selection of report stage amendments:

For greater certainty, the purpose of this Standing Order is, primarily, to provide Members who were not members of the committee, with an opportunity to have the House consider specific amendments they wish to propose.

We participated in good faith in the process recommended by the Standing Committee on Finance, but it is clear that the balance you spoke of in your decision was not achieved.

We, the members of non-recognized parties and independents, are now at the centre of a procedural war between the government and the opposition. We find ourselves in the middle of a ping-pong game where our rights and privileges are in play.

The procedure at report stage that allows us to table, debate and vote on amendments is currently predictable. The new process is clearly not. Not all committees ask us to table amendments. Some invite us to propose amendments but do not give us the opportunity to do it ourselves, and still others, such as the Standing Committee on Finance, allow us to do so, but with every possible restriction.

There are only two options: either we are entitled to propose amendments in committee with all the applicable rights, or we are not and can do so at report stage. What we want are clear rules. We do not want to be tossed around, at the mercy of every arbitrary decision made by each of the committees. We no longer have the resources to cope with the haphazard approach or the whims of the other parties, which would like nothing better than to block us at every turn.

We do not want to have to defend our rights case by case, committee by committee, and make it painfully clear with every bill that we cannot exercise our rights in committee.

In closing, I would like to point out to you that when the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs was instructed to examine the standing orders and procedures of the House and its committees, pursuant to the February 17, 2012 motion, I wrote to the chair of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs on February 27, 2012 and requested that a member of the Bloc Québécois sit on the committee for the duration of its work on this matter.

“The fact that we cannot speak in committee is an aberration that deprives us of some of our parliamentary privileges, and that is what we wish to discuss in committee,” I wrote to the committee chair.

The Bloc Québécois was already showing its willingness to work with the committee to address what we consider to be the denial of our parliamentary rights and privileges. The committee never replied to our letter.

As I pointed out yesterday, there are examples of members of non-recognized parties and independents being given rights on the committees of other legislative assemblies.

It seems to me that the evolution of House practices could allow better predictability of the rights of members of non-recognized parties and independents, as is permitted by Standing Order 122 of the National Assembly of Quebec. It states that any independent member or member of an opposition group other than the official opposition can be appointed to a standing committee, which is the equivalent of the committees here in Ottawa. In that case, the committee consists of 12 rather than 10 members.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I are prepared to advance the practices of the House, but our current rights must be preserved.

As guardian of the rights and privileges of the House of Commons, you have a duty to preserve our rights.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, now that we have been sitting for a week under our Conservative government's plans for a harder-working, productive and orderly House of Commons, I would remind all hon. members of what we have been able to achieve since just Victoria Day.

Bill C-48, the technical tax amendments act, 2012, was passed at report stage and third reading. Bill C-49, the Canadian museum of history act, was passed at second reading. Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act, was passed at report stage and we started third reading debate, which we will finish tonight. Bill C-52, the fair rail freight service act was passed at report stage and, just moments ago, at third reading. Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act, was passed at second reading. Bill C-60, the economic action plan 2013 act, No. 1, was reported back from committee yesterday.

Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act, was passed at report stage and we started third reading debate. Bill S-6, the first nations elections act, was debated at second reading. Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act, which was reported back to the House this morning by the hard-working and fast running member for Peace River, has completed committee. Bill S-10, the prohibiting cluster munitions act, was debated at second reading. Bill S-12, the incorporation by reference in regulations act, was debated at second reading. Bill S-13, the port state measures agreement implementation act, was debated at second reading. Bill S-14, the fighting foreign corruption act, was debated at second reading.

We will build on this record of accomplishment over the coming week.

This afternoon, as I mentioned, we will finish the second reading debate on Bill C-51. After that, we will start the second reading debate on Bill C-56, Combating Counterfeit Products Act.

Tomorrow morning, we will start report stage on Bill C-60, now that the hard-working Standing Committee on Finance has brought the bill back to us. After I conclude this statement, Mr. Speaker, I will have additional submissions for your consideration on yesterday's point of order.

After question period tomorrow, we will get a start on the second reading debate on Bill S-15, Expansion and Conservation of Canada’s National Parks Act. I am optimistic that we would not need much more time, at a future sitting, to finish that debate.

On Monday, before question period, we will debate Bill S-17, Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 2013, at second reading. In the afternoon, we will hopefully finish report stage consideration of Bill C-60, followed by Bill S-2 at third reading.

On Tuesday, we will return to Bill S-2 if necessary. After that, I hope we could use the time to pass a few of the other bills that I mentioned earlier, as well as the forthcoming bill on the Yale First Nation Final Agreement.

Wednesday, June 5 shall be the eighth allotted day of the supply cycle. That means we will discuss an NDP motion up until about 6:30 p.m. This will be followed by a debate on the main estimates. Then we will pass to two appropriations acts.

Next Thursday, I would like to return back to Bill C-60, our budget implementation legislation, so we can quickly pass that important bill for the Canadian economy.

Standing Committee on Finance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continuing:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And you added:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Finally, you suggested this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fair Rail Freight Service Act

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

This is actually quite insulting, and most of all, undemocratic. The Conservatives are forcing us to sit until midnight from Monday to Thursday, and yet this makes the 37th time we have a time allocation motion. Talk about mixed messages.

We want to discuss the issues, but the government limits the time for debate again and again. In addition, these are badly thought-out bills riddled with flaws. I will list them a little later in my speech.

This has been an ongoing trend with the Conservatives since they came into office. I am specifically thinking of omnibus Bills C-38, C-45 and C-60.

I speak of the Conservatives' incompetence because they are bringing forward bills full of flaws and weaknesses. They are not holding proper consultations. In committee, recommendations from many of the witnesses are rejected out of hand, as are the amendments proposed by the NDP, or anyone else for that matter.

They realized that Bill C-38 was flawed. Then they made hasty additions to Bill C-45 to rectify the other bill they had just introduced.

This makes no sense at all. It lacks credibility. It shows a lack of respect for the democratic process, for the people who were consulted and for those who were not. It shows contempt for the elected officials who serve the people who rely on them to make decisions. We cannot make good decisions because we cannot have a debate and carefully examine everything that should be considered. So yes, it is insulting and an outrage.

The official opposition will support Bill C-52 because it is, finally, a first attempt at establishing the right to service agreements between rail companies and shippers.

This is the first step that shippers have been waiting for for decades. It also establishes an arbitration process, led by the Canadian Transportation Agency, to impose penalties in the event negotiations fail and for violations of arbitration decisions. There are therefore constructive, positive elements, but there are also a number of elements that shippers and the official opposition were calling for but that were rejected.

Four NDP members proposed amendments, based on recommendations from shippers. Those members were the transport critic, the member for Trinity—Spadina; the deputy critic, the member for Trois-Rivières; the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine and the member for York South—Weston.

What were those amendments and recommendations? I will explain them. They were not that complicated, and they would have really helped shippers.

We recommended including details about the service agreements. It seems to me that service agreements should, at the very least, be signed and contain details. I do not understand why that was rejected. We asked that the term “operational” be deleted because it would limit the ability to negotiate and arbitrate service agreements. Again, that seems to go without saying. It does not make much sense to limit the measure we are trying to implement. We wanted to include a dispute resolution mechanism in service agreements for breach of contract. We also asked to limit the ability of railway companies to levy penalties and charges that are not in the service agreement.

The rates are already exorbitant and the railway companies are abusing their power. Since there are only two main companies, there is a quasi-monopoly when it comes to shipping freight. The rates being charged to the shippers are too high. They prevent the entrepreneurs and the shippers from being competitive on the international market. We cannot even limit the capacity of the rail carriers to charge penalties that are not included in the service agreement. Nothing good will come of that either.

We proposed limiting arbitration when service agreement negotiations break off and issues are raised by the shipper. The last amendment sought to limit the capacity of rail carriers to raise network-related problems during arbitration.

All these amendments could have improved Bill C-52, but they were not considered. They were completely rejected.

Again, we are here to let the House know that people are not happy about this.The bill has other flaws. What about lost revenue. The Conservatives claim they want to strengthen the economy, but they are diminishing the capacity of the regions to prop up their regional economy, given that the affected sectors are the farming, forestry, mining, manufacturing and natural resources sectors. Most of these sectors are in remote regions.

The Conservatives are contradicting themselves again. They would have us believe that their position and their bills are best, but then they sabotage everything they are trying to do by not taking the time to do proper research. They do not take the time to consult the experts in the areas affected by their bills. That is part of the incompetence that we are talking about here.

Shippers are currently paying the price of service disruptions, damage to their crops and service delays by railways. What is more, they have no other option. As many of my colleagues have said, 70% of surface goods are moved by rail in Canada, and 80% of these shippers are not satisfied with the service they received. That is serious. That means that service is considered to be poor in four out of five cases.

That is why these types of agreements needed to be made after all these years. However, now that they are finally being made, they are more negative than positive. The money from the $100,000 penalties imposed on railway companies under this bill is not used to compensate shippers. Instead, it goes to the federal government. Yet, it really should be given to shippers who create jobs and who have to pay late fees and fees for services that the railways failed to provide.

This money is being sent to the wrong place. What is more, these penalties do not really act as a deterrent since we know that companies such as CN are making $2.7 billion in profit a year.

In short, we are going to allow this bill to move forward, but it has many shortcomings. We must listen to experts on this.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord. I also want to thank my colleague from Trinity—Spadina for her work as our transportation critic, for her tireless work with a community that is invested in seeing improvements to the Transportation Act and for her efforts to improve the bill.

Bill C-52 would amend the Canada Transportation Act. It is a bill that is long overdue.

Rail transportation is the backbone of the Canadian economy. It is in the DNA of our history, and it is something that touches a huge part of our economy. More than 70% of all surface goods in Canada are shipped by rail. We are a vast country and a country that is open to the world. It is very export oriented, and having good transportation networks is absolutely fundamental.

Many of us are familiar with the railway industry. I know that in my family, my grandfather, my husband and my mother all worked in the railway sector. It is part of our country, part of our history and part of our current economy. It touches so many Canadians.

What we have been finding through the study on the bill and leading up to the bill is that 80% of service commitments for agricultural rail customers, which means that they deal with food, feed and farm materials, are not met by the railway companies. There are serious delays, insufficient numbers of rail cars, et cetera. A rail freight service review found that 80% of shippers were not satisfied with the service they received.

What is the root of the problem? One would think that after a couple of centuries, we would be getting our rail service right, but sometimes when governments rush to fix one problem, they create other problems. Sometimes when governments have ideological blinders on, they are wilfully blind to the problems they are creating.

In 1995, the Liberals were in a rush to show that they were jumping on board the privatization bandwagon. They wanted to prove to the world that they could privatize with the best of them. One of the companies they rushed to privatize was CN. They privatized the company, CN. They privatized the tracks. What they forgot to do was put in any safeguards for Canadians, safeguards for shippers and safeguards for our passenger rail service in terms of access to the railway tracks. They basically turned it over to the private sector.

CN is doing very well. It made a profit of $2.7 billion. Bravo. It is doing well. It was just announced this week that the CEO made a salary of $48 million. I am sure he worked hard for every single penny of it.

The trouble is that these ideological decisions create problems. It was the Liberals in 1995 that unleashed this, and frankly, neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives after them, for almost 20 years, have done anything to fix the problems until this bill. It is with insufficient measures that they are trying to address the problems.

Let me say up front that this is a bill we will be supporting at report stage and third reading, but it is a weak bill. It is a bill that does not do the job Canadians really need it to do.

The bill would give rail freight customers or shippers the right to service agreements with rail companies. It is shocking that they have not had this before now, especially with the two majors, CN and CP. It also puts in place an arbitration process, led by the Canadian Transportation Agency, in cases of failed negotiations or where there are penalties for violating the results of arbitration.

This is positive. Canadians deserve fair and reliable freight services. This is obvious and logical.

Shippers pay good money, but they need a stronger position vis-à-vis the two main companies that form a duopoly. Together they have a kind of two-party monopoly. Their power is only partially addressed by Bill C-52.

There were recommendations by the shipping community at the committee stage that were sensible, practical and modest, yet the Conservatives ruled them out of hand with no serious consideration.

As the official opposition finance critic, I certainly know this. With every budget bill we have massive omnibus budget bills. We have been dealing with another one this week, Bill C-60, which again, is an amalgamation of all kinds of changes to different laws, many that have nothing to do with finance and budgets. We have seen that they never accept one amendment to any of their budget implementation legislation. Experts in their fields have testified at the finance committee that the government will have problems if it bullies ahead with certain changes, such as getting rid of the inspector general of CSIS. The expert who helped set up CSIS told us that this would cause problems, but it did not matter. The Conservatives are more expert than the experts, and they went ahead and made the changes anyway.

In this case, they heard expert testimony about why certain changes should be made. However, the Conservatives gave them no serious consideration. They rejected the changes out of hand, which is a bit sad, because this House ought to be about discussion, debate, learning, and ultimately, compromise to get the best laws possible for Canadians.

The bill needs further improvement. The NDP will continue to work with businesses and shippers across the country to improve this legislation and to tackle the issue of uncompetitive freight rates and gouging of the shippers. What we heard from businesses across the country was that they are getting poor customer service. They have had disruptions in rail service and unacceptable service costs. We heard about produce rotting, because it could not be shipped. We heard about lost contracts, because there was no guarantee that the goods could be shipped reliably, which made Canadian businesses unreliable suppliers. We heard about missed connections with ships for travel and shipping. This is a daily occurrence for industries across Canada.

Poor rail services are hurting Canadian exporters, damaging our global competitiveness and costing us jobs, which is a little ironic from a government that talks a lot about jobs. However, when the rubber hits the road, it often misses the train. That is what has been happening with this legislation.

There are a number of key amendments we put forward that the shipping community pushed for. They were championed by the NDP and defeated at committee. Without the rejected amendments, this bill remains only a partial success. Nevertheless, it is still worthy of our support. I want to stress that we are dissatisfied with the outcome. It is not what the shippers really wanted to see. Therefore, there is a need for future strengthening of this legislation.

Sadly, I see that my time is just about up. There is so much else to say. Thanks for the attention of this House. I look forward to the questions of my hon. colleagues.

Standing Committee on Finance

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

Mr. Speaker, since the point of order raised by the House leader of the official opposition concerns the non-recognized parties, it is appropriate for us to have our say today. I will reserve the right to add more arguments later because we were not aware that this point of order would be raised today.

With great respect, Mr. Speaker, the ruling you made in December 2012 reminds me of what happened in 2001 when your predecessor, Speaker Milliken, also made a ruling that restricted the use of report stage amendments. Between 1968 and 2001, successive Speakers were rather flexible with regard to report stage amendments.

In your ruling, you asked the government to show some openness to participation by members from non-recognized parties or independent members in certain committees, enabling them to propose amendments in committee. There is an important distinction, Mr. Speaker, and you are well placed to be aware of it. The Conservatives also know this, because in 1993 they were a non-recognized party. The NDP knows it too, because the NDP was also a non-recognized party in 1993.

The problem is that the members of this House fall into two categories. In the House we have an opportunity to ask questions and make speeches. We even have some speaking rights, which unfortunately we can no longer exercise because the government has been imposing time allocation motions on nearly all bills. Still, we feel we have proportional equality with our counterparts in the other parties. It is natural that we will be allocated fewer minutes because we have fewer members.

In committee, on the other hand, it is not the same as in the Quebec National Assembly, where the other parties have given the non-recognized parties—such as Québec solidaire and Action démocratique before it—the right to sit on committees, speak at committee meetings and even vote. Here, none of that is possible. I do not want the non-recognized parties to be treated like a ping pong ball in this dispute between the government and the recognized parties in this House. I think we have something to say on the subject.

The existence of the report stage simply allows us to propose the amendments we were unable to propose in committee, the amendments we have not had an opportunity to discuss. It is the only right we have left, Mr. Speaker, and I would like you to preserve it. We must be careful. The government says this is an invitation, but no party in the House has given us anything since May 2, 2011, and we are not asking for any gifts. We do not want additional privileges; we simply want our rights to be respected.

In committee, however, as happened in the committee studying Bill C-60, the only committee where we have been able to propose amendments, we had a few short minutes to do so, but no opportunity to speak at all. We were not allowed to ask questions of the public servants who were present or vote on the amendments we were proposing. If the government thinks it was giving us a gift, it is mistaken.

We want to preserve our rights. Therefore, we must be able to propose an amendment, discuss it, debate it and vote on it, and be aware of all committee activities, as it is possible to do in the House at report stage.

My first request, Mr. Speaker, is that you ensure that the rights of all members of the House are preserved, especially those who are less numerous, like the members of non-recognized parties.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I have had the opportunity to go over some of the things that took place in committee, and we should be concerned.

When the government House leader talks about the evolution of process, what we have witnessed is an evolution that takes away the ability of individual members to perform their duties on numerous occasions.

For example, the government House leader could argue that the usage of time allocation is an evolution of process. That evolution that the government has adopted works against, what we would argue, the best interests of Canadians in limiting the opportunity for individuals to express themselves on a wide variety of bills, including Bill C-60.

Let us take a look at what the government has now proposed to do.

The Conservatives are saying that inside the committee they now want to mandate all members of the House, whether they are part of an officially recognized party or not, to bring forward their amendments to the committee well in advance. However, as one can easily imagine by the way the government has managed this evolution of process, the Conservatives are really trying to prevent independent members who are not part of a recognized political party the opportunity to present their amendments at report stage. This raises a whole spectrum of issues that really needs to be addressed.

I am concerned that if the government were trying to demonstrate good will based on a Speaker's ruling, with all due respect, then this should have been was raised at one of the House leader's meetings and received a consensus of support. We have to be very careful when we look at changing rules, which is ultimately what the government House leader has proposed to do. We have to be very careful that there is a consensus from all political entities inside the House to do that. If we take a look at what took place at the committee, members will find that there was not unanimous consent in passing the motion in question, which is important to recognize.

The second issue I would like to raise is the letter that I understand the leader of the Green Party received. Imagine receiving a letter which gives a very clear indication that one has x amount of time to get all of one's information gathered and amendments in place. The letter suggests that must be done by Monday, May 27, at nine o'clock in the morning. Again, I call into question the legitimacy of this.

This issue came up through a point of order by the New Democratic opposition House leader, and there is great merit for that. We will take a look at this matter in more detail and we might want to add further comment on the issue as time progresses.

However, I want to emphasize how important it is when the government House leader makes reference to the evolution of process or rules. Whenever he starts to fantasize or talk about it, in the past, it has not been a positive thing in democracy in the House of Commons.

I raise this issue as a red flag. We need to tread very carefully before making any sort of ruling on that which seeks to deprive individual members, or collective members, the opportunity to do something they have done in the past because the government deems it as not as clean or quick as it would like to see things take place. The Conservatives are bringing in these draconian-type changes or proposals, which are not healthy for democracy in the House of Commons.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a very specific point of order with regard to Bill C-60, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures, and the work that was done by the committees that were studying this bill, particularly the finance committee, which invoked some measures we believe are not in order and fell well outside of its mandate.

As some context for those Canadians who are not familiar with Bill C-60, this is another piece of omnibus legislation. We rose earlier on similar points of order with respect to how the bill was handled.

In its nature, being an omnibus bill under the current government's watch, with the expansion of omnibus legislation to include so many different matters, the government has faced a difficulty of its own making in that it is not purely a financial bill and it is not simply a bill to implement the budget; it would do much more. While it has an anti-democratic nature and tone for us, in various ways we have struggled with the ability for members of Parliament to properly study and amend legislation that is so broad.

I wish that you would review the motion adopted by the standing committee on May 7, as well as the proceedings that resulted from this specific motion, and that you rule to determine whether these proceedings were in order or not and whether the committee overstepped its authority when adopting this particular motion. I will refer in detail to what the motion accomplished and how it fell outside of the mandate of the committee.

We raised a very similar point of order, if you will remember, around Bill C-45. That was the second omnibus bill that followed on Bill C-38. We had deep concerns about the fact that the Standing Committee on Finance, during its consideration of that massive omnibus bill, went beyond its mandate and usurped the authority of the House when it invited other standing committees to study particular sections of Bill C-45. On their own mandate they started to carve the bill up and send it out. It then allowed these committees that were studying the bill to move amendments and then saw it as if those amendments had been moved by members of the finance committee.

We argued at the time that this went beyond the mandate and the reference from the House, from you as the Speaker.

A similar argument could be made about Bill C-60. It was introduced on April 29.

On May 7, after the government used time allocation to shut down the debate once again on discussions at second reading, it ended with the passage of the following motion, which stated:

...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 [the Standing Committee on Finance].

Hansard on that day of May 7 specifically quotes you as saying:

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Finance.

It is pro forma and it is how bills are referred to the committee.

The committee acted outside of its powers and authority, those powers conferred on it by this House, when it adopted a motion on that very same day asking other committees to study sections of the bill, namely the standing committees on industry, science and technology; veterans affairs; human resources, skills and development; the status of persons with disabilities; citizenship and immigration; as well as foreign affairs and international development. That is where the government sought to parse out the bill.

It is very difficult to deal with omnibus legislation that is so obviously varied that it implicates so many different committees. The government has pushed, and I would argue broken the democratic limits of our legislature, by packing so much into these individual bills. In essence it is hiding from Canadians what its agenda is as these bills then come back to the House for one single vote on so many matters. This was something that the Conservatives concerned themselves with greatly when they were in opposition. You have heard me mention many of the quotes from the Prime Minister and various ministers in his cabinet on how much they disliked this tactic when the Liberals used it. It is now a tactic that the Conservatives seem to enjoy using with much relish.

Although I believe the Standing Committee on Finance went beyond its mandate to ask these five other committees to study the bill, this is not the principal concern that I want to raise with you today.

The committee went even further this time in going beyond its mandate, by adopting a motion to allow members of Parliament who are not members of a caucus represented on the committee to file amendments to the bill. It went further by directing that any amendments suggested to the committee would be deemed to be proposed during the clause-by-clause consideration on Bill C-60, even if the member who presented the amendment was not present.

Let us take a moment with this. Out of some seeking of convenience, the committee members passed the motion at their own discretion, not by any power given to them by the House, to allow amendments that came from people who do not sit on the committee, who are not recognized parties in the House. They allowed amendments to suddenly appear and be presented as if they came from somebody on committee. This goes against three fundamental principles that we hold dear in the House.

Only the House can appoint committee members. This is well known. It is done at the beginning of every session when we constitute our committees. No committee can self-appoint members. It has to come from an order in the House.

Only committee members who have been appointed by the House can move a motion. In order to move a motion, a member must be present at the time the motion is moved. We just dealt with a piece of private member's legislation before my point of order. A seconder was missing from her particular seat. The House properly waited until that member took her seat so that she was present. Motions cannot be moved if people are not here.

The rules of committee as established by the House specifically prescribe that members of a committee are designated by the House and cannot include members of a non-recognized party. This is a practice and a procedure we have used for many years. The rules established by the House also specifically prescribe that only a member of a committee can move a motion.

According to O'Brien and Bosc's House of Commons Procedure and Practice:

Only a member of the committee, or his or her designated substitute, may move an amendment or vote on an amendment.

Standing Order No. 119 stipulates that:

Any member of the House who is not a member of a standing, special or legislative committee, may, unless the House or the committee concerned otherwise orders, take part in the public proceedings of the committee, but may not vote or move any motion, nor be part of any quorum.

The O'Brien and Bosc text, on page 1019, states:

It is the House, and the House alone, that appoints the members and associate members of its committees, as well as the members who will represent it on joint committees.

The status of member of a committee is accorded to Members of the House of Commons who belong officially to that committee. This status allows them to participate fully in their committee's proceedings: members may move motions, vote and be counted for purposes of a quorum.

The Speaker has ruled that this is a fundamental right of the House. It cannot be taken away. A committee simply cannot move a motion to take such a power away from the House. I am quoting now:

The committees themselves have no powers at all in this regard.

I would like at this point to mention your ruling, Mr. Speaker, from last December. You will recall that at the time, we moved our point of order regarding the last omnibus bill, Bill C-45, specifically with respect to the role and rights of independent members in the context of report stage.

The government House leader argued that the current process by which independent members are not allowed to present motions at committee means that at report stage of bills, a single independent member has the ability, in his words, “to hold the House hostage in a voting marathon”, as if voting were somehow connected to a hostage-taking, by submitting numerous report stage amendments.

In response, Mr. Speaker, you suggested that members may try to find ways to accommodate independent members at committee in order to allow them to present motions. You said the following:

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

I understand that the motion adopted for Bill C-60 at committee was somehow a response to this ruling and an attempt by the Conservative Party to cut short the proceedings at report stage. However, I believe that the Conservatives fundamentally misinterpreted your ruling to in fact allow independent members to move motions to amend bills at committees. The Conservatives should have, and must have, sought agreement of the House to allow the members to sit on that committee. That is a power they cannot take away simply by a motion at committee. Indeed, it is from the House that committees derive this power. Committees on their own do not have absolute powers.

While committees are often quoted as being masters of their own fate, I will cite from O'Brien and Bosc at page 1047:

The concept refers to the freedom committees normally have to organize their work as they see fit and the option they have of defining, on their own, certain rules of procedure that facilitate their proceedings.

A second quote, on page 1048 of O'Brien and Bosc, states:

These freedoms are not, however, total or absolute.... committees are creatures of the House. This means that they have no independent existence and are not permitted to take action unless they have been authorized/empowered to do so by the House.

A second quote on that same page states:

...committees are free to organize their proceedings as they see fit.... committees may adopt procedural rules to govern...but only to the extent the House does not prescribe anything specific.

Members of a committee, and only members of a committee, as well as associate members when they replace those members, are able to attend the committee and thus move a motion at committee.

O'Brien and Bosc further tells us that:

Standing Orders specifically exclude a non-member from voting, moving motions or being counted for purposes of quorum.

The rules also clearly state that a member must be present for the motion. This is a fact. We have never moved away from this fact or this rule or procedure. To suddenly invent a process by which a motion can be moved but the member may be absent contravenes the basic tenets of democracy and representation. We could suddenly have votes where people just call in and speak their intentions rather than be here themselves.

Where a notice of motion has been given, the Speaker will first ensure that the Member wishes to proceed with the moving of the motion. If the sponsor of a motion chooses not to proceed (either by not being present or by being present but declining to move the motion), then the motion is not proceeded with....

This has happened many times in the House. We have seen private member's bills that members chose not to move. They either made themselves absent from the House or they remained in their seats and the motion was not moved forward. Nobody else can do it on their behalf. No one can simply come in and say, “The member intended to be here, but is not. Please allow the member's private member's bill or motion to be considered”.

There is a precedent for a Speaker overruling a committee matter, because sometimes Speakers, often, and I think for good reason, have been loath to involve themselves in committee business.

I quote from O'Brien and Bosc, page 775:

Since a committee may appeal the decision of its Chair and reverse that decision, it may happen that a committee will report a bill with amendments that were initially ruled out of order by the Chair. The admissibility of those amendments, and of any other amendments made by a committee, may therefore be challenged on procedural grounds when the House resumes its consideration of the bill at report stage. The admissibility of the amendments is then determined by the Speaker of the House, whether in response to a point of order or on his or her own initiative.

Amendments were moved with no member present who was actually intent on moving that motion. People were made members of the committee, one assumes, by a motion the committee did not have the power to designate.

For the House to now consider, at report stage, Bill C-60, with these amendments in place, is strictly out of order. It is the proper role of the Speaker of the House to intervene to say that things were done improperly and have to be done right.

In 2007, a point of order was raised in the House dealing with the admissibility of three amendments contained in a bill at report stage from the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Speaker Milliken ruled two of the amendments out of order, finding that they imported into the bill concepts and terms not present in the bill and were therefore beyond the scope of the bill.

I quote from Speaker Milliken's ruling on February 27, 2007:

...the Speaker does not intervene on matters upon which committees are competent to take decisions. However, in cases where a committee has exceeded its authority, particularly in relation to bills, the Speaker has been called upon to deal with such matters after a report has been presented to the House.

That has happened here today.

In terms of amendments adopted by committees on bills, if they were judged to be inadmissible by the Speaker, those amendments would be struck from the bill as amended because the committee did not have the authority to adopt such provisions.

This means there exists a precedent for the Speaker rejecting amendments to a bill and the process by which it was there.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you to rule and review the motion adopted by the standing committee on May 7, 2013, as well as the proceedings that resulted from that motion, and that you rule to determine whether these proceedings were in order and whether the committee overstepped its authority when it adopted the motion.

The House of Commons and Parliament, and democracy in general, have suffered much abuse under this tactic and use of omnibus legislation. We have presented ourselves many times in defence of the institution and the right of members to speak and the people we represent to clearly understand the legislation the government is attempting to move.

The abuse of omnibus legislation has been a decision by the government. The difficulty it is having in the way amendments are moved and the process by which a bill goes through are of its own making, and it has only itself to blame.

A committee cannot take powers the House did not give it. Simply accepting motions from members who are not part of a committee and are not present to move the motion, contravenes the basic tenets of this place. The presence and acknowledged presence of a standing member of any of these committees is required—it is a basic, fundamental requirement—for a motion to proceed. These motions were considered improperly. We ask that you rule in this matter.

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present two petitions.

The first petition is primarily from residents of the Ottawa area and deals with the subject of the CBC, our national public broadcaster.

The petitioners are calling for stable, long-term and predictable funding and the independence of the CBC. The petition is particularly timely, given the amendments to the sections of Bill C-60 which would affect crown corporations.

Finance

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

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 19th report of the Standing Committee on Finance 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.

The committee has studied the bill and has agreed to report the bill back to the House without amendment.

Canada Post

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when I hear that Canada Post is an arm's-length crown corporation and the government cannot do anything about it, I think it is a bit of a crock. In June 2011, the government did not hesitate to interfere by introducing legislation forcing people back to work when the strike had not even begun. On Bill C-60, the Conservatives would not hesitate to interfere in the negotiations; they have given themselves that authority.

Does the gentleman across the way think that if the managers had something owed to them that they would wait a year and a half before it was paid to them? Does he think that the only shareholder, the government, would wait a year and a half before receiving its dividend that it receives annually? Would it wait that long? I do not think so. Therefore, why would they then be treating their employees and their retired employees with such disdain?

Let us hustle a bit here and respect the Supreme Court. Do not negotiate, as there is no negotiation here. It is settled. The Supreme Court decided, so do what is right and pay these people their due.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is fitting that I am speaking to this topic today because this morning I was able to meet with the Association of Public Service Alliance Retirees; its president, Mr. Chevalier; and its executive committee. They wanted to discuss two or three issues, and the government should be worried about one in particular.

In November 2011, the Supreme Court of Canada made a unanimous ruling on pay equity and ordered Canada Post to compensate its employees. Of the slightly more than 6,000 employees who were affected, the majority are women and 80% are now retired. What is worse, this morning members of the Association of Public Service Alliance Retirees told me that 28 of those people are now deceased. There may be more, but the members know that 28 of them have died.

The Supreme Court handed down its ruling a year and a half ago and Canada Post still has not respected the unanimous decision of the highest court in the land.

In 2005, Canada Post set $50 million aside in case it might lose. It lost after a lengthy battle. These people, 80% of whom are retired, live on an income averaging less than $20,000 and the money they are owed would help them a great deal. It would probably add $100 to $150 a month to their pension.

A year and a half after a unanimous Supreme Court decision, Canada Post, backed by the government it seems, refuses to pay what it owes these people. It makes no sense.

I asked the question in April and in response I was told that Canada Post is an independent corporation that is responsible for its own affairs, especially when it comes to human resource management.

I am sorry, but Canada Post has only one shareholder and that is the Government of Canada. When it came to interfering in Canada Post's business in June of 2011, the government did not hesitate to introduce a bill in the House to force the employees back to work before the strike even began. We all remember that saga.

In Bill C-60, which is currently at committee stage, the government also gives itself the right to intervene in collective bargaining processes.

The government cannot tell us that Canada Post is an independent corporation that is responsible for its own affairs when it comes to labour relations and then turn around and say that it can interfere whenever it wants to.

Why does the government not want to interfere to force Canada Post to pay its employees what it owes them, as per the Supreme Court's decision?

Who does Canada Post want to appeal to now? It is trying to negotiate with the unions and the courts to pay less interest than it owes. A Supreme Court judgment cannot be appealed before lower courts. If Canada Post wants to appeal the Supreme Court's decision, it should bring its case before Parliament, where its appeal will be denied rather quickly. Canada Post has to pay that money to over 6,000 current employees and former employees who are now retired. It is not doing so.

As I said the other day, it very unlikely that the bigwigs and managers at Canada Post would agree to wait a year before getting what they were owed.

I hope that the government will take action and force Canada Post to abide by the Supreme Court's decision.

The Canadian Museum of History Act

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am referring to the public trust. When we are dealing with sensitive issues like the telling of our story and the mandate of a museum, which has been the most popular and well-attended museum in the national capital region with professionals who worked there for years and years to build up its reputation not just in Canada but internationally, it suggests that if the Conservatives are to make these changes, they better have some good reasons which would benefit all Canadians.

I bring up these issues because we see time and time again a government that lacks transparency and has no commitment to accountability. I mean, the Conservatives have lost $3.1 billion. It has fallen away somewhere and they cannot seem to find it.

I also want to talk about the way in which the bill came about. I see some hon. members across the way shaking their heads because they do not like the truth about how they spin Canadians.

We in the heritage committee were sent on a journey to study how best to celebrate Canada's 150th birthday. We interviewed countless Canadians. They said many interesting things, but never did they say that we needed to change the name of the Museum of Civilization. No one came to us and said, “Folks, you really do this. There's a real problem here”. No one ever said that, not once.

However, we did hear from many people who came before our committee from small archives and museums across the country. They said that if the government did not do something to help them out, that their archives and museums were on the verge of dying. Their curatorial workers are getting older, and the average age is well into the fifties, but because of deep cuts that the Conservative government has made to cultural industries in our country, and its contempt for the independence of third party agencies, fewer young people are going into this sector.

Now the Conservatives are telling Canadians that they are going to share this vast treasure trove of historical artifacts with all the little museums and archives across the country, but none of them have the capacity to receive that stuff. Not only that, there is no cost attached to the bill. This from the prudently fiscal government, but, oh yes, it lost $3.1 billion. I do not know if I mentioned that.

However, all of a sudden, out of thin air, the Minister of Canadian Heritage said that he found $25 million in the Department of Heritage to spend on this museum. He said that it was not coming from any other program and no other program was going to suffer. However, he does not tell us where the heck the money was in the first place. Not one time have we actually had accountability and transparency on Bill C-49.

When we start to talk about bills, especially ones that change the narrative or at least try to describe it in a different way, we want to consult with Canadians. That is what the heritage committee is supposed to do and, in fact, we did. Then, the minister, while riding his motorcycle, had a vision. His vision was to change the name and the mandate of the Museum of Civilization. Then he doubled back, maybe he popped a wheelie, drove back to Ottawa and announced that the government was changing the name of the Museum of Civilization. He announced how much money the government would spend on it. Then, after that, he proceeded to public consultation. I know I am still kind of new here, but that is a little on the backward side.

The entire $25 million one-time contribution comes directly out of the Canadian Heritage budget, but the minister has refused to explain where exactly the money comes from or what heritage programs will lose funds to finance the contribution.

This is the game of deception the government is now famous for. The Conservatives cannot find $3.1 billion. It is lost. No one can say where it is.

This is a government that guts environmental protection of our lakes, rivers and streams but spends millions on a fake lake in Toronto. It refused to support the NDP's national housing strategy, but spent millions on gazebos in Muskoka to help re-elect one of its vulnerable ministers.

In fact, the minister responsible for housing told Canadians that the issue of affordable housing had been solved, since interest rates are at historic lows and Canadians can now buy houses. This shows a complete lack of understanding of the reality of life for folks who live in Toronto, who live in my riding of Davenport, who struggle day in and day out to afford their apartments, their homes. Families cannot find suitable and affordable housing. Seniors are barely hanging on in their homes, and young people are facing an incredibly unstable future without access to full-time, stable jobs.

The government decided the change the name of the museum at a cost of $500,000. It added about $400,000 more for its bogus consultation, which happened after the fact. That is why I call it bogus. It had already made its decision. It already knew exactly what it was doing. The plan was in the minister's motorcycle satchel.

This is how things are supposed to work in the House of Commons when it is not dominated by the anti-democratic reflexes of the government. We consult Canadians. We craft legislation based on the consultation. We table legislation in the House, debate it and finally, if the legislation passes, earmark the money and spend it on the program.

The government says it is going to spend $25 million to narrow the mandate and change the name of the Museum of Civilization. It says that the money is just lying around. Where was it all this time? It spent almost $1 million on a party and a consultation process, but the consultation came after the decision had already been made. This is an insult to Canadians. However, this is what we have come to expect from Conservatives.

In Davenport, for example, and this is on the point of consultation and transparency, people are only too familiar with this lack of consultation. For 50 years after a nuclear fuel processing facility had been operating in the riding, no one who lives near it knew what was going on there. The company's operating licence, however, clearly stated that it must keep the residents informed. It did not, and the government is okay with that.

That is why Conservatives have refused my request, on behalf of the community, to reopen the licence to give residents their lawful opportunity to participate in the process of public information.

Cultural communities and citizens of varied backgrounds came to us at the heritage committee. They talked about their stories and their concern about a dominant culture in which there is no space for them to talk about their issues and their history.

With its one-sided and triumphalist approach, the museum of history could run the risk of presenting a monolithic vision of Canadian history, unrepresentative of its diversity. This is particularly of concern to me. More than half of all residents of Toronto were not born in Canada. Their stories, their struggles, their triumphs, their hopes and their fears are the lifeblood that courses through the veins of Toronto. Immigrants' stories are heroic stories.

Recently I had the honour of being present at a ceremony marking 60 years of Portuguese immigration to Canada. The history of the Portuguese in Canada, particularly, in Toronto, is incredible. It is built on hard work, fidelity to family, love of home country, and a deep faith and commitment to Canada. It is a story of the collective achievements of a community, many members of which came to Canada with very little and contributed so much.

Will this story be told in Canada's museum of history? Will the great stories of Canada's multinational, multi-ethnic immigrant community have a place there? Will it be up to the whim of the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages and his buddies on the board?

There are many stories and many parts of our history that many Canadians have little trust the government would be interested in presenting at this history museum.

The fact that we are even discussing whether the Conservatives would be interested in them underlines the real problem of independence. We know already that the Conservatives have tried time and again to interfere with the independence of cultural agencies.

We have great stories. We have troubling stories too. We have stories of the history of feminism in Canada, for example. We have the tragic story of the Komagata Maru. We have the On to Ottawa Trek. We have the story of Norman Bethune, for example; the Riel rebellion; the story of co-operatives in Canada, which is a phenomenal story; and of course, the story of the first peoples of Canada.

There is concern, not just here on this side of the House but across the country, that the government has a very narrow vision of what is Canadian history and that the Conservatives want to prescribe in this new museum a vision of Canadian history that is not the full picture. That is the concern. There is very little the Conservatives have said during this debate to allay the fears of many.

Some people may think that some of these concerns about telling the stories of new Canadians and immigrants are misplaced. However, when we look at the Conservative record on immigration, for example, we have a lot to be concerned about. While the New Democrats want to reunite more families in Canada, the Conservatives' radical overhaul of Canada's immigration system is turning this country into a less welcoming place, making it even harder for families to reunite in Canada with overseas spouses, children, parents and grandparents.

Here is what the Conservatives are asking families to face: waits as long as nine years to reunite with loved ones; a misguided two-year freeze on reunification applications for parents and grandparents; and arbitrary rejection of visitors' visas, with no chance for appeal, preventing many family members from attending weddings and even funerals. Meanwhile, instead of welcoming skilled immigrants to address Canada's long-term economic needs, the Conservatives are prioritizing temporary work visas to help big business pay lower wages.

This is no way to build our country or our communities. If we want to grow a 21st century economy, we will need to attract the best and the brightest from around the world. Making family reunification a central priority in our immigration system is one of the ways to go.

This is part of the context in which we are debating this bill. If we do not have a sense that the Conservative government will play a hands-off role in cultural agencies, and if we do not have a sense that it understands the importance of families and family reunification in our immigration system, how can we trust them to allow the full story of who we are as a country to come out in this new formulation of the Museum of Civilization?

The bill would closely follow the Conservative attempt to interfere with history as taught in classrooms, clearly interfering in provincial jurisdiction. We have heard these comments tonight about the apparent lack of attention to history in Canadian schools. Sometimes some of these members should perhaps consider running provincially, because that is a provincial jurisdiction.

This spring, Conservatives on the heritage committee attempted to study history in provincial classroom curricula, focusing on battles in military history.

We understand the need for a balanced rendering of history devoid of any political interference. Too often, though, we have seen the current government reach into cultural institutions and attempt to compromise their independence. In fact, the Conservative cabinet, if Bill C-60 passes, will attempt to dictate rates of pay for non-unionized workers and terms for collective agreements at many cultural agencies, including the CBC and the Museum of Civilization, or as it will soon be called, the museum of Canadian history.

For the Conservatives, it is always a race to the bottom, though, on the environment, on ethics, on transparency in government and, most importantly, on wages.

The government is ideologically committed to pushing wages down, breaking unions and privatizing key cultural institutions. This ideology fails the people of Canada and Toronto and urban workers in cities across the country. Almost 50% of all workers in Toronto cannot find full-time, stable employment. They work part time, freelance, on contract or are self-employed. They have no access to benefits, workplace pensions or job security.

Our cultural institutions are not only the repository, the incubator and the teller of our shared stories. They contribute enormously to our local and national economy, providing employment to hundreds of thousands of Canadians. In fact, the arts and culture sector contributes between $60 billion and $80 billion of GDP to the Canadian economy. However, when key employers, such as the CBC and the NFB, are cut to the bone, life gets much harder for workers in the cultural sector.

We need to frame this debate in the context of other cuts that have happened to cultural agencies. When the government talks about its interest in sharing Canadian history, a community of librarians and archivists right across the country scratch their heads.

Since coming to power, the Conservatives have incessantly targeted Library and Archives Canada, a federal institution and the keeper of our collective memory. They have imposed modifications and irreversible consequences on our knowledge and perception of Canadian history, firing half of Library and Archives Canada digitization staff, cutting staff in charge of document preservation and conservation and eliminating the interlibrary loan program, which provides access for all Canadians to their national library collections.

These are the kinds of cuts that underline the fact that the Conservative government has done the most to prevent access to Canadian history since the $450 million cut to the CBC by the Liberal Party in the nineties.

We need to focus on maintaining the independence of these agencies. We need to stop wasting taxpayers' money. We need to introduce much more transparency so that Canadians understand where the money is coming from and how it is spent and that their history is not going to be dictated by ministers of the Conservative government.

Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from the member opposite for Western Arctic because it is a question about fairness in the tax system. This bill deals with closing the tax loopholes that people are using to avoid paying taxes, whether they be illegal or very aggressive tax plans. When we talk about fairness, we are talking about fairness with respect to those changes we have made to the tax code, so that the legislative piece ensures everyone is paying their fair share.

On a more broad approach to this question, I am glad the member for Western Arctic is interested in tax fairness because that would mean I can look for that member to stand in favour of our budget implementation bills that move forward on closing tax loopholes. If the member is serious about closing tax loopholes and being fair to all taxpayers, I believe he should be supporting our implementation bills, including Bill C-60 when it comes back to the House.

Finance

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

Mr. Speaker, today at the finance committee, we were discussing Bill C-60, which is the first budget implementation act of this government. This legislation includes $18 million for the Canadian Youth Business Foundation, $165 million for Genome Canada, $20 million for the Nature Conservancy of Canada, $30 million for Nunavut Housing, $5 million for aboriginal students through Indspire, $3 million for compassionate care through the Pallium Foundation and $3 million for the CNIB for the national digital hub.

Can the Minister of Finance comment on why it is so important that this Parliament pass these measures?

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I might note that we were all distributed answers from DND on this question, and they included, of course, the question that was asked. The question that was asked was not the question Mr. Brison just cited, but in fact, as I read from the document, the question was how many missions with a risk score between 1.50 and 1.99 have been prescribed for income tax relief.

The answer has been given. I might add that missions between 1.50 and 1.99 are very low-risk missions, which frankly has nothing to do with the proposed changes in Bill C-60 anyway. If Mr. Brison has further questions about how DND assigns mission numbers and evaluations and assessments, I'm sure the Liberal Party would welcome him to sit in at their next committee meeting. He can sub in and replace whichever Liberal member typically goes there, but it is completely out of the scope of what Bill C-60 is doing.

I might add that when I talk about low-risk missions, I'm talking about, for example, a joint force mission in Tampa, Florida. We're not talking about high-risk missions such as Afghanistan, etc.

I believe DND has answered the questions put to them. I see very clearly what the responses were. I see very clearly what the questions were. To now change the question and ask for more time, frankly, appears to be a delaying tactic. I would suggest Mr. Brison go to the National Defence committee to seek out further information about how DND evaluates their missions.

Thank you. I'm prepared to vote on this.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Ms. Nash.

I have a ruling on this amendment.

Bill C-60 provides for a maximum payment of $2 billion with respect to the Office of Infrastructure of Canada or the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The amendment seeks to amend the bill so that an additional $40 million can be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition states, at pages 767 and 768:

Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the public treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation.

In the opinion of the chair, the amendment proposes a new scheme that seeks to alter the terms and conditions of the royal recommendation, and therefore I rule this amendment inadmissible.

(Clause 233 agreed to)

Colleagues, we now have to deal with two clauses we tabled, clause 7 and clause 36.

You do have an answer from DND. I hope that has addressed all the questions. We'll go to Mr. Brison.

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

Another question I would have is on the policy rationale behind the provision in Bill C-60 allowing Treasury Board personnel to attend all the meetings between a crown corporation and the bargaining agent during collective bargaining. From your perspective, what is the policy rationale for this change?

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

It gives me great pleasure to speak on this. Unlike the opposition, our government remains focused on what matters most to Canadians, and that's of course jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity.

I was listening with interest to Ms. Nash's comments, and I have to tell you, there's not a scintilla of truth in anything that she said. The measures proposed within Bill C-60 do not affect in any way whatsoever—I can't be clearer than that—the independent operation of any crown corporation, including the CBC. Crown corporations are independent in their operations. Their financial bottom line, however, affects the government's bottom line and thus the taxpayers'. Unlike the opposition, this government has demonstrated time and time again its respect for taxpayers' dollars.

Now, as a responsible steward of taxpayer dollars, our government is ensuring that we have a mechanism in place to protect taxpayers' dollars at the bargaining table when and if necessary. Compensation costs can be an important element of the financial viability of a crown corporation, and this amendment provides an option for the government to give specific direction to a crown corporation in this respect.

The measures proposed in Bill C-60 are neither new nor revolutionary. The Quebec government, since 1985, has required similar prior approval of bargaining mandates from the provincial minister of the treasury board, something the leader of the NDP should know all too well. Both the government and crown corporations have a responsibility to spend taxpayers' dollars wisely, and we will work together when necessary to help ensure Canada's long-term growth and prosperity. This is our number one priority, because it is the number one priority of Canadians.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I call this meeting back to order.

Again, colleagues, we are on meeting number 125 of the Standing Committee on Finance, continuing our clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-60, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013, and other measures.

(On clause 174—Enactment)

Clauses 174 to 199 deal with division 12, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act.

We have eight amendments dealing with clause 174. We will deal with them in the order they're on your agenda. Therefore, we will go to Ms. May for her eighth amendment, please.

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

I'll address them separately, Mr. Chair.

I'll speak to amendment NDP-16. This clause concerns the temporary foreign worker program. Bill C-60 introduces the ability of the minister of CIC to revoke a work permit and for the minister of HRSDC to “revoke”, “suspend”, or “refuse to process” an opinion, and that those ministers shall set out instructions in the justifications for such revocation.

We've raised this many times in the House, but generally our concern about the temporary foreign worker program is that it's bringing in foreign workers to work for less pay, rather than giving these jobs to Canadians. We know there are some labour shortages in certain parts of the country, and yet there are many other parts of the country, including right here in Ontario, where there is persistent high unemployment. As I described with the Electro-Motive situation, through a lockout and a plant closure after a foreign takeover that was encouraged by this government, people's standard of living went down dramatically.

The changes the government is making in this act are tinkering with the temporary foreign worker legislation. They don't go far enough. We need to include guarantees against further abuses to the temporary foreign worker program. We have to prevent it from being used as a substitute for hiring Canadians and paying them a decent wage at the prevailing rate. If the ministers had been doing their jobs correctly in the first place, they certainly would not have been granting temporary work visas and giving bad labour market opinions, which allowed these abuses to take place.

We have three amendments to this clause that will better protect Canadians from being displaced and ensure that temporary foreign workers are not paid at a lower rate.

I'll deal with amendment NDP-16 first. It would require that HRSDC refuse to process a labour market opinion where it is advertised at a salary below the prevailing wage. Canadians may ask how they would be doing that now, but we've certainly seen instances where that has happened, and this government recently made a change that allowed temporary foreign workers to be paid 15% less than the prevailing wage. That is a low-wage strategy; it depresses wages for all workers. Recently the government rolled back this program they had earlier introduced. We believe if the government would just read its talking points about long-term prosperity, they would include people who are being undermined by temporary foreign workers.

We think that depressing Canadian wages is the wrong way to go. We want to make sure that this downward pressure on Canadian wages stops, that Canadian workers always get first crack at the job, and that the wages offered in cases where temporary foreign workers are needed are at the prevailing wage or above, but certainly not below, because it's just too attractive to employers to bring in temporary foreign workers and pay them less than Canadians are being paid.

That's the basis for our amendment, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Caron.

I have a ruling on this amendment as well.

This amendment seeks to amend section 19 of the Investment Canada Act.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, pages 766 and 767, states:

...an amendment is inadmissible if it proposes to amend a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent Act, unless the latter is specifically amended by a clause of the bill.

Since section 19 of the Investment Canada Act is not being amended by Bill C-60, it is inadmissible to propose such an amendment.

Colleagues, may I call clauses 138 to 140, since there are no further amendments on clause 138?

[Paul Halucha, Director General, Marketplace Framework Policy Branch, Strategic Policy Sector, Department of Industry]

Specifically dealing with the definition of state-owned enterprises provided in the act, the Bill C-60 proposals to amend the ICA include the definition of state-owned enterprises. If we go back to December of last year, when the Prime Minister made the announcement around the two SOE transactions that were under review at that time, he provided a policy clarification around state-owned enterprises. We undertook a series of actions, including the updating of the SOE guideline at that time.

The definition we've added into the act at this point effectively repeats the definition that he articulated and that was added into the SOE guideline in December. To that extent, it's not new. I would argue that it's a very clear definition, as follows:

(a) the government of a foreign state, whether federal, state or local, or an agency of such a government;

(b) an entity that is controlled or influenced, directly or indirectly, by a government or agency referred to in paragraph (a); or

(c) an individual who is acting under the direction of a government or agency referred to in paragraph (a) or who is acting under the influence, directly or indirectly, of such a government or agency;

The definition reflects the existing SOE guideline definition, that it is “an enterprise that is owned, controlled or influenced, directly or indirectly by a foreign government”.

The issues that have I think attracted a bit of attention in committee, and certainly from legal practitioners who are responsible for dealing with foreign investors in terms of brokering investments in Canada, are around the definition of “influence”. It has not been defined in the act. It's to be determined on a case-by-case basis.

It's important to always remember that the Investment Canada Act provides the minister with a discretionary authority. It provides him with the legal obligation to review each transaction on its merits. Therefore, similar to that, the discretionary authority around state-owned enterprises is provided.

So through the review process, investors are expected to address in their plans and undertakings the inherent characteristics of state-owned enterprises, and specifically that they are susceptible to state influence. Investors must also demonstrate their strong commitment to transparent and commercial operations.

In assessing influence, there are many factors that the minister could consider. In undertaking our analysis, we identified a number that we believed would be of extreme relevance, and I would offer them up to the committee in terms of providing further information around how influence could be assessed in the context of specific transactions.

One example would be the special shares of a corporation. Frequently you have companies where there's.... It's not direct control, there's not indirect control, but a foreign state retains a share of the ownership of the company, and with that are associated negative covenants, which often permit it to make veto decisions around important corporate decisions. That's an example of influence.

Secondly, there's the track record of the company. To the extent that foreign states operate around the world, the minister can look at what the experiences are of other state-owned enterprises, or the same one if it's making an investment in Canada, to understand how the foreign state has influenced—if it has—the operations in those foreign jurisdictions.

Thirdly, there's the state's ability to nominate or replace board members and appoint senior management. That's an obvious way of exercising influence that would not be captured by the definitions of control or indirect control.

Finally, there's any authority under foreign law or the corporation's governing documents preventing a foreign state from directing the affairs of business.

Those are examples.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Colleagues, I call this meeting back to order.

This is meeting number 125 of the Standing Committee on Finance doing clause-by-clause of Bill C-60.

We left off at clause 136. I have three amendments by Ms. May.

Ms. May, you can address them separately in statements or you can address them together if you wish.

(On clause 136)

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Plamondon.

I have a ruling on this amendment as well.

Bill C-60 would amend the Canadian Securities Regulation Regime Transition Office Act in order to provide for the extension of the transition office until the Governor in Council decides to dissolve it. This amendment proposes to force the Governor in Council to dissolve a transition office no later than July 12, 2013. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states on page 766:

An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

In the opinion of the chair, the removal of the ability of the Governor in Council to extend the operation of a transition office would be contrary to the provisions of clause 133 of the bill, and therefore this amendment is inadmissible.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Ms. Nash.

Your chair has a ruling.

Clause 130 of Bill C-60 provides for post-secondary scholarships for students who are registered as Indians under the Indian Act and for Inuit students. The amendment seeks to amend the bill so that unregistered first nations, Métis, and Inuit students would also be eligible for the scholarship. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states at pages 767 and 768:

Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the public treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation.

In the opinion of the chair, the amendment expands the groups eligible to receive a scholarship, which seeks to alter the terms and conditions of the royal recommendation. I therefore rule this amendment inadmissible.

That deals with NDP-9.

(Clauses 130 to 132 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 133)

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

I just want to ask a question, to go back to the clarification that Bill C-60 seeks to provide.

Just to be specific, this is simply a clarification of which measurement of GDP, GDP growth, will be used. Is that what Bill C-60 is seeking to do—to provide a clarification of which measurement of GDP growth will be used?

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

Okay. So in Bill C-60 this is simply a clarification.

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

These clauses broadly apply to the residency requirement for financial institutions. Bill C-60 reduces the Canadian residency requirement for committees of directors of financial institutions. These are smaller groups who deal with particular decisions within a board of directors, and they would report to the full board of the directors. However, a significant amount of business is conducted by board subcommittees, in the same way that there are subcommittees of cabinet that deal with issues and then report back to cabinet. It's the same with corporate boards.

A lot of very important work is done by subcommittees. There are, for instance, audit committees, human resource compensation committees.

There's a concern that this provision is actually much more significant in terms of its impact on decision-making in corporate boards of financial institutions than the government would indicate. I mean, it could create a very significant loophole, if you will, and a significant change in terms of who ultimately would be making very important and significant decisions on the future of our financial institutions.

I would like to ask if Ms. Hardy could explain to Canadians what types of business typically would be delegated to committees of directors and what types of business would not be, or could not be, delegated

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

The intention of my amendment, or the Liberal amendment, is similar to that of Ms. May's, so I expect the outcome, perhaps, will be similar as well. We'd prefer to see the government get rid of this section of Bill C-60 so that the tax credit for credit unions would remain in place as is. It's clear that the government is not willing to do that. What this amendment would do is at least provide credit unions with more time by extending the phase-out of the tax credit, and I think that's a reasonable compromise.

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

Okay. I need to say something by way of introduction. I'll be as brief as I can. I'm here at the invitation of the finance committee. I did not ask for this opportunity. I support the statement made by Ms. Nash that this is not proper parliamentary procedure and that I've been invited to submit amendments and will not have an equal opportunity to present them, not even equal to my colleague from the Bloc Québécois. I underscore that my participation at this moment is without prejudice to my rights as a member of Parliament to submit amendments at report stage.

This amendment is based on testimony to committee in relation to credit unions. They are deeply concerned that the changes in Bill C-60 will eliminate their ability to provide the very essential financial services that they provide—as Mr. Brison said—particularly across rural Canada. What I've attempted to do with this amendment, Mr. Chair, is to reduce the tax benefits they now receive, the preferential tax treatment, but not eliminate it all together, so that under my amendment being proposed at this moment, which I hope is consistent with the purpose of the act, it would reduce the credit unions' preferential tax rate from where it is now to 75% after 2016.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Plamondon.

As the chair, I have a ruling on this amendment.

Bill C-60 amends the Income Tax Act to phase out a tax deduction for credit unions. This amendment proposes to revert back to the original wording of the act, thus allowing the tax deduction to remain in place. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states, on page 766:

An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

In the opinion of the chair, the deletion of a key element is contrary to the principle of Bill C-60 and is therefore inadmissible. Therefore, this amendment is inadmissible.

Thank you.

We have Ms. May, who has her first amendment.

Ms. May, very briefly for one minute, please.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We would like to restore the balance of Bill C-60 to what it was before. I feel that it worked very well.

Earlier, the NDP member reflected my own thoughts very well when he spoke about how important credit unions are in small communities. There are 51 municipalities in my riding, and at least 35 of them have no financial institution except the credit union. So we are not talking about competing with other financial companies.

This bill will have an effect on the dividends that go back to their members. By members, I include small businesses taking out loans. For example, a loan of $150,000 or $175,000 can result in a rebate to a business of $2,200 to $2,500 at year end. That is a significant amount for an SME. If they can no longer count on the dividends, economic development will be hurt.

I do not want this deduction to be progressively eliminated; I want it to be maintained as it is at the moment.

Thank you.

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

Mr. Chair, I want to say on the record that we believe the process that's been adopted by the finance committee to deal with the amendments of Bill C-60 submitted by non-members does not conform with parliamentary procedure. Only the House of Commons can appoint committee members, and non-members cannot move motions. I just want to be on the record with that.

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

I appreciate Mr. Keenan's earnest response, but he would understand that it's difficult for us as parliamentarians to deal with the legislation today when we're still waiting for information.

I propose Liberal-1 amendment, the rationale being that today the government has the discretion to provide tax-free status to missions with a risk score between 1.5 and 2. Bill C-60 gets rid of that discretion. It effectively handcuffs the government and prevents it from extending tax-free status to certain missions. And the government has yet to provide the rationale for this. My amendment would simply restore that discretion.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I call this meeting to order.

This is meeting 125 of the Standing Committee on Finance. Orders of the day, pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, May 7, 2013, are to study Bill C-60, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013, and other measures.

Colleagues, I want to welcome you all here, as well as the officials from the Department of Finance especially, and other departments who are here with us this morning. They are here to address any issues that members may have as we go through clause-by-clause consideration. I want to welcome the officials to the table and those in the room here.

Colleagues, I do have a series of amendments and I will be proceeding clause by clause. You should be following the agenda that I will be proceeding with for all of you here today. Everybody should have a copy of that agenda.

Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1) consideration of clause 1, the short title, is postponed.

Therefore I shall start with clause 2.

Colleagues, I do not have an amendment until clause 7, in which case I have amendment LIB-1.

(Clause 2 agreed to on division)

(Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to)

(Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to on division)

(On clause 7)

Bill C-48, Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012

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

Mr. Speaker, I was going to bring up exactly that same point. I believe the member is talking about Bill C-60. We are going through clause-by-clause tomorrow and we look forward to having that conversation in the House.

However, I want to note the tax loopholes that the government has consistently closed and the integrity of our tax system has improved immensely since 2006 when we took over government.

Incorporation by Reference in Regulations Act

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

Mr. Speaker, can the hon. member for Newton—North Delta explain for me, because I cannot figure it out, what has changed since 2009, when this Parliament and the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations recommended against these broad and flexible ways of short-circuiting public scrutiny and access to review of the regulatory process?

At that time the members of the joint committee said, “What this really means is that it allows rules to be imposed without having to go through the regulatory process”.

This is part and parcel of a number of changes we have seen happening, including in Bill C-60, where there would be intervention at the political level over collective bargaining by crown corporations or through more discretionary powers at the hands of ministers. Slowly but surely, the executive in this country—the Prime Minister's Office, which is subservient to the will of Parliament—will have all the levers of power it needs to rule, with Parliament merely an anachronism.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Krane, let me ask you what you think of this process. It provides us with...well, actually, it turns out that it's supposed to be two hours of hearing from any witnesses other than officials from Industry Canada as we consider the provisions in Bill C-60.

I guess finally, along with that, what should the committee recommend to the finance committee on these provisions?

[Jim Stanford]

My actual point there is not so much that the resource sector is dependent on incoming capital, in the sense that we actually need that capital, otherwise the sector couldn't be developed. To the contrary, my point is that it's become dominated by incoming foreign capital, which has been interested more in purchasing control of the asset rather than in actually building, investing in new capital, new productive capacity, new jobs, and so on. In the oilsands, for example, the majority of the production is now attributed to foreign-owned shares of companies.

I don't think the provisions contemplated in Bill C-60 would affect that. I know that when the government announced its intentions in December, it did indicate that, in general, state-owned enterprise takeovers, in the oilsands sector in particular, would not pass a net-benefit test except under extraordinary circumstances.

Now, I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not an expert on the actual language, but in my review of the proposed amendments, I don't see how that is going to be affected through these amendments. It sounds like it will be more affected through the decision-making of the industry minister on any future oilsands-related transaction. At any rate, I think the focus, again, just on the oilsands itself is arbitrary. I don't know why we would put a fence around that particular resource industry, recognizing that it is, obviously, a uniquely important one, but all of our commodity-based resource sectors have important direct and indirect effects. And if we're concerned about the intended and unintended consequences, if you like, of foreign investment in resource-based sectors, I think we need a more general and transparent approach than what we would see through these amendments.

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

Thank you very much. I will go right to the question.

Mr. Stanford, I was very interested in your comments. You mentioned the resource sector and how it seems to be highly dependent on foreign direct investment. Could you elaborate on the provision in Bill C-60 regarding the Investment Canada Act? Will it change that course or not? How will it affect the resource sector regarding foreign investment?

[Ailish Campbell]

I think my colleague Mr. Facey made an important point, which is that every time you change a piece of framework legislation it attracts international attention. It's one thing for me to sit here today in 2013 and say that my advice would be, in an ideal world, to change the Investment Canada Act rarely and with very careful consideration. In an ideal world, we may not have changed it in 2009, 2012, and 2013, but rather have done it a single time.

That being said, I would argue that over the last five years we've experienced incredibly unique global economic circumstances. The financial crisis is one that we hadn't experienced in almost 100 years. There are new forms of global capitalism that are looking to gain majority stakes in, and indeed own, Canadian businesses, which is again something new.

All this is to say that I think the government is reacting and looking forward. I think we'll get the best answer to that question when we look at the foreign investment stocks in Canada, and the ability of our firms, both large, such as our members, and small, such as junior mining plays, that wish to attract capital to Canada.

I think it's too early to say if it's better. I think we can all agree that the government's intention is certainly to make this a better system. I do trust in that intention, but the proof will be in how the act and the SOE guidelines are actually executed. In that regard, I would again underscore my point that, given the broad definition of SOEs before you today in Bill C-60, the government also consider advanced rulings so that entities that don't consider themselves to be SOEs but wonder if they'll be treated as SOEs under this legislation can come in and get some kind of guidance about that. I think that is critical in order to create investor confidence.

The proof is in the pudding. The proof is in the numbers. The stock of investment outflows and inflows is very healthy, and I hope it will continue to be, again with the proper execution of the Investment Canada Act.

[Jim Stanford, Economist, National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada]

Thank you, Chair and members of the committee.

I work as an economist with the Canadian Auto Workers union, which also represents about 200,000 members in about 16 different sectors of our economy, including manufacturing, resources, transportation, and services.

Our union welcomes foreign investment to Canada if it enhances Canada's capabilities, adds to our productive capacity, creates jobs, and accumulates real capital assets or technical knowledge. Many of our most important industries, such as the auto sector, are largely or entirely foreign-owned. They have added immensely to our economic development and prosperity.

But not all of the effects of foreign investment are positive. There are inherent risks and costs with any foreign takeover, including the loss of decision-making control to non-residents, the long-run payout of interests, profit, and dividends to foreign owners, and the risk that foreign investment will qualitatively shape Canada's economy in ways that we do not want.

One trend in this regard that is especially concerning to us has been the role of incoming foreign investment in enhancing Canada's dependence on the extraction and export of raw minerals and resources. Foreign direct investment into the resource sector has been an important mediating factor in the exchange rate over appreciation that has damaged many other Canadian export industries over the last decade.

As an economist, I question the general statement that Canada inherently needs more foreign capital for the future development of our economy. Even in the resource sector, Canada is not short of capital in any real economic sense. In fact, we export capital. Canadian companies invest more FDI abroad than foreign companies invest here. Canadian companies have access to enormous liquidity to finance their real investments here, both through their internal assets, which include over $600 billion in cash and short-term financial assets—the so-called dead money today—and through the operation of a banking system that is one of the strongest in the world. The debt-equity ratio of Canadian non-financial businesses is lower than it has been in decades.

In the resource sector, in particular, there's no indication that our capacities are also constrained by a lack of know-how—that is, by a shortage of proprietary intellectual capital or technology. To the contrary, recent takeovers of Canadian resource firms, including the CNOOC-Nexen transaction, were in fact motivated by foreign desire to purchase our know-how.

In some sectors, such as manufacturing or some specialized services, a case could be made that incoming FDI provides proprietary technology, engineering and design advantages, global marketing opportunities, or other benefits. But it's hard to see those tangible benefits in the case of foreign takeovers of resource-producing assets. Those takeovers seem to constitute a straight transfer of control over a non-renewable asset. The investors are not building something in Canada; they are buying something that they hope will generate large rents in the future. In my judgment, foreign resource takeovers that add no value to our actual productive capacity should normally be refused on net benefit grounds.

We described our views on the costs and benefits of FDI in more detail in our submission to the 2008 competition policy review panel that Mr. Facey mentioned earlier. I will forward a copy of our full submission to the committee for your deliberations.

Regarding the Investment Canada Act, the principle of a net benefit test is a valid one, in our view. It recognizes that there are costs as well as benefits to any foreign direct investment. Those two must be evaluated and net benefits should be maximized as a goal of policy. But the operation of that test within the current Investment Canada Act is vague, opaque, largely unenforceable, and the whole process is secretive, arbitrary, and hence politicized. In our view, the Investment Canada system should be fundamentally overhauled.

Since 1985, under the ICA, there have been over 15,000 acquisitions of Canadian companies by foreign firms. Of those, barely one in ten were even reviewed by Investment Canada, and of those, all but two were approved. The two that were rejected, MDA and Potash, had become political hot potatoes for the governments of the day. While I'm glad that both of those takeovers were turned down, our system for regulating foreign investment should not depend on public opinion at any point in time.

The president of the CAW, Ken Lewenza, wrote to Industry Minister Paradis last year after the closure of the locomotive plant in London, Ontario, by the Caterpillar company, which had purchased that plant from former owners only months earlier. That terrible chain of events revealed deep flaws in the Investment Canada system. Mr. Lewenza's letter outlined five key changes to the ICA that our union proposed, and I will also forward that letter to your committee for reference. To list the five changes, they are: one, improved transparency; two, stakeholder input; three, tightening up loopholes in the act, including a lower threshold for review, and the review of indirect acquisitions; four, a clearer system for defining and measuring Canadian costs and benefits; and five, the ability to impose and enforce commitments and conditions.

In contrast, the changes to the Investment Canada system that are proposed in this legislation before you do not satisfactorily address any of those issues. Bill C-60 establishes a differential process for foreign state-owned corporations, including a lower threshold for their review and broad and arbitrary provisions regarding how foreign state-owned enterprises are identified and how effective control is determined.

This approach is rooted in an assumption, unjustified in my view, that privately held foreign companies will act in ways that are fundamentally more compatible with the Canadian public interest. I do not think Canadians should trust a foreign privately held corporation to act in line with our interests any more than a foreign state-owned company. The threshold should not be raised for any of the acquiring companies.

The arbitrary focus on state-owned enterprises contained in this legislation misses the bigger problems with the existing Investment Canada system. These provisions will clearly give the minister more flexibility and authority to reject future takeovers from SOEs, but in ways that are even more opaque and arbitrary than the current system.

Finally, in concluding, given the important and lasting effect of these measures and the complexity of their effects, as we've already heard in this hearing today, in my view it may not be appropriate to consider these measures within the context of the broader budget implementation bill. That is how the last set of changes to the Investment Canada Act were considered and implemented in 2009, and we already know that those changes were not adequate to the task. I believe we would be better served by a more thorough and careful consideration of the costs and benefits of foreign direct investment through a focused, stand-alone legislative initiative.

With that, I thank you, and I look forward to our discussion.

Thank you.

[Ailish Campbell, Vice-President, Policy, International and Fiscal Issues, Canadian Council of Chief Executives]

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, committee members, thank you for the invitation to appear before the committee concerning amendments to the Investment Canada Act in Bill C-60.

Before I begin my comments, let me briefly introduce my organization, the Canadian Council of Chief Executives.

The Canadian Council of Chief Executives is a not-for-profit, non-partisan organization composed of 150 CEOs of Canada's leading businesses. We engage in an active program of public policy research, consultation and advocacy. The CCCE is a source of thoughtful, informed comment from a business point of view on issues of national importance to the economic and social fabric of Canada.

The Canadian Council of Chief Executives represents 150 chief executives and leading entrepreneurs in all sectors and regions of the country. Our members lead companies that collectively administer $4.5 trillion in assets, employ more than a million Canadians, and are responsible for the majority of Canada's exports.

The topic before your committee today is an important and highly complex one. Changes to the Investment Canada Act and the federal government's policies cannot be viewed in isolation but as part of a history of experience with the review of foreign investment in Canada. The changes that form the subject of your deliberations were announced in December 2012, when the government approved two significant acquisitions of Canadian firms by foreign state-owned enterprises under the existing ICA, the Investment Canada Act.

It is our view that the decision to approve the acquisitions of Nexen and Progress Energy Resources was the right one. Canada's population is small relative to those of other major advanced economies, and we have a tremendous need for capital to develop our industrial base and to achieve our potential as a leading exporter of energy and advanced energy technologies. At the same time, companies looking to invest in Canada must play by our rules, respect our values, and adhere to Canadian laws as well as our regulations and environmental and labour standards. Canada wants and needs foreign investment, but not all and not any.

Of significant importance, the government did not change the rules during the reviews of these two transactions, recognizing that to do so would have significantly lowered investor confidence. Canada has one of the strongest traditions of the rule of law in the world. We are clear in our purpose and our willingness to act as circumstances demand. Such fortitude requires a constant assessment of our rules, and on occasion their amendment.

In examining the changes to the ICA before us today as part of Bill C-60, there are three comments I wish to table.

The first is that the Canadian Council of Chief Executives supports the government in its efforts to promote foreign direct investment in Canada. The CCCE also supports the government in its efforts to articulate its intent to assess the commercial interests of investors making significant acquisitions in Canada, and this of course includes state-owned enterprises. Foreign direct investment in Canada is critical. Our history, from the fur trade to resource development, is the story of effectively harnessing foreign capital to improve our standard of living. Foreign investment brings a wealth of management expertise, innovation, and new business opportunities, not only capital. Canada needs foreign investment to realize our potential.

The CCCE fully supports actions to ensure Canada's openness to investment and to provide comfort to Canadians that the government is reviewing and monitoring transactions to ensure they are undertaken on a commercial basis, they demonstrate good corporate governance, and they adhere to Canadian law. The guidelines for SOEs introduced in December recognize the essential role of private enterprise and free market principles in driving economic growth and prosperity. They will, in our view, safeguard the national interest while ensuring that Canadians continue to reap the benefits of a welcoming approach to foreign investment.

Canada is, of course, not alone in its efforts to understand and assess the impact of investments by state-owned enterprises. Our experience must be shared and developed alongside other advanced market economies to make sure our regime is internationally competitive, and indeed, why not the best in the world? The Minister of Industry and his or her officials must continue to implement the act in a way that does not impede the overall flow of investment, which provides us with our high standard of living.

The Canadian Council of Chief Executives also notes that the legislative amendments will provide some flexibility for the government to extend time periods under the national security review, also under the ICA. We support these insofar as a balance is struck between clear timelines and procedures for commercial transactions and the need for sufficient opportunity to ensure a thorough security review.

We call on the government to ensure an effective and constant dialogue between ministers and officials responsible for economic and security aspects of any possible future national security review.

The second key point is that the Canadian Council of Chief Executives supports the legislative amendments insofar as the law will continue to require that the government consider each investment on its own singular merits. As experience with the legislation and SOE guidelines evolve, we would encourage the government to consider advance rulings on whether a specific entity would be treated as an SOE under the act so as to provide clarity to investors.

There is no one-size-fits-all policy for state-owned enterprises. They are highly diverse in structure, public reporting, their behaviour, and their national country of origin. The diversity and complexity of business operations indicates that each specific investment must be reviewed on its own merits.

Not all state-owned enterprises are created equal. We know that state-owned enterprises can be responsible corporate citizens held to the same standards as public or privately owned enterprises. We also know that state-owned enterprises can engage in behaviour that is motivated by non-commercial interests. Further, not all targets of acquisition will be of equal commercial significance.

These amendments proposed will allow the government to continue to assess each transaction on the basis of its unique and specific characteristics.

We encourage the application of rules here in Canada that we would be pleased to see pertain to Canadian firms and sovereign wealth funds when they act abroad. As a major investor, as well as an investee, we want to project Canada's belief in sensible, thoughtful, and predictable standards, both in principle and in execution.

Finally, the Canadian Council of Chief Executives and the Canadian business community remain actively involved in the evolving nature of investment inflows and outflows. We welcome an ongoing dialogue with provincial and federal governments, regulators, and the public on the implementation of investment and business framework policies.

Our markets and our businesses evolve and so must our rules. We must also strive to encourage Canadian firms to get to the size and scale of the state-owned enterprises we are discussing so that Canadian firms can take leadership positions in developing our resources and invest globally.

The Canadian Council of Chief Executives is pleased to have had an almost 40-year history of engagement on these issues. Both our organization and our member firms and CEOs remain ready to contribute their business experiences to the development of policies that develop and advance Canada's economy in a global context.

Thank you.

Government Expenditures

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

Mr. Speaker, with $3 billion unaccounted for and even the Auditor General unable to find it, is that the answer?

Meanwhile, for the third time the Conservatives are forcing a budget bill through Parliament in their sham process. Some committees only have one or two meetings on very complex issues in Bill C-60 that deserve more attention. We had a witness just this morning at the finance committee who asked why he was there and not before HRSDC. Welcome to Conservative Ottawa.

Why do the Conservatives insist on evading parliamentary scrutiny and what do they have against fiscal accountability?

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you very much.

This is a question for Mr. Sauvageau. You termed the changes that would be implemented by Bill C-60 as unacceptable, and then you spoke in another answer to a question about how this would undermine the perception of independence of Radio-Canada and CBC in the eyes of the public.

I would like you to speak a bit more about that, specifically to provide a little clarity about what these changes would do. With regard to the fact that the Treasury Board could now change the bargaining mandate of Radio-Canada, how do you think that would undermine the perception of independence we've enjoyed to date?

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, witnesses, for being here.

I guess I will focus my comments on Professor Smith and Mr. Bolduc, if I may, initially.

I think this is quite extraordinary. We have a very seasoned management representative and a very seasoned trade union representative united—which happens very rarely in my world—in saying that this particular move is regressive. You both expressed great concerns with Bill C-60.

I mean, we're talking about 48 crown corporations employing 88,000 Canadian workers, and you're both saying that there are problems. In fact, Professor Smith, you started by talking about the possibility of this initiative being contrary to the Canada Labour Code.

Two other legal issues also arose. Mr. Bolduc reminded us of the fact that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees free association and has been held to include collective bargaining. So we have a legal challenge, potentially, under the labour code. We have a constitutional challenge, potentially. The Friends of Canadian Broadcasting, who were here earlier with a very respected media lawyer, Brian MacLeod Rogers, indicated that there was an inherent conflict, as he called it, between the Broadcasting Act and Bill C-60, which will likely lead to legal challenges.

So I'd ask the two of you if you have any thoughts on how these legal challenges may play out or any predictions as to how this might proceed.

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

Mr. Sauvageau, I'd like to ask you a question about something the finance minister, Jim Flaherty, said before this committee yesterday. He was asked about a scenario in which a journalist whose reports the government is not fond of suffers consequences such as cuts to their working hours. That example may be a bit extreme. The finance minister told us this wasn't a dictatorship and there was therefore no need to worry about such things.

Without necessarily using the term dictatorship, do you think these provisions in Bill C-60 could have what is known as a chilling effect on journalists who cover government activities, for instance? Could the government curb their coverage by telling them to back off?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you all for coming here this morning.

I want to direct my question to Mr. Smith. Actually I'm sure you're aware of this, the Quebec provincial government has maintained a law since 1985 entitled An Act respecting the process of negotiation of the collective agreements in the public and parapublic sectors. This law requires all provincial crown corporations to seek ministerial approval.

Can you tell me what the difference is between that and Bill C-60, which you called unprecedented in a CBC report?

[Paul Chapin, As an Individual]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and honourable members.

It's an honour to be here before you today. My background is 30 years or so in the Department of Foreign Affairs, largely in the international security field, but I've also spent time in other government departments. I was a consultant for quite a few years. I was vice-president of the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre. Recently I've been associated with the Conference of Defence Associations Institute. So I hope I bring a broad perspective, both from the public and the private sector, to what I think is a very interesting issue.

My reading of the situation allows me to draw five conclusions. Let me go through them very briefly, and then I'll elaborate.

The first conclusion I draw is that the government intends henceforth that the priority for Canadian aid policy be international development rather than poverty alleviation. International development is a larger concept and it incorporates poverty alleviation, but I think the adjustment is consequential.

Second, we're talking about a construct here that is one department with three business lines, not three departments under a common roof.

Third, if it's to work, they need a common script of some kind. The Government of Canada needs to articulate an international affairs strategy that explains the larger context in which these three business lines are to operate individually and collectively.

Fourth, I know this has been argued, but there's no reason to believe we're talking about a hostile takeover of CIDA by Foreign Affairs. I think there's a great deal for everybody in this, and I don't think that taking an unnecessarily negative view of it is particularly constructive.

Finally, in the final analysis, and this comes from my consulting experience, people are going to make this work. Structure and reorganization are not going to cut it by itself.

Let me go over those five points very briefly. The transition arrangements outlined in Bill C-60 are pretty straightforward, and there's no reason for me to outline those to you today.

What I see, though, in the language is an important refocusing of the aid effort, or at least the $4 billion that has traditionally been CIDA's budget, being cast into a broader international development framework, rather than the more traditional poverty alleviation/poverty reduction vocation that CIDA has aspired to. If you read the CIDA mission statement, if you look at the ODA Accountability Act, you'll see a very strong bias toward poverty alleviation. In this draft bill I see a raising of the issue beyond poverty alleviation to put the focus on a broader international development agenda.

The second point is that what's proposed fundamentally is a repositioning of an important federal asset. CIDA and its highly efficient staff and its very large budget are to be put more at the service of a broader federal international strategy to pursue the foreign relations of Canadians in a broader context.

Let me explain why I think some of the suggestions that I have read about the previous testimony might be just a little off base. As I read the draft legislation, the duties of the Minister of Foreign Affairs have expanded from what they were under the previous Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Act. In those previous iterations, the minister's responsibility was to control and supervise CIDA. He or she is now responsible for fostering international development, poverty reduction in developing countries, and humanitarian assistance.

The functions of the minister have gone from supervision and control of an outside entity or an agency to being directly involved in policy and programming. I think these same duties that are now assigned to the Minister of Foreign Affairs are also assigned to the new Minister for International Development, not International Cooperation.

The plain language of the text also indicates that the Minister for International Development and the Minister for International Trade are to assist the Minister of Foreign Affairs and to operate in concurrence with the Minister of Foreign Affairs. So there's no question in my mind of three ministers with equal status. That's reinforced by looking at the duties assigned to the deputies—the same hierarchy emerges from that discussion. So the net effect is one department with one minister and one deputy minister, assisted by other ministers and other deputy ministers.

The third point is, if this is to work, that the government needs to articulate, at least in broad terms, what it's hoping to achieve, not necessarily through the restructuring, but in its international agenda. That articulation has yet to appear in any form other than periodic presentations the Prime Minister might make in a speech to an international gathering.

I don't think this articulation should be a one-time thing. On arriving in office, democratically elected governments are entitled, indeed expected, to lay out their vision for the future. This vision may well differ, in degree or in kind, from that of the predecessor. I think in a democracy that is a good thing. The genius of the democratic process is that the people get to change their mind and change the direction of their country as they wish.

So I'm not advocating one international policy statement forever. I'm advocating the commencement of a practice where new governments lay out their policies. They don't have to do a big policy review every time, but they should at least lay out what they're planning to do.

Why do I not think this is a hostile takeover? First, I don't think CIDA has ever belonged to anybody but the government and the people of Canada. It doesn't belong to the people who work there. Second, I think CIDA has a great deal to gain from this merger. Its budget has grown, but I'm not sure its standing in this country has grown very much over the years, even in Parliament. I think one reason for this has been its tendency to take a view that is rather detached from other things that are going on.

As our colleague Scott Gilmore reported in, I think, Maclean's magazine, he once had a discussion with a CIDA staffer who made the comment: “It may be a government of Canada priority, but it is not a CIDA priority.” It's that kind of mindset that has imbued a lot of CIDA thinking about its place in the larger system.

I think as it moves into the new structure, CIDA rejoins the mainstream. That means it can play in a bigger game and aspire to having a dramatically greater impact in the field that is its business line. I think also the government as a whole wins. We've talked a great deal about 3-D and whole-of-government operations. This proposal helps to knock down the bureaucratic silos that have prevented those aspirations from being realized.

Let me make one point about CIDA's branding and CIDA's persona. I think it would be unfortunate if it disappeared from view. It's brought a lot of credit to Canada over the years. So notwithstanding the restructuring and the merger, I think there's a requirement to look at a way in which CIDA can be branded internationally. At least two examples come to mind: one is USAID, and the other is AusAID. Maybe we should be considering CanAID. It could certainly live under the structure that we're talking about.

Finally, reorganizations are dangerous. They aspire to improving matters, but the disruption they produce and the productivity losses they cause make a shambles of the great majority of reorganizations. In my experience, it's better to give good people licence to get around bad structure than to try to fix the structure. That said, we're proposing a new structure, and I think you have to make sure you have the right people to get the transition completed, and then you have to get the right people committed to working the new structure.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Good morning, everyone.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are studying the subject matter of clauses 174 to 199, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act, of Bill C-60, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures.

I want to welcome our witnesses here today and thank them very much for coming on relatively short notice.

We have Paul Chapin, who is here as an individual.

We have Colin Robertson, who is the vice-president and senior fellow with the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute.

Then we have Lucien Bradet, who is the president and chief executive officer of the Canadian Council on Africa.

We'll start with Paul.

We'll move across with our remarks, and then we can get to questions. We have an hour and a half. I believe we have a 10-minute opening statement from each of you. If we could try to stick within that, then we can follow it up with some questions over the following hour.

Paul, I'll turn it over to you, sir.

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

Welcome to the finance committee where we discuss navigable waters, CSIS, the RCMP, anything that gets thrown into one of these omnibus budget bills. Welcome to the new world here.

I know that in my discussions with business and also from my history in collective bargaining that business really wants predictability and stability. When they negotiate a collective agreement it's so that they will have that predictability and stability going out, and it's so that the agreement they freely negotiate is the best one to suit the business conditions that a company is dealing with. I have to say I find it ironic that a government that professes to oppose big government has taken such a Big Brother approach to our crown corporations, and especially to collective bargaining.

Can you describe, based on your management experience in collective bargaining, what could be some potential outcomes to what is now a fairly stable labour relations environment, if these changes that are being proposed in Bill C-60 should come into play?

[Denis Bolduc, General Secretary, Canadian Union of Public Employees, Québec, Canadian Union of Public Employees]

Mr. Chair, ladies and gentlemen members of the Standing Committee on Finance, thank you for having us.

My name is Denis Bolduc. I am the General Secretary of CUPE Quebec and the Regional Vice-President of the Canadian Union of Public Employees.

CUPE has over 600,000 members across the country, but I am appearing before you today more particularly on behalf of two unions that represent CBC employees in Quebec and in Moncton. I am talking about CUPE Local 675, which represents 600 office and professional employees, and the Syndicat des techniciens et artisans du réseau français de Radio-Canada, which represents 1,200 workers.

We have come all the way to Ottawa to tell you that we are strongly opposed to the amendments proposed to the Financial Administration Act in division 17 of Bill C-60. The adoption of those new provisions would wipe away decades of Canadian democratic tradition and turn the country's entire labour relations regime on its head. CUPE cannot support such amendments because they jeopardize fundamental rights such as freedom of speech and association, as well as the right to free collective bargaining.

The adoption of the amendments proposed in division 17 of Bill C-60 would enable the government to interfere in crown corporations' bargaining processes. As soon as the order has been passed, the Treasury Board could give crown corporations negotiating mandates, send observers to participate in talks in order to impose working conditions and prevent the signing of collective agreements they do not find acceptable. All those provisions clearly violate the right to freely associate as we know it in Canada.

As you know, the exercise of that freedom is safeguarded by the Canada Labour Code, which defines the employer as the person who employs the workers. So unions are supposed to negotiate with the employer—in good faith, of course. However, the government is using Bill C-60 to propose that the collective bargaining process be entrusted to a third party—the Treasury Board. That would change the rules of the game, lead to more appeals and, ultimately, harm good labour relations.

As a member of the International Labour Organization, Canada is committed to respecting and promoting the fundamental right to collective bargaining. That is why we are asking you to remove the proposed amendments to the Financial Administration Act from Bill C-60.

Further to the impact on collective bargaining, in CBC's case, Bill C-60 would conflict with the Broadcasting Act. That piece of legislation states the following:The Corporation shall, in the pursuit of its objects and in the exercise of its powers, enjoy freedom of expression and journalistic, creative and programming independence.

The CBC's board of directors is highly independent. It can hire the employees it deems necessary to its operations, determine its employment and remuneration conditions, purchase equipment, and even acquire broadcasting companies without asking anyone's permission.

So the presence of government representatives at the negotiation table would set a dangerous precedent that would reduce the crown corporation's level of independence. It would also open the door to political interference in journalism. A lack of managerial autonomy restricts freedom of expression and turns public broadcasters into state broadcasters. That is not what Canadians want. They want to benefit from information provided by journalists who are free to investigate any topics they choose. No government should have control over a broadcaster of the CBC's stature. Freedom of expression is a fundamental right enshrined in the charter.

The CBC's independence must absolutely be preserved. The public broadcaster must not become a government-controlled propaganda tool, regardless of which government is in power. That is a fundamental principle. So that's another reason to reject government interference in the CBC's management and programming that Bill C-60 would make possible.

In closing, CUPE is wondering why the government is proposing this legislative amendment. Is there a problem that needs to be resolved? If so, it has not been brought to light, and it should be.

So far, all we have seen in this bill is a vicious attack on crown corporation employees and all Canadians. Bill C-60 would amend all the crown corporation empowering legislation by taking away those corporations' negotiating independence. It could also end up turning the public broadcaster into a state-controlled broadcaster.

Once again, I want to thank you for the invitation and for your attention.

[Diane Bergeron, National Director, Government Relations and Advocacy, Canadian National Institute for the Blind]

Thank you.

Before I start, I would just like to explain how I'm going to do this presentation since I can't read print. I am partially sighted, hence the dog at my feet. I'm using a talking computer and I have an earphone in my ear. It will be reading out loud to me what I'm saying afterwards. If I stumble, I apologize.

On behalf of CNIB, I would like to thank the Minister of Finance, the finance committee, and the federal government for their continued leadership and support of the development of equitable library services for Canadians with print disabilities as part of its 2013 economic action plan. An estimated 10% of Canadians have a print disability, and only 6% of published works are available in alternate formats. Canadians with print disabilities include people who are blind or partially sighted, like myself, people with impairments related to comprehension, and people who are unable to hold a book. For Canadians with print disabilities, access to reading material in alternative formats increases literacy, encourages lifelong learning, and improves opportunities for employment and community engagement.

When I was doing my master's degree at Royal Roads University, I was required to do a proposal for a research project. I was excited to find a book written by a Canadian author called, Seeing Beyond Blindness. This book was all about teaching and education, from birth to grave, of blind and partially sighted people. Interestingly, the book was not available in an alternate format. It took me four weeks to receive the book in an alternate format, three weeks after my paper was due. It significantly affected my education.

Access to materials and alternate formats improves quality of life for Canadians, including seniors with print disabilities. It prolongs their ability to enjoy leisure reading and supports their social engagement. In Pigeon Lake, Alberta, not far from where I live in Edmonton, there is a man named Gary. Gary is 80 years old and a good friend of mine. Pigeon Lake is not close to a city and there is no public transportation. Gary is totally blind and although he uses a computer, downloading books is very difficult. Gary relies on receiving his books in DAISY format on a CD in order to listen to books, and that is his chief form of entertainment. Typically, once a week, somebody will go and pick Gary up and take him to town, but other than that, his main source of entertainment, leisure, and interaction is with the books that are provided to him with the DAISY player.

The funding set aside in Bill C-60 will support CNIB's work with public libraries and community leaders to progress towards the creation of a new organization, the national digital hub. This is independent of CNIB and it will support public libraries in their delivery of equitable public library services. The funding will also allow CNIB to acquire and produce, for the national digital hub, over 105,000 additional alternate format materials in e-text, DAISY, audio, CD, and e-books to navigate digital material and Braille. This new content, the CNIB Library's total collection, will be available to Canadians with print disabilities through public libraries, direct service points, and the web.

Once again, we thank the Government of Canada for its leadership and commitment to improving access to library services to Canadians with print disabilities in the 2013 economic action plan.

Thank you.

[George Smith, Fellow and Adjunct Professor, Queen's University, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for the invitation to comment on Bill C-60 as it relates to industrial relations in Canada.

My name is George Smith and I'm a fellow in the School of Policy Studies and an adjunct professor in the School of Industrial Relations and the School of Business at Queen's University. Prior to joining Queen's in 2010, I had a 37-year career in Canadian business, practising industrial relations as the chief management negotiator for Air Canada, Canadian Pacific Railway, and CBC/Radio-Canada. I believe that I can offer you both the academic and practitioner points of view on the impact of the provisions of Bill C-60.

My interest here today is not to represent any party that may be affected by the enactment of this legislation, but rather to outline the significant potential impacts of the proposed legislation on free collective bargaining in Canada.

Please understand that I know about cost control in crown corporations. I was part of the privatization of Air Canada; the revitalization of the Canadian railway industry, including CN as a crown corporation; and the modernization of CBC's collective agreement. This involved tough bargaining, negotiating out what had been negotiated in to meet new competitive pressures. Free collective bargaining achieved these necessary changes. Was it easy? No. Did it work? Yes.

As it relates to the legislation before us, I must first note that this unilateral proposal to change collective bargaining in Canadian crown corporations is the antithesis of my multiple previous experiences with legislative reform of industrial relations in the federal sector. Those previous experiences often involved tripartite consultation with all interested parties before changes to the Canada Labour Code were made by the government in power.

These proposed amendments to the Financial Administration Act buried in Bill C-60 contradict both the spirit and intent of the Canada Labour Code as articulated in its preamble and create a role for government in crown corporation collective bargaining that is not contemplated in the Canada Labour Code.

The preamble in part reads:

AND WHEREAS the Parliament of Canada desires to continue and extend its support to labour and management in their cooperative efforts to develop good relations and constructive collective bargaining practices, and deems the development of good industrial relations to be in the best interests of Canada in ensuring a just share of the fruits of progress to all....

In my four decades of experience, the role of government in the collective bargaining process consistent with this preamble has been to support positive bargaining outcomes through federal mediation and conciliation services. This proposed legislation contemplates an active role for government as a player in the collective bargaining process, approving mandates and supervising negotiations.

Not only is this role contrary to the Canada Labour Code, but the adverse impact on collective bargaining will be significant. Unions will not know who the employer is if the government is controlling mandates in the backroom. Governance processes at crown corporations will surely be confused when CEOs and boards of directors have their powers to approve collective bargaining mandates superseded by Treasury Board, and the collective bargaining process itself will be negatively impacted by the unusual and unwanted presence of Treasury Board at the bargaining table.

Relationships between labour and management, which are fragile at best during stressful negotiations, will be strained to the point of breaking, with the negative consequence of ensuring labour disputes. There will be costs to the economy. In some, an already complex process will be complicated to the point where, in my considered professional opinion, it will become totally dysfunctional.

Finally, my comments must be taken in the context of previous interventions of this government into industrial relations that are inconsistent with the Canada Labour Code as written. Since May 2011 there have been five instances of back-to-work legislation that have cumulatively threatened collective bargaining in Canada, including the right to strike or lockout. As well, I might add that substituting interest arbitration for the right to strike has not achieved the desired bargaining outcomes in most of these cases. The CEO of Air Canada recently declared his collective agreement uncompetitive as he launched another cost-cutting process.

This heavy-handed, ad hoc government intervention has become enough of a pattern that a proper policy debate of the potential reform to the Canada Labour Code is absolutely necessary.

I urge you to consider the significant impact of these sections of Bill C-60 in this context and amend the bill. Alternatively, send these proposed amendments to the human resources committee to review them in the context of the entire Canada Labour Code. Or, ideally, recommend the creation of a tripartite consultative process under the auspices of the Minister of Labour to review these and other potential amendments to the Canada Labour Code.

The fundamental Canadian freedom of collective bargaining is being threatened. I submit that a full public policy debate is necessary before changes of this significance are made. Canadians deserve nothing less.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

We'll go to the vote on this motion.

(Motion negatived)

Colleagues, you do have two budget requests before you. First of all for this study, for Bill C-60, the amount requested is $26,500. That is approximately $10,000 less than what was initially sent to committee members. It's less than what we had thought, initially.

Are there any questions or concerns? Can I get someone to move this? So moved by Mr. Jean. All in favour?

(Motion agreed to)

Secondly, with respect to our study of Bill C-462, you did raise some concerns about the budget previously. It has been adjusted downward substantially.

Any questions or concerns about this budget? Can I get a mover for this? Mr. Jean again. All in favour?

(Motion agreed to)

Thank you, colleagues.

We will move to our second panel. I want to thank our witnesses for being very patient while we were dealing with the three motions and two budget items.

We have six people to present. First of all, as an individual, we have Mr. George Smith, a fellow and adjunct professor from Queen's University. We have, representing the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, Ms. Judy Dezell. From the Canadian National Institute for the Blind, we have the national director, Ms. Diane Bergeron. From the Canadian Union of Public Employees, we have Mr. Denis Bolduc, general secretary. From the Canadian Urban Transit Association, we have Mr. Patrick Leclerc, and by teleconference, we have Monsieur Florian Sauvageau.

Monsieur Sauvageau, can you hear me?

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

I will be very quick.

We have time to study these issues. We have Bill C-60 before us. Some parts of the bill have been referred to other committees and will be studied very superficially. We will then receive recommendations without having a debate. We are in charge of studying part 1, part 2 and several divisions of part 3. We have been given about two and a half committee meetings to study amendments that will affect at least 15 to 20 pieces of legislation. So don't try to tell me that we have had enough time to discuss this matter. This is a fundamental issue for Canada's financial and monetary system, and it will be taken off the table because the committee is apparently too busy.

These matters will have to be taken seriously at some point. That is why I encourage the government to accept this motion, as well as the following motion. My colleague was perfectly right in pointing out that we do have two available days—June 11 and 13. So we do have some time on the schedule available to discuss some extremely important issues.

Thank you.

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

Let me address the objections raised by the Conservative members of the committee who have used some interesting words. I believe “spurious” and “fatuous” were two of the adjectives. Back at you, team.

I guess one could make that case with division 17 of part 3 in Bill C-60 where certainly I've had many constituents come to me expressing concern about the independence and the integrity of our crown corporations. Surely, a government that pretends to desire competence and expertise on economic matters would want to be assured that there is complete independence and integrity for our bank, the Bank of Canada. We didn't ask them to include these intrusions on crown corporations in their budget. Of course, it was unanticipated when we set the schedule for the finance committee. We are reacting to the inclusion of these provisions in Bill C-60, their latest omnibus budget bill.

We're also reacting to the fact that there is so little time given to this committee or any other committee to study the provisions of this bill. We believe that this is something that is fundamentally important to the integrity of our economic system and that we should make sure that our Bank of Canada is fully independent. We need to reassure ourselves of that. I would argue that if you look at our schedule carefully, which we have done, we have nothing planned for either June 11 or June 13, and we could in fact very well accommodate a further examination of these very important issues.

I submit that we do take the time and study this carefully because I'm sure Canadians would not be happy if they found that their government had in some way compromised the integrity or independence of their bank, especially during these insecure economic times.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

It never ceases to amaze me. The NDP comes forward with these spurious motions consistently. They know how tight our timetable is, yet they consistently bring forward these motions.

This one really takes the cake because they're asking us to look at part 3, division 17 of Bill C-60 on the independence of the Bank of Canada when it comes to setting monetary policy and doing economic research. That's exactly what we are studying right now. We're doing it right now.

What they're asking us to do is, yes, study it now, but then study it again. Not only are they asking us to study it for a second time, but the first time around, they didn't even invite any witnesses to speak to their side.

We're going to reject this motion because it's redundant. I would suggest that in bringing motions forward in the future, the NDP take a closer look at what they're proposing because in this instance, we're clearly studying this right now. For the sake of not wasting any more of the committee's time, let's reject this motion and move on, and hope that the NDP does not put forward any kind of fatuous motion in the future. It's ridiculous.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The motions that have been put forward—such as the one introduced earlier—are requests for studies that are important when it comes to potentially significant consequences.

There are two motions. We are talking about the possibility of a government bill affecting or unduly influencing the independence of the Bank of Canada and the policies of the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board. Those are extremely important issues that should also be important to the government, since the independence of those organizations is a crucial parameter in the operations of the government and of those organizations. When important topics are proposed, saying that we are always too busy because we have a hectic schedule indicates a lack of seriousness to my mind.

If we have an important issue pertaining to good governance, we should prioritize it in our discussions. That is why we are introducing these motions. They are not dilatory motions; they are substantial motions that call for important studies and inquiries. So I would like the government to recognize the importance of getting to the bottom of this. We are not asking for eight meetings. We just want to ensure that we will study that specific aspect of Bill C-60. We are not alone in saying that. Many organizations want the same thing, whether we are talking about the CBC—which is currently not even affected by those motions—or the Bank of Canada.

Based on their comments, the economists who have seen what kind of an impact this could have are worried. The comments made by public and economic policy experts indicate that they are also worried. So I think it would be worthwhile for the committee to look into this issue. Since the budget implementation bill was introduced not too long ago, this is our opportunity to put these motions forward.

In short, I hope that the government will be able to see how important and relevant this issue is when it comes to good governance.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

The letter reads:

Dear Mr. Rajotte, On behalf of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, I would like to thank you for your letter inviting our Committee to consider the subject matter of Bill C-60, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures, and more specifically the subject matter of clauses 167 to 168 and clauses 170 to 172 of the Bill. After careful consideration of your request, our Committee agreed on May 23, 2013 to undertake a study of the subject matter of the said clauses, and has met in this regard on May 23, 2013 in order to hear from officials from Citizenship and Immigration Canada. Their contribution to this study has been very valuable and informative. After hearing from the witnesses, and considering the provisions contained in clauses 167 to 168 and clauses 170 to 172, the Committee wishes to inform you that it has no amendments or recommendations to forward to the Standing Committee on Finance for its consideration. Thank you for the invitation to contribute to your deliberations and we wish your Committee a productive discussion during the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-60.

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

Thank you.

Our concern, as we have discussed today, is that division 17 of part 3 of Bill C-60 could undermine the independence of the Bank of Canada through the involvement of the Treasury Board. As a fundamental plank in all of our crown corporations, but especially in our monetary policy and our economic research activities, we want to make sure that the independence of the Bank of Canada is assured. We believe that it will be valuable for the finance committee to undertake such a study.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll read the motion first:

That the Standing Committee on Finance immediately undertake a study on the impact of Part 3 Division 17 of Bill C-60 on the independence of the Bank of Canada with respect to its setting of the nation’s monetary policy and its economic research activities.

In light of the discussion we've had today, Mr. Chair, our concern is that part 3, division 17 of Bill C-60 could undermine the independence of the Bank of Canada—

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

A quick question, then, for Mr. Morrison. Here's a scenario. Let's say a CBC journalist is writing a story on the Senate scandal and the Treasury Board orders that the journalist be moved from full-time to part-time. Is that a possible scenario as a consequence of Bill C-60?

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I guess it's either to you or Mr. Georgetti, both of you have enormous experience in collective bargaining. Mr. Georgetti, in particular, used the expression that the impact of Bill C-60's changes would be to “freeze collective bargaining”. I think you indicated there would be two decisions, a Treasury Board decision and the person at the negotiating table, and it might be hard. You have two separate decisions. It might slow things down. You used the term “freeze”.

I'd like to hear both of you talk a little about what the dynamic would be if this change were implemented vis-à-vis crown corporations.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you.

Thank you for making it here.

I'd first like to ask a question of Mr. Aylward. First of all, I really appreciated your commentary, sir, on the impact of the cuts and your experience with the Canada Revenue Agency, in particular. As critic and as a member of Parliament for Victoria, I have so many people coming into my office daily complaining about the impact of those cuts on their lives. I can only tell you I appreciate very much what you're saying.

I wanted to put a focus on the Bank of Canada employees, one of the groups you represent. I want to give you a scenario and ask if you think this is realistic in light of the proposed amendments in Bill C-60. Let's say a Bank of Canada economist publishes some kind of research paper that concludes that current government fiscal policy is inadequate in some fashion. The Treasury Board orders that her salary be cut in half. Is that the kind of possible arrangement that could be in place, the kinds of changes that could be made as a consequence of Bill C-60, in your view?

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

We're back in session. We're doing the letter in public session. We then have some business looking forward, for which we'll go in camera.

You all have a copy of the letter from the ANAVETS. They could not appear but they did send along their comments. Everybody has a copy of that. If there's anything from that you want reflected in the letter, I'd appreciate you passing it along to us. It's pretty straightforward.

As you know, I'm obligated to write back to the chair of the finance committee with comments or views that came from our session. We're asked to provide comments. I have drafted some the staff prepared. I'd like to read it out. If it's the will of the committee, we will adopt the letter. Certainly, if there are any comments or points to be made, we can do that before we do the adoption.

Dear Mr. Rajotte, On behalf of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, I would like to thank you for your letter inviting our committee to consider the subject matter of Bill C-60, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures and more specifically the subject matter of Clauses 156 to 160 (Pension Act and War Veterans Allowance Act) of the Bill. After careful consideration of your request, our Committee agreed on Thursday May 9, 2013 to undertake a study of the subject matter of the said clauses and has met in this regard on Tuesday May 21 and Thursday May 23, 2013 in order to hear from senior officials at the Department of Veterans Affairs as well as several veterans organisations including: Canadian Veterans Advocacy, Air Force Association, the Royal Canadian Legion, ANAVETS, Aboriginal Veterans Autochtones and the Korean Veterans Association. Their contribution to this study has been very valuable and informative. After hearing from the witnesses, and considering the provisions contained in clauses 156-160, the Committee wishes to inform you that it has no amendments or recommendations to forward to the Standing Committee on Finance for its consideration.

That is signed by myself as chair of your committee.

That is the draft letter that we have prepared. It's certainly open to comment and the committee's wish as to what they wish to do with the letter.

Mr. O'Toole.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Thank you.

Again, my thanks for being here this morning.

The summary of the bill states that division 9 of part 3 of Bill C-60 authorizes “the revocation of temporary foreign worker permits, the revocation and suspension of opinions provided by the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development...”.

I'm wondering if any of you can comment on how that relates to the government's express priorities on promoting jobs and stimulating the economy.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Good morning, everyone. This is the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, meeting no. 79, Tuesday, May 29, 2013. This meeting is televised.

The committee was asked on May 7 by the Standing Committee on Finance to consider the subject matter of clauses 167 to 168 of Bill C-60, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures which amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Mr. Rajotte, the chairman of the finance committee, has invited this committee to provide recommendations, including any amendments, no later than nine o'clock on May 27. That's next Monday.

Please note that other clauses in division 9 of Bill C-60 will amend the IRPA, but these will be considered by the Standing Committee on Human Resources. Clauses 170 to 172 in division 10 of Bill C-60, which amend the Citizenship Act, are also before this committee.

We have before us members of the department to answer any questions or comments made by members of the committee.

Good morning to all of you.

Ms. Melis, good morning to you. I believe you are going to introduce your colleagues.

You have the floor.

[Ian Morrison]

I just want to say that the government has ample control over the national public broadcaster—I use the word “control” advisedly, or “influence”—through control of the amount of public funds it receives, since something like 70% of its revenue comes from the Canadian taxpayer, and also through total control of appointments of its board of directors and its chief executive officer.

The arm’s-length principle, as I mentioned previously to Ms. Nash, is pretty important. You cannot find an example in another free and democratic country of any proposition like the one that Bill C-60 would have on the CBC. It's just not acceptable.

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

Thank you very much.

Yesterday the Minister of Finance appeared before the committee, and I quoted excerpts from the letter we received from Hubert Lacroix, the president of CBC, where essentially he threatens to sue the government if the budget bill, Bill C-60, passes as is.

In that letter, he said that the budget bill “would reduce the independence that is critical to our operation”, and went on to say this:

This could potentially embroil the government, our Corporation, and its unions in litigation, a result that could be avoided with an amendment that protects that independence.

At the committee meeting, I simply asked the minister this:

Would you support an amendment to your budget bill that protects the independence of the CBC and avoids a court battle between the government and the CBC?

The minister responded:

The CBC may think it's a special...part of a crown agency.... This is wrong. All crown agencies have a responsibility through ministers back to Parliament and to the people of Canada.

Would you agree or disagree with the minister that the CBC is distinct from other crown corporations?

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

I have another question, not necessarily directly related to Bill C-60. Could I get your opinion on the changes we made to the veterans independence program over a year ago? There are two semi-annual allocations instead of consistently submitting your invoices for reimbursement.

What are your members comments on it? Do they think that it's a positive change?

[Chris Aylward, National Executive Vice-President, Public Service Alliance of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, committee members, for inviting me here today to share the views of the Public Service Alliance of Canada on Bill C-60.

I had the pleasure of appearing before this committee last October on the previous budget implementation bill, one that continued cutting important public services that Canadians rely on, such as search and rescue, employment insurance, benefits and services for veterans, food inspection, border security, Canada's national parks, and scientific research, among others.

We asked the government to change the decision on these cuts because we were already seeing the negative impact they were having on Canadian families, communities, and the economy. We wanted the government to be more transparent and to start listening to Canadians before making decisions on the programs and services they rely on. I am disappointed that the latest budget implementation act did not heed these calls for caution. On the contrary, the cuts continue, and with the bill presently before the committee, the government is proposing to extend the damage to public services by adding unnecessary barriers to effective collective bargaining.

Division 17 of the latest budget implementation bill will allow Treasury Board to unilaterally interfere directly in negotiations with crown corporations and their unions. This is not a benign change but one that could have profound consequences for labour relations in crown corporations. The Public Service Alliance of Canada represents over 180,000 members. Of those members, 5,000 work at 19 different crown corporations, including hard-working Canadians at the Bank of Canada, the Canadian Council for the Arts, Canada Post Corporation, and the Royal Canadian Mint, among others.

Injecting a third party into the bargaining process isn't conducive to productive labour relations or collective bargaining. It removes effective control from the parties most directly affected, who know their workplace and the people who work there. The act will require crown corporations to get approval for their bargaining mandate from Treasury Board. It also will give Treasury Board Secretariat the authority to place one of its own employees at the bargaining table to attend and observe, and presumably report back. This will effectively put a chill on any open and frank discussions the employer and the union could have at the table. Cabinet will have the ultimate authority over whether or not to interfere in the bargaining process, which would appear to be a further consolidation of power in the hands of the Prime Minister's Office.

The legislation specifically states that while it can interfere, Treasury Board is not the employer. They will have the power to dictate the mandate for bargaining and can be in the room overseeing the bargaining, but they've washed their hands of any responsibility for having to be accountable for the implementation and responsibilities associated with the agreements or other terms and conditions of employment.

The previous budget implementation bill imposed a similar arrangement with the Canada Revenue Agency, and I speak from personal experience. The CRA and the PSAC component of the union of taxation employees, whose members work at CRA, have had a good working relationship in previous rounds of bargaining. Now, negotiations are dragging on and the absence of a new contract, coupled with the continuing cuts to jobs and services, is creating a toxic environment, one that could be avoided. Employees and the public services they provide to Canadians suffer when the labour relations climate is undermined in this way. It does not lead to more effective delivery of public services, but rather leads to increased stress and conflict in the workplace. It also brings into question the integrity of the bargaining process and raises the question: who are we really bargaining with?

The latest move affects our national museums and the CBC, among others. It could signal an end to the independence of our national cultural institutions. Is this just another way of seeking control over independent institutions that work on behalf of Canadians and not the government of the day?

I'll conclude, Mr. Chair, by saying that this new provision will just compound a worsening problem. I recommend that this committee strike division 17 from the bill and send the government a message that it should honour the collective bargaining rights of the members of the federal public service.

Thank you.

[Ian Morrison, Spokesperson, Friends of Canadian Broadcasting]

Mr. Chair, thank you for the opportunity to appear before this committee.

Eighty-one years ago, a Conservative prime minister introduced public broadcasting in Canada. Fifty-nine years later, a Progressive Conservative prime minister updated the Broadcasting Act for the 21st century.

Clauses 228 and 229 of Bill C-60 would apply certain new provisions of the Financial Administration Act to the CBC, giving the cabinet the right to direct the Treasury Board that it must approve CBC's negotiating mandate for any collective agreement and impose any requirements on that mandate. Further, a Treasury Board employee might attend and observe the collective bargaining process. No collective bargaining could be entered into by the CBC without Treasury Board approval.

The principal financial provisions relating to the CBC are set out in the Broadcasting Act, sections 52 to 70. They reflect a decision by Parliament to treat the CBC differently from other crown agencies subject to the FAA. In particular, the FAA's direction and control provisions do not apply to the CBC. In so doing, Parliament followed recommendations by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Communications and Culture, and the government's own policy paper entitled, “Canadian Voices, Canadian Choices: A New Broadcasting Policy for Canada”. The standing committee's report expressed the nub of this issue succinctly. It said:

The CBC should remain exempt from the power of direction provisions which are applicable to other Crown corporations under the Financial Administration Act, and from other provisions which would compromise the “arm's-length” relationship of the CBC with the government.

Part III of the Broadcasting Act sets out the provisions of CBC's mandate within the Canadian broadcasting system. Each of these is outlined on page 2 of the letter of opinion by Brian MacLeod Rogers, one of Canada's most distinguished and renowned media lawyers, who is with me here today. Friends has commissioned this opinion and has tabled the letter with the clerk of your committee this morning.

Sections 35 and 52 of the Broadcasting Act are extremely clear in their direction that the CBC's editorial independence is an imperative that requires CBC to be treated differently from other crown agencies. For example, subsection 35(2) states that all the provisions of part III:

...shall be interpreted and applied so as to protect and enhance the freedom of expression and the journalistic, creative and programming independence enjoyed by the Corporation in the pursuit of its objects and in the exercise of its powers.

The Broadcasting Act's fundamental requirement that CBC must maintain an arm's-length distance from government and be protected from possible governmental interference, as well as that the public should perceive that the CBC is independent, are not reflected in the Bill C-60 proposals. Mr. Rogers' letter of opinion makes clear that there is a conflict between the carefully protected special status of the CBC under the Broadcasting Act, and the proposed provisions of the FAA that seek to impose direct control by Treasury Board on all aspects of CBC's employment relations. Mr. Rogers concludes:

After all, it is all too possible that government's levers of power, particularly its exercise of financial control, could be used in future to shape, diminish or even threaten the CBC's role as public broadcaster. Certainly, that perception by the public may be difficult to avoid, and CBC management and employees may find themselves affected in myriad and subtle ways in order to curry the government's favour or avoid its displeasure.

Mr. Rogers concludes that the inherent conflict between the two statutes will require judicial determination to reconcile the apparent conflict between them.

We recommend that the government steer clear of that morass by removing the CBC from Bill C-60, or failing that, making the clauses referencing the CBC subject to the protection from interference afforded by subsection 35(2) and section 52 of the Broadcasting Act.

Mr. Chair, the clerk has also distributed copies of a letter to the Prime Minister. The letter is signed by a number of Canada's most eminent authorities on democratic journalism and has been copied to the members of your committee. I would like to add that Bernard Derome also signed the letter last night.

Thank you.

[Brock Carlton, Chief Executive Officer, Federation of Canadian Municipalities]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's really a pleasure to be here this morning. We really appreciate the opportunity to present to this committee.

On behalf of some 2,000 members of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, FCM, I am pleased to present our views on Bill C-60, specifically with regard to division 18 of part 3.

We at FCM believe that there is no surer way to create jobs than by strengthening our economic foundations of tomorrow and investing in municipal infrastructure. When federal, provincial, territorial and local partners all bring money and expertise to the table, no other investment goes as far.

In a world full of economic uncertainty, Canadians want to know that we're taking action to build the conditions for a competitive economy and strong communities. Canadians want to know that all orders of government are working together to make progress on particular priorities: good roads, clean water, and a shorter commute.

The new infrastructure plan announced in budget 2013 is set to renew federal funding, which is expiring in 2014. It will index the gas tax fund to protect its long-term value and provide longer-term funding for cost-shared projects. This is certainly a step in the right direction. By protecting the purchasing power of the gas tax transfer and by extending the program funding for 10 years, this budget advances the principle of long-term, predictable infrastructure funding. FCM is looking forward to getting on with the work to design the new program, to plan it, and to ensure that municipalities do not miss the construction season in 2014 that this government has committed to.

We are particularly pleased with the government's decision to review the effectiveness of its infrastructure plan within the next five years. That will be an opportunity to determine how effective the plan is in addressing its key infrastructure gaps, especially in public transit. It will also be an opportunity to decide what improvements need to be made following the implementation of new federal wastewater regulations.

What the budget did not contain was a definitive road map to erasing infrastructure deficit. FCM would like to work towards a framework for achieving this important goal in the near term. Canada's municipalities own and operate 60% of Canada's core economic infrastructure but collect just 8¢ of every tax dollar paid in Canada. This is one of the reasons why it is essential to ensure new predictable infrastructure investments, such as the indexing of the permanent gas tax fund, which will add $9 billion over 20 years.

I'd just like to give you a clear picture of why we believe investments that are predictable, like the gas tax fund, are so essential to our work and to the country. Investments that are predictable allow companies to hire new workers and plan for new equipment that is needed. They allow business decisions on where to locate or upgrade, based on planned public infrastructure. The gas tax allows for long-term planning with the flexibility for projects to be approved and funding disbursed in the same year. It also allows for the federal government to identify broad investment priorities while municipalities select the projects most needed. In addition, the injection of private investment becomes easier to consider due to the access to a predictable revenue stream. Perhaps most importantly, every region receives its fair share, which means job creation across the country and more balanced economic outcomes.

For Canadian municipalities, challenges will persist and remain a threat to Canada's economy and quality of life. These include the $20 billion price tag for meeting the new federal waste water standards, growing traffic gridlock, and inadequate public transit, as well as the challenge of adapting municipal roads, bridges, and water systems to extreme weather caused by climate change. Meeting these challenges will require further commitment by all orders of government, a framework for cooperation, better infrastructure management through measures such as sustained capacity building, and new partnerships with the private sector where they make sense and where they benefit Canadians.

An essential piece of this collaboration needs to focus on putting an end to off-loading, whether it's the result of legislation shifting unfunded responsibilities onto local governments, or municipalities having to fill the void when another government fails to fulfill its own front-line duties.

We hope that the long-term plan announced in Budget 2013 will provide all levels of government with a practical model of co-operation and that it will help break down the barriers that prevent them from providing taxpayers with the best value.

The infrastructure plan that was announced is an opportunity to expand the partnership in terms of both infrastructure and other challenges. Municipal leaders are ready to do their part.

We are pleased to have this opportunity to talk and look forward to your questions.

[Kenneth V. Georgetti, President, Canadian Labour Congress]

Thank you, Mr. Rajotte and committee.

On behalf of the 3.3 million members of the Canadian Labour Congress, I want to thank you for the opportunity to present our views on Bill C-60, an act to implement certain provisions of the 2013-14 budget.

The CLC brings together workers from virtually all sectors of the Canadian economy, in all occupations, and in all parts of Canada, including those working for crown corporations. Crown corporations and their employees play a key role in providing Canadians with the services that the private sector is either unable or unwilling to provide. The 48 crown corporations falling under federal jurisdiction operate in many key sectors of the Canadian economy, including transportation, energy, agriculture, fisheries, financial services, culture, and government services. As of December 31, 2012, these entities employed 88,000 workers. Most of them are represented by members of the Canadian Labour Congress.

A crown corporation is a distinct legal entity, having a name, mandate, powers, and objectives set out by legislation or in articles of incorporation under the Canada Business Corporations Act. They are wholly owned by the state, but operate at arm's length from the government. As a result, crown corporations are set up to operate under a “corporate model”, free of “political” interference in their ongoing activities, including labour relations and the collective bargaining process.

The free collective bargaining process outlined in our Canada Labour Code, the code governing labour relations for federal crown corporations, has worked extremely well for decades. This process allows both the employees and the employers to sit down at a bargaining table, look at the needs of both parties within an organization, develop responses that satisfy both parties, and help build harmonious labour relations while achieving labour peace. These relationships have been developed over time between workers and employers in the federal sector. They're good ones, and they're underscored by the fact that almost all crown corporations end up with settlements without a labour dispute between the parties 99.7% of the time.

Unfortunately, the proposed provisions in division 17 of part 3 of Bill C-60, if passed, we fear will achieve exactly the opposite: more labour disputes. Having a third party enforcing a bargaining mandate through its presence at a bargaining table during all stages of negotiations, without an in-depth understanding of the ongoing challenges within the organizations, we say will be problematic. Furthermore, Treasury Board will have a veto on a tentative agreement. That degree of intervention by a third party will jeopardize the free collective bargaining process, allowing a third party to enact and dictate negotiations at all stages.

In fact, we fear it will freeze collective bargaining, because the employee side will wait for a decision of two parties instead of just one. Moreover, the bill specifies that Treasury Board is neither the employer nor an employer rep of the crown corporation, confirming its role as a third party without having any responsibilities over the success or failure of that process. For us, this proposed legislation will have an impact on the crown corporations' employer representatives to freely negotiate the terms and conditions of employment with crown corporation employees during the bargaining process.

The section of the bill that gives cabinet and Treasury Board the ability to impose the terms and conditions of employment on their employees without having to live with the consequences doesn't build the bargaining relationship necessary for ongoing relations after collective bargaining. It attacks the core corporate model of crown corporations by allowing political interference in the ongoing business of arm's-length organizations, such as labour relations.

We fear that this is more an aim or a focus to try to change major terms and conditions of the agreements the crown corporations presently have with their employees, and I'm sure you're going to hear cries from others about the issue of pensions and other benefit programs that sit and reside within those programs.

Anyone who has sat at the bargaining table will know that if a third party's hands are on bargaining, it will freeze the process, and most of the time the employees will wait for two decisions to be made before they go back to their membership for any ratification or support for the process. That in itself, we think, will cause more disputes to happen.

Thank you.

Extension of Sitting Hours

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

Mr. Speaker, the motion before us is rather bizarre. As many members have said before me, it is quite surprising that the government is using the excuse of urgency.

The government has imposed closure a record 33 times, as well as restrictions on the time allowed to study bills in committee. With Bill C-60, this same government gave notice of a time allocation motion after only one hour of debate. I did say only one hour of debate. This is the same government that introduced monster omnibus bills because it did not want the committees and parliamentarians to properly study their legislative proposals in good faith.

I am not afraid of hard work. I am a doctor by training and I am used to 12-hour and even 24-hour shifts. It is not pleasant, but you get used to it.

My colleagues and I have not hesitated to stand up to the government and to do our jobs, as was the case with legislation to force Canada Post employees back to work and regarding their working conditions. We stood our ground when necessary.

It is obvious that the Conservatives do not have any respect for democratic institutions. I just mentioned the 33 time allocation motions they have imposed since May 2, 2011. What a sorry record.

The omnibus bills, such as Bills C-38 and C-45, are perfect examples of this. The Conservatives have steamrolled their way through adopting measures that Canadians and parliamentarians did not have the chance to scrutinize.

As everyone knows, the appropriate committees were unable to properly study Bill C-38 because it was not split up. That is disrespectful. With Bill C-45, the Conservatives used a different approach in order to curry favour with the public.

However, I can speak from my experience with the Standing Committee on Health. What a joke. The committee's meeting on Bill C-45 started late because of yet another time allocation motion. We then heard from witnesses and had just one round of questions. It is clear to me that the government did not really want the committees to study the impact of the measures. It just wanted to look better without having to do better. That too shows a lack of respect for our democratic institutions.

I also think that what is happening in committee is not right. Many witnesses take the time to come here to speak to subjects or bills that are important to them. Most of the time, however, their contributions are ignored. It is as though the committees were a waste of time. In any event, the outcome is prepared in advance by the Prime Minister's Office and so are many of the Conservative members' statements.

Yesterday, the House Leader of the Official Opposition said that 99.3% of all amendments proposed by the opposition have been rejected by the government.

This implies that every single one of the bills the government introduces is practically perfect.

In 99.3% of the cases, the government outright rejected all of the testimony from witnesses and experts, all of the comments from the public and all of the amendments proposed during the study of the bill. That is simply impossible.

Based on what we heard from witnesses, and after studying some bills in the Standing Committee on Health, I know that some of these bills could have benefited from the proposed amendments.

The NDP is not afraid of work. The problem is that I am not sure the government wants to extend our hours in order to get more work done. It has not guaranteed that we will be here until the summer recess.

I belong to a party that has the word “democratic” in its name, and I take these issues very seriously. The people of Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert put their trust in me on May 2, 2011, and I am doing my best to represent them.

Canadians sent us here to ask the necessary questions and to implement the best policies and public practices. We think that the government should take action so that we can do our job properly. The Prime Minister is now playing the victim over what happened in the Senate with senators he himself appointed solely to raise money for the Conservative Party of Canada. The Prime Minister is now playing the victim and wondering how this could have happened.

How could his chief of staff give a $90,000 cheque to a senator the Prime Minister himself appointed? How could his chief of staff—who sat right next to him every single day, who knows the government's deepest, darkest secrets and who the Prime Minister put in charge of major trade files and negotiations with other countries—do that?

Of course, the Prime Minister's hands are clean, and he has nothing to say about this. He believes that his hands are so clean that he is not going to answer any questions about it. He is going to South America for trade talks with countries we already have trade deals with.

Parliament should become less irrelevant. We think it is wrong that it ever became irrelevant. When the government is wrong in its treatment and abuse of Canada's Parliament, that affects all Canadians, whatever their political persuasion. We think what the government is doing is fundamentally wrong and that it needs a little adult supervision from time to time to take some of those suggestions and put a little, as we say, water in its wine. The government needs that more than anything.

It has the majority. This is the irony of what the government is doing. In moving more time allocation than any government in history, shutting down debate more than any government in history and relying on the tactics it is using today, it is showing weakness, not strength.

The Conservatives have the numbers to move legislation through if they saw fit, but they do not. They move legislation, they say it is an agenda and they hold up a raft of bills.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will share my speaking time with my colleague, the member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert.

I have been given time to speak to this motion. Once again this week, the government is moving to extend our evening sitting hours significantly. It wants Parliament to sit until midnight.

We have to take a close look at this motion because similar motions in the past have often resulted in a shorter parliamentary calendar.

Since the beginning of this discussion, the Conservatives have continually surprised us with messages utterly at odds with what we are used to hearing.

Just like that, the government wants to extend the time we spend in the House. It claims this approach will enable members to debate bills on the order paper in detail and work hard for Canadians.

How ironic. After constantly curtailing debate ever since the last election, the government now says it wants to extend sitting hours to provide opportunities for debate.

Also ironic is the fact that the government has so much to say about democracy despite its unrelenting and unprecedented contempt for our parliamentary bodies.

Such principles were conspicuous by their absence when the government prorogued Parliament for purely partisan reasons, a move that was bad for Canadians.

Let us not forget that the Prime Minister had absolutely no compunction about letting dozens of bills die on the order paper when he wanted to save his government's hide. How can he say that he wants to let bills move through the normal legislative process when his political agenda has been given top priority in the current legislative cycle?

When a government constantly uses adjournment motions as a tactic to limit participation in and duration of debates, that is not democracy. It is exactly the opposite of what has been moved today.

May 8 was the 33rd time the government brought a vote on a time allocation motion that effectively limits the number of MPs who can speak to a given bill.

It sure looks like the Conservatives have been hell-bent on beating their own record for shutting down debate ever since the beginning of this Parliament.

How can the government say that it wants to promote free debate when it holds the record for cutting debate short? Are we supposed to believe that the government really wants to have it both ways?

Nor is it very democratic when the Prime Minister's Office muzzles its own members in their statements in the House.

Personally, neither I nor my colleagues in the official opposition have to get our speeches approved or adjusted to go with the soup of the day. We speak freely, without constraint from our party, but the government members cannot say the same.

How can the Conservatives stand here today and say that they defend democracy when they put gag orders on their own party's statements and speeches in the House?

Working for Canadians does not mean introducing three mammoth bills like Bills C-38, C-45 and C-60, and then watering down debate, limiting discussion and preventing parliamentarians from learning about what is happening in parliamentary committee, as is the case with a typical bill.

How can the Conservatives claim that they want to let the parliamentary process follow its course when they are the first to short-circuit it by forcing the vote on hundreds of measures without allowing representatives to do their work properly?

Never in the history of this country has a government shown such contempt for our institutions. That is why it is becoming difficult today to understand and believe the lines the Conservatives are trying to feed us.

You cannot on the one hand advocate for extending our sitting time to encourage debate, and on the other hand interfere constantly, as the Conservatives have done with complete impunity.

Therefore, we must question the motives behind the government's desire to extend the sitting hours.

If we look at what has happened in the past, we see that, in general, extending the sitting hours allows the party in power to make the parliamentary calendar shorter. Right now, the Conservatives clearly do not have enough credibility for us to believe their intentions and trust them.

We have to wonder whether the government simply wants to be forgotten as quickly as possible over the summer and to have people forget about all the problems that its wilful blindness caused with the temporary foreign worker program.

Yesterday, the government House leader said that he wanted to accelerate his government's economic measures. If he really cares about the economy, how could he let senators make such extravagant expenditures on the backs of taxpayers? The fact is that the government would rather shirk its responsibilities than face any challenges, answer the official opposition's questions and allow a real debate on issues that are of concern to Canadians. That is the real problem.

If the government wants to fully debate the bills on the order paper, then it should allow the House to sit until June 21, as set out on the calendar. The NDP is prepared to debate. The NDP is prepared to sit until June 21, as scheduled.

We have demonstrated our commitment and dedication to Parliament on numerous occasions. One of our members once even sat for 22 consecutive hours. When the government wanted to lock out Canada Post employees, we were there to debate and to stand up for Canadians.

Every day, we are here to stand up for the interests of Canadians. We routinely propose amendments in order move forward on bills that have sometimes been introduced over a year and a half ago, but these amendments are rejected by a government that wants to promote a political agenda rather than work for Canadians.

First and foremost, we oppose the government's motivations for wanting to impose extended sitting hours. Canadians will not be fooled. They understand the political game that the Conservatives are constantly playing. Canadians know that they cannot trust the Conservatives.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

If I understand it correctly, under Bill C-60 Treasury Board can change the bargaining mandate of the CBC and it can force the CBC to violate the existing labour law.

If they did so, what recourse would employees have? Under the law, the remedies that used to exist under the labour law will no longer be available. Is it as simple as that?

[Alex Levasseur]

Thank you for your question.

In fact, our request is relatively simple: you should have the aspects that concern division 17, which amends the Financial Administration Act, withdrawn from Bill C-60, which you are currently studying. We believe that at the very least the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation should not be affected by this change. I don't think it's appropriate, in the name of journalistic independence, a principle that you know, to allow this type of specific and very detailed intrusion by the executive, in other words by any government, in the running of the CBC. We feel that enough controls have been in place for a long time. Every year, Parliament receives the CBC's updated five-year plan and their annual report. Parliament can question the president and CEO and the chair of the board of directors. Furthermore, it is also Parliament, and especially the government, that appoints the president and CEO of the CBC and the chair of its board of directors.

The CBC is also subject to conditions set out by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, the CRTC, which issues licences. Moreover, we just had a very long conversation with the CRTC about the renewal of the CBC's licences last November. Its decision should be made very soon.

I therefore think there is a whole monitoring environment that allows Parliament to know in enough detail what is happening in terms of the CBC's major objectives. It is not necessary to go into detail, which is what we have the impression the government currently wants to do.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First, I would like to thank the witnesses for their presentations.

I will start by asking Mr. Levasseur a question.

You spoke in your presentation about the collective agreements at Radio-Canada and the CBC, and you said they're not just about wages and benefits, but clauses are included that would help ensure journalistic integrity at our largest journalistic organization. You also talked about the code in your presentation.

I understand there are conflict of interest rules and rules to ensure that journalists are protected from political and other interference, so they don't fear retribution in doing their job and reporting the news.

What are your suggestions on how we can amend Bill C-60 to ensure that Radio-Canada and the CBC can have control over these types of clauses in the collective agreements?

[Alex Levasseur, President, Syndicat des communications de Radio-Canada, Confédération des syndicats nationaux]

Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for inviting us to have this discussion with you today.

Of course, we will be speaking about division 17, which amends the Financial Administration Act.

The Syndicat des communications de Radio-Canada represents about 1,700 CBC/Société Radio-Canada employees in Quebec and Moncton, in the on-air and production staff categories in all cities. According to our submissions and to our analysis, the application of Bill C-60 contravenes the Broadcasting Act, simply by the fact that the government would be giving itself the power to intervene in production and finance, basically in the routine proceedings of CBC/Radio-Canada. The spirit of the law provides that the CBC must be able to act without interference from the government in order to protect its non-partisanship and freedom of expression, and that it is therefore in the public interest to preserve these basic principles.

CBC/Radio-Canada's Journalistic Standards and Practices state that:

We are independent of all lobbies and of all political and economic influence. We uphold freedom of expression and freedom of the press, the touchstones of a free and democratic society.

Did you know that all CBC/Radio-Canada employees are subject to a code of conduct? Policy 2.2.21 states the following:

This Code is subject to the Broadcasting Act, which protects the CBC/Radio-Canada's ‘journalistic, creative and programming independence in the pursuit of its objects and the exercise of its powers.’ This Code respects CBC/Radio-Canada's arm's length relationship to the government and the independence enjoyed by its employees in the exercise of their duties [...]

We are often told—and I heard it again this afternoon—that the government has the right to monitor how public funds are spent, because it provides funding to the CBC. This is both true and false. The CBC falls under the authority of the Canadian Parliament and not its executive branch. This crown corporation is accountable to Parliament through its five-year action plan and its annual report. This is what is stipulated in the Broadcasting Act. Parliament may also have the president of the board of directors and the chief executive officer report to members of the House. We believe that it is not in the public interest to have the government interfere in the everyday management of CBC/Radio-Canada.

We could look at what has been done at the British Broadcasting Corporation. A royal charter implemented a kind of trust with the following purpose:

As Trustees it is our responsibility to make sure that every pound of the licence fee works as hard as possible. One of the ways we do this is through a programme of in-depth value for money reviews carried out by the National Audit Office and other independent experts. We always publish these reports and explain how we plan to respond to the recommendations made.

The same independence—the concept of being at arm's length—also applies to France Télévisions. Professor Florian Sauvageau of Laval University and his colleague Pierre Trudel from the University of Montreal stated the following:

At first glance, the objective might seem legitimate, but submitting the CBC to the authority of the Treasury Board is a clear sign that it is, at worst, a reprehensible attempt to interfere and, at best, lamentable ignorance of the rules governing public broadcasting, whose founding principle is independence. Without administrative autonomy, it would no longer be an independent public broadcaster, but a state broadcaster, if not a “government” broadcaster.

Thank you.

[Mario Albert, President and Chief Executive Officer, Autorité des marchés financiers]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would first like to thank the Standing Committee on Finance for inviting the Autorité des marchés financiers to participate in your study of Bill C-60.

This afternoon, I would like to present our position specifically on section 133 of this bill. This section would indefinitely extend the mandate of the Canadian Securities Transition Office.

This office's mission is to promote establishing a national securities regulator in Canada. The office's activities are to come to an end in July. The Autorité des marchés financiers takes a clear stand on extending the Canadian Securities Transition Office mandate, we believe this extension is inappropriate.

In its December 22, 2011 ruling, the Supreme Court of Canada concluded that regulating securities is a matter of provincial jurisdiction according to the Constitution. Consequently, there are simply no grounds for extending the Canadian Securities Transition Office's mandate in order to create a national securities regulator that would involve the federal's government participation.

Beyond the constitutional issues, it is also important to note that currently the provinces are adequately regulating securities. In fact, we are convinced that creating a national securities regulator would be a step backwards from the current system. Creating a national regulator would inevitably standardize regulations, possibly on the basis of the interests of the sizeable market in Ontario.

However, securities markets in Canada are markedly different from one region to another. In order to be efficient and effective, the regulatory framework must acknowledge the differences. The current system does a very good job of this. It allows for a high level of harmonization while taking into account, when necessary, the specific needs of each region.

On the administrative front, over the last few years the provincial regulators have implemented a securities passport system. The system allows securities issuers looking for financing in a number of provinces to do so by communicating solely with the provincial regulatory authority where their headquarters are located. This system is efficient, effective and fast. It is not a costly collage as the promoters of a national regulator would say.

Overall, the provinces provide quality regulations of securities in Canada. A number of international studies confirm this. For example, the World Bank recently ranked Canada 5 out of 175 countries when it comes to protecting investors. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, the OECD, ranked Canada second for its quality of securities regulation. In this context, one may want know why the federal government is seeking to change a system that works well.

That being said, as the Supreme Court of Canada's decision reminds us, the federal government has a role to play in maintaining the stability of the financial system. This role is significant in the current international financial and economic environment. However, rather than try to interfere with securities and taking the risk of provoking more costly and unproductive legal challenges, I humbly suggest that the federal government focus its efforts on strengthening the cooperation between the different financial regulators while respecting their constitutional responsibilities.

The provincial ministers in charge of securities, with the exception of Ontario, recently asked their regulators if they had suggestions on how to improve the governance and operations of the Canadian securities administrators.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Colleagues, could I have you take your seats, please?

I apologize for the vote interruption. We have another vote tonight as well.

We're pleased to continue our study this afternoon of Bill C-60, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures.

We have five witnesses before us.

We now welcome Mario Albert, president and chief executive officer of the Autorité des marchés financiers.

Welcome.

We have the CEO of the Canadian Youth Business Foundation, Julia Deans. Welcome.

We also have with us here Alex Levasseur, president of the Confédération des syndicats nationaux.

Welcome.

From Genome Canada, we have the president and CEO, Mr. Pierre Meulien. Bienvenue.

And from the Nature Conservancy of Canada, we have the president and CEO, Mr. John Lounds. Welcome back to the committee.

You will each have up to five minutes for an opening statement, and then we will have questions from members.

We will start with Mr. Albert.

You have five minutes to give your presentation.

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

I have time to ask you one last question, Minister.

I would like to come back to this question of eliminating the tax credit for the worker's fund, Fonds FTQ. This is not in Bill C-60, but it is in the budget. It seems that you have set a deadline of May 31 of this year for consultations with different groups. All the groups that we have heard so far on this question have been opposed to this decision, especially associations representing private venture capital corporations.

The gradual elimination of the tax credit will only start in two years. Why then impose such an early deadline of May 31 for consultations on a subject that is so important and controversial?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, today the committee received a letter from the president of the CBC where he essentially threatens to sue the government if C-60, your budget bill, passes as is. He says that your budget bill “would reduce the independence that is critical to our operation” and that:

This could potentially embroil the government, our Corporation, and its unions in litigation, a result that could be avoided with an amendment that protects that independence.

Would you support an amendment to your budget bill that protects the independence of the CBC and avoids a court battle between the government and the CBC?

Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is indeed the case, because it is the number one priority of our government. One can see it in our legislative agenda.

I just went through some of the elements of Bill C-60. There are others, such as support for genomics research for Genome Canada and support for the Canada Youth Business Foundation to encourage an entrepreneurial ethic in the future for future generations. I know that an entrepreneurial ethic is something that is foreign to the NDP, but it is something we believe in and that we believe deserves support.

There is also funding for Indspire, for post-secondary scholarships and bursaries for first nations and Inuit students. This is something we are going to have an opportunity to debate and vote in favour of. Perhaps the NDP members will change their votes from the past, when they opposed it.

Enhancing the adoption expense tax credit is another item. Introducing a new, temporary, first-time donor super-credit for first-time claimants for charitable donations is another. These and many other measures are, of course, included in our budget and in Bill C-60, the economic action plan 2013 bill, which is focused on economic growth, job creation and long-term prosperity.

[Jim Flaherty, Conservative, Whitby—Oshawa, ON]

There will be adjustments to the program, as you know. Bill C-60 provides for that. The minister responsible was satisfied during the budget process that he had adequate resources to accomplish the goals.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is some great irony to me in folks proclaiming how hard-working they are while they vote and oppose motions to work harder. That is what this motion is for.

The member raised the issue of economic certainty. Some of the things we hope to deal with are important for economic certainty. They are things that he and the NDP have already voted against. They are things like extending for two years the temporary accelerated capital cost allowance for new investment in machinery and equipment. This makes our manufacturers and our workers more competitive, more productive and more able to compete in global markets. This is something the NDP opposes. Indexing the gas fund payment to municipalities to better support their job-creating infrastructure is, again, something they voted against. However, we are determined that it should get through, notwithstanding the NDP's opposition.

There are reforms to the temporary foreign worker program so that the priorities of Canadian workers come first. New Democrats claim to be a workers' party, but they are opposing those measures and our economic action plan, Bill C-60.

I could go on and on, but these are the kinds of measures we are proposing to help ensure that Canada's focus is on job creation, economic growth and long-term prosperity.

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

I question whether journalistic independence would be respected in the case of political decisions being made, and whether there are truly independent decisions that will be made at the Bank of Canada under that scenario. But I need to move on to a different section.

This is part 3, division 9, temporary foreign workers. Back in 2009 the government admitted that there were no provisions existing in the regulations to hold employers accountable for their actions regarding temporary foreign workers. Nothing was done in that regard for another three and a half years. Now we see HRSDC is suffering the largest job cuts of any federal department, with more than 3,800 workers affected. They've been delivered notices about their jobs.

Will these job cuts affect the department's ability to administer the temporary foreign worker program and the new powers they are given under Bill C-60?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and welcome, Mr. Minister, to the committee.

Of course, we're examining Bill C-60, which is another omnibus budget bill that affects about 50 different pieces of legislation. We've seen sections of this bill carved out and sent to other committees, although it will all come back here and we'll be voting on it—without having had the opportunity to hear witnesses' testimony or ask questions.

I want to ask you questions about two specific areas. First of all, part 3, division 17, gives the Treasury Board sweeping powers to unilaterally set the terms and conditions of employment for non-union workers and to impose a bargaining mandate on employees with a union. I'd like you to explain how allowing politicians to directly set wages and hours and perhaps even terminate employees is consistent with the independence of these crown corporations.

I just want to give you a couple of examples. Suppose a Bank of Canada economist publishes a research paper critical of the government's fiscal policy and the Treasury Board decides they want to cut that person's salary. Or suppose a CBC journalist publishes a story on the Senate scandal and the Treasury Board orders a reduction of that person's hours. These are scenarios that seem to be consistent with part 3, division 17.

I'm wondering if you can comment on the appropriateness of politicians making these decisions for independent crown corporations.

[Jim Flaherty, Conservative, Minister of Finance]

Thank you, Chair.

It's good to be here with the finance committee and the members of the committee. This is a hard-working committee, of course, particularly with respect to budget preparation, and I thank all of you for that.

I'm always short, but I'll also try to be brief in my opening remarks.

Your work pre-budget and the report you wrote were an important part of the presentation of the budget this year, as it is most years. Your recommendations do inform the budget, and I include from the committee's report—because I looked to see—some of the things that ended up in the economic action plan of 2013, including establishing a long-term plan for infrastructure, reviewing the temporary foreign worker program, extending the mineral exploration tax credit, reviewing current tariffs on consumer goods, ensuring fairness and neutrality in the tax system by closing tax loopholes, and further strengthening Canada's manufacturing sector.

Secondly, I'd like to congratulate the committee on its recent study and its in-depth report on options intended to increase charitable donations in Canada by using tax incentives and other targeted initiatives. The recommendations in this report also greatly influenced the preparation of the 2013 budget.

I will continue, but I will not say all the things I was going to say because I'm sure some of it will come up in questions, and I know votes may interfere.

Canada has done relatively well. Let me speak about this context. I use the word “relatively”. The world has been through a difficult time, particularly the western industrialized economies, since what the economists are now calling the great recession of 2008-09.

We had been paying down public debt in 2006-07 and into 2008—about $38 billion of public debt in Canada—in preparation for what was at that time the concern, quite frankly, which was more the American deficit and the accumulating public debt than it was Europe, although today perhaps the emphasis is more on the continuing recession in most of Europe.

In January 2009 we brought in the economic action plan, which was the budget of 2009, the earliest budget in Canadian history. It was a dramatic move toward stimulating the economy because of the fear that we had of very large unemployment and a deep, dark, prolonged recession.

The economic action plan worked. Canada came out of recession before any of the other industrialized economies. We were in recession for three quarters only. Our unemployment rate, thank goodness, never went into double digits.

Times remain challenging. I just came back from a G-7 finance ministers and central bank governors meeting 10 days ago in the United Kingdom. As I said, Europe has been in a prolonged recession. We're not out of the woods yet. There's a tension between some of the industrialized countries in the west—and I shouldn't just say the west because Japan is part of this—about spending more, stimulating more, more debt, more deficits, more perceived economic growth, and more printing of money, which is euphemistically called “quantitative easing”.

And then there are those of us who feel that the correct balance is what we tried to do in the budget this year in economic action plan 2013; that is, moving continually toward a balanced budget, which we will have by 2015, which was the plan from January 2009, while at the same time stimulating the economy in a few very important areas, which this committee has also highlighted from time to time—manufacturing through the accelerated capital cost allowance extension; infrastructure, which is vitally important to our communities and our municipalities in Canada; and skills training through the Canada job grant.

We feel we've hit the right balance, and we encourage our colleagues in the G-7 to follow that pattern.

The IMF recently remarked—and I'm quoting—“Canada is in an enviable position...[and] the policies that are being deployed are, in our minds, broadly appropriate”.

However, as our government has said over and over, we cannot let our guard down. As we are reminded too often, the world economy remains fragile. The United States and Europe, who are among our biggest partners, continue to face serious economic challenges. As it was noted earlier this month, the euro zone is now in the longest recession it has ever experienced, that is to say negative economic growth for six consecutive quarters.

In the middle of this economic and global turmoil, Canada must also face the reality of a more and more competitive world market, with the increased participation of emerging economies such as Brazil, India and China.

To build a stronger economy and produce increased job growth, the many positive initiatives contained in Bill C-60 include the major measures I've already mentioned with respect to manufacturers. There is also the indexing of the gas tax fund, which was a major pre-budget request of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities during our meetings with them, and I know the committee had the same experience. We are extending the mineral exploration tax credit. We know that sector of the Canadian economy has a lot of growth and is very important to Canadian economic growth overall. We are providing $165 million in multi-year support for genomics research, $18 million to the Canadian Youth Business Foundation to help young entrepreneurs grow their firms and their futures, and $5 million to Indspire for post-secondary scholarships and bursaries for first nations and Inuit students.

Additionally, Bill C-60 brings forward many positive initiatives to support families and communities. Some of these are much less expensive than the major initiatives, of course: promoting adoption by enhancing the adoption expense tax credit; introducing a new first-time donor's super credit to encourage Canadians to donate to charity—that came in significant part out of the work done by this committee on charitable issues. We are expanding tax relief for our home care services, providing $30 million to support the construction of housing in Nunavut, investing $20 million in the Nature Conservancy of Canada to continue to conserve ecologically sensitive land, providing $3 million to support training in palliative care for front-line health care providers, committing $3 million to the Canadian National Institute for the Blind to expand library services for the blind and partially sighted, and supporting veterans and their families by no longer deducting veterans' disability benefits when calculating other select benefits. There are also many other initiatives.

I know you have had an opportunity to look at Bill C-60 carefully. I know some parts of the bill have been referred to other committees of the House of Commons. I emphasize to you the need for balance in the approach we take as a government. I can tell you that in international discussions I have had with my colleagues in finance and central banking around the world, Canada is well respected for the way we have grappled with economic issues also facing other countries over the course of the past several years.

I am prepared to receive questions, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I call this meeting to order.

This is meeting number 123 of the Standing Committee on Finance. Orders of the day are pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, May 7, 2013, a continuation of our study of Bill C-60, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures.

Colleagues, we're very pleased to have before us today the Honourable Jim Flaherty, the Minister of Finance, to discuss this bill.

Minister, I understand you have an opening statement, and then we'll have questions from members. Welcome back to the committee.

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to our witnesses. I think this will be my last go-round.

It's my understanding—and if this is repetitive from earlier questions, I apologize—that in proposed Bill C-60, the SOE definitions of direct or indirect influence remain undefined. Am I correct in that?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll attempt to use my time efficiently.

Thank you, witnesses.

I want to go back to the competition policy review panel and their advice before the amendments were tabled in 2009. I'm going to ask questions specifically around the fact that these amendments through Bill C-60 are attempting, as I see it, to bring greater clarity around certain concepts and to extend timelines for national security reviews.

What I want to know is whether within Industry Canada, you received advice that it would be helpful to review and clarify the term “national security”, which currently isn't defined within the act.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you. I think Mr. Bezan should have more confidence in the witnesses and their ability to handle these questions.

Was the definition of net benefit test under consideration during the review of the Investment Canada Act that led to the changes in Bill C-60?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Regan had asked at what point in time who made the decision to include this in Bill C-60. I think that compromises the position of our witnesses in trying to answer a question that is beyond their mandate in providing testimony here today.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Who made the decision that these amendments would be part of Bill C-60 instead of being introduced as a stand-alone bill which, of course, would have ensured that Parliament and this committee would have a chance to actually have the proper time to hear from expert witnesses, analyze this, consider amendments, and give serious consideration of the impact of these changes?

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

An investor here in Canada, a person with his RRSP or whatever, wants to invest in a company and invests and suddenly finds out that the minister says it's not Canadian. “Well, I didn't know that.” Now the idea the person has perhaps that it might be sold to foreign investors or whatever suddenly is a problem. Doesn't that create uncertainty?

How is an investor going to know what the heck is going to go on, and isn't it the case, according to the Canadian Bar Association, that it may even happen after the fact? According to the provisions of Bill C-60, it looks like this declaration could be made at any time. There is no requirement for the minister to do this in advance of a takeover. He can do it afterwards and nullify it. When investors are trying to decide what they should invest in and are looking for companies that will potentially have some gain, maybe because they'll be sold in some cases, how are they going to know?

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

I want to pick up on something you said in your opening statement.

I would like to know whether natural resource companies with oil sands operations are going to benefit from the exceptional circumstances under Bill C-60. Would you kindly elaborate on that?

[Paul Halucha, Director General, Marketplace Framework Policy Branch, Strategic Policy Sector, Department of Industry]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and members of the committee.

My name is Paul Halucha, and I'm the director general of the marketplace framework policy branch at Industry Canada. I'm here with Matthew Dooley, who is the acting director of the investment, insolvency, competition and corporate policy directorate at Industry Canada.

We are here to speak to Division 6 of Bill C-60, Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, which would amend the Investment Canada Act, or ICA, for two reasons. The first is to clarify how proposed investments in Canada by foreign state-owned enterprises, or SOEs, and World Trade Organization, or WTO, investors will be assessed. The second is to allow for the extension, when necessary, of timelines associated with national security reviews.

The proposed amendments to the ICA are being advanced within the broader context of Canada's commitment to an open foreign investment and trade environment. Canada welcomes foreign investment and is an important contributor to economic growth that brings new ideas, capital, and jobs, as well as access to new markets and global supply chains. At the same time, Canada is committed to maintaining marketplace framework laws that are up to date and effective.

Since 2006, in response to the changing economic and global circumstances, the government has advanced several changes to Canada's foreign investment review framework. In 2007 the government introduced guidelines to clarify the application of the net benefit factors in the review of proposed SOE, state-owned enterprise, investments.

In 2009, the government introduced amendments to the ICA. They included a commitment to incrementally increase the net benefit review threshold to $1 billion in enterprise value for WTO investors, transparency provisions and a national security review process.

In 2012 the government introduced additional transparency amendments to the ICA. The government also introduced new enforcement provisions to promote investor compliance with undertakings. Finally, the government published information on the administration of the Investment Canada Act.

These recent changes to the ICA framework have updated Canada's foreign investment review process, the purpose of which is to review significant investments in Canada by non-Canadians to determine whether they are likely to be of net benefit to Canada, and to provide for the review of investments that could be injurious to national security.

Each investment is examined on a case-by-case basis. An investment is either notifiable or reviewable, depending on what size it is, whether it involves a WTO investor, whether it is direct or indirect and whether it could pose a national security threat.

Where an investment is subject to a net benefit review, the Minister of Industry considers the plans, undertakings, and other information submitted by the investor in light of the six net benefit factors listed in section 20 of the Investment Canada Act.

On December 7, 2012, following the approval of two significant foreign investment transactions—CNOOC's acquisition of Nexen and Petronas’ acquisition of Progress Energy—the government provided clarification. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Industry issued statements clarifying the foreign investment review process, with a particular focus on SOEs and potential concerns about their non-commercial objectives.

Statements stress that while foreign investment is crucial to Canada's economic growth and prosperity, the government clarified that going forward, investments by foreign state-owned enterprises resulting in the acquisition of a Canadian oil sands business would be found to be of net benefit only on an exceptional basis, and that SOE transactions will be carefully monitored throughout the Canadian economy.

The government also updated the SOE guidelines to emphasize the importance of good corporate governance, free enterprise principles and industrial efficiency. Another reason for that update was to address concerns surrounding the potential influence of foreign states on commercial activities in Canada.

In addition, the government announced plans to retain the current net benefit review threshold for WTO SOE investors. Meanwhile, the government continued with its plans to progressively increase the net benefit review threshold for private sector WTO investors to $1 billion in enterprise value.

Lastly, the government announced its intention to allow for the extension of the timelines associated with the national security review process. These extensions will provide the government with additional time, if needed, to thoroughly review transactions that are potentially injurious to the security of Canadians.

Division 6 of Bill C-60 includes amendments to the Investment Canada Act needed to implement key components of the government's December 7 announcement. The amendments can be grouped into three principal areas.

First, section 137 establishes distinct net benefit review thresholds for WTO private sector and SOE investors, apart from those in the cultural sector.

With direct reference to the amendments passed by Parliament in 2009, the thresholds for WTO private sector investors will incrementally increase to $1 billion in enterprise value over four years. Related regulatory amendments that define the methodology for enterprise value will be required to bring these changes into force.

The current asset value threshold of $344 million will be maintained for WTO SOE investors. As is currently the case, the threshold will be annually indexed to account for inflation, i.e., changes in nominal GDP.

Second, provisions in clauses 138 to 142 concern timelines associated with national security reviews. Clauses 138 and 139 increase the amount of time the minister has to deliver a final net benefit decision once a national security review process has been concluded from five days to 30 days. Clauses 140 to 142 support the extension of related timelines under the national security review process. The government intends to prescribe the length of some of the related timelines through subsequent amendments to the national security review of investments regulations. The Minister of Industry intends to use these extensions when addressing complex national security issues, which can involve multiple jurisdictions.

Third, provisions in clauses 143 to 145 permit the Minister of Industry to determine or declare that an entity is controlled in fact by a state-owned enterprise. These provisions support the government's commitment to carefully scrutinize SOE activity across the Canadian economy. The control in fact provisions mirror those powers already contained in the cultural and national security sections of the Investment Canada Act. Following parliamentary approval, the government intends to publish the necessary related regulatory amendments required to bring certain changes into force.

We are happy to answer any questions you may have on the proposed amendments.

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

If I may make a comment, I find it very unfortunate that this committee will not have the opportunity as duly elected representatives of Canadians to study in depth the portion of Bill C-60 that relates to the Investment Canada Act. We strongly feel it is something that should be done. We are being deprived of the opportunity to do so.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Madam LeBlanc, I need to rule against the admissibility of the motion. I can outline the reasons for that. It goes outside of the mandate of the committee and there are two specific reasons why it does.

First, Bill C-60 was not referred to this committee and certain issues raised in the motion fall outside the committee's mandate as provided by Standing Order 108(2).

As well, the motion suggests the committee call on the House to delegate a power to the Standing Committee on Finance. Committees are creatures of the House and may not go beyond the powers given to them by the House. Only the House has the ability to delegate certain powers to the committees, and refer to them in any other issue for review. That's according to O'Brien and Bosc, pages 962 and 973. Therefore, it's not admissible for a committee to make recommendations regarding the powers of another committee.

Second, it's also suggested the committee recommend to the House that the finance committee be given the power to divide Bill C-60 into several bills. It also recommends that these various bills be referred to various committees. Once again, such recommendation goes well beyond the mandate of this committee. It is up to the House to decide which committee a bill will be referred to.

The House already decided to refer Bill C-60 to the finance committee. Even if the House agreed to give the finance committee the authority to divide the bill, and the committee exercised the authority, the resulting bills would remain before the finance committee. Therefore, this is clearly not an issue that our committee is able to decide on.

For all these reasons, I have to rule against the admissibility of the motion.

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

I would like to move the motion that was presented on May 7. I have a copy of the motion in French and in English.

The motion is basically requesting that Bill C-60 be divided into six pieces of legislation, which could then be properly referred to the appropriate committees. I am more interested in the part stating that “Clauses 136 to 154, related to the Investment Canada Act; be allowed to be renamed as Bill C-62”.

You have the whole motion, for which I have already given notice. We strongly feel it is very important that in order for us to properly study the Investment Canada Act it shouldn't be hidden in an omnibus bill such as Bill C-60, but should be divided so that we can properly study it in committee and in depth, and so that as a committee we would be able to make recommendations and report back to the House.

This is the motion I would like to move at this point.

Extension of Sitting Hours

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will pick up where I left off. Obviously my hon. friend did not hear this and has not read the motion. I will respond to his macho riposte at the end of his comments by pointing out that the motion would do three things: first, it would provide for us to sit until midnight; second, it would provide a manageable way in which to hold votes in a fashion that works for members of the House; and third, it would provide for concurrence debates to happen and motions to be voted on in a fashion that would not disrupt the work of all the committees of the House and force them to come back here for votes and shut down the work of committees.

Those are the three things the motion would do. In all other respects the Standing Orders remain in place, including the Standing Orders for how long the House sits. Had my friend actually read the motion, he would recognize that the only way in which that Standing Order could then be changed would be by unanimous consent of the House.

The member needs no commitment from me as to how long we will sit. Any member of the House can determine that question, if he or she wishes to adjourn other than the rules contemplate, but the rules are quite clear in what they do contemplate.

As I was saying, the reason for the motion is that Canadians expect their members of Parliament to work hard and get things done on their behalf.

Canadians expect their members of Parliament to work hard and get things done on their behalf.

We agree and that is exactly what has happened here in the House of Commons.

However, do not take my word for it; look at the facts. In this Parliament the government has introduced 76 pieces of legislation. Of those 76, 44 of them are law in one form or another. That makes for a total of 58% of the bills introduced into Parliament. Another 15 of these bills have been passed by either the House or the Senate, bringing the total to 77% of the bills that have been passed by one of the two Houses of Parliament. That is the record of a hard-working, orderly and productive Parliament.

More than just passing bills, the work we are doing here is delivering real results for Canadians. However, there is still yet more work to be done before we return to our constituencies for the summer.

During this time our government's top priority has been jobs, economic growth and long-term prosperity. Through two years and three budgets, we have passed initiatives that have helped to create more than 900,000 net new jobs since the global economic recession. We have achieved this record while also ensuring that Canada's debt burden is the lowest in the G7. We are taking real action to make sure the budget will be balanced by 2015. We have also followed through on numerous longstanding commitments to keep our streets and communities safe, to improve democratic representation in the House of Commons, to provide marketing freedom for western Canadian grain farmers and to eliminate once and for all the wasteful and inefficient long gun registry.

Let me make clear what the motion would and would not do. There has been speculation recently, including from my friend opposite, about the government's objectives and motivations with respect to motion no. 17. As the joke goes: Mr. Freud, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. So it is with today's motion. There is only one intention motivating the government in proposing the motion: to work hard and deliver real results for Canadians.

The motion would extend the hours the House sits from Monday through Thursday. Instead of finishing the day around 6:30 or 7 p.m., the House would sit instead until midnight.

This would amount to an additional 20 hours each week. Extended sitting hours is something that happens most years in June. Our government just wants to roll up our sleeves and work a little harder, earlier this year. The motion would allow certain votes to be deferred automatically until the end of question period, to allow for all honourable members' schedules to be a little more orderly.

As I said, all other rules would remain. For example, concurrence motions could be moved, debated and voted upon. Today's motion would simply allow committees to continue doing their work instead of returning to the House for motions to return to government business and the like. This process we are putting forward would ensure those committees could do their good work and be productive, while at the same time the House could proceed with its business. Concurrence motions could ultimately be dealt with, debated and voted upon.

We are interested in working hard and being productive and doing so in an orderly fashion, and that is the extent of what the motion would do. I hope that the opposition parties would be willing to support this reasonable plan and let it come forward to a vote. I am sure members opposite would not be interested in going back to their constituents to say they voted against working a little overtime before the House rises for the summer, but the first indication from my friend opposite is that perhaps he is reluctant to do that. Members on this side of the House are willing to work extra hours to deliver real results for Canadians.

Some of those accomplishments we intend to pass are: reforming the temporary foreign workers program to put the interests of Canadians first; implementing tax credits for Canadians who donate to charity; enhancing the tax credit for parents who adopt; and extending the tax credit for Canadians who take care of loved ones in their home.

We also want to support veterans and their families by improving the determination of veterans' benefits.

Of course, these are some of the important measures from this year's budget and are included in Bill C-60, economic action plan 2013 act, no. 1. We are also working toward results for aboriginals by moving closer to equality for Canadians living on reserves through better standards for drinking water and finally giving women on reserves the same rights and protections other Canadian women have had for decades. Bill S-2, family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act, and Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act would deliver on those very important objectives.

We will also work to keep our streets and communities safe by making real improvements to the witness protection program through Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act. I think that delivering these results for Canadians is worth working a few extra hours each week.

We will work to bring the Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012, into law. Bill C-48 would provide certainty to the tax code. It has been over a decade since a bill like this has passed, so it is about time this bill passed. In fact, after question period today, I hope to start third reading of this bill, so perhaps we can get it passed today.

We will also work to bring Bill C-52, the fair rail freight service act, into law. The bill would support economic growth by ensuring that all shippers, including farmers, are treated fairly. Over the next few weeks we will also work, hopefully with the co-operation of the opposition parties, to make progress on other important initiatives.

Bill C-54 will ensure that public safety is the paramount consideration in the decision-making process involving high-risk accused found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. This is an issue that unfortunately has affected every region of this country. The very least we can do is let the bill come to a vote and send it to committee where witnesses can testify about the importance of these changes.

Bill C-49 would create the Canadian museum of history, a museum for Canadians that would tell our stories and present our country's treasures to the world.

Bill S-14, the Fighting Foreign Corruption Act, will do just that by further deterring and preventing Canadian companies from bribing foreign public officials. These amendments will help ensure that Canadian companies continue to act in good faith in the pursuit of freer markets and expanded global trade.

Bill S-13, the port state measures agreement implementation act, would implement that 2009 treaty by amending the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act to add prohibitions on importing illegally acquired fish.

Tonight we will be voting on Bill S-9, the Nuclear Terrorism Act, which will allow Canada to honour its commitments under international agreements to tackle nuclear terrorism. Another important treaty—the Convention on Cluster Munitions—can be given effect if we adopt Bill S-10, the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act.

We will seek to update and modernize Canada’s network of income tax treaties through Bill S-17, the Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 2013, by giving the force of law to recently signed agreements between Canada and Namibia, Serbia, Poland, Hong Kong, Luxembourg and Switzerland.

Among other economic bills is Bill C-56, the combating counterfeit products act. The bill would protect Canadians from becoming victims of trademark counterfeiting and goods made using inferior or dangerous materials that lead to injury or even death. Proceeds from the sale of counterfeit goods may be used to support organized crime groups. Clearly, this bill is another important one to enact.

Important agreements with the provinces of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador would be satisfied through Bill S-15, the expansion and conservation of Canada’s national parks act, which would, among other things, create the Sable Island national park reserve, and Bill C-61, the offshore health and safety act, which would provide clear rules for occupational health and safety of offshore oil and gas installations.

Earlier I referred to the important work of committees. The Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations inspired Bill S-12, the incorporation by reference in regulations act. We should see that committee's ideas through by passing this bill. Of course, a quick reading of today's order paper would show that there are yet still more bills before the House of Commons for consideration and passage. All of these measures are important and will improve the lives of Canadians. Each merits consideration and hard work on our part.

In my weekly business statement prior to the constituency week, I extended an offer to the House leaders opposite to work with me to schedule and pass some of the other pieces of legislation currently before the House. I hope that they will respond to my request and put forward at our next weekly meeting productive suggestions for getting things done. Passing today's motion would be a major step toward accomplishing that. As I said in my opening comments, Canadians expect each one of us to come to Ottawa to work hard, vote on bills and get things done.

In closing, I commend this motion to the House and encourage all hon. members to vote for this motion, add a few hours to our day, continue the work of our productive, orderly and hard-working Parliament, and deliver real results for Canadians.

[James Laws]

I just want to reiterate that Bill C-60, from what I read, actually extends the ability of the government to offer these developed nations a preferential tariff rate. Deciding which country gets on the list is not, from what I read, part of Bill C-60. It's a separate process. I think it would be logical for list to be reviewed, because it is intended to offer preferential tariffs for specific countries to help them to improve their exports.

I'll reiterate that in terms of meat per se, it doesn't affect us specifically, because Canada already has a zero per cent tariff for pork, for instance, for all the countries in the world. But purely from a development standpoint, I think it is important for Canada to offer to those countries that are truly least developed and developing the chance to be on the list.

Again, my personal opinion is that there should be such an opportunity when, as I'm sure it will, the government convenes a meeting to review who gets on the list or posts information on how a country gets on the list. But referring to some international list would, I think, be a very good solution. The World Bank, for instance, I believe posts a list of what countries are under which classification. That would be the way to go.

[James Laws]

Sure. Thank you very much.

I think it's important for people to realize—and I'm sure they do—that the changes to Bill C-60 actually extend the ability of the government beyond June of next year to offer these preferential tariff rates to developing and least developed countries. I think, as my colleague at the end of the table mentioned, that there are actually two separate issues: who's on the actual list versus what Bill C-60 is doing.

So we do support the Meat Council's standpoint that Canada does offer these preferential tariff rates to these countries. That's important.

The other point is that we also agree that if we are negotiating with a country.... For instance, Canada has a 0% tariff on pork from all countries, so if we go to negotiate with another country, it's very difficult because we're already completely duty free, but we are very.... So that's challenging.

On the beef side, we do have a 26.5% tariff on beef for most countries, except those that we have a free trade agreement with, so we do have something to trade. With the Europeans, we have a tariff to trade off with them. With the Japanese, we have something to trade with them. But we do believe that the list of countries that qualify for the general preferential tariff rate should be reviewed every now and again.

I didn't mention it before, but it's my view that there probably should be some international reference to which developed countries could refer to, a separate list that everyone accepts, such that these countries meet these criteria or not. That's my personal opinion.

It's true that if we are negotiating with another country we want to see also the elimination of all tariffs, all of them, but we believe, though, that it should be done bilaterally with a country or multilaterally through the World Trade Organization. That's important. It is indeed.

[Dr. Karen Cohen]

In relation to Bill C-60, I don't know, given the length of time that it's taken to come to our attention. I want to underscore that it's not just in relation to court proceedings. It also has to do with insurance, because that's how psychological services and care are delivered in this country. We have recently commissioned a business case for how to enhance access to psychological services for Canadians—through a variety of models, whether they be insurance, publicly or privately funded, or employer-supported programs.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I see.

Dr. Cohen, I appreciated what you were saying and the clarity with which you suggested a specific recommendation at the end of your remarks. Psychological assessments, you say, are a necessary health service, and they are necessary for lawsuits. In your view, there should be an exemption from GST/HST. My question is, has the CPA done any economic analysis of such a change, or are you aware of what the government intended to get from the change they've implemented in Bill C-60?

[Vincent Rigby]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

What I'd say is that, first of all, the ODAAA is still there. These are two separate acts, obviously, but I also feel that they're quite complementary. I think that's a good thing. Central to the ODAAA is making poverty alleviation the core component of our development efforts. You see in Bill C-60, in the new legislation, very clearly, that poverty reduction and sustainable international development is the key responsibility of the minister.

The second condition in the ODAAA is to make sure the perspectives of the poor are taken into account. A couple of the responsibilities of the minister in the new act are to make sure that he or she fosters relations with other donors and international organizations, and also with developing countries. We're speaking to developing countries and making sure that our plans and activities are aligned with theirs. Alignment is a key aid-effectiveness principle. It is also is enshrined in the new legislation that the minister is responsible for ensuring that our aid and assistance are effective.

Finally, with respect to the third condition in the ODAAA, that our development activities be consistent with human rights. I think the specific reference in the new legislation to “values” speaks to our human rights and to our alignment with human rights. So I think that there is a great deal of complementarity between the two of them. The act is still there, and the minister will take on the responsibilities for that act.

[Nadir Patel, Assistant Deputy Minister and Chief Financial Officer, Corporate Planning, Finance and Human Resources, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and honourable members.

We have a brief statement and then we'll be happy to take your questions.

On March 21, as part of Canada's economic action plan 2013, the government announced that it would amalgamate the Canadian International Development Agency and the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade to create a new department that will deliver enhanced alignment of our foreign, development, trade, and commercial policies and programs. Along with my colleagues from DFAIT and CIDA, I'm pleased to be here with you this morning to study this proposed legislation which, upon receiving royal assent, would create the new Department of Foreign Affairs, International Trade and Development.

It's important to note that this legislation is only the first step in the amalgamation process started by budget 2013. While the legislation makes its way through both chambers, planning is under way on how best to bring together the corporate functions of the two departments without any interruption to business continuity. Indeed, officials from both DFAIT and CIDA are working diligently to ensure that all the required legal, administrative, and financial requirements for the new department are in place in accordance with Treasury Board regulations, when Bill C-60 receives royal assent. While this will not be an overnight process by any means, we will be prepared to hit the ground running.

As outlined in budget 2013, international development, poverty alleviation, and humanitarian assistance will remain central to Canada's foreign policy. Indeed, they will be a core function of the new department and will result in greater overall impact of our efforts.

Poverty alleviation through development assistance and the provision of humanitarian assistance in times of crises are a tangible expression of Canadian values, which the government will continue to advance on the world stage. As we move forward, both the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of International Cooperation, as is now the case, will play a key role in providing oversight and direction in the planning for and implementation of the new department, with the deputy ministers overseeing the day-to-day aspects of the amalgamation.

To help give shape to the new organization and to ensure this process unfolds as seamlessly and effectively as possible, a dedicated transition team will be put in place to work closely with and provide key guidance to all involved. We hope to have more to say on that in due course.

I will conclude my remarks, though, by indicating that while it will take some months to organize the core functions of the new department and maximize policy coherence and synergies, I can assure members of the committee that we remain committed to ensuring that this process is as seamless as possible, both for employees, and for our operations at home and abroad. Indeed, lessons learned and best practices from previous amalgamations of Canadian departments and from the experience of other countries are being considered. External stakeholders and staff will be consulted along the way. Throughout the transition, we will continue to take advantage of any opportunities to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of programs and operations.

Mr. Chair, I will now turn the floor to my colleague, Vincent Rigby, whom you've introduced as the vice-president of strategic policy and performance at the Canadian International Development Agency, to speak in more detail about the proposed legislation's impact on CIDA.

Mr. Rigby.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

Good morning, everyone. Thank you for being here. We still have one member who hasn't arrived, Rodger Cuzner, but he will probably be here shortly.

I'd like to thank the witnesses that have come here today on relatively short notice.

We're dealing with clauses 161 to 166 of Bill C-60, primarily dealing with changes to the temporary foreign worker program.

We are happy to have with us today Joyce Reynolds, the executive vice-president of government affairs with the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association. It's good to see you here today for sure.

A special welcome to Dan Davidson from the Red Barn in Moosomin, Saskatchewan, a small business. We certainly want to hear from you today. Thank you for coming.

From the Air Canada Pilots Association we have Captain Craig Blandford, president. We're happy to see you here—I see you have others as well—and to hear from you with respect to this legislation.

The process is that each of you has about five to seven minutes to present. Then we'll open it up to questions from each of the parties. We'll alternate party to party. You're the first panel for the first hour. Then we'll suspend briefly to allow our second panel to attend.

You'll be with us from now until about 12 o'clock. We'll start with Ms. Reynolds.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) we are studying the subject matter of clauses 174 to 199, the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act, of Bill C-60, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures.

I want to welcome our guests here today. From the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, we have Nadir Patel, who has been with us before. It's good to see you again, sir. He is the assistant deputy minister and chief financial officer for corporate planning, finance, and human resources.

Joining him from the Department of Foreign Affairs is Michael Small, the assistant deputy minister of the transition team. Welcome to you, sir, as well.

From the Canadian International Development Agency we have Vincent Rigby, who is the vice-president of strategic policy and performance branch. Welcome to you, sir, as well.

We're going to start with you, Mr. Patel, then we'll move over to Mr. Rigby, and we'll go from there. You have 10 minutes and we turn the floor over to you.

[Yves Savoie, President and Chief Executive Officer, Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and honourable members.

On behalf of the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada, I thank you for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-60.

The society's mission is to take a leading role in efforts to find a cure for this disease and to help people with multiple sclerosis improve their quality of life. I want to point out that we are a member of Imagine Canada.

I plan to speak today about measures in Bill C-60 that strengthen the capacity of the Canadian charitable sector and support families and individuals living with a chronic illness or a disability.

We are encouraged by the recognition in Bill C-60 of the importance of and need to foster and promote a culture of giving in Canada. From 1990, the percentage of tax filers claiming donations has dropped from 29.5% to 23% in 2011. This is alarming. Over this period the number of tax filers has increased by approximately one-third, but the numbers claiming a donation have increased by just 3%. The “Canada Survey of Giving, Volunteering, and Participating” found that a majority of Canadians would give more if better tax incentives were in place. Therefore, the inclusion proposed in the budget of a new temporary first-time donor super credit for first-time claimants of the charitable donations tax credit will encourage young Canadians, in particular, and newcomers to Canada to donate to charity.

So that new credit will help stimulate the development of a new generation of donors. That's an urgent priority, given the reality many charities are facing today.

Furthermore, to build capacity in this charitable sector we recognize, as this committee did in its recent report, “Tax Incentives for Charitable Giving in Canada”, the importance of considering future and additional measures such as the stretch tax credit, which provides incentives for existing donors to give more. The stretch tax credit for charitable giving would increase the federal charitable tax credit for individuals by 10% on all new giving that exceeds previous donation levels. This proposal, I would suggest, must be given priority in planning for next year's budget or as soon as our budget is returned to fiscal balance, and would build very nicely on the super credit introduced this year. They are companion pieces in promoting this culture of giving that I've spoken about before.

Bill C-60 also proposes to expand the GST and HST tax exemption for publicly funded homemaker services to include personal care services such as bathing and feeding provided to individuals who, due to age or living with a disability, require such assistance at home. This is of particular significance to people affected by MS across the country, as MS is a lifelong, often disabling condition affecting all aspects of life for individuals and their families, including employment and financial security. Overwhelmingly, people with disabilities, including those with MS, choose to live at home and in the community, and therefore the exemption is a welcome measure.

We are also pleased to see a commitment to improving labour market opportunities for Canadians living with disabilities. For people living with MS, the impact of illness on employment is far too high. Up to 60% of people with MS leave the workforce entirely between five to 17 years after diagnosis. We're hopeful that the additional research funds to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and the creation of a Canadian employees' disability forum can help to improve employment rates for persons with disabilities, including those affected by episodic disabilities like MS, disabilities that vary over time.

We also believe that creating a more supportive and flexible sickness benefit in the employment insurance program would support the labour market participation of people with disabilities. We hope to see continuing improvements in the EI regime and also in the RDSP program.

Finally, I would just like to applaud and acknowledge the investment and commitments to fund world-class research and innovation in the Canada Foundation for Innovation and Genome Canada, and the announcement of $15 million in new money that was allocated to the Canadian Institutes of Health Research's strategy for patient-oriented research.

The CIHR's flagship SPOR strategy, as it's known, is critical to harness innovative discoveries and to translate them for the benefit of Canadians.

I want to thank you, once again, for your invitation to testify. I am available to answer your questions.

[James Laws, Executive Director, Canadian Meat Council]

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Jim Laws, and I'm the executive director of the Canadian Meat Council here in Ottawa.

The meat processing industry is the largest component of Canada's food processing sector, with annual revenues valued at over $24 billion and total employment of over 70,000 people.

Canada's meat processing industry adds value to the live animals born and raised on Canadian farms, provides a critical market outlet, and supports the viability of thousands of livestock farmers. I am pleased to provide three brief comments on Bill C-60, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures.

First, we are pleased with part 1 of Bill C-60, which provides for a two-year extension of the temporary accelerated capital cost allowance for eligible manufacturing and processing equipment. The changes to the income tax regulations state that a taxpayer who acquires a property after March 18, 2007 and before 2016 that is manufacturing or processing equipment may elect to include the property in class 29 of schedule 2. That effectively allows a classification with a higher percentage depreciation rate. Given the high value of the Canadian dollar, it is critical for our meat processing industry to make capital investments to become more competitive in the long run. We believe that the accelerated capital cost allowance should be made permanent. If that cannot be done, we recommend that the accelerated capital cost allowance be extended for a period of at least five years. This is the typical time it takes to plan, budget, commission, and complete a significant capital project.

Second, in Part 3 of Bill C-60, Canada's meat industry supports the government's proposal to extend the preferential tariff treatments for developing and least-developed countries that was established in 1974. Bill C-60 will change sections 36 and 40 of the Customs Tariff, from an expiry date of June 30, 2014, to December 31, 2024, or on an earlier date that may be fixed by the order of the Governor in Council.

Canada should do this because preferential tariffs are intended to increase the export earnings and promote the economic development of developing and least-developed countries. At the same time, we also support the government's intention to modify the list of beneficiary countries and withdraw from the general preferential tariff eligibility the 72 countries that have achieved significant shifts in income levels and trade competitiveness.

We also believe that the government should put these measures in place on a permanent basis. It should, however, review the list of countries that are classified as either developing or least developed on a much more regular basis. We fully support the government of Canada in its efforts to eliminate tariffs by opening more markets to our goods, especially Canadian meat products, and by diversifying our trade with more reciprocal trade agreements, such as the Canada-European comprehensive economic and trade agreement, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership free trade agreement.

Our third and last comment is that Canada's meat industry is very concerned with Division 9 of Part 3 of Bill C-60 that 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 refusal to process requests for such opinions.

We are also concerned that Bill C-60 authorizes fees to be paid for rights and privileges conferred by means of a work permit, while at the same time exempts those fees from the application of the User Fees Act. Continued access to foreign workers is not only critical to the meat industry, it is of significant benefit to Canadian farmers, workers, consumers, and municipalities. Unfortunately, a combination of misinformation and allegations of potential misuse by a few seem to be putting in serious jeopardy the best interests of the many.

Canadian meat processing companies are always looking to hire Canadians first. The clearly documented reality of our industry is that the jobs available at many locations exceed, by far, the number of Canadians who are able and willing to perform the physically arduous tasks that are required. Many of the unfilled positions would require that Canadians relocate to rural communities.

Unlike some of the stories we've heard in the news, our experience has been that the costs associated with employing temporary foreign workers are substantially greater. Foreign workers are members of the same labour unions and receive the same salaries and benefits as Canadians in Canada's meat industry. In addition, there are additional employer expenditures, such as the return airfare to the home country, worker compensation, housing standards, etc.

Foreign workers perform tasks for which there is an insufficient number of Canadians available. The important contributions they make will allow meat processing plants to remain in operation, thereby supporting jobs for thousands of Canadian workers.

[Ron Bonnett, President, Canadian Federation of Agriculture]

Thank you for the opportunity to attend and make a presentation.

Many of you will likely be aware that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture represents about 200,000 farmers from across the country. We work back and forth with Finance on a number of issues, but specifically today we're talking about some of the key aspects of Bill C-60. In the package that went out earlier, there are some statistics on the actual size of the agricultural sector in Canada, and I think sometimes it is a bit underestimated.

There are a few things that I want to touch on, and one is that we do produce 8% of the GDP. One in eight Canadian jobs depends on agriculture. Increasingly we're becoming an important factor in trade, and when we look at the value chain, the impact on communities is tremendous.

There are a couple of key issues facing agriculture right now. One of the big ones would be constraints with respect to labour, making sure we have access to both skilled and unskilled workers. The vacancy rate for agriculture positions is higher than in other occupations. Sometimes it's because of the skill set that's required; sometimes it's because it's very low-skilled labour that's required.

One of the things that has to be captured is the fact that this is an issue of competitiveness. The Canadian agricultural sector pays higher wages than our counterparts in North America, particularly our neighbour to the south, which has very low labour rates for agricultural wages.

Some of the key comments we have with respect to Bill C-60 include our support for the $165 million investment in Genome Canada and $20 million in Nature Conservancy Canada, targeting research and conservation. I will talk a bit later about the fact that these are good investments. However, in isolation without a long-term strategy, we're not sure how everything fits together.

The idea of supporting a Canada first labour policy, I think is important. However, we should make sure that the temporary foreign worker program is designed to bring people into the permanent workforce, so they actually become Canadians working for Canadian companies. Changes to the program should minimize the labour market opinion delays for sectors, so that there isn't a holdup in getting the workers that are required. Industry labour task forces should be adequately consulted in developing cost recovery fees and implementing other changes.

Going back to the comment on research, I think the investment in Genome research is going to be very important for Canada, and agriculture in particular. We're seeing a lot of exciting opportunity to increase productivity by using Genome research. What we are seeing is a bit of a mix in messages on research. We're seeing investment in project funding for things like Genome research, but at the same time we see lay-off notices at Agriculture Canada for staff researchers. I think a discussion has to take place on what is needed for core research funded by government and what is needed in project funding, and I think there needs to be a long-term strategy around that.

We also have basically the same comment on the $20 million for Nature Conservancy Canada. I think it's a very positive move, and agriculture has an opportunity to be part of that. We've made this presentation to the environment committee as well, about looking at how we pull all of this together to make sure it's not bits and pieces that we're dealing with but an overall strategy for investment in conservation initiatives.

On the labour side, we're seeing some initiatives to try to reduce fraud and misuse of temporary foreign workers. Those types of things are admired. As I said, we're already paying prevailing wages to our farm workers that are higher than some other jurisdictions we're competitive with.

As I mentioned early, I think we need to make sure this whole thing is taken in context. As we bring temporary foreign workers in, how do we build them into long-term residency here, and staffing for these companies?

One of the things that is important is the seasonal worker program that agriculture has used for a number of years. It is basically intact, and I think the concerns around the temporary foreign worker program were not there with the agricultural seasonal worker program, because that was a negotiated contract between the groups.

The final point I'm going to touch on is about looking at the whole agrifood sector as a value chain. Indeed, Mr. Laws will be speaking later. We are integrated: we need our processors to buy our products. I think a number of the issues we need to look at are complementary.

We appreciate the capital cost extension that was granted, which does encourage business to make the investments and get the writedowns if necessary. But I think in closing, what I would say is, whether you're talking about labour, capital investment, research, or conservation strategies, you have to make sure that you're dealing with these things in a long-term way, and there has to be a long-term strategy in place to deal with them.

Thank you.

[Rob Cunningham, Senior Policy Analyst, Canadian Cancer Society]

Thank you, Chair and members of the committee.

My name is Rob Cunningham and I am a senior policy analyst with the Canadian Cancer Society.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before this committee today.

My testimony will focus on clauses 53 to 61 of Bill C-60, which contain a tobacco tax increase for the category described as “manufactured tobacco”, and roll-your-own tobacco in particular. We support this increase, and we recommend that all members of Parliament endorse these provisions.

Let me emphasize the crucial role that higher tobacco taxes play in reducing tobacco use, especially among youth, who have less disposable income. There are more than 100 studies that confirm the obvious: mainly, that as tobacco prices go up, tobacco consumption goes down.

Bill C-60 takes action on a long-standing loophole that has seen roll-your-own tobacco taxed at a much lower rate than regular cigarettes. It used to be that one gram of roll-your-own tobacco was needed to make one cigarette, but now, because of modified tobacco industry manufacturing practices to exploit the tax structure, only half a gram is needed to make one cigarette. Thus, the industry strategies have in effect reduced by half the tobacco tax rate on roll-your-owns.

Lower taxes lead to lower prices. That keeps many people smoking or results in more cigarettes smoked per day. Obviously, this is detrimental to public health.

The changes in the tax structure because of Bill C-60 take action in this regard. I have some examples with me. As you can see, Export 'A' says “100% more” right on the label. You get twice as many roll-your-own cigarettes as you used to be able to, because of the types of different manufacturing practices. It says on the label that you only need 0.47 grams to roll one cigarette.

This bill responds to that by helping to address a loophole where you had to get the same number of cigarettes for half the tax. We appreciate and support that. You can see that there are other brands that do the same thing and say “100% more”. They say on the label how much you get. That's a loophole that is bad for public health.

As well, federal tobacco tax rates had not changed since 2002, 11 years ago. Thus, a proportion of the tobacco tax change in this bill is merely an inflation adjustment.

The sales volume of roll-your-own tobacco varies across Canada, from only 1% of the market in Ontario to 13% or more of the market in five provinces. Thus, this tobacco tax change will be particularly beneficial in some provinces.

A surprising proportion of youths use roll-your-own tobacco. Data from the 2009 Canada-wide youth smoking survey found that among high school students 62% of boys and 30% of girls had used roll-your-owns in the previous 30 days.

This measure will raise a projected $75 million in revenue for the federal government. It should be noted that this tax increase will apply to other forms of loose tobacco, such as chewing tobacco, snuff, and water-pipe tobacco, in addition to roll-your-own tobacco. These product categories are far more popular among youth and young adults than those aged 25-plus and illustrate a further reason why Bill C-60 will reduce youth tobacco use.

I have some examples with me. This bill will apply to this new phenomenon among youth of hookah and shisha water-pipe smoking, with cherry, coconut, and orange flavours. It will also apply to the smokeless tobacco, such as cherry, mint, lime, and so on.

Tobacco use remains the leading preventable cause of disease and death in Canada, causing 37,000 Canadian deaths each year from cancer, heart disease and stroke, emphysema, and other diseases. The overwhelming majority of new smokers are underage youths, and tobacco taxes are a crucial part of a comprehensive tobacco control strategy.

The tax measure in Bill C-60 is a win-win for public health and public revenue. We urge all members of Parliament to support this measure.

Merci. I look forward to questions.

[Prof. Mike Moffatt, Professor, Richard Ivey School of Business, As an Individual]

I would like to thank the committee for inviting me to speak today.

My name is Mike Moffatt. I'm a professor in the business, economics and public policy group at the Richard Ivey School of Business. I have researched and taught international trade for a number of years at Ivey. As well, I have spent the last eight years as a private sector trade and regulatory consultant to the chemical industry.

I'm here to discuss two tariff changes in Budget 2013, the first of which, the elimination of tariffs on baby clothing and some sporting equipment, is greatly welcomed.

The second, the so-called modernization of Canada's general preferential tariff program, or GPT program, has serious unintended consequences and should be reconsidered. Fortunately, there is time to do so as the GPT changes are not a part of Bill C-60.

There are a lot of things to like about the government's two proposed tariff changes as they address three existing drawbacks to the customs tariff. The first is that the customs tariff is out of date, with the obvious examples of tariffs designed to protect industries in Canada that no longer exist, such as hockey equipment manufacturing. The general preferential tariff is out of date. I'm in full agreement with the government that changes are needed here, and exporting powerhouses such as China and Korea no longer need preferential tariff treatment.

The second difficulty is that for many products, high tariffs are contributing to the price gap between American and Canadian product retail prices, as described in the report of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance. The government has taken a step in the right direction here through this elimination of tariffs on sporting goods and baby clothes.

The third difficulty is the sheer complexity of the customs tariff. The so-called iPod tax is a prime example, with importers left not knowing the steps they need to take to be eligible for the 9948 exemption.

Another example of the complexity of this system is the fact that hockey helmets were originally erroneously left out of the tariff reductions, and this omission took weeks to detect. I have to admit, I completely missed it myself.

Given this complexity, it is no wonder that past reports of the Auditor General have identified an alarming rate of errors and discrepancies in tariff classifications of importers. Much more needs to be done to simplify the system, but the government's move here to increase the number of zero-rated goods is definitely a step in the right direction.

Now that I have told you what I think is right with the changes, I'm going to focus on their drawbacks. The most obvious drawback is that it's going to raise the tariff on thousands of goods. These tariffs really aren't going to be paid for by Chinese companies; rather, they're paid for by Canadian importers and retailers and, at the end of the day, by Canadian consumers.

The net effect will be to increase this price gap with the United States, which is already one of the big problems with the customs tariff. This will inevitably lead to an increase in cross-border shopping. The border town of Windsor, Ontario, for example—in my neighbourhood—has an unemployment rate of 9.6%, so the last thing it needs is a decline in the retail sector.

There is a far simpler way to modernize the tariff system while also addressing the price gap and complexity issues. Once Canada and the EU sign a free trade agreement, which we're told should be coming in a matter of weeks, there will be only 16 jurisdictions, representing roughly 5% of Canadian imports into Canada, that will fall under the highest most favoured nation, MFN, tariff treatment.

There will only be 16 nations that have worse tariff treatments than China and Korea. If we want to make a level playing field, all we need to do is reduce the tariff treatment on those 16 nations down to the GPT level by basically harmonizing the most favoured nation and the general protective tariff treatments. This would greatly simplify the tax code as we'd be eliminating a tariff treatment entirely, and this would reduce the tax bill on Canadian importers, retailers, and Canadian consumers, leading to a reduction in the retail price gap.

My professional recommendation is that, before implementing tariff changes, the advice contained in the Senate report of a comprehensive review of Canadian tariffs be followed. This review should include a full costing of harmonizing the GPT and MFN tariff treatments.

Thank you for having me, and I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I will call this meeting back to order.

This is a continuation of our panel today discussing Bill C-60, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures.

I want to welcome our second panel of witnesses here for the discussion of this piece of legislation. Again, we have six presenters to hear from this morning.

First, as an individual, we have Professor Mike Moffatt, from the Richard Ivey School of Business.

We also have, from the Canadian Cancer Society, Mr. Rob Cunningham; from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, Mr. Ron Bonnett; from the Canadian Meat Council, Mr. James Laws; and from the Canadian Psychological Association, the CEO, Karen Cohen. Welcome.

And from the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada, we have the president and CEO, Monsieur Yves Savoie. Bienvenu à ce comité.

You will each have five minutes for an opening statement, and then we'll have questions from members.

We'll begin with Mr. Moffatt.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

The very first sentence in our briefing note says, “The amendments introduced by Division 8 of Part 3 of Bill C-60”—that's what we're talking about today—“result from the Federal Court decision dated 1 May 2012 in the Manuge case.”

Do you agree with that?

[Garth Manness]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and committee members, for providing the opportunity to appear before you today to offer the perspective of Manitoba credit unions on Bill C-60, specifically the measure to phase out the additional deduction for credit unions.

Credit unions are an important part of the economic fabric of Manitoba. The province's 40 credit unions have 191 branches in 117 distinct communities, serving the needs of local consumers, businesses, and farmers. In 67 towns and villages, the credit union is the only financial institution operating to serve the community.

Many credit union branches are in communities that other financial institutions vacated because they were not deemed profitable enough. Our business model, paired with fair tax policy, like the additional deduction, has made it possible and attractive for credit unions to grow in places where our competitors have retreated. Although credit unions have a profit-for-service mandate, not the service-for-profit mandate of other financial institutions, they do need to be profitable to remain viable. That income is their primary source of funds with which to build capital. It is also an important source of funds for key investments in new technology and new services, which they must make to be competitive with the much larger chartered banks.

Since the financial crisis, regulators have been increasing the reserve capital requirements for all financial institutions. Despite the fact that credit unions performed very well during the crisis, stepping up to meet consumer and small business lending demand when other financial institutions stepped back, they are not immune from the higher capital requirements. As Mr. Phillips mentioned, the bulk of credit union capital comes in the form of retained earnings, which come from net income. In order to meet higher capital requirements credit unions need to increase net income by increasing margins, which means being less competitive on rates; by increasing service fees, which means increased costs for our members; or by reducing expenses, which could eventually mean a reduction in service and, potentially, job losses

The removal in Bill C-60 of the additional deduction for credit unions will simply compound the impact of regulatory demands by requiring credit unions to pay a higher portion of their net income in federal tax, and further reduce their ability to build capital, invest in new technology, and stay competitive. The decision to phase out the additional deduction comes at an extremely challenging juncture for the financial services industry. Speaking for credit unions, our members face increasing competition from large, powerful institutions, including federal crown lending agencies, a monetary environment with unprecedented low interest rates, which are driving low margins and reducing interest income; and increasing levels of compliance, which disproportionately impact smaller financial institutions like credit unions.

Now credit unions alone face the possibility of having to pay more of their net income in federal tax. Just as the banks did before us, it is no exaggeration to say that some people may begin to question the future viability of credit unions in many communities in rural Canada. Not only could people be left without access to a nearby financial institution, valuable and stable jobs at the credit union could be lost.

According to our analysis, based on 2012 financial results, 21 credit unions in Manitoba benefited from the additional deduction. Those credit unions have branches in 50 Manitoba communities, where the credit union is the only financial institution. The impact of removing the additional deduction, once fully implemented, would be $4.5 million per year. This may not seem like a large amount, but to the credit unions working with narrow margins and increased regulatory requirements and service needs of their members, it certainly is.

Removal of the additional deduction for credit unions, as proposed in Bill C-60, is characterized as closing a tax loophole. A loophole, by definition, is an ambiguity in the wording of contract or law that provides a means of evading compliance. The additional deduction for credit unions was never a tax loophole by definition or design. It was an intended feature of tax legislation, created when credit unions first became taxable in 1972, designed to help credit unions retain capital to meet regulatory requirements and to grow, thereby to provide effective competition in the financial services industry, a goal that this government and credit unions share.

Although the financial landscape is different from 1972, the need for this deduction to help qualifying credit unions accelerate the growth of the retained earnings continues to exist. Since the deduction was introduced in 1972, it has functioned exactly as intended.

I would argue that this tax deduction has proven to be good public policy. If it were to remain in place, it would continue to be good public policy as it will help credit unions provide effective financial services that can assist with the federal government's stated desire to increase competition in this sector. It would also represent good public policy by helping to maintain strong financial services in as many communities as possible and helping to contribute to the sustainability of the many communities in rural Canada where credit unions are the only financial institutions.

For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I respectfully ask the committee and the federal government to reconsider this proposed change.

[Karen Proud, Vice-President, Federal Government Relations, Retail Council of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to thank you and the committee for inviting the Retail Council of Canada here today on Bill C-60.

Today I have the privilege of speaking for an industry that touches the daily lives of Canadians across this country and one that is a critical component in Canada's economic well-being. We are the largest employer in Canada, providing employment for more than 2 million Canadians and contributing more than $75 billion to Canada's economic well-being. The RCC represents more than 45,000 storefronts of all retail formats across Canada. This year, we celebrate our 50th anniversary of being the voice of retail for Canada.

Today I plan to focus my remarks on part 3 and division 1 of the bill, as well as more generally on product tariffs and the government's plan to review the general preferential tariff.

I'd like to start by thanking the minister and his officials for eliminating the tariffs on baby clothes and sporting equipment. We look at this as a pilot project and believe that this is just a first step in a much broader exercise to address all outdated and unnecessary tariffs. We are committed to working with the government to demonstrate that when tariffs are eliminated, Canadians will benefit from lower prices.

With regard to the bill itself, the RCC does have some recommendations for additions to the list of products that should be added to this pilot project. We feel that some items were missed when the review was taking place on baby clothing and sporting equipment, and we've prepared a comprehensive list of these items, which I will provide to the clerk for your consideration. The items on the list include specific athletic footwear, such as soccer shoes, as well as protective headgear for a variety of sports.

As mentioned, we believe this to be just a first step in addressing the tariff issue. The minister has indicated a willingness to look at further tariff eliminations, and the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, in their recent report on the Canada-U.S. price gap, also recommended that the minister look at the tariffs and do a complete review.

In fact, we believe that this committee should be tasked with undertaking that review. We feel that it would actually be a fairly simply exercise. The committee could look at the 1,400 pages of the Customs Tariff—2013, line by line, to see if there is little or no domestic manufacture of those products. If so, that tariff should be eliminated. If this were to happen, the Retail Council's concern with the proposed review of the general preferential tariff and the effect on Canadian consumers would be greatly, if not completely, eliminated.

This brings me to my comments related to the proposed review. While we understand the government's policy intent whereby countries like China should not be given preferential tariff treatment to boost their export capacity, we do have concerns with its implementation and scope, which we've relayed to the minister's office and to the department.

To address these concerns, we've asked the government for four things. We've asked for more time. The process for sourcing products internationally is highly complex and takes time. We greatly appreciate that the government listened to us during their first round of consultations on this and has already extended their proposed timeframe from mid-2014 to January of 2015. But if retailers have any chance of finding other sources of products, they need at least two years to implement these changes, so we've asked for more time for that review.

We've asked for specific product exemptions. We feel that for some products where there are no alternative sources of products, and where these products represent a staple and a requirement for Canadians—things like canned tuna—they should be exempt from the changes to the general preferential tariff.

[Martin Lavoie, Director of Policy, Manufacturing Competitiveness and Innovation, Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Laura.

Thank you for inviting me today to discuss Bill C-60, the Economic Action Plan 2013 Act.

On a general note, our organization and our members were very pleased with the recognition in the budget of manufacturing as an important driver of our economy, when it comes to innovation, research and development, exports, and value-added activity.

The budget partially responds to some of our priorities that were identified in our pre-budget submission. I will focus here on three: the accelerated capital cost allowance, which is a tax incentive for the acquisition of machinery and equipment; labour training and facilitating the hiring of foreign workers; and new direct support for manufacturing, research and development, and innovation.

Let me start with the ACCA. This is by far the most popular measure among our members. The ACCA, which has been in place since 2007, has boosted Canadian manufacturers' investments in machinery and equipment by 45% between 2009 and 2012.

In fact, Canadian manufacturing investments and all capital assets have surpassed the United States, in both 2010 and 2011, for the first time since 2006. There is still a lot to do, but we're happy to see that these tax incentives are working well and are meeting their objectives.

Let me talk a bit about labour training. It shouldn't be a surprise to anybody that we're strong supporters of the Canada job grant that was introduced in the budget. In our last three budget submissions, we have strongly recommended that the government introduce a tax credit to support the training of new hires and to increase the skill levels of existing employees.

The second part of the challenge, of course, that our members face is the hiring of foreign workers to fill labour shortages that are not being addressed by the domestic labour supply. While we're working with the governments to make appropriate improvements to the program, we're concerned with the manner that user fees will be managed for the labour market opinions under Bill C-60. Division 9 of part 3 of the bill states that the fees to be charged for labour market opinions will be exempt from the User Fees Act.

While I haven't received any confirmation from government officials so far with regard to the meaning of this, I presume that this means that the government would not consult stakeholders on the level of the fees charged, they would not be bound to ensure that service standards are tied to the fees, there wouldn't be, necessarily, any impact assessment, no tabling or publication of proposed new fee structures, etc.

CME, as a whole, has generally agreed that it is reasonable to pay user fees, but not under these conditions. The User Fees Act was established specifically—because of the abuse of user fees by government departments and agencies—as a way to increase revenues to cover off cost, rather than finding more efficient ways to deliver services, or working on the street to establish effective user fees. This clause sets a very bad precedent, in our view, and we strongly recommend that the fees charged for labour market opinions not be exempt from the User Fees Act.

Finally, I would like to comment on the new direct support mechanisms for business innovation that were announced in the budget. As you remember, last year the government told the industry that this $660 million cut under the SR and ED program would be reinvested entirely in new direct funding for business R and D. The government has done it. But there are still a lot of questions with respect to equity of access to this funding across industry sectors, and across the nation.

While we support the new funding provided to the automotive, aerospace, and forestry sectors, in particular, as well as the new advanced manufacturing fund for southern Ontario manufacturers, we must realize that going from the broad taxed base approach, like SR and ED, to a direct funding mechanism is going to penalize manufacturers that do not match these geographic and industry criteria.

We're hopeful that the government will eventually ensure that these direct funds for business innovation be accessible across the country, and across various manufacturing sectors. We're very concerned that the significant reductions that we'll see in the SR and ED tax credit until 2017 will have a detrimental impact on business innovation.

I'd like to conclude by recognizing that this budget is a great step toward a better recognition of the importance of manufacturing for our economic growth and for our capacity to innovate. However, a lot of work remains to be done to ensure that government policies do not discriminate against certain sectors, or certain regions of the country.

We're confident, however, that the government shares our concerns, and we'll work together toward achieving these objectives.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Good morning, everybody.

We had set aside two meetings, as you know, to discuss the subject matter of clauses 156 to 160, with regard to the Pension Act and the War Veterans Allowance Act, in Bill C-60, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures.

We have presentations this morning. I will say that the Legion was invited to be one of the presenters. They've sent us a letter saying that they support what's in the proposed changes; they're supportive of the bill as is and decided they didn't need to appear to make that point. Other than that, we have our witnesses, who we'll get to in a moment.

We start this morning with a face that is familiar. We'd ask Mr. Bernard Butler, director general in the policy division of the department, if he'd open with some comments, and then we'll do our usual round of questions. Away we go.

Good morning.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I call to order the 122nd meeting of the Standing Committee on Finance. I want to welcome all of our guests here this morning.

Our orders of the day, pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, May 7, 2013, are to study Bill C-60, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures.

Colleagues, we have six people who will be presenting, five here in Ottawa, and one, I understand, by teleconference from Winnipeg.

Mr. Manness, I just want to check with you first. Can you hear me okay?

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue the debate on today’s opposition motion from the NDP. Pursuant to the rules of the House, time is allocated and there will be a vote after the two-day debate.

Tomorrow we will resume the third reading debate on Bill S-9, the Nuclear Terrorism Act. As I mentioned on Monday, I am optimistic that we will pass that important bill this week.

Should we have extra time on Friday, we will take up Bill C-48, the Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012, at report stage and third reading.

When we come back from constituency week, I am keen to see the House make a number of accomplishments for Canadians. Allow me to make it clear to the House what the government's priorities are.

Our government will continue to focus on jobs, growth and long-term prosperity. In doing that, we will be working on reforming the temporary foreign worker program to put the interests of Canadians first; implementing tax credits for Canadians who donate to charity and parents who adopt; extending tax credits for Canadians who take care of loved ones in their homes; supporting veterans and their families by improving the balance for determining veterans' benefits; moving closer to equality for Canadians living on reserves through better standards for drinking water, which my friend apparently objects to; giving women on reserves the rights and protections that other Canadian women have had for decades, something to which he also objects; and keeping our streets and communities safer by making real improvements to the witness protection program. We will of course do more.

Before we rise for the summer, we will tackle the bills currently listed on the order paper, as well as any new bills which might get introduced. After Victoria Day, we will give priority consideration to bills which have already been considered by House committees.

For instance, we will look at Bill C-48, which I just mentioned, Bill C-51, the Safer Witnesses Act, Bill C-52, the Fair Rail Freight Service Act, and Bill S-2, the Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, which I understand could be reported back soon.

I look forward also to getting back from committee and passing Bill C-60, , the economic action plan 2013 act, no. 1; Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act; and Bill C-21, the political loans accountability act.

We have, of course, recently passed Bill C-15, the strengthening military justice in the defence of Canada act and Bill S-7, the combating terrorism act. Hopefully, tomorrow we will pass Bill S-9, the nuclear terrorism act.

Finally, we will also work toward second reading of several bills including: Bill C-12, the safeguarding Canadians' personal information act; Bill C-49, the Canadian museum of history act; Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act; Bill C-56, the combating counterfeit products act; Bill C-57, the safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act; Bill C-61, the offshore health and safety act; Bill S-6, the first nations elections act; Bill S-10, the prohibiting cluster munitions act; Bill S-12, the incorporation by reference in regulations act; Bill S-13, the port state measures agreement implementation act; Bill S-14, the fighting foreign corruption act; Bill S-15, the expansion and conservation of Canada’s national parks act, which establishes Sable Island National Park; and Bill S-17, the tax conventions implementation act, 2013.

I believe and I think most Canadians who send us here expect us to do work and they want to see us vote on these things and get things done. These are constructive measures to help all Canadians and they certainly expect us to do our job and actually get to votes on these matters.

I hope we will be able to make up enough time to take up all of these important bills when we come back, so Canadians can benefit from many parliamentary accomplishments by the members of Parliament they have sent here this spring.

Before taking my seat, let me formally designate, pursuant to Standing Order 81(4)(a), Tuesday, May 21, as the day appointed for the consideration in a committee of the whole of all votes under Natural Resources in the main estimates for the final year ending March 31, 2014. This would be the second of two such evenings following on tonight's proceedings.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

Thank you for that exchange.

We're going a little past the time, and I know that Monsieur Lapointe wanted to make some comments.

I would say, just as a reminder, and I know that some latitude needs to be given, that the letter required us to consider the subject matter of clauses 161 to 166 of Bill C-60, and to provide recommendations with respect to those clauses and any associated amendments, which primarily deal with the revocation and suspension of opinions provided by the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development, and the authority to refuse to process generally in that area.

We're looking at the legislation and what we might want to do with it, whether to change it or not. It is not so much a study of the temporary foreign worker program or the policies that are currently in existence. That's what we're doing here, which is far narrower in scope than a general study might be. I just want members to keep that in mind.

Monsieur Lapointe.

Opposition Motion — 2013 Spring Report of the Auditor General of Canada

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my NDP colleague from Pontiac on his excellent speech and excellent initiative.

He has moved a motion that asks a fairly simple question: where has taxpayers' money gone? How can the Conservative government lose $3.1 billion and not know what happened to it?

With Bill C-60, we see a government that wants to meddle in the negotiations of crown corporations' collective agreements. This paternalistic and condescending government is telling them that they are incapable of managing public money and that the President of the Treasury Board has to be at the negotiating table because he wants to ensure that public money is well spent.

Why does the government feel that it is in a position to give crown corporations advice on how to run their affairs when it cannot keep track of $3.1 billion?

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

I understand Bill C-60 allocates $5 million to Indspire. Who does Indspire help and how many people per year benefit?

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

Great. Thank you. Budget 2013 promises $100 million to Nunavut housing. Why is Bill C-60 advocating $30 million immediately?

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

But it's not what the summary says. That's all I'm saying. I think it's very misleading to Canadians. That's all.

Could I talk about the substance for the very few minutes we have available?

My first question is on these reduced tariff rates that are brought into effect as a consequence of Bill C-60, which will actually increase the cost to Canadians on a whole variety of items: bicycles, sandals, wigs, grand pianos. Do you have a list available of the number of items that are subject to the tariff changes that are before us? Is there a comprehensive list we could look at?

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you, witnesses, for attending.

This is sort of a threshold question, a process question, before I get into the meat of the matter, as it were, with this part and this division. I have a question for legal counsel that they can get back to us on. Many people, of course, will only read the summary of Bill C-60, and in the summary, addressing this division of part 3, it reads as follows:

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....

But when one looks at page 43 of the actual act, section 36 says:

Sections 33 to 35 cease to have effect on December 31, 2024 or on any earlier date that may be fixed by order of the Governor in Council.

It would appear to me that there's quite a misleading statement in the summary, because of course it could be brought in at any time before 2024, yet one would get the impression in the summary that it doesn't come in until December 31, 2024.

That's a threshold sort of legal question, and I don't necessarily know that there will be an answer from these officials, although I'd welcome one. Perhaps counsel could get back to our committee on what appears to be a discrepancy.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Finally, as a result of Bill C-60, will medical documentation for requirements at school or work now be charged GST/HST? For example, in my riding at Queen's University, the health counselling and disabilities services centre might charge $20 for a sick note or $120 for a pre-employment assessment and certification.

Will there now be GST/HST on these services?

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

As a result of Bill C-60, will medical work such as X-rays, laboratory tests, or documentation from doctors done to meet the requirements of private insurance now be subject to GST/HST?

Based on the previous responses, I'm guessing the answer is yes.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

As a result of Bill C-60, will psychological assessment of a victim of crime, carried out to establish a case in court, now be subject to GST/HST?

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

As a result of Bill C-60, will psychological assessment of a child with a learning disability for the purpose of a determination by a local school board, like the identification placement and review committee in Ontario, now be subject to GST/HST?

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Thank you very much.

There are some specific cases I want to ask about. I'd like to ask for clarification on whether they will be subject to GST/HST as a result of Bill C-60.

As a result of Bill C-60, will medical work such as X-rays, laboratory tests, or documentation from doctors done for a victim of crime so that they can establish their case in court now be subject to GST or HST?

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

On page 121 of the 2013 budget there is a chart outlining the impact of all tax measures since 2006 that have provided tax relief to small businesses. It's very impressive as part of the overall picture. In the context of the DTC modifications in Bill C-60, can you tell us what type of overall tax relief since 2006 the small Canadian-controlled private corporation is benefiting from?

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

Like the federal government, many provinces and territories have made efforts to integrate corporate and personal taxes. Can you outline the provinces that since 2008 have changed their DTC rate, similar to what has been proposed in Bill C-60, to correspond with the reductions in their provincial and small business tax rate? I understand the provinces have done the same thing, because the intention is to create that balanced playing field.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome again, Mr. Cook and the other officials. We appreciate you being here. Thank you for the earlier briefing that we received on Bill C-60.

I'd like to focus my time on the subject of credit unions and the tax changes for credit unions.

Many Canadians have experience with credit unions and other forms of cooperatives. They play an important role in investing in their communities, which distinguishes them from banks, because they have a social mission as part of their makeup. They're also generally much smaller than banks. Vancity, which is the largest credit union, is some 16 times smaller than the smallest of the major banks.

My question is around the purpose of these tax changes. It says that the goal is to create a level playing field with the private sector. Do you really think that credit unions are playing on an even playing field, or ought to play on an even playing field, with the large financial institutions?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you very much for your overview, Mr. Cook. We appreciate that.

Colleagues, we will have any questions related to part 1 of Bill C-60.

I'll proceed in the usual fashion.

We'll start with Ms. Nash, please.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I call this meeting to order. This is meeting number 121 of the Standing Committee on Finance.

Our orders of the day, pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday May 7, 2013, is to begin our study of Bill C-60, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures.

We have a full meeting with officials today.

The way I'm suggesting we proceed is that we do it by part. We'll ask the officials to give a very brief overview, for instance, of part 1, and then we will deal with all questions from part 1, and then we'll move to part 2, part 3, and part 4.

We do have a full meeting, and I'm sure members have a lot of questions.

Welcome back to the committee to all of you.

Mr. Cook, if you could give a brief overview of part 1, then we'll have questions from members.

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1

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

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in the House and speak to Bill C-60, an act to implement certain measures in the budget that was presented on March 21 by the Minister of Finance.

This bill is about continuing the important work of this government on jobs, growth and long-term prosperity. This bill would implement very important measures for all Canadians, and I know it would improve the lives of people across Canada and in my riding of Mississauga—Streetsville.

At the outset, I would like to quote some of other things the Minister of Finance told the House on March 21 when he tabled economic action plan 2013. He stated:

Canada is in an enviable position among the world's industrial economies. We have fared relatively better than most in the aftermath of the worst recession in a generation. As many of our allies and trading partners continue to struggle, we are well placed to prosper.

...by sticking to the long...view...by taking strong, decisive actions whenever it has been required. We have grown stronger, even as many have weakened.

However, he went on to say:

...it is...clear to the world that Canada has picked the right path and the right plan, a responsible plan for jobs, growth and long-term prosperity.

I am proud to be a member of a government that is committed to a solid plan for the near and long term. I am proud of a Minister of Finance and a Prime Minister who have put the economy first. However, I am also immensely proud of Canadians who continue to work hard, do their best and make Canada the greatest country in the world. There is no better way this is shown than through community service and charitable giving. It has been my honour and privilege to serve on many community agencies in the city of Mississauga with passionate volunteers for more than three decades. I see the wonderful work that each and every one of them does, and I see the tremendous generosity of people who donate to these vital organizations.

That is why I am so delighted to see that this bill would implement a new super credit for first-time donors to charitable organizations, so that we may bring in thousands of new contributors to support these important services. Charitable giving promotes philanthropy and good citizenship while helping others when they need it most.

I had the distinct pleasure to serve as a member of the board of directors of the Peel Children's Aid Society and Peel Children's Aid Foundation, and I am very pleased to see that this bill would allow certain adoption-related expenses, incurred before a child's adoption file is opened, to be now eligible for the adoption expense tax credit. Our CAS system plays a very important role in adoption, and any way we can help families with the costs of this would be greatly appreciated.

I see as well that there is good news in this bill for veterans. The bill would amend the War Veterans Allowance Act to ensure that veterans' disability benefits would no longer be deducted when calculating the war veteran allowance, and the contributions for the last post fund for funeral and burial services would be doubled.

Further, this budget is very good news for our partners in the municipalities across Canada. Bill C-60 proposes to index the gas tax revenue that is sent to municipalities, which they use for important transit and transportation infrastructure that suits local needs. Our last budget made this transfer permanent, and this one would ensure that the funds would grow with inflation. This government respects our towns and cities, and works with them as true partners. I am certain that in my own city of Mississauga these important funds would help our city continue to grow and provide needed transportation infrastructure for many years to come.

As a member of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, I am very pleased to see that this bill proposes changes to the temporary foreign worker program, to ensure that it operates within its original mandate—to permit the use of foreign workers on a temporary basis in certain sectors where Canadians cannot fill those jobs—and to ensure ultimate accountability through a new registration and fee process. While there has been much media fanfare about the TFW program, it is still a vital system for some areas of the country and should be improved, not scrapped. Bill C-60 proposes a strengthened program with the proper checks and balances as we move forward.

There is also new support for job creators. Bill C-60 proposes changes to the mineral exploration tax credit, it would extend the temporary accelerated capital cost allowance rate for machinery and equipment, and it would modernize the general preferential tariff regime for developing countries to help Canadian companies better compete with foreign firms.

It also would provide more than $70 million in tariff relief for families purchasing sports equipment or baby clothing.

Through this budget, the Government of Canada is renewing its commitment of fiscal transfers to the provinces for equalization until March of 2019, providing them that important sense of stable funding. Bill C-60 would make a number of changes that continue Canada moving on the path of better jobs and greater prosperity. It sets an important tone of confidence and responsibility at times that are still cautious and fragile. This is not the time to propose huge new tax increases on Canadians or go on wild spending sprees. We cannot play fast and loose with Canadians' hard-earned tax dollars, and we cannot slag our trading partners and the private sector.

As we move forward, I look forward to the implementation of the new Canada job grant with the provinces and employers; I look forward to the ten-year renewal of the Canada building fund with provinces and municipalities; I look forward to the five-year renewal of the affordable housing program and the homelessness partnering strategy; I look forward to the renewal of the hiring tax credit for Canada's job creators; I look forward to new investments in innovation and technology; and I look forward to Canada's continued economic leadership at home and in the world.

It is easy for members on the other side to criticize while offering no ideas of their own, other than raising taxes and increasing spending. That is not a plan for Canada; it is a recipe for disaster.

As the Minister of Finance concluded on March 21:

Today we move this responsible plan forward, forward toward that bright future. With this plan, our government renews our commitment to Canadians, our commitment to jobs, our commitment to growth, our commitment to long-term prosperity for all Canadians.

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.

Bill C-60—Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I accept your comment with the utmost humility, as you are quite right.

I talked about the narrative of this nation and how in many respects, the bill is not in keeping with it. I am the heritage critic. There are many aspects of heritage I have seen over the past year and a half that have caused great trouble. One in particular is with regard to Library and Archives Canada. I have a paper sent to me from a gentleman by the name of Jim Clifford. He is involved with ActiveHistory.ca, and he brings up some very salient points:

Library and Archives Canada also experienced a wave of job losses last summer with the termination of twenty-one archivists and archival assistant positions, a fifty per cent reduction in digitization and circulation staff, and the elimination of the interlibrary loans program. The cuts compounded past reductions in the LAC budget and the series of “modernization” policies that have reduced public access to archival materials and compromised the ability of LAC to acquire new records.

This is a legitimate concern, because instead of saying that we are going to pare down the budget, look at a substantial review, look at practices within certain departments that are inefficient and eliminate them or put them on hold until a later date when we can afford them, the Conservatives, like many governments nowadays, are saying that they are going to make these cuts, and it will be better for them. They will give them less food, but they will feel more full. Where is the logic in that?

Library and Archives Canada is a good example. They claim that it will be that much more efficient and that much better for the end-user, in this case, anyone who wants to find out about the history of this country and the story behind who we are. They are going to have trouble doing that. There is less service.

Parks Canada land across this country, millions of square kilometres, are some of the greatest places in this country to experience what it is to be from this country, whether it is the mountains of the west coast, Wood Buffalo National Park and the sensational scenery there, Ontario, or even the national park where I am from, which is Terra Nova National Park. Parks Canada was hit the hardest by layoffs in the civil service as a result of last year's budget. It was $29 million annually, resulting in an estimated 638 job losses. This is quite a hit to take.

What we expect from this particular implementation bill and other bills that follow is the transparency to say that this is how we are going to pare down these services. What the Conservatives do not do is to seek the advice of those who are involved in day-to-day operations, as illustrated by Library and Archives Canada and Parks Canada. Now we see, paramount to a lot of things in Bill C-60, that it also contains this measure.

I received correspondence from the Independent Media Arts Alliance about the presence of the Treasury Board in negotiations in crown agencies. Here is what it says:

The arm's length relationship is so fundamentally important to the Canadian Council for the Arts and other institutions.... It greatly undermines the spirit and principle of the crown corporation, which while having a direct connection to the federal government is meant to be “shielded from constant government intervention and legislative oversight and thus generally enjoys greater freedom from direct political control than government departments”.

There we see a fundamental difference. Fittingly, over the past six to eight years, we brought to the Conservatives problems with certain crown agencies. The answer was always that they had no direct control. What does this mean now? If something happens with a crown agency, can we say that this is not true any more, because they have direct control over certain aspects? We are now telling Treasury Board that it must get involved in these collective agreements. That is step one. What is next?

Will the mandate of the CRTC also be controlled from the PMO or other sources? This is our fear. I think many Canadians understand that this is a fundamental step backward, certainly over the past four or five years. This particular government does not want to involve itself, yet it does. It is trying to play this side and that side of the story.

Budget 2013 imposes a net tax increase of $3.3 billion in the next five years. One of my hon. colleagues across the way said in the House about two years ago that a tax is a tax. It could be a fee. It could be an adjustment in how we pay fees in this country. No matter what it is, if the government raises the amount of money extracted from the general public, it is a tax.

Some were talking about the so-called iPod tax. Interestingly, with the change recently in tariff regulations, we find that the price of iPods and other items like that are going up. To quote my hon. friend in the Conservative Party, a tax is a tax is a tax. Who is doing the iPod tax?

This is the iPod shuffle. There are many other shuffles we continue to deal with in the House. They appear in the fine print. Over the past three years, budget implementation legislation has always contained fine print that we talk about in the House.

It was the same with EI changes. We did not realize there were changes until people called my office and said that they had to take a job that was an hour's drive away. A women who lived in St. John's told me that she was told that she would have to go to Clarenville. Here was the catch. After taking a ferry for 30 minutes, she would have to drive three and a half hours to get there.

If people have problems with employment insurance, they have the right to appeal. The umpires and the appeals process are being cut. It is being pared down to the bare minimum, which will also make it extremely difficult for these people.

I started by saying that $3.3 billion in the next five years will be an incremental increase. There are safety deposit boxes; dividend tax credits; the deduction for credit unions, which will be crippling for many rural towns' financing; tariff increases; the general preferential tariff, which I spoke about earlier, which is the new iPod tax; character conversion transactions; trust loan trading; mining expenses; life insurance arrangements. The total increase is $5.5 billion.

It is rather disingenuous when the Conservatives put out the same line over and over again. They keep saying that it is their low-tax plan. At some point, people will say, and certainly in my riding they are saying it, that they are not buying that any more.

In this particular instance, when it comes to Bill C-60, some things are positive, but by and large, most things are negative, and therefore I will not be voting for this particular piece of legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-60, an act to implement certain measures contained in the budget presented in the House on March 21, 2013, by our very capable Minister of Finance.

The bill is about continuing the important work—

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

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of rising in the House today to speak to Bill C-60 on behalf of my constituents in Berthier—Maskinongé, who are opposed to this new omnibus bill.

In my opinion, the short title of this bill, Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, is not really appropriate.

After reading through this bill, I am once again disappointed to see that there is nothing in it that will bring about economic recovery or create jobs or make life more affordable for Canadians. On the contrary, the Conservatives have raised taxes on a number of consumer goods.

Budget 2013 is full of tax increases on hospital parking, safety deposit boxes, labour-sponsored investment funds, bicycles and baby buggies. These increases even affected hockey helmets, until my colleague from Sudbury pointed that out and the government had to cancel the increases on hockey helmets and sports equipment.

These tax increases will cost Canadians $8 billion over the next five years. This budget will not just raise the cost of living. It will also slow economic growth.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer analyzed the economic situation and the bills brought in by this government. She found that budget 2012, the 2012 update and budget 2013 will result in the loss of 67,000 jobs by 2017 and will cause a 0.57% decline in the GDP. I do not need to say that this is not a good thing for our country’s economic growth.

With wages stagnating, uncertain jobs and families heavily in debt, the Conservatives are proposing austerity measures that add to the cost of living for Canadian families and stifle economic growth.

This bill contains a number of complex measures that deserve to be considered and examined carefully. For the third time in their current term, however, the Conservatives are proposing to evade the oversight of parliamentarians and the public. I find this insulting on several levels. We are here to examine bills. When the government imposes gag orders, we cannot do our job.

This bill contains changes to the temporary foreign worker program. The Conservatives are proposing to close major loopholes by giving the department the last word when work permits or opinions about a permit application become a source of political embarrassment. That does not solve the main problem, which is the mismanagement of the temporary foreign worker program by the present government.

I have received many emails from the people of Berthier—Maskinongé criticizing the changes in Bill C-60 that enable the government to compel a crown corporation to have its negotiating mandate approved by the Treasury Board so that it can reach a collective agreement with a union, particularly in the case of the CBC.

The people of Berthier—Maskinongé do not want to see any politician exercise that kind of control over our national public broadcaster. The changes proposed in Bill C-60 constitute an all-out attack on the right to free collective bargaining in Canada.

The NDP opposes Bill C-60 based on its content, but also on the process used. With so little time to study of the bill, members cannot consider its consequences. Once again, the Conservatives are trying to keep Canadians in the dark, and it is Canadians who will ultimately pay the price.

Today I would like to focus on a few specific aspects of the bill. I have noticed a truly disturbing trend in this government's legislative program.

Several changes made recently show how little the Conservatives know about the need for a long-term strategy for our regions. I am thinking in particular of the elimination of the labour-sponsored funds tax credit, the employment insurance reform and the cuts to all services.

One important measure that has drawn my attention is the cancellation of the labour-sponsored funds tax credit in this last budget. The government has announced the phasing-out of the 15% tax credit it grants for shareholders of labour-sponsored funds.

This decision is a serious mistake and shows that the Conservatives understanding nothing about Quebec's economic model and the role these funds play in the province and, of course, in the economies of the rural regions.

Ninety per cent of the amounts that Ottawa wants to recover with this measure will come from Quebec savers and investors, since virtually all of these funds are in Quebec. This decision will mainly affect the middle class and its ability to save for retirement, in addition to depriving Quebec SMEs of significant support for their development.

Once again, the government has turned a deaf ear, just as it did on the employment insurance reform. On April 27, thousands of people from several Quebec regions demonstrated in downtown Montreal against the Conservative government's butchering of employment insurance.

This reform is a serious attack on the most vulnerable workers in our society, most of whom are women. It will also affect families and regions. Once again, despite the demonstration, the Conservatives are not listening to Canadians, and I find that truly sad and deplorable, particularly when I see families and workers trying hard to make ends meet.

This reform strikes a hard blow to the economic health of our regions. In my riding, thousands of people hold seasonal jobs. A large segment of the economy depends on seasonal work, including farming, tourism, construction and forestry. The list is long.

Employment insurance reform will have disastrous consequences for a number of regions. The Conservatives did not assess the impact of such a reform. They are refusing to listen to the protestors who are calling on the government to back down. I am also wondering what happened to their 2011 campaign slogan, “Our region in power”. I have the impression that their slogan should now be “The regions—who cares?”

Why not try to create real jobs and support local initiatives? In short, I am talking about this reform to remind the government that it is a real disaster. As if that were not enough, the government is adding insult to injury with the labour-supported funds.

Another important aspect of the bill is the elimination of the supplementary tax credit for credit unions. Our credit unions play a vital role in our rural communities. Last year, I had the honour of being on the Special Committee on Co-operatives, where my Conservative and Liberal colleagues and I heard testimony that shed light on the remarkable work co-operatives do in our communities.

Perhaps some members were more attentive than others, because I now see that the supplementary tax credit for co-operatives will be eliminated. That will seriously limit the ability of credit unions to compete with large banks, when what the banking sector needs is more competition.

Last year, the Conservatives put an end to the co-operative development initiative and made cuts to the rural secretariat. Now, it is the co-operatives' turn. Do the Conservatives not understand that these changes are going to hit our rural regions hard, both in Quebec and in the rest of the country?

Tabling a budget means making choices. The budget implementation bill shows that the Conservatives are choosing not to support families, workers or our young people. Last year, when we debated the budget 2012 implementation bills—Bills C-38 and C-45—many of my New Democrat colleagues, as well as economic analysts, warned us that we would not have time to understand everything the omnibus bills contained and that the long-term impact would be felt for years to come.

We are finding out the implications of those bills again today, and I am afraid the same thing will happen with Bill C-60. Our children will be the ones to feel the effects of the Conservatives' misguided policies, when they are longer be around to be accountable. I hope they will be willing to listen to our concerns and make the required changes.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. Budgets are about choices. They are also about influence. The Conservatives have made their choices and they have made them on the basis of their ideology and on those lobbyists who are closest to the PMO. Let us be clear: those lobbyists are the largest and wealthiest corporations and CEOs of this country.

But I will admit their ideology rests on a theory, a theory much flaunted by them, that of the Chicago School of Business, that of Friedman and Hayek, what has been called anarcho-capitalism. These academics created a vision for a utopian capitalist society where the role of the state was limited to ensuring the protection of its citizens. The reality is that most of the members in leadership positions on that side do not really believe in the Canadian state. They want to minimize its democratic influence on the economy and that means austerity wherever it can be had. Do not get me wrong, the Prime Minister and his lieutenants are incrementalists to their own admission, so they are in it for the long haul, knowing that they are confronted with the fact that the vast majority of Canadians in their heart of hearts fundamentally disagree with their dog-eat-dog philosophy. Why do we think they want to rewrite history and get involved in imposing curricula on schools? Because they want to shape the minds of future generations to their vision.

But as incrementalists, we cannot expect them to be obvious about it. Their excuse for imposing austerity on Canadians is always based on their ideological buzzwords: jobs, growth and prosperity. The common sense revolution all over again. Well the reality is that their approach makes no sense at all for creating jobs, growth and prosperity. Let us consider the facts.

Despite having chosen the path of austerity, Europe, the U.S. and the Canadian economy are not getting any better and the world economic crisis, despite a few good weeks here and there, is nowhere close to the long-term sustainable recovery and strength we have seen in the past. The Conservatives have had to contort themselves to make any sense out of this and how their pie in the sky ideology is not working. That is because their heads are trapped in a utopian, capitalist, ideological cloud. The reality is that ever since a modern free market has existed there has always been state intervention, and in most cases it has been positive.

The Conservative approach is also based on another myth, a sacred cow so to speak, that somehow corporations invest the savings from tax cuts back into their operations, thus creating jobs, expanding the economy, and generating even bigger revenues for governments. From this perspective, governments should keep slashing corporate taxes, presumably right down to zero. If the tax cuts of recent years continue, that state of nirvana will be reached in 20 years. This is their belief and it is a belief empty of facts. In fact, the worst financial years have always been under conservative governments. Reagan and Thatcher in the 1980s, Bush and now the present Prime Minister are examples of how extreme conservative economic policies lead to greater crises in the economy, not less.

I am exaggerating right, because I am a social democrat? Well, in 2000, the combined federal-provincial tax rate was just over 42%. A decade later this figure has fallen to 28%. The Conservative government would cut it to 25% by fiscal 2013. Members can do the math.

The problem that members might be wondering about is that Conservatives have forgotten about something very simple: globalization. What the other benches do not understand is that there is no guarantee in a global market that corporations will reinvest in jobs in countries to which they have no loyalty. Members should not take it from me, here is what The Globe and Mail had to say about it:

Canadian companies have added tens of billions of dollars to their stockpiles of cash at a time when tax cuts are supposed to be encouraging them to plow more money into their businesses....But an analysis of Statistics Canada figures by The Globe and Mail reveals that the rate of investment in machinery and equipment has declined in lockstep with falling corporate tax rates over the past decade. At the same time, the analysis shows, businesses have added $83 billion to their cash reserves since the onset of the recession in 2008.

However, what big corporations seem to be doing quite well is investing in themselves and in their salaries. The rate paid for a CEO is up at least 100% since the recession. Saved tax dollars are going into bigger salaries, not helping the economy or suffering Canadians.

Also large corporations are now more likely to hide this money than use it.The Globe and Mail reported that, “Investment in equipment and machinery has fallen to 5.5 per cent in 2010 as a share of Canada's total economic output from 6.8 per cent in 2005 and 7.7 per cent in 2000.”

Buying machinery is a good thing, and expanding one's business means stimulating the economy and creating jobs. Now all of this is not to talk about the human cost, which is to drive up the rate of exploitation of the workforce. Their main tactic is to increase the proportion of profit and salary while simultaneously taking advantage of hard economic times to reduce labour costs, and we wonder why they want Canadians to be paid as little as foreign workers. Temporary foreign workers should not be making a substandard wage in the first place. Not surprisingly, the average level of unemployment among Canadian workers rose dramatically during these Conservative government golden years.

In other words, tax breaks and handouts have failed to live up to the predictions of Conservative economists and politicians. The gap between the rich and the working class is at record levels. Over 1.5 million Canadians remain unemployed, and that is just according to understated official figures.

Funding for social programs, health and education is clearly not a priority, and corporate CEOs and shareholders are laughing all the way to the bank.

Another study released on April 6 by the Canadian Centre of Policy Alternatives shows that, “After a decade of corporate tax cuts, the benefits to Canada’s largest corporations are clear but the job creation payoff for Canadians hasn’t materialized.” The study tracked 198 companies on the S&P/TSX composite index from 2000 to 2009. Those 198 companies are making 50% more profit and paying 20% less tax than they did a decade ago, but in terms of job creation, “they did not keep up with the average growth of employment in the economy as a whole. From 2005 to 2010, the number of employed Canadians rose 6% while the number of jobs created by the companies in this study grew by only 5%.”

We on the benches on this side of the House have a different approach, a more balanced one, which takes into consideration the needs of small and medium-sized businesses that, contrary to the lobbyists in the PMO's office, actually create the majority of jobs in this country.

No, we have a different approach, which balances the needs of small and medium-sized businesses with those of average Canadian families of the middle class and the working class.

Bill C-60 does not address Canadians' real concerns. Instead of adopting meaningful measures to create jobs, the Conservatives are imposing austerity measures that will stifle economic growth. Furthermore, the Conservatives' omnibus budget flouts Canadian democracy. It is an underhanded attack on this country's workers.

Bill C-60 makes changes that allow the government to direct a crown corporation to have its negotiating mandate approved by the Treasury Board in order to enter into a collective agreement with a union. These amendments affect 49 crown corporations and hundreds of employees. 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. Furthermore, no crown corporation receiving such a government order will be able to reach a collective agreement without Treasury Board approval.

This government and its ministers, in an effort to rid themselves of any responsibility, have repeated over and over that crown corporations operate at arm's length from the government. However, the changes in Bill C-60 violate the fundamental principle of the operational independence of crown corporations.

The changes proposed in Bill C-60 constitute an attack on the right to free collective bargaining in Canada.

We must oppose this budget, and as official opposition Treasury Board critic, that is what I am doing. That is my duty.

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.

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-60, the one we are currently studying, will alone amend about 50 acts. Just one vote will be held in the House to pass an array of measures.

I am interested in one in particular, and I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary a question about the Investment Canada Act.

The bill provides that businesses controlled by WTO investors will see the level of investment in Canada increase to $1 billion in three years before a review is conducted by the Minister of Industry. The bill also provides that foreign state-owned enterprises, such as Chinese companies, will not have access to this higher level.

However, that contradicts the foreign investment protection agreements, including the Canada-China agreement, which state that any enterprise, including state-owned enterprises that have a foothold, will have the same rights as Canadian enterprises.

Why is the government moving toward an amendment to the Investment Canada Act that goes against international trade agreements it wants to sign?

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, 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 228 to 232 related to the Financial Administration Act and collective bargaining between Crown corporations and their employees, 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 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; 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.

We are proposing this motion because we believe that this section of the omnibus Bill C-60 is extremely important and complex and that it must be studied carefully as a separate bill.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to waste precious time, so I will begin speaking about Bill C-60.

The measures set out in Bill C-60 concerning the CBC could not have come with more ironic timing. Last Friday was World Press Freedom Day.

Throughout the world, May 3 serves as a reminder of the important role a pluralistic, free, independent press plays in a democracy. However, this year also marked Canada's drop in the world press freedom index rankings. Last year, Reporters Without Borders, a respected organization, ranked us 10th. This year, Canada is ranked 20th, behind Costa Rica, Namibia, Andorra and Liechtenstein. We fell 10 spots in one year.

Reporters Without Borders mentions a number of factors to explain this astonishing drop. It noted the Government of Canada's actions, specifically the threats to the confidentiality of journalists’ sources. Take note, members opposite.

The government finds itself in a serious and surprising situation. This is another brick in the wall of shame that is actively being built here in Ottawa. Our international reputation is all but destroyed. Do I need to point that out? Moreover, the government is steadily attacking the CBC day after day, which is only making matters worse.

Those attacks continue with Bill C-60, which allows the government to have a say in employees' working conditions and certain journalists' salaries. That is a shocking infringement on the public broadcaster's independence. It is clear that Bill C-60 challenges the CBC's independence, particularly its journalistic and editorial independence.

Canadians across the country have been writing to us—to me and my colleagues—for days to express their dismay and anger over the government's attempt to hijack management of the CBC. The CBC has been at arm's length from the government for nearly 80 years; it is a democratic tradition.

Liberal and Conservative prime ministers have done what they had to do throughout that time; that is, a number of governments from both parties have taken the opportunity to cut the CBC’s budget, but they all have chosen to respect the independence of the public broadcaster. Governments come and go, but they do not meddle with the independence of the CBC.

Today, it is clear that it is not very difficult to tear that down. It takes an insidious bill, a bill like this one, that gives the government the right to impose collective agreements, to decide the terms of employment for non-unionized employees and the salaries of journalists, bureau chiefs and news anchors.

To date, every government had restrained itself and chosen to respect a broadcaster funded by taxpayers, yes, but accountable not to the government, but directly to the public. It is that very restraint that characterizes the conduct of democratic governments toward the public broadcasters they fund.

Over the last few days, hundreds of Canadians have written to me as heritage critic for the official opposition and to my colleagues. I am sure that members in the government benches across the floor have also received a lot of emails about this. Canadians are angry about this attempt to threaten the independence of the CBC. Canadians are angry about the government's attempt to end 80 years of independent public broadcasting in this country, free from interference from the government.

I have the feeling that people are frankly outraged that the government would dare to meddle with what is actually a democratic tradition in Canada: the healthy distance between government and public broadcaster.

It is that distance that means that a CBC journalist can report that $3.1 billion simply disappeared from the government’s books and still know that his employer will not be asking him to tone it down in the next report because the minister is twisting its arm. It is that distance that means that a news anchor can decide that such information deserves to be given to Canadians, without having to worry that the government thus tarnished might decide to interfere in his next employment contract.

We see that the government wants to apply the same medicine to other cultural crown corporations like the National Arts Centre, Telefilm Canada and the Canada Council for the Arts. The cultural community is speaking out against this. The Independent Media Arts Alliance, in particular, has denounced the threat to the statutory independence of the Canada Council for the Arts. In a letter to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, the alliance states that doing this is harmful to the spirit and principle of a crown corporation.

I note that these principles of independence are laid out by the Canada Council for the Arts. In its fundamental values, it states that it maintains “an arm’s length relationship from government, which allows the Council to develop policies and programs and make decisions without undue political pressure or influence”.

The Canada Council also supports “freedom of artistic expression from control or dominance by external forces such as governments and markets”, a value to be reinforced by the arm’s length relationship.

We know that these measures will have a negative effect on the delivery of the services provided by these cultural agencies and their ability to attract personnel.

Obviously, the Conservatives’ goal is to diminish the independence of these public institutions, which play important roles for creators in particular. The Conservatives seem to be exhibiting a complete lack of interest in the very concept of an independent crown corporation: the space there has to be between government, politics and crown corporations.

The leader of our party, my colleague from Outremont, summarized the problem well yesterday afternoon. When it comes to advancing its ideological agenda, the government is not the least bit bothered about interfering with independent crown corporations. For example, it tells them how to manage their employees, how to administer collective agreements, what salaries are appropriate and how many pencil sharpeners and paper clips they should buy.

However, when a problem arises in those crown corporations, the government waves the white flag and says it has nothing to do with them. When a crown corporation makes a mistake or its managers do something wrong, all of a sudden the government cannot do anything. They are independent crown corporations. That is very handy. Suddenly, the statutory independence and arm’s length status of crown corporations is back in fashion, according to the government.

But it gets worse. As members undoubtedly know, Library and Archives Canada is our national archives. It is an institution that is the guardian of our most precious historical documents and even a few artifacts from the War of 1812—for the pleasure of Library and Archives Canada. However, things are not going well over there. In the opinion of the archivists, librarians, archaeologists, historians and numerous professions that have previously been represented at Library and Archives Canada, things are even going very badly.

Acquisitions of historical documents have virtually come to a halt. There has been a full stop in document lending to other libraries, researchers and historians not based in the national capital.

Let us talk about this code of conduct imposed on the employees, professionals, experts and scientists at Library and Archives Canada, prohibiting them from attending conferences without authorization, one of several faux pas—including the one we talked about earlier—of a public institution out of control.

When we went to see the Minister of Heritage, who incidentally seemed embarrassed, and we asked him whether he was going to intervene and whether he thought, as we did, that all this was going too far, he dared answer us that Library and Archives Canada is an independent crown corporation. That is what he said in the House and subsequently in Le Devoir.

Once again, if a problem arises that makes them uncomfortable, they quickly hit the panic button and say it is not their fault.

In this case, however, the minister is on the wrong track because Library and Archives Canada is not at all an independent crown corporation. Not at all. According to its mandate, it is part of the federal government under the administration of the Minister of Heritage. There is nothing less independent than that, unless the minister himself fills the coffee machine.

It seems difficult for this government to grasp the concepts of crown corporation, independence from government, arm's length and independence. They seem subtle. These crown corporations are independent. This is not complicated. For better or for worse, whether or not it pleases the government, they are constituted as entities independent of the government, in the public interest, because they must have some distance from political power.

As for the government, the Conservative Party may make a show of many principles, but I would like it to show a little consistency. Are crown corporations independent or not? They will have to make a choice.

In conclusion, apart from this budget that hurts the Canadian economy, apart from these same old solutions, as the Parliamentary Budget Officer has shown, these same old austerity measures that will slow growth and cost thousands of jobs, apart from this economic shambles and lack of vision, hundreds of people have written to us because they are concerned about the independence of their public broadcaster, the CBC.

Ian Morrison, the spokesman for Friends of Canadian Broadcasting, recalled that the difference between a public broadcaster and a state broadcaster lies in its distance from the government.

In addition, tens of thousands of signatories to petitions, including that of friends.ca, have reaffirmed their support for the independence of the CBC.

CBC management clearly questions the relevance of this government initiative. It states that its employees are neither public servants nor servants of Her Majesty, and it says it needs flexibility so that it can attract the necessary talent.

CBC unions have denounced the attack on free collective bargaining and the fact that the government is taking control, violating the Telecommunications Act and giving itself the right to intervene in the CBC's production operations, finances and day-to-day business.

Like many other crown corporations, in particular cultural ones, the CBC must remain free of political interference. Public broadcasting, by its very nature, means that the broadcaster represents and speaks on behalf of our culture, not the government.

I join the legions of Canadians who are opposed to this attempt to undermine the independence of public broadcasting in this country, and I urge the government to abandon this measure.

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.

The Budget

[Jim Flaherty, Conservative, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Mississauga East—Cooksville for the question. I also ask why the NDP and Liberal MPs plan to vote against Bill C-60, the first step in implementing the economic action plan, 2013.

I am deeply disappointed that they would oppose job-creating measures to help manufacturers while denying support for vulnerable Canadians in the form of palliative care, veterans disability benefits and library services for the blind. I call on the NDP and Liberal members to—

[Wladyslaw Lizon, Conservative, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, while our Conservative government is standing up for Canada's economy with Bill C-60, economic action plan 2013 act, no. 1, later today the opposition is planning to vote against it. Why are NDP and Liberal MPs saying no to more support for manufacturers, saying no to increased support for infrastructure in our cities and towns, saying no to new tax relief for parents adopting a child or for Canadians who give to a charity?

Can the Minister of Finance please update this House on the status of Bill C-60?

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to Bill C-60 today. I have a very difficult time supporting the bill for a wide variety of excellent reasons.

One of the things I have noted about the government, more so than any other government I have had the opportunity to serve in opposition to over the last 20-plus years, is that this government sees the value of political spin like no other. It has no hesitation whatsoever in using taxpayer dollars to get that spin out there. We see that with member after member on the government benches talking from the speaking notes of the Prime Minister's Office.

Listening to some of the speeches, I often wonder if it could have been a speech from the opposition benches, which could have been used against the government, especially when it starts to talk about being financially responsible, because this has not been a government that has been financially responsible with taxpayers' dollars. A good example of that, and tying into the spin, is the economic action plan. I would classify it as a dud, and I have had the opportunity to do that before. It just does not have the impact that the Government of Canada should have, given the millions and billions of dollars that are being spent.

If we were to canvas Canadians I think we would find that they are starting to get a little upset with the government and the amount of tax dollars it is spending promoting the budget. The number of commercials is unbelievable. Whether on NHL playoffs or whatever, the commercials are there. In print and on television, the government has a message and it wants to sell that message. It will not spare a dime of taxpayer dollars doing that. Whatever it takes, it is prepared to saturate with that message.

What I would like to do is just focus a little attention on the bigger picture, the reality of the Conservative-Reform government that Canadians have had to witness over the last number of years.

Let us look at many of the speeches in which the Conservatives talk about the banking industry. They love to assume the credit for the banking industry and how solid the Canadian banks are today. Not only do they crow inside the House; they do it outside the House and even internationally. The reality is that it was Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin, as the minister of finance, who resisted the changes that were taking place around the world regarding deregulating the banking industry and allowing banks to merge and become even larger. It was the government during the 90s that ensured we have one of the best banking industry today, and many would argue that it is the best.

It had nothing to do with this Prime Minister. He cannot take any credit. One of his actions was that his government went ahead and increased mortgages from 25 years to 40 years. Of course, it flip-flopped on that one after it realized it had made a mistake. The Conservatives have not done anything really to solidify the banking industry.

Let us look at the credit that would be taken away from our credit unions. For many of these credit unions, which provide competition to our banks and provide excellent consumer services, particularly in our rural regions from coast to coast to coast, millions of dollars would be taken away in the form of tax credits and so forth. Those have gone a long way in the survival of our credit unions, allowing them to grow and provide that competition. In Winnipeg's north end, we have only had a credit union, and it has actually expanded. That has been the impact they have had on that particular industry.

If we talk about budget surpluses and deficits, historically, Conservatives have not done well in terms of having surplus budgets.

We know that for a fact. The reality with this particular government is that when it took office, it inherited a multi-billion dollar surplus. Before the recession even took place, it turned that surplus into a deficit situation. The Conservative government has presented a deficit ever since then.

The government knows that Canadians recognize that at times the books have to be balanced. What does the government say? It says that it is going to balance them in 2015-16. That is after the next federal election.

Why should we believe that? Why should Canadians believe that Conservatives even have the ability to balance the books when they have been such a disaster in terms of their predictions in dealing with balancing the books. They have failed miserably. They inherited this wonderful trade surplus, which brought in hundreds of millions of additional dollars to Canada and which created tens of thousands of jobs.

That surplus turned into a multi-billion deficit. That is the record of this particular Conservative-Reform government we have today.

Speaker after speaker likes to get up and talk about taxes. They like to give the impression that the Conservatives know how to give tax breaks. In the last three or four year, in the last three or four budgets that have been presented by the government, we have actually seen net tax increases, each one tens of millions of dollars.

This is not a government that is friendly to the taxpayer or, in particular, to the middle class of Canada. Some of the taxes that the Conservatives have put into place make us want to give our head a shake and wonder where the compassion is. We have raised these issues in question period.

Imagine now that people want to go to a hospital and visit someone. The government came up with an interesting tax; it is going to tax parking at the parkade or at the meters. We have a new parking tax that is being implemented by the government.

What about victims of crime who require certain medical tests that might be necessary or that would provide peace of mind, if in fact they were able to get the medical tests that they believe are necessary for them? We are talking about victims of crime. The government has found a new way of taxing those victims of crime, for mental services, as an example.

The Conservatives have well over 1,000 new tariff increases. The bottom line is that they can talk all they want; they can say that they are going to cut taxes or that their government believes in cutting taxes, but in reality that is just not true.

There have been net tax increases in the last four budgets. The middle class is being hit hard by the government. People who are 35 to 55, who have a quality job but find themselves unemployed for whatever reason, have to try to find employment, which is hard for this age group, especially if it comes to trying to get a job of some sort of equivalent pay to what they were receiving before. What in this budget allows those individuals to feel optimistic?

We can kind of get a sense of the mentality of the government towards labour by looking at the temporary foreign worker program, a program that traditionally has been exceptionally successful, under Liberal administrations, and that has derived many benefits for all residents of Canada. It illustrates the need and the way in which the government has made a mess of things.

I look forward to any potential questions.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to rise today to speak to Bill C-60, the first budget implementation act of 2013.

Economic action plan 2013 is an outstanding budget that responds to the needs of Canadians. It delivers on the priorities that matter to my constituents in Richmond Hill: jobs, a stable economy, low taxes, support for infrastructure, help for the most vulnerable, and investments in science and innovation to build the jobs of the future.

In my time allowed today I will highlight just a few of the ways in which economic action plan 2013 would benefit communities, families and job creators.

During my pre-budget consultations in Richmond Hill, I heard loud and clear from many constituents, local businesses, the Richmond Hill Chamber of Commerce and many others about how essential the gas tax fund has become. It is a source of predictable, stable, long-term funding to municipalities that helps build and revitalize public infrastructure while achieving positive environmental results. This Conservative government under the leadership of the right hon. Prime Minister doubled the gas tax fund in 2009. It was also this government that put legislation in place through economic action plan 2011 to make these funds permanent. This is not a small amount. The gas tax fund is a direct annual investment of $2 billion delivered directly to municipalities across our great country.

In my riding, the town of Richmond Hill, this important government initiative adds $5 million each and every year to its coffers. Since we doubled the fund in 2009 that means about $20 million has helped build essential infrastructure in the town of Richmond Hill. Let me give the House a few examples: $435,000 in gas tax funds provided the energy-efficient upgrades for our rehabilitated Bond Lake Arena in addition to federal recreational infrastructure contributions of $712,000, which allowed residents in Oak Ridges and the surrounding area to continue using this important community facility; $200,000 in gas tax funds was used to install a geothermal heating and cooling system at the Richmond Hill Theatre for the Performing Arts, saving thousands of dollars in operating costs; and $1.1 million in gas tax funds went toward the rehabilitation of the aging Pioneer Park stormwater facility. Approximately 700 hectares of land, including many new neighbourhoods, are now protected from erosion and flooding.

Millions of dollars have been used to support a collection of energy-efficient projects. These include: a solar heating and snow melting system at the Shaw House in Phyllis Rawlinson Park; a solar pool heating system at Bayview Hill Community Centre; a small wind turbine and solar electrical panels at Richmond Green Park, and the purchase of a fully electric vehicle.

Gas tax funds in Richmond Hill helped the community achieve the honour of being Ontario's first municipality to reach its corporate greenhouse gas reduction target.

Economic action plan 2013 goes even further by proposing to index gas tax funds at 2% per year. It also expands the list of eligible projects to include highways, short-line rail, disaster mitigation, broadband and connectivity activity, brownfield redevelopment, culture, tourism, sport and recreation.

Our government supports infrastructure renewal. It creates jobs and is the fundamental underpinning of healthy communities. I am proud that economic action plan 2013 includes the historic building Canada plan, the largest long-term federal commitment to infrastructure in our nation's history.

The plan allocates $53.5 billion over the next 10 years for provincial, territorial and municipal infrastructure.

In addition to the gas tax funds, building Canada includes a community improvement fund, which would provide $32 billion to municipalities, over and above what they now receive, for projects such as roads, public transit and recreational facilities.

A new building Canada fund would provide $14 billion to support major projects across the country, and $1.25 billion would support innovative ways to build infrastructure projects faster and at good value for Canadians through a renewed P3 Canada fund. An additional $6 billion would be provided to provinces, territories and municipalities under the current infrastructure programs in 2014, 2015 and beyond.

Our government is committed to helping Canadian manufacturers better compete in the global economy. That is why we have established the lowest tax burden on new business investment in the G7. Economic action plan 2013 would add to this. The temporary accelerated capital cost allowance rate for qualifying assets has been extended. Canadian manufacturers would receive an additional $1.4 billion in tax relief when investing in new machinery and equipment.

We are also supporting our manufacturers by modernizing Canada's general preferential tariff regime for developing countries. Since 1974, Canada has granted preferential market access to imports from developing countries as a way to help those countries develop and grow economically. However, after nearly 40 years, the global economic landscape has changed considerably. Significant economic advancement has been made by some of these developing countries. In response, last year our government undertook a comprehensive review of the preferential tariff regime, including a thorough public consultation.

Economic action plan 2013 acts on the results of these consultations and effective January 1, 2015, benefits would be removed from 72 higher income and export-competitive economies. We think it is time that certain nations that have done well in developing their economies over the years compete with Canadian manufacturers on a more even footing.

At the same time, effective on April 1 this year, $79 million in annual tariff relief on imported baby clothing and certain sports equipment was enacted. Consumers and families will see lower prices for these items.

Economic action plan 2013 supports the long-term competitiveness of industries in southern Ontario. It proposes almost $1 billion over five years to renew the Federal Economic Development Agency for southern Ontario. Let me give an example of how important this initiative is.

In my riding of Richmond Hill, FedDev Ontario helped diversify our industrial base with assistance to leading-edge technology companies. One such company was Qvella Corporation. That crucial injection of capital helped develop and bring to market that company's groundbreaking bacteria identification system. The result was a faster diagnosis of bacterial infections in patients and more high-quality jobs for Richmond Hill.

The renewal of FedDev Ontario will help many more entrepreneurial businesses like Qvella to create jobs and contribute to economic growth. I am very pleased to see its proposed renewal in economic action plan 2013.

I will close by saying that balancing the books is important to my constituents. Upon assuming office in 2006, our Conservative government, under the leadership of our Prime Minister, undertook an aggressive plan to pay down the debt. We are working toward that, to balance the budget by 2015-16.

I encourage all members in this House to join me in supporting the swift passage of Bill C-60 as it will assist Canadian families immediately.

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize for referring to the Prime Minister by his surname. I withdraw that remark.

Budget 2013 could lower economic growth by 0.12% and eliminate thousands of jobs, reduce direct program spending and slow growth in gross domestic product. Bear in mind that this year's budget will extend $5.2 billion in cuts every year until we achieve the alleged zero deficit. Whatever the Conservatives may say, this budget, like the other austerity budgets previously introduced, will slow rather than stimulate Canada's economy.

Why then move so quickly toward eliminating the deficit, despite the International Monetary Fund's urging to calm down, reflect, and rely on something other than known errors of economic theory?

In fact, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer's calculations, the government will achieve an even larger surplus than planned of $3.7 billion in 2015-16, when Canadians will go to the polls. Is that the reason for these reductions and cuts, the possibility that the government may have $3.7 billion in hand before the election to invest at the appropriate time for strictly political purposes?

My colleague Peggy Nash recently mentioned this. In Bill C-60, the Harper government is doing nothing to support—

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, hon. members, allow me to digress for a moment before getting to the heart of the matter.

The new leader of the Liberal Party knows nothing about the middle class. He does not know what it is like to lose his job or to have to wait for employment insurance benefits. He does not know the problems that come with receiving an unexpected bill. He cannot understand the difficulties the middle class experiences.

As with the last two budget implementation bills, the NDP opposes Bill C-60 for its content and for the process. I will use my time to explain why.

The austerity measures of the past few years, both in North America and in Europe, have not produced the desired economic results, to say the least. Just recently, the staunchest supporters of austerity measures had to acknowledge two mistakes that had been made. Our Conservative friends do not seem to be aware of them or do not understand their implications.

Last October, the International Monetary Fund—the IMF—acknowledged that it had made a calculation error in assessing the impact of those austerity measures, particularly in the southern European countries. What was the error? Simply that it used a fiscal multiplier estimated at a 0.5% drop in GDP. This was seriously underestimated, not a little, but a lot: nearly three times that ratio.

What the IMF is admitting is that the negative factor was not 0.5, it was actually between 0.9 and 1.7. In simple terms, that means that a one-point cutback in public spending did not result in just a 0.5-point drop in GDP, but a drop of between 0.9 and 1.7 points. Understandably, that revelation has caused considerable discomfort in Europe.

There is every reason to think that the real reason for that discomfort is ideological. Yes indeed. Greece was used as a testing ground out of which only one of the two theories of the cosmos would emerge victorious: Keynesian interventionism versus the liberalism of Friedman, which, like our colleagues opposite, hopes to see the state disappear, or at least be reduced to a minimum. The mastermind behind this operation knew all along that it would lead to the irrevocable and permanent disappearance of Keynes’s legacy, since it would prove that austerity and nothing but austerity would lead to growth. Small mistake. It is exactly that belief that is shared by our ideologue colleagues opposite.

The IMF experiment turned into a fiasco, a huge fiasco. In Europe, it is responsible for 4,000 suicides, the impoverishment of 3.5 million people and a two-year drop in life expectancy. It is also responsible for an unemployment rate that is beyond comprehension, an explosion in the number of elective abortions, abandoned infants, the dismantling of human lives and families, homeless people in numbers that are out of control, because of the ongoing destruction of the middle class—yes, that is right, we are talking about the middle class—and the intolerable spectacle of Greeks, in the 21st century, hunting through garbage to find something to eat. Those are the horrors of austerity.

Europe seems to be suffering the terrible consequences of a mistaken estimate, in view of the negative growth rates, approaching zero, experienced in recent years and exploding debt followed by unemployment rates that just keep going up.

The International Monetary Fund’s chief economist, Olivier Blanchard, has in fact said that economic activity is so weak in Europe that all governments that are still able should do nothing that risks shrinking their social safety net.

Is a shrinking social safety net not what we are seeing in Canada with the planned cuts to employment insurance?

I would like to talk about the second economic error that was recently acknowledged by staunch supporters of austerity measures. Reinhart and Rogoff, two economists at Harvard University, asserted that a country's economic growth slowed when its debt exceeded 80% of GDP. The Conservatives, who abhor deficits, are panicking.

This false economic assumption was used by far too many supporters of fiscal restraint. Numerous countries relied on this study, which was exploited for political purposes, and took the same stance on fiscal restraint, with serious consequences: civil servants' salaries were frozen, there was structural reform, taxes were raised and so on. That is exactly what the Conservatives are proposing with Bill C-60.

On April 17, the attention of economists around the world was focused on a discovery made by Thomas Herndon, a young economist at the University of Massachusetts. With the help of his professors, he recalculated the famous Rogoff and Reinhart numbers. They realized that when debt exceeded 90% of GDP, average growth was not -0.1%, it was 2%. The reason for this difference is that Rogoff and Reinhart do not seem to have included a number of countries in their calculations. They excluded Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Belgium between 1946 and 1950. Their calculations were inaccurate, and the premise that growth stagnates when debt exceeds 90% of GDP is false. Herndon's study proves that.

What does all that mean for Canada? Despite these proven errors, despite the warnings of the International Monetary Fund and the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the Conservative government is sticking to austerity measures by introducing Bill C-60. In a 32-page paper published by his office, the Parliamentary Budget Officer calculated that the Conservative government's 2013 budget will have a net negative impact on the labour market over three years. Employment will fall by 8,000 jobs in 2015, 14,000 in 2016 and 10,000 in 2017. The net impact of the budget-cutting measures that the Conservative government has taken since 2012 will amount to a loss of more than 67,000 jobs in 2017.

The Conservatives, who like to boast of their job creation record, are living in an ideological bubble. In the meantime, 1.5 million Canadians are out of work and we now have 240,000 more unemployed youth than before the recession. Despite that fact, the only measure in Bill C-60 that will create jobs is the addition of new cabinet ministers.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer has clearly stated that the Conservatives' savage cuts announced in budget 2013 are not necessary to restore a structural budget surplus. On the contrary, combined with the anemic global economic recovery, the austerity measures imposed by the Harper government will further slow economic growth and job creation.

Budget 2013 could lower—

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to what the member opposite was saying. I must say that I am upset by this government's approach to things.

We know that this bill is not unlike last year's omnibus bills, C-38 and C-45. We know that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance tabled a notice of motion at the Standing Committee on Finance in order to give committee members just five meetings to complete consideration of Bill C-60 and to ensure that clause-by-clause review of the bill is completed by May 27, which is just eight sitting days after the time allocation motion forces passage of the bill at second reading.

Does the hon. member think that five committee meetings will allow enough time to study this bill properly?

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am almost sad to get up. I was enjoying the Conservatives and the Liberals going at it on the issue of economics when they should be embracing each other because they both practice the same austerity economics.

Before I start on the issue of Bill C-60, I do want to wish Marg Reilly a very happy birthday. Marg is a constituent of mine. It is a milestone birthday for her, and she is a person worthy of great celebration. Happy Birthday, Marg.

Today we are talking about Bill C-60, the budget implementation act. It is the final of five days of debate on the matter, owing to another Conservative time allocation motion, which is a new record for such motions. I dare suggest that there will be more such motions. There seems to be some kind of narcotic effect to these time allocation motions for those guys. It also, perhaps, is just the arrogance of power.

In his defence of the Conservative time allocation motion, the Minister of State for Finance described this legislation as “the blueprint of our government's mandate moving forward”. He “felt” that five days was more than enough time to debate the bill. As it turns out, what we have before us is another omnibus bill. It is certainly shorter than its predecessor, but still it involves amendments to nearly 50 pieces of legislation, and even introduces new legislation. That means that on average we have less than one hour of debate for each legislative change or legislative invention included under the bill.

Who would have imagined that those so-called champions of transparency and accountability, these parliamentary reformers who sit on the government side, would have ever stood in this place to justify such a limited level of scrutiny—on budget implementation, no less—for parliamentarians, much less to justify it on the basis of what they felt was appropriate, that those reformers would privilege their feelings over the traditions, institutions and processes of governing and government in Canada? It is most certainly a form of tyranny.

This is not simply an issue of process or principle, as those members like to portray it. This is about a government that is failing to do its best for this country and its citizens, a government that has deliberately set a target below the potential of Canada and its citizens. Never mind excellence, never mind maximization, never mind over-achieving, the Conservative government aspires to under-achievement, to less than what is possible, to less than our potential.

This is the recurring narrative in the April 29 economic and fiscal outlook produced by the Parliamentary Budget Office. I want to quote a bit at length here:

PBO projects real GDP growth in Canada to slow to 1.5 per cent in 2013 and remain below its potential growth rate until 2015. Combined with the sluggish recovery in the global economy, government spending restraint will act as an additional drag on growth and job creation. The projected weakness in growth keeps the economy well below its potential GDP through 2015 and as a result the unemployment rate remains relatively stable, averaging 7.3 per cent over 2013 to 2015.

It goes on to talk about employment in Canada being below its potential. That is on page 10, if anybody wants to reference that. It say that employment and “average weekly hours” for Canadian workers are below potential. That is on page 11. “Labour productivity” is below, which is, again, on page 11. Gross domestic product is “below potential”, on page 11 again.

How is all of this happening? Quite curiously, it is happening by design. As the economic and fiscal outlook says, “Over the period 2013 to 2017, PBO estimates that the net impact of [economic action plan] 2013 measures and revisions to spending levels on real GDP and employment is contractionary”. It is 67,000 jobs worth of contractionary, according to the report, which is a .57% reduction in GDP.

The PBO explains that does not mean that employment levels will be 67,000 jobs shy of where we are today. That is fair enough. The report explains it in these terms:

Rather, it means that, in the absence of these measures and revisions to spending levels, projected employment would be higher by 67,000 jobs, all else being equal.

The action in the government's economic action plan is:

...pushing the economy further away from its potential GDP and delaying the economic recovery.

This is worthy of the House's time for extensive debate. I want to know, and Canadians will want to know, why the deliberate path of action chosen by of the current government is to push the economy further away from its potential.

What is particularly perplexing is that the budget comes in the context of a Canada that is already so far shy of its potential.

The government has presided over a $67 billion trade deficit that is expected to worsen in the year ahead. That is thousands of jobs and billions of dollars leaving this country and going overseas to enrich others.

There are still almost 1.4 million Canadians out of work. There are 240,000 more young people unemployed today than before the recession.

Closer to my home, in Toronto, in my riding of Beaches—East York, I would note a recent report by the United Way and McMaster University showing that nearly 50% of jobs in southwestern Ontario are precarious jobs. A recent report by the Metcalf Foundation shows that the number of working poor is growing in the greater Toronto area. Reports by the Cities Centre at the University of Toronto show the continuing income polarization in our cities, particularly in Toronto, and extrapolate current trends to show a city with a completely hollowed-out middle class.

To be fair, this trend has carried through successive Liberal and Conservative governments, so we cannot blame it all on the guys on the other side.

The only employment numbers growing by a significant measure are for temporary foreign workers, spurred on by the government's inducement of paying significantly lower wages than for Canadian workers.

It is in this context that the government sees it wise to hit the brakes on the economy to constrain economic growth.

This is a set of circumstances that calls for a different kind of action, action that would put Canadians and Canadian cities, which are after all the engines of economic growth in a modern economy, to work—to begin at long last to undo the constraints on our economy, to realize the potential of our country and to make a more equally shared prosperity a goal for this country.

Let us look for a moment at the issue of infrastructure. Here is an economic opportunity that the government has failed to grasp.

By many accounts, the infrastructure deficit in this country is well north of $150 billion, and it continues to grow. We need to see this problem addressed, and soon. “A penny now or a dollar later”, as the 2012 Canadian Infrastructure Report Card puts it, meaning the cost of delaying needed repairs could cost us vastly larger sums down the road, yet over the next four years, federal infrastructure funding will be $4.7 billion lower than it was last year, despite some creative advertising by the Conservative government.

This so-called new infrastructure funding announced in budget 2013 includes funding from older, delayed projects. There is $6 billion worth announced in this new economic action plan that is masquerading as new money when it is actually existing funds that had been committed back in 2007.

This is a budget that would provide no relief for urban congestion in Canadian cities. Owing to successive uninterested Liberal and Conservative governments, the public transit system in Toronto has not grown in any meaningful way since 1980.

In conclusion, what the government needs to explain to Canadians is how it dares to occupy those benches over there when it puts forward a plan that would shrink this country rather than grow it, when it puts forward a plan that would take jobs from Canadians rather than create jobs for them, when it aspires to less than what we are capable of as a country.

How does the government explain that to the youth of this country who have their futures in front of them? How does it explain it to the seniors of this country, who left what they had built up in our hands not so that we could take it down, but so that we could continue to build upon it?

[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—

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

Mr. Chair, I would like to say that I will present a motion to this committee next Thursday to have it submit a report to the House and request that the House give the Standing Committee on Finance the authority to separate Bill C-60 into six separate bills that could be sent to the appropriate committees. My motion will indicate which committees it could all be sent to.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I would just like to follow up on Ms. McLeod's comments. As we have the perfect right to do, we gave notice of a motion on this same topic that probably took about three and a half minutes to introduce. We are taking an additional 15 minutes or so to discuss a motion put forth by Ms. Glover on the same topic. So if she believes that my three minutes undermined the work of the committee, I'd like to hear her comments about the motion we're discussing right now.

On the substance of the motion, we have serious concerns about this. The motion put forward by Ms. Glover proposes that other committees be asked to study parts of this omnibus bill, Bill C-60, but it does not allow them to have the opportunity to amend the bill or to vote on those proposed amendments. In essence, they're calling witnesses in a bit of a void, whereas the finance committee will subsequently be asked to vote on clauses of the bill without actually having the benefit of the testimony that has been heard before all of these other committees.

We went through a very similar process with Bill C-45, and frankly, Mr. Chair, it was a sham. The committees did not have adequate time to be able to study the bill in detail. Some were not able to study it at all. Some were able to call officials and that was it. There were no recommendations that came forward from any of the committees that were looking at it, and then this committee was asked to debate and vote on this bill in totality, on a clause-by-clause basis, without having heard the testimony from all of these witnesses.

I also want to address the section of the motion, section (c), that asks members, any member, to submit their amendments to the committee, including members who have no caucuses, who are not normally represented on this committee. Without them being here and without other members having the opportunity to move these amendments, I question the validity of that process. It's not our normal procedure. Normally you have to be present and in your place to move an amendment. So I seek your judgment on this, Mr. Chair, in terms of this procedure, which is certainly unprecedented in my experience here.

Now, I understand the goal—I believe I understand the goal—which is to dissuade this process from being in the House of Commons and having extended voting in the House of Commons with all of the members. I guess what it could come down to is that the six members of the Conservative Party at the finance committee would therefore have the power to make decisions, rather than the 308 members in the House of Commons. That seems to me to undermine our normal procedure.

Those are some of the concerns we have about this motion, Mr. Chair.

[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.

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

The motion is:

That the Standing Committee on Finance issue a report to the House asking that the House grant the Standing Committee on Finance the power to divide Bill C-60 into 6 pieces of legislation, which could then be properly referred to the appropriate committees, as follows:

Clauses 1 - 135, and all un-named clauses in the list below, remain as Bill C-60

(a) clauses 136 to 154, related to the Investment Canada Act; be allowed to be renamed as Bill C-62

(b) clauses 161 to 166, related to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the temporary foreign worker program; be allowed to be renamed as Bill C-63

(c) clauses 174 to 199, related to the proposed department of foreign affairs, trade and development act; be allowed to be renamed as Bill C-64

(d) clauses 213 to 224, related to the National Capital Act and the Department of Canadian Heritage Act; be allowed to be renamed as Bill C-65

(e) clauses 228 to 232, related to the Financial Administration Act and collective bargaining between crown corporations and their employees; be allowed to be renamed as Bill C-66

And that the subsequent bills be allowed to be referred to the following committees as being passed after second reading.

That section (a) of this report do form Bill C-62; that Bill C-62 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 Industry, Science and Technology;

that clauses mentioned in section (b) of this report do form Bill C-63; that Bill C-63 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 Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities;

that the clauses mentioned in section (c) of this report do form Bill C-64; that Bill C-64 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;

that the clauses mentioned in section (d) of this report do comprise Bill C-65, that Bill C-65 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 Canadian Heritage;

that the clauses mentioned in section (e) of the report do comprise Bill C-66, that Bill C-66 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.

I so move.

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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, 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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

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.

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

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

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from residents of the Vancouver area concerned about the protection of the CBC, which is particularly timely given the debate we are having today on provisions in Bill C-60 that would compromise the independence of the CBC.

Procedure and House Affairs

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent of the House to move the following motion: That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, clauses 213 to 224 regarding the National Capital Act and the Department of Canadian Heritage 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 Canadian Heritage; 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.

Labour

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

Mr. Speaker, as we know, the Conservatives are against Canada's millions of unionized workers and their rights, which they systematically attack. However, hidden at the very end of Bill C-60, so that few people would even realize it is there, is a measure attacking the managers of crown corporations by interfering with their negotiating powers. Now the Conservatives want to be able to control the offers that management puts on the table, as though the head of the CBC needs any advice from a minister who lost track of $3 billion.

Before putting his nose into everyone else's business, can the minister do his homework and respect the independence of crown corporations?

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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, 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.

[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, 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.

[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 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 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.

[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.

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.

[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.

[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?

[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—

[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 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.

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.

[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, 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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

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.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you.

In relation to the changes proposed to the Investment Canada Act, in December after the CNOOC decision the rules changed for the energy sector. Does Bill C-60 extend these changes to all other sectors? If so, why? If not, why not?

[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.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank our guests for staying a little longer and taking the time to answer our questions.

My question is for Mr. Knubley. In fact, I would like to ask him the same question that was put to the minister.

Division 6 of Bill C-60 makes quite significant amendments to the Investment Canada Act.

Fewer and fewer transactions will be covered by the Investment Canada Act. Has Industry Canada studied the impact that this might have on the Canadian economy? Does it intend to conduct studies on the subject and to examine those consequences in greater detail?

There was a kind of uproar over the CNOOC-Nexen transaction. The issue was whether it was a good thing for Canada. At the Prime Minister's press conference, we suddenly saw that the rules would be changed. We seem to be operating on a somewhat piecemeal basis.

Does the government really intend to determine the consequences of the fact that fewer transactions would be examined under the Investment Canada Act?

[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.

[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.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome, ministers.

I appreciate the fact that you did not use the 10 minutes you were both allotted.

We've already had mention today of the changes in the budget implementation bill, Bill C-60, to the Investment Canada Act. That is interesting, but I know of at least a thousand Canadians and their families who would prefer to see you enforce the current law, and I'm referring of course to the U. S. Steel situation. From what I understand and what I've heard, the workers in that plant consider your claim that this is only a provincial labour dispute to be an insult.

So why haven't you forced U. S. Steel to live up to its commitments to maintain jobs in Canada? Why aren't you enforcing the existing Investment Canada Act?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Paradis, the NDP has introduced a motion calling on the House to review the Investment Canada Act. We presented another one in February 2012 to define the net benefit test. Those two motions were adopted with the support of all parties. Clauses 136 to 145 of Bill C-60 to implement the budget make major amendments to the Investment Canada Act.

Are you going to ask the committee that a full, in-depth review of the Investment Canada Act be conducted in committee?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

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.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the opposition House leader for his stream-of-consciousness therapy.

Our government, however, is very focused. Our top priority is jobs, growth and long-term prosperity. With that in mind, this afternoon we will continue second reading debate on the cornerstone item of our legislative agenda, which is Bill C-60, the economic action plan 2013 act, no. 1. We will continue this debate tomorrow.

Next Monday, May 6, will be the fourth day of second reading debate on this important job creation bill, and Tuesday May 7 will be the fifth and final day.

Once debate is concluded, the House will have an opportunity to vote on the substantive job creation measures in this bill.

On Wednesday, the House will debate Bill S-8, the Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act. This will be the fourth time this bill is debated at second reading so it is my hope and expectation that this bill will come to a vote.

With the vote, there will be another clear choice before the House. Members will be voting to allow for national standards for on-reserve drinking water. This is a question of basic equality. I know the opposition voted against equality for women on reserves when it voted against Bill S-2, matrimonial property on reserves, but I hope they have stopped grasping at excuses to oppose equal treatment for first nations and will now support Bill S-8.

While I am speaking about aboriginal affairs, allow me to take the time to notify the House that I am designating, pursuant to Standing Order 81(4)(a), Thursday, May 9, for consideration in committee of the whole all votes under Indian Affairs and Northern Development in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2014.

On Thursday, we will continue to advance the economic priority of our legislative agenda by debating Bill C-48, the technical tax amendments act, 2012, in the morning. Following question period on Thursday, May 9, we will continue Bill S-9, the nuclear terrorism act at third reading. I understand there is broad support for this bill, so I hope to see it pass swiftly. Then we can move on to other legislation, including: Bill C-49, the Canadian museum of history act; Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act; Bill C-52, the fair rail freight service act; Bill S-10, the prohibiting cluster munitions act; Bill S-12, the incorporation by reference in regulations act; Bill S-13, the coastal fisheries protection act; and bill S-14, the fighting foreign bribery act.

Finally, Friday, May 10 will be the seventh allotted day, which I understand will be for the NDP.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have just been introduced to a new riding in the House of Commons, the riding of Toronto South, which I believe has a somewhat aquatic environment.

This morning the government introduced time allocation on omnibus 3.0. Yesterday, we started debating the 120-odd pages of Bill C-60 and after just two hours of debate, the government thought it was enough and brought in time allocation for the 32nd time in this Parliament's session, more than any government in Canadian history. No wonder the government is afraid of discussion. Just this week, the auditor general brought to light some problems that were raised by the official opposition and have been for many years now. The marine search and rescue program is falling apart, the temporary foreign worker program is an absolute fiasco and is being abused and more than $3 billion in taxpayer money has been simply misplaced and misunderstood. There is something seriously wrong.

Instead, we have a government that ignores the good advice of the official opposition and Canadians. It imposes its bills without proper debate, tries to solve problems in committee once it realizes that it is on the wrong track, or waits for the courts to strike down its bills because they go against the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Constitution.

It is unbelievable that the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons does not realize that there is a fundamental problem with this approach. It simply does not work.

With the clock ticking on the antidemocratic antics of closure, could the government House leader tell us what he has planned for the remainder of this week and the week to come?

Second Reading

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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, 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.

[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.

[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, 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.

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.

The Environment

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am here tonight to speak and to ask two questions of the government.

The first is about liability for accidents at offshore drilling installations and at nuclear power plants. The liability limits, in the case of an accident at an offshore drilling operation, are only $30 million in the Atlantic and $40 million in the Arctic. I think the government members would agree with me that these liability limits are too low. These are caps on the amount a company is liable for in the case of an accident.

The Conservatives have hinted that legislation may be forthcoming to increase these limits. Let me just give a simple illustration of why these limits need to be increased. The current limit is $40 million in the Arctic. The cost of the BP spill in the Gulf of Mexico was $40 billion. That is 1,000 times more than the current liability limit.

I know that the Conservatives have hinted that some legislation may be forthcoming. When is that legislation forthcoming? Could it not have been introduced in Bill C-60, which has a number of pieces that did not appear in the budget?

The second place liability limits need to be increased is at nuclear power plants. Currently the liability cap is only $75 million. I know that when we had a minority Conservative government, legislation to increase the liability limits on accidents at nuclear power plants from $75 million to something like $650 million or more was introduced three different times. All three bills died for one reason or another, whether it was an early election, prorogation or simply that the bill was not advanced by the government. However, now that we have a majority Conservative government, and have for two years, I do not understand why the government has not introduced stand-alone legislation that could be examined carefully and debated.

Why could the Conservatives not simply reintroduce legislation they were willing to introduce in a minority government? I challenge the government to explain why it has not done so. I think people will ask whether the Conservatives, which now have a majority government, really wanted to increase the liability limits when they were in a minority government. That is my other question.

In response to my initial question in question period, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, speaking for the government, said, “the foundation for our liability regime is the polluter pay principle”. That is something that perhaps all members of the House could agree on.

Now that the current government is spending a lot of time going to the United States to lobby the government there to approve the Keystone XL pipeline and to claim that Canada is strong on environmental protection, would the government extend the polluter pay principle, and would it apply it to other things that damage the natural environment? They are lobbying the United States government and claim to be protecting the natural environment and caring about climate change.

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.

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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, 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 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, 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.

[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, 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.

[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.

[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.

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act

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

for the Minister of Finance moved for leave to introduce Bill C-60, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)